Whose Ready for $3.00 a Gallon Gas

[Murphy Siding]

Yes, there is a lot of oil out there. What is harder to come by with each passing year is CHEAP OIL. There are capped wells in the U.S. because easier to get oil (read cheaper oil) was available from overseas. The harder to get oil costs more to get = higher gas prices. The issue is not how much oil, the issue is at what price![:(]

[Anonymous]

Train Guy 3 is right on the money about there being plenty of oil in the US. I found some of my father's stuff from Exxon, we should be running out of oil as demand should have outstripped supplies much sooner than on garyaiki's chart. I did some serious research on the subject. We are not running out of oil, it is true some of the wells thought to be pumped dry "we cannot get all of the oil out of a well" have been discovered to have more oil in them. Read this. http://www.rense.com/general54/ssust.htm
Well, as I have said not even touched Alaska, or the California shore. In fact there is more oil in the Gulf of Mexico than there is in the North Sea. I don't blame garyaiki' for believing it, but I was right, it is bunk! These charts come out all the time and every time the year when we run out of oil keeps getting pushed out, according to some old charts I have from the 1980's we should be running out of oil already. The higher the price of oil gets the more economical better methods of oil recovery, like steam injection, become, or to drill with an oil rig out in the ocean. Consider the fact that 2/3 of the earth is ocean, this means we have a lot of oil out there we can't get to, yet, if we find a way, we will far more oil than needed to last well past 2050. Here is more info about the Gulf of Mexico: http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/4.3.03/ACS-Cathles.html

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

The wells aren't filling up with oil. US oil reserves have been declining for decades and oil reserves are in decline around the world.



I found the chart Googling for "peak oil" and "graph", the others I found had the same information. I forget where I got the one I posted but you can open the url.

We have plenty oil in the continetal US. Back during 73-74 we back-filled old oil fields that had not been tapped for years with crude oil.

Trainguy 3: Where are you getting your information? Are you saying that we pumped oil out of the ground,then used it to fill old wells? I'm confused.

Back during the 70's my great uncle was stationed in the New Orleans area with the Navy. His comanding officer's son worked on an oil tanker. All that oil tanker did was import crude oil into the U.S. and pump it through oil lines crossing this county to back-fill old oil fields like those in Pennsylvania.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by *backfilling* old oil wells? We pumped oil out of the ground in a far away place,brought it accross the ocean,pumped it accross the country in pipelines (even though there are many ports closer to Penn. than New Orleans) and dumped it into old oil wells?[%-)]
Are you sure that it wasn't being pumped into the Strategic Oil Reserve that the U.S. maintains underground, somewhere in or around Louisianna?

Uncle Ed said that the crude oil on that particular tanker was being pumped to oil fields in PA and other fields, and that was the only place it was going. Knowing the man.... I would say it has good credibility to be the truth.

[Modelcar]

....Sounds to me that is exactly what he is discribing...{filling the Strategic Oil Reserve}.
On the gas price raising 20 cents in one day, mentioned above....Try this...In Muncie, In. in 24 hrs....Tuesday morning to this {Wednesday}, morning it rose....70 cents...!!! Was $2.499 and this morning it went to $3.199 per gal....!!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

The wells aren't filling up with oil. US oil reserves have been declining for decades and oil reserves are in decline around the world.



I found the chart Googling for "peak oil" and "graph", the others I found had the same information. I forget where I got the one I posted but you can open the url.

We have plenty oil in the continetal US. Back during 73-74 we back-filled old oil fields that had not been tapped for years with crude oil.

Trainguy 3: Where are you getting your information? Are you saying that we pumped oil out of the ground,then used it to fill old wells? I'm confused.

Back during the 70's my great uncle was stationed in the New Orleans area with the Navy. His comanding officer's son worked on an oil tanker. All that oil tanker did was import crude oil into the U.S. and pump it through oil lines crossing this county to back-fill old oil fields like those in Pennsylvania.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by *backfilling* old oil wells? We pumped oil out of the ground in a far away place,brought it accross the ocean,pumped it accross the country in pipelines (even though there are many ports closer to Penn. than New Orleans) and dumped it into old oil wells?[%-)]
Are you sure that it wasn't being pumped into the Strategic Oil Reserve that the U.S. maintains underground, somewhere in or around Louisianna?

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

The wells aren't filling up with oil. US oil reserves have been declining for decades and oil reserves are in decline around the world.

I found the chart Googling for "peak oil" and "graph", the others I found had the same information. I forget where I got the one I posted but you can open the url.

We have plenty oil in the continetal US. Back during 73-74 we back-filled old oil fields that had not been tapped for years with crude oil.

Trainguy 3: Where are you getting your information? Are you saying that we pumped oil out of the ground,then used it to fill old wells? I'm confused.

Back during the 70's my great uncle was stationed in the New Orleans area with the Navy. His comanding officer's son worked on an oil tanker. All that oil tanker did was import crude oil into the U.S. and pump it through oil lines crossing this county to back-fill old oil fields like those in Pennsylvania.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

The wells aren't filling up with oil. US oil reserves have been declining for decades and oil reserves are in decline around the world.

I found the chart Googling for "peak oil" and "graph", the others I found had the same information. I forget where I got the one I posted but you can open the url.

We have plenty oil in the continetal US. Back during 73-74 we back-filled old oil fields that had not been tapped for years with crude oil.

Trainguy 3: Where are you getting your information? Are you saying that we pumped oil out of the ground,then used it to fill old wells? I'm confused.

[BNSFNUT]

$3 a gallon hit the Binghamton NY area today 8/31 and I not ready for it.
Hmm a tank of gas or a weeks grocerys let me think about that.

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

The wells aren't filling up with oil. US oil reserves have been declining for decades and oil reserves are in decline around the world.

I found the chart Googling for "peak oil" and "graph", the others I found had the same information. I forget where I got the one I posted but you can open the url.

We have plenty oil in the continetal US. Back during 73-74 we back-filled old oil fields that had not been tapped for years with crude oil.

[Anonymous]

Oltmannd:

QUOTE: - AC in a 250 mpg car would drop your milage by 75 mpg, not 20 or 30. Just turning the headlights on would drop gas mileage by 25 mpg. Do the math!

Typical wattage of headlights is about 50-70 watts. That is 100-140 watts. A gallon of fuel will light them for 100-140 hours. At 30 mph average you will do 3000 miles. So the lights are 3000-4200 mpg.

In 3000 miles our 250mpg car will burn 12 gallons. 13 with lights.

3000/13 = 230 mpg

In 4200 miles our 250mpg car will burn 16,8 gallons

4200/17,8 = 235 mpg

This is assuming running with headlights on non stop. Usually your lights will be on what - 20% of time? 10%? That will cost 5 or so mpg (20%).

QUOTE: -Formula 1 cars do not meet Fed requirements for safety. They are "safer" than they were 30 years ago, but they are certainly not what anyone would call "safe". How you can even say they are the "safest" is beyond me!

Think about it -on each race several of those cars crash at 100+ mph - and yet not many casualities are there...

QUOTE: Yeah, I know you could make cars a lot lighter using composites w/o sacrificing strength, but even if you dropped the weight from 2500# to 500# you still have some serious aerodynamic issues and I don't think you can drop the Cd low enough and still package the interior into one an aging baby boomer or soccer mom would accept.

Aero issues can be resolved - maybe not as drastically as in that 12500 mpg car, but surely they can.

QUOTE: 250 mpg is just not possible for a family sedan! 75, maybe. 250, forget it!

Say that when fuel will be at 20$ @ gallon

QUOTE: Besides, for a car traveling 20,000 mi/yr with fuel at $5, going from 25 to 75 mpg will save ~$1700/yr but going from 75 to 250 will only save ~$700/yr more.

20000 miles @ 10 mpg = $ 10000
20000 miles @ 25 mpg = $ 4000
20000 miles @ 75 mpg = $ 1334
20000 miles @ 250 mpg = $ 400

Obviously - we save most by going from 10 mpg, to 25 mpg. So - the rest is irrelevant...
Besides - afair 70mpg car is already avalible - it's called Volkswagen Lupo 3.0

As for transmission losses:

Typical gearset is about 97-95% efficent. Bearings are about 99%. Clutch - depending on the age is about 95-85% efficient. A shaft is about 98%-95% (the longer the less efficent - altho the diameter also counts the bigger diameter - less twisting thus higher efficency)

typical drivetrain is: cylinders -> shaft (0,98) -> clutch (0,95) -> shaft(0.98) -> gearbox (0.93~0,95) -> shaft(0.98) -> differential(0.95) -> clutch(cardan)(0,97) -> shaft(0,98) -> clutch(cardan)(0.97) -> shaft(0,98) -> wheel = total efficency: 0,77. That is exocluding suspension (it eats some power) and bearings and assumes mint, well lubricated conditions. 0,7 for a new car and 0,6-0,65 for old is about right.

Modelcar: there are ways to move a human at 12500 mpg. We are discussing how much of that can translate to a sensible personal transport - I shoot at 200-250 mpg

[Anonymous]

Here in Blair the Price is now up .20 cents from this morning.
This morning: $2.59 and $2.69. To now:$2.79 and $2.89. .20 cents in one day is a hell of a price spike. Allan.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
It is not possible to make a 4 passenger sedan with the same interior room and trunk space as a Ford Focus with heat, air conditioning, and that will meet federal crashworthiness standards that will get more than 100 mpg, no matter what shape it is or how you power it.

250 mpg is just silly.

You might as well be talking about pedal-powered commercial aircraft!

I'd hazard saying that it is possible. It would require quite revolutionary approach - in terms of design (power transfer, aerodynamics etc), but it is possible to get to that magical 250 mpg.

A few things to consider:


Drivetrain - current cars are terrible here. Power transfer to the wheels is at most 70% efficient. Usually lower. In a comparsion - a chain drive with a planetary gearbox will be about 95% efficient (pure chain is 98-99% efficent). The requirement: the vehicle has to be a trike (rear wheel driven, two front wheels). As a bonus we get lower rolling resistance.

I absolutely, positively do not believe this! Gearsets are pretty darn effiecient!

If the drive train on my car was this ineffecient, my transmission (which is a planetary gear set!) and differential would need their own radiator! (remember, when the torque converter is in lock-up mode, it no longer needs the services of the tranny cooler.)

Can you cite at text or web site?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....There may be ways to transport someone 250 miles on a gal of gas...but a vehicle that meets the requirements of carrying 4 passengers with the proper measure of safety, comfort, performance and reliablity on roads as we know exist....isn't in the realm of possibility.

I think they call that a train![:D]

[Modelcar]

....There may be ways to transport someone 250 miles on a gal of gas...but a vehicle that meets the requirements of carrying 4 passengers with the proper measure of safety, comfort, performance and reliablity on roads as we know exist....isn't in the realm of possibility.

[Anonymous]

Oh my God the Damage is increadable down there.
Allan.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Yep - the wolf is at the door - and now - it aint joking.

Oltmannd

- I said it had to provide the interior space and trunk space of a Ford Focus!

Its going to be arranged differently, but will have hust as much space. And sure as hell noone will be cramped inside.

- ...and have AC and heat!

sutract 20-30 mpg. AC is a fuel hog.

- ...and meet Federal crashworthiness specs!

who said it won't? Did it ever occured to you that the world's lightest cars (formula 1/indycar) ar also the safest around?

- AC in a 250 mpg car would drop your milage by 75 mpg, not 20 or 30. Just turning the headlights on would drop gas mileage by 25 mpg. Do the math!

-Formula 1 cars do not meet Fed requirements for safety. They are "safer" than they were 30 years ago, but they are certainly not what anyone would call "safe". How you can even say they are the "safest" is beyond me!

Yeah, I know you could make cars a lot lighter using composites w/o sacrificing strength, but even if you dropped the weight from 2500# to 500# you still have some serious aerodynamic issues and I don't think you can drop the Cd low enough and still package the interior into one an aging baby boomer or soccer mom would accept.

250 mpg is just not possible for a family sedan! 75, maybe. 250, forget it!

Besides, for a car traveling 20,000 mi/yr with fuel at $5, going from 25 to 75 mpg will save ~$1700/yr but going from 75 to 250 will only save ~$700/yr more.

[Anonymous]

Yep - the wolf is at the door - and now - it aint joking.

Oltmannd

- I said it had to provide the interior space and trunk space of a Ford Focus!

Its going to be arranged differently, but will have hust as much space. And sure as hell noone will be cramped inside.

- ...and have AC and heat!

sutract 20-30 mpg. AC is a fuel hog.

- ...and meet Federal crashworthiness specs!

who said it won't? Did it ever occured to you that the world's lightest cars (formula 1/indycar) ar also the safest around?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

The wells aren't filling up with oil. US oil reserves have been declining for decades and oil reserves are in decline around the world.

I found the chart Googling for "peak oil" and "graph", the others I found had the same information. I forget where I got the one I posted but you can open the url.

[Anonymous]

I hate to argue with a chart like this. But that is bunk; we aren't running out of oil. I know you have a chart, but I have a brain, that is just plain screwy many of the wells thought to be running out are filling back up, and we are finding more oil. Heck we haven't touched off of California, or Alaska. We have more than enough oil to last past 2050. Were did you find your chart?

[Anonymous]

This is one of many charts on the web showing we've enjoyed surplus worldwide oil reserves which kept prices down. Over the last 25 years we've burned up much of that surplus and no sizable new finds are expected. Oil prices go up and down but from now on they will be going up a lot more than they will be going down.

In 3 years $5.00 a gallon gas will probably look cheap.

[Murphy Siding]

You would have to be living in a dream world to think that high gas prices don't effect you. Everything that is transported by train,boat,car or airplane is subject to higher fuel costs that will be passed on to the consumers (you and me).[:(]

[Modelcar]

...Massive R & D for new fuel would be great and needs to be started....But it's a bit silly and arrogant to wish for $4 and $5 dollar gasoline. Hardship on many people that just have to use their transportation to get to work, etc....How about folks on fixed income...Not much fun either....New fuels are a must for America but let's not get silly on imposing the hardship on many that can afford it the least.....

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Question: How many of you NEC guys who are saying "bring it on" (regarding $4 or $5 a gallon gasoline) because you have the NEC at your doorstep, how many of you also heat with heating oil? As we all know, the Northeast U.S. is the biggest consumer of heating oil, taking one fourth of the nation's refined oil products (from memory, fact check if you must). I think the best action that the President and Congress could take at this point would be to put a "needless use of a scarce resource" tax on heating oil users, both to force such patrons to switch to "alternative" sources of heat, and to collect funds for expanding oil exploration in the U.S.

Easier to force heating oil users to find alternatives than to force drivers to find alternatives.

Um......do you think that's a little harsh? What do you expect people to use for heat? Coal logs?[:)].

[Anonymous]

Good thing I use a wood stove then...

Heating oil is a strange and obscure concept to Kevin.

So I agree with you, Tax the heck out of it, if it's not a 4000% tax, it's not enough.

Back to my original words... bring it on.
.

[Anonymous]

Question: How many of you NEC guys who are saying "bring it on" (regarding $4 or $5 a gallon gasoline) because you have the NEC at your doorstep, how many of you also heat with heating oil? As we all know, the Northeast U.S. is the biggest consumer of heating oil, taking one fourth of the nation's refined oil products (from memory, fact check if you must). I think the best action that the President and Congress could take at this point would be to put a "needless use of a scarce resource" tax on heating oil users, both to force such patrons to switch to "alternative" sources of heat, and to collect funds for expanding oil exploration in the U.S.

Easier to force heating oil users to find alternatives than to force drivers to find alternatives.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

[(-D]

[Anonymous]

Well, in contrary to what most of you have said... I'm ready for it.

Bring it on, actually.

Perhaps this will shut the people up, who are so contempt about riding their snow mobiles about 4miles less then the speed of sound.

Perhaps this will shut the kids up, that have cars that have nodified mufflers that sound like enlongated cow flatulance, or a local sity bus.

my locomotive runs quieter then someof those cars.

Mayebe it will keep those punks of the water, that have a 4.7 to the power of 40 horsepower motor in the back of their boat, and ride around idioticly in the water- no gas makes a nice row boat. An expensive one, but a row boat none the less.

Gas, as far as I'm concerned, is used to frivolously.

I walk to work, and then walk home when done.

If I don't walk to work, i\ll take the train to work. So far my car has come out ZERO times. A tank of gas can last me until the gas litterally goes bad.

A bus is a good way to work, A Carpool works just as well if your not in the bus/metro/train area

I already have an alternative to gas, so as the price goes up, I can sit back and laugh.. and I can now pokemy head outside and not have to hear a loud boat going up and down the water-

Don\tget me wrong-I have nothing against noise. I have somehting against stupid peopleoverdoing it to a nolonger necesary state. We don't need mufflers as large as my bedroom door frame on a car, You don't need an Engine that is as big as my hard drive in KB on the back of a boat.

So as the gas goes up, I welcome it.

I hope by next year it will be 5.00 a Gallon or for Canadians 15.00 a Liter.

Their are always alternatives, and when the gas gets high enough, maybe that will trigger people to look for them.

[Anonymous]

I have mass transit options here along the NEC 5 days a week. The 30 mile ride to New Haven, CT is $1.20 by bus or $4 by train (Shoreline Line East). The math is easy: the transit option is comparable or cheaper for me alone to get around.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if it were $4 a gallon. But unlike many others, I do have other options. Its the price of everything else here in New England that is intolerable. Cut me a break on insurance or housing costs! Too bad... taxed to death helps pay for those transit options.

jchnhtfd: I agree...let it rise. There's still little market incentive to exploit real alternatives at current prices. Hybrids are nice, but they are still lossy combustion engines running on foreign fuel. Hydrogen is still dirty at the generation source until they figure out how to make it clean.

[Anonymous]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
It is not possible to make a 4 passenger sedan with the same interior room and trunk space as a Ford Focus with heat, air conditioning, and that will meet federal crashworthiness standards that will get more than 100 mpg, no matter what shape it is or how you power it.

250 mpg is just silly.

You might as well be talking about pedal-powered commercial aircraft!

I'd hazard saying that it is possible. It would require quite revolutionary approach - in terms of design (power transfer, aerodynamics etc), but it is possible to get to that magical 250 mpg.

A few things to consider:

Weight - current cars are terrible in a matter load/tare weight. Accelerating the vehicle is pretty much accelerating dead weight - and a fuel hog at the same time. Now - personal motorized vehicle may weight about 300-350 lb - compare to 2000-3000 of the current cars. 4 Person verion may be 400-500 lb.

Aerodynamics - a car at 60 mph is towing several _tons_ of air. Since the air drag goes up with a square of speed - biggest gains can be obtained there. The said 250 mpg car will attempt to streamline the body and reduce frontal area. The seating position will be much more reclined in effect and the whole vehicle a tad longer then current cars.

Drivetrain - current cars are terrible here. Power transfer to the wheels is at most 70% efficient. Usually lower. In a comparsion - a chain drive with a planetary gearbox will be about 95% efficient (pure chain is 98-99% efficent). The requirement: the vehicle has to be a trike (rear wheel driven, two front wheels). As a bonus we get lower rolling resistance.

None of this is actual rocket science - but such ultra light vehicle will easily get to at least 150-200 mpg, and with some refinement 250 mpg. The point is however, that oil is dirt cheap - so current cars are what they are - big and heavy fuel hogs.

You really underestimate how much energy is stored in a gallon of fuel :)

I said it had to provide the interior space and trunk space of a Ford Focus!

...and have AC and heat!

...and meet Federal crashworthiness specs!