$5 gas by 2012 ?

jpete wrote:

traderfjp wrote:Why aren't cars converted to natural gas and promoted by our government?

Why spend trillions on unending wars in the Middle East and instead give us all a setup like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBdscL8hqN4

Oh that's right, I forgot, we live in a country where the government goes to the highest bidder and that ain't us.

I think my idea of harnessing the power of falling leaves would be just as practical as that perpetual motion machine. I wonder who paid for that toy. It would be laughed out of a high school science class.

Until domestic production of energy is encouraged we will continue to spend lives and trillions to insure a supply. Oil has become the most lethal form of energy, surpassing in loss of life the wartime atomic bombing of Japan. It also is doing a pretty good job on our economy. This is a tsunami of our own doing through the action of our politicians.

What's perpetual motion about that? Don't be ridiculous.

jpete, that setup is NOT cost effective. for the amount of money that project costs (you need to include all gov't rebates for renewables to calculate true cost) you could almost pay the utility bills for your entire life from the interest generated on the initial sum invested. renewable energy is NOT cost-effective even with gov't subsidies. jpete, you seem to be, like me, an anti-big gov't guy. I'm not sure why you insist that failed renewable technologies heavily subsidized by our gov't and STILL not competitive are any kind of energy solution? I understand that sometimes it's a bit counter-intuitive to think that something that doesn't actually consume fuel would be a more costly way to produce energy over the life of the capital project, but, it is the reality nonetheless for a multitude of reasons; gov't subsidies of "conventional" fuel sources are NOT one of them.

btw, we need speculation to prevent fuel shortages among other things. Yes, speculation is often driven by fear and that fear keeps inventories high in times of uncertainty. What would reduce that uncertainty and bring the price down? more domestic production or even the PROMISE of more domestic/north american production with the gov't stepping out of the way. Trader, what we don't need is the gov't wasting our tax money subsidizing nat gas cars; if they are economical the MARKET (novel idea i know) will decide that it is appropriate to produce more of them.

My God, it's amazing to me that this country made it through the first booming 150 years and created most of the inventions that make modern life possible without the gov't getting their fingers involved. Shocking, really, that our ancestors made it through alive with all of the horrible decisions of the private sector and the government not dictating our choices!

The first proto type cars were not cheap to produce either, you have to start somewhere to develop sources otherwise we would still be riding horseback.

Wait a minute sam---whatta mean by that?

traderfjp wrote:Why aren't cars converted to natural gas and promoted by our government?

Well engineered designs for liquefied natural gas cars exist. After the last energy crisis during the Carter Administration private industry and the government funded national labs designed several prototype vehicles. My employer at the time JHU/APL created a working practical vehicle that could be manufactured with available technology (early 1990's). It has a high compression natural gas fuel engine and sufficient fuel storage for a 300 mile range. The modifications to the engine to raise the compression ratio are the same techniques used by hot rodders. The biggest design challenge was the LNG tank. It has to be sufficiently large for long travel range and safe. All this without taking up most of the volume in the car. APL's solution was a completely re-engineered rear suspension system that made room for composite fiber reinforced tanks. After all the presentations, dog and pony shows, about the car were over it became a part of the companies vehicle fleet. I've ridden in the car and it's performance was no different that the standard production gasoline power car. I don't know where the car is today.

I encourage each of you to read the technical report describing the car. At the time there were only a few LNG fueling stations, limiting the range to the Baltimore-Washington area. APL had one near it's motor pool garage.

LNG Car cut away:



LNG Car technical design report:



In my opinion LNG vehicle use did not grow because of the chicken and egg problem. No LNG refueling stations meant a very small customer base. And without a large market the auto manufacturers weren't interested. Today's electronics technology for fuel management would certainly increase the fuel economy, range, performance, etc. The new discoveries of recoverable natural gas in the USA would make further development of the technology and a re-fueling network a no brainer.

Berlin wrote:jpete, that setup is NOT cost effective. for the amount of money that project costs (you need to include all gov't rebates for renewables to calculate true cost) you could almost pay the utility bills for your entire life from the interest generated on the initial sum invested. renewable energy is NOT cost-effective even with gov't subsidies. jpete, you seem to be, like me, an anti-big gov't guy. I'm not sure why you insist that failed renewable technologies heavily subsidized by our gov't and STILL not competitive are any kind of energy solution? I understand that sometimes it's a bit counter-intuitive to think that something that doesn't actually consume fuel would be a more costly way to produce energy over the life of the capital project, but, it is the reality nonetheless for a multitude of reasons; gov't subsidies of "conventional" fuel sources are NOT one of them.

btw, we need speculation to prevent fuel shortages among other things. Yes, speculation is often driven by fear and that fear keeps inventories high in times of uncertainty. What would reduce that uncertainty and bring the price down? more domestic production or even the PROMISE of more domestic/north american production with the gov't stepping out of the way. Trader, what we don't need is the gov't wasting our tax money subsidizing nat gas cars; if they are economical the MARKET (novel idea i know) will decide that it is appropriate to produce more of them.

My God, it's amazing to me that this country made it through the first booming 150 years and created most of the inventions that make modern life possible without the gov't getting their fingers involved. Shocking, really, that our ancestors made it through alive with all of the horrible decisions of the private sector and the government not dictating our choices!

What's more expensive, the stuff in that video or trillions pissed away in blood and treasure on Middle Eastern adventurism?

I agree we shouldn't spend the money on failed energy plans or infinite wars. But I'll side with the thing that kills fewer Americans. Because those Americans might be my sons some day.

We're already printing money like no tomorrow, I'd at least like to see something for it.

Berlin wrote: if they are economical the MARKET (novel idea i know) will decide that it is appropriate to produce more of them. :

But how can the market make them economically when the government puts it's thumb on the scale in favor of Big Oil?

Take away ALL the subsidies, and then we'll see what is economical and what isn't. And that includes my previous post of the military industrial complex keeping the oil supply lines open.

jpete wrote:What's more expensive, the stuff in that video or trillions *censored* away in blood and treasure on Middle Eastern adventurism?

The problem with that video is that it takes electricity from solar cells to break down water to pipe hydrogen to a fuel cell to create electricity and cycle the water back to create more hydrogen. Where is the advantage? And what do they do with the oxygen, just throw it away? It could be used for an oxygen hydrogen flame.

It would be much simpler to simply use the electricity from the solar panels directly or into storage in the form of batteries or heated water. No need for all the gee whiz junk. They took an impractical idea (solar panels) and just made it more complex and expensive. No doubt from a public money grant.

What do you do with solar panels at night?

You have to store the electricity somehow. Either in a lead acid battery or in a a fuel cell.

Heated water would be OK but you still have to maintain the temperature which requires energy. A friend has solar hot water and he still has to run his furnace to maintain it.

I'm OK with them "throwing away" the oxygen. I happen to breathe that so it's good for me.

And I'd really like one of those V12 hydrogen burning BMW's but the fueling stations are few and far between. It would be nice to live at one.

You aren't thinking big enough.

I'm OK with anyone paying with their own money (and not mine, via government subsidies or tax breaks) to install any form of alternative energy devices they choose.

jpete wrote:I'm OK with them "throwing away" the oxygen.

But it just cost you energy to produce?

Thinking big is good,just not like Rube Goldberg.

franco b wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm OK with them "throwing away" the oxygen.

But it just cost you energy to produce?

Thinking big is good,just not like Rube Goldberg.

Don't worry, I'll get it back on the other end when I use oxygen in the fuel cell.

Gas @ $4+ and climbing. You are aware the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

I don't see the current system working all that great. I'd be willing to try something different. Especially considering this system has been in use by individuals for years and works perfectly fine.

When I was living in AZ back in '99 - '00, the state was offering tax breaks for people who converted their cars to NG. The program flopped. It cost soooooo much money to implement, & as mentioned before, you have to hunt for fueling stations. Not fun when your about to run out in 115° Phoenix heat! Plus the NG cylinders took up all kinds of real estate. I saw a converted Crown Victoria, which is a good sized car ... and it took up part of that huge trunk, along with the space the gas tank used to occupy. I found the whole setup silly. Cost the state almost $5,000 per conversion.

I'm no economist, but that doesn't sound like any deal I'd be a part of.

I think you'll see gas @ 5.00, fuel oil @ 5.00+ and diesel fuel @5.50+ a gal by the end of 2012. Coal prices will jump more per ton than any other time in history. Get ready this depression is going to rewrite history! It's already in the wind.