Whose Ready for $3.00 a Gallon Gas

[Anonymous]

I just heard on the news that crude oil will hit a new record high of close to $75.00 a barrel some time in the next month or so. Allan.

[Anonymous]

I don't really see a problem here. Making a car with 200-250 mpg is perfectly feasible. Ofc it's not going to look like a big ass SUV, but still - doing 60-70 mph would be pretty easy.

A heck - the world record for a _bicycle_ is over 80 mph! That is with a fraction of power of todays car!

[Modelcar]

...Saw a picture of a train with wind deflectors on each side on the last car with room for a bicycle to be sheilded from the wind...and some kind of smooth surface for the bike to ride on between the rails....Don't remember what speed they attained....

[Anonymous]

Modelcar - the bicycle+rider in question did it by themselves. Without any outside help. That is the real record. With shielding the speed was over 150 mph...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Modelcar - the bicycle+rider in question did it by themselves. Without any outside help. That is the real record. With shielding the speed was over 150 mph...

Can you fill me in, maybe I missed a realted topic. I don't really think you are trying to tell me someone got a bike to do 150mph.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

I don't really see a problem here. Making a car with 200-250 mpg is perfectly feasible.

How in the world can you do that?

[Anonymous]

150 on a bike????

[Dutchrailnut]

Honda - Kawasaki- Harley maybe ??

[Modelcar]

Creating a car powered by an internal combustion engine { to achieve 200-250 mpg}, perhaps is within the possibility of engineering and design...but using the term "car" and it's practicallity to describe it for everyday use would stretch it all too far as to be "useable"....

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Modelcar - the bicycle+rider in question did it by themselves. Without any outside help. That is the real record. With shielding the speed was over 150 mph...

Can you fill me in, maybe I missed a realted topic. I don't really think you are trying to tell me someone got a bike to do 150mph.

Seen it, or something similar, VERY BIG GEARS! and a tow up to a speed where the rider could let go, seen this done with bicycles and tow/windbreak vehicles with wind flarings to remove aerodynamic wind resistance, so that its only the rider the bike and the soil. They do this every now and then on dry lake beds like Bonnieville in Utah. [:0]

[vsmith]

From the Gunnes book of World Records

Fastest Bicycle Speed
The highest speed ever achieved on a bicycle is 268.831 km/h (167.043 mph), by Fred Rompelberg (The Netherlands) at Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah, USA, on October 3, 1995. His record attempt was greatly assisted by the slipstream from his lead vehicle. Fred has been cycling professionally for nearly 30 years and during that time has held 11 world records.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

I don't really see a problem here. Making a car with 200-250 mpg is perfectly feasible. Ofc it's not going to look like a big SUV, but still - doing 60-70 mph would be pretty easy.

Based on what technology?

You still have the laws of physics putting an upper limit on it based on wind drag and rolling resistance and Carnot eff. giving the upper limit for a heat engine.

If you take a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry that gets 30 mpg at 70 mph, and reduce the wind drag by 50% (which would be on the extreme end of feasabliltiy - and way past practical) and then come up with an adiabatic diesel with a 45% thermal eff. (compared to the15% or so for the gas engine), you might get all the way up to 135 mpg. You'd need a fuel cell to get to 250 mpg.

[Anonymous]

Modelcar - the record in fuel consumption is 5385 km on one litre of fuel. That is - if my math is correct - 12465 mpg.

Oltmann - look above and tell me again that it is impossible to make a viable car 250 mpg with todays technology. Ofc its going to look different then what you are accustomed to - but its going to run just fine ^^

The record in human powered vehicles (when the human is the sole source of power :P) belongs to Sam Wittingham on a bicycle Varna Diablo. That is 81 mph with less then 1 hp.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Modelcar - the record in fuel consumption is 5385 km on one litre of fuel. That is - if my math is correct - 12465 mpg.

Oltmann - look above and tell me again that it is impossible to make a viable car 250 mpg with todays technology. Ofc its going to look different then what you are accustomed to - but its going to run just fine ^^

The record in human powered vehicles (when the human is the sole source of power :P) belongs to Sam Wittingham on a bicycle Varna Diablo. That is 81 mph with less then 1 hp.

Just what will power this magic car? True air resistance is a big factor, but streamlining will only get you a few extra miles to the gallon. It seems you have said this simply so you can tell us that if only we didn't drive our big evil SUVs we could have the perfect car. What technology are you referring to? Look above to what? The fact we can ride a bicycle that fast?
James[C):-)]

[SID6FIVE]

cost me $70.00 to fill up the other day...and that was at a "mere" $2.69/gal...

[vsmith]

Truth is an ultra high milage vehicle will look alot more like a four wheeled bicycle than an SUV. the keys are ultra low drag body, minimum tire profile, very light weight, and a miser gas or gas/electric hybrid engine. It is possible to create a very very high milage car, it would never be allowed on the highway because it would never pass the federal safety standards for collisions, all the items needed for protection would weight the car down, requireing higher horsepower to move it, end of the ultra high milage, and you'd have to live with a paltry 60-70 mpg like the hybrid Prius or Civic. Not to mention the current super miser cars are no more as comfortable than a recumbant bicycle.

[Anonymous]

Right now crude is well over $70.00. It "will" hit close to $100.00 some time today.
Allan.

[Anonymous]

I recently cruised to Bermuda. What a wonderful island nation it is some 500 or so miles east of North Carolina. Their government has limited them to one car per household, but they can buy as many scooters as they wish. They are paying over $6 a gallon for gasoline.

While I was there I saw only one large pickup. Many small pickups, but only one large pickup. Most of the people of Bermuda were on their scooters to get to work, and shop.

That's the kind of change we need here in America. Drop those speed limits down to 20 mph as in Bermuda, and change our vehicle of choice to a scooter.....

As far as nulear waste is concerned, 99 percent of the contaminated waste is gone in 10 years, and another 99 percent of that is gone in 100 years. In fact, the uranium that is mined is more toxic than what's left after 100 years.....

And yes, we should be more like the Europeans about renting trucks or having large loads delivered.... We don't need large pickups to drive to work or shop at the grocery store.....

A little humor: the next SUV from Detroit is.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Modelcar - the record in fuel consumption is 5385 km on one litre of fuel. That is - if my math is correct - 12465 mpg.

Oltmann - look above and tell me again that it is impossible to make a viable car 250 mpg with todays technology. Ofc its going to look different then what you are accustomed to - but its going to run just fine ^^

The record in human powered vehicles (when the human is the sole source of power :P) belongs to Sam Wittingham on a bicycle Varna Diablo. That is 81 mph with less then 1 hp.

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!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark



That's the kind of change we need here in America. Drop those speed limits down to 20 mph as in Bermuda, and change our vehicle of choice to a scooter.....


As far as nulear waste is concerned, 99 percent of the contaminated waste is gone in 10 years, and another 99 percent of that is gone in 100 years. In fact, the uranium that is mined is more toxic than what's left after 100 years.....

Are you joking? Never work, people a lot of people would rather start a revolution, than give up their cars. Just how do you haul anything a scooter? And this is America we drive Harleys, not scooters. Ever hear the song "I can't drive 55"? You could pull over everyone in the USA, if you had a 20mph speed limit. Besides, if you did that people would fly much much more than they would drive long distances, since getting anywhere would take forever, and airplanes are less fuel-efficient than a car. It's our right to buy whatever cars we want, guzzle as much gas as we want, and drive as fast as the speed limits permit. I would suggest that if you really think that is such a great idea, you sell any other vehicles, but one car, and buy a scooter. Then when you want to go on a vacation, you can take your car and drive it at 20mph.

---

I am all for the use of nuclear reactors, however the problem of nuclear waste is not to be taken too lightly if no breeder reactor is used, plutonium; a by-product of a U-238 nuclear reactor has a half-life of 24,000 years. Here is what I said about nuclear power on the Model Railroader forum:

Nuclear power is a very good option for using less fuel, but the environmentalist also blocks that path. I was scoffed at before when I said that disposing of nuclear waste was not a huge problem. Here is what I heard from a retired officer of the Navy, who severed on diesel and nuclear subs, and worked directly under Admiral Rickover. What you do is you take the waste, the size of a marble that can run whole cities for years, and even then can be put into another reactor that uses the waste from the first reactor, coat it with glass and dump it into the Marianas trench. No radioactivity will contaminate the ocean and nothing lives that deep, and it couldn't be filled up for thousands of years. Of course you can't convince people of that, but it would work.

[Modelcar]

....We will not see any practical 250 mpg "car" anytime soon powered by an internal combustion engine....Just not possible in any reality terms.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....We will not see any practical 250 mpg "car" anytime soon powered by an internal combustion engine....Just not possible in any reality terms.

...not even with a fuel cell. It just takes too much energy to move a realistically sized and constructed car at 60 mph no matter what you power it with!

[Anonymous]

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 :)

[Anonymous]

From the TXU FAQ's website:
Capacity Auction
Power Plants
Nuclear FAQ's
TXU Generation Services
TXU Power Home Page


Nuclear FAQ's
Q. How much electricity is provided by nuclear power?
Q. What are the advantages of nuclear power?
Q. What is fission?
Q. Do nuclear plants affect the environment?
Q. Can a nuclear reactor explode?
Q. What are nuclear wastes?
Q. How much nuclear waste is there?
Q. How can nuclear wastes be disposed of safely?


Q. How much electricity is provided by nuclear power?
A. Nuclear power plays a significant part in meeting today’s electricity needs and will continue to serve as an important source of electric energy. In 1998, 19 percent of U.S. electricity production was generated by nuclear power plants, making nuclear power plants the second largest source of electricity in the nation.
return to top
Q. What are the advantages of nuclear power?
A. Nuclear power offers numerous advantages as a source of electric energy:
Nuclear power plants have a record of safety excellence that dates back to 1957 when the first commercial nuclear plant began operating; using proven technology, nuclear plants have operated reliably to meet electricity needs; uranium, the fuel for nuclear plants, is a relatively inexpensive fuel that is abundant throughout the world; and nuclear power produces no air pollutants.
Because of these and other advantages, utilities have relied on nuclear power to meet an increasingly large portion of their customers’ electricity needs.
return to top

Q. What is fission?
A. To understand the basics of nuclear power production, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of atoms.
Atoms, the fundamental components of all matter, are composed of three primary particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons comprise the center, or nucleus. The protons and neutrons are held together by a powerful force called nuclear energy.
The nuclear energy can be overcome in large atoms, causing them to split apart or "fission." Uranium-235 is a large atom with 92 protons and 143 neutrons in its nucleus. When a neutron strikes a uranium-235 atom, its nucleus becomes unstable. The atom then splits into two smaller atoms (fission products), releases two or three neutrons, and releases energy in the form of heat. The "free" neutrons released can strike other uranium-235 atoms, causing them to fission, and this process, or chain reaction, will continue as long as there are uranium-235 atoms available.
In a nuclear power plant, the heat produced during the chain reaction is used to boil water to produce steam. The rest of the nuclear power plant's operations are not very different from that of a fossil-fuel plant. Nuclear plants, however, produce much greater amounts of energy for the amount of material consumed. For example, just one pound of nuclear fuel produces more energy than 240 tons of coal, 830 barrels of oil, or five million cubic feet of natural gas.

return to top
Q. Do nuclear plants affect the environment?
A. All methods for producing electricity affect the environment to some degree. Nuclear power has a minimal environmental impact. Since nuclear plants do not burn fuel, they emit none of the combustion byproducts produced by fossil-fueled plants. Nuclear plants do emit very small amounts of radiation, just as fossil-fueled plants do, but the levels pose no danger to the environment.
The environmental impact of mining and transporting nuclear fuel is considerably less than for other fuels. Since uranium is capable of producing larger amounts of energy than similar amounts of other fuels, smaller amounts can be mined and transported to produce the same amount of electricity.

return to top
Q. Can a nuclear reactor explode?
A. It is physically impossible for a commercial nuclear reactor to explode like an atomic bomb, whether by accident, sabotage, or any other cause. The composition of nuclear fuel used to generate electricity is quite different from the materials used in a bomb.
The difference between commercial nuclear reactors and atomic bombs can be illustrated by the difference between grain and bread. Explosions sometimes occur in grain silos when a spark ignites an area full of fine grain dust and the grain’s chemical energy is released suddenly. Once the grain has been made into bread, that same chemical energy can be released slowly by the human digestive process. However, nothing can be done to this new chemical and physical arrangement of grain - in the form of bread - to make it explode. Similarly, nuclear materials must be brought together almost instantaneously for an explosion to occur, and commercial nuclear reactors only can release energy slowly.

return to top
Q. What are nuclear wastes?
A. When nuclear fuel is first placed in a commercial reactor, it consists of uranium oxide. After the fuel has been used for three or four years, it consists of about 96 percent uranium oxide and about 3 percent new elements - including iodine, strontium, carbon, xenon, cesium, silver, and palladium. These are nuclear wastes.
Spent nuclear fuel is termed "high-level waste," since it is considerably more radioactive than new fuel. A person can handle new fuel pellets of uranium oxide without danger. In contrast, spent fuel is dangerously radioactive, although much of the radioactivity dissipates quickly - some 98 percent within six months. Forty to 50 years after spent fuel is removed from the reactor, its radioactivity has decreased by a factor of 100. A very small percentage of nuclear wastes remain radioactive for thousands of years.
In addition to high-level waste, another category of nuclear waste associated with nuclear power is called "low-level waste." Low-level waste is generally anything that becomes contaminated with radioactive materials during its use. Such items include rags, papers, cleaning materials, protective clothing, tools, and contaminated liquids.
Uranium mine and mill tailings - the residue, sludges, and sands from uranium mining and milling operations - also are considered nuclear wastes because they contain very small concentrations of natural radioactive elements.

return to top
Q. How much nuclear waste is there?
A.The commercial nuclear power industry has accumulated about 17,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. Buy the year 2000, nuclear plants will have produced a total of about 40,000 tons of spent fuel.
The military nuclear program has accumulated about 100 times more nuclear waste than commercial nuclear plants. In addition, about 180 million tons of extremely low-level wastes have been generated by uranium and milling and disposed of at mine sites.

return to top
Q. How can nuclear wastes be disposed of safely?
A.Nuclear wastes can be isolated from the environment so that they do not pose a danger to current or future generations. First, they can be placed deep underground in a stable geological environment. Second, a multi-barrier approach can be used to ensure that none of the radioactivity escapes. The wastes are immobilized by embedding them in stable, nondissolvable solid ceramic or glassy materials. They then can be sealed in ceramic or metal canisters, with absorbent mineral fillings packed around them. The entire assembly can be sealed in deep bedrock.
One of the fears expressed about nuclear waste storage is that the buried nuclear waste canisters might somehow, over very long time periods, be damaged, allowing radioactive materials to enter underground water. In fact, the toxicity of nuclear plant wastes after 1,000 years is about equal to the toxicity of the uranium ore from which the fuel originally was obtained. After about 4,000 years the nuclear waste is not more toxic than natural mercury, chromium, cadmium, silver, or many other ores. The multiple barriers will be selected, designed, and constructed to retain the radioactive wastes for 10,000 years.

[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!

[Anonymous]

[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]

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]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

[(-D]

[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.