It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Getting Robbed at the Gas Pumps

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Damashi, I think a quote from the article you cited says it all:

" 'These are great vehicles,' said David Bernikoff-Raboy, 33, a Mariposa County rancher who said Ford decided to sell him the truck for $1. 'Ford is missing a huge marketing opportunity with these vehicles.' The rancher and his wife, Heather, 34, said the Ranger costs little to maintain, requires no fuel and frees the nation from dependence on foreign oil."

That's complete rubbish, of course; the truck does require fuel, and it is probably oil. Where does that bozo think the electricity he uses to charge that truck comes from, the Electricity Fairy?

The point is that electric vehicles require electricity, and in order to make electricity on a large scale, you have to turn big magnets very fast. the only way you can spin these big magnets fast is to use a turbine spun by steam, which requires you to burn oil, coal or natural gas; or to split uranium atoms.

Sure, there're hydroelectric power plants, but we have aready exploited all the rivers around, so where is all the excess energy used to power these fleets of electric cars going to come from?




posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Damashi, I think a quote from the article you cited says it all:

" 'These are great vehicles,' said David Bernikoff-Raboy, 33, a Mariposa County rancher who said Ford decided to sell him the truck for $1. 'Ford is missing a huge marketing opportunity with these vehicles.' The rancher and his wife, Heather, 34, said the Ranger costs little to maintain, requires no fuel and frees the nation from dependence on foreign oil."

That's complete rubbish, of course; the truck does require fuel, and it is probably oil. Where does that bozo think the electricity he uses to charge that truck comes from, the Electricity Fairy?

The point is that electric vehicles require electricity, and in order to make electricity on a large scale, you have to turn big magnets very fast. the only way you can spin these big magnets fast is to use a turbine spun by steam, which requires you to burn oil, coal or natural gas; or to split uranium atoms.

Sure, there're hydroelectric power plants, but we have aready exploited all the rivers around, so where is all the excess energy used to power these fleets of electric cars going to come from?


Can't say I know for sure... I don't know much about the subject at hand. Normally I'd be lurking right now.


Anyway, like you stated this electricity must come from somewhere. Typically this would come from the power companies (be they oil/coal/gas/nuclear in nature.) The question that comes to my mind right now has to deal with the economics of it. (Not a wise move on my part, seeing about my lack of knowledge in the area.)

Which will get the average joe the most bang for his buck? Each individual paying for gasoline from the corner pump? Or paying for his fuel through the power companies if he chose the electric car?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by dgtempe
2 days ago someone got killed by riding a bike here in Tempe.

I think a horse is safer

dg, I didn't hear this! I can't believe this happened, and I didn't hear about it. Where did it happen? It seems like we're dropping like flies... you probably are better off with a horse. I doubt that the scooter would be much safer.



Anyway, nice avatar. Cute kids! Yours?
Thank you about the avy. Its my grandchildren, i was a premature grandmother.

Yes, there was news on ch 3 about this 34 year old man a few days ago, i think by Alma School rd..terrible. He died instantly.
I still say the horseback riding idea would be great fr me. Clean it? Ha!
I dont think so. And the Lady Godiva thing gives me an idea...



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I still think the oil companies are trying to monopolize the fuel industry.

There is also hydrogen. Yes there will be arguments that gas will still be needed to be used to produce hydrogen. Isn't there a bacteria that produces hydrogen?

Here is another thing to think about. Wasn't the diesel engine first designed to run off of bio-fuel (like peanut oil) in the first place? It was said to be cheaper to use the Diesel we find in gas pumps in present time. But who sets the price? Who says it has to be more expensive? Does it really have to be more expensive? Isn't it is also cleaner to run a bio-diesel vehicle? And don't you get better gas mileage anyway. And it's a renewable resource. It requires a small amount of modification, and you can use existing diesel engines.

Troy



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
There is also hydrogen. Yes there will be arguments that gas will still be needed to be used to produce hydrogen. Isn't there a bacteria that produces hydrogen?



Yes there is hydrogen. There is ALOT of hydrogen.

Makes you realy wonder what kinda prices, and what taxes applied, to the one element that represents the most abundant element of the whole universe.





[edit on 28-3-2005 by smirkley]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
HA! My bike kcks ass, mall, Kroger, Meijer, Wal Mart, when I was going school, didn't matter. Hell went to grandparents house for easter on my bike. As long as it is within 20-30 miles I can get there in under an hour. I may not be in the best shape physically, but damn is my stamina great! Car? 18 and never had a drivers liscense, always rely on my bike.


XL5

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
With todays battery tech you could go around the world at 1km/h lol! You could also drag race. Batteries that are any good use toxic chemicals and are not storing 100% of the energy you put into them, they also have a low lifetime per deep discharge. Super/ultra capacitors don't have those problems and can be discharged to 0 volts and live, which means they will last at least 20-40 years! These capacitors are being held back, no one has heard much of them, yet they could make for a fast 2-5min charge cell phone for 1-2hours use or as starter batteries.

Scooters and bikes are safe, its people riding/driving that are unsafe. Horses have a mind of their own sometimes too.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by XL5]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tacho
My stepdad was a long haul truck driver. His motto was, "If you got it, a truck brought it." Made me realize how much we depend on the trucking industry...


..and there we have the fly in the ointment as they say. These extremist enviros who think the only effect of high fuel will be on those who choose to buy SUVs are in for quite a shock on their next trip to the grocery.

Yes, the price of tofu will go up with everything else.

No, your reasoning that you should be excluded from the big crunch because you're doing the planet a favor will not be a factor.

No, once the economy has been maimed, starbucks will likely fold too. They don't grow coffee in the back room and make it with solar power dispite what you tell yourself.

No, there is not a special fund set up to allow the elite (at least not your elite crowd) to continue living in luxury.

Yes, poverty is 24/7. There is no visiting an impoverished tribe to feel good about yourselves and then heading back to the Hilton when you've had enough or the cameras leave. You will live in it permanently..of course it will all be someone else's fault. Likely the same people working their butts off to keep the economy going now. Just as it is now, they will be too busy working to answer the charges but will likely give you some food..even though you criticize the means they used to get it.

..and finally..No. There will be no affect on the climate from any of this..other than the destruction of local environments with raw sewage and waste nobody can afford to clean or recycle. You all might have been blind to the environment's biggest enemy but you're about to get it..big time. Poverty is that enemy. Try planting trees and picketing when your half starved and wrought with illness from drinking putrid water. Let me know how it goes.

So, we have taken another step toward Utopia , I guess. The thing that burns my rear is the very people who these extremist fought against will get richer from their actions. To do re-fits of these power plants and refineries, big time contractors get big time contracts. Who paysfor it ?, why, we do of course.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the whole thing on you all. You are but ignorant pawns being fed what you need to do what they want you to do. To an extent, we all are. But don't think 4 dollar a gallon gas will help any cause you have backed in the long run. It makes the rich richer and has no effect other than on a computer model. If that makes ya happy, then I guess you have made a difference. A difference is a difference, good or bad. So congratulations.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Damashi says:

"Anyway, like you stated this electricity must come from somewhere. Typically this would come from the power companies (be they oil/coal/gas/nuclear in nature.) The question that comes to my mind right now has to deal with the economics of it. (Not a wise move on my part, seeing about my lack of knowledge in the area.)"

Actually, you're pretty much on the money. You can get more kW (or HP) for a gallon of oil via the electric utilities than you can from each car, even when you factor in the cost of transporting the electricity from here to there (not surprising, the infrastructure's in place and amortized).

And, of course, the utilities work just fine burning coal and natural gas, which you can't do very well in your truck. But in the long run, you still are burning hydrocarbons which are (1) in finite supply, (2) still polluting the atmosphere, (3) probably contributing to global warming, and (4) supporting OPEC, all of which are unpleasant side effects of an oil economy.

But hybrids actually are more cost-effective than straight electric vehicles (although not by much), because the car acts as an electrical generating plant when the internal combustion engine is running, and also when it brakes.

Some people look to fuel cells as a new energy source, when it's not an energy source at all; instead, it's just a way of storing the energy spent in cracking the hydrogen. If you think of fuel cells as an efficient, lightweight storage battery, you'd be a lot closer to the reality of it -- at least from an economic point of view.

But whether we store our power in batteries for the electric motors or tanks of hydrogen for the fuel-cell engines, the bottom line is that we need to come up with a relatively clean, safe, and cost-effective method of producing it -- and from where I sit, that means nuclear power (fission).



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Cybertroy says:

"I still think the oil companies are trying to monopolize the fuel industry."

Well, I can't say that they're trying to monopolize the fuel industry, but i do know that they intend to be players in the power business, regardless of how you make that power.

In the late 1980's, I worked for a PV house called Solavolt International which was a joint venture between Motorola and Shell Oil. Other big PV companies were ARCO Solar, Mobil Solar, etc. The oil companies were hedging their bets by making sure that they had a piece of the photovoltaics pie.

The PV industry as a major source of electrical power never flew, though, since it was based on overly-pessimistic projections of fuel costs and overly-optimistic projections of the cost per Watt of PV cells. When the oil companies realized that it wasn't going to be a money maker, they bailed.

"There is also hydrogen. Yes there will be arguments that gas will still be needed to be used to produce hydrogen. Isn't there a bacteria that produces hydrogen?"

Yes, but not cost-effectively. And you don't need gas to produce hydrogen, you just need a lot of electricity; which you could get with a nuclear generating plant and maybe even a photovoltaic system which operates only when the sun is shining.

"Here is another thing to think about. Wasn't the diesel engine first designed to run off of bio-fuel (like peanut oil) in the first place?"

I don't know, but an oil compression engine can run off a lot of things, including kerosene, #2 heating oil (Diesel) and used french-fry canola oil.

"It was said to be cheaper to use the Diesel we find in gas pumps in present time. But who sets the price?"

The market.

"Who says it has to be more expensive?"

The market.

"Does it really have to be more expensive? Isn't it is also cleaner to run a bio-diesel vehicle? And don't you get better gas mileage anyway. And it's a renewable resource. It requires a small amount of modification, and you can use existing diesel engines."

I don't think it's cheaper, but I agree that the problems are not technological but economic. Remember, that gasoline cut with ethanol is a great deal for the farmers who grow the corn that they make ethanol from. But if bio-ethanol is cheap, then why is the mixed gasoline more expensive than straight unleaded? In this case, the ethanol additive is just pork-barrel politics by senators like Chuck Grassley of Iowa who wants to subsidize Iowa farmers.

And my guess is that it would take a whole lot of farmland to grow the sugar beets to make ethanor or the whaterver-else there is to make bio-Diesel, as well as a lot of fertilzer, as well as a whole new refining infratructure which would be billions of more dollars.

And remember, we're the world's greatest food exporter; I think it would make more economic sense to use the land to do something we're really good at, like growing and selling food. You might want to look up "David Ricardo" or "Ricardo's Law" to see why this is so, at least from a balance-of-payments point of view.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
XL5 says:

"Super/ultra capacitors don't have those problems and can be discharged to 0 volts and live, which means they will last at least 20-40 years! These capacitors are being held back, no one has heard much of them, yet they could make for a fast 2-5min charge cell phone for 1-2hours use or as starter batteries."

Do you have any real evidence at all for these magic capacitors, or is that just another version of the old "300-mpg carburetor" hoax? Are these iron-core or air-core, or just a figment of someone's imagination?

And since a capacitor is optimized to release all of its electricity at once, how would that work as a battery which is required to produce electricity on demand over a period of time?



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
In other words what your saying is that the difference between taking an already existing energy source like oil and making a new energy source are not going to be comparable in the cost. Thus, our range for "cost effective" and casual usage will have to be re-defined?



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Damashi says:

"Anyway, like you stated this electricity must come from somewhere. Typically this would come from the power companies (be they oil/coal/gas/nuclear in nature.) The question that comes to my mind right now has to deal with the economics of it. (Not a wise move on my part, seeing about my lack of knowledge in the area.)"

Actually, you're pretty much on the money. You can get more kW (or HP) for a gallon of oil via the electric utilities than you can from each car, even when you factor in the cost of transporting the electricity from here to there (not surprising, the infrastructure's in place and amortized).

And, of course, the utilities work just fine burning coal and natural gas, which you can't do very well in your truck. But in the long run, you still are burning hydrocarbons which are (1) in finite supply, (2) still polluting the atmosphere, (3) probably contributing to global warming, and (4) supporting OPEC, all of which are unpleasant side effects of an oil economy.

But hybrids actually are more cost-effective than straight electric vehicles (although not by much), because the car acts as an electrical generating plant when the internal combustion engine is running, and also when it brakes.

Some people look to fuel cells as a new energy source, when it's not an energy source at all; instead, it's just a way of storing the energy spent in cracking the hydrogen. If you think of fuel cells as an efficient, lightweight storage battery, you'd be a lot closer to the reality of it -- at least from an economic point of view.

But whether we store our power in batteries for the electric motors or tanks of hydrogen for the fuel-cell engines, the bottom line is that we need to come up with a relatively clean, safe, and cost-effective method of producing it -- and from where I sit, that means nuclear power (fission).


Yes, Nuclear power is one of the most viable options today. However, with incidents like Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island still lurking in the back of the public and corprate mind few entities are willing to put trust into those systems.

More or less as I've heard it, bringing the plans for a new nuclear power plant to any power company board is at best shooting yourself in the foot.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Chernobyl and 3 mile island are effectively ancient history...(and ancient tech) compared to today. I wouldn't think we'd be too far away from a practical, small, usable portable reactor. I'm still amazed we aren't using them already to be honest....



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DamashiOdinToshiro
More or less as I've heard it, bringing the plans for a new nuclear power plant to any power company board is at best shooting yourself in the foot.



Duke Energy looks at nukes


Duke Energy is exploring building a new nuclear power plant, a move that, if successful, would make the Charlotte-based company the first U.S. utility in two decades to win federal approval for a nuclear facility.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
astrocreep says:

"In other words what your saying is that the difference between taking an already existing energy source like oil and making a new energy source are not going to be comparable in the cost. Thus, our range for "cost effective" and casual usage will have to be re-defined?"

Probably so, and one reason for this is the way we define and amortize the costs.

For example, if we found (and I'm being completely hypothetical here, pulling numbers out of my ear) we could get the same amount of energy and maintain the same benefits as far as health, etc. is concerned for fuel cells and biofuels, the latter would probably come out ahead, because we could use more of the existing transportation (pipes) and delivery (gas station pumps) infrastructre for ethanol than we could for hydrogen. Also, the cost of retrofitting (or at least re-designing) the bazillion cars already on the market would be a lot lower for ethanol than it would be for hydrogen.

If a new energy source comes about, we will have to figure out how much it will cost, and that is a terribly complex figure, seeing as how we'd have to factor in economic disruptions, as well as the above-mentioned infrastructure conversion problems.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Smirkley says:

"Duke Energy is exploring building a new nuclear power plant, a move that, if successful, would make the Charlotte-based company the first U.S. utility in two decades to win federal approval for a nuclear facility"

What is really scary about that article is the fact that a typical approval process can take 23 years.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
What is really scary about that article is the fact that a typical approval process can take 23 years.


The Watts Bar plant was the last commissioned plant, and it took 23 years to approve, but this plant is far from being representative of typical. From the beginning it was plagued with issue's, as well as the TVA being nearly broke at the time.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
XL5 is absalutely correct.


Capacitors technology is in fact accelerating quickly


There are a few links about super/ultra caps currently in development for the automotive industry in google,... but here is an article published last year on some of the advancements made to date...

Japanese Aim for Tenfold Gain in Capacitor Power


Unlike batteries, supercaps cannot be overcharged, require no special charging circuits, and can be soldered directly to PCBs. They do not convert energy using a chemical conversion and can be recharged and discharged in seconds.

.....Meanwhile, Maxwell Technologies of San Diego, California, has introduced a D cell-sized supercapacitor rated at 350 Farads and 2.5V. The energy density is claimed to be 21 Joules/cm^sup 3^, which corresponds to around 6Wh/kg.






[edit on 28-3-2005 by smirkley]


XL5

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Lead batteries=30Wh/kg, Nickel Cadmium=50Wh/kg,
Lithium-ion has gone from 90 (1992-3) 140-160 (2000) 190-200 (2003) Wh/kg
www.cea.fr...

Ultra capacitors are real and when they start using nano tubes in these things and can make them afordable, then you "may" see them in R/C cars and in mopeds. Even if they get into cars, the oil corps will try to hinder it and the govt will tax it!
www.et.byu.edu...
www.maxwell.com...
www.nesscap.com...

Its no hoax, carbon is nontoxic and can be recycled. I'd love to see them in scooters, bikes and toys even if they are bulky, it would fund more reseach.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join