Price of gas!

[Benjamin]

I'm a teenager. Naturall my generation is eger to get our linse and drive. With the price of gas I ride the bus to school and walk to work. My friends laugh at me, but the joke is on them. They got to spen like 1/2 or their paycheck or better to put gas in their vehicals. I think they need to post the price like this:
Regular: Arm
Mid-Grade: Leg
Premieum: Arm and Leg.

Benjamin.

[Benjamin]

[quote="the elephant"]Benjamin,

Here ya go!

[img]http://www.dgci.net/archives/mt-static/ ... prices.jpg[/img][/quote] Thank God I'm the seconed child.
Benjamin.

[Chuck(G)]

You know, if everyone would DECIDE to switch to Hydrogen powerd cars, no one would really have this problem of gas prices.

---Except that you may have to pay more to travel the same mileage. Allow me to give you three good reasons why hydrogen may not be the answer:

1. Hydrogen isn't an energy source; unless you live on the sun, the free form doesn't occur naturally. So you have to make it from something. While electrolysis can be used, it isn't very efficient. So you lose a bunch of energy making it. The only other common ways to make hydrogen is to split the hydrogen off of a water molecule using carbon (coke oven) or to split the hydrogen from the carbon in natural gas. Either way, you're still using a fuel to create a fuel, which means inefficiency.

2. Hydrogen isn't an efficient energy storage medium. As a matter of fact, there's more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. To make hydrogen into a liquid and keep it that way for transport, you have to expend more energy. And the energy density isn't that great--in the lab, we used to demonstrate that you can run your hand through a small high-temperature oxy-hydrogen flame without damage. It burns with a high temperature, but packs very little heat. (That's one of the reasons that welders use acetylene and not hydrogen for a fuel).

3. There's no transport or distribution structure in place. You simply can't use existing oil pipelines or gas pumps for distribution. Given the nature of hydrogen, any transport system is going to be very expensive.

What may be the answer is a multi-modal transportation system. Electric vehicles for around-town short-haul driving. (Too bad GM decided to crush their EV-1 fleet; the cars were very popular). Fossil-fuel burners for long haul.

The automakers are building 'concept cars" that run on hydrogen mostly because there is plenty of gummint money to be had to do so. But no one's got good answers for the above three issue in spite of the hype.

Iceland's working on converting some of their public transporation system to hydrogen, but it's a different scenario. Sixty percent of Iceland lives in Reykjavik, every drop of oil is imported, and there is plentiful geothermal energy (they generate electricity and heat buildings with it there).

No easy answers.

Chuck "who can remember when Ronald Reagan proposed cold fusion as the answer to our energy problems"(G)

[ken k]

You know, if everyone would DECIDE to switch to Hydrogen powerd cars, no one would really have this problem of gas prices. I mean, they arent readilly avalible yet, but people just need to do somthing about it to make it happen soon, like letters to the car companies, or somthing, because the more people wait, the higher the gas prices are going to get, as fuel reserves get low. Its only going to hurt the consumers if this continues. I'm not trying to be mean, but its true. Its only going to cost you big bucks. Personally, I've seent those concept cars, and think their pretty cool. I am juat speaking my mind, however. I just feel that we could rid ourselves of this burden if we try and do something about it, instead of sitting, and watching inflation of the gas prices.

With millions of acres of farmland to grow corn in the "breadbasket of the world" Why not use more alcohol blends with the gas to help cut our dependence on oil? I guess the oil companies wouldn't like that idea though, but they could start buying all the farmland....

That may be more esxpensive though, but I think in the long run it would be better. At least when the oil companies raise their proces so much the re is still a percentage of the product that may remain stable.

ken k

[Tom]

With millions of acres of farmland to grow corn in the "breadbasket of the world" Why not use more alcohol blends with the gas to help cut our dependence on oil? I guess the oil companies wouldn't like that idea though, but they could start buying all the farmland....

That may be more esxpensive though, but I think in the long run it would be better. At least when the oil companies raise their proces so much the re is still a percentage of the product that may remain stable.

ken k

Living in Iowa, I buy Ethanol Blended Gasoline (called Gasohol around here)

It's usually 10-15 cents cheaper than buying "regular," and it works just as well, if not better, than regular unleaded gasoline. It's sold as "super" because it's usually between 87-90 octane, whereas "regular" is usually about 85 here.

More information here:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/inf ... 1_1991.cfm

[Matt G]

Good luck in a severe accident with a hydrogen powered vehicle.

If we could gete a better quality diesel fuel here and the broad selection of diesel engines that you can get in Europe, a lot more folks would be driving a diesel vehicle. Unfortunately, GM screwed up diesels for a large part of the US market with their hack-job attempt at turning a gasoline engine into a diesel one with as little re-engineering as possible.

Heck, even some of the "Sports-Line" type cars in Europe have diesel engines.

[TMurphy]

...The only other common ways to make hydrogen is to split the hydrogen off of a water molecule using carbon (coke oven)...

Now, I am by no means an expert in this area, but as I recall, one of the major reasons for researching alternative fuel methods (aside from cost) is for environmental reasons--burning gas puts nasty things into our air. Now, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm certainly no scientist), but, it seems to me, that if the process to extract hydrogen from oxygen requires carbon, that the oxygen must then be pairing up with the oxygen, resulting not only in a waste product, but carbon monoxide, the EXACT SAME waste product that creates a fuss in gasoline burning. Red Herring????

[funkcicle]

Just my opinion, but as long as the oil industry is giving handjobs in the oval office(or on the campaign trail to it), two things I don't think we can reasonably expect are 1)lower gas prices, or 2)fuel alternatives.

It's simply not in the best interests of the powers that be.

[Chuck(G)]

...The only other common ways to make hydrogen is to split the hydrogen off of a water molecule using carbon (coke oven)...

Now, I am by no means an expert in this area, but as I recall, one of the major reasons for researching alternative fuel methods (aside from cost) is for environmental reasons--burning gas puts nasty things into our air. Now, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm certainly no scientist), but, it seems to me, that if the process to extract hydrogen from oxygen requires carbon, that the oxygen must then be pairing up with the oxygen, resulting not only in a waste product, but carbon monoxide, the EXACT SAME waste product that creates a fuss in gasoline burning. Red Herring????

True, believe it or not. The easest way to make hydrogen is to also make carbon oxides.

It's not the first time that this method's been used. Back in the late 19th century-early 20th century, this was precisely the way illuminating gas was made--running superheated steam through hot coke. The result was a mixture of CO and H2, known as producer gas. Really bad news if you happened to be in the same room as a leaky pipe. When methane (natural gas) was introduced, it was viewed not only to be safer, but also more efficient--the energy yield per cubic foot was much higher.

Back in my younger days, I worked in a steel mill where steel was made the old-fashioned way, with blast furnaces, open hearths and coke plants. The fancy new thing was the continuous galvanizing lines with their atmosphere of hydrogen. As an instrumenation tech, part of my route was the hydrogen plant (as well as the galvanizing lines). At the door, you checked your tools, and any steel objects that might produce a spark if dropped. You had to use miserable bronze sparkproof tools. For a very good reason--the ratios where hydrogen-oxygen mixtures are explosive is very wide (4-74%), whcih makes it a very nasty gas to work around. In addition, in normal room illumination, it's almost impossible to see a hydrogen flame--you could walk right into one. Those flames on the old movies of the Hindenburg burning come from the very flammable treated bag, not from the hydrogen, which probably dissipated in the first few seconds of the fire.

Electrolysis of water doesn't produce carbon by-products, but does require substantial amounts of electricity, which, in this country is primarily generated by burning fossil fuels.

Catalytic decomposition of water also requires energy input, and research is currently in its infancy. But the universe is still built you that you not only don't get something for nothing, but you rarely even come close to breaking even. So this process requires large amounts of energy also.

[Chuck(G)]

If we walk more (or ride bikes), that will simply mean that we will burn more calories and thus have to eat more food...

...' more deforestation, salinization of our fresh water supply, and more methane pollution...

Joe, we grow an awful lot of food south of the border already. I believe that Brazil exports more beef than does the US already. So we let the folks in the sunny climes grow our food for us...

We might have fewer really fat Americans with all of the follow-on ailments that come with that condition:

[MaryAnn]

ok, as a skinny person I admit I don't get all the fat out there. Realizing that talking to tuba players I'm probably not talking to exclusively skinny people.

So, what is it all about? Why the abundance of porkers? I suppose I could pork out some if I really tried to do it, but frankly it would be difficult. I just can't eat that much, and food isn't that much fun for me anyway. Neither is beer.

So is that it? food and beer are just one of the more fun things in life? Or is it more body type?


MA

[Joe Baker]

MA, I hope you don't mind but since this is a topic all-too-closely related to tuba-playin', I'm going to make a new topic.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who has some things to say about weight.

[Chuck(G)]

If someone wants to jump start a diet or exercise program, rent "Supersize Me". It's a real eye opener. I run and workout everyday and eat sorta healthy as it is so I don't have a weight problem, but I haven't had a french fry in 6 months since I have seen that movie.

I'm really suspicious of any (fill in the blank diet. I see that the country's hungry are now feasting on Atkins diet surplus:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/05 ... 143931.htm

Most of the Atkins branded stuff either had no taste or tasted perfectly awful, anyway.

[Chuck(G)]

Sometime, I'm going to have to take off work for a couple o' weeks and go try to seek out these Hungro-Americans. The poorest-of-the-poor (the drugged-out / boozed-out white, btw) men and women who live under the freeway ramp and in the abandoned "Lions Club" building close to my store are *all F-A-T.

Fair enough, Joe. The next time you have a free hour or so, why not drop in at your local food bank (I believe that Memphis has one at 239 South Dudley) and ask them to show you some hungry people who aren't drugged or boozed out?

I did a stretch on the board of a large food bank and I saw all sorts of hungry folks--seniors who had to decide to spend their income on rent, medicine or food, entire families living out of their cars, military vets with severe mental problems who have no place to go. Real hard-luck cases. For some, like the aforementioned seniors, it's going to be a long-term proposition; for others, it's just a temporary patch until they can get back on their feet.

Most of us don't realize that a tragedy can wipe out everything we've worked for, as well as our own ability to work.

Most food banks try to be non-judgemental, so yeah, the boozers and druggies get handouts. But there's a bunch of genuine folks in need, too. Most food banks require the able-bodied to pitch in for that bag of groceries.

[ThomasDodd]

military vets with severe mental problems who have no place to go.

They should be getting help at the local V.A. That's what it there for. Congress should get off their duff, and fund the V.A. instead of pork-barrel projesct back home.

Most food banks try to be non-judgemental, so yeah, the boozers and druggies get handouts. But there's a bunch of genuine folks in need, too. Most food banks require the able-bodied to pitch in for that bag of groceries.

The boozers and druggies shouldn't get the handouts unless they are in an active treatment program. Maybe if the dollars went to those in need, instead of these types, some real good would get done.

And of course, if the governement is involved, you cn only count on a lot of wasted money.

[Chuck(G)]

Joe, I said "hungry" not "starving". I'll agree that starvation is rare in the country, but we do have folks who are not able to get sufficient nutrition to avoid health or development problems.

Besides, it's cheaper to fly to Hawaii from the west coast than to Memphis....

[Chuck(G)]

I was sorting through some of my old papers today and came across this one. One "attaboy" to whoever first identifies the party responsible for the ad:

[Joe Baker]

...One "attaboy" to whoever first identifies the party responsible for the ad:

Hmmmmm. July was probably too late, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Ronald Reagan. I don't think anyone was as outspokenly opposed to price controls as Reagan was.
__________________________________
Joe Baker, who also considered McGovern and Humphrey as possibilities.

[Chuck(G)]

homeless guy in Brooklyn...' looks...hungry?

I was sorting through some of my old papers today and came across this one. One "attaboy" to whoever first identifies the party responsible for the ad:

I'm going to take a wild guess...the same guy (see banner, above) whose daughter (in her 40's) stumbled dead-drunk out of a bar, fell over in the snow, and froze to death?...or was it the Libertarians?

Neither. This was the 1972 election, the candidates were Gus Hall for prez and Jarvis Tyner for VP.

Lots of interesting stuff, including "Civil Rights is a Communist Plot" (John Birch Society). "Impeach Earl Warren" petitions, "Barry Goldwater, Where He Stands", old HUAC reports...

[elimia]

ok, as a skinny person I admit I don't get all the fat out there. Realizing that talking to tuba players I'm probably not talking to exclusively skinny people.

So, what is it all about? Why the abundance of porkers? I suppose I could pork out some if I really tried to do it, but frankly it would be difficult. I just can't eat that much, and food isn't that much fun for me anyway. Neither is beer.

So is that it? food and beer are just one of the more fun things in life? Or is it more body type?


MA

Mary Ann,

I think it's a combination of things really:

1) People are eating out more for one thing, and folks feel they need to eat everything brought to them. The portions in a lot of restaurants are insane, more calories than you're supposed to get in 1 day. Portions, in general, are too large and filled with high calorie food. Plus, the food isn't such that you are really 'full' emotionally. Europeans eat rich food, but they eat less food per day because the food they are eating is satisfying and they take the time to enjoy it.
2) Processed food. High in calories, low in nutritional value, and it's everywhere. And being a society trying to move at the speed of light all the time, it's what people grab because they don't take the time to enjoy their meals. The food industry knows this and has flooded about every conceivable food niche 1,000 times over. They are well funded and determine to sell their crap to you. Watch your commercials - they ain't pushing tofu and broccoli in your face every 5 minutes. They'll make more $ on pumping high fructose syrup into some processed flour, frying it, and selling it, because the manufacturing costs are cheap. My favorite was taking an ol' junk food favorite, Pringles, and making a chocolate thing out of it called 'Swoops'. It's junk food for junk food!
3) LACK OF EXCERISE. Because we live in a society where you can avoid breaking a sweat all the time, you have to make exercise happen as it isn't part of our lifestyle. You have to remember that our bodies are biologically evolved to handle a certain level of exercise and activity over thousands of years. This has changed within the last 50+ years, and it is growing moreso all the time. People aren't fishing, hunting, etc. as much. Generally, the outdoorsperson population, at least in PA, is graying as we become more and more urbanized and young people are less outdoor connected (which seems illogical, doesn't it, but the sale of hunting/fishing licenses are going down, not up). Cities tend to also promote a more sedentary way of life. People would rather start a diet eating carpet and scotch tape rather than get off their butt and exercise if they suspected it would work.
4) The king of the sedentary lifestyle - automobiles. People in this country will not walk anywhere. I have personally witnessed a person place a couple of bags of trash in the trunk of their car and drive it across the apt. complex parking lot to the dumpster. Plus, our society is set up to require cars more and more. I laugh when people gripe about the price of gasoline. If people would realize how massively subsidized gas is, maybe they would be thankful.

Let me digress on that for a minute, as it epitomizes Americans not realizing how much has been extracted from the natural world for humans' benefit...

The environmental impacts of extracting oil (potential spills, building roads in sometimes ecologically irreplacable areas like rainforests, polluting water supplies and land sometimes for centuries at the costs of species and indiginous peoples in 3rd world countries, lots of fossil energy used to move machinery and make roads), transporting crude (more potential spills, more fossil energy to do this step and related air pollution), refining crude oil (using MORE fossil energy to manufacture toxic chemicals used to refine oil, massive amounts of energy to run plants, air and water pollution), distributing the gasoline (more fossil energy required to transport, more spill potential, air pollution), burning it in your car (lots of air pollution, increasing greenhouse gases). Every step of this generally involves burning a buttload of coal to produce cheap energy to keep the costs down, which produces lots of nice side products like mercury, sulfur dioxide, etc. And how much energy is being expended at the cost of the environment to support the person who drives their Hummer through the drive-thru and throw the disposable petrochemical wrapper away in a landfill derived from clearcutting a piece of forest. I think $2 a gallon is criminal, personally, but not in the way most people do. I haven't even mentioned the 'real' costs that are extracted to build the # of roads we have in this country, but my fingers are getting tired.

The answer - we have to get away from fossil fuels. They ain't makin' any more of it, it WILL involve massive war (that will make Iraq look like a cakewalk) for resources, and it is directly or indirectly causing enough pollution for 3 Earths.
I think, as a species, we have the ability to live with less. We need simpler lives (enjoying music is a rich, calorie free pleasure ) and to be more connected to one another. I for one would enjoy the world a little more when people on my bus make eye contact and conversation.

Ok, I'm done. I kind of feel strongly about this stuff as you can tell.