Gas Tops $4 A Gallon

[newguy88]

Originally Posted by jambo101

To satisfy my curiosity i've been trying to find a link that shows which countries are supplying us (USA) with oil and how much,so far no luck but i think i read somewhere that Canada is Americas largest oil supplier and the Saudi's only supply about 14%

Take 14% of that saudi oil out of the equation and see what happens at the gasoline station.

[Walt34]

We are definitely making an effort to drive less. Yesterday I took four 5-gallon cans and bought 30 gallons at $3.79 (30 cents off at the grocery store) and filled the pickup. That stays in the garage unless truck capabilities are needed.

FIL will be driving less. He wrecked his car yesterday in a single-car collision with a curb and guardrail.

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by jambo101

To satisfy my curiosity i've been trying to find a link that shows which countries are supplying us (USA) with oil and how much,so far no luck but i think i read somewhere that Canada is Americas largest oil supplier and the Saudi's only supply about 14%

US DOE has all these stats, probably in wiki also:

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports
EIA - Petroleum Data, Reports, Analysis, Surveys
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

Canada about 18% of imports (smaller % of total, many people mix those figures), largest single country, and that does not include canola oil, AFAIK.

-ERD50

[lazygood4nothinbum]

heading north to next county for family brunch today. gasbuddy shows no station between here and there under $4/gal so this will be my first fill-up over $4/gal. ain't milestones special.

[Wags]

USA Today - Price jolt: Electricity bills going up, up, up

Price jolt: Electricity bills going up, up, up - USATODAY.com

Excerpts from the article

Here's a shocker: Electricity bills are heading up. Way up.

Utilities across the USA are raising power prices up to 29%, mostly to pay for soaring fuel costs, but also to build new plants and refurbish an aging power grid.

Even more dramatic rate increases are ahead. The mounting electric bills will further squeeze households struggling with spiraling gasoline prices.

"Consumers now face a tough reality on electricity," says Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation of America.

The increases come after rising fuel prices already have driven up utility bills nearly 30% in the past five years, the sharpest jump since the 1970s energy crisis. Fuel costs are again the main culprit. In Virginia, Potomac Edison, citing high coal and natural gas prices, plans to raise rates 29% on July 1, pushing an average monthly residential bill from about $70 to $90. AmerenUE, Missouri's largest utility, recently asked for its first rate increase in 20 years, a 12.1% boost, mostly to cover higher fuel costs. Customers of Public Service Co. of Oklahoma were socked with a 25% rise on June 1.

End of excerpts.



God Bless Us All

[kcowan]

Gotta avoid those hybrids. They will get you both ways...

[laurence]

$4.69 for 87 here in San Diego. This is a sick game. What cost per barrel equates to $5 gas? Are we already there and there is just a time lag?

[Wags]

Yahoo.com = Honda rolls out new zero-emission car

Honda rolls out new zero-emission car (AP) : Yahoo! Green

Excerpts from the article

Honda's new zero-emission, hydrogen fuel cell car rolled off a Japanese production line Monday and is headed to Southern California, where Hollywood is already abuzz over the latest splash in green motoring.

The FCX Clarity, which runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water and none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming. It is also two times more energy efficient than a gas-electric hybrid and three times that of a standard gasoline-powered car, the company says.

Japan's third biggest automaker expects to lease out a "few dozen" units this year and about 200 units within three years. In California, a three-year lease will run $600 a month, which includes maintenance and collision coverage.

A breakthrough in the design of the fuel cell stack, which is the unit that powers the car's motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body, expand the interior and increase efficiency, Honda said.

The fuel cell draws on energy synthesized through a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas and oxygen in the air, and a lithium-ion battery pack provides supplemental power. The FCX Clarity has a range of about 270-miles per tank with hydrogen consumption equivalent to 74 miles per gallon, according to the carmaker.

The 3,600-pound vehicle can reach speeds up to 100 miles per hour.

End of excerpts.

Sounds great.

God Bless Us All

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Wags

Yahoo.com = Honda rolls out new zero-emission car

Honda rolls out new zero-emission car (AP) : Yahoo! Green

Excerpts from the article

...

The FCX Clarity, which runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water and none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming.

.....

Once again, these articles tell very dangerous half-truths (but you liked Al's book too, didn't you?).

Note the very careful wording - emits - none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming.

That (conveniently?) ignores the fact that:

A) CO2 is produced when you get the hydrogen into a form the vehicle can use - which currently is only available commercially by converting the fossil fuel, natural gas (which is a hydro-carbon - get it? that is where the hydrogen comes from), leaving (you guessed it), carbon (CO2).

B) Water vapor *is* the #1 greenhouse gas - and this car emits water vapor (although I honestly don't know if the amounts are significant - maybe WAGS could research that one for us?).

On the positive side - this was discussed on a Science Friday NPR podcast - apparently the efficiency is good enough that there is an overall reduction (NOT 'elimination') of CO2, even considering the reformulation of NG. It waas not clear what they were comparing it to, how would it stack up to an electric vehicle, or plug-in hybrid? Those are probably more efficient and cost-effective.

I think this kind of advertising is dangerous. People are going to be lulled into the false sense of security that all our problems are solved because these things are 'zero-emissions'. Actors who probably got D's in science class will be falling all over one another to be seen in one.[/quote]

Sounds great.

Doesn't sound great to me.

-ERD50

[Zathras]

Originally Posted by ERD50

Once again, these articles tell very dangerous half-truths (but you liked Al's book too, didn't you?).

Note the very careful wording - emits - none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming.

That (conveniently?) ignores the fact that:

A) CO2 is produced when you get the hydrogen into a form the vehicle can use - which currently is only available commercially by converting the fossil fuel, natural gas (which is a hydro-carbon - get it? that is where the hydrogen comes from), leaving (you guessed it), carbon (CO2).

I agree with you that the use of hydrogen as fuel will generate some CO2 at some point in the generation/transormation of the fuel. However, since it is pretty standard with gasoline engines to measure the emission levels, and not the drilling/refining/delivery emissions I don't see why it is soooo critical to mention them for other fuels.

Originally Posted by ERD50

B) Water vapor *is* the #1 greenhouse gas - and this car emits water vapor (although I honestly don't know if the amounts are significant - maybe WAGS could research that one for us?).

Yes, by volume I believe water vapor is 97% of all green house gases. The reason we are not worried about adding more water vapor to the atmosphere is water vapor drops out of the atmosphere within days or even hours of its production.

Originally Posted by ERD50

On the positive side - this was discussed on a Science Friday NPR podcast - apparently the efficiency is good enough that there is an overall reduction (NOT 'elimination') of CO2, even considering the reformulation of NG. It waas not clear what they were comparing it to, how would it stack up to an electric vehicle, or plug-in hybrid? Those are probably more efficient and cost-effective.

I think this kind of advertising is dangerous. People are going to be lulled into the false sense of security that all our problems are solved because these things are 'zero-emissions'. Actors who probably got D's in science class will be falling all over one another to be seen in one.

Doesn't sound great to me.

It may not sound great to me, but it does sound good And I won't pass up on 'good' just because it isn't 'perfect'.

[RetiredGypsy]

I'm currently paying $0.10-$0.11 cents a mile. How would a hydrogen car or a plug-in EV compare?

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Zathras

I agree with you that the use of hydrogen as fuel will generate some CO2 at some point in the generation/transormation of the fuel. However, since it is pretty standard with gasoline engines to measure the emission levels, and not the drilling/refining/delivery emissions I don't see why it is soooo critical to mention them for other fuels.

It is critical, really. The conversion from fossil fuel to hydrogen is an extra step that does not happen in our cars today. And the CO2 is produced in that step. You can't just wish it away. The drilling/refining/delivery is probably similar for both, so a wash in the comparison.

I just don't think people should be mislead into believing that this is a 'cure' for CO2 emissions. For the most part, it just moves them to another process step. Similar story with electric cars, air cars or any storage mechanism.

Yes, by volume I believe water vapor is 97% of all green house gases. The reason we are not worried about adding more water vapor to the atmosphere is water vapor drops out of the atmosphere within days or even hours of its production.

I'm sure that's true. I just get a kick out of the talk 'it emits no greenhouse gas - just water vapor', when water vapor *is* the largest contributer to greenhouse effect. They should be accurate in their descriptions.

It may not sound great to me, but it does sound good And I won't pass up on 'good' just because it isn't 'perfect'.

I totally agree that we should not pass up on 'good' just because it isn't 'perfect'. But the real questions are: is this really better? Is it better than other alternatives (electric battery, compressed air, plug-in hybrid, etc)? Or is it just the next ethanol from corn story?

-ERD50

[Wags]

Originally Posted by ERD50

I totally agree that we should not pass up on 'good' just because it isn't 'perfect'. But the real questions are: is this really better? Is it better than other alternatives (electric battery, compressed air, plug-in hybrid, etc)? Or is it just the next ethanol from corn story?

-ERD50

While all the alternative fuels/sources might not be perfect it is a start. Any type of progress to wean is off oil is a good thing.

I beleive that through trail and error some of this alternate sources of energy may just one day be part of the solution to our problems.

Folks, what do you think of Brazil's use of sugar cane to make ethanol?

Wikipedia.com - Ethanol Fuel in Brazil

Ethanol fuel in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yale Global/Wall Street Journal - As Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports

As Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports

It appears to be working for Brazil.

God Bless Us All

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Wags

As Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports

It appears to be working for Brazil.

God Bless Us All

Define 'working'.

I think we've discussed this before, but it not such a big trick for Brazil to use a high % of fuel from ethanol. The average amount of fuel that they use per person is a very small % of what we use. So, all we need to do is cut our fuel use (and standard of living) by 95% ( or whatever the number is), and we can get most of our fuel from bio-fuels, too. Oh, and they cut down a lot of rain-forest in the process. That is another strike against bio-fuels - I heard that it results in an net *increase* in CO2 output for over 150 years.

So, I disagree. Not every change towards bio-fuels is good. And it is only progress if it is really better, and not just sounds better.

This stuff is known. Just like ethanol from corn was known to be a bad idea. We don't need to make bone-headed decisions about it. But the media and politicians play into the fact that everyone likes the sound of a 'quick fix'. Don't confuse 'em with the facts - they want progress! Or something that can be wrapped up and sold as 'progress'.

If we are going to make progress, we need to be smart about it. Not just grasp at anything that sounds good on the surface. That just takes us two steps back.

-ERD50

[outtarentals]

$4.51 for regular today at our local hole in the wall economy place. More at the name brand service stations. But this is California. I just noticed Laurence paid even more.

Maybe it's time to visit some fast food places for their used cooking oil.

[ERD50]

WAGS, I went from memory last night, close. Here are the stats:

Energy Consumption: Brazil
NationMaster - Gross National Income (per capita) (most recent) by country


The average person in Brazil is using 1/7th the total energy that the average US person is. So, if we cut 86% of our energy use, we could have a fairly easy time of making a portion of the remaining 14% from bio-fuel. People are wailing now about trying to cut their gas consumption by a percent or so. In fact:

Ethanol fuel in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By 2007, the U.S. ethanol production industry consisted of 115 plants operating in nineteen states. The nearly 7 billion gallons production of these plants was a 38% increase over the previous year, and surpassed Brazil as the worlds largest ethanol producer in 2005.[11]

And we are not cutting down rain forests to do it (we are replacing food crops, which is another problem).

Careful what you wish for. You just might get it - and then you'll need to post all the headlines about the negative fallout from those things things and wail about how come we didn't foresee these problems?


-ERD50

[Wags]

Originally Posted by ERD50

WAGS, I went from memory last night, close. Here are the stats:

Energy Consumption: Brazil
NationMaster - Gross National Income (per capita) (most recent) by country


The average person in Brazil is using 1/7th the total energy that the average US person is. So, if we cut 86% of our energy use, we could have a fairly easy time of making a portion of the remaining 14% from bio-fuel. People are wailing now about trying to cut their gas consumption by a percent or so. In fact:

Ethanol fuel in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And we are not cutting down rain forests to do it (we are replacing food crops, which is another problem).

Careful what you wish for. You just might get it - and then you'll need to post all the headlines about the negative fallout from those things things and wail about how come we didn't foresee these problems?


-ERD50

The use of alternate fuels whether it's the use of corn, sugar cane or whatever are worth considering and the new technologies that are coming out such as the water powered car, the air powered car, the HEMP car, the new Honda car, etc..., etc.... are all worth while avenues to consider.

There is no way that Brazil can compare to the U.S as far as consumption. But what I am saying that it appears to be working for them in that they are beginnging to wean themselves off of foreign oil.

Whatever the U.S decides to do it must be done with care, caution and correct planning.

God Bless Us All

[FinanceDude]

We need to quit picking on autos, they are a SMALL amount of the oil used. Maybe we could stop shrink-wrapping EVERYTHING I buy no matter where I go........what a waste of oil that is? Noone's ever heard of cardboard