Cheaper for sure, but not exactly cheap..still better than in the '70s when the isolated military base I was on only sold to 100 cars per day. Started lining up aroun 2AM and had to be in line by 4AM to be assured of my 10 gallon ration.

No easy solutions but I think that gov't action is on the way..I just read that Oregon does not have a single mile of new highway/freeway on the drawing boards in spite of growing population and they are now experimenting with methods of taxing by mileage rather than gallons burned. Gotta catch those fuel efficient folks I guess.

Jerry

blueriverjerry wrote:

Cheaper for sure, but not exactly cheap..still better than in the '70s when the isolated military base I was on only sold to 100 cars per day. Started lining up aroun 2AM and had to be in line by 4AM to be assured of my 10 gallon ration.

That sucks.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

PaulS, Personally I think all new cars and light trucks should be electric, with batteries that would last a good 24 hours of driving before needing to recharge. Only way to get our dependance of oil out is to force it on people sadly enough. And then we must built tons of nuclear power plants to supply these new cars with power. And get rid of coal and gas power plants at the same time. What you think ?? Dimitri

Hi Dimitri:

A root question is whether petro/carbon based energy is inherently a poor choice for the future or whether the problem is how we source the energy we use. Perhaps, it is even a combination of both matters, but, the issue extends beyond even that narrow scope and becomes one of social patterns as well.

The great expanses of the US and Canada have caused our peoples to select personal vehicles as opposed to mass transit systems. Even densely populated areas eschew mass transit in favor of freeways. When was the last time anyone traveled transcontinental by train anyway? Because we have developed along these lines, mass transit is a far less viable option in many western cities that have spread out rather than have high density. Busses and trains cannot even begin to address our transportation requirements in areas like Phoenix, Tucson, Albquerque and other major cities.

OTOH today's gas and diesel engines are far cleaner and more fuel efficient. IMO we will be dealing with petro based transportation for decades to come and continue to refine the engines that get us from point to point. I don't view this negatively and believe we can more practically deal with how we source crude as well as how we improve efficiency until some possible breakthrough technology gives us a better choice that is economically viable and practical.

Securing the crude without funding terrorism is a major challenge. Fortunately, the US has an opportunity to do something about this and it would be with my support that we invaded both Mexico and Canada to access their resources, natural and human. As a side benefit we eliminate illegal immigration, both Canadian and Mexican, foster economic development of both these underdeveloped countries for huge profits, create a dynamic federation and tell the Europeans and the Arabs to kiss off.

The major problem, of course, are the French/Canadian women. No, strike that. The major advantage would be the French/Canadian women. I think.

Now, Dimitri, what do you think?

Handloader wrote:

both Canadian and Mexican, foster economic development of both these underdeveloped countries

I'm going to forget about the rest of what you said for now and get to this one line I qouted.

You calling Canada underdeveloped ??

Dimitri

Dimitri: Touche! Your sense of humor also rises to the occasion, I am pleased to see. However, I am amazed you overlooked my equivocation on French-Canadian women in favor of the issue of underdevelopment.

Do you know any BMW riders from New London?

Handloader,

French Canadian women are fine women, myself I like French Canadian women from Northern Ontario myself. You'd be surprised on how they speak English with just the right accent and from one word to the next go to French with a beautiful accent.

Still Handloader, the thing is more "Green ideas" that are out there are not going to work like saying "All cars on the road must be electric or feul cell by 20XX" for example. My idea is more sensable then "enviromentalists". The gradual phase out of petrolium using stuff out in the public, re-read what I wrote,

Quote::

I think all new cars and light trucks should be electric, with batteries that would last a good 24 hours of driving before needing to recharge.

By the time they invent a electric power system that will last someone driving a car for a full 24 hours and it not taking up half of a normal car, I'm willing to bet anyways that we'd have bigger problems with oil then we do now. Technology doesnt move unless it is need. and the key word in that sentance is "new", I'm not talking like some people that want to remove all gas cars out I'm talking about a phasing out of it by making all new cars electric when the technology reaches maturaty.

Dimitri

Dimitri: you raise two issues and I find myself in complete agreement.

Eventhough my little Canadian friend is from Calgary, she is definitely French-Canadian, although, I personally dislike hyphenated national identies. Having not mastered the French language, however, is somewhat a distraction when she reverts in anger or passion to its useage. Perhaps, this illustrates well that ignorance is bliss.

In the hue and cry for electric vehicles, your other point is poignant. In order to provide the power (under today's technology) massive new electrical generation would be required and result in, IMO, unintended consequences while still consuming the same relative amounts of BTU to provide the steam to provide the electricity regardless of fuel. And, what do we do with all that nasty plutonium?

So, on to the future with hope and optomism for both French-Canadian women and new energy sources. Did someone say "hydrogen"?

Handloader,

Dont feel bad about not understanding her, compared to French Canadian's that speak French all the time my French sounds like sh*t. But thats ok I'm better in French then most people I know Hyphenated National Identies is what most people expect to hear in Canada when they ask your nationality. British Canadian, French Canadian, and many others. Myself I came to the realization a while ago that they are stupid myself, I'm nothing else but Canadian, I was born here, I live here, I'm going to die here (most likely), the only country that its my duty to "protect" is Canada, I dont have attachments to other countries, etc so I dont add anything to it as I'm not that. My backround is French and Greek as thats were both sides of my family moved from comming to Canada, but its not my nationality.

Hydrogen doesnt work, takes electricity to sperate it from the water, meaning your hydrogen will take more power to make then it will give. Remember the law of diminishing returns when it comes to any power source being used

Only way to use electrical only type vehicals is Nuclear power or Hydroelectric power with rechargable cells in my mind. Less wasted energy as its pretty much direct use of the electricity.

Dimitri

Oil reserves are diminishing. That is a fact.
We can't replace them. That is a fact.
Exhaust from burning fuels increases the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air. That is a fact
There are reactors that produce more fuel than they use. That is a fact
there are batteries that don't need to be recharged. That is a fact.
Hydrogen is only a clean fuel when used in the laboratory. In a car it won't use oxygen they will combine the Hydrogen with air that contains oxygen but it will add nitrogen, carbon, and a host of other things that combine under high temps and pressures. In operation hydrogen powered fuel cells will produce the same pollutants as alcohol and produce less than half the power per pound.

The reactors are called breeder reactors and they are in use in India and Japan. We shut all ours down and have laws against using them. They make plutonium for fuel. (or for bombs)
The batteries that never need to be charged are called "Air Cells" and as long as you have air moving across them they produce power. You will need some metal hydride batteries to get the car up to a speed where the air cells will take over and then they can recharge the metal hydride batteries and power the car. As long as you are on the freeway and at 60 MPH you are fine. Getting to the grocery store or to church on Sunday is where the power is really used up. You need enough metal hydride batteries to do the around town stop and go driving and get you back home to the charger.

In all the states except Alaska:
You can heat a house for less than a quarter of what it takes to heat it now. You can air condition a house for the cost of running a couple of window fans. This can be done with a complete air exchange in the house every hour. You can do this without any high tech expensive gadgets.
If we designed an electric car from the ground up it would be cheaper and more efficient than the hybrids are. You could use it to take long trips and back and forth to the grocery store and church. We can produce cheap nuclear electric power safely. The reactor that are built in Japan and India are "fail-safe" reactors that are designed in the USA. It isn't "popular" to do things like that in the USA so we give those technologies to others and buy oil from OPEC because it is popular. If you get the politics out of the equation you find all kinds of alternatives.

PaulS,

Japan uses Light water "Boiling water" reactors. India on the other hand uses heavy water CANDU type or there "in house" direvatives for the most part.

Heavy waters because of how efficant they are are used for breeder reactors not light water reactors (for the most part).

Also heavy water reactors based on the CANDU design dont need "enriched" uranium before it goes into the core like Light water reactors, because the heavy water allows the nutrons to be more efficant in the core and the lower tempuratures that the core runs means it will work more efficantly then LWR's. As long as its able to fission it will burn it no matter how weak or unpure it is.

Dimitri

Yes but both countries use recycled fuel to power their reactors. Their waste has the long half-life plutonium removed because they reuse it.
Why is it that we in the USA feel we need to bury it?

wont be cheep for long
I was told thay expect it to go up
to a bought 3.00 and as high as 6.00 by summer

happycamper,

Gas sort of hit a high now I dont think it will go any higher really.

Got to remember with the cost of gas as it is if it goes up anymore expecially to like 6$ a gallon 60-80% of people who buy gas wont be able to afford it anymore as it costs too much. And gas companys are smarter then to do that and risk losing a whole lot of profits and hurt their companies.

Dimitri

Well, how are you guys going to get powder, brass, bullets and primers reduced in price? Heck, they're cutting live power cables so they can steal the copper! Let's concentrate on the important stuff, like ammo. I think you've already got the world's energy crises whipped. Now, let's move on to important stuff like ammo. :)

Well...A17Shooter...There goes your "Nerves of Steel" ...Easy...Calm down...We'll get there...