|
I think people should start becoming "Volunteers". That is people should start voluntarily start driving slower (let's start with 65 mph max). And gradually get down to 60 mph or even 55 mph. If we are not careful, the government might get it in its head to drop the official speed limit down to 55 mph like it was in the 70's. And then on those days when someone really needs to go 65-70 mph, they won't (legally) have that option.I routinely drive from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, PA and back. Normally I drive it at 75mph and put in 13-15 gallons in for a one way trip. Last weekend I did an out and back. I drove 65 and used about 10 gallons the whole trip. On the way back I got a flat tire and ended up driving 150 miles at 45mph after putting the spare on. I used about 8 gallons.
I'm also checking into greyhound for future trips.
I'm sure it varies by vehicle, but I mentioned once before, with my car, I get better MPG driving at fast, sustained speeds; it's the stop-and-go speeds-under-35MPH city driving that kills by MPG.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think people should start becoming "Volunteers". That is people should start voluntarily start driving slower (let's start with 65 mph max). And gradually get down to 60 mph or even 55 mph. If we are not careful, the government might get it in its head to drop the official speed limit down to 55 mph like it was in the 70's. And then on those days when someone really needs to go 65-70 mph, they won't (legally) have that option.
I've said I'd like to see our Governour say "Due to the cost of rising taxes, I'm temporarily repealing the gas tax. However we need the citizens of Ohio to do their part to conserve as well. Today I am issuing orders to the state Highway patrol to strictly enforce speed limits. The additional revenue from tickets will be used to offset the gas tax. If you feel the need to break the speed limit, teh be prepared to pay for that choice."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
They'd be volunteering to be shot at around here. :)
On the non-flippant side of things, I am growing concerned that high travel costs will create an insular society. I wonder if message boards are seeing a boost in population as people spend more time at home?
There was an old sci-fi story where most of the world lived in their homes, and talked mostly by television. The main character has a friend who he never sees, he's just a test pattern.
He falls for this girl, and actually goes to meet her. They fight constantly as he's used to everything his way, and her house isn't programmed to his whims. They end up getting married, since procreation is still important, and he goes back to his house to live happily ever after.
Funny thing, this story predates the internet, if not the DARPA net.
I'm sure it varies by vehicle, but I mentioned once before, with my car, I get better MPG driving at fast, sustained speeds; it's the stop-and-go speeds-under-35MPH city driving that kills by MPG.
Well that is quite true, that is why vehicles have two MPG listed, one for city driving and one for highway driving. City driving using more gas usually (though hybrids might be different since they get a lot of time to charge up while idling). What I was talking about was highway driving of course.
well; several people at work have now bought and right motor assisted bicycles to work each day; say they get about 30mph; go on bike trails and the bikes will pay for themselves within a year just on the gas they are saving; some are tracking it in excell; so will let you guys know about what results they are getting if you are considering this option or are interested.
yes it is; from what I remember; California had it this high; but the rest of the country didnt; in our hometown in the 70's it nearly got to $2 a gallon; kept rising in the eightees; I rode a motorcycle back then and even so felt the bite. Back then there was looting and lot of gas theft; locking gas caps became standard; peeps could only get gas on odd or even days depending upon their liscense plate number; long lines at pumps; stations running out of fuel; nothing like it is today; today we just have massively high prices but lots of gas.
There are 7 refineries in Alaska, and one is only 60 miles from my house, and it alone produces 210 bb/d, yet premium gas in Fairbanks is $4.89 today, and diesel is $5.02.
This is worse than the 70s, isn't it?
I own three cars. If I add the average miles per gallon of all three cars together I end up around 30 mpgs. Up until last year I drove a 37 year old car to work 40 miles each way. I guess I'm part of the problem. But what is the problem? Someone sneezes near a pipeline in Nigeria and oil goes up a dollar a barrel. I think a month ago an unidentified boat approached a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf and it caused oil prices to surge or soar or sky rocket or whatever inflammatory descriptive yahoo news is using at the moment. I think "spike" is the new explative. Were these regions ever stable? What kills me about the whole situation is....I keep hearing "we've hit peak oil!!!" Yet in 2005 they did a study and found that there is more oil under Utah then there exists in the Middle East. Most of this oil is on government land....problem is its trapped in shale. Three years ago oil company scientists said it would cost about 25 dollars a barrel more to harvest that oil vs regular liquid in the ground crude so it wouldn't be cost effective. Oil was 66 dollars a barrel then....so why isn't it cost effective now? Now a days the scapegoat for everything is .....well due to increased demand in India and China.... I want to be in demand in India and China. I deserve a raise.
Almost certainly the figure was found to be too low. Getting at Shale means essentially grinding up stone and using heat or chemicals to squeeze oil out of it. If its anything like the Alberta Tar sands (and its probably got some similarities) you face all sorts of cost overruns.
In Alberta they need to dig up about 8 tons of earth to get a single barrel of oil but thats really only the half of it. To run the machinery to dig up the earth and to transport the oil to market and to move the people around to the relatively remote locations were they are and supply them with the things that North Americans expect to have where ever they live all uses energy. So in the larger term its found that to get 1 barrel of oil requires moving something like 16 tons of earth.
Beyond this there are the environmentalists and the inhabitants. The chemical processes involved in getting at this stuff does more then just turn the land into moonscapes. You end up with things like tailings ponds. But for operations of this scale your really talking about what amounts to toxic lakes. Lakes that are so toxic that there is no real hope that they will ever be safe. Thats going to bring out the environmentalists (depending on the local it may even bring out conservative hunters since wild life in the region of a toxic lake tends to be negatively effected) and now you have cost over runs while they file litigation at you. You also have to really ramp up your advertising budget so that to counter the environmentalists negative PR.
It can be expensive to convince people that grinding up the mountains or digging pits the size of New England States adds to the natural beauty of the local. If your diverting rivers or emptying the water table to help with the process you then have to deal with the people that formally used wells from the water table or built their towns along the (former) river. Both of these groups tend to get unhappy when you take these sorts of things away from them.
There is also the problem of the cost of dealing with environmental effects after the fact. Things like the Toxic lake are not ever going away and some one is going to have to pay to deal with these issues long after all the profit from the site is gone. Historically companies have put aside funds to deal with this but its come to peoples attention that almost invariably such funds prove grossly inadequate and companies don't last forever while the environmental problems do. Hence most environmental costs for things like the mining that was done 50 years ago are now paid for by the taxpayers and the taxpayers will have to keep paying these costs essentially forever because the mining companies that existed 50 years ago are all, by this point, pretty much gone. They went bankrupt or dissolved one way or another and it fell to local governments to clean up the mess they left behind.
Thus the states where they kinds of huge projects that will have massive environmental impacts want some equally massive guarantees that they're not going to one day be saddled with huge liabilities.
Finally we have to deal with insurance. Toxic lakes are inherently kind of unstable. If this stuff seeps into a river or goes into the ground water huge amounts of land could be ruined and many people might be endangered or even die. Who pays if that happens? How much would they have to pay if it went really really wrong? The oil companies don't want to deal with the price tag associated with insuring this sort of thing and so far the government has not been willing assume all the risks and agree to hold the company faultless for any disaster that might occur.
A few of the gas stations around here have fallen upon the age old scam of advertising a “cash only” price and hiking up the price per gallon for credit card purchases. Can’t remember anyone doing that since I was twelve. Transaction fee my butt.
Oh, and of course some “analyst” is now projecting $7 per gallon, which means when I run dry sure as crap it’ll be $7 at the pump for no good reason (well, I suppose greed counts as valid).
At the very least, on a good note, I read yesterday that an unexpected trend has arisen because of the high cost of shipping: reverse globalization. Manufacturers are finding it’s now cheaper to build things here than it is to ship raw materials away and completed products back, so jobs are coming back home.
I own three cars. If I add the average miles per gallon of all three cars together I end up around 30 mpgs. Up until last year I drove a 37 year old car to work 40 miles each way. I guess I'm part of the problem. But what is the problem? Someone sneezes near a pipeline in Nigeria and oil goes up a dollar a barrel. I think a month ago an unidentified boat approached a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf and it caused oil prices to surge or soar or sky rocket or whatever inflammatory descriptive yahoo news is using at the moment. I think "spike" is the new expletive. Were these regions ever stable? What kills me about the whole situation is....I keep hearing "we've hit peak oil!!!" Yet in 2005 they did a study and found that there is more oil under Utah then there exists in the Middle East. Most of this oil is on government land....problem is its trapped in shale. Three years ago oil company scientists said it would cost about 25 dollars a barrel more to harvest that oil vs regular liquid in the ground crude so it wouldn't be cost effective. Oil was 66 dollars a barrel then....so why isn't it cost effective now? Now a days the scapegoat for everything is .....well due to increased demand in India and China.... I want to be in demand in India and China. I deserve a raise.Almost certainly the figure was found to be too low. Getting at Shale means essentially grinding up stone and using heat or chemicals to squeeze oil out of it. If its anything like the Alberta Tar sands (and its probably got some similarities) you face all sorts of cost overruns.
In Alberta they need to dig up about 8 tons of earth to get a single barrel of oil but thats really only the half of it. To run the machinery to dig up the earth and to transport the oil to market and to move the people around to the relatively remote locations were they are and supply them with the things that North Americans expect to have where ever they live all uses energy. So in the larger term its found that to get...
The articles I have read on the subject, and let me stress that I am certainly no authority and don't quite trust the media sources that produce the articles, have pointed to advances in the technology used to convert the shale to oil. Back in the 70s during the oil embargo nightmare they attempted to access these shale deposits but as you indicated the cost and the incidental environmental damage was too high to justify exploiting the resource. According to Shell in 2005, they were working on a technology to sink superheated pylons into the ground that would melt the shale beneath without having to mine the surface, leaving pockets of oil under the surface, which could then be drilled, in a more traditional format. From what I inferred, they also had a plan in place to stop ground water contamination using ice (I have no clue how but there was some techno jumbo about hydrocarbons that's a little out of my league. I'm a liberal arts major for a reason). The article indicated that Shell planed to make a decision on whether to initiate this endeavor by 2009 or 2010 depending on which source I read. In 2005, they indicated that the cost was feasible.
The problems as I see them.....shell....bp....exxon benefit from these ridiculous oil prices, no? It's not that they're costs are going up, so they in turn are passing them on to the consumer. Everything is about futures and trading. OPEC says there is plenty of supply out there. Saudi Arabia agreed to produce more oil, yet that didn't reduce prices but because the head of OPEC said in passing a couple days ago "oil may go up to 150 or 170 a barrel" (again just speculation...OPEC wasn't raising the price), that one man's words of speculation caused oil to go over 140 a barrel.
So, it seems oil companies are charged with finding alternate sources of energy. I giggle in horror every time I see some BP propaganda commercial where some iconic engineer type is going on about the revolutionary work he's meddling in, involving wind, battery, electric, gamma rays blah blah energy. What motivation do they have to find a competitor to their own product? Any new revolutionary source of energy would cut into oil demand, and into oil prices. Wouldn't they just undermine they're own profits? Would Burger King trust McDonalds to develop its new ultimate burger? It seems like some awful PR stunt, where oil companies just keep muttering..."oh we're working on it. Yep, got our best guy on this alternate energy thing...uhh.. I mean guys, a whole team, in fact." meanwhile our fantastic politicians, Bush and Obama both say, "well if there was a magic wand we would certainly wave it...."
When I go to a gas station now, most stations in my area have added signs saying the gas contains 10 percent ethanol. They weren't there before. If we add 10 percent of ethanol to the gas, doesn't that cut our oil consumption by 10 percent? Why doesn't this make a difference? I know ethanol costs more, but it should cut demand for oil, which will leave more supply, which should in turn lower price. But it doesn't.
And yes I know gas prices are higher in Europe. I've been to Europe and there is an excellent mass transit system in place. I live in Florida. No subway...no trains....some kind of mockery of a bus line that doesn't quite make it to where I live.
Horses...safe, friendly, companionable... sure they require upkeep but if the price of oats skyrockets, I can at least grill some zesty horse steaks or make horse fajitas. My mustang languishes on my driveway longing for the nostalgic days I plunged it into 2nd gear, rapping at the door of the rev limiter. Now I shift shamefully into fifth at 30 mph, my salty tears dribbling onto the monster tach and burning away in the dying glow of the shift light that once reflected the "give me fuel, give me fire" madness in my eyes. Horses...yep.... they're only two seaters so I won't have to courier my friends around. No cup holders...but we all make sacrifices.
At the moment, prices for gasoline are closing to 1.60 Euro per liter, or about 11.40 US-$ per gallon if I got that conversion right, with Diesel not much behind. As a consequence, we sold our cars last week and bought a used Volkswagen Touran (for about 18,000 Euros) running with CNG , as explained here . So far, it seems to use about 7 kg per 100 km, and one kg costs about 0.90 Euro. So, for about 6.50 Euros we can drive 100 km now. My wifes small diesel car was at about 7.50 Euros for 100 km, and my old Audi A 6 at about 16 Euros for 100 km. I guess we will save some fuel money now. With last years heating for our flat running at 1300,- Euros, this is nice to know... And there is less exhaust gas pollution than with regular fuel.
I don´t really need a car, as my office is within three minutes walking distance from our flat, so we could give it away. And I still own my ´72 Audi 100 GL. :-)
Stefan
... reverse globalization. Manufacturers are finding it’s now cheaper to build things here than it is to ship raw materials away and completed products back, so jobs are coming back home.
It's funny but I was having this discussion at work the other day. My company is one of the few left that manufactures its own products on site in Massachusetts. Our little factory employs 30-50 people and in the past few years the owners have been under constant assault by overseas firms who want us to buy from them rather than make our own. They resisted because there is no guarantee of quality on that route. They are feeling pretty happy with that descision right about now.
Now it looks like shipping and mass distributing networks are going to become more and more difficult to maintain. Will Main Street come back to US towns? Or will we have become so adjusted to shopping at MegaMarts that we will continue to patronize them as prices go up and quality goes down (further)? I guess only time will tell.
|
|
Woot! Give it up for being #1!
In Stockton, Ca - right by where I live, we have the highest priced gas in the country!
In certain parts of town, it's been over the $5 dollar mark for going on 2 weeks now.
Who needs food? Or clothes? My paycheck goes directly into my car!
Martha from accounting is making the rounds today...
"John, Carol, and Sam--your tanks are full.
"Mark, Patil, Sarah, and Andrew--you each received an advance last month; the debt was deducted--your tanks are 3/4 full.
"Matt--ohh--I'll have to call Central: you got a 'no pay due'... We'll get the cot out of storage for you to use tonight, since it looks like you won't be driving..."
The oil companies have a really good reason to invest in alternate energy: profit. If BP came out with some wonderfuel that worked in all gas powered engines and gave you the same MPG, with it costing $2 a gallon, do you realize how much profit they would make? The would manage to make every other oil company to make their own wonderfuel, or go out of business. At $2 a gallon I can't think of anyone that wouldn't use it over normal gas. The demand for it would be crazy, and assuming the same profit margin they have now, the amount of money they would be making increased sells would make their current profits look like chump change.Of course, there is no wonderfuel, but the same idea applies: The oil companies WANT to be the first out of the gate. If they made some product that will save people money, then people will buy it and that company will make money. Their goal in the end is to make profit and none of the oil or energy companies want to be the last out of the gate: who ever is there is the one making the least amount of money.
They're making tremendous ever increasing profits from oil. Yes, developing some kind of wonderfuel will be profitable eventually, but by releasing wonderfuel they render their entire infrastructure developed toward the harvesting of crude obsolete. Why put your bread and butter product, tried and true for over a century, that is subject to ever increasing demand, has no major competitor, the product your entire business is built around, out of business? Sure maybe there is some pay off down the road, but the motivation to change is little. The idea that a company that is in business to make money, has a feverishly successful product with a stranglehold on the civilized world, would want to create a less expensive, less profitable alternative to break this product's all consuming monopoly is...well plain nuts.
If for whatever reason BP suddenly developed Wonderfuel....Shell...and Exxon would shortly follow and what did they accomplish? Undermine a profitable product? Check. Rendered the bulk of their equipment and operation redundant and useless? Check. Create a less expensive product so people can save money? Fantastic. Less expensive product...people saving money.... good for business? Nope. If it ain't broke don't fix it. For oil companies the world is their oyster right now. Oil companies are businesses. In it for the money, not some humanitarian effort to reduce greenhouse emissions, and save the polar bears. They're gonna ride this out until the market can bear no more. Its gonna take someone outside the oil industry with a vested interest in developing alternative fuels to solve this problem. Do you think for a second that we can shoot people to the moon with the same technology that powers my rickety 1969 Cougar yet developing a viable source of alternate fuel eludes the greatest minds of our day? Who would want to be first out of the gate to eliminate its flagship product?
I can clone my dog. Science has figured out how to clone my smelly, lick himself, eat his own poop, rodent looking terrier but we don't have the know how to develop a cost effective alternative to oil.
The problem with that is assume that there is no competition that wishes to replace oil. There are a number of alternate fuels that wish to replace oil, but have yet to do so for a number of reasons. Some of them are implementation, others getting the price down cheap enough so that it can compete with oil, and there are technological issues with others. But the point is that those trying to replace the oil companies and any smart company would rather make a product that replaces their own product rather than let someone else replace their product. Oil companies aren't stupid, they know its only a matter of time before someone comes up with something that cheaper then oil, and they know that its better for them to do it than someone else. To imply otherwise is to imply that making no profit is better than making some profit.
The problem is its not as easy as this. There is no obvious replacement for oil. We've filled out the periodic table and we understand the chemical properties of pretty much everything out there. Nothing on this planet can just be slotted in and replace oil. We can replace oil as a source of energy through various technologies but all of them have a lot of kinks to work out. The only good alternative on the horizon is finding a way to make a hell of a lot of electricity and it'll be probably at least a generation before we could possibly make enough that we'd return to an economy based on cheap energy.
|
|
In a state of complete incredulity I just read that Kentucky is increasing the state fuel tax in order to pay for summer road repair work.
The funny thing is that according to AAA, KY vehicle traffic is down 27% from the same time last year.
A gallon of gas is so expensive now that people are finally driving less, which naturally means the roads are used less... so the state legislature actually OKs an increase in the price of a gallon of gas in order to pay for the road people are not using...
Additionally, as a result of higher gas prices, we see more and more Kentuckians ditching their cars and using mass transit, such as the city bus system... so the state legislature OKs an increase in bus fare, effective immediately.
Whose side are they on?
Since I am on Summer hours (in other words, matching the schedule of the rest of the working world), I can take the bus for the summer. Two bucks a day for the 35 miles to work and back, instead of the eight or so I had to pay for gas and parking. No tailgaters or backaches to deal with! I want to try to stay on this schedule.
Yay! It's almost 1.6€ per liter in Germany now - you've got to love summer hollidays...
What is that in Commonwealth Square Florins?
I like chocolate milk!
Our mark, at my current salary: $11 USD per US gallon means no more driving.
The price of gas wouldn't change our current daily driving situation much at all. I commute via bike every day and have for about 3 years now. My wife's car is required for her work so she has to drive it. On the other hand she's compensated for mileage so in general her car is paid for. Maybe if gas went to $11 she might start leaving her car at work and using it for work purposes only.
On the weekends it's already affected us. We drive less though not too much less, we carpool whenever possible, and we keep the speed under 60MPH all the time. Our RV is parked, and we've debated selling it but I imagine we can't get much for it right now. We are using it for a trip this summer where 6 people are going and can share the fuel bill.
Keeping the speed under 60 saves us 20% of on our gas bill. That's probably the easiest thing everyone can do to save money on gas. We went from getting 250-260 miles on a tank to getting 310 miles.
In Stockton, Ca - right by where I live, we have the highest priced gas in the country!
Hey Eyebite, where are you located? I'm a little east of Stockton, about half way to Linden.
|
...There is no obvious replacement for oil...Ah! Except for Helium 3.
...Nothing on this planet can just be slotted in and replace oil...Doh!
1. Helium 3? Um dont you mean Tritium (H^3)?
2. Thorium Fuel Cells are designed to form Oil (hydrocarbon molecules) an Australia has enough to supply ourselves with oil from CO2 and H2O.
Yup! we can now incinerate religious nutters and old people and turn them into Oil to fuel our Glorious tanks as we sweep across the world! You shall bow before the might of all the Commonwealth...We will make you wear thongs (the footwear - not the undies) and drink Pauls Iced Coffee.
This will all blow over. Gas will stabilize somewhere around $3.25 a gallon--enough to convince most people to buy something more economical and enough to make the oil companies super rich while we all rejoice about "cheaper" gasoline. As long as the public doesn't get too riled up, all is well. In a year or two of that, who will remember the glorious days of gas less than $3 a gallon?
I bought a 1999 Suburban 4x4 with the Vortec V-8 engine and a 42 gallon gas tank last February. I use it only for camping trips and long drives with lots of passengers.
Hauled 8 people to Dallas with all their luggage and back last week at 16.4 mpg average. The same amount of luggage and people would have taken two subcompacts, so I feel it was an economical trip--plus I have the safety factor of sitting up high and 4x4 if I need it...and Suburbans tend to do well in collisions vs. smaller vehicles.
For going to work and tooling around town, I use my old little Toyota pickup truck, which gets 21 mpg in the City--not great, but I live only 4 miles from work, so it's nothing.
If you plan your trips, carpool when you can, don't use a gas guzzler for your daily commute if possible...you can mitigate the cost of gas a lot.
As far as the OP is concerned--I wouldn't stop driving...ever. If gas hit $20 a gallon....well, I drive 32 miles a week to get to work and back. Make it 50 miles a week for grocery trips and "necessary" travel. With my Toyota truck that would mean I would spend about $50 a week on gasoline.
No more cross town gaming group visits--I guess I'd finally have to see if Wizards ever fixed that DDI after all :)
I've read about some people biking or walking to work and that's great and all, good for you, keep it up. But a thought comes to me, what if you get hurt? I don't mean from biking or walking, just in general, something happens and you get hurt and can't bike or walk to work.
I've read about some people biking or walking to work and that's great and all, good for you, keep it up. But a thought comes to me, what if you get hurt? I don't mean from biking or walking, just in general, something happens and you get hurt and can't bike or walk to work.
Well, if you can´t walk or bike due to injuries, chances are good that you can´t drive either, I´d guess.
BTW, I partially refilled my ´72 Audi 100 for 50 Euros today and got 30 litres of fuel. That is about 79 US$ for about 8 US gallons (got the UK gallons yesterday - sorry for the mix-up), so we are close to 10 $ per gallon. So, I don´t want to hear any of you americans complaining about gas prices anymore ;-)
EDIT: and the old car needs roughly 10 litres for 100 km, so 100 km cost me 15 Euros in fuel alone. Luckily, I don´t drive it much.
Stefan
|
|
1. Helium 3? Um dont you mean Tritium (H^3)?
2. Thorium Fuel Cells are designed to form Oil (hydrocarbon molecules) an Australia has enough to supply ourselves with oil from CO2 and H2O...
You're right; that's what I meant. The best and most abundant source is pretty far away, like, 238,897 miles straight up...
|
|
This will all blow over. Gas will stabilize somewhere around $3.25 a gallon...
Oil will be $200 a barrel within three years not thirteen as I previously thought. So...the price curve is a little steeper than you think.
Can I interest you in the Pritchard Steam Car? It burns wood which is the only renewable fuel source.
|
|
You're right; that's what I meant. The best and most abundant source is pretty far away, like, 238,897 miles straight up...1. Helium 3? Um dont you mean Tritium (H^3)?
2. Thorium Fuel Cells are designed to form Oil (hydrocarbon molecules) an Australia has enough to supply ourselves with oil from CO2 and H2O...
you probably did mean helium-3. Numerous sources have stopped talking about Tritium and are peddling disinformation associated with Helium-3(1 Proton,2 Neutrons) being a product of Tritium (three Protons) using antineutrino decay.
If I take a superconducting sphere and put it in space and fill the contents with hydrogen, the neutrinos decellerating across the superconducting boundary cause the protons to depolarize and form a Proton metal under gravity. If you want tritium we can make it in space...
the fusion project going ahead in Europe has already failed though...its going to be hit by the anti-time pressure wave of a black hole we have created in the atmosphere of venus to terraform that planet habitable backwards and forwards in time...consequently the mathematicians involved in the fusion project are going to experience loss of mathematical ability bandwidth and get their numbers wrong...you all saw what happened in the Dark Ages...that is the anti-time fallout.
you probably did mean helium-3. Numerous sources have stopped talking about Tritium and are peddling disinformation associated with Helium-3(1 Proton,2 Neutrons) being a product of Tritium (three Protons) using antineutrino decay. If I take a superconducting sphere and put it in space and fill the contents with hydrogen, the neutrinos decellerating across the superconducting boundary cause the protons to depolarize and form a Proton metal under gravity. If you want tritium we can make it in space... the fusion project going ahead in Europe has already failed though...its going to be hit by the anti-time pressure wave of a black hole we have created in the atmosphere of venus to terraform that planet habitable backwards and forwards in time...consequently the mathematicians involved in the fusion project are going to experience loss of mathematical ability bandwidth and get their numbers wrong...you all saw what happened in the Dark Ages...that is the anti-time fallout.You're right; that's what I meant. The best and most abundant source is pretty far away, like, 238,897 miles straight up...1. Helium 3? Um dont you mean Tritium (H^3)?
2. Thorium Fuel Cells are designed to form Oil (hydrocarbon molecules) an Australia has enough to supply ourselves with oil from CO2 and H2O...
I like chocolate milk!
BTW, I partially refilled my ´72 Audi 100 for 50 Euros today and got 30 litres of fuel. That is about 79 US$ for about 8 US gallons (got the UK gallons yesterday - sorry for the mix-up), so we are close to 10 $ per gallon. So, I don´t want to hear any of you americans complaining about gas prices anymore ;-)
Stefan
We wouldn't complain as much if we had a good public transportation system like Germany and if our country wasn't so big. German cities don't have as much suburban sprawl as U.S. cities, which forced some folks into hour long commutes to work and back.
In the past, when I was able to visit Germany, I would always rent a car, but it was always some dinky little thing like a Ford Ka or an Opel Corsa. When I took my wife and daughter in 2000 over Christmas, we rented some little French mini-van thingy and drove it around the Cologne area. One trip to Hamburg and a quick trip to Belgium. We spent almost $350 on gasoline.
I'm one of the few lucky ones who lives close to work. Prior to my transfer last year, my daily commute was 20 miles round trip, which would be much harder to afford now.
My long-time friend and fellow gamer Ray'kal (his Paizo board name), bought a Honda Reflex scooter when gasoline hit $2 a gallon a few years ago. We all thought he was crazy, but now we think he's brilliant, because he faithfully rides it to work and back every day, even in inclement weather......but then, his mother is German, so it's probably in the genes :)
The folks I feel really sorry for are the lower income people who drive older cars with bad gas mileage and who live far from their place of employment.
The folks I feel really sorry for are the lower income people who drive older cars with bad gas mileage and who live far from their place of employment.
Indeed. And in Germany, we have car taxes (yearly due for owning a car) that depend on engine displacement and how good the exhaust gases are cleaned. Older cars = worse exhaust cleaning = higher taxes (can easily get several hundred a year for old cars, or for diesel engines). That hits poorer people with old cars as well, on top of high gas prices. And it gets ever more difficult to find a workplace without commuting, even for low-paying jobs. To add insult to injury, more and more cities create "environmental zones", in which only "clean" (read: new) cars are allowed to drive, in a IMO futile attempt to reduce fine particles in the air.
Stefan
...There is no obvious replacement for oil...Ah! Except for Helium 3.
Rare on earth. We need a product thats abundant.
A french company has developed a car that runs on compressed air....top speed 70 mph....has a 150 mile range...takes 4 hours to refill at home with a small compressor or only a few minutes with an industrial compressor at the cost of 2-3 dollars. Zero emissions. They also have a gas/fuel hybrid that pushes 600 miles on a tank of fuel. Who knows how long it will take to see these advancements become main stream.... or how long it will take before Big Oil slaps some money down on the table and makes the technology go poof....
We wouldn't complain as much if we had a good public transportation system like Germany and if our country wasn't so big. German cities don't have as much suburban sprawl as U.S. cities, which forced some folks into hour long commutes to work and back.
Our own choices. Does not really have that much to do with size. Urban sprawl was part of the design of our cities that sprang up in the early 50s. Its possible to redesign cities to be more useful in a world with high fuel prices.
In fact its got some major silver lining. Suburban life has never been much more then a really bad parody of country living. Lets hope the next time we significantly redesign the way we interact with the city we come up with something that is not essentially a cheap knock off of the real thing.
you probably did mean helium-3. Numerous sources have stopped talking about Tritium and are peddling disinformation associated with Helium-3(1 Proton,2 Neutrons) being a product of Tritium (three Protons) using antineutrino decay.
Those miscreants!
If I take a superconducting sphere and put it in space and fill the contents with hydrogen, the neutrinos decellerating across the superconducting boundary cause the protons to depolarize and form a Proton metal under gravity. If you want tritium we can make it in space...
whoa...now your building stuff in Zero G. Its not quite clear what your building but its clear that its being done in space.
the fusion project going ahead in Europe has already failed though...its going to be hit by the anti-time pressure wave of a black hole we have created in the atmosphere of venus to terraform that planet habitable backwards and forwards in time...consequently the mathematicians involved in the fusion project are going to experience loss of mathematical ability bandwidth and get their numbers wrong...you all saw what happened in the Dark Ages...that is the anti-time fallout.
Wow, this is hard to follow - I think Europe has given up building whatever it was in space and has decided to build it in a different time instead.
|
|
A french company has developed a car that runs on compressed air....top speed 70 mph....has a 150 mile range...takes 4 hours to refill at home with a small compressor or only a few minutes with an industrial compressor at the cost of 2-3 dollars. Zero emissions. They also have a gas/fuel hybrid that pushes 600 miles on a tank of fuel. Who knows how long it will take to see these advancements become main stream.... or how long it will take before Big Oil slaps some money down on the table and makes the technology go poof....
Boral-CIG are the guys who sell welding rods and welding gasses to industry. They bought up a Fuelcell welder that broke down water into hydrogen and oxygen from its inventor and made it go poof!
We wouldn't complain as much if we had a good public transportation system like Germany and if our country wasn't so big. German cities don't have as much suburban sprawl as U.S. cities, which forced some folks into hour long commutes to work and back.Our own choices. Does not really have that much to do with size. Urban sprawl was part of the design of our cities that sprang up in the early 50s. Its possible to redesign cities to be more useful in a world with high fuel prices.
In fact its got some major silver lining. Suburban life has never been much more then a really bad parody of country living. Lets hope the next time we significantly redesign the way we interact with the city we come up with something that is not essentially a cheap knock off of the real thing.
I agree. I really like what some cities, like Dallas, have done with their downtown revitalization. I would love to be able to park my car all week and walk to my loft apartment. My town is also working on some downtown revitalization, but we gotta get rid of the hypes first.
|
|
I agree. I really like what some cities, like Dallas, have done with their downtown revitalization. I would love to be able to park my car all week and walk to my loft apartment. My town is also working on some downtown revitalization, but we gotta get rid of the hypes first.
We wouldn't complain as much if we had a good public transportation system like Germany and if our country wasn't so big. German cities don't have as much suburban sprawl as U.S. cities, which forced some folks into hour long commutes to work and back.Our own choices. Does not really have that much to do with size. Urban sprawl was part of the design of our cities that sprang up in the early 50s. Its possible to redesign cities to be more useful in a world with high fuel prices.
In fact its got some major silver lining. Suburban life has never been much more then a really bad parody of country living. Lets hope the next time we significantly redesign the way we interact with the city we come up with something that is not essentially a cheap knock off of the real thing.
Redesign Suburban Cities?
Eventually you must realize that a Single Commercial highrise surrounded by a 1/2 KM radius of Suburban lifestyles is what is required for existing cities.
Future cities require mile high buildings each of which contain industry, commercial activity, agriculture, entertainment / education / medicine and residency for a thousand people.
For instance a City Located In Australia built centred on Alice Springs called the Alice Springs Gigaplex covering 1 million square miles of land should use up all of Australia's resources and require a government where every one has an obligation to participate equally.
|
|
Redesign Suburban Cities?
Eventually you must realize that a Single Commercial highrise surrounded by a 1/2 KM radius of Suburban lifestyles is what is required for existing cities.
Future cities require mile high buildings each of which contain industry, commercial activity, agriculture, entertainment / education / medicine and residency for a thousand people.
For instance a City Located In Australia built centred on Alice Springs called the Alice Springs Gigaplex covering 1 million square miles of land should use up all of Australia's resources and require a government where every one has an obligation to participate equally.
A viable scenario of this is presented in Oath of Fealty by Niven and Pournell.
The Jeddah Tower is being designed now (Saudi Arabia and the UK); it is estimated it will encompass some 20 million square-feet and require a half-mile of ground support infrastructure. More than 30000 people could live in apartment space, alongside businesses, industry and government space.
The Jeddah is supposed to have every necessity and amenity--literally, you could be born, live, and die without ever leaving the building.
