E85 Bad For Us Too!

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...8/1083/LIVING01

Damned if we do, Damned if we don't....

We really need to figure out how to use Solar Energy to power our cars... sheesh....

Ah its all bunk and bullshit this enviromental load of crap. Designed to make lawyers rich and people like Gore feel good about thier carbon friendly credits.

The sun is going to exhaust its hydrogen supply in as little as a billion years, so it will be a moot point anyways.

The fact is that there is nothing in gasoline that is remotely good for you (unless you count the water). While certainly far from perfect, ethanol is a much better choice as an oxygenate than MTBE as it does the same job without the additional water contamination. Oxygenates allow the fuel to burn cleaner reducing the amount of pollution. The ethanol industry is no different than the oil industry except for the fact that there is just one producer that controls the fast majority of the production. It was the industry that got E85 required as a fuel to use somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 billion gallons per year in the last Energy bill. Of course that requirement amounts to less than a day of gas consumption in the US.

So while the researcher has some valid points that should be considered about the health effects, the article never says what is considered "widespread use" so it's hard to judge what the impacts will be. Is widespread the 8 billion gallons per year, or a full replacement of current gasoline? The later is a pipe dream at this point as there is little chance that we could produce enough corn and other ethanol sources to create that much E85.

As an aside, this article illustrates a serious issue that I have with "news". This article appeals to the lowest common denominator of a "health threat", without giving anyone enough information to make a rational decision as to how serious the threat is.

Sarge wrote:
The fact is that there is nothing in gasoline that is remotely good for you (unless you count the water). While certainly far from perfect, ethanol is a much better choice as an oxygenate than MTBE as it does the same job without the additional water contamination. Oxygenates allow the fuel to burn cleaner reducing the amount of pollution. The ethanol industry is no different than the oil industry except for the fact that there is just one producer that controls the fast majority of the production. It was the industry that got E85 required as a fuel to use somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 billion gallons per year in the last Energy bill. Of course that requirement amounts to less than a day of gas consumption in the US.

So while the researcher has some valid points that should be considered about the health effects, the article never says what is considered "widespread use" so it's hard to judge what the impacts will be. Is widespread the 8 billion gallons per year, or a full replacement of current gasoline? The later is a pipe dream at this point as there is little chance that we could produce enough corn and other ethanol sources to create that much E85.

As an aside, this article illustrates a serious issue that I have with "news". This article appeals to the lowest common denominator of a "health threat", without giving anyone enough information to make a rational decision as to how serious the threat is.

👈 And that, my friends, is why he is a transportation professional.

Remind me to never post anything like that again..... 😛

Seriously, Gasoline/Oil is not the answer. Ethanol is not the answer. Water isn't the answer as it's already more expensive than oil.....

I'm not coming at this from the Sky is Falling aspect..... If there are any signs of global warming, I believe it is tied to the cycles of the sun more than fumes from cars, but I also believe we can do better. An oil based economy is not good for multiple reasons up to and including all the problems it has caused in the middle east.

So, what is the answer? How can we continue to progress with little to no effect on the economy, ecology and world politics?

Atomm wrote:
Remind me to never post anything like that again..... 😛

Seriously, Gasoline/Oil is not the answer. Ethanol is not the answer. Water isn't the answer as it's already more expensive than oil.....

I'm not coming at this from the Sky is Falling aspect..... If there are any signs of global warming, I believe it is tied to the cycles of the sun more than fumes from cars, but I also believe we can do better. An oil based economy is not good for multiple reasons up to and including all the problems it has caused in the middle east.

So, what is the answer? How can we continue to progress with little to no effect on the economy, ecology and world politics?

1. Increase the efficiency of power transfer, to decrease power loss.

http://www.bsharp.org/physics/stuff/xmission.html

According to this article, there's up to 30% loss over long distances though power lines. If we COULD improve that, that would be helpful in terms of not wasting energy, and it would also make solar panel farms & wind farms more practical for getting the power from large, unpopulated areas to where it's needed. It might also make nuclear power plants more acceptable, as we can locate them further away from populated areas and not have an issue with "Not in MY backyard!"

2. Increase the efficiency & density of power storage. Make batteries that store more of the energy that is transferred to it, and hold more if it in a smaller area.

Upon fact-checking, Wikipedia says the efficiency of Lithium rechargeables are around 99%. . .I didn't realize what an improvement it was over NiMH. Still, they're expensive, somewhat dangerous, and lose their storage capacity as they get older (only good for a couple years in heavy-use (kept near 100% charge at room temp) before the permanent loss in capacity becomes very noticeable. Previous rechargeables weren't as efficient: nickel cadmium and nickel metal-hydride batteries are only around 66% efficient. I've read articles here and there about improvements in the amount of energy stored in a given-sized battery, but can't recall them now. That's obviously something that would help power vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery

3. Alternative means of producing power. Fuel cells, increased efficiency of solar power, wind power. It seems like every day I'm reading about improvements to solar cells. Here's something I read today:

http://www.physorg.com/news96557368.html

I don't see ethanol as a solution, as there's a lot of resources & effort involved in the growing of crops, harvesting, making & transporting the ethanol.

What do you mean, water is more expensive than oil? I wasn't aware of that. DRINKING water, maybe. Did you know that 20% of the world's fresh surface water is contained in the Great Lakes?

EDIT: on further thought, I recall that I can get a gallon of drinking water for well-under $1.00. It wasn't long ago that I could get it for fifty cents, but I haven't priced it in the past few years.

hmmmm yummy fusion...

The answer is that there is no magic cure for this and that it's going to take lots of effort in many different areas. Bush touts Hydrogen power as the future for cars but as things stand right now, it takes more energy to create the hydrogen than it gives so that isn't really a solution (although it is much cleaner). A bigger issue than cars in my opinion is that the fast majority of the power generation in this country is done with oil, coal, and natural gas. What happens when these give out or become so marginal to acquire that the cost goes through the roof?

My personal goal is to eventually have a house that is off the grid for electricity, and ideally not using natural gas. This will likely take a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal energy to happen but it will happen.

The change is starting to happen in the public mindset however. I've noticed a lot of ads lately focusing on a company's green side - what they are making, investing in, and supporting.

Bubbaspanky wrote:
hmmmm yummy fusion...

Well, YEAH. . .but at this point in time we might as well hope a magical unicorn grants us unlimited power. I want the U.S., and the world, to keep researching it vigorously , but we can't count on it now, in the near future, or EVER, until the day they make the breakthroughs necessary for it to become a viable large-scale power source. Until that day, it's just a HOPE, as it has been these past many decades, and there's no way to know when that hope will become reality, if ever.

The whole of the world's knowledge base is allegedly doubling every few years, and that is accelerating at a rapid rate. It's possible we'll have fusion solved, tested, and be building fusion power plants in the next 20 years - but it's also possible we'll discover that the problems are too difficult or expensive to overcome for any kind of wide-scale use, or we'll discover nothing leading us in either direction, and we'll simply need to keep working on it.

It certainly would be an attractive solution, though.

Sarge, I'm with you on the self sustainment issue. I just wish all of these huge break throughs we keep hearing about in Solar Panel efficiency would make it to market.

I also have some concern that whats ultimately good for the world is not good for some very large and powerful corporations. Imagine if they made solar so cheap and efficient that you could put it on your windows and run your whole house on it. Think the Utilities are going to allow that to happen?

Just think about the Music industry and how hard they are struggling to maintain control and multiple that by 1 million. That is going to be the fight we have if something like this ever comes to pass.

There will be lawsuits where the Utilities are suing us for not using their power...... ;-)

At this point though the utilities would encourage it. They are actually large proponents in alot of cases for alternative energies. In most markets they are at or very near their capacity and the honest answer for them is a new nuke plant. The last nuke plant was built in Seabrook, NH in the late 70s. They are too expensive and hard to permit. So in most cases the utilities are happy to see someone get off the grid or generate excess energy to sell back to the grid, especially if it's "green" power.

Bubbaspanky wrote:
especially if it's "green" power.

Which they get emissions credits for as well.

Bubbaspanky wrote:
So in most cases the utilities are happy to see someone get off the grid or generate excess energy to sell back to the grid, especially if it's "green" power.

Er, actually this was forced on them by an act of Congress in 1973-76'ish. To hear Carter talk about it then as if it was his idea. Of course now he remains mute on that subject and wears his sweaters 🙂

Seriously tho, if your going to generate any power you just need the right equip from the power company that will feed your excess back into the grid. Even if you provide all your power needs, you will still have to pay the minimun meter and equip charges, or about $18 a month @ 1975 prices.

Its been thirty years since these *inovations* in power have surfaced, yet they remain expensive and inefficent. About the only thing thats improved was insulation factors. Solar, wind, and hydro all still cost much more than a monthly util bill.

Just as these aren't generally accepted, I see the same probs with the hybrid cars. The public just isn't going to pay twice as much to buy and operate them, no matter how many hollywood liberals buy them.

lexx wrote:
Er, actually this was forced on them by an act of Congress in 1973-76'ish. To hear Carter talk about it then as if it was his idea. Of course now he remains mute on that subject and wears his sweaters 🙂

Seriously tho, if your going to generate any power you just need the right equip from the power company that will feed your excess back into the grid. Even if you provide all your power needs, you will still have to pay the minimun meter and equip charges, or about $18 a month @ 1975 prices.

Its been thirty years since these *inovations* in power have surfaced, yet they remain expensive and inefficent. About the only thing thats improved was insulation factors. Solar, wind, and hydro all still cost much more than a monthly util bill.

Just as these aren't generally accepted, I see the same probs with the hybrid cars. The public just isn't going to pay twice as much to buy and operate them, no matter how many hollywood liberals buy them.

The level of investment in alternative energy sources has been minimal. I would guess less than 10% of the money spent on energy and energy development has gone into alternative sources until recently. Now environmental mandates and the perception (real or not) of an energy crisis have pushed people in that direction. Solar costs per kw/hr are actually getting much closer to that of traditional energy sources.

On the hybrid car thing. In this area at least it's not "hollywood liberals" buying them, it's people who commute any distance. Until recently, you could get a tax credit for buying a hybrid that would almost offset the extra cost (at least in theory) at time of purchase. Purchase and operating costs on this type of vehicle is not double as you say. Long term operating costs are likely lower, especially as gas prices continue to stay high. People who are buying these cars are also changing how they drive in many cases because they can see what their mpg is and they want to maximize it. The only unknown with these vehicles is how long the batteries will last and how much it will cost to replace them.

lexx wrote:
Just as these aren't generally accepted, I see the same probs with the hybrid cars. The public just isn't going to pay twice as much to buy and operate them, no matter how many hollywood liberals buy them.

Maybe things are different where you are but from my office right now I can see no less than 4 prius's (Out of maybe 25 cars I can see). When I was considering buying one this past summer the wait time to get one was over 3 months. I don't think Hybrid cars are suffering from people buying them right now, at least not here in New England.

Bubbaspanky wrote:
Maybe things are different where you are but from my office right now I can see no less than 4 prius's (Out of maybe 25 cars I can see). When I was considering buying one this past summer the wait time to get one was over 3 months. I don't think Hybrid cars are suffering from people buying them right now, at least not here in New England.

But Bubba, you forgot we're all liberals here in New England.

Yes, this very ... liberal... republican state of New Hampshire.
🤔

Sarge wrote:
But Bubba, you forgot we're all liberals here in New England.

Thats pretty much describe how Pgh is too, but I've yet to see one hybrid yet. Probably because they wouldn't fare well well in a hilly cold enviroment.

Manufactoring batteries pollutes the enviroment several times more than burning gasoline, they don't last long, are impossible to recycle, and cost half as much to recharge from burning coal in a powerplant each nite for less than 60 miles each daily comute. I remain totally unimpressed. Your waiting period only stems from a very low production limit which will hit a maxium number and soon after decline. At best its a bandade on slashed open wound.

If you really want to be 'green', just buy a motorcycle as they have always been fuel efficent.

Energy credits in the 70's expired in the 80's because the american public never really used them. I did each and every year, but most people didn't bother with it. Of course at the time it cost $5k to buy a solor hotwater system to replace a $2 a day gas system.... how dare people not convert.

It still comes back to the windfall profits offered to big business'. In additon to the power companys of old, now its just redirected into GM or Honda for their piece of the goverment dole.

One of the biggest problems I see, is not the passenger cars, which have become very much more fuel effecient over the last 15 years. My concern is the large trucks that still run on diesel fuel. Until someone comes up with a solution to replace a big detroit diesel engine, you can never really have green transportation.

True. However, the new diesel fuel that is being used now is significantly cleaner and has much, much less sulfur in it (it's called ultra-low sulfur). Because of that, they can now retrofit diesels with catalytic converters and make them much cleaner than they were. Biodiesel is coming into it's own as well and is significantly less polluting.

The advances in diesel tech in recent years make them comparable in fuel economy to hybrids in some cases. The VW TDI versions of the Jetta get upwards of 40 mpg. They are still more polluting, but that is changing fairly rapidly. Diesels can also be fitted with hybrid technology to make them more efficient to a certain extent. There are also a lot of technologies out there going into reducing idling such as electricity/cable/air conditioning hookups at truck stops. The amount of time that the large diesels spend idling is far worse than the time that they are moving in terms of emissions.

That being said, diesel fuel is nasty stuff and it is classified as a carcinogen in some places so if there were a way to get rid of it, we should.

lexx wrote:
Thats pretty much describe how Pgh is too, but I've yet to see one hybrid yet. Probably because they wouldn't fare well well in a hilly cold enviroment.

Manufactoring batteries pollutes the enviroment several times more than burning gasoline, they don't last long, are impossible to recycle, and cost half as much to recharge from burning coal in a powerplant each nite for less than 60 miles each daily comute. I remain totally unimpressed. Your waiting period only stems from a very low production limit which will hit a maxium number and soon after decline. At best its a bandade on slashed open wound.

If you really want to be 'green', just buy a motorcycle as they have always been fuel efficent.

Energy credits in the 70's expired in the 80's because the american public never really used them. I did each and every year, but most people didn't bother with it. Of course at the time it cost $5k to buy a solor hotwater system to replace a $2 a day gas system.... how dare people not convert.

It still comes back to the windfall profits offered to big business'. In additon to the power companys of old, now its just redirected into GM or Honda for their piece of the goverment dole.

Not to be picking on you Lexx, but where we are is at least as cold and hilly, I don't think that is an issue with hybrids.

I agree with your analysis of the energy credits in the 70s/80s, but I will say photoelectric has come a long way even since I studied it ~10yrs ago.

Lastly, Motorcycles have always burned small amounts of fuel, but often times they were far worse effecient, and also far more polluting. Now a days that isn't so much the case. But god my '75 goldwing I needed to add lead to it.

The thing to bear in mind as I think Atomm said, there is no silver bullet. The answer is a little bit of everything.

I was mainly staying out of this one but emission credits? That is so lame.
I am sick the rest of the world doing what they want, the world be damned, but the US has to watch everything we do. China is the largest contributor of pollution and they refuse to regulate anything or do anything about it. So we have to cut back on our lives to compensate for them? F-that.... other countries need to be held accountable as well period. This is why I get crazy over the global warming issue. It is not that I am against looking into it etc.. it is the political money trail that it is generating. Gore has a company that he owns that only he can buy credits from. Where does that money REALLY go?

What do these credits REALLY mean? I will tell you, it is just an excuse for the government to tax us for no reason what so ever. Sorry I am not convinced that green credits do anything at all for the actual planet. It does do something for politicians pockets.

Okay that is my rant for this post 😉

Back to the other topic; Oil can be had on our own if we were allowed to drill in certain locations. Environmentalist are all over that. Stopping us from drilling Anwr for one example. Even though nothing lives in the area but moose. The area they want to use is just 2000 acres or 3.13 sq miles in the middle of nowhere with nothing around it.

There is evidence that there is more than enough oil to last for a very very long time if not forever. There are a lot of scientists coming out now saying that the earth may be generating its own oil naturally and not just be a limited source from decomposing fossils.

So using oil is fine from a supply perspective as we probably won't run out and we can get our own and not rely on others.

So should be still use it? Emotionally I would like to see us all run on water cars but let’s be realistic.

For some time we need at least hybrids at a minimum. A lot of motors require a minimum amount of horse power and it takes a good fuel engine to produce that or the power to an electric motor to do so for a descent amount of time. The infrastructure is already in place with gas stations. We need to make hybrids even more efficient.

Fuel cell cars and the like are a great idea but are VERY expensive and won't come down too much due to the precious metals required to make them. We have limited amounts of the metals to produce fuel cells so how can we create enough for everyone even if we figured out how to make them efficient enough? Unless they work out something else that is basically out for mass production.

I think we nee to think about other cool ideas. One example is there is some really cool experiments using compressed air to power a car. They can go 200 miles on a compressed tank at the usual 70-80 MPH. The cool thing is they already developed a generator that runs on compressed air as well so that in theory there could be one on board also generating the electric for the compressor to keep the air compressed that would in turn run the car and the generator so that maybe they could get it to almost be perpetual motion. I was thinking it may be better to use compressed air to power electric hybrid type motors instead of a compressed air engine. The rest could still be the same. This may be more efficient but this is just me.


While I am here I have to mention that Wikipedia, while sometimes a neat reference, can NOT be held to any scientific factual standards. The problem is any idiot can edit those entries. 🙂

You simply cannot 100% trust anything you read there, you just can't. There are numerous proven false entries listed on it, including a lot if listings of supposed facts on celebrities, that are just wrong.

lexx wrote:
Thats pretty much describe how Pgh is too, but I've yet to see one hybrid yet. Probably because they wouldn't fare well well in a hilly cold enviroment.

Manufactoring batteries pollutes the enviroment several times more than burning gasoline, they don't last long, are impossible to recycle, and cost half as much to recharge from burning coal in a powerplant each nite for less than 60 miles each daily comute. I remain totally unimpressed. Your waiting period only stems from a very low production limit which will hit a maxium number and soon after decline. At best its a bandade on slashed open wound.

Umm you do not recharge hybrids Lexx. You are thinking of electric only cars.

That is what makes Hybrids nice, the gas engine is used to only power an electric generator. The car is electric motor driven. The gas engine eliminates the need for an excessive amount of batteries like pure electric cars use. Hybrids do still use batteries though but not nearly as many as a pure electric car.

Personally I think hybrids need to go even more generator driven, with the gas motor directly powering the motors. We should only need a small battery for starting or lights etc.... Like a car.

Also the cold and hills do not effect anything really lexx, they are designed pretty well.

I was seriously looking at the Honda Civic Hybrid just last summer. I did not go for it as they did not offer a moon roof options with it. I really love my moon roof 😉

Paladin wrote:
I was mainly staying out of this one but emission credits? That is so lame.
I am sick the rest of the world doing what they want, the world be damned, but the US has to watch everything we do. China is the largest contributor of pollution and they refuse to regulate anything or do anything about it. So we have to cut back on our lives to compensate for them? F-that.... other countries need to be held accountable as well period. This is why I get crazy over the global warming issue. It is not that I am against looking into it etc.. it is the political money trail that it is generating. Gore has a company that he owns that only he can buy credits from. Where does that money REALLY go?

What do these credits REALLY mean? I will tell you, it is just an excuse for the government to tax us for no reason what so ever. Sorry I am not convinced that green credits do anything at all for the actual planet. It does do something for politicians pockets.

Emissions credits are simply a way to apply the free market to pollution control and have nothing to do with taxes afaik. The only government involvement is in setting the the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the law to allow the use of emissions credits. Emissions Credits allow companies that are heavy polluters to pollute more in exchange for paying someone else to pollute less in the case where it is more efficient or cost effective for them to do that. They are traded on statewide and national exchanges like stocks. This has been extended to the individual level in recent years but in my opinion it's more of a way for some individuals to feel less guilty about driving their SUV than it is an effective pollution reduction system. Now if everyone where a participant, it might be more effective.

As for what China (or Korea or India) is doing, well we can't do much more than pressure them economically and politically at this point. That being said, they will reach a point where they have to do something themselves. It took us over 150 years of industrialization to start to think about it, why should we expect them to do it so soon? Of course they are growing and polluting at such a rate that it will have to happen sooner than later imo. I think the biggest issue they will find is with oil and other limited resources.

Paladin wrote:There is evidence that there is more than enough oil to last for a very very long time if not forever. There are a lot of scientists coming out now saying that the earth may be generating its own oil naturally and not just be a limited source from decomposing fossils.

That's the first time i've ever heard that. Do you have any sources?

Sarge wrote:
Do you have any sources?

I admit that was a hit and run statement, sorry. I should have said I heard "some" scientists. I actually first heard of this on a local Radio Talk show. I did not put much into it until I heard it on another a few weeks later. I admit I have no actual sources to site, I was on a roll, and I am unsure if it is true myself. I did read something about it not long after I heard about it but nothing since and I cannot remember where I read it. Then again I have not looked. If I find something else I will let you know. 😉

As far as credits it is slowly turning into a new way to generate new tax revenue. Sad as that is. It also simply does not work as you cannot equate one persons green footprint to another with any accuracy. It is politics, it sucks. it is going to turn into new taxes if certain politicians have their way. this was gores goal to begin with and the reason they hide the issue so much. to push this.

well... I'm not seeing them getting rid of the big detroit diesel until they make another motor with enough power and torque to haul 50 tons of all the new eco-friendly products to the stores for us to buy. Which coincidentally, the new diesel will transfer into a price raise all around for everyone on everything as all the trucking companies have to start replacing their fleets and upgrading motors to accomodate the new eco laws that will have absolutely no impact on any of us in our lifetimes. 🙂

Who is this Sindy person? 😛

But Bubba, you forgot we're all liberals here in New England.

:Newly Acquired Texas Draw: Damn Right And Don't You Forget It! :/Newly Acquired Texas Draw:

Yes, this very ... liberal... republican state of New Hampshire.

WHAT? There are no (Liberals) err, conservatives north of the Mason Dixon, It's Hearsay!!!!! (correction)

Bubba, I know what you mean about the power companies wanting people to put energy back onto the grid, but imagine if that number was higher than 50%. All of a sudden, they are buying more than they are selling and they wouldn't like that. It's fine right now, but the second they realize if everyone generated their own power, they will be out of a job, the attitude will change.

Lexx,

1. Hybrids w/ strong power starting to appear in showroom or at major auto shows
2. Honda Accord Hybrid has 255 horsepower, goes from 0-60 in 7 seconds and gets 37mpg
3. Lexus GS430H is RWD w/ power that feels like a 4.5-liter V8 but gets 30mpg
4. Lexus also coming out w/ RX400H that has 270 horsepower
5. All total, 7 hybrids on market; average horsepower up from 73 to 176
6. Sales of hybrids doubled in last 2 years; about 80K sold in 2004

Source: http://www.automotivedigest.com/view_art.a...rticlesID=15286

Atomm wrote:
Lexx,
1. Hybrids w/ strong power starting to appear in showroom or at major auto shows
2. Honda Accord Hybrid has 255 horsepower, goes from 0-60 in 7 seconds and gets 37mpg
3. Lexus GS430H is RWD w/ power that feels like a 4.5-liter V8 but gets 30mpg
4. Lexus also coming out w/ RX400H that has 270 horsepower
5. All total, 7 hybrids on market; average horsepower up from 73 to 176
6. Sales of hybrids doubled in last 2 years; about 80K sold in 2004
Source: http://www.automotivedigest.com/view_art.a...rticlesID=15286

I actually saw one in a car show ahhh, I guess 3 summers back. It had a 3 cyl motocycle like engine with dual alternators and like about 50ish horsepower. It had a pull out extension cord for 110vac charging as I understood it to not be able to keep the batteries charged while operating.

I had a 4cyl Pinto years back that got 35mpg, and a Honda 350cc motorcycle that got close to 50mpg, so I say again, I'm not sure where there is any benefit to the enviroment or to your wallet. I think its kinda silly to put a larger 4cyl moto in just to charge batteries for the electric motors.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather expected milage in the 60+mpg range for hybrids. Add the cost to 'top off' the batteries at night, and that mpg should be lowered if anything to reflect the real cost it operates on.

Lexx, you don't plug these cars in. They are not electric like you are thinking.

Paladin wrote:
Back to the other topic; Oil can be had on our own if we were allowed to drill in certain locations. ...

There is evidence that there is more than enough oil to last for a very very long time if not forever. There are a lot of scientists coming out now saying that the earth may be generating its own oil naturally and not just be a limited source from decomposing fossils.

-enter into random though mainly supporting soapbox mode (mostly directed at Sarge)-
Now I don't know about the 'self producing' oil of the world but I do know this, there is no point in even worrying about the supply of Oil decreasing. In all reality as the technology increases we will be able to find more and more oil supply, currently the oil reserves that have been found in the ocean are only from a small percentage of the ovean, drilling being limited to the depth of the sea and the rig platforms that have been designed up until now. Another limiting factor is heat or rather the lack of it. -Small percentage is read as less than 10% of the sea has even been looked at and somewhere closer to half of that is actually able to be drilled for.- On top of that most of the oil field being as close to the shore as they are are not matched by onshore oil derricks, meaning there is every likelyhood that many of the oil reserves that are currently being pumped have a counterpart on the continents.. and this is just talking about my area of expertise which is the Gulf of Mexico. Currently we are starting into the 10k FSW-feet of seawater- range and have dozens and dozens of oil regions that have been prospected and test drilling is slated to begin, oil manufacturing is on the rise and there is no end in sight. The last few years of oil doubters have been shut up as larger and larger regions are being found in the Gulf and off the coast of Brazil more than tripling the projected -timeline- of supply even with exponential growth.

Granted it may not be the 'best' option but it is a plentiful option. Oh and if you ask for sources I could tell you to go sit on it or tell you to come down the the OTC that is being held in Houston this next week, I will be there for a day or two and we can have a face to face. I doubt you will be lacking in exposure to the beast that is the oil industry. -steps off the random thought soap box-

Oh on another thoguht the wind resources and solar resources are being very well exploited in the northern European countries 'finnish types' as well as Germany, Japan is beginning to follow the trend as some of them Finnish types with a bit of water exploitation as they have way too much time on their hands and nothing else to do.

Silent Cold wrote:
Granted it may not be the 'best' option but it is a plentiful option. Oh and if you ask for sources I could tell you to go sit on it or tell you to come down the the OTC that is being held in Houston this next week, I will be there for a day or two and we can have a face to face. I doubt you will be lacking in exposure to the beast that is the oil industry. -steps off the random thought soap box-

Did I touch a nerve or something? Paladin stated something that I seriously had never heard before and so I was interested in learning about it. I rarely just take any single person's word for it about most anything of importance so I asked for a source out of genuine interest. I try not to limit myself to one side of a story or entrench myself into a position without at least hearing/reading the "other side".

No doubt the oil industry is a beast, and that oil is plentiful now. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I have yet to hear anyone say that there are huge untapped oil fields that will be easy (read cost-effective) to get to. I certainly don't rule it out as I'm not in the industry nor do I keep close track of it's doings. Maybe technology will "save us" and allow us to tap these places, or limitations on existing sources will drive the cost up so far that it does become economical. Maybe it won't. Why not begin now investing in a future that is sure to come sooner or later? Why wait until it is gone to find a way to do things that isn't so damaging to the environment? Even the high cost of energy now is sucking the life and growth out of the economy. People can't get ahead as every year the costs go up and wages don't follow them. What's it going to be like next year? Or in 5 years? Or 10?

Sarge wrote:
Did I touch a nerve or something? Paladin stated something that I seriously had never heard before and so I was interested in learning about it. I rarely just take any single person's word for it about most anything of importance so I asked for a source out of genuine interest. I try not to limit myself to one side of a story or entrench myself into a position without at least hearing/reading the "other side".

No nerve, just felt like contributing a bit of knowledge. The reason a lot of the resources are untapped is just due to lack of knowledge, people are unsure of how things will work, of whether or not the thermal problems can be solved, how to make a stanchion that will support its own weight even underwater, what can float at this weight without dropping like a rock to get there.. and how to do it without spending way too much. That and life expectancy of equipment, the oldest crap out there right now that is still being produced is not even old enough to reach the materials 'life expectancy' its a young science, and a undiscovered underwater world.

As far as finding new areas/alternatives, all for it.. other nations are farther ahead of us in the alternative methods per capita just due to the oil is easier method for such a large beast as ourselves. Some of the items I design are made for use with the tide/wind powered machines out there that are starteing to see increasing service. The higher the cost of oil is driven the more growth you will see in other supplies, like CNG which is a counterpart of petroleum yet is only now becoming something more than a red-headed stepchild left out in the cold, or 'green' crap which in most cases is only green for a few months and then its wilting black again. As in the batteries on a hybrid, where the car price is offset by the fuel efficiency after thirty years of use -note arbitrary to a few months ago when the wife did the calcs- and the car has a battery that has to be replaced every so many miles that costs 3-6k and is more hazardous to the environment then should be reasonably thought of.

Yeah you made me ramble again.. must be due to sleep deprivation. [/backing slowly away from that dastardly soapbox again]

-grumbles damnit Paladin I told you to keep that soapbox under your feet it fits better there]

sindy wrote:
well... I'm not seeing them getting rid of the big detroit diesel until they make another motor with enough power and torque to haul 50 tons of all the new eco-friendly products to the stores for us to buy. Which coincidentally, the new diesel will transfer into a price raise all around for everyone on everything as all the trucking companies have to start replacing their fleets and upgrading motors to accomodate the new eco laws that will have absolutely no impact on any of us in our lifetimes. 🙂

Well, if 'they' found alternatives to what we are using now, no doubt it would be a slow phase-in. As vehicles died from rust, use, or collision, they'd be replaced with the newer tech. They may jack up prices anyway, since business & gov't never seem to miss a chance to do that 🙂

Depending on what replaces current gas/diesel transportation, it would probably start with smaller vehicles and work it's way up as the tech is developed and improved.

It's academic at this point. We have to wait & see what the clever bastards come up with, if anything. The interesting part will be production & distribution of any new fuel. There's gonna be a chicken-and-egg problem with any new fuel and new vehicle. The government will probably legislate a solution to that - if you sell a given amount of gasoline or more, you MUST carry the new fuel.

DocJon wrote:
It's academic at this point. We have to wait & see what the clever bastards come up with, if anything. The interesting part will be production & distribution of any new fuel. There's gonna be a chicken-and-egg problem with any new fuel and new vehicle. The government will probably legislate a solution to that - if you sell a given amount of gasoline or more, you MUST carry the new fuel.

Luckily to carry most of the fuel supplies nowadays there are numerous pipelines across the states already in place, and even more going in. The sad part is the 'new' fueld sources are needing better quality lines, you know the kind that if a blow-off valve gets stuck it won't be spraying hundreds of gallons of gasoline in the air next to a corn field sort of better, lines that will have to be dug next to existing lines.. all of which takes more machine labor from those big evil diesels...

BTW, I remember on the Discovery channel quite a few years back they were showing off some really old guy who was well past retired working on a pet project that was a rotary deisel that would allow for those big massive deisels to be replaced by a much smaller and more efficient version in all theory, but all the knowledge and exploration was in his head though he did have a few prototypes that were being tested, not completely successful but promising. The problem is that if I remember right it was a garage project with the likelihood of him dying and taking all the knowledge/driving force with him being eminent.

lexx wrote:
I actually saw one in a car show ahhh, I guess 3 summers back. It had a 3 cyl motocycle like engine with dual alternators and like about 50ish horsepower. It had a pull out extension cord for 110vac charging as I understood it to not be able to keep the batteries charged while operating.

I had a 4cyl Pinto years back that got 35mpg, and a Honda 350cc motorcycle that got close to 50mpg, so I say again, I'm not sure where there is any benefit to the enviroment or to your wallet. I think its kinda silly to put a larger 4cyl moto in just to charge batteries for the electric motors.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather expected milage in the 60+mpg range for hybrids. Add the cost to 'top off' the batteries at night, and that mpg should be lowered if anything to reflect the real cost it operates on.

Lexx let me splain to you Lucy... Hybrids are not to be confused with electric vehicles. Hybrid cars are primarily gas powered cars with electrical motor assist. You are thinking of electric cars NOT hybrids. Hybrids are a different animal and you do NOT charge them at all in any way shape or form. They have no plug and you do not top them off EVER. No plug to the house. None. You do NOT plug them in. They do not run off house current at all. 😉

There are two types of hybrids, neither plug in BTW 😉

One type (The one that I prefer) the series hybrid, the gasoline engine either directly powers an electric motor that powers the vehicle, or charges batteries that will power the motor. It has electric motors only and the gas generator simply generates the electric needs of the vehicle recharging the batteries as needed. The gas generator automatically turns itself on and off as you drive. I like this approach as I think it is more efficient and save more fuel.

The second type, the parallel hybrid car, has a gasoline engine and an electric motor work together to move the car forward

Silent Cold wrote:
As in the batteries on a hybrid, where the car price is offset by the fuel efficiency after thirty years of use -note arbitrary to a few months ago when the wife did the calcs- and the car has a battery that has to be replaced every so many miles that costs 3-6k and is more hazardous to the environment then should be reasonably thought of.

The batteries BTW are designed to last 8 years minimum so you should never have to replace them unless you keep the car for a long time.
As for the fact that they are more hazardous for the environment I agree that ALL batteries are but these will last a lot longer than most batteries. We dispose of more C, D, A, AAA and watch/hearing aid batteries each day than any Hybrids will over time. I think people should start using more rechargeable batteries but that is another topic.


Hybrids actually get 30-50(best case) average not 60 unfortunately. Still at least 30 is not bad at all, more than double what I get in my SUV at around 13.

The other cool thing about Hybrids is the more you have to use your brakes, the better the MPG. They use the brakes as a way to recharge the battery rather than using the gas motor.

It's funny, but if you look at MPG, the city number is usually higher than the highway. Now, if your highway is anything like DC or Dallas, you'll be on the brakes more than the gas pedal during rush hour anyway..... :-)

bla bla bla, blah bla blah bla. ...STFU

I simply move that no more nukes are tested in the atmosphere.


Thank you, that is all.