What Fuels the Debate?

Do you think that science can help us get out of the current fuel bind?

Science, plus political action.

Are you sure? Political action more often seems to bog things down.

It makes the world go round, for good or ill.

Yeah, we need to wait. A year from now a barrel of oil will be substantially lower.

I wouldn't mind seeing us invest in Fusion research though. I baffles me that people believe this technology is out of reach when it has been achieved in bombs and could provide the energy equivalent of utopia.

Hi, Roger! And happy Independence Day!

Such is the politics of fusion! Billions are going into what appears to be a research black hole and that whole system is/has been on a self sustaining mission.

There is nothing I have seen that leads me to believe that there is a breakthrough around the corner for the method of plasma containment using the technology path that this research is on.

However, I do know of a separate approach that is currently funded by the US Navy which is actually showing promise. They have achieved fusion for a short while and the initial numbers agree with the predicted physics. At this point the scale of the reactor is small and does not generate enough energy to be productive, but the theory states that the power output increases with the cube of the radius of the chamber, so scaling this up should not be an issue.

I just spoke to someone close to the project and they expect that by the end of the year the team should have either proved that the predicted science agrees with the experiment or know that there are more things to learn. As of this date everything they have done experimentally has agreed with the predicted science, so keep your fingers crossed.

If all goes well, the US Navy will move to full-scale development/testing in early 2009. It could be the breakthrough that we have all been waiting for, but it will also cut the knees out of the current fusion program, which will have all sorts of ill fallout.

There are few ways which can happen.

1.Conversion of solar energy to elctricity from highly efficient Solar panels based on Nano technology. Supplying to grid . Cover deserts with solar panels. This will reduce oil consumption levels in power plants.

2. Cars using Batteries only or full hybrid with Lithium ion batteries/ Lead acid batteries. Car roofs can have the panels also for some power availability.

3. Produce hydrogen by organic method from plants.

I think you need to add the development of room temperature superconductivity. The amount of electrical energy lost on transmission could significantly reduce overall energy used.

The solar energy average is about 164 watts per square meter at 100% efficiency for an average 12 hour day. Distance N or S and the seasons/weather can decrease it. Higher efficiency nanotech will not increase the energy from sun because that is a constant. Power transmission involves large losses of power the greater the distance from where the electricity is used to where it is made. The deserts are often too far away to make this practical. Covering the deserts would have the environmentalists in a snit and they would block such solar arrays [as they are already doing]. Oil is not generally used to fuel power plants. Some in the Middle East do, but natural gas is more common, The majority of electric power is from hydroelectric, nuclear or coal-fired plants.

Building a plug-in electric car that has a steam powered generator on board, able to use various fuels would reduce fuel consumption by about 80%. Calculate the square meters to equal the energy of even a small car engine and solar cannot be the only power source, although it could help.

Come up with a way of containing the hydrogen for refueling and in a tank in the car. Refrigerated to near absolute zero as a liquid the H tank would be small, but the refrigeration unit would have to run constantly or "Boom!". Compressed to 10,000 lbs psi you would only need a tank 5 times the size of a gasoline tank to get the same range. Storage in metal hydrides would require about 1500 lbs of hydride to go the same distance as a 16 gallon tank of gasoline. Then produce H in enough quantity and fast enough to refuel the cars. It would take a huge industrial plant to produce H from plants too. Also think of how the refueling is to be done. Not by the driver or the usual service station attendant, but by a specialist.

Not negatives, just some things that must be overcome or dealt with, that we can't yet do.

Transportation is the reason that we are dependant on foreign oil. The Government has done nothing to help this situation and has blocked many attempts to mandate min. mileage standards. We as nation have dismantled our rail systems because trucking was more convenient and cheaper based on the artificially low price of fuel in this country. We move to the suburbs and commute many miles each day.

Now for the good news

The high price at the pump is changing the way we think, drive, live.

The cure for the problem is not to find a magic bullet to replace fossil fuel. Its a combination of many things that supplement fossil fuel. The real key is to lower the crazy demand that we have created through our years of "endless supply mentality"

If people can afford to fill up their motor homes or Hummers and still drive them, then I say great they must have a lot of money and that what keeps our economy going, but the middle class will no longer be able to take that RV vacation anymore.

Geeeeh! All sounds great smart post all together, Brilliant... I will only have to add some little facts just for the heck of it for remind purposes only as follow: --"The volatility of any liquid is it's vaporizing ability. In the case of a simple substance, it is usually determined by it's boiling point. For example, the boiling point of water is 212F. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, each having it's own boiling point. Gasoline used for fuel in automobiles has a range of boiling points extending from approximately 100F up to 400F."-- (Deluxe Automotive Encyclopedia)

So, such thing will bring some little idea here as to make this fuel mixture boil or ignite faster by following the water example which will boil also faster when is under a greater vacuum than atmospheric. How about that? Do you thing this will also apply to a Fuel Mixture under some vacuum as well? Cuz, if that the case then we'll probably by some engine vacuum modification be able to make detonation phase faster or easier the effect to build-up heat production faster at same time having some how less fuel injection need for same heat values amount to build-up pressure enougth into the cylinders for pistons or rotors, etc. motion. And probably cutting a good deal on fuel mixture injection to engine combustion chambers with subsequently economy ?

Welcome some opinions to have your feedback at this though, let me know later and who knows anything will help out down the road, I'll Bet!

Vacuum it,

MC

Science? Well, maybe. I think a good old-fashioned horse whipping of the oil futures specualtors (yes, including pension fund managers) who have artificially raised the value of a barrel of crude oil would go a long way toward helping short-term. Long term, I think diversification of our thinking (to get away from the oil-only/car/truck-only mentality) will be most of the solution. That's an education issue as much as an engineering issue.

The "speculators" do not care which direction price moves. They only care about two things - 1) that the price DOES move and 2) they are on the right side of the trade when the price does move.

A trader or speculator will make the exact same money for a $1 move up if they are long the market as they would for a $1 move down if they are short the market.

The "speculators" are not the boogey man they are being made out to be.

Oil prices will come down when and only when either A) demand decreases or B) supply increases.

It's a bit funny that you never hear the same anxt about the way grain prices have increased in the same time frame as increases in oil. Government mandates of increased ethenol usage have led to increased acerage of corn being planted while shorting other grains like soybeans, rice and oats to name a few. The increased demand for corn feed stocks to ethenol plants drove up corn prices (now almost in lock step with oil). The decreased acerage of soy beans have limited supply and also increased the cost of soy beans. All last year the buzz word was "Beans in the Teens", that is to say, soy beans being pushed over $13 a bushel.

Ethenol made from food based crops is a desaster. The energy density in ethenol is only a fraction of petroleum fuels. Add to the lower energy density the energy required to produce, ethenol is a net loss.

While the concress and senate are grilling the oil executives (who recently and correctly named the US congress and senate a-la the enviro loby (say Siera Club et al) as being an impediment to the free discovery and free flow of oil at market prices) you will also hear the congressmen and senators from the corn states (Iowa anyone) crowing about how good the increase of corn prices are for their (farmer) constituants.

Any sort of "political" solution is sure to be as desasterous as anything else the US government touches - witness the "war" on poverty. The more money that is poured into the welfare system and other programs of public largess the worse the problem becomes. Countless other examples exist - the public school system, the social security system and farm subsidies just to name a few. The government solution to energy problems could just as likely resemble only being able to drive on certain days tied to your licence number and mandatory car pooling.

The answer will not come from governmental mandate or a government program. The answer will come from the market when someone finds a way to produce cheap, usable energy at a cost which is less than the cost of oil which does not come at the expense of increasing the cost of other commodoties. This is why Brizil was able to shift away from oil and to ethenol. They achieved this by producing ethenol from cane sugar. The difference between the cane sugar and corn are vast. Cane sugar accounts for only a small portion of the daily diet. It was easy for Brazil to far outstrip the existing demand for sugar to meed the needs of sugar for both food and fuel. Corn is a major part of the daily diet and it is not possible to produce enough to meet both food and fuel demands without shorting other grains in the process.

The answer will come when someone can take something which is either a plentiful waste (fryer oil for biodiesel was plentiful when only a few people were doing it - resturaunts no longer give their used oil away - now they sell it) or other mass not currently being used for any other purpos (like cellulosic ethenol from switch grass or stalks, or oil from alge for instance).

The best thing the government can do is get out of the way.

Travis

"The best thing the government can do is get out of the way."

On this, at least, we seem to agree. Yes, corn-based ethanol is a flawed concept for fuels use. Stalk and switchgrass would be preferable. Less use would be even more preferable. I suspect Brazil has had some problems we don't hear much about, such as encroachment on indigenous tribal lands and destruction of rain forest associated with sugar cane production.

Oil speculators care about one thing only (true of ALL speculators) and that is making maximum profit for minimal investment. If that doesn't influence the price of the commodity, I'll eat Aunt Minnie's hat. Without catsup. Oil in particular is not a regulated trading commodity, so the profit taking can approach piracy with no appreciable consequences.

Big oil may or not be guilty, but they are far from being innocent. I know of no rules, environmental or otherwise, that kept refinery construction from occurring since the '70's, but while our oil appetite has essentially doubled, we have approximately 41% of the refinery capacity we had during the oil 'crisis' then. Other than artificially lowering the supply, how was THAT supposed to affect us? ANWR is no answer - all the reserves there, even if we could get it all, which we cannot, would be something like three month's supply. No big deal, and no good investment.

I think we passed the tipping point on this problem at least 40 years ago, and didn't even see it go by.

"Oil in particular is not a regulated trading commodity..."

Ummm, oil, in this country is traded on the New York Merchantile, the US Futures Exchange, and others.

These markets are regulated by the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

From wikipedia:

"Today, the CFTC assures the economic utility of the futures markets by encouraging their competitiveness and efficiency, ensuring their integrity, protecting market participants against manipulation, abusive trading practices, and fraud, and ensuring the financial integrity of the clearing process. Through effective oversight, the CFTC enables the futures markets to serve the important function of providing a means for price discovery and offsetting price risk."

In theory, perhaps...in reality:

"The infamous December 2000 "Enron loophole" is the topic du jour in Congress. That legislation didn't just make it easier for savvy traders to buck the system. It exempted entire over-the-counter electronic exchanges (where trading takes place directly between parties, without an intermediary broker) from regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

As a result, capital zoomed to new unregulated exchanges like Atlanta-based ICE, an American firm operating under U.K. regulation, where trading volume tripled from 2005 to 2008, representing 47.8% of global oil futures trading. And participants in the new electronic markets didn't even have to file "large trade reports" with the CFTC, obscuring trading details across the fastest growing exchanges. That's scary murkiness.

In addition, while the 1936 Commodity Futures Exchange Act once curtailed excessive speculation, the Enron loophole redefined who a speculator was, and more importantly, wasn't. If investment banks could claim they were "hedging" certain derivative trades, they could avoid speculation limits set by the exchanges altogether.

"In dark markets, more paths of manipulation are available," says former CFTC trading division head and University of Maryland Law Professor Michael Greenberger. "That may not be happening now, but we just don't know.""

One of those Rumsfeld moments - when we don't know what we don't know. What we DO know is that oil futures contracts went up tenfold without much of a change in options contracts, which shows how ineffective CFTC is in maintaining appropriate margins. The "new" players are apparently treating the futures market like a high-speed stock market - which it is NOT.

What you are defining as "unregulated" are the currencies and the derivatives markets, not the tangible commodities markets. Oil is in the tangible market.

Enron/Oil

Apples/Oranges

I think I'll bow out of this discussion. There's way too much "speculation", and little fact, being tossed about. It's tiring trying to continually dispute conjecture and lack of basic understanding.

Cheers...

You're kidding. If one person BUYS a contract for August Crude, someone had to SELL a contract of August Crude. If the price goes up, the guy who bought will profit and the guy who sold will loose - the exact same amount.

The only difference between the guy who bought and the guy who sold is their interpretation of the market fundamentals and their interpretation of price action. As one guy bets the price will go up, someone else has to bet the price will go down. THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME GOAL - TO MAKE MONEY AND THEIR COST IS IDENTICAL. Their cost is the Initial Margin (or First Day Margin) for each contract they hold long or short, and then the Maintenance Margin which is the minimum amount of cash they must maintain in their account for the period they hold their position. Long or Short, they each have to maintain both margins and have the same cost exposure.

Oil is not a regulated trading commodity? What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission ( http://www.cftc.gov/ ). All futures trading activity is regulated just as stocks are.

The oil companies have not been allowed to build any new refineries since the '70's because of US Environmental Regulation. They have been able to increase output for every refinery but have not been able to build any NEW refineries in the US. We have more refinery capacity than we had, but we still do not have enough. If you increase the supply of oil you will have to either further increase the output of existing refineries (which is unlikely because they are maxed out as is) or build new ones.

ANWAR and opening offshore drilling IS one of the answers. There is way more oil in ANWAR than a 3 months supply and we CAN get to it without harming any animals, plants or anything else. (Carabu herds INCREASED all along the Alaskan Pipe Line.)

The other answers are to use more coal and coal derivitives, more nuclear as well as any other energy innovations the free market comes up with.

Down the road we may well wake up and realize what a hoax global warming was and all of the hystaria that goes along with it. Just the same, one day we will wake up and realize how much damage the environmental loby has done to the country.

Travis

Hello Guest,

Oil is not a regulated trading commodity? What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission ( http://www.cftc.gov/ ). All futures trading activity is regulated just as stocks are.

Thats not entirely true, OPEC trys to control prices, but if a country needs capital, they sell crude on spot markets at lower rates.

As far as refineries or the lack of, the problem is quite alot more indepth that what was stated.

Apples and oranges.

OPEC has control over the valve and thus controls supply which they closely match to demand so that as near every drop of oil produced is spoken for the moment it is pumped. By controling the valve they indirectly control prices.

It is true that oil can be purchased on the spot market, but the amount of oil bought in the spot market is a fraction of what is traded (and delivered) in the futures market. As such has little effect on total supply.

True - there are many other factors that have prevented building new refineries, but the point is, none have been built. The refiners chose to increase capacity of existing refineries because they had far less regulation to deal with than they would if they tried to build a new refinery (which they knew they would not be able to get approval for anyway).

Travis

Hmmm.

Interesting points, but as far as developing our resources is concerned, wouldn't we be in a much better long term position if we were the LAST ones with oil reserves, and the rest of the world had the demand. We are much more likely to develop viable alternatives to oil as a fuel than we are to make a finite resource infinite! We also need oil for chemicals and medicines, in fact perhaps more vital to us than fuel in the long run. It seems that most of the reactions out there are fairly knee jerk and short sighted.

I certainly don't like that we are funding radical Islam through our energy purchases, but application of conservation and investing heavily in alternatives could lead us to a much bettr position in the future. I realize that we have to get to that "future" intact, so, just as many, I have oversimplified the situation in this comment.

i heard that they did find that the moon is covered with fuel. supposedly the surface is very rich in H3.

you hit the nail on the head. with rising gas prices (only rising in fiat currencies, it is almost flat against gold but that is off topic) the need is there but to expect govt to come up with the solution is naive, it will be a business man who sees the potential for profit who will hire and share the profits with the people who make it possible.

all the sanctions, initiatives and bills that politicians will propose as solutions will only become a tax on us. why don't we try a novel idea, actually have a free market economy and let the innovators, innovate.

Thanks for the GA, and I agree whole heartedly.

The situation is far too complex for our politicians to even begin to comprehend. They just wanna make quick, feel good fixes that pander to the constituency for votes. In my 60 years, every reaction to these situations by Washington, DC only serves to aggravate the situation.

I've even heard some people say that national energy production should be federalized. That's even more scary than the prospect of national health care.

"I've even heard some people say that national energy production should be federalized."

WHAT?!? Should be? I thought Dick Cheney already DID that! _{(Sure feels like it ennyway...)}

Just listen to the spaced out Congresswomen Maxine Waters and there was another Democrat that were both publicly threatening the same thing Hugo Chaves did.

Waaoouhh, Nice posting all.. Assuming an steady state Oil Supply(V) with an reduce Barrel Price(R) we'll should be having an Econo-Flow(I) incremental, definetly. This will be by applying the same principle of "Ohm's Law" of Proportion model. As following:

Oil Supply=Volts (ex.10)

Barrel Price=Resistance (ex.2)

EconoFlow=Intensity (ex.5)

And so on. Now, if we take those three factors and play with it back and forward it doesn't take much before you realized that same proportionated principles will apply for the actual-EconoFlow-conditions, and it's seing like is the-Barrel Price-factor restricting the-EconoFlow-having an steady state -Oil Supply-, regardless. But then again sometimes things may become much more complicated than they should be. So, if we get it more simplified than actually are we'll should be having a nice -EconoFlow-situation increment which will be great for the whole global economic spectrum, but then again, what we can do? Sometimes things may become more complicated than they have to be due some unknown facts, I guess, I don't know, I am not an economist or accountant by the way anyhow, so never mine. I just will keep on praying and wait for the best outcome to happen either way, regardless..

Do your Math,

MC

Look, I'm no Maxine Waters Fan Club member, but even a blind squirrel can find the occasional nut. Government control of the oil industry? Nah, that WOULD be a disaster. Government regulation of the oil futures traders? Yeah, that might have made a difference. Probably too late now; Enron burned that barn while the Congress turned all the horses loose during Dubya Bush's first Reich administration. When there should be a $30K minimum backing for $150K in oil futures contracts and it's actually less (WAY less) than $10K - closer to $5K really - there's a problem.

I don't understand the workings of the futures market in depth, but that market has been taking a lot of credit for manipulation of oil prices that it does not deserve in my mind.

The run up on oil to feed China and India's exploding demands and a weak US dollar has a lot more to do with the current pricing than the future's market.

It is also interesting to note that Congress can do little about the surge in usage by China and India as well as the slumping US Dollar. However, it is in their power to regulate the Future's trading here and convince voters they (Congress) are heroes for the little guy. There is clear evidence of this type of legislation in the past and the emphasis need not be so much on results as much as a pretense of empathy toward constituents.

Personally, anyone that attempts to substitute the word "Reich" in place of "Presidential Term" demonstrates to me they are not being objective in their analysis of the situation. However, the tactic works fine in a "Group Think" environment.

Well, I DID line it out - sorry, I have an abiding loathing for certain politicians (in truth ALL politicians, but some are more equal than others). Yes, new markets and slumping currencies are probably more to blame, but there are definite links among them.

The 'new' markets create demands, which puts downward pressures on the currency of the 'old' markets, and the trading vultures, seeing a price increase begin, jump into the carcass to get what they can. This in turn helps drive the price incrementally higher, and the cycle repeats. What none of the folks who have decried my posts on the topic seem to understand is that the stock market (including futures trading) is designed to act as if the warehouse of goods is infinite, while in the real world, the warehouse can run empty.

The only reason any regulations were ever deemed necessary was because there are always going to be a few 'bad' actors who see the process as something designed for them to make maximum profits for minimum risks. If everyone involved could be trusted to do the right thing, no regulation would be required. But they cannot, so the government steps in and regulates. Not always well, not often wisely, but if nobody else is doing anything, where's their room to protest?

"What none of the folks who have decried my posts on the topic seem to understand is that the stock market (including futures trading) is designed to act as if the warehouse of goods is infinite, while in the real world, the warehouse can run empty."

I have always thought that an finite supply, coupled with demand, is what gives anything value. If the warehouse were infinite and the demand finite there would be little or no value to the commodity.

Hence the difference between the perception and the reality. Take the Dutch tulip markets back in the, what, 1600's. The value of tulips was artificially pumped up by people who acted as if the supply would never run out. But then time came to deliver bulbs, and they could not. The reality was that there were insufficient tulip bulbs to cover the speculations. The market tanked, fortunes were lost, and lives were ruined. It was a bit more complicated than that, but not much. Substitute drums of crude oil for tulip bulbs, invest your money in something else, and sit back and watch the show. Yes, if the supply really was infinite, the value would be nil. It's the perception that value exists that trips people up. Repeatedly, I fear...

Congress absolutely has the ability to control the "slumping" US dollar, repeal the Federal Reserve Act, get rid of out fractional reserve banking system, get rid of fiat money that is backed by nothing and stop spending more than is produced.

Our society is so set on the fact that more regulation is needed when less would actually be more useful.

Tagaman, I agree completely with almost everything you said, I personally think there aren't a many true Republicans left, I'd say a large majority are misguided Neo-Conservatives.

Concur, but I cannot exempt any Republicans I have knowledge of, they ALL want to pass more laws. The thing of it is, we elect these bozos (no matter the party affiliation) to go to Washington and be Congressmen and Senators. C&S types do what? Pass laws. So if they don't pass laws, they think they aren't doing their jobs. And if they don't do the job as they perceive it, they don't expect we'll re-elect them. So they are slobbering on themselves to pass ever more laws, demonstrate they are super-doing the job, and spend the rest of their lives getting re-elected. I do not favor term limits (other than getting fed up with the current crop of rascals and voting in new rascals), but being a representative of the people was never supposed to become a career, it was supposed to be a temporary lull in whatever their careers were to do some civic duties. We maybe should elect some of them who think their job is to review existing laws and get rid of the unneeded ones. At bottom, every last one of them thinks they can do a better job of running your life (and mine) than we can ourselves.

The founding fathers envisioned our elected officials to be no or low paid politicians who volunteered a piece of their lifetime for the betterment of our country. Since elected officials have the power to set their renumeration, that vision is nothing more than a footnote lost in the dust of history.

The elective positions in our democratic republic were never meant to be long term career goals that subvert the entire process as they do today. The idea was that elected officials would have a separate and distinct career that would actually occupy a lot of their time and only tend to Federal business when it was absolutely necessary.

If we can eliminate some of the incentive (high pay, the best retirement and medical benefits in the world, etc) we might be able to get things back under control.

Hooker <--- A Constitutional Centrist who will never ever again vote Democrat or Republican

Back in the Reagan Era, one saw allot of so-call conservative-liberal Democrats turn republican, sometimes I feel it was to ride Reagan shirttails. this really diluted conservatives (Reagan actually was a Democrat, until he realized that more government was not the answer)

Not it seems like its a free for all, ie "get what you can while your still in office".

I'm still having the same problem with my modified truck: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19478

It does seem I need a bit more science, to solve it successfully.

Kind Regards....

Holy! That's some applied technology ya' got rigth there absolutly. It does fun seing all these 8 gages indicators there waaooouuhh... fun cool stuff you have there. So far so good so the only deal will be how to minimise odor control, Uhhmmnnn..? I have nothing out off the top rigth now but I'm sure we'll find out something for that here with the help of the Pro's here at CR-4 pretty sure,definetly.

I don't know probably some kind of carbon-dissecant-or some baking soda powder at the end of the tail pipe, who know's? You'll get it eventually, I'll Bet! Nice Deal Sparky...

Duty Cycle,

MC