Three Cheers for $4 Gasoline

[coberst]

Three Cheers for $4 Gasoline

 

Of course you must keep in mind that I am a retired engineer, living in the Smoky Mountains, who drives 10 miles to town once a week for groceries; these facts make it possible for me to develop a Solomon like understanding of reality from an Archimedean point of view.

 

Quickie from Wiki—“An Archimedean point is a hypothetical vantage point from which an observer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality. The ideal of "removing oneself" from the object of study so that one can see it in relation to all other things, but remain independent of them, is described by a view from an Archimedean point.”

 

Does $4 gas signify the beginning of the ending of a civilization of adolescent life styles divorced from the reality principle? Does it presage the beginning of the ending of a self-absorbed and largely fictional pattern of social behavior?

 

I doubt it but I can dream can’t I?

 

This morning I listened to NPR interviewing the mayor of Houston Texas speaking about anticipated efforts for completely remodeling the living and cultural standards of the citizens of Houston in anticipation of creating a city where citizens might work, shop, and live within walking distances of shops, supermarkets, and jobs.

 

Reality seldom challenges salient points of hero-systems largely because the earth has been so bountiful; natural bounty has thus far allowed Americans to live largely in a world of playful fantasy that may be beginning to crumble around a commercial-military hero-system of fantasy.

 

Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock because he tried to awaken the youth of Athenian society to this very reality-principle; he died a hero in the eyes of history because he asked the youth to question their own hero-system.

 

Will $4 gas lead you to question your own commercial-military hero-system?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

No because I never "believed" in it to begin with...We are a nation built on lies, double standards, bigotry, thievery and murder...a concept I grasped in my youth and still fully comprehend...and this prevents any hero worship for any part of it on my part. (With the exception of those that had/have balls enough to stand up for what's right and fight for change)

[InfiniteNow]

I am personally glad to see prices rising. It means that the public will drive toward renewable energy much more quickly. In terms of progress and better technology, we couldn't ask for anything better than high gas prices when it comes to motivating the populace and convincing them of the importance of change.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I am personally glad to see prices rising. It means that the public will drive toward renewable energy much more quickly. In terms of progress and better technology, we couldn't ask for anything better than high gas prices when it comes to motivating the populace and convincing them of the importance of change.

The only problem with your logic is that every time Fuel prices go up so go the cost of every thing.

 

Farmers have to pay more for fuel->the cost of produce goes up.

Truckers have to pay more for fuel->the cost of transporting goods goes up.->Manufacturers need to recoup expences caused by higher shiping costs->the cost of their goods goes up->this is passed on to the retailer and finally it hits the consumer (who's already feeling the pinch at the pump) where it hurts because sadly the average joe's wages rarely keep up with these increasing costs .

[REASON]

I am personally glad to see prices rising. It means that the public will drive toward renewable energy much more quickly. In terms of progress and better technology, we couldn't ask for anything better than high gas prices when it comes to motivating the populace and convincing them of the importance of change.

 

Generally I agree with this point, but the reasons are illegitimate and I hate that I'm getting screwed in the process, and I'm affraid that it won't produce the change you're hoping it will.

 

Currently, it's being used to push for opening up protected areas for more petroleum exploration and drilling.

[InfiniteNow]

Currently, it's being used to push for opening up protected areas for more petroleum exploration and drilling.

 

I recently posted about that eslewhere. The long and short of it is that the numbers just don't bear out such an approach. The returns are minimal, and costs substantial. We should not drill ANWR.

 

See below for why.

 

 

I'm looking at the USGS Fact Sheet which comes from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment.

 

 

Here's what they say:

 

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels

 

 

 

In the report I shared, they also make a very interesting comment that just because the oil is there does not mean we can recover it. Here's a splendid little graphic which makes this apparent to even the most ignorant agenda biased uninformed of viewers:

 

 

 

 

Further, I found the following:

 

 

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Beyond the existence of the reserves, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16 billion barrels (2,500,000,000 m³) of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668 billion barrels (1,219,100,000 m³) of oil to be recovered.

 

 

The benefits just do not outweigh the costs. See below for more (from the same link above):

 

 

In May of 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

 

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."

 

This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year.

 

The report also states:

 

"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

 

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

 

 

 

More information is available by checking the Energy Information Administrations numbers:

 

EIA - Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

 

 

 

If anybody is struggling with the graphic above, see below.

 

Figure 4. Schematic graph illustrating petroleum volumes and probabilities. Curves represent categories of oil in assessment. An example of how one reads this graph is illustrated by the blue and orange lines projected to the curve for economically recoverable oil. There is a 95-percent chance (i.e., probability, F95) of at least volume V1 of economically recoverable oil, and there is a 5-percent chance (F05) of at least volume V2 of economically recoverable oil.

 

Sidenote 3:

 

In-place resources.—The amount of petroleum contained in accumulations of at least 50 MMBO without regard to recoverability.

 

Technically recoverable resources.—Volume of petroleum representing that proportion of assessed in-place resources that may be recoverable using current recovery technology without regard to cost.

 

Economically recoverable resources.—That part of the technically recoverable resource for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price.

 

 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANWR, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All reported oil volumes in millions of barrels. Basic statistical principles determine that mean values can be added and subtracted but F95 and F05 values cannot (e.g., means for the undeformed and deformed parts of the ANWR 1002 area sum to the mean for the total ANWR 1002 area, but F95 and F05 values do not). F95 , 95-percent probability level; F05 , 5-percent probability level

[Zythryn]

I hate to see the pain it is causing many people around the world (not US gas prices but increasing energy prices in general).

However, since our society as a whole seems to not be willing to pursue better sources of energy without the increase in prices, I believe the increase in prices is necessary.

[modest]

 

They just had a story on NPR about this little guy - the Zap Xebra. It's entirely electric, goes about 40 mph, about 40 miles a day, and has three wheels. To make it legit for the road it has to be classified as a motorcycle. I suppose if you're going to stand out for having an electric car, you might as well really stand out :confused:

 

California residents are getting a one thousand dollar rebate from the state for buying one:

 

CARB Approves ZAP Xebra Electric Vehicle for $1000 Rebate

 

SACRAMENTO, CA. - The California Air Resources Board is offering a $1,000 rebate towards the purchase of a Xebra electric car and truck from ZAP.

 

Both the Xebra electric city car and pickup have passed a full battery of testing and approval requirements by the California Air Resources Board and have been officially approved for the $1,000 cash rebates. To receive a rebate, vehicles must be ARB qualified and pass a range and speed course as well as comply with all federal motor vehicle safety standards, and meet a minimum manufacturer warranty.

 

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

TEST. Previous post not appearing.

 

 

Edit: Well, that's odd.

[freeztar]

TEST. Previous post not appearing.

 

 

Edit: Well, that's odd.

 

Did you get a message saying "this post must be approved by a moderator" or something similar? It's happened to me a couple times lately. AFAIK, Tormod is working on it, or is at least aware of it. (if indeed this is what happened to you)

[InfiniteNow]

Did you get a message saying "this post must be approved by a moderator" or something similar? It's happened to me a couple times lately. AFAIK, Tormod is working on it, or is at least aware of it. (if indeed this is what happened to you)

 

Bingo. :phones:

 

I've seen such "Must be approved by a mod" messages at fora before, but it's usually in announcement threads, or things that will appear on the homepage. I found it odd that it was happening in this particular thread. No worries. If it can be restored, super. If not, oh well. :rolleyes:

[Moontanman]

I've been looking into converting my cars into CNG or propane and I find that while it's being done all over the world in the good old USA it's illegal to convert a car newer than 1987! Yes there are new cars available, two or three, a pickup truck (several models but still the same truck) one car and a mini van or something like that. Of course all you see on TV is pie in the sky hydrogen or battery powered cars even though a CNG or propane car could run on hydrogen too but not the other way around. Conspiracy is beginning to smell right to me. No one seems to want to allow a car that can be filled up at home and run with far fewer emissions than gasoline even as a next step to hydrogen.

[InfiniteNow]

Cool. My post showed up. It's post #6 if anybody missed it. :rolleyes:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/15265-three-cheers-4-gasoline.html#post225156

[Zythryn]

Conspiracy is beginning to smell right to me. No one seems to want to allow a car that can be filled up at home and run with far fewer emissions than gasoline even as a next step to hydrogen.

 

Shhhh, don't tell whoever is behind the conspiracy, but Honda is already selling them 2008 Honda Civic GX - the Official Honda Web Site.

[Moontanman]

Shhhh, don't tell whoever is behind the conspiracy, but Honda is already selling them 2008 Honda Civic GX - the Official Honda Web Site.

 

Yeah, WOW, 40 years since the big push to go to NGV and now we have one little car, no advertisements on TV, no government incentives nothing at all to let anyone know about them unless you are already looking on line for the very thing they have been telling people for years wasn't a good idea. Even now You get lots of "experts" who say it's too dangerous or what ever. Way to little way too late to impress me with their good intentions. I have found that all over the world there is a big push (still little late) but their push is to convert existing cars, in the US it's illegal to convert cars newer than 1987. BTW I did say there was a car available now in my last post. doesn't anyone think it's odd they have had the idea to mass produce this since the late 60's and the gas lines of the 70's should have been a big incentive to do something but it wasn't pursued at all until recently by manufacturers and very little effort was put into filling stations or any other way to give people who wanted to do this on their own a reason to do so?

[Zythryn]

I don't disagree that advances have been far too slow.

I just disagree that there is any sort of conspiracy.

There may be forces (businesses, politicians, etc) that prefer the status quo and see little reason to dive into alternatives. But if there were a conspiracy, I don't see why one company would be 'allowed' to produce said vehicles;)

 

edit: actually there appear to be a number of conversions available that have been approved by the EPA.

It is not illegal to do the conversion, you just have to get it approved by the EPA.

The full list can be found here: Natural Gas vehicles/conversions

 

Oh, and there are government rebates available as well.

[Moontanman]

I don't disagree that advances have been far too slow.

I just disagree that there is any sort of conspiracy.

There may be forces (businesses, politicians, etc) that prefer the status quo and see little reason to dive into alternatives. But if there were a conspiracy, I don't see why one company would be 'allowed' to produce said vehicles;)

 

Come on dude, I've said it before, the conspiracy thing is tongue in cheek, I don't think there were meetings on any level to prevent the production of CNG vehicles, I do think there was a definite lack of incentive to do this on the part of the government, oil companies and car companies. So much was concentrated on the development of technology of low pollution gasoline cars there was no effort to see the possibility of anything else. Was this a conspiracy of people meeting in dimly lit rooms and secrete hand shakes? No obviously not but the whole situation of not seeing the forest for the trees resulted in lots of people who should have known better ignoring what needed to be done to accomplish another goal that became the end all be all of the entire industry. Yes I do think that the government, oil companies and car companies have contacts and do each other favors but the conspiracy is one of neglect rather than active participation.