Gasoline could drop 50 cents/gallon by spring

"The Good ole USA should have been working on switching to a hydrogen based economy years ago but cheap oil and big money from oil producers and lobbyist have all but sty fulled this from taking place, it would cost billions and probably take ten years or longer to make the switch over to hydrogen which is every where."


nope, hydrogen's not the answer. see attached. Unless you're into fossil fuel. Sure, it's everywhere, attached to other elements. It's the "unattaching" that's the big loser. Well, again, not if you have fossil fuel stock (both the raw materials and the investment kind!)

 

Oh, not the hydrogen 'solution' again. No, no, and no.

 

My god that is the worst paper I've ever seen. It looks like a third grader copied and pasted various graphs posted on the internet. None of the graphs even show where the numbers come from. I assume because he did a copy and paste. The bigger problem is the glaring holes in the conclusions.
Like determining how much hydrogen would be needed to power an existing jet engine and they coming to the conclusion that its not feasible?? Wth? If the engines were designed to run on hydrogen it would greatly improve their efficiency.
He also makes incorrect statements like nuclear energy is not a renewable source of energy?? In other words we will eventually run out of nuclear material to use in powerplants. :dance:I've got a masters degree in Nuclear Physics (to name one) so this makes me laugh.
Anyway if this guy ever handed this into any of the professors I had he would have been laughed at.
I'm not saying hydrogen is the way to go. I'm just saying that paper sucks.

 

OK, Mr Master's Degree, tell us more about hydrogen. How much energy is involved in using hydrogen as a fuel? Is it more or less than using electricity and batteries? Is hydrogen an energy source?

No matter what source of energy is used to generate hydrogen, it would be less expensive and more efficient to generate electricity instead. The hydrogen economy is a farce, plain and simple. Anyone who advocates it as a solution to our current energy woes simply hasn't done their homework.

 

Sounds like conroy is advocating shooting the messenger because of the 'lack of professionalism' of the message. Expecting jet engines to be re-designed to run on hydrogen is a bit of a stretch. It could happen. But it hasn't happened yet for some reason.

As hyo silver posted, the basic problem for hydrogen is the energy required to split the hydrogen atoms off from what they are currently bonded to. After untold $ billions in white and black budgets, we are no closer to being able to economically (less cost of splitting than energy gained from the splitting) produce hydrogen than we were before we spent all the $. There are numerous demonstration projects for renewable energy sources that can be put in place now. Some can be scaled to an industrial level; others are going to be niche players. The important consideration is that they can all make a contribution to reducing our petroleum appetite.

Getting off the petroleum addiction is way overdue.

 

Again I'm not saying I believe we should go for a hydrogen economy but... saying it's impossible because we have not found an economic way to create hydrogen is silly. Following that logic.... I should say creating a cost effective all electric vehicle is impossible because no-one has done it successfully in mass scale yet. Our technological direction in the world is driven by politics not science.

When we decided we wanted to go to the moon we did it in short time. When we want to create and electric vehicle, etc... its so hard.... almost impossible

 

Except for the amount of $ that has been put into hydrogen research has yet to pan out. If 1/10th of the hydrogen investment had been put into battery technology, we would have viable electric cars on the roads instead of GM's vaporware.

 

Then I think we're going about it the wrong way.

 

There IS no economic way to make hydrogen. Let me say it another way: Whatever the source of the energy, it's more efficient to 'transport' as electricity than hydrogen.

 

I am an average American consumer. I have never been eager to pay $3/gal. for their overpriced crap. I bought my 2006 Prius to try to combat the $$ I was wasting at the pump. I am now in the process of selling my 2003 Accord- (V-6). If I can get enough $$ I will attempt to find a 2004 Prius to replace the Honda. I get 54.5 MPG with the Prius & 24 MPG with the Accord.

Way back in 1973 I was working as a fuel oil sales person. At that time fuel oil was .12/gal. I watched it go from 12 cents to 60 cents in less than 1 full heating season. I have always said we should have taken the Arab's oil when they formed OPEC and continued to pay those bastards what they were getting.

I absolutely hate the oil cos. & the Arabs. They are making billions of $$ each quarter while I have to cut my driving to a minimum & try to sell the Honda to lower the amount of money it's costing me thanks to those 2 groups. The worst part is everything else has gone up in price since gas hit $3/gal. I am in no way happy to pay $3 + $$ for a gal. of gas.

I hope gas does go down to $2-2.50/gal. as it should be there now. Hell, I remember when gas was .30/gal. in 1967 when I worked PT pumping it. This situation has gotten way out of the realm of reasonable. Both parties are criminal c-suckers as far as I'm concerned & I'll be glad when Bush leaves office.

 

Or maybe....instead of acting like imperialist thugs (as we are now) or burying our head in the sands (as we did then) we should've emphasized alternative engery research, conservation, better urban/suburban planning, etc.

 

I am no thug or imperialist-that's reserved for the oil cos. & large corps. I am a little guy who gets shafted by the above mentioned. Hey, I'm with you 100% about alternative energy and also renewable sources.

In 1974 I traded my 8 cyl. Mustang for a 4 cyl. Pinto which I kept for quite some time. I remember the President going on TV and telling us how much energy we waste. What I want to know is why Americans keep buying huge SUV's & pick up trucks with Hemi's in them??

I've noticed that people around here fly by me with those useless gas hogs & they don't care about the env. or the cost of gas. It must be nice to not having to be concerned with how much gas costs. I have done as much as I can do for now. I also recycle everything & am very energy frugal.

 

Who's "we"? Do you mean the members of PriusChat should have gone out and bought a few hand guns and gone over to Saudi Arabia and taken their oil?

Or do you mean the U.S. government, which was then and still is in the pockets of the oil companies, should have invaded the OPEC countries and kept the price of fuel oil at 12 cents a gallon? Why would they do that? The oil companies are on the same side as OPEC because higher oil prices mean higher profits.

Note also that invading a country and taking their oil is not as easy as you might think, and even when the U.S. gets control of an OPEC country, oil prices stay high because the U.S. government wants the oil companies to make big profits.

Are you saying that if you had managed to get to Saudi Arabia and managed to take over the country, you'd lower gas prices to 12 cents for all of us? Not likely! The guy who controls the oil is going to charge as much as he can.

 

Two Words: Peak Oil.

Explaination: Peak Oil seems to be a reality. 25% of the oil is used by the USA. The world is running out of oil. Even oil companies admit it. Early peak theorists say we have less than the 1.3 trillion barrels (in "proven" reserves) that are in the world, that we are at peak approaching a slide and then a cliff. "Late peakers" the big oil companies just add 30 years to the peak projection and say we have 2 trillion barrels. Even the oil companies say the world will consume 1 trillion barrels in the next 30 years which is as much as we did in the last 130.

A Prius is just a bandaid and a small one. The overall problem is the world's civilization is based on oil and fossil fuels. These are "energy slaves" that give us practically everything of value and modern life that we are used to. Even if the USA used, ZERO OIL, that is we completely stopped using it, the rest of the world is still using 75% and that would delay the end of the oil age by maybe 10 to 15 years. Does the oil age end in 2036 or 2066? Does it matter much. Some predict major slides happening at 2014. There is no easy way to prepare for this. All the spin we hear, especially from the main stream media is interesting, but it's mostly redirection and discussion of smaller problems.

I predict if early peakers are right, gas will go up to $4, $5 and $6 a barrel.

GM and Ford and the others trying to sqeeze a few MPG verses real fundamental savings of a large magnetude, will simply cease to exist as they currently do. They will not exist as a Big 3 automaker and the industry will dissolve. Companies making alternative vehicles that get hypermiliage efficiency will prosper like Aptera. The old dinasaurs will die, because they cannot change their strategic direction. And when they go, it will cause severe depression in the areas where the autocompanies have built up economies, like Michigan. There are 11 good jobs that result from each automaker job. Henry Ford didn't just invent the model T, but the automation results in the Detroit auto-industry build up the entire area. All the houses were for people who had factory jobs. The rest of the "service jobs", government jobs, etc. exist because of manufacturing jobs, but politicians are paid to destroy our own industry and we have no meaningful borders.

Irregardless of trade gaps, mortgage and bank failures, they will all be crushed like a small insect compared to the implications of peak oil. In the future we'll either have nuclear power grids with breeder reactors and a larger grid (about 5x with much more electric) or we'll be much downsized, local and without most meaningful industry and even modern conviniences. The "car of the future" will be a small enclosed velomobile with a top speed of 45 miles and hour or less, and it will have a 45 mile range, running on under 3KW of energy. The motor often putting out 1KW or less to cruise. This will allow it to run for about 15,000 miles a year off 1/10th of the energy from a home wind generator if your lucky enough to have the wind site. The rest of the energy will run a reduced core housing unit and you'll probably grow much of your own food locally. Rail will exist big time. Cars with gas engines will be novelties. The only people in high wasteful fueled vehicles will be the military and kids will join to get their horsepower fix.

There is a great chance of WWIII or major resource wars. We are already in Iraq and will stay there until the Russians or Chinese throw us out when they move in for the same oil.

Things will be much worse standard of living wise the next 100 years. Your kids and grandkids will live or die in a world fighting over resources. Real Life after the crash website for the doomer perspective. I'm putting forth that viewpoint, and don't see a viable way to avoid it yet. We have two approaches, one is forced walking, biking and communism like living (like Cuba). The other is continued war and killing others to get their resources until there is no more fossil fuels left. I think based on our past, we'll choose the second option and just keep killing for oil.

No matter who is in office, we must have the Iraqi oil. There's 100 years worth at current depletion rates which is not in line with the other parts of the middle east. To ease oil problems, they will ramp up Iraqi oil to 30 or 40 year depletion rates, in line with Saudi oil. This is inevitable. Much of that oil will simply fill additional market demand from India and China. India and China are following the USA's "lead" down the same failing paths.

Ironically the only "long term" sustainable solution is breeder reactors, but those are only being made by "rogue" states like Iran or North Korea because they want plutonium for bombs. We are threatening the only source of long term sustainable power (breaders) with threats of strikes.

Other problem with loss of cheap fuel is all of our debt is based on cheap industrial output for GNP of a nation. When you make energy expensive, the GNP suffers. That's bad because we have interest and debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars that the USA owes. Biggest foriegn debtor is China, who owns us now and can destroy our economy at will, just by releasing T-bills on the market. We are at the mercy of the Chinese now. They own us and most don't even know it. The biggest debtor is the Social Security fund which had 4 trillion taken from it. That will never be repaid with decreasing GNP. GNP must decrease and debt cannot be repaid because of peak oil. It's all bad news. The early peakers flock like doomer survivalists and vainly try to figure out a way to hide and flee to the hills to avoid one of the SHTF scenarios that can happen from all this.

Sorry for the bad news. $2 gas will never happen except perhaps as an election trick, but $5 a gallon will follow probably in the next couple of years and then "Bye Bye Big Three".

 

Well, good morning to you too.

 

Malorn, help us out here.

We need a pep talk for the auto industry.

 

Malorn can give as many pep talks as there is time in a day to do and it still won't change the fact that gas prices are headed upwards.

 

I was just thinking we needed some cheerful fantasy to balance out the stark cold reality.

Malorn believes in the fantasy of $2.50 /gal gas, so I thought he could give us some more of whatever he was smoking.

 

Daniel, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not anywhere as greedy as the oil/Arabs. Why are you defending big oil & the Arabs?? Are you more than willing to keep being financially raped by them? I am sick of all of them. I hate Bush as well as he's from big oil.

It's simple. If the US oil cos. didn't go over to S.A. and drill/build the oil facilities the Arabs would still be riding camels instead of beamers. For whatever reason you never agree with anything I say. Why is that?

I and others who are in my position are tired of everyone else HAVING all the money. I support distribution of the wealth. Oil cos. do not support anyone other than the stockholders who are also rich like them.

We need a President who will work for the dying middle class. All we have now is the dummy in the White house who loves big oil. Are you an oil shareholder? Why else would you defend them?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Until it's too expensive for Starbucks to have their little wooden coffee stirrers made in China and shipped over here in little cardboard boxes, ENERGY IS TOO CHEAP!!!

Or, if you've got them by their wallets, their hearts and minds will follow.

Want to make someone respect something more and not waste it or take it for granted? Jack up the price and see what happens.

Fact is, we Americans only respond to price; if we can afford it, we figure, we can afford to waste it.