Gas Prices.........

[almost there]

One other thing......
What happened to the 45-50 mpg diesel VW's from the late 70's?
You would think we could do better today.

 

[travelover]

Nuclear.....

So far, wind / solar etc power is more than 10x as much $$$ to produce as Nuke. Coal, oil, gas is too dirty and $$$
Every one wants it, but know one wants to pay 10x as much for it.
Quite the situation........

BTW Regular is $4.25 where I live.

I've heard that no insurance company will insure against a nuclear power plant disaster, thus the government has to provide that guarantee, essentially for free. Looking at Japans current twelve mile exclusion zone, I have to wonder what the financial implications of that are.

 

[chinaco]

$6+/gal this summer?? Perfect storm scenario.

Could gas prices hit $6 a gallon?- MSN Money

 

[HF63]

I am still working and been paying 4.35 and at this price I spent 100 dollars per week.
The cost of going just to work is ~ 5,000 at this current level. If gas was to hit the magic 6.00, it will be just cheaper to stay home and quit working. The other hit on the pay check was the 67% increase in state income taxes and that increased took my pay check to 2007 levels.

 

[chinaco]

And the biggest source of electricity purchased utilizes coal, which in many ways is 'dirtier' than oil. Not sure that's a 'win'.

-ERD50

Coal gasification is getting another look to produce a variety of energy solutions.

If the cost of certain types of conventional fuel (raw energy sources) continue to increase and maintain higher levels... this will be a viable alternative.

Most consider it to be a temporary solution till there is some sort of hydrogen fuel or fuel cell breakthrough that makes it viable.

The US has a lot of coal... as does China. Converted Coal might serve as an alternative fuel that caps crude inflation (demand vs supply).... substitutes!

However... that would probably just mean there is availability... but at higher prices!

 

[Gone4Good]

Just filled up with 54 gallons of regular. The pump kept shutting off at $75 so I needed to swipe the credit card three times. Served as a helpful reminder of how much money I was spending.

 

[Gone4Good]

Nuclear.....

So far, wind / solar etc power is more than 10x as much $$$ to produce as Nuke. Coal, oil, gas is too dirty and $$$
Every one wants it, but know one wants to pay 10x as much for it.
Quite the situation........

BTW Regular is $4.25 where I live.

Wind has actually become very competitive but it doesn't work everywhere, or even all of the time, so by itself it will never be more than just a partial solution. Solar is still very costly. Nobody really knows how much it would cost to build a nuclear plant in the U.S. because we haven't built one here in 40 years. Estimates from some of the companies that were planning to build one recently were as much as $9 billion per plant. A similar sized coal plant may cost a third as much and a gas plant a 10th with wind falling somewhere between coal and gas. That's a huge fixed cost difference to amortize, and doesn't include whatever safety upgrades might now be required following the Fukushima disaster. Whatever hope we had for a nuclear Renaissance in the US is long gone, I think.

 

[ERD50]

And the biggest source of electricity purchased utilizes coal, which in many ways is 'dirtier' than oil. Not sure that's a 'win'.

-ERD50

Coal gasification is getting another look to produce a variety of energy solutions.

If the cost of certain types of conventional fuel (raw energy sources) continue to increase and maintain higher levels... this will be a viable alternative.

But gasifying coal takes energy, so you need more coal for the same output. So that makes the environmental damage and habitat destruction from mining even worse. I don't know how that compares with burning it, maybe better overall, but I wouldn't call it 'clean'.

Most consider it to be a temporary solution till there is some sort of hydrogen fuel or fuel cell breakthrough that makes it viable.

Until the laws of physics are changed, this isn't going to happen.

1) There is no large source of "hydrogen fuel". Almost all the hydrogen we have is bound up in oil and natural gas (hydro-carbons) or water (H20) and it takes energy to release them from their bonds. As has been said many times, hydrogen is not a fuel, but it can be used as energy storage/trenasport. It's not a solution at all.

2) We will not see any breakthroughs in Fuel Cells. They are operating close enough to their theoretical efficiencies that we might see incremental improvements in cost and size, but no 'breakthroughs'. Again, where is the fuel going to come from ( waste gas from landfills and some bio-gas sources could be good, but these are limited)?

The US has a lot of coal... as does China. Converted Coal might serve as an alternative fuel that caps crude inflation (demand vs supply).... substitutes!

However... that would probably just mean there is availability... but at higher prices!

Agreed. As oil prices rise, alternatives (cleaner or not) will become relatively more cost effective. One advantage of Electric Vehicles is that they will take electricity from any source, so are adaptable to whatever source can supply electricity.

-ERD50

 

[Rustic23]

I have not really done a study on green/alternative energy, however, I have heard that for X capacity of wind energy produced you have to built staff and have available .70 x X of coal or gas fired plant for when the green energy is not capable of producing. Seems if you include the financial and environmental cost of this, you come up with a different picture.

In the 70's when oil spiked, coal gasification and other alternative energy solutions were looked at and some even funded. Oil went down and investors lost billions. As long as cheap oil is available, and from what I have read it is going to be for a long time, then higher price energy will only be available if government makes up the difference.

 

[chinaco]

But gasifying coal takes energy, so you need more coal for the same output. ...

Until the laws of physics are changed, this isn't going to happen.

...

-ERD50

Yup...

But, the transformation of the fuel from one form to another may be worth the energy loss (economically) for a while.

It could hinge on how desperate we get before there is a break through in hydrogen or viable alternatives are found.

 

[samclem]

As long as cheap oil is available, and from what I have read it is going to be for a long time, then higher price energy will only be available if government makes up the difference.

Or, if the government artificially increases the price of oil, coal, etc. That's likely to be more effective in inducing production of alternative energy (and spurring conservation) than any subsidies, etc, but will be very hard on the economy.

"Hard on the economy" probably glosses over the situation. We should always say: "It will reduce the prospects for our kids to have productive careers, increase the price of food and other goods for everyone, make our industries less productive and give other nations a big competitive advantage and reduce our ability to influence world events--including matters of war and peace." That just about covers it.

 

[W2R]

I paid only $3.67/gallon for premium grade gasoline the last time I bought it. That's a trick statement - - it was 32 days ago. It is $3.97/gallon at my gas station this week.

I don't use much gas because we spend much of our time together and go to most places together, and he prefers to drive. The few places that I drive to alone are less than a mile from my house. I doubt that gas prices are ever going to affect my budget very much. At least so far, they never have. I'll be using more gas during hurricane season if we have to evacuate, since we usually drive separately to Springfield for evacuations.

I do feel sorry for those who are stuck with long commutes and high gas consumption since it looks like gas prices are continuing to rise.

 

[Midpack]

I have not really done a study on green/alternative energy, however, I have heard that for X capacity of wind energy produced you have to built staff and have available .70 x X of coal or gas fired plant for when the green energy is not capable of producing. Seems if you include the financial and environmental cost of this, you come up with a different picture.

Why wouldn't conventional energy be needed at 100% x X?

Unless someone is hiding some mondo large, efficient, cost effective batteries (undoubtedly expensive based on the problems car makers are having with electric car costs and range) OR consumers are willing to cut back or go without when the alternative source isn't producing (yeah, that'll happen) - it would seem we'll need all the conventional power plants to produce energy for consumers. I think people are making assumptions about batteries without thinking through the costs.

Maybe I need to do some research unless someone here already knows. This is why wind (wind isn't consistent everywhere and will drop to less than needed at times) and solar (night and overcast days) can never be anything but a partial solution. Wind and solar are intemittent, demand is not at all. And alternatives will never net cost less, the conventional power plant investmest must remain and be maintained and alternative energy only adds cost (less conventional fuel)...what am I missing?

 

[Alan]

I'll be using more gas during hurricane season if we have to evacuate, since we usually drive separately to Springfield for evacuations.

We have "pre-evacuated" again this year

I noticed today that gas prices here are £1.35 /liter ($8.40/US gal).

 

[ERD50]

...

It could hinge on how desperate we get before there is a break through in hydrogen or viable alternatives are found.

Again, any "breakthrough in hydrogen" involves breaking the laws of physics.

What kind of "breakthrough" are you imagining? Something along the lines of a perpetual motion machine?

-ERD50

 

[Major Tom]

I was in Big Sur the other day and was shocked to see that gas there was $5.60 for 87. Didn't dare ask how much the higher octane stuff was.

 

[freebird5825]

$3.99 9/10 and holding for unleaded lowest grade.

No prices increases for almost 3 days, after seeing continous price jumps of 3,4, and 5 cents per day up to the $4 threshold. Hmmmm...

I am doing most of my non-perishable shopping online (only with free shipping offers) these days. Not worth the trouble to drive and waste time and gas going to local retail sources.

 

[Gone4Good]

Why wouldn't conventional energy be needed at 100% x X?

Because intermittent power sources don't generally drop to zero and there is already a buffer built into the system for reliability (typically about 15-20% excess capacity over and above estimated peak needs). In Texas, the grid manager uses an 8.7% availability factor for wind when calculating it's reliability needs.

Also the facilities needed to back up a wind plant are going to be different, and have lower capital costs, than what you might typically build. For operational reasons, you're not going to build large nuclear or coal plants to support wind. You're probably going to have mostly single-cycle and combined-cycle natural gas plants for that purpose, which cost anywhere from a third to an eighth of what a coal plant might cost.

It's also worth noting that in the 1990's the U.S. installed a huge amount of such natural gas capacity, a bunch of which still has very low utilization rates. So we don't necessarily need to build these facilities to support wind, they already exist in many places.

 

[ls99]

Filled up the[-] bus[/-] Suburban today. $3.859/Gal, 30.463 Gallons, $117.56 It was slightly over 1/4 tank at start. Holds 45 Gallons.

Lessee, If gas goes to $6/gal, I keep the 1999 Sub which was bought for $17K cash in 2001. Original new price was around 40K. I do not buy a fuel efficient car for 30K, then the $30K @ $6/gal buys me 5000 gallons of gas. That 5000 gallons @12MPG lets me go 60,000 miles. Seems we are a ways from $6.00 Gas Pains.

As a retiree, I drive the Sub maybe 4000 miles a year. So for $30K not spent on a gas sipping mini mobile I get to drive the beast for 15 years. Yup, no sale on the gas sipper to me.

Plus there is that bit about towing my Argosy 24' trailer around pretty hilly country.

My 95 Jaguar XJ6 gives about 22 MPG, is driven roughly 7000 miles per year. No I would not trade that either for a gas sipper. Definitely not for any of the hybrid contraptions.

I do like the option of stomping on the pedal and moving out at a high rate of acceleration.

 

[bbbamI]

(snip)I noticed today that gas prices here are £1.35 /liter ($8.40/US gal).

....no wonder y'all walk and take public transit!

Gas prices are getting so high, I'm thinking about eating more cabbage..

 

[samclem]

Do transmission losses and line costs make it impractical to obtain higher reliability from intermittent sources by incorporating a wider geographic base? We've got a big country, and it's always windy somewhere, and it's always sunny (in the daytime) somewhere, and the waves are always high somewhere.

Building a more robust smart grid would also let us shift power where needed for electric cars (if they come) and to recover from localized outages. And, we can burn coal and operate nuclear plants where citizens are happier to have the jobs and the taxable revenues. Citizens elsewhere can continue to enjoy their unsullied views, "nuke-free" status, and pay higher electrical rates. A win-win.

 

[mb]

2) We will not see any breakthroughs in Fuel Cells. They are operating close enough to their theoretical efficiencies that we might see incremental improvements in cost and size, but no 'breakthroughs'. Again, where is the fuel going to come from ( waste gas from landfills and some bio-gas sources could be good, but these are limited)?

-ERD50

Fuel cells are not even close to their theoretical efficiency. That along with high costs and a limited life are some of the problems.

The theoretical voltage of the fuel cell oxygen/hydrogen reaction is 1.2V/cell. Most of them operate at about 0.8 V, thus the so called "voltaic efficiency" which is only one component of the overall energy efficiency is only about 65%.

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device just like a battery so that is a relevant comparison. The discharge voltage efficiency of many batteries is 90+%.

The problem with fuel cell efficiency is that the oxygen reaction is very difficult to catalyze and the "voltage loss" is necessary to drive that reaction.

 

[freebird5825]

...My 95 Jaguar XJ6 gives about 22 MPG, is driven roughly 7000 miles per year. No I would not trade that either for a gas sipper. Definitely not for any of the hybrid contraptions.

I do like the option of stomping on the pedal and moving out at a high rate of acceleration.

We had some good soaking rains, so bye bye to road salt.
My Mustang convertible is ready to come out and play.
It's a 6 cyl with a 5 speed, so it definitely gets better gas milage than the Jeep.

 

[mb]

IOil went down and investors lost billions. As long as cheap oil is available, and from what I have read it is going to be for a long time, then higher price energy will only be available if government makes up the difference.

Where are you reading this? I think that the "cheap" part is very questionable.

 

[samclem]

Where are you reading this? I think that the "cheap" part is very questionable.

Oil is cheaper than any other practical high-energy density fuel (suitable for transportation uses). For that purpose, it is cheap.