Gas Prices

[Mr. Sandman]

Well I am an engineer and it will not be in your lifetime that you see something like your talking about. Fossil fuels have an energy density that is hard to match for the cost. Yes you can create other fuels from plants and alike but that ***takes*** energy to produce it. That energy cost money. Crude you pump from the ground and will burn as is. Solar even at 100% efficiency is not going to do it. It might help charge a battery but it is not reliable and has such a low energy density it will be impossible to power much of anything. Next generation Fuel cells/hybrids I think will be a stepping stone to some kind of fully electric vehicle with a rapid charge system. I have no idea what they are going to do for boats, as I doubt a fuel cell will get you to the canyons at 30 knots.

Longer term (about 100 +years from now) we will not burn fossil fuels. We will have some kind of atomic plant that has no waste problem. This will produce unlimited nearly free electric power for all. Something akin to the voice communications system we have evolving today. I honestly believe this is the ultimate solution. I don't want to get into all the reasons why but I am nearly sure of it.

You can forget about windmills, solar panels, canola oil, wave energy and cow farts to power this nation, even at 100% eff you would have to cover the entire country to provide adequate power for the masses. We will blaze the trail in atomic technology. I wish I would be alive to see it...maybe my grandkids will be. Until then I think we need to build a load of refineries and pump Alaska and put some pressure on the mid east ***WHILE*** put some money into research for atomic alternatives. We have 100's of years of fuel on this earth that will hold us until then. I am not worried.

As far as super carburetors that general motors or some oil company bought the patents then sat on them...I do not believe it. There is only so much energy in a gallon of gas. It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate a vehicle with a given mass to some velocity. Today most engines could only get a few more percent of efficiency, there is no "super carburetor" that is going to produce 10X the mileage...a physical impossibility. Yes you can make a super lightweight car that get 300 miles to the gallon but don't expect to turn on the AC while driving 60 and the ride might be a bit stiff. Again it is all about how much energy is in a given amount of fuel, the engine just converts this energy with some mechanical efficiency loss, There are no huge gains possible in a given vehicle, you have to go smaller and lighter to really gain much. Power Boats are in for a real problem in my view.


The price of gas at the pump near my house today was 3.44

[Homerun04]

Sandman - nice analysis.

Not that I am for it, but when Einstein, Bohr and other noted theoretical physicists decided to spilt an atom to release it's energy, that was a revolutionary concept of releasing - therfore transferring - energy. All I am saying is we need that kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking again....and soon.

I think there might be even better ways to release energy then splitting atoms, due to the energy by-product of radiation released during that process. Let's figure out how to turn a turbine using only pressurized steam, and harness that pressurized steam for use when and where we need it.....then, we might be on to something. Robert Fulton is still waiting for us to "get it".......imagine filling your car/truck at the nearest pond, lake, bay, etc. and the only by-product is steam -- which would evaporate, condense, come down as rain to be used all over again. Totally enclosed, zero waste cycle. Nothing more efficient.

Can't a case be made that the expansive use of the combustion engine (diesel, gas, etc) over the past 100 years was based on our society's inability to be patient and wait to more fully develop alternative sources? Looking to history will show that America's insatiable appetite for combustion technology was fueled by our military's need for quick, powerful, dependable energy during WWI.....and it was the right decision to move fast forward in this direction due to the national security ramifications of winning WWI and WWII.......but perhaps it is time we re-think where we spend our R&D dollars.

[Pete F.]

The only plot I know of and it was quite unfortunate was the one that eliminated streetcars. By eliminating streetcars and local trolley systems the death of the passenger rail system was ensured, after all if you have to have a car to drive to the RR station why not just drive the whole way. It will be interesting this year in VT to see the ressurection of the skitrains, they have been running for afew years with some sucess but this should make the difference. Also for the past 60 years we have subsidized the highway system and ignored rail, think about it while you drive down a highway that's been beat to @#$% by tractor trailers. Count the Wal mart trucks.
We could just go all nuclear, but between the nimbys and bananas it will be a while before that happens.

[Raven]

i tend to agree with your analysis ....but am holding out hope that carbon nano tube technology will come to the rescue in both electrical storage and in producing a material thats stronger than steel and produce a car that will weigh 1/10th of a modern day vehicle.....
from what i've been reading . But that technology is still only in its infancy stage right now.
.................................................. .................................................. ...
as far as the energy required to produce a bio-diesel product...yes it requires energy to produce it...our country is oil poor but rich in land (acreage)but our tax dollars which required our human energy origionally
to create the surplus money the government uses to pay farmers not to grow crops like tobacco is a huge waste. anything that utilizes solar power ie sunlight to create something else is doing it because of the origional fusion of hydrogen which we havent figured out how to do yet -cost effectively.

[Homerun04]

Right on Tinman...right on...

And I agree, nano technologies might hold the key to many issues -- including our energy crisis.

[Raven]

"Solar even at 100% efficiency is not going to do it. It might help charge a battery but it is not reliable and has such a low energy density it will be impossible to power much of anything."

one thing about solar power is loss of electricity in the conversion process...
but with carbon nano tube technology there is almost zero loss and the material is perfect for electrical transmission which is why i remain hopeful.

[bassmaster]

%$%$%$%$ these %$%$%$%$ing gas prices

[Vermonter]

Prices must be brutal on the Cape, most here were at 2.99 last night when I came home tho one station still had gas at 2.87. Im hearing that it will be at least 3.20 by sunday in this area.