Why are fuel dock prices so high?

[dacust]

It'd be $300 to fill up my truck over there. I really SHOULD feel lucky it only costs me $150 here in the US.

[fullafrisky]

A diminishing finite natural resource coupled with insatiable increasing demand equals global economic meltdown and social deterioration. You better get used to paying more for your fun. Our entire society is built upon the cheap energy of fossil fuels. The only substantial amounts of refinable oil are located under the sands of countries which generally despise and hate our Western democracy. When the supply of oil starts to run out, oh say in the next 20 years, the countries who own it will stop selling it to us and hoard it for their own needs. I would do the same thing if it meant my survival. At that point, there are only two alternatives; either break the oil habit and find some magical new source of renewable and cheap energy, or just take it from those who own it. So maybe this war in Iraq is either the greatest humanitarian blunder of recent times predicated on the basis of lies and deceit or it is a bold step forward in learning how to eventually take what we need from those weaker than ourselves. Kinda the way that all history has been played out. Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride!

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by fullafrisky

A diminishing finite natural resource coupled with insatiable increasing demand equals global economic meltdown and social deterioration. You better get used to paying more for your fun. Our entire society is built upon the cheap energy of fossil fuels. The only substantial amounts of refinable oil are located under the sands of countries which generally despise and hate our Western democracy. When the supply of oil starts to run out, oh say in the next 20 years, the countries who own it will stop selling it to us and hoard it for their own needs. I would do the same thing if it meant my survival. At that point, there are only two alternatives; either break the oil habit and find some magical new source of renewable and cheap energy, or just take it from those who own it. So maybe this war in Iraq is either the greatest humanitarian blunder of recent times predicated on the basis of lies and deceit or it is a bold step forward in learning how to eventually take what we need from those weaker than ourselves. Kinda the way that all history has been played out. Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride!

Yep, that would be about it!

[anotherT34C]

No magic required, only chemistry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/sc...arb.html?fta=y

Keep funding the smart people.

[klawrence]

The sun is where it is at.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

No magic required, only chemistry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/sc...arb.html?fta=y

Keep funding the smart people.

Interesting. They say they will need a power plant to run the process. But then discount the viability of electric cars because that simply pushes the load back on the power plants. They discount hydrogen cars by stating that most of the power would come from coal fired power plants. But if they can use nuclear power for the CO2-gas conversion, why not use it for electric cars? Or hydrogen? I would think it'd be more efficient to put that power straight into an electric car rather than in a process to convert carbon dioxide into gas. But of course they point out the other disadvantage of an electric, and that is range. A valid point.

Also it should be noted that those arguments I dismiss above may not have been direct from the scientists, but possibly from the journalist.

Regardless, it's an interesting concept and it's something I'll keep a watch on. Things like this have a habit of either fizzling out, or conversely turning into something that really works, sometimes for what they intended, and sometimes for purposes not in the original plan.

Originally Posted by klawrence

The sun is where it is at.

That will be true as soon as there is a breakthrough in solar cells. May not help the transportation industry as easily, but definitely should help in many areas. That is, unless they have a breakthrough in batteries for electric cars.



Either way, keep funding the smart people.

-dan

[anotherT34C]

Also it should be noted that those arguments I dismiss above may not have been direct from the scientists, but possibly from the journalist.

It was the journalist. You're correct of course that nuclear power -> electric car is more efficient. An electric replacement for say... jet fuel or our marine diesels is possibly not so forthcoming.

[Therapy]

But to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would require drastic cuts in emissions, and similar solutions do not exist for small, mobile sources of carbon dioxide. Nuclear and solar-powered cars do not seem plausible anytime soon.

Drastic cuts in emissions?? By us? Bunk!!

If every car and truck on the planet stopped tomorrow the amount of CO2 produced on this lovely earth would drop by an estimated 0.02% (that's right, 2 hundredths).

GW Bunk!!

And by the way, when the CO2 level charts are overlayed on temperature charts the CO2 levels are behind the temp rises not before. CO2 is not "the cause". Gore, et al should be muzzled.

[Den]

Originally Posted by Therapy

But to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would require drastic cuts in emissions, and similar solutions do not exist for small, mobile sources of carbon dioxide. Nuclear and solar-powered cars do not seem plausible anytime soon.

Drastic cuts in emissions?? By us? Bunk!!

If every car and truck on the planet stopped tomorrow the amount of CO2 produced on this lovely earth would drop by an estimated 0.02% (that's right, 2 hundredths).

GW Bunk!!

And by the way, when the CO2 level charts are overlayed on temperature charts the CO2 levels are behind the temp rises not before. CO2 is not "the cause". Gore, et al should be muzzled.

Bingo. Even the proponents of the Kyoto crap have used the "drop emissions by .02% in 100 years" like it was a number that meant something! Billions of dollars to achieve basically nothing. Go figure.

What Gore's followers DON'T know is he is head of or heavily invested in most of his "Carbon offsets" businesses and will make billions of dollars quite literally! Gore wouldn't know a "fact" if he tripped over it.

[GMac]

Drifting a little towards off topic Gents. A friendly reminder as political discussions usually go bad and we wouldn't like this thread going off the rails. Thanks.

[ireaney]

That's why a very high percentage of us in the UK drive small cars with engines that do as many miles to the gallon as possible.
Likewise where in the states most of your motor/power boats are petrol, in the UK they have historically been diesel.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Den

... What Gore's followers DON'T know is he is head of or heavily invested in most of his "Carbon offsets" businesses and will make billions of dollars quite literally! Gore wouldn't know a "fact" if he tripped over it.

Only if he's right about our futures being dramatically "carbon-restrained". Some might say that, in making sustainable investment* his business, he's putting his money, where his mouth is; whereas his critics (and global climate change deniers) claim that Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way, if more and more people buy into his "junk science".

* Generation Investment Management (sometimes disdainfully referred to as “Blood & Gore”, for his association with former Goldman Sachs chief executive David Blood).

[anotherT34C]

And by the way, when the CO2 level charts are overlayed on temperature charts the CO2 levels are behind the temp rises not before. CO2 is not "the cause". Gore, et al should be muzzled.

note: in interglacial/glacial cycles initial warming occurs via Milankovich cycles. The CO2 then rises, greatly exacerbates the warming, and carries it through a few more thousand years, until reabsorbed.

If every car and truck on the planet stopped tomorrow the amount of CO2 produced on this lovely earth would drop by an estimated 0.02% (that's right, 2 hundredths).

I don't suppose you want to PM me with a reference (from either a textbook or a journal article) for that claim?

Anybody who wishes to be schooled in climate science may PM me.

[klawrence]

just a note about solar cells which might benefit cruisers in the future -- NanoSolar is now selling $1/watt cells to large volume customers. They print them on thin sheets of .. something. details are a bit sparse, but their current capacity for production makes them able to produce 430MWatts per year, which right there is triple what is currently possible in the US. it will get cheaper too. Their 2008 product is already spoken for. Their goal is to mostly sell to municipalities which could create several farms on the outskirts of a city. These are cheap and very low maintenence.

as for batteries, EEStor in texas allegedly has some kind of super capacitor that should allow 5 minute charging and 300mi automobile range (if household wiring is improved). They have partnered with Zenn motor company of canada, and Lockheed has signed rights to use them exclusively in military contracts.

these things are just around the corner! I wouldn't worry too much about oil.

[klawrence]

really if people would just look at the end of life of a limited resource such as coal or oil as the action of planning ahead for when these things are not available, environmentalists, those opposed, and those who think it's just too politically charged would all be happy. it just makes sense to make your processes more efficient (this includes gas burning engines, which are hugely inefficient!)