This article will boil your blood

[kinetic]

no, i'm not saying that at all; i'm saying we are WAY too dependent on it, and should really spend less on it (not fill our tanks, whenever possible), and use that money to fund research to alternative fuels...because exxon-mobil is obviously more interested in corporate profits than the public interest.

[kinetic]

this is something that was contemplated back in the mid 1950s, but of course oil-barons cracked down on any perceived threat to their empire; so this is not idealistic thinking, this is quite feasible, and the so-called "high-cost" of research is just more of a dumbing tactic to make taxpayers think that it's cheaper to keep using hydrocarbon fuel.


it makes perfect sense, when you really think about it; the problem is, most people are just too lazy to even think about it, so they're in denial.

for instance, using large stills out in the great plains to distill grain alcohol was something I conteplated in high-school ('93), how would that be so expensive to utilize? It wouldn't be, we've just been told that it would be, and given all kinds of excuses why not to even pursue it.

[ October 30, 2005, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: kinetic ]

[camaro_speedemon]

Originally posted by kinetic:
this is something that was contemplated back in the mid 1950s, but of course oil-barons cracked down on any perceived threat to their empire; so this is not idealistic thinking, this is quite feasible, and the so-called "high-cost" of research is just more of a dumbing tactic to make taxpayers think that it's cheaper to keep using hydrocarbon fuel.


it makes perfect sense, when you really think about it; the problem is, most people are just too lazy to even think about it, so they're in denial.

for instance, using large stills out in the great plains to distill grain alcohol was something I thought about in high-school ('93), how would that be so expensive to utilize?

Ah Ok, I completely agree with you. I've been doing a little research on hydrogen fuel cells. It's way more efficient then internal combution, but its still too expensive, I want to say 3 times the cost to make as gas.

Unfortunately oil companies, like exxon, are doing everything they can do to stand in the way of new fuels.

There was an interesting motor designed by smokey yunick back in the 70 or 80s called the "hot vapor engine"

It worked like this, fuel would be injected into the intake, then it would use the hot exhaust gases to superheat the air, and a small turbo like compontant that vaporized the gas before combustion. The result was an extremely powerful and efficient engine, like 60 MPG with 150HP out of an V2, yes as in two cylinders. What happened to it? It wouldn't solve the problem, but it sure as hell would help.

Imagine how this would have revolutionized the industry. You'd be driving your 300-400HP V6 Z28 fbody getting 30-40 MPG.


Here's some articles about it http://www.bankspower.com/tech_coolair.cfm

http://schou.dk/hvce/

[kinetic]

yeah, then we're on the same page.

I posted the acetone threads a while back, as a sort
of side-thought, because I saw the rising cost of gas coming months before it even reached 2.59; it would work out noticeably for people that had to commute every week.

but here's the site I got the idea from http://freeenergynews.com/

i'm not a big fan of the combustion engine, used for everyday commuting, with it's measly 25% efficiency; and i can't afford a diesel (40%), or a hybrid yet ... but i'd definitely save my pennies towards an ethanol-burning ride. Yunick had a good idea going there, it's just too bad the "automotive giants" ignored his concept, over their own relatively ineffective ideas (god i hate groupthink)

ahh well, one could always do this to a camaro http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...11htp_charged/

cold fusion is definitely an interesting concept too

[ October 30, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: kinetic ]

[Mighty Thor]

Here a good article to keep in mind:

Writing in America's Asia Times, Henry C.K. Liu addresses "The real problems with $50 oil". Liu claims:

"According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the US had 21.8 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves as of January 1, 2001, twelfth-highest in the world."

and

"The United States now consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day, about 25% of world consumption of 84 million barrels"

So, just the US alone on just its proven reserves can meet current demand across the world for over 711 years! Where then is there any oil shortage and why the high oil price? Why can't oil extraction be ramped up?

Liu goes on to say that the only reason the US imports oil is because it is cheaper to do so than to extract domestic reserves. But with $600m a day being required to fund this import (higher than the cost of imports from China or Japan) and America's ballooning deficits this cannot make sense. Surely, the US is importing dollar-denominated oil to ramp up prices to other nations! Also, the higher the cost of oil the more important it is for nations to hold dollar assets to purchase oil, thus lending support to the dollar. The increased cost to the US which can print dollars at will, is a balance sheet problem, whilst the dollar can then purchase other non-oil items too. Is this what Liu means when he says it's cheaper?

Liu goes on to suggest that for all intents and purposes, Saudi Arabia's supply can be considered infinite in the short term and that the natural price of oil is about $14 per barrel in 1996 dollars, accounting for the costs of exploration, extraction refinement and ditribution. Given this, China and India's 2.4bn consumers' increasing use of motor vehicles seems more viable.

The clue to a probable explanation of the high oil price is also given in Liu's article. Higher commodity prices mean cost-pushed inflation which erodes debt. At the same time Liu claims, this does not appear on the government's headline inflation statistics, thus allowing the low interest rates and high monetary inflation to combat the deflation in the consumer goods which DO appear on government statistics.

The China factor fits neatly into this. Whilst providing the deflationary low cost goods to justify low interest rates, China also provides the cost-push commodities inflation with its oil demand. China and Japan even fund the debt with the purchase of US treasuries!

In summary, Liu seems to believe that the high oil price is manufactured to maintain the debt bubble in the Anglo-Saxon nations. However, he concludes that there is a possibility that it may still end in tears with a crash in the stock market as the high asset valuations due to high oil prices eventually collapse.


2005-05-27 07:19