On Oil and Taxes

[scott]

On Oil and Taxes
A post by Scott

Spurred on by a question posed by clambake in the now classic Why is oil below $50 right now? (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16281) thread, I've decided to make my best attempt to dispell some common misperceptions about tax breaks, holidays, increases, etc. and their respective effects on oil markets.

The question posed, and one no doubt that goes through the minds of millions of Americans, was "can you tell me why any company that makes billions in record profits deserves tax breaks?"

On the surface it would certainly seem unnecessary (and maybe even sickening) to provide tax relief to companies that, from a pure dollar perspective, have been raking in unprecedented profits.

Now, before I go any further I need to provide some disclaimer information and make one (bound to be ignored) request.

First, for simplicity's sake and due to the existence of more than one outstanding non-disclosure agreement, I won't get into specific details of actual oil industry projects.

The request: while I certainly have no authority to enforce any sort of etiquette in these forms, I politely ask that individuals conduct themselves as adults in my thread. If your clever nicknames or curse words for politicians, political groups or other posters don't add any value to the discussion other than to inflame tensions, then you should probably leave it out.

If you think you've got it all already figured out and nothing I post here could ever possibly change your mind, then you don't need to read any further, nor do you even need to bother responding, unless you feel you are adding value to the discussion ("It's all Clinton/Bush/Satan/Manu Ginobili's fault" does not constitute adding value).

The Proposals

There are generally speaking three proposals being tossed around the political arena these days, and I'll address the merits and pitfalls of each.

What is important to remember when evaluating any of these proposals is the context of the objective. This seems to be forgotten in any sort of discussion. Most people have one of a few objectives in mind (and sometimes all of them):


Lower energy prices (specifically gasoline)
Reduced dependence on foreign commodity supplies (specifically oil)
Reduce energy demand/usage/emissions


What is most troubling to me when listening to people argue solutions to achieving these objectives, is that most people have both of the first two objectives in mind despite the fact that they are often times in direct conflict with one another.

So, as I go through the pros and cons of proposed solutions, I will be doing so with strict regard to achieving the objective. There WILL be both positive and negative externalities that result while attempting to reach these objectives. The most notable of these externalities is record profits by oil companies. The existence of these record profits are IRRELEVANT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION, unless we have previously specified that we want to limit profits (but if everyone else's objectives are met, why would we care about limiting profits?).

You should note, that profits are not related to prices. It is possible for you to pay $4/gal in gasoline while oil companies lose money, and it is possible for you to make $1/gal while they rake in record profits. For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that so long our main objective is achieved, we don't care what kind of profits these private industry companies make.

Again, keep your eye on the objective. We will focus on the three listed above.

Proposal 1: The Gas Tax Holiday

I start with this one, because to the average consumer is may seem like a good idea, but in reality it is the absolute worst in terms of the objectives.

To summarize, John McCain has proposed federal gasoline taxes be suspended temporarily to provide price relief to consumers. Let us evaluate with strict relation to the objectives.

Objective A: Lower gasoline prices. On the surface, it would appear to meet this objective. We subtract off a tax, so the price is lower... right?

Unfortunately, no. The demand for gasoline is based solely on the price at the pump. How that price per gallon gets divided between a station owner, the government, a refinery or an OPEC nation has zero impact on demand. Oil prices, pipelines in Iraq, ethanol tanks in Iowa... none of those have any impact on the demand for gasoline. (They do have an impact on the SUPPLY of gasoline, another issue).

Demand and supply are at their equilibrium (for now we ignore questions of market speculation and how is has impacted oil prices - as it is irrelevant to the evaluation of a tax holiday) at current prices. A tax holiday would have ZERO impact on this equilibrium. Essentially the tax would be removed from the supply side of the equation, and theoretically (after refineries, pipelines, and terminals are allowed to catch up) supply would increase slightly. For a brief moment this could provide some price relief, but would be immediately washed away by a corresponding increase in demand. Supply and demand would eventually recalibrate to the point they are already at. Instead of the intended result, all we've done is shift revenue from the government to profit for some private industry organization (or worse, foreign country).

Objective B: Reduced Dependence on Foreign Sources of Oil. If there were any impact here, it would be in the wrong direction. If demand were to increase as the result of even the slightest price reduction, the supply of oil would need to be filled by a foreign source. Thus we have increased our dependence.

Objective C: Reduced Demand/Usage/Emissions. As we've seen, at best usage remains constant, at worst it increases.

So, none of our objectives are possibly met by this proposal, and it should be immediately discounted. Also, when thinking of the gas tax holiday, I always like to point out that you don't ween someone off crack by providing them with cheaper crack. So even if prices were lower, is that what we want?

Next: Windfall Profit Taxes

[scott]

Proposal 2: The Windfall Profits Tax

The Democrat controlled congress recently failed in there attempt to pass a Windfall Profits Tax on oil companies. Essentially it would tax any profit above what is deemed a "normal" amount. It is important to question what constitutes a normal amount. Typically profits need to be viewed in terms of the revenues required to generate them, and it is worth noting that oil company profit margins remain significantly below other industries. That, on its own, does mean a windfall tax idea is bad or good... but it is important to keep in mind.

Objective A: Lower Gasoline Prices. The way a tax would be instituted is important in evaluating this objective. If it were based on the dollar amount of profits ("X% tax on all profits over $X billion") then the effects would be strikingly different than if it were based on profit margin ("X% tax on all profit margin over X%").

Because of the level of complexity this adds, I'll skip ahead to the basic result as dictated by fundemental economic theory. A windfall profits tax, when it becomes binding, acts like any tax and results in a decrease in supply (a shift to the left of the supply curve) as a tax adds to supply costs. Less supply means, all else equal, higher prices.

Objective Failed.

Objective B: Reduced Dependence on Foreign Sources of Oil and
Objective C: Reduced demand/usage/emissions.

I am coupling the two together because in this case they are one in the same.

The world's best rationing mechanism is higher prices, and higher prices is what would result. The demand for gasoline (and thereby oil) would be significantly reduced and the high price of these goods would provide incentive for alternative sources of energy.

A downside, of course, is that this would be extremely painful for US consumers. But, pain might be what the doctor ordered. Amongst Monetary Economists, Paul Volker is held in high regard for taming inflation in the early 80s. Of course, his means of doing this was to create a recession. When faced with two options, you have to take the least painful one, even if it is still painful in itself. The windfall profits tax would create real demand destruction, which would reduce our dependence on oil period, both foreign and domestic. It would also cause a global recession.

Another downside is the message it sends to those with capital to invest in assets to produce valuable resources down the road. If we are willing to place a cap on the profits of one thing, will we do the same for something else down the line? That risk my drive people away from investing dollars into new assets.

Objective achieved, with some important caveats.

Next: Tax "Breaks" for Oil Companies

[scott]

Proposal 3: Tax "Breaks" (or their repeal) for Oil Companies.

Here is the question that originally spawned this post.

First, there are a lot of misconceptions about what tax breaks oil companies currently receive. What they do NOT get, is a across the board reduction in their tax rates.

What they DO receive, is tax reductions or abatements on certain projects. Specifically here are items from the energy bill that are lumped into the "tax breaks for oil companies" number that you often hear quoted (usually $14.5 to $17 billion):

Refinery capacity expansion
Exploration and production of traditional energy resources (oil, gas, etc.)
Research, development and implementation of alternative energy sources
Consumer tax credits for purchase of hybrid vehicles and more energy efficient home appliances


So, let's evaluate against the objectives.

Objective A: Lower Gasoline Prices. The tax breaks are designed to provide incentive to either a) increase supply or, to a much smaller degree b) reduce demand (tax credit for a hybrid reduces demand, as you use less in your hybrid).

Assuming they do so, then the objective is achieved.

It is easy at this point to point out Exxon Mobile made $40 billion of profit last year, and they should need no incentive to make these investments. That would be a fallacy. Like in all industries, investment opportunities are evaluated based on their potential returns. Just because ExxonMobil has a bunch of extra money, doesn't mean they are going to spend it on a project that may not pay out. There would be a shareholder revolt if they started investing in questionable projects simply because they had nothing else to do with their money.

The tax credit on refinery expansion and E&P projects are designed to provide incentive for these companies to go forward with projects that otherwise would not meet return objectives. This is similar to how a company like Toyota decides to build a truck factory on the south side. They received a tax abatement for a certain number of years, because it made the project more economic. Without that tax break, they might not build that plant. The same is true of the oil company. The fact an oil company has a lot of money is irrelevant to whether a tax incentive is required to make a project economic.

I saw a post the other day about shale deposits in Montana. This is a great example of where tax breaks are needed if you want to get that supply out of the ground. Otherwise, it just doesn't make economic sense, even with billions in the bank.

At the same time, the tax break does turn buying a hybrid into a good economic choice (especially at $4/gal). I ran my model the other day, and the 5-year return on a hybrid with a $2,000 tax credit (offsetting a $2,000 hybrid premium) at $4/gal, 12k miles a year and 15 mpg increase in efficiency was over 97%. That, my friends, is a good investment.

Objective met.

Objective 2: Reduce dependence on foreign oil. This is a tricky one. Any reduction in the demand for oil would reduce our foreign dependence.

But if we assume demand is not directly affected by the tax credit package, and supply increases and thus drops price, the quantity demanded would be higher as a result of the lower price (remember econ 101... lower price = higher quantity demanded). Because the elasticities (slopes) of the supply and demand curves are not equal, there is no promise that we will have decreased our consumption of foreign oil at all. In fact, it is possible that the increased demand would be greater than the increased domestic supply and we will have actually increased our dependence.

But if the incentives were all geared towards alternative energy sources (and let's not bring up ethanol), then you certainly meet the objective by shifting away from oil all together.

Objective met? Maybe, but depends on a lot of factors and we could actually make things worse.

Objective 3: Reduced Usage/Demand/Emissions. Here is another "depends". If we only focus on increasing the supply of traditional energy sources, then we could very likely result in HIGHER usage.

But if the tax incentives were geared towards alternatives or demand reduction, then yes, we meet the objective.

Objective met? Maybe.

Conclusion: There are good reasons for providing tax breaks to companies raking in record profits, depending on your objective. If your objective is to increase oil supply, then most certainly you would meet that objective by providing tax incentives.

So... the question I have, is what are YOUR objectives for an energy policy? In my opinion that is what is severely lacking by our politicians, so we get a number of disjointed policies that practically contradict another.

Your turn.


Scott is a random guy on the internet (but not THE Random Guy) who knows about economics, oil, beer, and not much else. He'd prefer to talk about beer.

[jochhejaam]

Proposal 1: The Gas Tax Holiday


Demand and supply are at their equilibrium (for now we ignore questions of market speculation and how is has impacted oil prices - as it is irrelevant to the evaluation of a tax holiday) at current prices. A tax holiday would have ZERO impact on this equilibrium. Essentially the tax would be removed from the supply side of the equation, and theoretically (after refineries, pipelines, and terminals are allowed to catch up) supply would increase slightly. For a brief moment this could provide some price relief, but would be immediately washed away by a corresponding increase in demand. Supply and demand would eventually recalibrate to the point they are already at. Instead of the intended result, all we've done is shift revenue from the government to profit for some private industry organization (or worse, foreign country).

Objective C: Reduced Demand/Usage/Emissions. As we've seen, at best usage remains constant, at worst it increases.



The Federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gas. The current price of gas is roughly 4 dollars per gallon, and 4.50 per gallon of diesel, so we're talking less than a 4 to 5 percent discount on a gallon of gas. If you can't afford $4.00 a gallon, you more than likely can't afford $3.82 a gallon. If that's the case then the demand doesn't go up, so the price per gallon, which fluctuates by demand, doesn't go up.

Correct me if I'm wrong here scott.



BTW, I'm not in favor of the Holiday Gas Tax, it's little more than a gimmick, and just doesn't give the type of relief low wage earners are in need of.

[scott]

The Federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gas. The current price of gas is roughly 4 dollars per gallon, and 4.50 per gallon of diesel, so we're talking less than a 4 to 5 percent discount on a gallon of gas. If you can't afford $4.00 a gallon, you more than likely can't afford $3.82 a gallon. If that's the case then the demand doesn't go up, so the price per gallon, which fluctuates by demand, doesn't go up.

Correct me if I'm wrong here scott.



BTW, I'm not in favor of the Holiday Gas Tax, it's little more than a gimmick, and just doesn't give the type of relief low wage earners are in need of.

Well, first I need to get a little technical on the part I put in bold above.

You can interpret the price-quantity relationship in two ways. One, demanded drives price, or two, price drives quantity demanded. In this case, we'd be talking about the second.

When demand changes for something other than a response in prices, then prices respond. We call this a change in demand, and (graphically) the entire demand curve shifts. When demand responds to a change in prices (which would be the case here) we call it a change in the quantity demanded, and we have a movement along the same demand curve.

Quantity demanded increases with even a 1 penny decline in price, all else equal, so certainly an 18 cent decrease in price would result in higher demand. But, like I said - price wouldn't actually decrease - the money that was previously taxes will just go into the pocket of someone else who is not the government - at least until supply responds, but as I (think I) outlined, we eventually end up in the same place, at best.

The Holiday isn't even a gimmick in my mind, it's just the stupidest idea I've heard yet, given our current set of objectives.

[2centsworth]

Well done Scott. We need to provide tax incentives to automobile manfacturers to increase fuel effeciencies. There's no reason why we can't get the averages to 40-50 mpg. Additionally, we need to drill and build refinaries in the states until we can make acceptable alternative energy sources mainstream.

my 2cents

[jochhejaam]

Well, first I need to get a little technical on the part I put in bold above.

You can interpret the price-quantity relationship in two ways. One, demanded drives price, or two, price drives quantity demanded. In this case, we'd be talking about the second.

When demand changes for something other than a response in prices, then prices respond. We call this a change in demand, and (graphically) the entire demand curve shifts. When demand responds to a change in prices (which would be the case here) we call it a change in the quantity demanded, and we have a movement along the same demand curve.

Quantity demanded increases with even a 1 penny decline in price, all else equal, so certainly an 18 cent decrease in price would result in higher demand. But, like I said - price wouldn't actually decrease - the money that was previously taxes will just go into the pocket of someone else who is not the government - at least until supply responds, but as I (think I) outlined, we eventually end up in the same place, at best.

The Holiday isn't even a gimmick in my mind, it's just the stupidest idea I've heard yet, given our current set of objectives.

Surprised about the info regarding the increase in demand per penny, but I get it scott, thanks.

edit: Surprised = educated

[2centsworth]

demand wouldn't necessarily increase proportionately. A 1 penny decline in price wouldn't necessarily result in a 1 penny increase in demand.

[scott]

Well done Scott. We need to provide tax incentives to automobile manfacturers to increase fuel effeciencies. There's no reason why we can't get the averages to 40-50 mpg. Additionally, we need to drill and build refinaries in the states until we can make acceptable alternative energy sources mainstream.

my 2cents

I agree. Personally I'd also like to see more aggressive incentives on the demand side of the equation, and let that help drive supply.

I think consumer tax incentives for hybrids are a good start, but how about a tax credit for someone who buys a car with 30+ mpg? How about even great incentive over 40 mpg? How about a significant gas guzzler tax for vehicles that only get 10 mpg? It won't take long before you see a 40 mpg Tahoe, IMO, if the incentives are in the right place.

[scott]

Surprised about the info regarding the increase in demand per penny, but I get it scott, thanks.

edit: Surprised = educated

2cents already hit it a bit... a penny decrease in price may only mean a small increase in demand... but it is there.

[2centsworth]

I agree. Personally I'd also like to see more aggressive incentives on the demand side of the equation, and let that help drive supply.

I think consumer tax incentives for hybrids are a good start, but how about a tax credit for someone who buys a car with 30+ mpg? How about even great incentive over 40 mpg? How about a significant gas guzzler tax for vehicles that only get 10 mpg? It won't take long before you see a 40 mpg Tahoe, IMO, if the incentives are in the right place.

I'm with you. I also believe the free market is starting to work, because car dealers are loaded with gas guzzlers and can't keep fuel effecient models in stock. I traded in my Sequoia 2 years ago and now drive a Matrix that gets me 36 mpg hwy and 30 mpg city. We'll start to see more of it, but expiditing the process with agressive tax policies makes sense to me.

[ElNono]

Interesting writeup Scott, thanks for taking the time.
My take on this is that an oil company has little incentive, if any, to invest time and money on alternative energy sources, since there's much more money to be made on a product in limited supply. That's just basic business sense. Now, I wouldn't necessarily add any taxing on them, because of the reasons you explained above.
What I would personally would like to see is a severe shift in the auto market. And I think it's starting to happen. Unfortunately Detroit has spent more money in recent years doing R&D in the perfect cupholder size or the biggest SUV they can build, instead of bringing up the prototype hybrid and hydrogen cars to market.
And I personally think that if we're going to give tax breaks, we should be really be giving them to companies that are making a serious effort to bring products using these alternative energy sources to market.

[Nbadan]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2002-01/1760593.jpg
Wanted

Nice thread Scott, thanks for taking some valuable time...even I don't think messing with windfall taxes or a tax holiday will result in significantly lower gas prices for consumers, but there is something legislators can do to put a dead stop and even reverse oil future speculation sneaked into legislation by Phil Gramm...and lower oil prices by as much as 25% overnight....


Michael Greenberger, the former head of the CFTC's Division of Trading and Markets, testified yesterday before the Senate Commerce Committee on the topic of Energy Market Manipulation.

He stated that former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas sneaked the Enron loophole through a large piece of insignificant legislation years ago: the result was that regulations upon the futures industry were abandoned.

Greenberger said that legislation immediately closing the Enron Loophole with a broader, international scope would stop market manipultion and would cause oil prices to plunge over 25% overnight.

As early as the winter of 2002, it was widely known that the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act had created a monster, capable of running up energy prices outside of the normal law of supply and demand.

Worse, our government had been warned this was going to happen. Representatives of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC had already told Congress not to deregulate energy because "the market was ripe for manipulation."

Professor Greenberger warned about our "New American Economy" far better than I could:

"Should we have an economy that’s based on whether people make good or bad bets? Or should we have an economy where people build companies, create manufacturing, do inventions, advance the American society and make it more productive? We are rewarding people for sitting at their computers and punching in bets. That’s not the way our economy is going to be built, and India and China, with their focus on science and industry and building real businesses, are going to eat our lunch, unless the American public wakes up and puts an end to an economy that praises and makes heroes out of speculators."

Greenberger’s statement explains why Detroit and other American manufacturers suffer while Wall Street speculators make a fortune — and your rapidly shrinking checkbook pays for it, every time you buy food, fuel or feed.

All because there is no shortage of these goods, you’re just being told there is because it’s more profitable – for a few – that way.

Link (http://seekingalpha.com/article/80010-greenberger-s-testimony-i-banks-control-the-energy-market)

The Enron Loophole is about to be shut down if Bush does NOT veto this legislation: (http://www.closetheenronloophole.com/ )

[scott]

I think it is really the topic for another thread, but there is definite market manipulation going on with regards to the prompt oil price. On any given day, 400 million barrels of crude oil is exchanged on the open market, excluding any direct contracts between refiners and oil producers. Oil demand is only 87 million barrels a day.

The other day, over 1 billion barrels of oil changed hands.

This isn't because liquidity is making oil an efficient market, it is because people who have no business owning oil (speculators) have jumped into the market.

An interesting statistic. It is estimated that the increased demand for oil by OIL SPECULATORS since 2002 is as big as the increased demand for oil by the Country of China in the same period.

And now we have all of these long-only commodity funds, which have monetized these commodities, and thus we no longer have a commodity value based solely on the intrinsic properties of the material. Instead oil is being used as a store of value, driving up costs significantly.

[MannyIsGod]

I think it is really the topic for another thread, but there is definite market manipulation going on with regards to the prompt oil price. On any given day, 400 million barrels of crude oil is exchanged on the open market, excluding any direct contracts between refiners and oil producers. Oil demand is only 87 million barrels a day.

The other day, over 1 billion barrels of oil changed hands.

This isn't because liquidity is making oil an efficient market, it is because people who have no business owning oil (speculators) have jumped into the market.

An interesting statistic. It is estimated that the increased demand for oil by OIL SPECULATORS since 2002 is as big as the increased demand for oil by the Country of China in the same period.

And now we have all of these long-only commodity funds, which have monetized these commodities, and thus we no longer have a commodity value based solely on the intrinsic properties of the material. Instead oil is being used as a store of value, driving up costs significantly.

Thats actually fairly amazing and I'd never thought of it in that manner.

[Homeland Security]

I think it is really the topic for another thread, but there is definite market manipulation going on with regards to the prompt oil price. On any given day, 400 million barrels of crude oil is exchanged on the open market, excluding any direct contracts between refiners and oil producers. Oil demand is only 87 million barrels a day.

The other day, over 1 billion barrels of oil changed hands.

This isn't because liquidity is making oil an efficient market, it is because people who have no business owning oil (speculators) have jumped into the market.

An interesting statistic. It is estimated that the increased demand for oil by OIL SPECULATORS since 2002 is as big as the increased demand for oil by the Country of China in the same period.

And now we have all of these long-only commodity funds, which have monetized these commodities, and thus we no longer have a commodity value based solely on the intrinsic properties of the material. Instead oil is being used as a store of value, driving up costs significantly.
You better shut up right now or plan on a slow, painful death at Gitmo.

[1369]

Scott, one of the things I hear is that the oil companies do not have to pay certain royalities to the gov't on some of the lease blocks in the Gulf. Any truth to this, and if so, would that fall into the "tax break" column?

Also, what's your take on Real Ale's "Firemans #4 Blonde Ale "? (http://realalebrewing.com/beer_styles.php)

[RandomGuy]

I ran my model the other day, and the 5-year return on a hybrid with a $2,000 tax credit (offsetting a $2,000 hybrid premium) at $4/gal, 12k miles a year and 15 mpg increase in efficiency was over 97%. That, my friends, is a good investment.

Parameters?

Don't be afraid to be very specific/technical here.

I am looking into to whether or not to keep my old, paid-for jalopy, and I would find any economic analysis of various vehicle solutions helpful.

I will take some time on my coffee break later to work up my own analysis.

[RandomGuy]

Scott, one of the things I hear is that the oil companies do not have to pay certain royalities to the gov't on some of the lease blocks in the Gulf. Any truth to this, and if so, would that fall into the "tax break" column?

Also, what's your take on Real Ale's "Firemans #4 Blonde Ale "? (http://realalebrewing.com/beer_styles.php)

If I may:
Not paying normal royalties are indeed counted as a tax break. Royalties are simply a fancy word for what is, in effect, a tax. A rose by any other name...

The RealAle brewing company puts out my absolute favorite beer, the Brewhouse Brown Ale.

If it is fresh and kept cool, I have never tasted a better brown ale. Perfect blend of hops, sweetness, and malt roasting. My opinion of course.
My problem with my favorite beer is in distribution. If the batch sits around too long unrefridgerated, it gets funky. This makes it a real crapshoot at the store.

On to the Fireman's #4 blonde ale, I tried it once out of respect for the brand and was pleased with the results. Heh, I may have to "refresh" my memory this weekend though. :toast

[RandomGuy]

It won't take long before you see a 40 mpg Tahoe, IMO, if the incentives are in the right place.

My understanding:

A 40 mpg Tahoe would be a physical impossibility, unless driven under VERY specific conditions. (no stops at all, and always driven at about 48 miles per hour with a significant weight reduction) It is simply just too big and heavy to get even close to that range.

Possible? Yes, but it would be so redesigned and reduced in size that we wouldn't really consider it in the same class.

[xrayzebra]

Scott, very good read and educational. One thing I think
you left out was not all OILCO's are striking it rich in these
times. Valero is hurting, because they are in the refining
business and have to buy oil just like everyone else. I
believe their profits are way down. I am providing a link
to the story I am referring to.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121098026740200051.html?mod=googlenews_barrons

[2centsworth]

My understanding:

A 40 mpg Tahoe would be a physical impossibility, unless driven under VERY specific conditions. (no stops at all, and always driven at about 48 miles per hour with a significant weight reduction) It is simply just too big and heavy to get even close to that range.

Possible? Yes, but it would be so redesigned and reduced in size that we wouldn't really consider it in the same class.


it's called advances in technology. Considering all the technological accomplishments of this country a 40 mpg Tahoe should be a piece of cake.

[Extra Stout]

It won't take long before you see a 40 mpg Tahoe, IMO, if the incentives are in the right place.
If Chevrolet stuck a Tahoe badge on a 2500-lb hatchback, maybe.

[Extra Stout]

it's called advances in technology. Considering all the technological accomplishments of this country a 40 mpg Tahoe should be a piece of cake.
Absolute piece of cake.

Your 2012 Chevy Tahoe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Opel_Zafira_08-7-2005_silver_vr.jpg/250px-Opel_Zafira_08-7-2005_silver_vr.jpg

[101A]

It won't take long before you see a 40 mpg Tahoe, IMO, if the incentives are in the right place.

The laws of physics, ultimately must be obeyed.

40mpg 2.5 to 3 ton vehicle is not at all feasible in the near future.

However, if the govt. would ease up on some of the safety restrictions on cars, VERY light vehicles, with minimum power requirements would result. It ridiculous that I can go buy a motorcycle, which obviously haw NO seatbelt, bumpers, etc...but if someone puts a third and fourth wheel on that ride, I need not only belts, but side impact protection (big heavy steel bars), and a bank of airbags to boot!

[Extra Stout]

The laws of physics, ultimately must be obeyed.

40mpg 2.5 to 3 ton vehicle is not at all feasible in the near future.

However, if the govt. would ease up on some of the safety restrictions on cars, VERY light vehicles, with minimum power requirements would result. It ridiculous that I can go buy a motorcycle, which obviously haw NO seatbelt, bumpers, etc...but if someone puts a third and fourth wheel on that ride, I need not only belts, but side impact protection (big heavy steel bars), and a bank of airbags to boot!

It seems to me that a fair number of the safety requirements we've adopted in the last 10 years came in order to compensate for the proliferation of 6000-lb SUV with bumpers that bash into your head if you're driving a normal car.

[clambake]

very good scott.

i should have been a bit more clear with my question because it was spawned from all the nonsense being spewed by republican senators.

everyone thinks that free range drilling will give specific relief to american consumers. we all know this is a hoax. it would all be produced for the world market and american consumers would have to foot the bill for materials, construction, labor, housing, transportation, distribution...you name it.

it would be better for struggling americans if other countries did the drilling and foot the bill, because it will have no effect on american oil indepedence.

[2centsworth]

Absolute piece of cake.

Your 2012 Chevy Tahoe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Opel_Zafira_08-7-2005_silver_vr.jpg/250px-Opel_Zafira_08-7-2005_silver_vr.jpg
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

(reads 101A and Extra Stout)

I guess I am not alone in thinking that.

One thing that would easily improve actual gas mileage for the entire USA, as well as reduce automotive fatalities:

Go back to 55mph national speed limit.

Engines, from what I understand from my brother in law who is smart and has actually studied engine design/engineering, have to be designed with ONE optimal speed. In US cars that speed is usually around 45-55 mph. This is usually what is estimated to be the average speed that the car will be driven at.

[Extra Stout]

it would be better for struggling americans if other countries did the drilling and foot the bill, because it will have no effect on american oil indepedence.
For example the blue-eyed sheiks of the United Albertan Emirates.

[2centsworth]

very good scott.



everyone thinks that free range drilling will give specific relief to american consumers. we all know this is a hoax. it would all be produced for the world market and american consumers would have to foot the bill for materials, construction, labor, housing, transportation, distribution...you name it.



please be more specific. Where do you come up with American consumers paying for the business expenses?

[johnsmith]

I have no idea where this came from but it was emailed to me this morning.


President Reagan liked to say, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple ones." This principle applies to America's energy woes. Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the price of a gallon of gas has soared from $2.33 per gallon to over $4. Furthermore, over the next two decades, global demand for oil is expected to rise by 50%, meaning that further price escalation is almost inevitable. When confronted by these facts, the energy solution - as President Reagan would say - is simple. We need more energy! We should be increasing our production of oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power – and those resources should come from America, instead of foreign dictatorships. Unfortunately, enacting this agenda won't be easy. The Democratic Leadership in Congress is determined to "punish" energy companies with new taxes, even if the greatest victim of those taxes is the American consumer.

The Democratic nominee for President, Senator Barack Obama, is eager to burden oil producers with a "windfall profits tax" - a euphemistic phrase that implies an undue or undeserved "profit." As Alan Greenspan once said, "Whatever you tax, you get less of." By raising taxes, and thereby, reducing the incentives to produce energy, the consequences of this policy are obvious: we will end up with a smaller supply of domestic energy. But don't just take my word for it; take a look at history. In 1980, Congress passed a "windfall profits tax" and the consequences were devastating. In the six years following that levy, domestic oil production dropped by 1.26 billion barrels and imports of foreign oil rose 13%. The "windfall profits tax" was an unmitigated disaster, which is precisely why it was repealed. We shouldn't make that same mistake again.

Instead of searching for scapegoats, we should be striving to create a bold, comprehensive plan for America's energy security in the 21st century. Specifically, this will require overturning literally decades of Big-Government regulations that have prevented energy companies from tapping America's bountiful natural resources. So many people in Washington have grown accustomed to the idea that we must either import oil from the Middle East or make an expensive transition toward homegrown fuels like corn-based ethanol. This is a false choice. One of the best kept secrets in politics today is that our country is one of the richest energy nations in the world, and is extremely capable of achieving energy independence - but only if we have the willpower to do it.

When investigating America's assortment of energy problems, a common theme starts to emerge: the more you look around, the more you'll find government taxes, regulations, and subsidies that distort the market, raise prices, and increase our dependence on dictators thousands of miles away.

In May I joined my Senate Republican colleagues to introduce legislation that would go a long way toward solving our energy problems. How? By increasing the supply through development of our own natural resources. Our bill, The American Energy Production Act of 2008, will remove unnecessary government barriers to domestic energy production.

The most obvious example of unnecessary federal interference is the ban on oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Despite its lofty name, ANWR is not all a pristine Eden. Rather, the area that would be drilled is a frozen tundra where temperatures can reach 70 degrees below zero in the winter. As even the Washington Post admitted, ANWR "is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life." In 1995, the Republican Congress passed legislation to open ANWR - which is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil - for energy production. But President Clinton vetoed our bill. If he had signed it, today America would be producing almost enough oil to replace all of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia. By consistently blocking ANWR production, we are failing to help America become less dependent on foreign imports for basic economic needs.

But the problem goes beyond ANWR. Current federal law prevents oil and gas production in the deepwaters off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. These laws, which were first passed in 1981 when the price of oil was $35 per barrel, were a luxury at the time, but today, given America's growing energy needs, they are indefensible. The fact is, these areas, along with another energy-rich section of the Gulf of Mexico, could contain as much as 115 billion barrels of oil - which is greater than Venezuela's current reserves - and 565 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - which is greater than the combined reserves of Iraq, China, Yemen, Oman, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Federal laws also prevent us from exploiting one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah - an amazing amount that is three times what Saudi Arabia has on reserve. Our bill, The American Energy Production Act of 2008, would allow us to tap these resources with environmental safeguards.

As conservatives, we must unite to repeal one of the most misguided policies of the last decade - government mandates to increase the production of corn-based ethanol. These policies - which give incentives to farmers to divert their plantings from other crops to corn in order to produce ethanol - have been robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food.

Since February 2006, the shift in farming habits has caused the price of corn, wheat and soybeans to increase by more than 200%. Rising food prices are hitting the pockets of lower-income Americans and people who live on fixed incomes. Food riots are breaking out in some parts of the globe, and relief organizations are facing gaping shortfalls as the cost of food outpaces their ability to provide aid for 800 million people.

I have introduced legislation that would freeze the corn-based biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2015, which is the present policy. This is a commonsense measure that will reduce pressure on global food prices and restore balance to America's energy policy.

The rush to embrace corn-based biofuels stemmed from a belief that America must increase its use of alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But if that's the mission - and it's a worthy one -we must embrace more economically-viable energy sources such as solar power, wind power, and especially nuclear power - which, in addition to being a reliable and affordable energy source, emits almost no carbon gasses. The best way to broaden our energy portfolio is through American ingenuity, not Washington bureaucracy.

On all of these energy-related issues - preventing tax hikes, reducing government regulations, repealing mandates, and accelerating innovation - the American people are solidly behind us. The Democrats, however, have an ace up their sleeves - or so it seems. They feel empowered to challenge plans to increase supply - instead preferring to demagogue the profits of oil companies.

In 2007, the oil industry's profit margins were 7.6 percent of revenues, which is not much higher than the 5.8 percent profit margin for all U.S. manufacturing. In fact, if you exclude the financially troubled auto industry, the oil industry actually appears less profitable than most manufacturers, which are earning 9.2 cents on every dollar of sales. America's energy problem isn't oil company profits; it's a changing global energy market - in which demand is surging while supply is remaining largely stagnant. As President Reagan might say, the simple solution is to increase the domestic energy supply to lower prices - precisely the opposite of what the Democrats are advocating.

Conservatives are well poised to lead a pro-growth energy program that could create millions of jobs and secure our economy. But wherever possible, we should look for allies across the political spectrum. We can find allies among national security Democrats who understand that energy independence is a vital component of winning the War on Terror. We could also find friends in the environmental community, where concerns over corn-based ethanol and the carbon emissions necessary to produce it have grown considerably. Respect for nuclear power has also accelerated.

This year, we will spend about $500 billion to import oil. All of those dollars should stay here in America, instead of being sent to corrupt regimes that are hostile to our interests. We need energy for Americans by Americans, and we need it now. At a time when conservatives are playing defense on so many issues, energy is one issue where we can go on offense and win. Victory would be good for our party, and better yet, it would be good for our country

[RandomGuy]

However, if the govt. would ease up on some of the safety restrictions on cars, VERY light vehicles, with minimum power requirements would result. It ridiculous that I can go buy a motorcycle, which obviously haw NO seatbelt, bumpers, etc...but if someone puts a third and fourth wheel on that ride, I need not only belts, but side impact protection (big heavy steel bars), and a bank of airbags to boot!

I concur.

Heh, but make the drivers wear helmets?

I think such cars WILL be around, especially as US cities WILL get more dense. Really small cars make a lot of sense if you don't have to drive 15 miles to get to the grocery store. (RG thankfully only has to drive 1/3 of a mile to his local grocery store)

[Extra Stout]

(reads 101A and Extra Stout)

I guess I am not alone in thinking that.

One thing that would easily improve actual gas mileage for the entire USA, as well as reduce automotive fatalities:

Go back to 55mph national speed limit.

Engines, from what I understand from my brother in law who is smart and has actually studied engine design/engineering, have to be designed with ONE optimal speed. In US cars that speed is usually around 45-55 mph. This is usually what is estimated to be the average speed that the car will be driven at.
This gets back to worldview. I've slowed down to 60-65 and I keep right without the government telling me what to do. I don't need the government to tell me to slow down. Neither do the other people on the road who have slowed down. If the yahoos (usually in pickup trucks) want to spend the extra money to go 80, let them.

People aren't going to slow down to 55 because the government passes a law. Never have, never will. They'll slow down because it saves them a measurable amount of money that they want or need to save.

All the liberal so-called solutions to get people to stop buying gas-guzzling SUV's couldn't do in ten years what $4 gas did in one month.

[2centsworth]

(reads 101A and Extra Stout)

I guess I am not alone in thinking that.

One thing that would easily improve actual gas mileage for the entire USA, as well as reduce automotive fatalities:

Go back to 55mph national speed limit.

Engines, from what I understand from my brother in law who is smart and has actually studied engine design/engineering, have to be designed with ONE optimal speed. In US cars that speed is usually around 45-55 mph. This is usually what is estimated to be the average speed that the car will be driven at.


restricting freedom even more shouldn't be a solution.

[101A]

Absolute piece of cake.

Your 2012 Chevy Tahoe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Opel_Zafira_08-7-2005_silver_vr.jpg/250px-Opel_Zafira_08-7-2005_silver_vr.jpg

Even this is only getting 25 - 30 mpg.

Here's your Tahoe:

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/1229/v187/www.smartusa.com/img/eta2.jpg

[Extra Stout]

I concur.

Heh, but make the drivers wear helmets?

I think such cars WILL be around, especially as US cities WILL get more dense. Really small cars make a lot of sense if you don't have to drive 15 miles to get to the grocery store. (RG thankfully only has to drive 1/3 of a mile to his local grocery store)
City cars all meet the Euro NCAP.

[Extra Stout]

Even this is only getting 25 - 30 mpg.

Here's your Tahoe:

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/1229/v187/www.smartusa.com/img/eta2.jpg
With the 1.9 diesel the Zafira gets 38 combined.

[2centsworth]

Now you guys are exagerrating. My Toyota Matrix is twice the size of that Zafira and gets 36mpg.

[101A]

It seems to me that a fair number of the safety requirements we've adopted in the last 10 years came in order to compensate for the proliferation of 6000-lb SUV with bumpers that bash into your head if you're driving a normal car.

To a certain extent, yes, but the safety rules have come in a pretty steady stream since the early sixties.

Doesn't explain the existence of motorcycles, however.

[RandomGuy]

I have no idea where this came from but it was emailed to me this morning.

That whole bit of relaxing oil drilling restrictions would have similar results to scott's #3 proposal, or tax breaks for oil companies:


(click on the little arrow to jump)

What the email you posted misses is it is actually CHEAPER to increase energy efficiency than it is to increase the energy supply. "Supply side" economics writ large on energy policy end up costing the economy more in the long run.

This is where Europe is a step ahead of us. Like it or not, they taxed the shit out of gasoline after the OPEC embargo, and used that money to build mass transit. Their economies, though higher energy prices, are much more "energy efficient" than ours in terms of energy used per unit of GDP.

[101A]

With the 1.9 diesel the Zafira gets 38 combined.

Didn't realize it was an oil burner.

1/2 ton diesel would be a good thing. Been rumors GM's been working on one. We'll see.

[RandomGuy]

(RG thankfully only has to drive 1/3 of a mile to his local grocery store)

Nobody picked up on this. I should be walking at that distance... 6 minutes at normal speeds. Doctor says I need more exercise. :lol

[Extra Stout]

Now you guys are exagerrating. My Toyota Matrix is twice the size of that Zafira and gets 36mpg.
They're roughly the same size.

[Extra Stout]

Nobody picked up on this. I should be walking at that distance... 6 minutes at normal speeds. Doctor says I need more exercise. :lol
Oh, I picked up on it, but it depends whether you're picking up 3 or 4 things, or a full week's worth of groceries. If you make a special car trip of 1/3 mile, to pick up a carton of milk and some eggs... wow. I always walk or bike that and always have.

[101A]

Now you guys are exagerrating. My Toyota Matrix is twice the size of that Zafira and gets 36mpg.

The Smart for Two (the smallest of the cars discussed) gets 33 city 41 highway.

[Extra Stout]

The Smart for Two (the smallest of the cars discussed) gets 33 city 41 highway.
And there's a difference between the EPA numbers and personal results. The EPA revised its tests recently to reflect the more aggressive and less efficient American driving style. If you drive smoothly, keep a constant speed, accelerate gently, coast to red lights rather than braking abruptly, etc., you'll exceed the EPA estimate. I went from 21 mpg to 26 mpg in my beat-up old Taurus simply by changing my driving style. Well, that and the A/C went out and I never bothered to fix it.

[2centsworth]

They're roughly the same size.

I fit 4 people comfortably and have ample trunk space.

[scott]

I will be at the coast all weekend catching some food, and I won't be able to get a very detailed response until then... But I wanted to provide a brief (required because this is a blackberry post likely full of spelling and grammar errors) response to the 40 mpg tahoe.

Let's think outside of the 8 cylinder combustion engine. 40 mpg is only impossible if you limit yourself to existing technology.

Have a nice weekend

[clambake]

this morning i paid $4.76 a gallon and diesel was priced at $5.22 a gallon.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, I picked up on it, but it depends whether you're picking up 3 or 4 things, or a full week's worth of groceries. If you make a special car trip of 1/3 mile, to pick up a carton of milk and some eggs... wow. I always walk or bike that and always have.

Keep in mind a couple of things:
35+ degree (centigrade) heat with 70%+ humity prevalent in Texas 6-8 months of the year.
The streets between have no sidewalks or shoulders, and have moderate to heavy vehicular traffic driven by local university students (eek!).
Usually I have a small child or two in tow.

A week's worth of groceries for a family of four is pretty substantial.

One good thing is that the farmer's market once per week is also within walking distance.

[101A]

And there's a difference between the EPA numbers and personal results. The EPA revised its tests recently to reflect the more aggressive and less efficient American driving style. If you drive smoothly, keep a constant speed, accelerate gently, coast to red lights rather than braking abruptly, etc., you'll exceed the EPA estimate. I went from 21 mpg to 26 mpg in my beat-up old Taurus simply by changing my driving style. Well, that and the A/C went out and I never bothered to fix it.

Did that experiment myself with my Honda Odyssey. ALL very short trips in the small town I live in. Shifting into neutral whenever I can, coasting to a stop; basically the lightest foot possible on the go pedal, and touching the brake as little as is humanly possible....got 24 mpg, but the wife got SERIOUSLY annoyed with the over the top driving style.

[xrayzebra]

The RealAle brewing company puts out my absolute favorite beer, the Brewhouse Brown Ale.

If it is fresh and kept cool, I have never tasted a better brown ale. Perfect blend of hops, sweetness, and malt roasting. My opinion of course.
My problem with my favorite beer is in distribution. If the batch sits around too long unrefridgerated, it gets funky. This makes it a real crapshoot at the store.

On to the Fireman's #4 blonde ale, I tried it once out of respect for the brand and was pleased with the results. Heh, I may have to "refresh" my memory this weekend though.

I couldn't resist:

To my friends who enjoy a glass of wine... And those who don't.

As Ben Franklin said: In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in
water there is bacteria. In a number of carefully controlled trials,
scientists have demonstrated that if we drink 1 liter of water each day, at
the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1 kilo of Escherichia
coli, (E. Coli) - bacteria found in feces.
In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop. However, we do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer (or tequila, rum, whiskey or other liquor)
because alcohol has to go through a purification process of boiling,
filtering and/or fermenting.

Remember: Water = Poop Wine = Health
Therefore, it's better to drink wine and talk stupid, than to drink water
and be full of sh*t.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information: I'm doing this
as a public service.

[101A]

I will be at the coast all weekend catching some food, and I won't be able to get a very detailed response until then... But I wanted to provide a brief (required because this is a blackberry post likely full of spelling and grammar errors) response to the 40 mpg tahoe.

Let's think outside of the 8 cylinder combustion engine. 40 mpg is only impossible if you limit yourself to existing technology.

Have a nice weekend

There is already a hybrid Tahoe; it gets +- 20 mpg. I think what we've said is that that 40 mpg Tahoe is not happening soon specifically BECAUSE of the lack of technology to pull it off.

[Extra Stout]

Keep in mind a couple of things:
35+ degree (centigrade) heat with 70%+ humity prevalent in Texas 6-8 months of the year.
Wuss. Make that exaggerating wuss. First of all, the humidity is worse in Houston, second of all, no it isn't 95 degrees all day 6-8 months a year, and third, you can drop the smug faux-intellectual affectation of using Celsius when conversing to fellow Americans. You aren't going to die making a 6-minute walk back and forth to the store. I do that every day between the plant gate and my office.


The streets between have no sidewalks or shoulders, and have moderate to heavy vehicular traffic driven by local university students (eek!).
Usually I have a small child or two in tow.
Excuses, excuses. Get a child trailer for your bicycle.


A week's worth of groceries for a family of four is pretty substantial.
*Sigh* Reading comprehension.

I know, I know, you have such good intentions to be a good liberal, and you'll get around to living that way when there aren't so many extenuating circumstances. You'll keep on lecturing the rest of us on the proper way to live in the meantime, however.

[2centsworth]

There is already a hybrid Tahoe; it gets +- 20 mpg. I think what we've said is that that 40 mpg Tahoe is not happening soon specifically BECAUSE of the lack of technology to pull it off.

the point is we need new technology. Please don't tell me the nuclear bomb is possible, but the 40 mpg Tahoe isn't. I'm ignorant about this subject, but is the 40 mpg Tahoe equivalent to finding the cure for Cancer?

[Extra Stout]

Did that experiment myself with my Honda Odyssey. ALL very short trips in the small town I live in. Shifting into neutral whenever I can, coasting to a stop; basically the lightest foot possible on the go pedal, and touching the brake as little as is humanly possible....got 24 mpg, but the wife got SERIOUSLY annoyed with the over the top driving style.
You won't get good mileage on short trips because the engine is inefficient when it is cold.

[scott]

Oh yeah... Also... Fireman's 4 is a great beer. The folks at Real Ale are great guys and great brewers!

[Extra Stout]

I will be at the coast all weekend catching some food, and I won't be able to get a very detailed response until then... But I wanted to provide a brief (required because this is a blackberry post likely full of spelling and grammar errors) response to the 40 mpg tahoe.

Let's think outside of the 8 cylinder combustion engine. 40 mpg is only impossible if you limit yourself to existing technology.

Have a nice weekend
Replace the roof panel and hood with composite panels imbedded with yet-to-be-developed UV-resistant photovoltaic polymer strands. Tie the panels to the large hybrid battery. Use a diesel engine running in series with the electric motor, incorporating yet-to-be-developed emissions technology to compensate for the more-frequent cold run of the diesel.

Build the entire vehicle out a yet-to-be-developed composite material that is lighter and stronger than steel, yet somehow cost-competitive.

[jochhejaam]

I am looking into to whether or not to keep my old, paid-for jalopy, and I would find any economic analysis of various vehicle solutions helpful.

Good question. I drive a '94 Park Avenue and I'm getting roughly 20 mpg (last check was 310 miles on 15.2 gals). Obviously it's paid for, and I drive it roughly 10,000 miles per year. At 4 dollars a gallon, my annual fuel cost is roughly 2 thousand. If I had a hybrid (Prius) which gets 50 mpg, I could save roughly 1,200 dollars a year, but (depending on years financed) I'd take on a $450 dollar a month, $5400 dollar a year car note.
Going hybrid lowers my fuel cost substantially, but I end up paying an extra $350 a month overall.

No hybrid just yet.



(Wife drives a Scion tc which gets about 26 mpg)

[101A]

Replace the roof panel and hood with composite panels imbedded with yet-to-be-developed UV-resistant photovoltaic polymer strands. Tie the panels to the large hybrid battery. Use a diesel engine running in series with the electric motor, incorporating yet-to-be-developed emissions technology to compensate for the more-frequent cold run of the diesel.

Build the entire vehicle out a yet-to-be-developed composite material that is lighter and stronger than steel, yet somehow cost-competitive.

See...it's easy; if only the oil companies would get out of the way.

BTW; have you heard about the guy in California who claims to have developed an engine - he's added another stroke (6 stroke), on the add - he doesn't spark the cylinder; he injects water into the hot cylinder; it converts to steam; and adds an additional power stroke w/o using any fuel; he recaptures the steam on the next stroke, runs it through a radiator converting it back into liquid, ready to be used again. Makes sense, claims a 25% increase in power AND economy. I'll try to find a link.

[Extra Stout]

Good question. I drive a '94 Park Avenue and I'm getting roughly 20 mpg (last check was 310 miles on 15.2 gals). Obviously it's paid for, and I drive it roughly 10,000 miles per year. At 4 dollars a gallon, my annual fuel cost is roughly 2 thousand. If I had a hybrid (Prius) which gets 50 mpg, I could save roughly 1,200 dollars a year, but (depending on years financed) I'd take on a $450 dollar a month, $5400 dollar a year car note.
Going hybrid lowers my fuel cost substantially, but I end up paying an extra $350 a month overall.

No hybrid just yet.



(Wife drives a Scion tc which gets about 26 mpg)
It usually doesn't make much sense to replace a car that meets your needs and is running fine with a new one just to save gas, except in the extreme case where you are driving a 10-mpg huge SUV and really only need a Honda Fit to get by.

[clambake]

Good question. I drive a '94 Park Avenue and I'm getting roughly 20 mpg (last check was 310 miles on 15.2 gals). Obviously it's paid for, and I drive it roughly 10,000 miles per year. At 4 dollars a gallon, my annual fuel cost is roughly 2 thousand. If I had a hybrid (Prius) which gets 50 mpg, I could save roughly 1,200 dollars a year, but (depending on years financed) I'd take on a $450 dollar a month, $5400 dollar a year car note.
Going hybrid lowers my fuel cost substantially, but I end up paying an extra $350 a month overall.

No hybrid just yet.



(Wife drives a Scion tc which gets about 26 mpg)

you get a tax break when buying hybrids.

[101A]

the point is we need new technology. Please don't tell me the nuclear bomb is possible, but the 40 mpg Tahoe isn't. I'm ignorant about this subject, but is the 40 mpg Tahoe equivalent to finding the cure for Cancer?


Replace the roof panel and hood with composite panels imbedded with yet-to-be-developed UV-resistant photovoltaic polymer strands. Tie the panels to the large hybrid battery. Use a diesel engine running in series with the electric motor, incorporating yet-to-be-developed emissions technology to compensate for the more-frequent cold run of the diesel.

Build the entire vehicle out a yet-to-be-developed composite material that is lighter and stronger than steel, yet somehow cost-competitive.

[Extra Stout]

See...it's easy; if only the oil companies would get out of the way.

BTW; have you heard about the guy in California who claims to have developed an engine - he's added another stroke (6 stroke), on the add - he doesn't spark the cylinder; he injects water into the hot cylinder; it converts to steam; and adds an additional power stroke w/o using any fuel; he recaptures the steam on the next stroke, runs it through a radiator converting it back into liquid, ready to be used again. Makes sense, claims a 25% increase in power AND economy. I'll try to find a link.

I googled it... actually it doesn't use a radiator. The water stroke takes the place of the radiator, which is what makes it so clever; you are using waste heat for power. Apparently this technology if it works out would be more applicable to heavy diesel engines than to gasoline ones. Using waste heat to get two power strokes out of six, rather than one out of four is such a significant breakthrough that this guy should probably get the Nobel Prize if it pans out.

Obviously, there are some issues to get through, like freeze protection and corrosion.

[Extra Stout]

Please don't tell me the nuclear bomb is possible, but the 40 mpg Tahoe isn't.
What about sharks with friggin' laser beams?

[RandomGuy]

Wuss. Make that exaggerating wuss. First of all, the humidity is worse in Houston, second of all, no it isn't 95 degrees all day 6-8 months a year, and third, you can drop the smug faux-intellectual affectation of using Celsius when conversing to fellow Americans. You aren't going to die making a 6-minute walk back and forth to the store. I do that every day between the plant gate and my office.


Excuses, excuses. Get a child trailer for your bicycle.


*Sigh* Reading comprehension.

I know, I know, you have such good intentions to be a good liberal, and you'll get around to living that way when there aren't so many extenuating circumstances. You'll keep on lecturing the rest of us on the proper way to live in the meantime, however.

Yikes. We seem to have something of a miscommunication here. Where to begin?

The conversion to Celsius was because your profile lists your location as "Dublin". I was trying to be polite and converted temperature to something that you presumedly would relate to. I honestly couldn't remember you talking about where you live before, so I simply took this as the truth.

Most of the post was intended to contrast Dublin and the San Marcos, Texas area, based on that assumption. Dublin is easier on pedestrians from what I understand and quite a bit cooler.

I kind of gave the temp data off the cuff and was deliberately exaggerating. Although after reading your post I looked it up and was surprised up that the actual average temperature in Central texas is a bit more mild than 95 degrees most of the year. It doesn't seem that way during summer. :lol You will have to forgive me the human failing of bitching about the weather, whatever that may be. ;)
http://www.srcc.lsu.edu/southernClimate/climatesummaries/stnsum/climograph_view?id=417945

I do walk it when the weather is nice and I don't have to get much, which isn't often. Aside from the dangerous stretch where you have to walk in the street, and the extremely busy intersection, it is quite pleasant.

Lastly:
I understood your post pretty well, thanks.

Here is your reading comprehension test:

Find one instance of me preaching or lecturing anybody specifically about their automobile usage. Go on, I'll wait.

You have assumed that because you think of me as a "liberal" and have some mental stereotype of "liberals" as all thinking "if you drive a car you suck".

You have assumed wrong.

[RandomGuy]

My views on cars:

They are what they are. I think we should use more mass transit, and fewer cars. I would happily give up my car if I could. The nature of my work prohibits it, though, as I have to travel a lot, and have no fixed workplace. Kinda hard to live next to where you work if "work" is a different place every few months. My next job a few years down the road will be more in a fixed place, and I will find the closest possible dwelling to that place of employment, whereever it ends up being.

I don't look down on people who own big ass SUV's, except Hummers which are pretentious and fucking ugly. I feel sorry for them generally, as gas will do nothing but go up.

Cars are a natural result of free-markets and what Americans want. I try not to be too judgmental about this, but do advocate mass transit solutions, as they are generally more efficient. "Peak oil" will likely put an end to gasoline cars, if not cars altogether, and I wish that we as a nation weren't quite so focused on the short-term and had planned a bit better for something so obvious.

[Homeland Security]

Die proles die.

[RandomGuy]

[Oops].

Die proles die.

:lol

Sure thing, Mr. Homeland Security.

[Homeland Security]

Your sentence in Gitmo has been commuted.

[johnsmith]

Heard on the radio that SA is going to revisit the light rail concept again this week.

I lived in Denver when light rail was just getting going and I've been back to visit about 4 or 5 times a year since then. The light rail has expanded incredibly and they are now planning to have light rail out to their airport and up to a couple of ski resorts.

It's the greatest thing ever, ever.

[xrayzebra]

Okay, I am not an expert on cars, okay. But I once owned
a 1993 Chevy Caprice. V8, lots of space, wonderful ride,
and 28 MPG. And yes it did get 28 MPG. Now I have a friend who owned a Caddie, V8, not a whole lot space in rear seat, sport type vehicle, 28 MPG.

We can build the cars. They stopped building the Caprice after 93, why I have no idea. BUT......

I really, as a "older" man, like to get into a car. Not put the damn thing on, like you have to in most of the
economy cars. Is that a crime?

Now I really cant afford the Caddie, but I could afford
the chevy. I drive a SUV because it does offer comfort
when I go to visit the kids/grandkids. Is that a crime,
well evidently it is for the libbers on this forum and otherwise.

Scott makes some very valid points in his post. But I have to ask and it wasn't address as I recall: if we drill domestically instead of importing oil, wont this cut down on the balance of payments? (you know like trade). I know we import most of or oil from neighboring countries,
but, we do import some from the ME. Also, Scott, what makes you really think consumption is going to rise in proportion to production if we drill in our own country. I know the laws of economics, but, how much is cost going to go down and isn't there the small possibility that cost of "foreign" oil may just go down in relationship to the production of domestic supplies? I am not trying to be smart, but. You know a considerable amount of drilling done in the U.S. is by independent drillers, wild-caters.
Not the big oil that everyone accuses of making the big bucks. I could tell you some stories about the oil fields,
that even you may not know. But as you say that is for another thread.

One other thing. Why do a lot of the young folks in this country want to return to the "good old days". People lived to the ripe old age of maybe 55-60. Walked to lots of places, rode horses, waggons and had flapping shoes from the soles coming off shoes, burned wood in cook stoves or had kerosene cook stoves, had only space heaters and grabed their clothes in the morning rushed into the one warm room, heated water on stoves to have bath water, kept their own stock and grew their own food, women worked from sunup to sundown in the summers in 100 plus degree kitchens canning for the winter, you killed hogs in the fall, at first frost to "cure" because you didn't have refrigeration or freezers, beef was canned because you had no way to keep it. Yes, lets go back to my days of youth. Like my Father used to say, the good old days. Hell these are the good old days. I will stay here in this time period if you don't mind.

[RandomGuy]

Since that's not what I accused you of, I won't look for that post. I do get a bit prickly when for a while it seems to appear that the author of the "Changing our lifestyles to prevent global warming is just sound risk management" thread isn't actually living that philosophy, and is instead making excuses for it because he has kids and it's too hot outside. If that's not what you meant, then never mind.

As a right-winger, I prefer to shame and manipulate people directly, rather than relying on the state to do it for me.

Now if you don't have at least a half-dozen reusable cloth grocery bags, I will taunt you for a second time.

By the way, do you have either a BPA-free plastic or stainless steel water bottle you tote around?

Heh, as a matter of fact, my wife and I do have reusable grocery bags that I keep in my car. They are waaaay better than the crappy plastic ones that break and don't carry much anyways.

I try in little ways to reduce the amount of waste I generate. As I have said before, the "lowest hanging" fruits of averting the potential damage from global warming are simple measures of waste of various sorts.

This is why I don't really buy into the "if we really go green, it will be an economic disaster" gambit. I know that the economics favor a fair amount of efficiency first, and the gains will end up mitagating if not completely negating the costs.

People always try, and yes, global warming activists do it too, to play up the downside of not going along with their view point. "go green or we all die" is just as stupid as "if we go green our economy will collapse".

[xrayzebra]

Heh, as a matter of fact, my wife and I do have reusable grocery bags that I keep in my car. They are waaaay better than the crappy plastic ones that break and don't carry much anyways.

I try in little ways to reduce the amount of waste I generate. As I have said before, the "lowest hanging" fruits of averting the potential damage from global warming are simple measures of waste of various sorts.

This is why I don't really buy into the "if we really go green, it will be an economic disaster" gambit. I know that the economics favor a fair amount of efficiency first, and the gains will end up mitagating if not completely negating the costs.

People always try, and yes, global warming activists do it too, to play up the downside of not going along with their view point. "go green or we all die" is just as stupid as "if we go green our economy will collapse".

Well RG, the plastic bags I get from the grocery
store. I use as liners for the bath and kitchen
waste baskets. You see I don't buy the "store
bought" liners. How bout you. How do you
dispose of your waste. Just throw it in the trash
baskets with no liners? Just checking.

[Extra Stout]

Okay, I am not an expert on cars, okay. But I once owned
a 1993 Chevy Caprice. V8, lots of space, wonderful ride,
and 28 MPG. And yes it did get 28 MPG. Now I have a friend who owned a Caddie, V8, not a whole lot space in rear seat, sport type vehicle, 28 MPG.

We can build the cars. They stopped building the Caprice after 93, why I have no idea. BUT......
:lmao They kept making the Caprice. They just restyled it a little to look less like a beached whale, souped it up into a muscle car, and called it the Impala SS.

If you got 28 mpg out of that 5.0L, you were probably driving like a... well, grandpa. But that V-8 only put out 170 hp, which is about what a 4-cylinder will do these days.

I rented a 4-cyl Camry LE a couple weeks ago on vacation. It wasn't anything fancy, but it was roomy, has nice big buttons and letters on the radio so "wiser" eyes can read it, and it gave me 32 mpg. So maybe somebody does still make 'em.

[Extra Stout]

Heh, as a matter of fact, my wife and I do have reusable grocery bags that I keep in my car. They are waaaay better than the crappy plastic ones that break and don't carry much anyways.

I try in little ways to reduce the amount of waste I generate. As I have said before, the "lowest hanging" fruits of averting the potential damage from global warming are simple measures of waste of various sorts.

This is why I don't really buy into the "if we really go green, it will be an economic disaster" gambit. I know that the economics favor a fair amount of efficiency first, and the gains will end up mitagating if not completely negating the costs.

People always try, and yes, global warming activists do it too, to play up the downside of not going along with their view point. "go green or we all die" is just as stupid as "if we go green our economy will collapse".
Those cloth bags are actually pretty awesome. We lug all sorts of stuff around in 'em. They're great for potlucks.

[xrayzebra]

:lmao They kept making the Caprice. They just restyled it a little to look less like a beached whale, souped it up into a muscle car, and called it the Impala SS.

If you got 28 mpg out of that 5.0L, you were probably driving like a... well, grandpa. But that V-8 only put out 170 hp, which is about what a 4-cylinder will do these days.

I rented a 4-cyl Camry LE a couple weeks ago on vacation. It wasn't anything fancy, but it was roomy, has nice big buttons and letters on the radio so "wiser" eyes can read it, and it gave me 32 mpg. So maybe somebody does still make 'em.

Hmmm, interesting. But the old caprice I had wasn't driven as you describe. I promise. And
it was the pursuit engine. Want the VIN number...LOL

[RandomGuy]

Well RG, the plastic bags I get from the grocery
store. I use as liners for the bath and kitchen
waste baskets. You see I don't buy the "store
bought" liners. How bout you. How do you
dispose of your waste. Just throw it in the trash
baskets with no liners? Just checking.

Actually we just use the "naked" garbage cans in the bathrooms. All except the main kitchen bags. I just dump the trash from the bathrooms every other day into the main kitchen bag in my run over to the dumpster.

Unfortunately, recycling isnt done in SM for apartments that I know of.

It might be interesting to talk to the owners about some sort of complex-wide recycling scheme though. That is the kind of thing that encourages a sense of community and decreases turnover expense, so it might be something they would be interested in. Interesting research idea. (scribbles note to self)

[Extra Stout]

Actually we just use the "naked" garbage cans in the bathrooms. All except the main kitchen bags. I just dump the trash from the bathrooms every other day into the main kitchen bag in my run over to the dumpster.

Unfortunately, recycling isnt done in SM for apartments that I know of.

It might be interesting to talk to the owners about some sort of complex-wide recycling scheme though. That is the kind of thing that encourages a sense of community and decreases turnover expense, so it might be something they would be interested in. Interesting research idea. (scribbles note to self)
They don't have the yellow-and-green Abita dumpsters for paper?

[xrayzebra]

Actually we just use the "naked" garbage cans in the bathrooms. All except the main kitchen bags. I just dump the trash from the bathrooms every other day into the main kitchen bag in my run over to the dumpster.

Unfortunately, recycling isnt done in SM for apartments that I know of.

It might be interesting to talk to the owners about some sort of complex-wide recycling scheme though. That is the kind of thing that encourages a sense of community and decreases turnover expense, so it might be something they would be interested in. Interesting research idea. (scribbles note to self)

Way off subject, but you reminded of something.
California, of all places, the Apartment complexes out there have no recycling process. You see what goes into the regular trash. You could make some money just picking it up and taking it to a recyle place, well a good living. I couldn't believe it. They bitch about so much stuff and do so little.

[Extra Stout]

Way off subject, but you reminded of something.
California, of all places, the Apartment complexes out there have no recycling process. You see what goes into the regular trash. You could make some money just picking it up and taking it to a recyle place, well a good living. I couldn't believe it. They bitch about so much stuff and do so little.
You remember back in the day when everybody went to church because that's just what people were supposed to do, and there were a bunch of people who acted all pious on Sunday but it was just a big show?

[xrayzebra]

You remember back in the day when everybody went to church because that's just what people were supposed to do, and there were a bunch of people who acted all pious on Sunday but it was just a big show?

Really, I didn't know that.

[Extra Stout]

Really, I didn't know that.
They didn't have any hypocrites when you were younger?

[PixelPusher]

Way off subject, but you reminded of something.
California, of all places, the Apartment complexes out there have no recycling process. You see what goes into the regular trash. You could make some money just picking it up and taking it to a recyle place, well a good living. I couldn't believe it. They bitch about so much stuff and do so little.
I live in an apartment complex in California, and we do have recycling.

[xrayzebra]

When I was younger it wasn't a priority to find out. There just wasn't that many people in Texas in those days. A/C hadn't been invented, so we didn't have many yankee's wanting to come down. Everyone here was pretty busy just trying to make ends meet. You knew just about everything about everyone.

[Extra Stout]

When I was younger it wasn't a priority to find out. There just wasn't that many people in Texas in those days. A/C hadn't been invented, so we didn't have many yankee's wanting to come down. Everyone here was pretty busy just trying to make ends meet. You knew just about everything about everyone.
Oh. So anyway, California doesn't have Christianity anymore except in small pockets, so they replaced it with the Green Movement. And that movement has religious hypocrites too.

[xrayzebra]

Oh. So anyway, California doesn't have Christianity anymore except in small pockets, so they replaced it with the Green Movement. And that movement has religious hypocrites too.

Oh! Okay.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's think outside of the 8 cylinder combustion engine. 40 mpg is only impossible if you limit yourself to existing technology.

This is true. As long as we use internal combustion engines, we are close to the maximum MPG that can be obtained for the size, weight, and safety factors the USA market demands. We can make higher mileage vehicles, but then how much will insurance prices jump as more people get harmed, and they have to jack up premiums?

Unless we make cheap nuclear electricity, a hydrogen fuel cell system is still not cost effective until gas prices exceed at least $8.00 per gallon in my opinion. You cannot subsidize it or require the fuel suppliers to take no profit. It costs $4.00 per gallon equivalent, give or take a bit, just to make enough hydrogen equivalent to one gallon of gas. It takes 44 kilo-watt-hours of electricity to make that much. Then there is purification, storage, transportation, taxes, retail profits... Then... Without nuclear power, or some other green electrical generation method, we burn how much more coal to do this?

Another alternative is hydrocarbon fuel cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell). This would make existing size vehicles at least twice as efficient. There is development in this area, but limited. I think the only working models out there use a modified form of methane. If we could just put in common gas or diesel, that would really be something! There are also ethanol fuel cells, but we could never make ethanol practical to such quantities.

Maybe the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_carbon_fuel_cell) can be perfected for vehicles, then we can just convert refined coal directly to electricity and CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay, I am not an expert on cars, okay. But I once owned
a 1993 Chevy Caprice. V8, lots of space, wonderful ride,
and 28 MPG. And yes it did get 28 MPG. Now I have a friend who owned a Caddie, V8, not a whole lot space in rear seat, sport type vehicle, 28 MPG.

I believe this for freeway milage. Not for city. Maybe we need to start specifying? My last 5.7 liter V8 also got 28 to 29 MPG, at 70 MPH. I never tested it at just 55. Probably was above 30. Only 18-20 MPG the way I drove it city. Modern computer controlled EFI engines are great! It was EPA rated 18/28. I have no idea how I did better with my lead foot at times.

Keep in mind, MPG on the freeway is primarily limited by the drag in the air. City is pimarily limited by the weight of the vehicle. Engine size has less to do than it did in the past for mileage.

[jochhejaam]

My last 5.7 liter V8 also got 28 to 29 MPG, at 70 MPH. .

Good mileage, what was the make and model?

[Wild Cobra]

Good mileage, what was the make and model?
2000 Camaro Z28

[ElNono]

Internal combustion engines are so inefficient, it's not even funny. On average, even when aided with turbochargers, the efficiency is only about 20%. That is, you only extract 20% of energy from the gas you burn. Even if somehow we created the perfect IC engine, the law of thermodynamics limits your efficiency to 37% max.

We need to move away from gas, and into electric and/or hydrogen. The problem with going entirely electric is that we need more R&D into battery technologies.

Here's a company that has an all electric car on the market already: Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php)
Their Roadster is too expensive right now, but they're planning for a more economical version, and if cars like this could be mass produced, the cost would be a lot cheaper.

As far as hydrogen, I'm pretty sure Honda will lead the market with their FCX Clarity (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/)
They've been working on it for a long time, and they even have a small hydrogen station you can install in your garage and produce hydrogen yourself at home. I'm not currently aware of the range in these cars, but hydrogen is relatively cheap and easy to produce.

Unfortunately, the government keeps just handing meager amounts of money to the usual suspects (link (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/28763)), to keep our dependency on oil. Hybrids are nice, but IMO they're not the solution.

[xrayzebra]

Internal combustion engines are so inefficient, it's not even funny. On average, even when aided with turbochargers, the efficiency is only about 20%. That is, you only extract 20% of energy from the gas you burn. Even if somehow we created the perfect IC engine, the law of thermodynamics limits your efficiency to 37% max.

We need to move away from gas, and into electric and/or hydrogen. The problem with going entirely electric is that we need more R&D into battery technologies.

Here's a company that has an all electric car on the market already: Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php)
Their Roadster is too expensive right now, but they're planning for a more economical version, and if cars like this could be mass produced, the cost would be a lot cheaper.

As far as hydrogen, I'm pretty sure Honda will lead the market with their FCX Clarity (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/)
They've been working on it for a long time, and they even have a small hydrogen station you can install in your garage and produce hydrogen yourself at home. I'm not currently aware of the range in these cars, but hydrogen is relatively cheap and easy to produce.

Unfortunately, the government keeps just handing meager amounts of money to the usual suspects (link (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/28763)), to keep our dependency on oil. Hybrids are nice, but IMO they're not the solution.

Okay, lets say you are right, about alternate energy sources. Could we just let the oil companys produce enough oil to maintain a decent price level?

Also, if an alternate energy source is such a good thing, how come someone hasn't really, really invested some money into finding that source?
Also since nearly all dimms in congress think it is the OILCO's responsibility to invest their money in finding a new energy source, which would ruin their basic business, why don't they make McDonalds find a new food source that has no fat, is very nutritious and low cal. (and kids love, as well as adults).
By the way has any of our most wonderful law makers ever produced anything to keep you from walking? I cant in my years ever knew one that did. I guess if we could use their hot air and BS we would have an unlimited source of energy. It might even rival the sun.

[ElNono]

Okay, lets say you are right, about alternate energy sources. Could we just let the oil companys produce enough oil to maintain a decent price level?

Also, if an alternate energy source is such a good thing, how come someone hasn't really, really invested some money into finding that source?
Also since nearly all dimms in congress think it is the OILCO's responsibility to invest their money in finding a new energy source, which would ruin their basic business, why don't they make McDonalds find a new food source that has no fat, is very nutritious and low cal. (and kids love, as well as adults).
By the way has any of our most wonderful law makers ever produced anything to keep you from walking? I cant in my years ever knew one that did. I guess if we could use their hot air and BS we would have an unlimited source of energy. It might even rival the sun.

You're not thinking forward. You're thinking right now.
Back then when we had near infinite amount of oil supply, and our entire infrastructure was based on combustion engines, it was the obvious choice to keep using what we had. It was more economical than exploring alternatives. Plus the technology didn't exist to have an all-electric or all-hydrogen car that was usable.
Right now oil supply is meeting demand, and it will get worse over time on the demand side. It's a limited resource. Simple as that.
Many companies have spent a lot of money on alternative energy sources. That's why we have solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
As far as cars are concerned, the technology right now can build an all-electric car that can do ~220 miles on a single charge. The cost can vary between 1 to 4 cents per mile, depending when and where you charge your car. The beauty of all-electric is that you can charge pretty much anywhere. The infrastructure cost is minimal, plus electricity can be generated from solar, wind, hydro, etc that are pretty clean sources.
Hydrogen can also currently do about ~220 miles on a single fuel cell. The biggest caveat being that a lot of infrastructure will need to be built to handle it.

My biggest beef with lawmakers is that it's unfortunate they keep feeding the Detroit cartel with incentives and tax breaks, while it's mostly foreign and independent companies that build and bring to market actual cars with innovative technology. I'm sure that at least the independent company could have used a tax break or a 30 million incentive from the government while developing their car.

[clambake]

Okay, lets say you are right, about alternate energy sources. Could we just let the oil companys produce enough oil to maintain a decent price level?

still don't get it, huh ray? oil is a global commodity. pump all you want and it will be sold on the world market. less would be produced by oil rich nations to keep profit flowing.


Also, if an alternate energy source is such a good thing, how come someone hasn't really, really invested some money into finding that source?

you'd have to involve the oil biz because they're not going to let somebody just gut their livelyhood.

[xrayzebra]

still don't get it, huh ray? oil is a global commodity. pump all you want and it will be sold on the world market. less would be produced by oil rich nations to keep profit flowing.

No kidding, you ever heard of the Texas Railroad Commission. That was why they were formed. But that doesn't change the fact that with more production, oil speculators wouldn't be so eager to drive up prices. Also Oil producers are not eager to see a cheaper alternative appear to ruin their business.



you'd have to involve the oil biz because they're not going to let somebody just gut their livelyhood.

What I find strange is that the people who scream the loudest about oil is bad and ruining mother earth are the ones who want others to invest in alternate energy. Why doesn't brother Gore, who has the dollars, invest some of them in something other than so called: Carbon Credits, which he sells for profit.

[clambake]

you almost had it right. they won't allow a cheaper alternative to ruin their biz.

and i highly doubt that any of us know what gore is invested in.

[Extra Stout]

What I find strange is that the people who scream the loudest about oil is bad and ruining mother earth are the ones who want others to invest in alternate energy. Why doesn't brother Gore, who has the dollars, invest some of them in something other than so called: Carbon Credits, which he sells for profit.

The largest producer of solar panels for both commercial and residential applications is... BP.

[xrayzebra]

you almost had it right. they won't allow a cheaper alternative to ruin their biz.

and i highly doubt that any of us know what gore is invested in.

Oh, I think we have a pretty good idea what Mr. Gore is invested in.

[clambake]

The largest producer of solar panels for both commercial and residential applications is... BP.

thanks, not all diversity is evil.

[xrayzebra]

thanks, not all diversity is evil.

Not to forget the great PR. Going green is the
in thing. Just read our forum.....:hat

[Extra Stout]

Not to forget the great PR. Going green is the
in thing. Just read our forum.....:hat
We're not all that far away from solar technology being the cheapest and easiest way to generate electricity. BP and their ilk are just looking ahead.

Once researchers get over the UV stabilization hurdle, photovoltaic electropolymers can be embedded into everything. Rather than people having to install solar panels on their roofs, the shingles themselves will conduct electricity. Pretty cool. My company is collaborating on some research projects because our product would make a great substrate for several applications.

[clambake]

Not to forget the great PR. Going green is the
in thing. Just read our forum.....:hat

going green is good, ray.

so is tobacco and waste management, annuities, and rail.

union pacific just gave a 2 for 1 stock split. good times.

you remember texas pacific, missouri pacific?

[clambake]

We're not all that far away from solar technology being the cheapest and easiest way to generate electricity. BP and their ilk are just looking ahead.

Once researchers get over the UV stabilization hurdle, photovoltaic electropolymers can be embedded into everything. Rather than people having to install solar panels on their roofs, the shingles themselves will conduct electricity. Pretty cool. My company is collaborating on some research projects because our product would make a great substrate for several applications.

silicon crystals are so fragile. is that the research you're trying to improve?

[Extra Stout]

silicon crystals are so fragile. is that the research you're trying to improve?
The idea is to move away from silicon.

The bottleneck with silicon is the high cost of purification, not its brittleness.

[Extra Stout]

going green is good, ray.

so is tobacco and waste management, annuities, and rail.

union pacific just gave a 2 for 1 stock split. good times.

you remember texas pacific, missouri pacific?
I know a fellow who started up a rail terminal company a few years back. That made some money, so he thought it would be a good idea to buy up a bunch of ethanol rail cars. That made some more money, so he built some more rail terminals and bought others.

Apparently he's good at business and stuff.

[clambake]

I know a fellow who started up a rail terminal company a few years back. That made some money, so he thought it would be a good idea to buy up a bunch of ethanol rail cars. That made some more money, so he built some more rail terminals and bought others.

Apparently he's good at business and stuff.

pacific rail has been around for ever.

why didn't you get involved with that fellow's project? not on the table?

[RandomGuy]

They don't have the yellow-and-green Abita dumpsters for paper?

I don't know. I need to do some research into it.

[Extra Stout]

pacific rail has been around for ever.

why didn't you get involved with that fellow's project? not on the table?
It's not a public company and I'm not a millionaire.

[RandomGuy]

When I was younger it wasn't a priority to find out. There just wasn't that many people in Texas in those days. A/C hadn't been invented, so we didn't have many yankee's wanting to come down. Everyone here was pretty busy just trying to make ends meet. You knew just about everything about everyone.

AC was invented in about 1850 or so, but the patent was long forgotten until it was reininvented in about 1900 or so. That makes you pretty darn old. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning

(yes, I know what you mean, I'm just kidding. AC wasn't widespread until after 1950 or so)

[RandomGuy]

The idea is to move away from silicon.

The bottleneck with silicon is the high cost of purification, not its brittleness.


I have had a question or two about silicon that perhaps you know:

If you had access to a zero-g environment and a lot of energy, would it be easier to purify silicon?

How easy would it be to manufacture solar panels based on silicon in space?
(assuming large amounts of both energy and materials were available, I am not worried about logistics of supply, merely the ease of manufacture)

[RandomGuy]

You're not thinking forward. You're thinking right now.
Back then when we had near infinite amount of oil supply, and our entire infrastructure was based on combustion engines, it was the obvious choice to keep using what we had. It was more economical than exploring alternatives. Plus the technology didn't exist to have an all-electric or all-hydrogen car that was usable.
Right now oil supply is meeting demand, and it will get worse over time on the demand side. It's a limited resource. Simple as that.
Many companies have spent a lot of money on alternative energy sources. That's why we have solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
As far as cars are concerned, the technology right now can build an all-electric car that can do ~220 miles on a single charge. The cost can vary between 1 to 4 cents per mile, depending when and where you charge your car. The beauty of all-electric is that you can charge pretty much anywhere. The infrastructure cost is minimal, plus electricity can be generated from solar, wind, hydro, etc that are pretty clean sources.
Hydrogen can also currently do about ~220 miles on a single fuel cell. The biggest caveat being that a lot of infrastructure will need to be built to handle it.

My biggest beef with lawmakers is that it's unfortunate they keep feeding the Detroit cartel with incentives and tax breaks, while it's mostly foreign and independent companies that build and bring to market actual cars with innovative technology. I'm sure that at least the independent company could have used a tax break or a 30 million incentive from the government while developing their car.

The biggest hurdle for fuel cells:
Platinum

Platinum is used as a catalyst in fuel cells from what I understand. It is not consumed, its presence just allows something to happen that wouldn't otherwise. Given the recent run up in precious metals/commodities represent a problem for widespread use of such fuel cells.

Big $$$ for someone who can find a cheaper material to do the same thing.

I think the job market for material engineers and chemists will be good in the next 20 years.

[Extra Stout]

I have had a question or two about silicon that perhaps you know:

If you had access to a zero-g environment and a lot of energy, would it be easier to purify silicon?

How easy would it be to manufacture solar panels based on silicon in space?
(assuming large amounts of both energy and materials were available, I am not worried about logistics of supply, merely the ease of manufacture)
I have no idea how zero-g would help silicon purification. I must be missing something.

There is a molten salt-based process that allegedly uses less energy than the current methods using hot intermediate gases.

[Extra Stout]

The biggest hurdle for fuel cells:
Platinum

Platinum is used as a catalyst in fuel cells from what I understand. It is not consumed, its presence just allows something to happen that wouldn't otherwise. Given the recent run up in precious metals/commodities represent a problem for widespread use of such fuel cells.

Big $$$ for someone who can find a cheaper material to do the same thing.

I think the job market for material engineers and chemists will be good in the next 20 years.
Platinum is not the only catalyst. There are catalysts out of nickel or even iron that work in fuel cells.

[Don Quixote]

All this stuff about oil and silicon is good ... but what does this have to do with TEXAS?

[RandomGuy]

Platinum is not the only catalyst. There are catalysts out of nickel or even iron that work in fuel cells.

I know. But when one is talking about weight/efficiency, my understanding is that platinum wins, hands down.

I have no doubt that SOMETHING else will eventually be used, and that they are researching it now, though.

[RandomGuy]

All this stuff about oil and silicon is good ... but what does this have to do with TEXAS?

Silicon=solar=Sunny places=Texas.

[Extra Stout]

All this stuff about oil and silicon is good ... but what does this have to do with TEXAS?
You know those hot Texas summer days when the sun beats down on your house and the electric meter spins furiously because of the A/C?

Imagine the same meter spinning furiously in the opposite direction.

[boutons_]

"A/C"

anybody tried living in SA hot months w/o any a/c at all?

[RandomGuy]

You know those hot Texas summer days when the sun beats down on your house and the electric meter spins furiously because of the A/C?

Imagine the same meter spinning furiously in the opposite direction.

That is the BIG advantage of solar. It is active at the same time that you use most of your power, i.e. during the day when it is hot.

[Don Quixote]

You know those hot Texas summer days when the sun beats down on your house and the electric meter spins furiously because of the A/C?

Imagine the same meter spinning furiously in the opposite direction.

The thread title all makes sense now. Thanks!

[xrayzebra]

Hey Scott. Two things. I can remember here in Texas when the Permian Basin was the center of oil and oil was selling for next to nothing, they stacked rigs. Then when it went up they couldn't find or buy enough rigs to get into the fields. So, somehow this doesn't fit into the picture you have painted. OILCO's drilled but most drilling was done by independents. I had an uncle that worked with lots of wildcatters. He worked them all,
cable tools and rotary and did it all from dressing tools to driller to tool pusher. Another uncle who was a roughneck and got killed by falling out of a rig into the tools on the floor.

Another thing. Listening to Rush today........waiting till all the catcalls die down.........a lady called in today who had been a trader on the floor of Wall Street and she made the statement, which I had made, and was scoffed at, that if they opened up ANWR and other areas and announced that they were going to start drilling the cost of oil would more than likely fall by 30-40 dollars almost
immediately. Rush said, yeah, but none would be produced for 10 years, her comment, yes, but traders are trading into the future and that is what they base their price on. And she made a valid point. Crude feel today on news that the Saudis were going to start producing from a newly developed field. And on the stronger dollar.
Any comments.

Added: She also said she though oil was in a bubble right now and
could have a dramatic fall in price.

[RandomGuy]

Hey Scott. Two things. I can remember here in Texas when the Permian Basin was the center of oil and oil was selling for next to nothing, they stacked rigs. Then when it went up they couldn't find or buy enough rigs to get into the fields. So, somehow this doesn't fit into the picture you have painted. OILCO's drilled but most drilling was done by independents. I had an uncle that worked with lots of wildcatters. He worked them all,
cable tools and rotary and did it all from dressing tools to driller to tool pusher. Another uncle who was a roughneck and got killed by falling out of a rig into the tools on the floor.

Another thing. Listening to Rush today........waiting till all the catcalls die down.........a lady called in today who had been a trader on the floor of Wall Street and she made the statement, which I had made, and was scoffed at, that if they opened up ANWR and other areas and announced that they were going to start drilling the cost of oil would more than likely fall by 30-40 dollars almost
immediately. Rush said, yeah, but none would be produced for 10 years, her comment, yes, but traders are trading into the future and that is what they base their price on. And she made a valid point. Crude feel today on news that the Saudis were going to start producing from a newly developed field. And on the stronger dollar.
Any comments.

Added: She also said she though oil was in a bubble right now and
could have a dramatic fall in price.

Honestly, nobody really has a handle yet on exactly how and why oil is going up, and when/if it may go down.

Certainly futures trading is figuring into it, but to what exact degree, no one really knows.

I imagine in a few years there will be a consensus, but for now, most experts are kinda shaking their heads, as I am sure scott will attest to when he gets back from his fishing trip.

The recent introduction of futures traders to the mix as well as the complication that oil is sold in dollars, makes it REALLY hard to say much with any degree of certainty about the current/future price of oil.

[xrayzebra]

Honestly, nobody really has a handle yet on exactly how and why oil is going up, and when/if it may go down.

Certainly futures trading is figuring into it, but to what exact degree, no one really knows.

I imagine in a few years there will be a consensus, but for now, most experts are kinda shaking their heads, as I am sure scott will attest to when he gets back from his fishing trip.

The recent introduction of futures traders to the mix as well as the complication that oil is sold in dollars, makes it REALLY hard to say much with any degree of certainty about the current/future price of oil.

Think he will have a fish fry. I'll buy the beer....

[Extra Stout]

Another thing. Listening to Rush today........waiting till all the catcalls die down.........a lady called in today who had been a trader on the floor of Wall Street and she made the statement, which I had made, and was scoffed at, that if they opened up ANWR and other areas and announced that they were going to start drilling the cost of oil would more than likely fall by 30-40 dollars almost
immediately. Rush said, yeah, but none would be produced for 10 years, her comment, yes, but traders are trading into the future and that is what they base their price on. And she made a valid point. Crude feel today on news that the Saudis were going to start producing from a newly developed field. And on the stronger dollar.
Any comments.

Added: She also said she though oil was in a bubble right now and
could have a dramatic fall in price.
Speculation isn't always rational. Drilling ANWR and the coasts doesn't supply all that much oil, but might it deflate the bubble sooner? Perhaps.

There is a bubble right now. Talking to my uncle, the fundamentals support $80-$100 oil which is still pretty high.

[xrayzebra]

Speculation isn't always rational. Drilling ANWR and the coasts doesn't supply all that much oil, but might it deflate the bubble sooner? Perhaps.

There is a bubble right now. Talking to my uncle, the fundamentals support $80-$100 oil which is still pretty high.

Boy aint that the truth, nothing is rational anymore. You got to worry about dumb tomatoes even. Who would have thunk it. I'll bet my old Grandpappy is spinning in his grave, shouting,
Tomatoes......OMG And I hope he doesn't hear about the price of watermellons, he used to give them away....:lol

[ElNono]

Speculation isn't always rational. Drilling ANWR and the coasts doesn't supply all that much oil, but might it deflate the bubble sooner? Perhaps.

There is a bubble right now. Talking to my uncle, the fundamentals support $80-$100 oil which is still pretty high.

Drilling ANWR will do absolutely nothing. Look what happened since Brazil announced they found a 8 billion barrel reserve last November. It will take years to start pumping oil out of it, and speculators know that.
And FWIW, I personally don't give a crap about the environment. What bothers me is that a bunch of dudes sit down somewhere and decide how much I'm going to be paying for gas this week. It's an inflated bubble. So at the first opportunity I have to give them the middle finger, I will.

[MannyIsGod]

"A/C"

anybody tried living in SA hot months w/o any a/c at all?

When I spent summers with my grandparents in the valley as a small child they had no AC. It really wasn't as bad as people imagine. It wasn't great, but you just find places with a breeze or stay next to a fan.

[boutons_]

"Drilling ANWR will do absolutely nothing."

Bullshit, it enriches the oilcos.

We'll see if more supply affects the price:

"Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output to Highest Ever

By JAD MOUAWAD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/jad_mouawad/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 14, 2008

Saudi Arabia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/saudiarabia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), the world’s biggest oil exporter, is planning to increase its output next month by about a half-million barrels a day, according to analysts and oil traders who have been briefed by Saudi officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/business/14oil.html?hp

So what's the predicted per day volume PEAK from ANWR?

I love how the Saudis brief the speculators and manipulators so those players can place their bets and make their millions.

[TDMVPDPOY]

it doesnt really help much when you got fagot economists coming out saying per barol is going to be 200bucks in the foreseable future, thats when OPEC knows hey if they can afford it, theres no reason why we cant set the sale price in that range.....

[ElNono]

"Drilling ANWR will do absolutely nothing."

Bullshit, it enriches the oilcos.

We'll see if more supply affects the price:

"Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output to Highest Ever

By JAD MOUAWAD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/jad_mouawad/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 14, 2008

Saudi Arabia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/saudiarabia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), the world’s biggest oil exporter, is planning to increase its output next month by about a half-million barrels a day, according to analysts and oil traders who have been briefed by Saudi officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/business/14oil.html?hp

So what's the predicted per day volume PEAK from ANWR?

I love how the Saudis brief the speculators and manipulators so those players can place their bets and make their millions.

What I meant by 'doing nothing', is in relation to the gas price.
And Brazil just found another field with ~30 billion more barrels.
LINK (http://uk.reuters.com/article/allBreakingNews/idUKL135442520080613)

We'll see how the market reacts to the news...

[boutons_]

If the US grabbed all 0.5M barrels of increased SA output, then it would supply about half an hour/ of US oil usage.

[Wild Cobra]

Internal combustion engines are so inefficient, it's not even funny. On average, even when aided with turbochargers, the efficiency is only about 20%. That is, you only extract 20% of energy from the gas you burn. Even if somehow we created the perfect IC engine, the law of thermodynamics limits your efficiency to 37% max.

This may be true, but I did hear modern engines are up to about 25% rather than 20%.



We need to move away from gas, and into electric and/or hydrogen. The problem with going entirely electric is that we need more R&D into battery technologies.

Move away, YES. But nothing is viable at current fuel costs.

What about the hazardous waste from battery production? As much as people don't believe so, gasoline engines are likely more green than the current alternatives.



Here's a company that has an all electric car on the market already: Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php)
Their Roadster is too expensive right now, but they're planning for a more economical version, and if cars like this could be mass produced, the cost would be a lot cheaper.

Are those the ones that buy the batteries from China, and who knows what type of waste they are polluting some site with. In my opinion, since they sell to first world markets, they will probably demand we include them in our superfund sites and pay for cleanup in the future.



As far as hydrogen, I'm pretty sure Honda will lead the market with their FCX Clarity (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/)
They've been working on it for a long time, and they even have a small hydrogen station you can install in your garage and produce hydrogen yourself at home. I'm not currently aware of the range in these cars, but hydrogen is relatively cheap and easy to produce.

Hydrogen is not cheap to produce, especially to the quality needed to keep impurities from breaking down the fuel cell membranes. 44,000 watt hours for 1 gallon equivalent gasoline for vehicle use. It takes electricity to crack hydrogen out of water unless you go to a hazardous waste causing chemical method.

Has anyone ever seen a miles per dollar calculation of these alternate vehicles? For the time being, I think we are stuck with hybrids... with all the environmental damage they do in battery production!

[Wild Cobra]

You're not thinking forward. You're thinking right now.
Back then when we had near infinite amount of oil supply, and our entire infrastructure was based on combustion engines, it was the obvious choice to keep using what we had. It was more economical than exploring alternatives. Plus the technology didn't exist to have an all-electric or all-hydrogen car that was usable.

Are you thinking in the future? Increase hydrogen demand, and how much will it increase in price? Right now, the cheapest hydrogen is made from methane. We only have so much methane available before having to crack it from water using electricity. Increase electrical need to supply all the power for a car, and how much will that effect supply and demand pricing?



Right now oil supply is meeting demand, and it will get worse over time on the demand side. It's a limited resource. Simple as that.

If oil was meeting demand, fuel would be cheaper. We have enough oil reserves to drill cheaper than $100 per barrel and have 100% energy dependence. However, everywhere we have oil, the demonrats won't let us drill.



Many companies have spent a lot of money on alternative energy sources. That's why we have solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
As far as cars are concerned, the technology right now can build an all-electric car that can do ~220 miles on a single charge. The cost can vary between 1 to 4 cents per mile, depending when and where you charge your car. The beauty of all-electric is that you can charge pretty much anywhere. The infrastructure cost is minimal, plus electricity can be generated from solar, wind, hydro, etc that are pretty clean sources.

If I did my math right, costs for the Tesla would be a minimum of $0.07 per mile, by their numbers. 110 kw per km at $0.10 per kwh. In a dynamic world, electricity prices would sharply rise if we put enough of these on the road.



Hydrogen can also currently do about ~220 miles on a single fuel cell. The biggest caveat being that a lot of infrastructure will need to be built to handle it.

Too many drawbacks to a fuel cell vehicle. Have they worked out the degradation of the separator yet? Hydrogen prices at transportation volumes?



My biggest beef with lawmakers is that it's unfortunate they keep feeding the Detroit cartel with incentives and tax breaks, while it's mostly foreign and independent companies that build and bring to market actual cars with innovative technology. I'm sure that at least the independent company could have used a tax break or a 30 million incentive from the government while developing their car.

Maybe Detroit is still the only viable way to go with the known sciences...

[Wild Cobra]

silicon crystals are so fragile. is that the research you're trying to improve?
Silicon is amazingly flexible when it's thin. Look at the abuse smart cards go through!

[Wild Cobra]

The idea is to move away from silicon.

The bottleneck with silicon is the high cost of purification, not its brittleness.
I think it was in Popular Science in the early 70's. A guy developed a way to use sand to create solar panels. He couldn't get funding to go large scale. Energy was still dirt ceap back then, and this was suppose to be a cheap alternative as prices would rise.

Yes, pure silicon wafers get expensive. It's nothing but refined sand. In solar generation, the same purity isn't needed. I wonder if someone revitalized the reaserch I read about so many years ago?

[Wild Cobra]

Drilling ANWR will do absolutely nothing. Look what happened since Brazil announced they found a 8 billion barrel reserve last November. It will take years to start pumping oil out of it, and speculators know that.

Isn't that a defeatist thinking process?

If we never develope more oil because it takes time to get it, then how much worse will we be in those 8-10 years when we have no new wells?

[scott]

Hey Scott. Two things. I can remember here in Texas when the Permian Basin was the center of oil and oil was selling for next to nothing, they stacked rigs. Then when it went up they couldn't find or buy enough rigs to get into the fields. So, somehow this doesn't fit into the picture you have painted. OILCO's drilled but most drilling was done by independents. I had an uncle that worked with lots of wildcatters. He worked them all,
cable tools and rotary and did it all from dressing tools to driller to tool pusher. Another uncle who was a roughneck and got killed by falling out of a rig into the tools on the floor.

Another thing. Listening to Rush today........waiting till all the catcalls die down.........a lady called in today who had been a trader on the floor of Wall Street and she made the statement, which I had made, and was scoffed at, that if they opened up ANWR and other areas and announced that they were going to start drilling the cost of oil would more than likely fall by 30-40 dollars almost
immediately. Rush said, yeah, but none would be produced for 10 years, her comment, yes, but traders are trading into the future and that is what they base their price on. And she made a valid point. Crude feel today on news that the Saudis were going to start producing from a newly developed field. And on the stronger dollar.
Any comments.

Added: She also said she though oil was in a bubble right now and
could have a dramatic fall in price.

Wow, wasn't this thread to become so popular.

I don't have a whole lot of time to respond, so I'll only address the point of drilling domestically and so-called oil independence.

There seems to be a continued misperception that drilling ANWR will allow us to be free of foreign oil, or that the reserves down there are just massive. It simply is not the case.

First, the US consumes over 20 million barrels a day of oil.

Estimates for reserves in the ANWR assessment area (which includes all public and private lands) are that there is a 95% chance the area contains at least 5.7 billion barrels (low end) and a 5% chance the area contains 16.0 billion barrels (high end).

Despite the odds, lets assume the high end and all of the oil is economically recoverable (some barrels cost more than others to extract, we'll assume here they are all profitable to extract).

16 billion barrels of oil divided by demand of 20 million barrels a day gives us 800 days of supply, or 26 months.

Now, obviously, it is unrealistic to assume we could get 100% of our oil from that field. 1) It would be physically impossible 2) it wouldn't be economic (a refinery in Texas would still prefer crude from Mexico, for example, just because of shipping economics).

If we just wanted to replace current imports (approximately 1/2 of currently supply), we would then have 52 months of supply.

Now, what if we wanted to use these additional reserves to merely cut out certain countries we don't want to feel "held hostage" by? Say, OPEC for example.

In 2007, we imported approximately 2 billion barrels of oil from OPEC. So, we could kick them out of the picture for up to 8 years (again, this assumes high case for ANWR supply).

If we wanted to exclude Persian Gulf oil (775 million barrels in 2007), we could do so for approximately 21 years.

Keep in mind, it is not realistic to assume we could produce this much oil from that field... just not physically possible.

Also, many people don't realize who we import most of our oil from. We import about 10 million barrels a day. Here is the list of the top 5 nations from which we imported in 2007:

1) Canada - 1.86 million barrels per day
2) Saudi Arabia - 1.45 million barrles per day (OPEC Nation)
3) Mexico - 1.41 million barrels per day
4) Venezuela - 1.15 million barrles per day (OPEC Nation)
5) Nigeria - 1.08 million barrles per day (OPEC Nation)

It is worth noting that #6 on the list is Angola with a mere 496 thousand barrels per day. The top 5 nations listed above accounted for 69% of oil exported to our country.

Now, about the crude trader's comments. Yes, traders trade oil based on information in the future. However, the spot price of oil is NOT based on oil projects to be coming online 10 years from now. You can buy a 2018 contract today, and that would certainly be impacted by news of a field to come online in that time frame... but if congress allowed unrestricted access to ANWR tomorrow, you would see very little impact in the price of oil today.

Time for bed.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, wasn't this thread to become so popular.

I don't have a whole lot of time to respond, so I'll only address the point of drilling domestically and so-called oil independence.

There seems to be a continued misperception that drilling ANWR will allow us to be free of foreign oil, or that the reserves down there are just massive. It simply is not the case.

I think too many people forget there are so many other places we have reserves, but are forbidden to drill. We have plenty of oil to make us independent for decades still. The oil companies are simply forbidden.

Want to see prices come down? Open the USA up to the known reserves, forbid or tax imports and exports heavily, and let the free market competition between the oil companies set the USA market prices.

[scott]

I think too many people forget there are so many other places we have reserves, but are forbidden to drill. We have plenty of oil to make us independent for decades still. The oil companies are simply forbidden.

Want to see prices come down? Open the USA up to the known reserves, forbid or tax imports and exports heavily, and let the free market competition between the oil companies set the USA market prices.


I'll have to address this more specifically later, but I think you significantly overestimate our reserves, our ability to extract them, and the economics behind that extraction. There are also a lot of places we have reserves and CAN drill, but don't because those reserves have not been able to compete on price with other sources of oil.

Second, heavily taxing or restricting imports and exports will have the effect of raising prices, not lowering them. Restricting imports to protect a higher-price domestic good does not result in that good being lower priced domestically. See ethanol for a current real-world example.

[Wild Cobra]

Second, heavily taxing or restricting imports and exports will have the effect of raising prices, not lowering them. Restricting imports to protect a higher-price domestic good does not result in that good being lower priced domestically. See ethanol for a current real-world example.
Only is such policies were implemented before we can supply enough for our own needs.

[scott]

Only is such policies were implemented before we can supply enough for our own needs.

For the sake of this thread, I'll only address this from an economic perspective, without any input of my personal opinion on the matter.

If we were able to supply enough oil for our own needs and do so economically, then there would be no need for import restrictions or quotas, because imports would not be able to compete on price and would never enter our market.

Now, if you wanted to prevent this domestic oil (which by definition would be price advantaged to other foreign sources) from leaving our market, then an export quota would do the trick. However, it comes at a cost. In this scenario, our domestic price would be lower than the world price, and domestic suppliers would want to export their oil to obtain a higher price for their good or service. Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment, which in turn would result in a flight of capital from these domestic oil companies (who wants to invest in a company that earns sub-market rates of return?), this less investment and less domestic production until the domestic market equalizes to the world market.

If your objective (again, back to keeping an eye on the objective) is to reduce the amount of oil we import, the only realistic way (short of discovering trillions of barrels of economically viable oil under a rock in Arizona somewhere) is to reduce demand for oil domestically.

In the meantime, I feel inclined to ask, what is it about importing oil that really bothers people, especially considering where 70% of those imports come from?

[ElNono]

This may be true, but I did hear modern engines are up to about 25% rather than 20%.


Compare with hydrogen at 40%+ and electric at 60%+...



Move away, YES. But nothing is viable at current fuel costs.

What about the hazardous waste from battery production? As much as people don't believe so, gasoline engines are likely more green than the current alternatives.

Wow, I can tell you know very little about rechargeable batteries. Li-Ion is what's mostly used since they don't have the memory issues of old nickel batteries. They are fully recyclable, and their components can be reused to make new batteries.
Do a google search for Lithium Ion battery disposal.



Are those the ones that buy the batteries from China, and who knows what type of waste they are polluting some site with. In my opinion, since they sell to first world markets, they will probably demand we include them in our superfund sites and pay for cleanup in the future.

This just shows your ignorance on the subject. Please do some reading, then we'll talk about it. And FWIW, current cars have plenty of Chinese components and plastics that are not biodegradable.



Hydrogen is not cheap to produce, especially to the quality needed to keep impurities from breaking down the fuel cell membranes. 44,000 watt hours for 1 gallon equivalent gasoline for vehicle use. It takes electricity to crack hydrogen out of water unless you go to a hazardous waste causing chemical method.

Really? Natural Gas is a hazardous waste material? News to me. Now if you would at least bothered to follow the Honda link I provided and did a little reading, you wouldn't sound like a complete ignorant on the matter.



Has anyone ever seen a miles per dollar calculation of these alternate vehicles? For the time being, I think we are stuck with hybrids... with all the environmental damage they do in battery production!

Hybrids use batteries too, in case you were not aware.
The biggest hurdle with electric cars has nothing to do with the enviorment. These are not alkaline batteries we're talking about here. The biggest hurdle was to have the technology to be able to secure a big enough Li-Ion battery against heat and or fire. Read up n the Tesla page on how they achieved that.

[ElNono]

Silicon is amazingly flexible when it's thin. Look at the abuse smart cards go through!

Do you realize that the chip inside a smartcard is entirely contained right on top of the contacts, and it's not flexible at all? The rest of the card is plastic.
Try this: With an old smartcard you don't use anymore, heat it up right around the contacts, then bend it where the contacts are. The chip should come flying right out.

[ElNono]

Are you thinking in the future? Increase hydrogen demand, and how much will it increase in price? Right now, the cheapest hydrogen is made from methane. We only have so much methane available before having to crack it from water using electricity. Increase electrical need to supply all the power for a car, and how much will that effect supply and demand pricing?


Currently hydrogen is generated in bulk mostly from natural gas by steam reform. The byproduct is methane and syngas. Methane and syngas can also be generated by coal. Further, hydrogen can be created from carbon monoxide and water.
And that's just for chemical generation. You also have what you mention, electroysis, using electricity. There's a third way, using heat.
Check the Hydrogen production page at wikipedia.
Even if we had to be stuck with electrolysis, there's way more ways to generate electricity here at home (hydro, wind,solar, coal,nuclear) than relying in a foreign limited commodity such as oil.



If oil was meeting demand, fuel would be cheaper. We have enough oil reserves to drill cheaper than $100 per barrel and have 100% energy dependence. However, everywhere we have oil, the demonrats won't let us drill.

We don't have that kind of reserves, get over it.



If I did my math right, costs for the Tesla would be a minimum of $0.07 per mile, by their numbers. 110 kw per km at $0.10 per kwh. In a dynamic world, electricity prices would sharply rise if we put enough of these on the road.

We're going to have to increase electrical capacity even when the pluggable hybrids come around. Things is, you can generate electricity here athome and in many ways. Down the road you might want to invest in putting some solar panels in your roof and generate some of your own.



Too many drawbacks to a fuel cell vehicle. Have they worked out the degradation of the separator yet? Hydrogen prices at transportation volumes?

The Honda is a fuel cell vehicle. You can lease one right now if you live in southern Cali. I guess whatever problem the separator had, they found a way to make it work. The biggest hurdle is infrastructure. Not many hydrogen stations anywhere outside of California yet.



Maybe Detroit is still the only viable way to go with the known sciences...

Well, Im sure they'll stick around. However they're not stupid, and now that they have to swallow a big ass inventory of Hummers and Suburbans, Im sure they're going to start paying attention.

[ElNono]

Isn't that a defeatist thinking process?

If we never develope more oil because it takes time to get it, then how much worse will we be in those 8-10 years when we have no new wells?

You assume that drilling there will give you independence from foreign oil in 8-10 years. You assume wrong. I would rather see the money spent there used to expand our electrical capacity. If electric cars are already being sold now, you can bet they're going to be out there in 10 years. Same thing with hybrids. I actually see the hybrids moving more and more towards fully electrical as technology improves and costs get cheaper.

[xrayzebra]

Wow, wasn't this thread to become so popular.



There seems to be a continued misperception that drilling ANWR will allow us to be free of foreign oil, or that the reserves down there are just massive. It simply is not the case.


Also, many people don't realize who we import most of our oil from. We import about 10 million barrels a day. Here is the list of the top 5 nations from which we imported in 2007:

1) Canada - 1.86 million barrels per day
2) Saudi Arabia - 1.45 million barrles per day (OPEC Nation)
3) Mexico - 1.41 million barrels per day
4) Venezuela - 1.15 million barrles per day (OPEC Nation)
5) Nigeria - 1.08 million barrles per day (OPEC Nation)



First, I am not or was not saying ANWR was the absolute answer to our problem. All fields will come to end, in time. Although, there is now some saying oil is still being formed. A whole new argument, not for this thread.

The point I was trying to make is that we should not restrict ourselves on where we drill. I read an article this weekend, which I am sure you are very familiar with the subject, deep drilling in the gulf. It stated that PEMEX and the Mexican government were considering joining with American companies in exploration of the gulf, simply because they don't have the capability or knowhow and their production is peaking and expect their production to start declining. Which isn't good news for us.
See #3 on your list. Also Mexico was thinking of negotiating some sort of agreement with our government on sharing of oil along the international borders. They and others feel that some pools may extend under each others territory. (which made me think of Cuba and China. They are drilling in the gulf between Florida and Cuba, 90 miles only separates the two.
Hellllllo all you environmental folks, who don't want us drilling off our coast.:lol)

Anyhow, I seriouslly doubt we could ever, now, become energy independent for oil. Under our free enterprise system and with so many uses of oil, I just don't think it is possible. But we certainly could have enough oil to sustain us in cases of wars or stop ourselves from become victims of blackmail by some of our friends in the ME.

And I suspect things are going to start heating up between the Pakis and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is rattling their sword and saying that they feel justified in going into Paki territory to root out those that are invading their country.

Added: One other thing. Wasn't there suppose to be a new pipeline coming out of the gulf into Texas or Louisiana that was going to bring about
3 Mil barrels a day? I haven't heard anything about it lately.

[boutons_]

"more oil supply" is a right-wing ideological rigidity that, as always, makes right-wingers as stupid as ever. Totally "faith based" oil bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Has anyone ever seen a miles per dollar calculation of these alternate vehicles? For the time being, I think we are stuck with hybrids... with all the environmental damage they do in battery production!

Hmm

Kilowatt hours/charge* charge/miles*dollars/kilowatt hour= dollars/mile

One google under "electric car charge" gets this:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5685

250 kilowatts*10 minutes= 2500 kilowatt minutes /60=41.67 kwhours

one charge=160 km=100 miles

rates for electricity in Austin, going forward:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/06/09/daily37.html?ana=from_rss

550 khw= $73.08 73.08/550=$0.1328 per kwh

.1328*41.67=$5.53 per charge, which gets you 100 miles, or

$0.0553 per mile. Call it 6 cents per mile.

Gasoline, assuming a 35mpg vehicle, is $4.00 per gallon 4/35= $.114, or call it $0.12 per mile

Seems like a winner.

BUT

Assume that the electric car costs a $20,000 premium over what a comparable gas-powered car would cost.

$20,000/.06= 333,333


MEANING:

It would take 333,333 miles driven before the electric car would "pay for itself" and be cheaper thatn the gas car in terms of Fuel, well beyond the normal life for any passenger vehicle.

LASTLY:

If the electric car cost the same as it's gasoline-equivalent, you should go for it for normal driving conditions, because the savings would eventually almost pay for the car itself.

Bear in mind that this was ONE calculation for ONE type of electric car using ONE utility rate that is likely understated. If you are using 41.6 kwh per DAY charging this car, your rates get a bit more expensive per unit of electricity, to my understanding, reducing the cost benefit.

BOTTOM LINE:

Still kind of a wash, but electric cars are getting there. Give oil another decade of record per barrel increases, and utilities installing a lot more renewable generating sources, and the equation WILL heavily favor the electric vehicle.

My grandchildern will not be driving gasoline-engine cars, except when their grampa let's them play with his old museum piece.

[RandomGuy]

"more oil supply" is a right-wing ideological rigidity that, as always, makes right-wingers as stupid as ever. Totally "faith based" oil bullshit.


A bit more acrimonious than I would normally choose, but essentially correct.

That is the problem with a lot of "conservative" thinking, in my view. Such thinking looks to the past and attempts to preserve it, and is sometimes very ill-suited to dealing with the one constant of the universe: change.

100 years ago it was "conservative" to play up horse-drawn carriages over those noisy "alternative" vehicles with their exploding engines.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more acrimonious than I would normally choose, but essentially correct.

That is the problem with a lot of "conservative" thinking, in my view. Such thinking looks to the past and attempts to preserve it, and is sometimes very ill-suited to dealing with the one constant of the universe: change.

100 years ago it was "conservative" to play up horse-drawn carriages over those noisy "alternative" vehicles with their exploding engines.

I can see how it would have gone:

"We don't need to spend money on all these new-fangled technologies, if the government would just let us put horse stables next to schools!"

[Wild Cobra]

Do you realize that the chip inside a smartcard is entirely contained right on top of the contacts, and it's not flexible at all? The rest of the card is plastic.
Try this: With an old smartcard you don't use anymore, heat it up right around the contacts, then bend it where the contacts are. The chip should come flying right out.
I've worked in the Silicon Process Industry for nine years as a enginerring technician for the CMP process on 200 mm wafers. I have seen how flexible silicon is. I never meant to conver the idea it's like plastic, but it does have some bend to it before it breaks. Plenty of flexibility when done right and it can be adhered to other materials with limited flexibility.

[ElNono]

I've worked in the Silicon Process Industry for nine years as a enginerring technician for the CMP process on 200 mm wafers. I have seen how flexible silicon is. I never meant to conver the idea it's like plastic, but it does have some bend to it before it breaks. Plenty of flexibility when done right and it can be adhered to other materials with limited flexibility.

Smartcards ICs have no flexibility whatsoever because they're entirely covered in epoxy. I've done a good amount of work in the past on 0.18µm smartcard ICs and older. It was one of my areas of expertise up until about 2 years ago.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything else. If I was allowed, I could talk about that stuff all day.
And yes, my education is in electronics.

[ElNono]

Hmm

Kilowatt hours/charge* charge/miles*dollars/kilowatt hour= dollars/mile

One google under "electric car charge" gets this:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5685

250 kilowatts*10 minutes= 2500 kilowatt minutes /60=41.67 kwhours

one charge=160 km=100 miles

rates for electricity in Austin, going forward:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/06/09/daily37.html?ana=from_rss

550 khw= $73.08 73.08/550=$0.1328 per kwh

.1328*41.67=$5.53 per charge, which gets you 100 miles, or

$0.0553 per mile. Call it 6 cents per mile.

Gasoline, assuming a 35mpg vehicle, is $4.00 per gallon 4/35= $.114, or call it $0.12 per mile

Seems like a winner.

BUT

Assume that the electric car costs a $20,000 premium over what a comparable gas-powered car would cost.

$20,000/.06= 333,333


MEANING:

It would take 333,333 miles driven before the electric car would "pay for itself" and be cheaper thatn the gas car in terms of Fuel, well beyond the normal life for any passenger vehicle.

LASTLY:

If the electric car cost the same as it's gasoline-equivalent, you should go for it for normal driving conditions, because the savings would eventually almost pay for the car itself.

Bear in mind that this was ONE calculation for ONE type of electric car using ONE utility rate that is likely understated. If you are using 41.6 kwh per DAY charging this car, your rates get a bit more expensive per unit of electricity, to my understanding, reducing the cost benefit.

BOTTOM LINE:

Still kind of a wash, but electric cars are getting there. Give oil another decade of record per barrel increases, and utilities installing a lot more renewable generating sources, and the equation WILL heavily favor the electric vehicle.

My grandchildern will not be driving gasoline-engine cars, except when their grampa let's them play with his old museum piece.

I'm sure electric cars are not, at this stage, the most solid cars, especially when you talk about new technologies. But one extra nicety about electric cars is that they don't need as many moving parts as gas cars, thus reducing the amount of wear and tear on such components. There's also the oil, filters, coolant, oxygen sensors, water pump, catalytic converter, mufflers, and probably some more stuff I'm forgetting that are not required at all in an electric car, and thus reduce considerably the maintenance necessary on them.

[Wild Cobra]

For the sake of this thread, I'll only address this from an economic perspective, without any input of my personal opinion on the matter.

If we were able to supply enough oil for our own needs and do so economically, then there would be no need for import restrictions or quotas, because imports would not be able to compete on price and would never enter our market.

Bullshit. As a world commodity, you have to consider world supply and demand rather than USA supply and demand unless you place restrictions. For what you say to work, we would have to be able to produce enough more oil than just our needs, unless you think oil companies are going to take a loss of potential sales.



Now, if you wanted to prevent this domestic oil (which by definition would be price advantaged to other foreign sources) from leaving our market, then an export quota would do the trick. However, it comes at a cost. In this scenario, our domestic price would be lower than the world price, and domestic suppliers would want to export their oil to obtain a higher price for their good or service. Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment, which in turn would result in a flight of capital from these domestic oil companies (who wants to invest in a company that earns sub-market rates of return?), this less investment and less domestic production until the domestic market equalizes to the world market.

"Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment"

What? They are not forced to sell at a loss. They are confined to the USA market, and will still make a profit as competition allows. They will get less than on the world market. They will still make a reasonable profit. When they are forced to buy at $138 per barrel and cannot drill oil for under $50 per barrel, our prices will remain high. If we open more supply domestically, much of it will be cheap, some will be more than $50. It comes back to supply and demand in the market.



If your objective (again, back to keeping an eye on the objective) is to reduce the amount of oil we import, the only realistic way (short of discovering trillions of barrels of economically viable oil under a rock in Arizona somewhere) is to reduce demand for oil domestically.

You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists? A little bit here like 2 years worth from ANWR, more off the coast of Florida, some here, there, everywhere. Pretty soon these numbers add up to more than 20 years worth at reasonable costs. By then we are far more likely to be ready for a hydrogen economy or something else. Maybe even cold fusion.



In the meantime, I feel inclined to ask, what is it about importing oil that really bothers people, especially considering where 70% of those imports come from?

Most our imports come from Canada. I assume you mean from countries that sponsor terrorism, or do you mean Arab countries? Persian Gulf countries only supply 21% of our imports. Check out this link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/summary2007.html) from the EIA.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, I can tell you know very little about rechargeable batteries. Li-Ion is what's mostly used since they don't have the memory issues of old nickel batteries. They are fully recyclable, and their components can be reused to make new batteries.
Do a google search for Lithium Ion battery disposal.

Aren't they still limited to three years of reliable life? Then it's a class 9 material hazard also! I only saw a 100,000 mile plus serviceability for the Tesla. No years given. I have never heard of a lithium ion batter than can be left in practical service for more than three years. Have you?



This just shows your ignorance on the subject. Please do some reading, then we'll talk about it. And FWIW, current cars have plenty of Chinese components and plastics that are not biodegradable.

Really? Did you ever look a how much that power level of batteries cost? Have the prices come down yet with lifecycles more than ten years? Who's responsible for recycling them, and will there be a fee, or a refund? I may be ignorant of the latest advances, but I don't believe they are of a nature to make it practical yet. I am speaking of HAZMAT class 9 material. Not imported plastics.



Really? Natural Gas is a hazardous waste material? News to me. Now if you would at least bothered to follow the Honda link I provided and did a little reading, you wouldn't sound like a complete ignorant on the matter.

I guess that didn't come out right. We don't have enough natural gas to supply hydrogen for mass marketed hydrogen cars, or even fuel cells that might work directly off CH4. If we go to a hydrogen fuel, we will have to go to the expensive means of aquiring enough hydrogen unless we stop caring about the environment. There just isn't enough methane.

I did explain that somewhere didn't I? I know I meant to.



Hybrids use batteries too, in case you were not aware.
The biggest hurdle with electric cars has nothing to do with the environment. These are not alkaline batteries we're talking about here. The biggest hurdle was to have the technology to be able to secure a big enough Li-Ion battery against heat and or fire. Read up n the Tesla page on how they achieved that.

You should do some searched on the environmental impact of making the batteries for hybrid cars. We buy them from countries that don't care. How much does it raise the cost to make them green? As for the Tesla, what's the cheapest spin-off we might see? Isn't that a $100,000 car?

I do know far more than you give me credit. You shouldn't jump to conclusions with me. I don't just ramble away on a subject without having at least a good understanding of it. I have yet to see anything on battery technology that makes them practical for the consumer market to such a degree. Cost and long term durability. How long do they last before all the batteries need to be replaced anyway? Did they cover that?

[scott]

Bullshit. As a world commodity, you have to consider world supply and demand rather than USA supply and demand unless you place restrictions. For what you say to work, we would have to be able to produce enough more oil than just our needs, unless you think oil companies are going to take a loss of potential sales.

The foundations of trade are based on comparative advantage. I'll repeat my previous statement, because I don't think you followed it:

"If we were able to supply enough oil for our own needs and do so economically, then there would be no need for import restrictions or quotas, because imports would not be able to compete on price and would never enter our market."

Assuming no restrictions on imports or exports, for the US to be self-sufficient on oil, it by definition would mean that domestic crude were comparatively advantaged against the next best alternative. This is the basic law of international trade, and isn't really up for debate. If we had a comparative advantage, we, by definition would become a net exporter.


"Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment"

What? They are not forced to sell at a loss. They are confined to the USA market, and will still make a profit as competition allows. They will get less than on the world market. They will still make a reasonable profit. When they are forced to buy at $138 per barrel and cannot drill oil for under $50 per barrel, our prices will remain high. If we open more supply domestically, much of it will be cheap, some will be more than $50. It comes back to supply and demand in the market.

By placing export restrictions you are, again, by definition forcing domestic companies to incur an economic loss (this is not the same as an accounting loss, this means they are selling at a price less than their next best alternative) by not allowing them to sell on the world market for a higher price. You even said it: "they will get less than on the world market". That is the definition of being forced to take an economic loss.

You make a lot of other assumptions here. Who is forced to buy at $138/barrel? No one is forced to do anything. Also, you need to seperate in your mind the cost to extract oil and the economic value of extracted oil. You also need to revisit your assumptions as to the costs to extract, not just in terms of the direct monetary cost but the negative externalities associated with new production.

Part of the reason oil companies can and will invest in new projects, is because they yield high returns. Yet, you want to limit the profitability of domestic oil companies, which would immediately limit their ability to invest in these projects. So you've bit off your nose in spite of your face, essentially.

Essentially this "open for exploration and limit exports" plan is you calling for the Government to bail out your (and the rest of America's) addiction for oil, which is ironic in a couple of ways. Unfortunately, your idea simply does not fit within the framework of basic economic theory.


You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists? A little bit here like 2 years worth from ANWR, more off the coast of Florida, some here, there, everywhere. Pretty soon these numbers add up to more than 20 years worth at reasonable costs. By then we are far more likely to be ready for a hydrogen economy or something else. Maybe even cold fusion.

With all due respect, I am pretty sure I am significantly more up to date on estimated oil reserves in this country (perhaps more than anyone on this forum) as I am (currently) in the industry and this is precisely the sort of thing I get paid to know.

There is a significant difference between estimated oil reserves, proven oil reserves and economically extractable oil reserves.

We are capable of being self-sufficient, but that is true at any level of supply. If we could only supply 100 barrels a day, we could still be self-sufficient... we would just have to increase price to the point where demand were limited to 100 barrels a day.

I am not making an assumption, I am speaking with extreme confidence that at current levels of demand and prices at or below current levels, the United States is physically unable to be self-sufficient. You can argue otherwise until you are blue in the face, but it wouldn't make it any more true, it would just mean you believe in something that isn't true.


Most our imports come from Canada. I assume you mean from countries that sponsor terrorism, or do you mean Arab countries? Persian Gulf countries only supply 21% of our imports. Check out this link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/summary2007.html) from the EIA.

I know exactly where our imported oil comes from, in fact I posted a list of the top importers just on the last page. Thanks though.

[ElNono]

Aren't they still limited to three years of reliable life? Then it's a class 9 material hazard also! I only saw a 100,000 mile plus serviceability for the Tesla. No years given. I have never heard of a lithium ion batter than can be left in practical service for more than three years. Have you?

Limited life is a problem. I did say more battery research is needed. :)
And BTW, Lithium-Ion batteries are classified as non-hazardous material by the federal government (link) (http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/batteries.php).

Also, as the Tesla site states:
"Unlike other batteries that came before them, Lithium ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. However, dumping these batteries in the trash would be throwing money away. Even a completely dead battery pack contains valuable, recoverable materials that can be sold back to recycling companies for cash."

Only when Air shipping is involved they're classified as class 9 material.
Let's not forget other class 9 materials, so we know what we're talking about here:
- Air Bag inflators
- Asbestos
- Dry Ice
- PCBs
- Wheel chairs/electric cars



Really? Did you ever look a how much that power level of batteries cost? Have the prices come down yet with lifecycles more than ten years? Who's responsible for recycling them, and will there be a fee, or a refund? I may be ignorant of the latest advances, but I don't believe they are of a nature to make it practical yet. I am speaking of HAZMAT class 9 material. Not imported plastics.

Cost will come down once there's mass production. That's just simple economics. And Lithium-Ion technology itself is being improved at a fast paced rate. Here's a list of recent advances in the field: LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Breakthrough_Research)
As far as recycling, you can visit: LINK (http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/)
This might change, due to the distinctive size and volume of the batteries used in cars, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of refund involved (but it's really just guessing and even maybe wishful thinking).




I guess that didn't come out right. We don't have enough natural gas to supply hydrogen for mass marketed hydrogen cars, or even fuel cells that might work directly off CH4. If we go to a hydrogen fuel, we will have to go to the expensive means of aquiring enough hydrogen unless we stop caring about the environment. There just isn't enough methane.

I did explain that somewhere didn't I? I know I meant to.


I kind of doubt that. I mean, Honda's generator that runs on natural gas provides both electricity and heat for a whole house, plus hydrogen for a car.
According to them (caveat emptor) it reduces energy costs by 50%. LINK (http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4071114Experimental-Home-Energy-Station/)
There's no shortage of coal as far as I know. I also don't see a shortage of natural gas. Heck, 37% of electricity produced in California (biggest source) comes from natural gas. Now, I explicitly stated I really don't give a darn about the environment. But your stance of lets drill everywhere for oil, but when it comes to hydrogen lets take care of the environment is really hypocritical.



You should do some searched on the environmental impact of making the batteries for hybrid cars. We buy them from countries that don't care. How much does it raise the cost to make them green? As for the Tesla, what's the cheapest spin-off we might see? Isn't that a $100,000 car?


At least we already have a recycling program in place from Li-Ion batteries used extensively everywhere (laptops, phones, PDAs, etc). We buy many many things from countries that don't care, including innumerable car components. Like those class 9 hazard Air Bag inflators mentioned above.
They already announced their next car, estimated MSRP $50000. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Star_(car))
Obviously, if you can mass produce, you can dramatically reduce the price.
I'm actually shocked it 'only' costs 100K for the Roadster, considering they only built 100 cars.



I do know far more than you give me credit. You shouldn't jump to conclusions with me. I don't just ramble away on a subject without having at least a good understanding of it. I have yet to see anything on battery technology that makes them practical for the consumer market to such a degree. Cost and long term durability. How long do they last before all the batteries need to be replaced anyway? Did they cover that?

I never claimed that battery technology is ready to roll. I can actually quote myself saying battery technology needs more R&D.
That said, I'm going back to the original point: We keep giving tax dollars handouts to Detroit to build Oil-based solutions. Is that how we're encouraging our independence from oil? Wouldn't an incentive to companies working on truly oil-free solutions make more sense?
Even if it doesn't pan out for another 5 years. I mean, the DOE just handed out 30 Million to the Detroit cartel to 'entice' them to build pluggable hybrids by 2012. That's still 4 years down the road anyways.

[ElNono]

The foundations of trade are based on comparative advantage. I'll repeat my previous statement, because I don't think you followed it:

...(edited for brevity)...

I know exactly where our imported oil comes from, in fact I posted a list of the top importers just on the last page. Thanks though.

What do you think would happen if we were to drill everywhere and, let's say, be able to produce an important amount of oil, but actually export it to the global market instead of doing a local supply?
Part of me thinks that other oil producing nations might want to reduce the price to compete with one extra player (with significant economic and political muscle, I might add), but another part of me thinks they know our Oil reserves are not big enough to sustain the output, and thus they might not back down, and take the hit temporarily. Your thoughts?

[Wild Cobra]

Limited life is a problem. I did say more battery research is needed. :)
And BTW, Lithium-Ion batteries are classified as non-hazardous material by the federal government (link) (http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/batteries.php).

This is for small batteries. The batteries exempted have very little lithium in them like the L91 and L92 button style batteries. The limit is 12 grams per cell and also have the restriction that they cannot explode if shorted and sealed as not to react with water.
.


Also, as the Tesla site states:
"Unlike other batteries that came before them, Lithium ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. However, dumping these batteries in the trash would be throwing money away. Even a completely dead battery pack contains valuable, recoverable materials that can be sold back to recycling companies for cash."

So, these batteries have less than 12 grams per cell?



Only when Air shipping is involved they're classified as class 9 material.
Let's not forget other class 9 materials, so we know what we're talking about here:
- Air Bag inflators
- Asbestos
- Dry Ice
- PCBs
- Wheel chairs/electric cars

Class 9 is a miscellaneous class. Each item in the class has it's own unique risks. In the case of lithium, it's the quantity. It is reactive with water and can explode. Single small batteries are no big deal. Take the thousands of cells in an electric car, and the concentration in a land fill becomes excessive.

[ElNono]

This is for small batteries. The batteries exempted have very little lithium in them like the L91 and L92 button style batteries. The limit is 12 grams per cell and also have the restriction that they cannot explode if shorted and sealed as not to react with water.
So, these batteries have less than 12 grams per cell?


They have 0.6 grams per cell. They use standard 18650 cells, as used in phones, laptops, etc. Here's their battery white paper: LINK (http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf)


Class 9 is a miscellaneous class. Each item in the class has it's own unique risks. In the case of lithium, it's the quantity. It is reactive with water and can explode. Single small batteries are no big deal. Take the thousands of cells in an electric car, and the concentration in a land fill becomes excessive.

Even if cut and exposed to water, these cells are rated to be safe. Here's one link: LINK (http://www.raesystems.com/~raedocs/App_Tech_Notes/Tech_Notes/TN-166_Li-Ion_Batteries.pdf)
Notice that these cells come with a protection circuit that shuts them off if they detect a thermal runaway: LINK (http://www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/ICR18650NH-2200.pdf)

A thermal runaway can cause smoke, flames or an explosion. That's why they designed their battery pack with that in mind, even in case the protection circuit fails. Again, refer to their white paper above.
About pollution, Tesla includes the price of battery recycling in the price of the car, according to their website. So those don't go to a land fill, they get recycled and reused on new batteries / stainless steel products.

Also notice that most current hybrid cars do NOT use Li-Ion battery, but NiMH, which are way more pollutant as they contain much more heavy metals in them. Now supposedly this is because Li-Ion life expectancy is 3 years, more or less, but if you ever owned a cell phone with NiMH batteries, you know the memory issues in those batteries end up being a problem just about the same 3 year time span.

My other concern about this, is how far back are we falling in these technological areas against other countries. Honda debuted the Insight and Toyota followed with the popular Prius, back in 2000. Ford had to license technology from the Prius from them to bring the Escape hybrid to market six years later.
And now GM is starting to sell faux hybrids, like the 08 Malibu, which they call 'mild hybrid', that only gain you 2 mpg over the regular gas model. (link (http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/hybrid_car_types/Chevrolet_Malibu_Hybrid.htm))
I just don't see ourselves trying hard enough to really end this foreign oil dependency.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit. As a world commodity, you have to consider world supply and demand rather than USA supply and demand unless you place restrictions. For what you say to work, we would have to be able to produce enough more oil than just our needs, unless you think oil companies are going to take a loss of potential sales.


"Your plan has now literally forced them into receiving sub-market returns on their investment"

What? They are not forced to sell at a loss. They are confined to the USA market, and will still make a profit as competition allows. They will get less than on the world market. They will still make a reasonable profit. When they are forced to buy at $138 per barrel and cannot drill oil for under $50 per barrel, our prices will remain high. If we open more supply domestically, much of it will be cheap, some will be more than $50. It comes back to supply and demand in the market.


You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists? A little bit here like 2 years worth from ANWR, more off the coast of Florida, some here, there, everywhere. Pretty soon these numbers add up to more than 20 years worth at reasonable costs. By then we are far more likely to be ready for a hydrogen economy or something else. Maybe even cold fusion.


Most our imports come from Canada. I assume you mean from countries that sponsor terrorism, or do you mean Arab countries? Persian Gulf countries only supply 21% of our imports. Check out this link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/summary2007.html) from the EIA.

Dude, you are out of your league when it comes to trying to argue with scott here.

1) You don't seem to be understanding what the guy is saying, so about half of the points in this post are in response to something he didn't really say or mean.

2) You obviously don't seem to have a grasp of the economic points he is making. Have you taken macro and micro-economics courses? Much of what he is outlining is straight out of macro-economics 101.


You are assuming we cannot drill enough for our own needs. We can. Haven't you ever seen a comprehensive list of the places we know oil exists?

He has. He also knows that 100% of the oil in these places isn't technically or economically viable. That is one of his maint points and what you are missing because of your confirmation bias. Sure you can try to extract all of the oil, but if the last barrel of oil someplace literally costs $10,000 to extract, why bother?

[johnsmith]

Dude, you are out of your league when it comes to trying to argue with scott here.

1) You don't seem to be understanding what the guy is saying, so about half of the points in this post are in response to something he didn't really say or mean.

2) You obviously don't seem to have a grasp of the economic points he is making. Have you taken macro and micro-economics courses? Much of what he is outlining is straight out of macro-economics 101.



He has. He also knows that 100% of the oil in these places isn't technically or economically viable. That is one of his maint points and what you are missing because of your confirmation bias. Sure you can try to extract all of the oil, but if the last barrel of oil someplace literally costs $10,000 to extract, why bother?

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

[RandomGuy]

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?


[Randomguy,] you fail to acknowledge I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences.

Meh.

People can have opinions, but when they attempt to argue oil economics with a guy who has a Phd in economics who specializes in analysing oil, well, that to me is just silly if you don't have a solid base of understanding in the field.

Cobra is something of a chemist, and I would not bother to call him on chemical reactions, and would mostly take his word when it comes to that specialty, just as I don't try to second guess my brother the mechanic when he tells me what is wrong with my car.

I only really "talk down" to people who are simply intellectually dishonest. If you can't do the following, then you get no respect from me: 1) Admit the other guy might have a point. 2) Admit you might be wrong 3) Fail to acknowledge or dismiss outright points that might not favor your view point. Ideological blinders serve nothing but one's ego.

[RandomGuy]

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

If you make an argument that you supposedly base on "economics", but violates basic fundamentals of economics, should I not point that out?

[DarkReign]

Do you ever get tired from climbing up so high and talking down to people so often?

We have a sighting!!!

Where you been?

[johnsmith]

If you make an argument that you supposedly base on "economics", but violates basic fundamentals of economics, should I not point that out?

Fair enough. I take back my comment.

[johnsmith]

We have a sighting!!!

Where you been?

I've been mostly lurking as I don't have as much time to argue in here anymore.

[RandomGuy]

Fair enough. I take back my comment.

No problem. I posted my bit before I read scott's reply, which saved me from having to make the same arguments/points.


(click on the little arrow to go to the response I refer to.

I have taken about 30 credit hours of economics and finance courses, mostly at the graduate (advanced) level, so I understand scott and can speak with some authority when it comes to the topic. scott knows waaaaay more about the oil industry than I do, though, and probably a bit more about economics, having a full degree (or two!) in the subject, I would imagine.

[DarkReign]

I've been mostly lurking as I don't have as much time to argue in here anymore.


Same. Welcome back, however brief.

[Wild Cobra]

They have 0.6 grams per cell. They use standard 18650 cells, as used in phones, laptops, etc. Here's their battery white paper: LINK (http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf)

Cool. That's gives me a new found respect for the work done here. The car can possible be cost effective once they take it to a low cost vehicle base. What did they use, a Lotus?

For me, to go mass market with such a concept still has limitations doe to shifting form fuel to electricity. So much more electricity is needed. We only use small amounts of electricity in our lives daily. Let's assume 1000 kilo-watt-hours per month. Take a low side average of driving 500 miles per month. At best, that would be about 430 kilo-watt-hours used monthly. As far as I know, most people drive about 15,000 miles a year. With that, we have more than doubled household consumption of electricity. This is fine if electricity can be kept at current prices, but with the increased demand, we will have severely increased pricing.

I like the idea if these electric cars. I just don't see this feasible until we build nuclear energy in abundance. I like these cars better than fuel cell cars. Get contaminated hydrogen once, and the fuel cell would need replaced. I agree people will generally recycle the batteries.

I am also concerned about the nominal 10% loss of storage capacity annually that plague this type of battery. It looks like these cars can be competitive with internal combustion engines as production increases. What would the cost be to replace the batter pack every three years, or even five?

Battery like and electrical demand. Will this be solved?

Still, until such breakthroughs, we should not block the production of oil in the USA.

[Wild Cobra]

Dude, you are out of your league when it comes to trying to argue with scott here.

1) You don't seem to be understanding what the guy is saying, so about half of the points in this post are in response to something he didn't really say or mean.

2) You obviously don't seem to have a grasp of the economic points he is making. Have you taken macro and micro-economics courses? Much of what he is outlining is straight out of macro-economics 101.

No, I understand the basic concepts of economics. I just didn't read what he said right. Supply and demand rules, and there are market borders that apply and can be shaped.

[RandomGuy]

Cool. That's gives me a new found respect for the work done here. The car can possible be cost effective once they take it to a low cost vehicle base. What did they use, a Lotus?

For me, to go mass market with such a concept still has limitations doe to shifting form fuel to electricity. So much more electricity is needed. We only use small amounts of electricity in our lives daily. Let's assume 1000 kilo-watt-hours per month. Take a low side average of driving 500 miles per month. At best, that would be about 430 kilo-watt-hours used monthly. As far as I know, most people drive about 15,000 miles a year. With that, we have more than doubled household consumption of electricity. This is fine if electricity can be kept at current prices, but with the increased demand, we will have severely increased pricing.

I like the idea if these electric cars. I just don't see this feasible until we build nuclear energy in abundance. I like these cars better than fuel cell cars. Get contaminated hydrogen once, and the fuel cell would need replaced. I agree people will generally recycle the batteries.

I am also concerned about the nominal 10% loss of storage capacity annually that plague this type of battery. It looks like these cars can be competitive with internal combustion engines as production increases. What would the cost be to replace the batter pack every three years, or even five?

Battery like and electrical demand. Will this be solved?

Still, until such breakthroughs, we should not block the production of oil in the USA.

I have yet to see economical nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is another expensive boondoggle from everything I have seen.

Please list the nuclear power plants worldwide that have been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: it would be a VERY short list)

[RandomGuy]

The thing I dislike about nuclear power:

It is simply something that "conservatives" use to poke "environmentalists" with to irritate them.

I am for what works, and I can make some pretty effective arguments for and against different sources of energy, and nukes just don't cut it for a variety of reasons.

Will we increase our reliance on nuclear power at some point? Perhaps, but I doubt the power forces of NIMBY would choose nuclear over other forms of energy.

All I have to do is ask ONE question of any given community or state:

Would you rather build 10 MW of generating power from renewables at 5 times the cost of nuclear, or build the nuclear generators and have them in your back yard?

It doesn't matter whether those nukes are the safest thing in the world. Fear is NOT rational. I know modern nuclear reactor designs are safer than anything that has gone before.

If your argument is based on the safety of nuclear power, you lose before you start, so find something else.

[1369]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

[Wild Cobra]

I have yet to see economical nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is another expensive boondoggle from everything I have seen.

Please list the nuclear power plants worldwide that have been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: it would be a VERY short list)
I tied of you assuming what my unsaid viewpoints are.

I never said nuclear power was cheap. It is our best viable source for future needs. It would be foolish to think it's cheaper, but ignorant to think it isn't price competitive as demand raises. We can keep building coal power, but at what cost to the ecology? The green weenies are right in some aspects. Although I disagree with the alarmists points on global warming, I wish to see CO2 production decrease. Nuclear power is more expensive than hydro, coal, and natural gas. It may be more expensive that wind, solar, etc. However, it has a limited footprint on the earth and is proven, reliable, and safe with advances in the last couple decades.

I don't know about you, but I love the landscape of the earth in it's natural for. I am a nature lover. I understand the necessity to drill for oil and dig coal, but I wish there was a better way. I see more and more wind mills go up, and I hate them. I understand the necessity, so I tolerate them. I am like that about many things.

I pay something like $0.08 per kWh. I haven't paid attention to it for a while. I expect that with increased energy needs to climb to $0.15 or more in the near future, especially as electric vehicles start being used. If they become 50% of the consumer cars, I would expect electrical prices to rise like gasoline has over these last few years. A forward thinking person would demand we increase our electrical infrastructure before it hurts the economy. We already see that happening with fuel costs. Want to see that in electrical costs too?

[RandomGuy]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

Pretty much right.

A bad wreck with a lot of "alternative" cars would mean some potential for some NASTY environmental damage.

Fuel cells in large buildings would be great from a generating standpoint, because it would allow for widespread storage of power to be used during peaks. One could simply generate an "average" amount of electricity at all times, and not have to "ramp" up during peaks (day) and back off during valleys (night).

This would make wind power and solar much more attractive, as the primary drawbacks of both sources are that they can be intermittant and therefore unreliable as primary power sources.

[Wild Cobra]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?
This is the first I heard of it, but it has some merit. The conversion of electricity to hydrogen, then back to electricity, should be pretty efficient in the near future. Large power users can get cut rates during off hours. This could be a perfect system to sore energy during off hours, then supply your own during peak hours. It can save a large customer money and reduce the burden of the electrical grid. It then even provides power during outages!

Now what I don't get is the hazmat team for an accident related to fuel cells? What am I missing besides pressurized hydrogen?

[Wild Cobra]

This would make wind power and solar much more attractive, as the primary drawbacks of both sources are that they can be intermittant and therefore unreliable as primary power sources.
Looks like we had the same notion here. You are right about the wind and solar too. They can effectively be integrated into the system to store their inconsistant power.

[RandomGuy]

I tied of you assuming what my unsaid viewpoints are.

[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes

(sighs heavily)
Dude, nowhere in my post did I say or assume anything about what you thought. I stated my opinion on nuclear power. No more, no less.


I have yet to see economical nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is another expensive boondoggle from everything I have seen.

Please list the nuclear power plants worldwide that have been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: it would be a VERY short list)

[ElNono]

Cool. That's gives me a new found respect for the work done here. The car can possible be cost effective once they take it to a low cost vehicle base. What did they use, a Lotus?

For me, to go mass market with such a concept still has limitations doe to shifting form fuel to electricity. So much more electricity is needed. We only use small amounts of electricity in our lives daily. Let's assume 1000 kilo-watt-hours per month. Take a low side average of driving 500 miles per month. At best, that would be about 430 kilo-watt-hours used monthly. As far as I know, most people drive about 15,000 miles a year. With that, we have more than doubled household consumption of electricity. This is fine if electricity can be kept at current prices, but with the increased demand, we will have severely increased pricing.

I like the idea if these electric cars. I just don't see this feasible until we build nuclear energy in abundance. I like these cars better than fuel cell cars. Get contaminated hydrogen once, and the fuel cell would need replaced. I agree people will generally recycle the batteries.

I am also concerned about the nominal 10% loss of storage capacity annually that plague this type of battery. It looks like these cars can be competitive with internal combustion engines as production increases. What would the cost be to replace the batter pack every three years, or even five?

Battery like and electrical demand. Will this be solved?

Still, until such breakthroughs, we should not block the production of oil in the USA.

I'll tell you what's the story behind the aggressive development of Li-Ion for cars. Back in 2002/03, Toyota actually started selling the RAV4/EV car to the public. The RAV4 used NiMH batteries developed over many years by Panasonic. You can still find RAV4/EV vehicles today, with well over 100,000 miles still running. Quite a testament to how advanced they were on high-power NiMH batteries. There was just one caveat. The patents for high-power NiMH batteries were bought by GM in 1994, who subsequently sold the patents to Texaco (who later on merged with Chevron). Chevron spun off a subsidiary, Cobasys, who held the patent rights. They proceeded to sue Toyota. Toyota settled for 30 Million, and the assurance that Cobasys (Chevron) will supply smaller NiMH batteries for the Prius hybrid.
After that, Toyota pulled the plug on the RAV4/EV, since it could not get batteries for the car. This was 5 years ago. Cobasys refuses to produce or sell large high-power NiMH batteries. The patents expire in 2015.

[1369]

Pretty much right.

A bad wreck with a lot of "alternative" cars would mean some potential for some NASTY environmental damage.

Fuel cells in large buildings would be great from a generating standpoint, because it would allow for widespread storage of power to be used during peaks. One could simply generate an "average" amount of electricity at all times, and not have to "ramp" up during peaks (day) and back off during valleys (night).

This would make wind power and solar much more attractive, as the primary drawbacks of both sources are that they can be intermittant and therefore unreliable as primary power sources.

Well then, I wonder why we don't see any manufatcturers of small units ("Package Boiler" type operations) yet, or calls to retrofit buildings? Is there something in the manufacturing process that makes this cost prohibitive?

And WC, the HAZMAT remark had something to do with all the batteries/types of batteries needed to power a fuel cell auto IIRC.

[ElNono]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

The reason it's a mistake is that electric cars are about 20% more efficient, and it would cost about the same to build either type. Then if you add up the infrastructure costs of retrofitting gas stations with hydrogen pumps, the entire ordeal ends up being much more expensive.
Now, there are various different fuel cell types, but in the specific case of hydrogen, my understanding is that as soon as it makes contact with air, it turns into water, so I don't see the HAZMAT issue there. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

For houses it makes more sense, because you can convert gas->hydrogen->electricity with a small generator and provide both heat and electricity for a portion of the cost you would otherwise, plus you end up with less carbon monoxide emissions.

[RandomGuy]

I never said nuclear power was cheap. It is our best viable source for future needs. It would be foolish to think it's cheaper, but ignorant to think it isn't price competitive as demand raises. We can keep building coal power, but at what cost to the ecology? The green weenies are right in some aspects. Although I disagree with the alarmists points on global warming, I wish to see CO2 production decrease. Nuclear power is more expensive than hydro, coal, and natural gas. It may be more expensive that wind, solar, etc. However, it has a limited footprint on the earth and is proven, reliable, and safe with advances in the last couple decades.

I don't know about you, but I love the landscape of the earth in it's natural for. I am a nature lover. I understand the necessity to drill for oil and dig coal, but I wish there was a better way. I see more and more wind mills go up, and I hate them. I understand the necessity, so I tolerate them. I am like that about many things.

I pay something like $0.08 per kWh. I haven't paid attention to it for a while. I expect that with increased energy needs to climb to $0.15 or more in the near future, especially as electric vehicles start being used. If they become 50% of the consumer cars, I would expect electrical prices to rise like gasoline has over these last few years. A forward thinking person would demand we increase our electrical infrastructure before it hurts the economy. We already see that happening with fuel costs. Want to see that in electrical costs too?

I don't see nuclear as the "best viable" source for future power needs.

Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks and costs that renewables don't. One the primary being the requirement for a LOT of water. Water will be just as scarce in the future as it is now. To get that water will require more energy, and forms of power that require water will have their efficiency diluted in proportion to how much water they use.

There will be a place for nukes, but they will not take anywhere near a predominant place in any future market-based mix.

As for the rest of it:

I agree. We will see a spike in prices for electricity, as we have with other forms of energy. We already have, actually.

There will be some rather fundamental shifts in where we get energy, no matter what we choose for future transportation modes.

Time will tell what the mix will look like in 20 years, but I would bet more on renewables than nuclear.

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes

(sighs heavily)
Dude, nowhere in my post did I say or assume anything about what you thought. I stated my opinion on nuclear power. No more, no less.

OK, this time my bad assumption.

Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Well then, I wonder why we don't see any manufatcturers of small units ("Package Boiler" type operations) yet, or calls to retrofit buildings? Is there something in the manufacturing process that makes this cost prohibitive?

And WC, the HAZMAT remark had something to do with all the batteries/types of batteries needed to power a fuel cell auto IIRC.

Well a lot of companies, especially ones that have mission-vital servers, already have battery/generator back ups.

We haven't seen much call for it, because electricity has been fairly cheap, generating sources have been "fossil-fuel" based, and such fuel cells are still a rather new technology.

As that changes, so will the way we build/use large buildings.

A good market-based strategy for this is for utilities to really ramp-up peak power charges, as is already being done in some places. This more closely matches how much it costs to generate the extra "peak" power.

If you can draw less power during peaks by using power that you drew overnight during the non-peak period, then it becomes economically viable to have some sort of storage system.

Economically viable= commercially viable.

I am seriously considering starting a company that does these kinds of retro-fitting and new buildings projects. It would be a LOT of fun, and a good idea to get in on the ground floor with a business in what WILL be a growth industry.

Heh, if I do so then you can bet I will get a helluva lot more preachy about it. :lol

[ElNono]

I pay something like $0.08 per kWh. I haven't paid attention to it for a while. I expect that with increased energy needs to climb to $0.15 or more in the near future, especially as electric vehicles start being used. If they become 50% of the consumer cars, I would expect electrical prices to rise like gasoline has over these last few years. A forward thinking person would demand we increase our electrical infrastructure before it hurts the economy. We already see that happening with fuel costs. Want to see that in electrical costs too?

Here's one more thing to consider when and if we make the change to electric cars, and why we can't correlate it 100% to our current gas situation.
Electric engines are 60% to 80% efficient, as opposed to ~20% for gasoline cars. What that means is that we're going to be actually reducing energy demand by a third or even a fourth of what we need now. Obviously, electric demand will go up, but then oil demand will drop considerably, and I bet a good amount of it will be rerouted to produce electricity.

[1369]

So RG, a fuel cell in a building application would be more like a big assed "battery backup" than an active generating source for the building?

And I do think we'll see more of this sooner rather than later. The last few state contractor licensing exams I have taken have started to cover hydrogen and fuel cell applications.

[ElNono]

Well a lot of companies, especially ones that have mission-vital servers, already have battery/generator back ups.

We haven't seen much call for it, because electricity has been fairly cheap, generating sources have been "fossil-fuel" based, and such fuel cells are still a rather new technology.

As that changes, so will the way we build/use large buildings.

A good market-based strategy for this is for utilities to really ramp-up peak power charges, as is already being done in some places. This more closely matches how much it costs to generate the extra "peak" power.

If you can draw less power during peaks by using power that you drew overnight during the non-peak period, then it becomes economically viable to have some sort of storage system.

Economically viable= commercially viable.

I am seriously considering starting a company that does these kinds of retro-fitting and new buildings projects. It would be a LOT of fun, and a good idea to get in on the ground floor with a business in what WILL be a growth industry.

Heh, if I do so then you can bet I will get a helluva lot more preachy about it. :lol

Do we get any ownership % for just bringing up the issue? ;)
You could even have WC on the board of directors just for shit and giggles.

[RandomGuy]

OK, this time my bad assumption.

Sorry.

'Sokay.

[RandomGuy]

So RG, a fuel cell in a building application would be more like a big assed "battery backup" than an active generating source for the building?

And I do think we'll see more of this sooner rather than later. The last few state contractor licensing exams I have taken have started to cover hydrogen and fuel cell applications.

Yes. In essence a fuel cell would be a big battery in this application.

BUT

Given the potential for buildings to generate power using various schemes, varying from simple solar panels or wind turbines on the roof, to complex heat exchangers used to generate electricity, I see a lot of new power generation being done much closer to the source.

The way a hydrogen fuel cell would work, to my understanding, would be to crack hydrogen away from oxygen in water (by running electricity through it), store that hydrogen, then burn it later and use that energy to run a generator. The resulting water (burning=combining with oxygen) would then be re-used for the next round of hydrogen.

Normal chemical batteries rely more on the direct generation of electricity though chemical reactions.

[xrayzebra]

I don't see nuclear as the "best viable" source for future power needs.

Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks and costs that renewables don't. One the primary being the requirement for a LOT of water. Water will be just as scarce in the future as it is now. To get that water will require more energy, and forms of power that require water will have their efficiency diluted in proportion to how much water they use.

There will be a place for nukes, but they will not take anywhere near a predominant place in any future market-based mix.


I think nuclear power supplies about 90 percent of France electric needs.

RG, how bout we do this. Build a nuclear power plant on the coast, use the excess heat to desalinate the sea water and pipe it up to dear old San Antonio? Or just to heat the water and push it through the reverse osmosis filters, which I understand by heating it improves efficiency. I know our folks to the North doesn't want to participate (Austin) so let the go in the dark and use town lake for their water supply. Just a thought.

[RandomGuy]

Do we get any ownership % [in your energy retrofitting business] for just bringing up the issue? ;)
You could even have WC on the board of directors just for shit and giggles.

No. Pony up the buckage for ownership percentages. :greedy I am, despite what some think, a capitalist.

WC knows some good stuff on chemistry and industrial engineering. He might make a decent consultant on some things.

[RandomGuy]

I think nuclear power supplies about 90 percent of France electric needs.

RG, how bout we do this. Build a nuclear power plant on the coast, use the excess heat to desalinate the sea water and pipe it up to dear old San Antonio? Or just to heat the water and push it through the reverse osmosis filters, which I understand by heating it improves efficiency. I know our folks to the North doesn't want to participate (Austin) so let the go in the dark and use town lake for their water supply. Just a thought.

... and the French government used massive amounts of socialistic subsidies to get that percentage.

I have heard some interesting news reports on a chicago-based company that suggests we can do a lot of interesting things with waste heat. Certainly we can get a lot of gains from being more energy efficient. That will be the easy stuff.

Honestly, I see a lot of rainwater capture systems going up.

(basic wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

(a more technical bit here)
http://www.darcoinc.com/rain-capture.html

Such things would also have some interesting applications in property rights.

If you harvest all the water on your property for storage, and none of that gets to the local aquafer that others draw from in wells, how is that dealt with in terms of water rights?

[RandomGuy]

RG, how bout we do this. Build a nuclear power plant on the coast, use the excess heat to desalinate the sea water and pipe it up to dear old San Antonio? Or just to heat the water and push it through the reverse osmosis filters, which I understand by heating it improves efficiency. I know our folks to the North doesn't want to participate (Austin) so let the go in the dark and use town lake for their water supply. Just a thought.

If you are on the coast where wind power is plentiful, why not just use the wind power?

That is precisely what one of the largest cities in Australia, Perth, does. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/07/26/1422476.htm)They get a lot of their water from a desalinization plant that has 100% of it's power supplied by a wind farm built specifically for it. Nice little system.

[xrayzebra]

... and the French government used massive amounts of socialistic subsidies to get that percentage.

I have heard some interesting news reports on a chicago-based company that suggests we can do a lot of interesting things with waste heat. Certainly we can get a lot of gains from being more energy efficient. That will be the easy stuff.

Honestly, I see a lot of rainwater capture systems going up.

(basic wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

(a more technical bit here)
http://www.darcoinc.com/rain-capture.html

Such things would also have some interesting applications in property rights.

If you harvest all the water on your property for storage, and none of that gets to the local aquafer that others draw from in wells, how is that dealt with in terms of water rights?

Water capture is not a new thing in Texas. My Grandfather had one on his place. Only they called it a cistern back in those days. They didn't use it for drinking because all the water was collected from the roof. My Mother, all the women, loved the water from it to wash their hair iin. Very soft water. They had a screen over the opening in the cistern to keep leaves and debris out, also animals. So it is not a new concept. I don't think my HMO would take kindly to me putting a cistern beside the house, the dummies. Hell the new trash cans already have them upset. Like no one has garbage cans. Well you cant let them show. Hell I do. Sue me.

[1369]

If you are on the coast where wind power is plentiful, why not just use the wind power?

That is precisely what one of the largest cities in Australia, Perth, does. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/07/26/1422476.htm)They get a lot of their water from a desalinization plant that has 100% of it's power supplied by a wind farm built specifically for it. Nice little system.

The folks along the Kenedy Ranch were going to try that (Wind power, not the desal) and it got shot down.

We were looking to bid/fabricate part of that.

[xrayzebra]

The folks along the Kenedy Ranch were going to try that (Wind power, not the desal) and it got shot down.

We were looking to bid/fabricate part of that.

I thought that was still in the works. What happened. Block someone view?

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly, I see a lot of rainwater capture systems going up.

(basic wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

(a more technical bit here)
http://www.darcoinc.com/rain-capture.html

Such things would also have some interesting applications in property rights.

If you harvest all the water on your property for storage, and none of that gets to the local aquafer that others draw from in wells, how is that dealt with in terms of water rights?
We have a company in Oregon that bottles water called "Oregon Rain (http://www.oregon-rain.com/)."

[1369]

I thought that was still in the works. What happened. Block someone view?

I think it's a King vs. Armstrong thing.

Probably about money.

[xrayzebra]

I think it's a King vs. Armstrong thing.

Probably about money.

More than likely, the King Ranch has their stinger out for anyone they think may intrude in their Kingdom, although none of them did a thing to build the place.

[Nbadan]

Republican Mel Martinez debunks the China-Cuba Oil connection - '60 miles from the Florida Keys" - yeah, right....


D5hR14NF0es

[clubalien]

:lmao They kept making the Caprice. They just restyled it a little to look less like a beached whale, souped it up into a muscle car, and called it the Impala SS.

If you got 28 mpg out of that 5.0L, you were probably driving like a... well, grandpa. But that V-8 only put out 170 hp, which is about what a 4-cylinder will do these days.

I rented a 4-cyl Camry LE a couple weeks ago on vacation. It wasn't anything fancy, but it was roomy, has nice big buttons and letters on the radio so "wiser" eyes can read it, and it gave me 32 mpg. So maybe somebody does still make 'em.
if you change everything about the car then it isn;t still that car
el camino doesn;t exsit because a s10 exsits

[RandomGuy]

I don't think my HMO would take kindly to me putting a cistern beside the house, the dummies. Hell the new trash cans already have them upset. Like no one has garbage cans. Well you cant let them show. Hell I do. Sue me.

Why would your Health Maintenance Organization care about cisterns? ;)



Man, I wouldn't want to live in such a regulated neighborhood.

Better yet, build a neighborhood that encourages efficiency in energy and water.

The economic benefits of energy efficiency in the future will make such places pay for themselves.

[xrayzebra]

Why would your Health Maintenance Organization care about cisterns? ;)



Man, I wouldn't want to live in such a regulated neighborhood.

Better yet, build a neighborhood that encourages efficiency in energy and water.

The economic benefits of energy efficiency in the future will make such places pay for themselves.

Senior moment. I meant HOA, Homeowners Assn. Please forgive me. Thank you for your consideration.:lol

I don't belong to a HMO.

[RandomGuy]

Senior moment. I meant HOA, Homeowners Assn. Please forgive me. Thank you for your consideration.:lol

I don't belong to a HMO.

Heh, I figured that.

Well, if I ever get around to doing some real estate development, and I make my "green" HOA, I'll send you an invite. You can leave your garbage can and recycling bins out if you like.

[ElNono]

Low Mexican Gas Prices Draw Americans
By ADAM B. ELLICK

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico — When George Terrazas was mugged at gunpoint in this Mexican border city several months ago, he vowed never to return.

That, however, was before gasoline hit $4 a gallon in his hometown, El Paso, just across the border.

On Saturday, Mr. Terrazas was back in Ciudad Juárez, wooed by its irresistibly low-priced gasoline — around $2.66 a gallon — even if not quite unfazed by the indiscriminate gunfire from dueling drug cartels that has contributed to a 2008 average of three killings a day in the city.

“I don’t feel comfortable here,” he said, “but I can’t even fill the tank on the U.S. side.”

Mr. Terrazas, a 48-year-old maintenance worker, is among a flow of American “gas tourists” who, Mexican service stations near the border with El Paso estimate, account for a 50 percent surge in gasoline sales here over the last several months. (Similar increases are reported along the border all the way to Tijuana.) Even the Mexico Tourism Board is promoting the journey.

At the Servicio Herrera service station here, the manager, Jorge Salinas, estimated that Americans were now 30 percent of his customers. They arrive at all hours, Mr. Salinas said, from 6 a.m. to midnight.

On his visit Saturday, Mr. Terrazas saved about $20 filling his 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera. He said that when he returned to El Paso, he would monitor the bridge traffic from his house, and that once it waned, he would come back to fill his other vehicle, an S.U.V., for an even bigger saving.

And while here he would pick up six-packs of Tecate beer and produce like passion fruit, and even visit an orthodontist. In all, he expected to save $200. The border, he said, flashing a mouthful of braces, is “our advantage.”

The low gasoline and diesel prices that draw Americans here are a result of subsidies provided by the Mexican government to curb inflation and make fuel affordable to the poor.

The moment may not last. Severe gasoline and diesel shortages, caused by the increased demand from Americans and delivery problems as well, have been reported from here to Mexico’s border with California. (On Friday the government-owned monopoly oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, said that it would provide a one-time allotment of an extra 300,000 barrels of diesel fuel to meet increased demand along the border.)

Moreover, experts question how long the government can continue providing gasoline subsidies, which will amount to more than $20 billion this year.

For now, though, many South Texans are buying all the fuel they can south of the border, and little wonder. Four of the seven poorest urbanized counties in the United States are along the Texas border, including El Paso, according to a 2006 Census Bureau report.

El Pasoan desperation shows in the leathery face of Jimmy Gann, 57. Mr. Gann’s employer, a family trucking business, is on the verge of bankruptcy, he said, and to help the owners stay afloat, he makes three 32-mile round-trip sprints across the border each day. Once here, he fills a 100-gallon tank with diesel — which is going for $2.20 a gallon on this side, compared with $4.55 on the other — then returns north, unloads the tank at his employer’s business and does it all over again.

One Texan in the trucking industry, who declined to give his name for fear of being prosecuted for tax evasion, said he saved $12,000 a month by fueling his four-truck fleet in Mexico.

On the El Paso side, service station employees say business is down about 40 percent, even at a Chevron station that may have the best deal in town: gasoline at $3.89 a gallon. Just two months ago, stations on the Texas side attracted many Mexicans, who crossed to buy what they considered higher-quality gasoline that was more expensive but still affordable.

“We keep saying, ‘Have you seen so-and-so?’ and the answer is always no,” said Rocio Salazar, 30, a station attendant in El Paso. “It used to be like rush hour on the freeway in here.”

The drop in business has made all the worse along the Texas border what were already hard times for many owners of American service stations. The spike in gasoline’s price has caused many customers to cut back, and that, coupled with increased fees of credit card companies, has “put an increasing number of retailers on the brink of bankruptcy,” says the National Association of Convenience Stores, which represents convenience and petroleum retailers in the United States.

Jose Alfredo has worked at a Chevron station in El Paso for 18 years. With no convenience store to cushion a 50 percent drop in business, the station has laid off five of its eight employees.

“Everyone knows Mexican gas is watered down, but customers don’t care anymore,” Mr. Alfredo said with a shrug.

Managers of Mexican stations deny that accusation. They also say that most of the gasoline they sell is refined in the United States. But one American oil executive noted that the sulfur content allowed in gasoline by the Mexican government was higher than what is allowed in the United States, and said that over time, the higher level could compromise vehicle emissions systems. In addition, Mexican refineries lack a capacity to produce low-sulfur diesel, which is standard in the United States.

The Mexican diesel is “not a good thing for the air, but it’s a good thing for people who want to save money,” said Tom Kloza, a chief analyst at Oil Price Information Service.

Edith Marquez is one American who has so far resisted buying Mexican gasoline, citing quality concerns. But she visits Juárez every Saturday for the $15 saving at a weight control doctor, whose office is attached to a Pemex station. “I’m afraid for my car, but I’ll let the doctor here put vitamins in me,” Ms. Marquez said with a laugh.

For gas station attendants in Mexico, who earn $100 a week, the surge in sales has meant extra money to tuck into the pockets of their olive green overalls. To tip attendants is the custom here, and one of them, Alejandro Jurado, flashing a brick-size wad of pesos and dollars, said, “Americans tip better.”

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25gas.html)

[RandomGuy]

The funny thing about that is that the low gas prices in mexico are subsidized by the Mexican Goverment's cash cow, Pemex (petroleum de mexico), the oil company owned by the government that is selling oil to... the US.

Oooh the irony...

[Wild Cobra]

The funny thing about that is that the low gas prices in mexico are subsidized by the Mexican Goverment's cash cow, Pemex (petroleum de mexico), the oil company owned by the government that is selling oil to... the US.

Oooh the irony...
Are they subsidized? Now I'm not saying they aren't, just I don't believe they are. Mexico has it's own oil and it can be brought to market for likely under $20 per bbl. Mexico may simply choose to keep their prices down and not participate in selling all they can at the world market price. I'll bet they still profit on it.

[ElNono]

Are they subsidized? Now I'm not saying they aren't, just I don't believe they are. Mexico has it's own oil and it can be brought to market for likely under $20 per bbl. Mexico may simply choose to keep their prices down and not participate in selling all they can at the world market price. I'll bet they still profit on it.

Read the article, they are subsidized.

[Wild Cobra]

Read the article, they are subsidized.

I didn't take you as one to believe what the NY Times says.

At the price they can take it out of the ground, I'm pretty sure there is no need to subsidize it. It also depends on your definition. Liberals tend to call reduced taxes a subsidy for example. If subsidy means making less than you can, then it's really not a subsidy.

[scott]

I didn't take you as one to believe what the NY Times says.

At the price they can take it out of the ground, I'm pretty sure there is no need to subsidize it. It also depends on your definition. Liberals tend to call reduced taxes a subsidy for example. If subsidy means making less than you can, then it's really not a subsidy.

When the state owned oil company sells gasoline to consumers for less than they could sell it elsewhere (and in many cases, less than they purchased it for)... that is pretty much the definition of a subsidy.

[ElNono]

I didn't take you as one to believe what the NY Times says.

At the price they can take it out of the ground, I'm pretty sure there is no need to subsidize it. It also depends on your definition. Liberals tend to call reduced taxes a subsidy for example. If subsidy means making less than you can, then it's really not a subsidy.

I actually read about the subsidy on a Spanish newspaper a while ago. I just happened to come across this story and thought it was interesting.
A whole lot of Latin American countries subsidize their gas, including non producing countries like Argentina. The reason is that the way they measure inflation includes gas prices. In the case of Mexico, their central bank projected the inflation to be 3%, +- 1%. They're currently at 4.63%, just slightly over their projection. If they remove the subsidy, it would jump to more than 6%. That's a problem, because a lot of the multi-stage loans they receive from the IMF and the World Bank are tied to performance. Unfortunately, the side effect of these subsidies and price controls is a distorted economy.

[scott]

Gasoline subsidies are actually a topic that deserves further note here.

There has been a pretty steady increase in the demand for gasoline in emerging nations the last few years, and part of the reason is that gasoline is subsidized in many of them. Cheap gasoline has been fueling growth, which begets more gasoline demand, and the next thing you know you have a global demand boom.

Just another in the long list of reasons gasoline and oil prices are up significantly.

[RandomGuy]

Gasoline subsidies are actually a topic that deserves further note here.

There has been a pretty steady increase in the demand for gasoline in emerging nations the last few years, and part of the reason is that gasoline is subsidized in many of them. Cheap gasoline has been fueling growth, which begets more gasoline demand, and the next thing you know you have a global demand boom.

Just another in the long list of reasons gasoline and oil prices are up significantly.

It is also worth nothing that a lot of those governments are starting to rethink that. China's recent increases for one, and Iran for another. Neither was very popular, but such fuel subsidies in an environment of high oil prices become unsustainable.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't take you as one to believe what the NY Times says.


...says the guy who thinks Ann Coulter has a good track record with the truth... :rolleyes


I am a bad person for not being able to let that one go by. :depressed

[RandomGuy]

A question for scott:

Chysler is offering a promotion on their dodge durango (13 mpg city, 18 mpg highway), where they will pay you the difference per gallon of gasoline from @2.99 for up to 12,000, i.e. if you buy 10 gallons of gas at $4.00, they will give you 10*$1.01. This is for 3 years, and is in addition to $2,000 in cash.

They offer a choice of this option, or $6,000 cash.

From a budget standpoint these incentives must be calculated as being equal to each other.

Meaning that the gasoline incentive must equal to them about $4,000.

I crunched the numbers, and calculated that this means THEIR calculation of what a gallon of gas will cost in three years is roughly $7 a gallon.

12,000 miles divided by an average of 15 mpg is 800 gallons that they would be paying on.

For the net present value of their outlays in the next three years to equal $4000 now at a 10% cost if capital, would mean that they roughly expect the price of gas to go up by about a dollar per gallon per year. Meaning that in the third year, they expect to spend roughly $2500 on those 800 gallons. 2500/800= $3.125 difference that they are paying.

$3.125+2.99= $6.12 dollars per gallon of gasoline.

NPV=$4,000= sum of npv for 3 payments, once per year
Assumed cost of capital= 10%
(higher costs of capital would make the price paid for the gas in future years higher, meaning that if this is too low, the ultimate predicted price of gas would be higher)

Given that I was very probably a bit conservative in my guess about their cost of capital, I would guess that their bet as to where the price of a gallon of gasoline will be in 3 years is about $7.00 per gallon.

Does this all sound about right?

[Wild Cobra]

I actually read about the subsidy on a Spanish newspaper a while ago. I just happened to come across this story and thought it was interesting.
A whole lot of Latin American countries subsidize their gas, including non producing countries like Argentina. The reason is that the way they measure inflation includes gas prices. In the case of Mexico, their central bank projected the inflation to be 3%, +- 1%. They're currently at 4.63%, just slightly over their projection. If they remove the subsidy, it would jump to more than 6%. That's a problem, because a lot of the multi-stage loans they receive from the IMF and the World Bank are tied to performance. Unfortunately, the side effect of these subsidies and price controls is a distorted economy.
The logic is valid except for this.

Argentina = non producer of oil.
Mexico = large producer of oil.

It does not need to be subsidised because of the price they can bring it to market. They are not buying oil at market price. Argentina must.

[Harry Callahan]

Well done Scott. We need to provide tax incentives to automobile manfacturers to increase fuel effeciencies. There's no reason why we can't get the averages to 40-50 mpg. Additionally, we need to drill and build refinaries in the states until we can make acceptable alternative energy sources mainstream.

my 2cents


I agree. There needs to be additional incentives for the auto industries to make cars more fuel efficient. The US car companies are in such bad shape right now - they need a way to get high mileage cars in the hands of consumers more quickly where there is not a huge price differential to go the hybrid route. Perhaps a tax inventive for individuals to buy hybrids would be good to smooth out gasoline demand issues.

Domestic exploration and refinery expansion is a good idea to relieve supply issues as well as price speculation. A larger, more stable supply of oil produced domestically would be a good thing in my opinion. Regulations brought in by enviromentalists and their friends in state and federal legislatures has been a huge problem.

By the time I buy a new car, hopefully it will be capable of 35-40 mpg versus 25-30 with my current 4 cylinder sedan.

[Harry Callahan]

Gasoline subsidies are actually a topic that deserves further note here.

There has been a pretty steady increase in the demand for gasoline in emerging nations the last few years, and part of the reason is that gasoline is subsidized in many of them. Cheap gasoline has been fueling growth, which begets more gasoline demand, and the next thing you know you have a global demand boom.

Just another in the long list of reasons gasoline and oil prices are up significantly.

A company I went to in my audit work is an air freight company on the east coast. They do a lot of work in latin america and business is done in Venezuela.

The govermnent owned oil company there is allowing 20 cent per gallon gasoline. The price may be higher now, I'm not sure. However, the prices charged to put oil out there in the world market allows them to do this.

The socialist government there pays litttle attention to environment problems. The guy I talked to at the company I visited said that in the city he was working in, the air quality was so bad you would have lines of soot under your nose at the end of the day.

At least the Venezuelans have government health care to take care of their respiratory problems after they wait 6 months to get in to a doctor.

[ElNono]

The logic is valid except for this.

Argentina = non producer of oil.
Mexico = large producer of oil.

It does not need to be subsidized because of the price they can bring it to market. They are not buying oil at market price. Argentina must.

Your logic would be valid if Mexico would be the only oil producer in the world. But they aren't. The price is not dictated by the producer, but by market value. Every time a mexican buys gas at under market value, the oil company (in this case the government) is losing money (they could have sold the same gas to another country for more money). In the case of Argentina, they do produce some of their own oil (Repsol/YPF), just not enough to cover the entire demand of the country. Over there, it's not a subsidy like Mexico. What they have there is government mandated price controls. They dictate what the max price for each type of gas will be. So the companies producing/importing the Oil are the ones losing money. To the point that Shell threatened leaving the country a couple of times.

[Wild Cobra]

Your logic would be valid if Mexico would be the only oil producer in the world. But they aren't. The price is not dictated by the producer, but by market value. Every time a mexican buys gas at under market value, the oil company (in this case the government) is losing money (they could have sold the same gas to another country for more money).

Since when is selling under market value a subsidy, especially if there is still profit? A loss of potential profits is not a loss of profits.

I'm sorry, but I get pissy about some words being incorrectly used. Political pundits misuse the word subsidy and its various forms all the time.

[ElNono]

Since when is selling under market value a subsidy, especially if there is still profit? A loss of potential profits is not a loss of profits.

I'm sorry, but I get pissy about some words being incorrectly used. Political pundits misuse the word subsidy and its various forms all the time.

Taken straight from Wikipedia:

In economics, a subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place.

If it would be the oil company decision, they would sell all their oil at market price where they can maximize their profits. Basically, selling at under market value will simply not take place. How is it a misuse of the word?

[Wild Cobra]

Taken straight from Wikipedia:

In economics, a subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place.

If it would be the oil company decision, they would sell all their oil at market price where they can maximize their profits. Basically, selling at under market value will simply not take place. How is it a misuse of the word?
I guess only a lawyer would try to skew the meaning of a word. I'll give you a break because this is a form of art you use without thinking twice.

OK. You say it's a subsidy. Who is being paid? A break in cost is not a subsidy. The customer getting gas at below market value is not a subsidy. Everyone involved on the business end is still making a profit. Just not a free market profit. Is the government of Mexico paying anyone to sell cheaper?

Think about it. If we could drill all our own oil at under $50 per barrel, and was mandated that only excess production beyond our nations needs could be sold at market value, we could have far cheaper gas today.

Remember, we are talking about Mexico. Not the USA.

To answer someone else that brought this up: As for the gas being shipped back across the border from here to there, that is because they are using our refineries to process their oil. It is not the necessarily the same diesel or gas we make for their market either. They are simply paying a fee to the refinery to process their oil.

[mFFL03]

yesterday an OPEC official said oil per barrel for the US will go up to 170 in the next 6 months....

reasons?

future political bouts in the US
the declining US dollar

he states supply is not a problem, even Libya might cut back production because they believe Oil is over supplied right now.


this is a farcry what we were told in the beginning about supply and demand fundamentals....

speculation man, speculation..too many hands in the cookie jar

[scott]

They offer a choice of this option, or $6,000 cash.

From a budget standpoint these incentives must be calculated as being equal to each other.

Meaning that the gasoline incentive must equal to them about $4,000.


My guess would be that the two incentives are not designed to be equal to one another. I don't know how auto companies come up with their incentives, but given an "or cash", the "or cash" option seems to always beat the alternative fairly significantly (lower interest rate vs. cash being the most common). Also factor in how many people will take this option and either a) trade in their car without using the full benefit or b) just fail to use it for whatever reason (forgot to use their card, didn't drive 12,000 miles, etc).

In any event, I get pretty close to a $4000 NPV using your assumptions with $4 gas in year 1, $5 in year 2 and $6 in year 3.

[RandomGuy]

The logic is valid except for this.

Argentina = non producer of oil.
Mexico = large producer of oil.

It does not need to be subsidised because of the price they can bring it to market. They are not buying oil at market price. Argentina must.


You have ten apples. Each apple can be sold for profit at the farmers market for a dollar each.

You sell 8 of them at the market for $8, and the other two to your brother for 20 cents each.

You have essentially given him the $1.60 difference. Your brother has benefitted and got to eat two apples that he couldn't/wouldn't have otherwise.

This is no different than if you had directly given him the $1.60 and he went down to the farmers market with his 40 cents and bought two apples for $2.00

[ElNono]

I guess only a lawyer would try to skew the meaning of a word. I'll give you a break because this is a form of art you use without thinking twice.

OK. You say it's a subsidy. Who is being paid? A break in cost is not a subsidy. The customer getting gas at below market value is not a subsidy. Everyone involved on the business end is still making a profit. Just not a free market profit. Is the government of Mexico paying anyone to sell cheaper?

Obviously in this case the consumer is getting paid. They're the ones pocketing the difference between paying market value vs sub-market value.
And since Mexico does export part of their Oil production, selling at sub-market value definitely has a cost that Pemex is willing to absorb in the local market. Further, it makes Pemex less competitive in the global market against other Oil companies that sell their entire inventory at market value.
Even if they're making a profit, their company is at a disadvantage because they just can't improve their earnings.



Think about it. If we could drill all our own oil at under $50 per barrel, and was mandated that only excess production beyond our nations needs could be sold at market value, we could have far cheaper gas today.


Mandated is the keyword there. If you're creating an artificial barrier (subsidies and price control are also artificial barriers) then you're automatically making your company to be at a disadvantage vs other Oil companies. These kind of distortions prevent, among other things, growth of the company. When Oil investors are looking to put money on a company, do you think they'll take the one with one or more barriers on their sales, or the ones that maximize their profits? Basic economy 101 here.

And, BTW, we can discuss semantics all day, but I'm NOT the one calling this a subsidy, Mexicans are:

Eliminación subsidio gasolina llevaría inflación México a 6 pct (http://mx.ibtimes.com/articles/20080616/inflaci-oacute-eacute-xico-tasa-gasolina-banco-eacute-xico-gasolina-inpc.htm)
Subsidio del 40 % a la gasolina que se vende a estadunidenses en la frontera (http://www.elperiodicodemexico.com/nota.php?id=174580)
SHCP descarta eliminar el subsidio a la gasolina (http://eleconomista.com.mx/finanzas/2008/06/23/145/shcp-descarta-eliminar-subsidio-a-la-gasolina/)
Pide OCDE a México eliminar subsidio a gasolina (http://www.el-universal.com.mx/notas/512164.html)

[scott]

I'm sorry, but I get pissy about some words being incorrectly used. Political pundits misuse the word subsidy and its various forms all the time.

I'm sorry, but I get pissy when people are obviously wrong, but continue down a path of retardation claiming they are right. The Mexican Government covers part of the cost of the fuel. It's a subsidy. You're wrong. Get over it.

[scott]

Also, Mexico imports anywhere from 250 to 400 thousand barrels a day of gasoline, almost all of it from the United States (among OECD nations, Mexico is the third largest importer of gasoline in the world, behind the US and The Netherlands). Do you think they are getting some kind of a discount so they can sell it for cheap?

Country level gasoline imports as of June 2008: http://omrpublic.iea.org/trade/Ct_gs_2y.pdf

[Spur-Addict]

The Income Tax is illegal, it isn't apportioned.

[Anti.Hero]

Government is trying to kill the middle class.

The funny thing is, most middle class kill themselves.

[RandomGuy]

The Income Tax is illegal, it isn't apportioned.

Would you like some crackers with your cool-aid?

The income tax is perfectly legal.


http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html



An excerpt from this page:

THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ
Created by Daniel B. Evans

Copyright © 2002-2007. All rights reserved. Not legal advice.

Last updated: 7/19/2007.

Like most things on the Internet, this is a work in progress. Not all citations and quotations have been confirmed, and there are additional cases and arguments that may be added in the future.
Table of Contents

*

Introduction
o

What is the purpose of this FAQ?
o

What is a “tax protester”?
*

Constitutional Fallacies
o

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
o

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a “direct tax” prohibited by the Constitution.
o

The income tax is a “direct tax” because it is collected from individuals who cannot shift the burden to others.
o

The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.
o

Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
o

Income taxes are not “Duties, Imposts, or Excises” and so must be “direct taxes” that must be apportioned.
o

Wages cannot be taxed because the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

The authors of the Constitution (aka, the “Founding Fathers”) never intended to give Congress the power to tax incomes from labor.
o

Congress can only tax the exercise of “privileges” or the income from “revenue taxable activities.”
o

Congress can only tax income arising out of activities that Congress can regulate, such as alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, or from interstate commerce.
o

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens because Congress has power only over states and not over individual citizens.
o

Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined.
o

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I of the Constitution.
o

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.
o

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
o

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word “income” is not defined.
o

The income tax cannot apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia, the territories of the United States, and the forts and military bases of the United States, because the federal government has no jurisdiction outside of those “federal areas.”
o

The income tax cannot apply to natural-born “sovereign state citizens” because they are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
o

The federal income tax cannot apply to wages, because forcing people to share the fruits of their labors would be the same as slavery or “involuntary servitude” prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
o

The federal income tax amounts to a deprivation of property without due process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
o

Any assessment or collection of any tax without a court order is a violation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

Withholding of income tax from wages without consent and without any court order is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

Any assessment or collection of any tax without a trial by jury is a violation of the 7th Amendment.
o

You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
o

The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
o

Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not “income” because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money (“coins in gold or silver”) within the meaning of the Constitution.
o

The establishment of a “Pure Trust” can protect income and earnings from income tax, because a trust is a form of contract and is therefore protected from impairment by the contract clause to the Constitution.
o

Under the 1st Amendment, there is a right to withhold taxes from the government until the government has answered a “petition for the redress of grievances.”
*

Statutory Fallacies
o

The Internal Revenue Code is not a law.
o

The Internal Revenue Code does not define “income.”
o

The Internal Revenue Code cannot define “income” because it is a term used in the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute.
o

Wages are not income.
o

Wages are not “income” because wages represent an equal exchange of labor (a form of “property”) for money (another form of property), so there is no gain and no income.
o

Even if my wages are income, I can deduct deduct the ordinary costs of living in order to calculate the “gain” from my labor.
o

Even if my wages are gross income, I can deduct the full amount of the wages as a “claim of right” and not have any taxable income.
o

Wages are not income, but only a “source” of income (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code lists only sources of income), so wages are not taxable.
o

Wages paid within the United States are not a “source” of income defined by section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and so are not taxable.
o

The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia and territories of the United States because the way “United States” is defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the United States.
o

The income tax only applies to the domestic income of nonresident aliens.
o

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax.
o

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code requires an ordinary citizen to file a return.
o

The requirement to file a return is based on the receipt of income in excess of the exemption amount, but the exemption amount is not specified by the statute and so there is no enforceable obligation to file a return.
o

The income tax is voluntary.
o

The income tax is only binding on people who have entered into contracts with the government, such as by applying for a Social Security number, driver’s license, or other governmental benefit or privilege.
o

Form W-4 (i.e., the federal withholding certificate) is an agreement to be liable for the income tax.
o

There is no requirement to apply for a Social Security number.
o

The income tax applies only to government employees and corporate officers.
o

The income tax applies only to corporations.
o

I am not a “person” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.
o

The tax laws only apply to “taxpayers” and you are not required to file returns or pay taxes if you are not a “taxpayer.”
o

I cannot be prosecuted for failing to file a tax return if I have a good faith belief that the tax laws do not apply to me.
o

There is a difference between the “United States” and the “United States of America.”
o

There is a difference between “United States District Courts” and “District Courts of the United States.”
*

Procedural Fallacies
o

The Internal Revenue Service has never adopted any regulations imposing any income tax. Furthermore, failing to file a tax return is not a crime because the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have never been implemented by regulations.
o

The Office of Management and Budget does not require any form for the income tax imposed by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, and identifies section 1 of the Code as applying only to nonresident aliens.
o

Form 1040 does not bear a valid OMB control number and so no penalty can be imposed for failing to file a tax return.
o

Form 1040 and its instructions were not adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
o

The Internal Revenue Code does not require any payment of tax by individuals, and the Internal Revenue Service has admitted this by failing to include any reference to section 1 or section 6012 in the Privacy Act Statement included in Form 1040.
o

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the federal government, but a private corporation incorporated in Delaware (or, alternatively, an agency of the government of Puerto Rico).
o

The notices issued by the IRS are not valid because they were not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury personally and the Secretary has failed to properly delegate the authority to sign the notices.
o

The notices issued by the IRS are invalid because they are not signed under penalties of perjury as required by I.R.C. section 6065.
o

If I do not file a return, then the Internal Revenue Service cannot assess a deficiency without first preparing a signed “substitute for return” in accordance with I.R.C. section 6020(b).
o

I have revoked my consent to be a taxpayer.
o

I have a letter from the IRS saying that I am not required to file an income tax return.
o

I am not required to file a tax return because I wrote a letter to the IRS demanding to know where in the Internal Revenue Code it says I am required to file and the IRS has failed to respond.
o

I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “zero return” along with a statement explaining why I am not liable for any income tax.
o

I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “tax statement” instead of a tax return.
o

The IRS cannot levy on property or file a lien on property without first obtaining a judgment or order of a court.
o

A “notice of levy” (or “notice of lien”) is not the same as an actual levy (or an actual lien).
o

IRS employees can be sued for fraudulently issuing notices of lien or notices of levy.
o

Banks and employers that honor levies can be sued
o

The Tax Court is controlled by the IRS and always rules in its favor.
o

If you’re right, why don’t you claim the $________ reward that [name of tax protester] is offering to anyone who can show [insert tax protester gibberish here]?
*

Fundamental Misconceptions, Illiteracy, and Illogic
o

Not understanding the legal process, or the meaning of “law.” (E.g., “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong? Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?”)
o

Not understanding the meaning of “due process.”
o

Not understanding the meaning of “jurisdiction.”
o

Taking quotations out of context.
o

A belief that the word “includes” is restrictive.
o

An over-reliance on generalities and platitudes.
o

Rejecting simple explanations.
o

Ignoring the ordinary meaning of words.
o

Assuming that, if a statement is true, the converse of the statement must also be true.
o

Inconsistency in applying “ad hoc, ” result-oriented arguments.
o

Not being able to see the forest for the trees.
o

A belief in the “magic” of words.
o

“Chaining” unrelated decisions together.
o

Lies and fabrications.
o

Legalistic gibberish.
*

Paranoid (and Other) Delusions
o

There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as John Cheek, Lloyd Long, and Vernice Kuglin.
o

There are many lawyers, accountants, former IRS employees, and other well-educated people who agree with tax protester arguments.
o

There are lots of court decisions favorable to tax protesters, but the judges always seal the transcripts, suppress the opinions, or issue “gag orders” against the parties so that the opinions are never published.
o

The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by ignorant, corrupt judges who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because their salaries are paid by the income tax and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
o

The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by judges who are afraid of being audited by the IRS and so are afraid to rule against the IRS.
o

The IRS always wins against tax protesters because the IRS only litigates cases against ignorant, ill-prepared defendants it knows it can beat, and it always settles cases against the smart defendants who know how to beat the IRS.
o

The taxpayers who have challenged the tax system and lost all lost because they argued their cases badly.
o

If Congress really meant for Americans to pay taxes on their earnings, Congress would have changed to law to make our obligations and liabilities clearer, because then tax protesters would have no choice by to obey the law.
o

I would file returns and pay taxes if Congress, the IRS, or the courts would just show me the law that requires me to do so.
*

Related (But Non-Tax) Lunacies
o

The tax laws cannot be enforced against citizens in federal courts, because federal courts are “admiralty” or “maritime” courts or (alternatively) tax enforcement is governed by admiralty law and can be defeated by properly invoking admiralty procedures.
o

If the flag of the United States that is in the courtroom has a gold fringe, then the court is operating under martial law.
o

In a jury trial, the defendant can ask the jury to decide the validity of the law.
o

A name that is written all in capital letters (as in a court caption) is not the same as a name written in mixed case (upper and lower case).
o

Putting a comma or colon between your first and last names shows that you are a freeman not subject to governmental authority.
o

Using zipcodes on the mail you send, or accepting mail with zip codes, is what subjects you to federal jurisdiction.
*

More About Tax Protesters
o

A “tax protester” is only someone classified as a “tax protester” by the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the IRS definition of “tax protester.”
o

What penalties can be imposed on tax protesters?
o

Why do tax protesters keeping violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
o

Is tax protesting a cult?
o

The federal income tax is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional because [________________]?
o

Other web sites with information on tax protester arguments.[/QUOTE]

[RandomGuy]

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

False. It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement from all taxes on incomes.

Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The reference to the "Census or Enumeration" was a reference to Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, which directs that:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

("All other Persons" meant slaves.)

Whether or not an income tax really was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the constitution will be discussed in other sections of this FAQ, but the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, removed all doubt about apportionment because it clearly states that:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted a general income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged once again, but the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

The arguments that tax protesters make about the validity and meaning of the 16th Amendment will be dealt with in other sections of this FAQ.
Tax Protester “Evidence”

Most tax protester arguments that a tax on incomes is a “direct tax” rely in one way or another on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’ng 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

In the first Pollock decision, a majority of the court (7 of the 9 justices) began with the premise that a tax on the income from property is the same as a tax on the value of the property itself, a premise completely inconsistent with every other Supreme Court decision before or since (and repudiated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937)). The Court then concluded that a tax on rents received from real property was a “direct tax” and unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). On rehearing, a narrower majority (5 of the 9 justices) decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (property other than land) was also a “direct tax” and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

However, the Pollock decisions were rendered in 1894-5 and there is no question but that the 16th Amendment, which was proposed in 1909 and ratified by the required three-fourths of the states in slightly less than four years, was intended to over-rule the Pollock decisions.

“[T]there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided....”

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Any argument that relies upon the Pollock decisions is therefore almost certainly wrong.

[RandomGuy]

The Income Tax is illegal, it isn't apportioned.

Got any other stupidity you want me to debunk?

[Wild Cobra]

Also, Mexico imports anywhere from 250 to 400 thousand barrels a day of gasoline, almost all of it from the United States (among OECD nations, Mexico is the third largest importer of gasoline in the world, behind the US and The Netherlands). Do you think they are getting some kind of a discount so they can sell it for cheap?

Country level gasoline imports as of June 2008: http://omrpublic.iea.org/trade/Ct_gs_2y.pdf

If you want to call that an Import, then fine. Just know the truth behind it. They do not have the refinery capacity. The inported gas is from them shipping oil to be processed. That does not make it any more expensive except the added shipping. They are not paying USA prices for the imported gas. They are paying the fees to have their oil refined.

Nice try.

[scott]

If you want to call that an Import, then fine. Just know the truth behind it. They do not have the refinery capacity. The inported gas is from them shipping oil to be processed. That does not make it any more expensive except the added shipping. They are not paying USA prices for the imported gas. They are paying the fees to have their oil refined.

Nice try.


Wow, you truly are clueless. Where did you pull this out of, your ass?

You honestly think American refining companies are selling fuel to Mexico on the cheap as some kind of favor? Do you understand the way markets work AT ALL?

One of the most popular Mexican crude oils, especially in the Texas Gulf refining complex, is Maya. It currently sells for about $20 off WTI, which right now would be about $120/bbl. Even if some US refinery could costlessly transport and process this back to gasoline, then sell it back to Mexico at the price they paid for the crude oil, the fuel would cost $2.86/gal - more than pump prices in Mexico. But refineries in Texas don't foot the refining and shipping costs for Mexico - and Mexico must pay market price to import their fuel, just like everyone else. The rest gets subsidized, whether you want to admit it or not.

Don't come in here making up BS and not expect to be school. If you continue with this nonsense, you will get embarassed.

No wonder the political dialogue in this country has devolved to shit. When so much time is wasted over having to debunk blatant falsehoods over the truth, there is no time for actual discussion.

[RandomGuy]

If you want to call that an Import, then fine. Just know the truth behind it. They do not have the refinery capacity. The inported gas is from them shipping oil to be processed. That does not make it any more expensive except the added shipping. They are not paying USA prices for the imported gas. They are paying the fees to have their oil refined.

Nice try.

Your problem is that you fail to acknowledge his vast understanding of oil economics. ;)

[RandomGuy]

No wonder the political dialogue in this country has devolved to shit. When so much time is wasted over having to debunk blatant falsehoods over the truth, there is no time for actual discussion.

Pretty much.

People don't like to confront their confirmation bias, and with the information revolution, have access to all sorts of sources of information with little accountability.

Any asshat in the world can claim "teenage pregnancies are higher today than they were 20 years ago because I say so", (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2576787&postcount=68)and it costs them nothing if they are provably wrong. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2579448&postcount=75)

Remember this is the guy who relies more on his opinions than peer reviewed studies, thinks Ann Coulter is a credible source, won't admit the Bush administration might have political motives to do things, and will simply not admit he might need to rethink anything when presented with new information.

He's definitely a decider. :lol

[ElNono]

Pretty much.
...
Any asshat in the world can claim "teenage pregnancies are higher today than they were 20 years ago because I say so", (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2576787&postcount=68)and it costs them nothing if they are provably wrong.
...


probably

[RandomGuy]

probably

... no I meant provably.

He never did produce any figures that backed his assertion, so all the verifiable proof contradicted his statement.

[ElNono]

... no I meant provably.

He never did produce any figures that backed his assertion, so all the verifiable proof contradicted his statement.

I see.

[Wild Cobra]

----snip---

One of the most popular Mexican crude oils, especially in the Texas Gulf refining complex, is Maya. It currently sells for about $20 off WTI, which right now would be about $120/bbl. Even if some US refinery could costlessly transport and process this back to gasoline, then sell it back to Mexico at the price they paid for the crude oil, the fuel would cost $2.86/gal

Wait a minute. You say $20, then $120. If they can produce it for $20, then pay a fee for refinery and transportation, that doesn't make it high priced. They simply are not making that extra profit $100 per bbl. They can drill it and sell it for prices as if oil hadn't raised like it did.



Don't come in here making up BS and not expect to be school. If you continue with this nonsense, you will get embarassed.


Without numbers, I will not believe you. Historic numbers are on my side. We all know it doesn't cost $100+ per bbl to get the oil. The price is high because of supply and demand. Owners and cartels can regulate their supply to increase the world price. As long as Mexico has a net export of oil, they can sell gas for cheap without subsidies. Cost of getting the oil plus refinery plus transportation plus profit can still be the same price as five years ago or longer.

How much did our gas sell for when oil was $20 per barrel? If that is what their cost of getting their oil is, then I would expect as low as those same prices without subsidies!

Even if they actually buy some gasoline from us instead of paying to refine their oil, when it is mixed with their own refinery capacity, the cost gets averaged in. Then on top of that, they would likely be buying a different blend that is cheaper to produce than what we dictate be sold in our markets. Maybe they buy the stuff that we cannot sell here because of contaminates as well as shipping some of their oil to be processed.

They don't have a corporate setup and laws as ours. I would agree if this was happening here, with our way of doing business.

Go ahead. Give it your best shot to embarrass me.

[ElNono]

I believe that when scott says "$20 off WTI", he means $20 bbl cheaper than West Texas Intermediate type of oil (which currently sells for about $140/bbl)

[Wild Cobra]

I believe that when scott says "$20 off WTI", he means $20 bbl cheaper than West Texas Intermediate type of oil (which currently sells for about $140/bbl)

The cost of their oil is in essence parts, labor, etc. It does not cost them $120 per bbl to get their oil. It is no more than maybe $30 per bbl. My argument is that Mexico keeps their oil within their own market circle, shielding it from world supply and demand pricing.

I know Scott is knowledgeable in this filed, but in this case, I'm rather certain he's on the wrong side of the truth.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe that when scott says "$20 off WTI", he means $20 bbl cheaper than West Texas Intermediate type of oil (which currently sells for about $140/bbl)

Without looking that up, I'll bet it's the market price of their oil. It probably isn't light-sweet crude which is the prices we always hear. As oil gets either more sour, or heavier, the value drops on the world market.

[ElNono]

Without looking that up, I'll bet it's the market price of their oil. It probably isn't light-sweet crude which is the prices we always hear. As oil gets either more sour, or heavier, the value drops on the world market.

WTI grade is also known as Texas light sweet, and yes, it's the kind we hear about more often. I believe the Maya type has more sulphur, making it slightly more 'sour'. I'm sure scott will correct me if I'm off track here.

[scott]

Wow, WC, you are on such another planet on this topic, I don't know where to start... I guess I'll give it a try.


Wait a minute. You say $20, then $120.

I said $20 off WTI, which today was trading over $143. And to be specific, Maya crude is currently only $17 off. That means the crude is trading at $126/bbl.


If they can produce it for $20,

What they produce it for is irrelevent.


then pay a fee for refinery and transportation, that doesn't make it high priced. They simply are not making that extra profit $100 per bbl. They can drill it and sell it for prices as if oil hadn't raised like it did.

What planet does this happen on?

1) They don't "pay a fee" for refining and transportation. They sell the oil to companies who own refineries. The company that buys pays the transportation to get it to their refinery, then they refine it.
2) Whatever Mexico sells the oil for minus what they produce it for is, by the very essence of the term, profit. They can drill it and sell it for prices as if oil prices hadn't gone up... but they don't, because they'd be stupid to. They sell it for the price the market will bear.




Without numbers, I will not believe you.

Why not just come out and say it, there are no numbers or facts in the entire world that will make you believe anything other than your wacky pre-concieved notions. You've demonstrated that in numerous other threads, and this one is proving no exception. I'm not going to waste my time providing you with any other facts that I already have, because it would be pointless to do so. Believe what you want, and continue to be laughed at by anyone who has actual knowledge of the situation.


Historic numbers are on my side.

What is exactly is your side? Your posts have become so incoherrent, it's impossible to really know. And what historic numbers are on this side of yours?


We all know it doesn't cost $100+ per bbl to get the oil.

Duh. It also doesn't cost $4 for Starbucks to make a cup of coffee, but that is how much it costs you to buy one.


The price is high because of supply and demand. Owners and cartels can regulate their supply to increase the world price.

What a novel concept. I wonder why this has never been covered in the countless oil threads we've had over the years. :rolleyes


As long as Mexico has a net export of oil, they can sell gas for cheap without subsidies

Unless cars in Mexico run off crude oil, it's pretty irrelevent. Last time I checked, cars ran off gasoline and diesel. And historically, Mexico has been a net importer of gasoline and diesel. Mexico remains the #1 importer of US hydrocarbon products in the world.


Cost of getting the oil plus refinery plus transportation plus profit can still be the same price as five years ago or longer.

Yeah okay, some refinery in Texas is going to buy Mexican oil for $126/bbl, refine it into gasoline, and then sell it back for $30/bbl. :rolleyes


How much did our gas sell for when oil was $20 per barrel? If that is what their cost of getting their oil is, then I would expect as low as those same prices without subsidies![quote]

This is the point at which your notion of how basic economics works becomes so distorted that I can't even follow. You would fail my class.

[quote]Even if they actually buy some gasoline from us instead of paying to refine their oil, when it is mixed with their own refinery capacity, the cost gets averaged in. Then on top of that, they would likely be buying a different blend that is cheaper to produce than what we dictate be sold in our markets. Maybe they buy the stuff that we cannot sell here because of contaminates as well as shipping some of their oil to be processed.

They don't have a corporate setup and laws as ours. I would agree if this was happening here, with our way of doing business.

Go ahead. Give it your best shot to embarrass me.

Blahblahblahblahblah... maybe their cars run on fairy dust.

Your credibility on this topic, in addition to many others, is completely blown.

Goodnight now.

[scott]

WTI grade is also known as Texas light sweet, and yes, it's the kind we hear about more often. I believe the Maya type has more sulphur, making it slightly more 'sour'. I'm sure scott will correct me if I'm off track here.

Correct. Maya is very heavy, very sour, hence why it is comparatively cheap.