At one time we couldn't stand the communist, now we deal with them we have changed but you can bet that they haven’t.
Richard
Printable View
At one time we couldn't stand the communist, now we deal with them we have changed but you can bet that they haven’t.
Richard
It's sad to say but I don't believe ANYONE in Washington will do a damn thing to help us. 90% of the congressmen dont really care what gas prices are because they dont have to pull up to a station and wonder if there is enough in their checking account to cover filling the tank. All they care about is getting re-elected. The modern legislature is so far removed from the working guy; we're just something they watch on TV. When's the last time a group of them pulled together and made a change that substantially made a positive impact on our paychecks? I sure can't remember it. I've yet to see a positive report over the last several months that says anything about a real solution in the works to bring gas prices down. All of them; from the economic analysts, to the oil industry mogels, to the Washington insiders are saying, "Get used to it. It's here to stay for the forseeable future." Welcome to the new America, boys. It's every man for himself.
Thanks for all your interesting replies and discussion. Just for the record i have a '56 351w F100 but so little used that gas for it does not really count.
My daily is a 270 diesel E clas Merc which is returning 42 mpg on a run and has returned 36.5 mpg over 30,000 miles, so compared with some of the big motors you run over there I am probably spending the same ammount on gas as you are.(my mpg is in UK gallons but the $9/gallon I did do the calculation to US) There are big protests going on in Europe about the cost of Gas but you know us Brits, we do not complain very much but our commercial truck owners are getting wound up. I would love to run a V8 over here.!!
Anyone got an electric Hot Rod.?
Cheers, Rick
If I'm not mistaken the price of gas in the UK covers medical care for all and quite a few other social programs. Gas here in California is 4.50 to 4.95 and as long as the price of gas goes up the state gets more and more sales tax since the tax is per dollar and not per gallon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itoldyouso
Seems to be true.
Along with the slower driving there's less traffic.
We're driving less and combining trips, but I'm still driving the roadster twice a week.
My pals shop, the junkyard and the parts houses aren't too far away.
Neither is the donut shop for Saturday morning get togethers.
States rights were lost in the Civil War. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
pizzi-man is right 71 cents on every dollar is for health care in europe on the averge. DO THE math. 9-dollar gas x71cents=6.39 . 9.00 -639 =2.61 per gallon.OH buy the way it takes two weeks to see a DR .WHAT aDEAL!
just so you all know as of today Exxon-Mobile announced that due to lack of profits and increased taxation, they are no longer able to compete selling gas in the US and withdrawing all interest in selling of gas in the US for the time being.... speculation alone could bring gas to $8/gallon by Monday i reccomend we all sign this if you have not yet, http://www.americansolutions.com/act...b-346a1e096659 Drill Here Drill Now, even without increasing production instantly, it will cause i threat to foreign markets and hopefully use speculation to cause prices to drop a little bit...... if not, well.... start rationing your gas..... only drive for utter importance..... or i guess as Jimmy Carter and his africanized clone Barak Obama would say... "its time for america to tighten their belts"
As intriguing an idea as that is (an Atlas Shrugged moment would perhaps shock some sense into the public which would then, hopefully, reach the politicians), they're actually just selling the 2200 retail units they own, they'll be strictly a wholesale supplier for that part of the company.
I didn’t read the article but my wife said Exxon, is selling their stations too their people who run the stations now. I guess if they couldn’t afford too buy them, they would be sold too the next person in line. I will try too find the article.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...158.html#Intro
They pretty much say the same thing; it’s how they head line the story!
One will get the reader’s attention quicker.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366287,00.html
Richard
I have tried to do other things for a few days and try and cool off since we were warned not to post blatant political statements on the Forum, BUT (!) this is the heart of the whole idea of hot rodding as the availability of fuel. I congratulate Bob for providing rational arguments from the Wall Street Journal. I am so mad about this ban on off-shore drilling that it endangers my high blood pressure situation. There were reports that Speaker Pelosi was very active in applying all kinds of pressure to the present Democrat majority in the U.S. House of Rep. to NOT vote for off-shore drilling! It is clear to me that Environmentalists simply want to stop burning fossil fuels! This will help the polar bear population at least on the U.S./Canadian side of the North pole but maybe not on the Siberian side. One estimate is that at the required fifty mile limit for off-shore drilling rigs they won't even be visible from the shore due to the curvature of the Earth! Meanwhile Cuban wells drill off-shore! I was also interested in other links to the Bakkan fields in North Dakota, but the idea that U.S. oil would be sold in the U.S. is probably not true under present market laws, any further oil would simply go on the world market and could only lower U.S. oil prices by increasing the world supply. I just watched the Niel Cavuto show and I agree that several resources should be developed. DRILL (!) for more oil, especially off-shore, build more nuclear power plants for electricity and develop more hybrids like the Aptera as well as invoke Solar and Wind power for the power grid but all of this sensible development can be and IS being blocked by partisan politics and spin that disguises the raw political motives of folks who were elected supposedly to represent the People! Come on folks, why should we reelect folks who deliberately sabotage the economy and then use Environmental ideas to disguise their obstructionist views? It is obvious to me that the Democratic majority in Congress is simply doing everything it can to make the economy look bad until the election but since Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWAR, a new Democratic-Environmental Congress will be even worse. OK, so why am I so mad? I have about $25K in parts so far on my roadster and wonder if I can plan to ever run it to more than local meets? I would like to buy an Aptrera but I now have my play money tied up in a roadster that I hope will get slightly over 20 mpg with big rear tires, stock cam, R700 OD and "flying brick" aerodynamics. The worst case are these enlightened Environmentalists who live in city town houses who think the population can simply stop using fossil fuels and then also vote against nuclear power plants for alternative electric power. Hey it's time for another time out for me!
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
If you lost your job and health insurance with it then it is a deal. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by marco
If gas had kept up with the price of houses then gas would be $7.50 per gallon based on the price of gas and homes from the early 70's.:eek:
I have to make my appointments at least 3 weeks out with the VA...and I'm in the 2nd highest catagory as far as appointment priorities go.... It's not the best system in the world, but it's the system I have to use.... Don't think I could buy health insurance at any price...Quote:
Originally Posted by marco
Health care is just another issue that has to be resolved...but other then a lot of finger pointing and blame casting, nothing will be done about it either....
[QUOTE=Bob Parmenter]As intriguing an idea as that is (an Atlas Shrugged moment would perhaps shock some sense into the public which would then, hopefully, reach the politicians),QUOTE]
Kind of doubt it would make a bit of difference Uncle Bob.... As with anything else, the democrats would blame the republicans, the republicans would blame the democrats, and the majority of the population would just sit on their thumbs and wait for the government to fix it.... DDSS**) **) **)
Just a correction, the tax on gas in the UK is not allocated to healthcare, it is just added to the piggy bank for our government to waste, sorry spend, healthis one but it is not specific.
We also pay an average of $400 in road tax per year to be on the road in the first place, before you push the gas peddle.
Over and out on this one.
.....yes, we are not suppose to discuse politics so I won't mention any particular party; BUT the bottom line is that one political party is FOR offshore drilling & FOR drilling in Alaska and the other party is AGAINST It!!! If we were to drill in Alaska & offshore the price of oil would plummit because of increased supply..... Some in the 'against party' also want to increase taxes on the oil company's profits. Money that is used on research & development. Research & development that will lead to more supply which will lead to cheaper oil. Money that is used to hire more employees for research & development, which will lead to improving the economy by lowering the unemployment rate. 'They' also want to raise the tax rate on dividend income from 15% back to 35%. Which will lead to less money being reinvested in the economy. Yes, raise the tax rate on dividends when dividend income is ALREADY taxed TWICE! Yes, they tax corporations on their profits, then the corporations pay out dividends to shareholders {the owners of the company's} & then the shareholders are taxed on the money AGAIN! The economy WILL improve by people reinvesting their money in the economy NOT by the government taxing people more so they {the govenment} can spend more on 'free be' programs. 'Free be' programs DON'T stimulate the economy! Company's & shareholders do it by reinvesting in the economy!!!! And while I'm on it, another thing, is the 'other party' wants to raise the capital gains rate on stock sales, home sales, etc. Well when you raise capital gains rates people DON'T sell their investments because they don't want to pay the rediculously high taxes. So they just hold them. If they hold them nothing gets reinvested in the economy. If capital gains rates stay low then people sell assets, pay their tax {which helps the govenments deficite} & then reinvest the procedes in another investment, which in turn helps the economy....... & so on..... I'm done... Good nite.... Bill
Don Shillady wrote:Why Don?? You're just stating what so many of us are thinking and you say it so elegantly!:DQuote:
Hey it's time for another time out for me!
I am damn sick and tired of all of the eco-terrorist, tree huggers and do gooders who feel all the rest of us need to suffer for our sins. I say if we got oil in our territories, let's drill it and let's build the refineries to refine it. We also could use a few more nuke plants (hell, I live 20 miles for 3 Mile Island) to support the growing need of electricity and to help the continously upward spiraling of the cost of de-regulated electricity. I also think we need more prisons and less paroling of criminals, and I also don't think we need more sex offenders and psychiatric nut cases living in our communities like the some of the well meaning activists do. ( I notice the offenders never seem to end up in the same neighborhoods as the activists:D ). And while this may not be popular, I believe that the death penalty can be a deterrent and that rehabilitation does not work in the majority of cases.
Unfortunately, those who we have elected are less concerned about our needs, then they are about theirs.:mad:
Well, Don, I guess maybe it's nap time for both us.:LOL: :LOL:
[/QUOTE]
I also don't think we need more sex offenders and psychiatric nut cases living in our communities like the some of the well meaning activists do. ( I notice the offenders never seem to end up in the same neighborhoods as the activists:D ).
Sex offenders should not get a second chance. They let them out, and they do the same thing over, and over. If they can’t execute them turn them over to Lorena, Bobbit, if I misspelled her name you know who I’m talking about unless you were not around at that particular time.
Richard
I am to the point where I don't believe anyone in government is going to help us. I don't believe that the oil companys are spending 80 billion a year on R&D. I don't believe any media because they are driven by corperate America. I have written my congressmen and now I sure don't feel they are on my side so I will pay for the gas for my hotrod until I can't afford it anymore and like all of us I will regretfully park her.
I never thought in my lifetime that the freedom to drive a car would be taken away.
Well so far I have not been banned so here is some interesting good news I found in the local newspaper (Richmond Times Dispatch) from the Associated Press, "Oil companies get OK to annoy polar bears". Apparently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency has given explicit written permission to seven oil companies to "annoy and potentially harm them (polar bears) in the pursuit of oil and natural gas." The article estimates that only about 2000 polar bears out of a total of 25,000 living in the Artic live in the Chukchi Sea where the exploration sites were leased. This agreement was made before the polar bear was designated an endangered species but apparently still holds. However, I had a sidewalk debate with an Environmentalist today and he is well informed but he kept saying the U.S. needs another Manhattan Project for energy, but I replied we already had a Manhattan Project and the result was and is nuclear energy. We went through the analogous argument for the problem of municipal sewage treatment and he rightly notes that nuclear waste is deadlier and lasts longer than raw sewage. I wonder where France disposes of it's nuclear waste, really, I would like to know. Anyway I left him with an assignment to find out how much energy comes to the Earth each day from the Sun and whether that is enough at 100% efficiencty to provide energy needs worldwide. I will also check this but it is my present understanding that even if all photovoltaic cells were 100% efficient and a maximum of wind mills are running, that will not provide eneough energy. Only fossil fuels and nuclear fuels have enough potential. On the one hand the darkness of North Korea compared to the rest of the world at night implies some waste of energy for night lighting and pollution like hexavalent chromium doccumented by Erin Brockavich does argue for checks and balances in environmental policy, BUT (!) the bottom line is that I am on a fixed income and I just had the last payment of my "Copper Parachute" severance which maybe I squandered on my roadster so unless I go to work again the annual increase in minimum wage proposed by one of the candidates will leave me in the dust in spite of Social Security COLA. Rationally, I think all methods need to be utilized for energy, conservation, solar, biofuel, wind and continued oil drilling but to just suddenly choke off petroleum energy when in fact there is a LOT of oil in ANWAR, the Chukchi Sea, off-shore in several places and the Bakken field in North Dakota and Montana is simply obstructionist! My last comment for today on this is that while some folks can roll with the increase in prices due to the cost of oil, I have to hope for one heck of a COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) in my Social Security and of course that brings up the question of the solvency of Soc. Sec., the national debt etc. I entered the Soc. Sec. system at age 15 and I was amazed when I applied for benefits at age 66 that they had a record of my earnings for every year all the way back! Still when I go to the garage and look at that nearly finished roadster it is continuity with not only gas prices of $0.259/gallon but also the 1929 year that both my parents graduated from high school and I really like that chrome '29 grill shell and the rear quarter panels of the '29 roadster are in my brain forever so I will just have to stay close to home and run the "nostalgia machine" on occasional weekends because I don't think I can abandon it even if I wanted to.
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Just my thoughts, nothing to back it up.
I think in back of our mines we all knew that they could come up with something other then gasoline to run our cars. We had steam ships, trains, and motors turning machinery to produce electricity. It was just too profitable to keep us at the pumps.
Japan, as much as I have disliked them bringing their cars over here and not letting us send ours to they’re Country. They have a car that runs on water, if we could send a man too the moon why didn’t they perfect this water car before now if it doesn’t have too do with politics’
Anything that man makes, man can make it run faster, so we could have been at the drag strip taking a sip of water and put the rest in the “whatcha ma call” it do a burn out and let her rip!!
Richard
Not picking on you here Richard, it's just that you've put up the "money quote" to stimulate another facit of discussion. You've repeated something that a lot (perhaps a majority?) of people believe. The fact that a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true however. There was a time when a majority of people believed the world was flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ford2custom
The other day Dave S. invoked a paraphrase of George Santayana's adage; "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
A hundred years ago the newly emerging technology of the automobile was embroiled in stiff competition over what form of power would be used. Steam, electricity, and gasoline were on relatively equal footing. At one point the Baker electric was one of the best selling cars on the market. It's advantages were it was quiet and clean. Major disadvantage was limited service period and not easy to "refuel". Steam had the advantage of being the best known and longest serving (at the time) of motive power. It used readily available materials for fuel, and produced considerable torque and horsepower relative to it's size, and it too was relatively quiet. Disadvantages were the danger of explosion by less sophisticated operators, and the need for frequent refueling. Gasoline used in internal combustion engines was a touch and go situation. It was noisy, not well known technology, and because of that there weren't a lot of places to get the fuel readily. There was no "big oil" then, all the petroleum companies were relatively small industrial elements. Their biggest market to that point was providing fuel for illumination. Of course the growth of electriciyt distribution was occuring at the same time which was displacing petroleum from that market. Through ingenuity (and no preferential selection by government entities) and private investment it was deduced that gasoline would be a useful fuel for the internal combustion engine. Visionary people could see where it made economic sense to invest in refining and distribution networks to provide this fuel, and took a big financial risk to develope those processes. They had no guarantee of success, but in the end, gasoline provided the most stored energy (available BTU's), in the safest form, with the easiest of distribution, storage, and user friendliness that ultimately gasoline prevailed. It wasn't by hook, crook, or government mandate.......it was that the "best" technology won in the free marketplace. And it still is (despite the demagoguery)the most cost effective source of stored energy for mobile use.
Today we live in a massive smokescreen of wishful thinking and delusion. I find the BP commercials that pretend to be "man on the street" interviews most annoying. If these are real people expressing what they actually believe, then it's depressing to see such ignorance...............albeit fueled by honest wishes for something better. They spout all manner of delusions that some form of alterntive energy is just the stroke of a magical pen away...........if only we could get those evil, greedy oil companies to allow it to happen!!! Ah the fruits of propaganda!
We've had thousands of bright minds, over a CENTURY of dedicated effort, and probably bazillions of dollars (okay, maybe only hundreds of billions, but who's counting) spent trying to invent the better battery. And we've made considerable progress in that 100+ years, most of it in the past 40 or so, but we still don't have a battery system that offers a complete offset to the low cost relative energy of gasoline. If we've only come that far in a hundred or so years, what makes people think we'll have some dramatic increase in some undetermined short time?
It's a similar scenario for just about all the other "technologies" that people seem to want to hang their hat on. Biofuels? Been there, done that. Only limited success, and look what it's helped do to our food prices. Now, the flooding in Iowa will really put a crimp on the corn market on top of everything else that's distorted that group. Hang on!!
Over the past 30 or so years our government has spent over $40 BILLION dollars subsidizing alternative fuel/energy pipe dreams. Some private equity has also been invested, probably in excess of that number. Funding isn't the problem, it's the practical limits (given today's known technology) on developement. Wind? It's old technology, anyones who's lived in farm country knows that (only big city elites find it "new"). Solar? Both old and new depending on your perspective. Passive solar is as old as recorded history, active solar is relatively modern. Yet it too has developed slowly. Both these have "enjoyed" considerable funding as noted above, they have been the annointed technologies of the political and elite classes. But their progress has been slow. If any of you remember the Newman/Redford movie "The Sting", it was a good example of how con men work. They show just enough goodies to hook the mark, release a little more to keep the mark on the string, and then pump him for as much as they can get. That's the game with these subsidized "technologies". They're always promising that they're "just 7-10 more years for being viable". When that time passes, they show some little promise and tell us "give us some more funding and we'll be there for you in just 7-10 more years". In the meanwhile we ignore the most dependable, proven "technology" at hand. Crude resources on our own lands. And it won't get better this year because a segment of our governing group want the ultimate power which can't be gained until the November elections. They'll hold us all hostage at least til then.............and just over half of us will let them get away with it!
Do you really believe that these selected potential alternatives will be viable in "just 7-10 years"? That's part of the belief in the often heard comment by the obstructionists who argue against opening up ANWR or coastal regions for crude drilling. They say there's no use in drilling, it will take 7-10 years to get to market, their latest mantra is "We can't drill ourselves out of this problem!" Really? "Why not" is the question that should be thrown at them, make them back up the comment instead of giving them a free pass on such a ridiculous comment. Here's a thought suggested by author Chris Horner, who often writes debunking human caused global warming. Let's have a race. You pick whatever you think is the best alternative energy source, especially one heavily subsidized with our tax dollars, and then let's also drill in ANWR. Whichever gets to market first wins!!! Where would you put your money?
Look, someday there will be something that will realistically displace gasoline as the prime motor fuel. It's inevitable if we're allowed to pursue it in a free market, absent of government interference. It's very likely to be some technology we don't even conceive of today. It may result from nano technology (my guess), or perhaps plasma technology, I don't presume to know, only guess. In the meantime we'll have small "experiments" that will offer false hope. Ethanol might work in Iowa or S.D, but not much outside of a local area because of inherent inefficiencies (which government subsidies disguise). Biodiesel suffers from some of the same limitations, the silliest of which is the french fry oil gambit. Some of the other "ideas" will continue the con. Have you noticed that every time we have a fuel cost spike all these "miracle" devices and processes pop up; cow magnets, whirlygig devices to mount under your carb or in front of your throttle body, magic coils of unobtanium to convert fly specks to nueclear power and so on.....
Where do these ideas go when gasoline prices drop again? Why don't those fervent believers keep using those things once the price drops? Beats me!
Bob, you’re a very intelligent man, and I enjoy reading your post as they have a lot of substance. When I was in high School I wasn’t interested plain and simple. Today I enjoy learning new things and reading about the early days of our history as well as watching documentaries on public TV. In my own mine I wonder what people from the early 1900’s would think if they looked to the sky and could see what we see every day. The planes have gotten bigger, and bigger. I can remember seeing my first 747 flying over coming from O’Hara Field Airport while I was connecting steel on a building we were building in the early 70’s. I was amazed but not anymore because we see them all the time.
I’m just thinking that we would not have come this far if people didn’t have dreams and make them work. I love the small, and big block Chevy’s if gas could be at a reasonable price where we could fill up and drive cross country like I have in the past it would be great but if not then we need too try something else. Thanks for replying, and keep posting I need the knowledge. A restful mine is a wasted mine right?
Richard
This could get kewl..... The US has a ban on drilling for oil off the Florida keys til 2012... and now Cuba and China are going to develop the field while the US oil industry sits on their thumbs and watch... Thanks to our genius government!!!! Huge oil field in the Gulf, and we by our oil from the Mid East!!!! What's wrong with this picture???????:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
HelloEveryone on this forumn:
Got a question! Has anyone used acetone in their gas to boost miles per gallon? I have read on the internet that 2 to 3 oz per 14 gallons of gas will boost the mpg by 10 to 20%. Has anyone tried this?
Let me know
thanks
leonard
Bob , you wrote " Biofuels? Been there, done that. Only limited success, and look what it's helped do to our food prices. Now, the flooding in Iowa will really put a crimp on the corn market on top of everything else that's distorted that group. Hang on!! "
But , you didn't mention that Brazil Imports NO oil anymore . This is because they started developing bio fuel from sugarcane in the early 80s . Now 95% of cars in Brazil are hybrid ( gas/e80 ) or completely e 80 . There is a VERY CLEAN VERY EASY VERY CHEAP process for making e 80 . It is a process which a small US company holds a patent for and has proven and continues today to prove at there Arizona plant , that it's ready to go . This process uses grey water to grow super fast growing alge , and it processes into e 80 cleaner then any other bio product . Before you start in on the feasability of the alge bassed e80 you should know that 3 countries have studied the process and all have started to set up huge facilities . Those 3 countries are Germany , Italy , and Spain . Meanwhile back here in the states the company that invented the process has been fighting unsucessfully for 7 years to get any $$$ from the feds to set up commercial production . Instead the feds went with that Virgin ceo piece of phony shit and put all the bio fuel $$$ into corn , a crop they KNEW was at almost max production already !!! and one of the crops MOST at RISK from drought and plague and pests . This was 5 days after Cheney had a " PRIVATE " meeting with the 6 top US gas companies . This was ( I believe ) done in the same bu11shit manner as the $$$ blown on Hydrogen transportation systems , their way of looking like they are trying but still giving to the oil/gas bastards !!!! By the way everybody , it is VERY EASY TO ADAPT hotrods to e80 , and e80 burns much cleaner then gas and has LESS greenhouse emissions .
I’m going to {quote} part of this article from our small town paper, I could scan the whole thing but it’s getting late. {Carol Anders Staff Writer Pilot News} Monday, June 16, 2008
Tim Bope
Said we’re too smart in this country too not be doing something.
For the past three years, Bope has been building and installing hydrogen fuel supplement units in his own automobiles and those of others.
After reading several articles and investigating possibilities on the Internet, Bope began making units that split ordinary tap water to make the hydrogen useable as a fuel supplement. He then attaches a unit utilizing the hydrogen into the air intact in automobiles.
He said he read articles from NASA that indicates that hydrogen use is certainly nothing new too scientist.
Bope said his wife Kim drives a 2006 Nissan Altima that had been averaging 25 miles per gallon. After installing his hydrogen use units, she now gets 44 miles too the gallon.
He said these could be used with virtually any vehicle on the road. His next personal project will be too install a unit too his motorcycle. He said he gets 50 miles too the gallon now, and wants too increase that too 100 miles.
Richard
Sky, anybody that has a "miracle" alternative fuel system doesn't need the federal government to supply $. There are several silicon valley venture capital firms that will throw piles of money at any program that remotely appears viable. If there is a legitimate system that is used in other parts of the world those boys would be on it like white on rice. If something genuine is to be found I'd bet those folks will finance it. And if you or anyone else thinks the "big evil oil companies" and their master, the more evil Darth Cheney, can buy those uber rich guys off you need to put down the Olbemann pipe.
Yeah, the Brasil ethanol story is really neat until you start studying the realities of it. They essentially use just about all they make, as you mentioned, from sugar cane. Sugar cane produces about three times more product per acre than corn, and the efficiencies of it as far as energy yield are increased by the use of the waste (cane stalks mostly) being used to fuel the conversion process. In this country we're mostly not able to grow sugar cane (Except Fl, and Hi), and our environmental watchdogs wouldn't allow us to burn the stalks either. Ethanol can't come close to surviving without federal subsidies, and foreign sources of sugar cane based ethanol are priced out because Congress won't drop a 54 cent per gallon import duty that makes that source uncompetitive. And if you think Brazil has forsaken petroleum based fuel you need to do a database search on Petrobras, and their latest OFFSHORE oil discoveries that will likely put them in the world's top 10 of oil producers. Since Petrobras is a state owned oil company, and Brazil is mostly a socialist nation the enviro nuts don't bother them. Hmmmm. They have also discoverd offshore oil under thick salt layers where geologists in the past believed there could not be oil reserves, so yet another potential expansion of previously unknown geologic formations that haven't been explored could be available to further expand the potential for more new crude discoveries.
There are all sorts of proposed alternaives out there, but over and over they fail to be price competitive when they have to be scaled up to meet the full market demand. There's only one other form of energy that has anything close to the distribution system in place to readily displace gasoline.........that's electricity, and again, even with all the chat about plug in hybrids, and Honda's newly announced vehiclle yesterday, they still only compete in a boutique market of short, local trips.
One thing though Bob, to produce marketable quantities of fuel in this country you need Gov. approval ie licensing , permits , ect. ect. Let alone the overwhelming process of getting approval to store , release , transport , sell said product . I have nothing against fossil fuels , but if you believe that there is enough oil or coal out there ( when we've made it possible for new millions of people around the globe to buy cars every quarter ) to not fully develope bio fuels , and that the oil companies/government ane not manipulating anything and everything involving oil , then I say YOU are the one smoking the funny stuff . I've taken 3 trips to Iraq , to work on the pipeline which the oil/gas companies of this country is building from there , through Afganistan , into Uzbekistan . Now the US was kicked out of the joint run airbase there in 05 . But you know that these idiots will keep us in Iraq working on and defending ( YES DEFENDING !!!! THERE ARE US SOLDIERS GUARDING IT ) a pipeline because of coruption , but I brought this up dispite very bad memories ( which I don't like to revisit ) to make a point . That point is that the oil/gas companies have way more influence in DC than all the silicon valley venture capital firms put together . And the fed bank and the international bank are tied strongly to the petro-chemical industry . And they have just as much pull in DC . Oh , I'm not a democrat or a liberal , I'm a republican . But for my money you can take all the pukes in DC ( dem and rep ) out -n- hang the lot and let GOD sort em out .
I am not a democrate, I am not a republican, I am not someone who believes everything the goverment tells me. I am an INDEPENDENT. I AM AN AMERICAN. You will not see a viable alturnitive to gas until the oil companys have it due to their distribution system already in place.Yet the federal government has been giving oil companys billions in tax breaks since the 70's in order for them to invest in other business not related to oil.This was being done so that big oil has a golden parachute when the oil runs out. Run out it will and it is only a question of when. Hydrogen is the best alturnitive and they are already setting up a distrubition system in southern california for test cars from toyota.
I have neither the time nor energy this morning to deal with the notion of the government not taking more of the honestly earned income of a company or individual being called a golden parachute or a gift. If you're a true independent you may not have meant that as you wrote it.
As for hydrogen being the future fuel it begs the question; where do you get the hydrogen?
I'm interested in hearing about the "billions in tax breaks" that the oil companies have received from the government..
...I have searched and can only find accelerated depreciation....those of you "experts" who are quoting these facts; can you point me to the facts you are quoting?
I'm interested in reading about them from a viable source..
but not some slanted enviro swill.
mike in tucson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
H2o 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen other wise known as water:3dSMILE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzi-man
Well (no pun intended......maybe:D ) that's one of the two answers I expected. Coming from someone in No. Cal it surprises somewhat. You guys have been at a low level "war" with the folks to the south over water rights for something like 40 years. Your reserviors, e.g. Lake Shasta are reported to be at record lows. Those fine folks down south have a lot of cars. Where's the huge supply of water going to come from to convert into fuel (won't even try to get into where the energy to separate the h from the o will come from).
Not really trying to pick on you hear, it's just that folks seem to think more clearly when they have to justify their beliefs. And, you may be able to convince me to see something you're privvy to that I'm not.
For hydrogen, using the density of H2 = 10.1 KWH/gal. you can convert the volume of gasoline used daily in the USA to the equivalent volume of hydrogen....if you want to look at facts instead of wishing. Bob is right (of course), there is no established infrastructure to distribute these miracle energy sources....it took 100+ years for oil/gas to get where it is today. Of course, we should be working towards other energy sources BUT we can't expect any new source to be an overnight success nor should we piss away our economy and our way of life to make a change.
Try a bigger chart:
Yes our water wars have posed to be a problem, like when we have to ration water while So Cal is filling swimming pools. Or when we get fined for using too much water while the local government is washing the streets to keep median strips green. I happen to be one of the lucky ones that has water year round just 3 feet from the surface. Our sewer charges are based on the amount of water we use X 2. As we pave over everything the ground can't absorb the water so we have flooding like in the mid west. You don't need to use drinking water to make the fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
Didn’t you guys see this car it has it’s own machine too convert water too hydrogen fuel?
I mentioned this car in an earlier post but I thought you guys would have seen it on the news but incase not here it is.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/139528...runs_on_water/
There is more to the story about the car on this link.
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23767.aspx
Richard
Ask your self why it take the japanese to do something like this. Their government is not run by big oil?Quote:
Originally Posted by ford2custom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkk_0g1...y%3fid=1841989
Maybe this is honestly earned income or mabe this is the result of being with the chosen few. I personally can not see any justification for making this kind of money honestly.