Foxnew Says Stop Crying About Gas Prices?

[Nabisco]

Rock on jmh80. ChE all the wizzay

[Tiberius]

nice catch !

I love that movie so much.

"You know what a Hossa is Frank? That's a pig that don't fly too straight."


Anyway, about Obama and the automakers, that's a perfect example. Don't US auto makers have most of their factories in MEXICO? Most of the car factories in the US IIRC are from foreign manufacturers like Mitsubishi, Honda, and Toyota.

Plus giving extra money to car manufacturers to "fuel efficient technology" is both a meaningless phrase, completely unenforceable, and would occur anyway due to market pressure. They don't need extra money to compete, the Japanese do it just fine without subsidies and built way better cars. You give a car company extra money you know where it goes? It turns into a giant bonus for the top executives. Awesome. Real productive. And of course those bonuses ar ebeing paid for by the US tax payer. Awesome again.


You know though there is one thing I've learned. There isn't much point in trying to fight this. Which is why I've created a small section of my company to try to lobby congress to give MY company some subsidies and grants. If successful they have the potential to bring in a whole lotta revenue.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[CDB]

Actually that's called conditioning and they teach it during the indoctrination process, so that you have a constructed system you can call the "equilibration" of supply and demand. Meanwhile the people with the real power in this world create the illusion of choice for the people who don't have any!

This is borderline theosophic bs.

[B]Please excuse my ignorance , but could you explain how equilibrium is not related to a process that you refer to as "equilibrating supply and demand" with respect to price.

Equillibrium does not nor will it ever exist. It is a theoretical construct in which no uncertainty exists. As such no money exists. All surplus productivity is spent or saved/invested to come due and be converted perfectly when needed into a consumption good. It's used mainly as a mental tool to help people distinguish between interest/capital returns and profit, which doesn't actually exist under equillibrium conditions.

Price equlibration is just a name for the process by which prices either rise or fall so markets can clear. It's not a state of being, it's a continuous process of feedback from the various factors that affect prices to maximize effeciency on the part of production. Surpluses and shortages mean wasted resources within and without a specific process of production respectively. Those wastes don't benefit anyone.

What do you mean by a theoretical state with no uncertainty?

I mean just that, a theoretical state in which all outcomes are known in advance. As stated above, it's a construct used to differentiate between the capitalist process of saving and investment which leads to interest/returns, and profits which can't exist without uncertainty.

Thanks CDB, with my new found knowledge, I can actually buy stuff !

Well apparently you think otherwise given your statement above implying there is no choice.

[UHCougar05]

Rock on jmh80. ChE all the wizzay

You Chem-Es are nuts, I should know...I used to be one. Cal 3 and Organic 1 cured me of that.

[anabolicrhino]

This is borderline theosophic bs.



Equillibrium does not nor will it ever exist. It is a theoretical construct in which no uncertainty exists. As such no money exists. All surplus productivity is spent or saved/invested to come due and be converted perfectly when needed into a consumption good. It's used mainly as a mental tool to help people distinguish between interest/capital returns and profit, which doesn't actually exist under equillibrium conditions.

Price equlibration is just a name for the process by which prices either rise or fall so markets can clear. It's not a state of being, it's a continuous process of feedback from the various factors that affect prices to maximize effeciency on the part of production. Surpluses and shortages mean wasted resources within and without a specific process of production respectively. Those wastes don't benefit anyone.



I mean just that, a theoretical state in which all outcomes are known in advance. As stated above, it's a construct used to differentiate between the capitalist process of saving and investment which leads to interest/returns, and profits which can't exist without uncertainty.



Well apparently you think otherwise given your statement above implying there is no choice.

I don't mean to seem incredulous but your first paragraph admonishes me for being theosophic, but then you go on about how there is a "theoretical construct" that exists withing our economy, that is used to moderate the capitalist process!

You can't have it both ways!

Which do you truly believe is there a free economy or is there a "theoretical construct" which we are told is a "free" economy, as I suggested in my post?

I expect a certain amount of ambiguity when reading your posts , but this is a direct contradiction in terms!

Please, just a little clarity for the 4th of July !

[Australian made]

this has become a rather informative thread for myself. thanks.

[spunkles182]

The use of corn to make ethanol is a viable, but entirely terrible idea for the economy and the country as a whole. My senior design project in college (Im a chemical engineer) was to develop a design for a corn to ethanol plant for a real company along with a few of my classmates. The organic conversion rate is not all that hot to begin with. So you produce a lot of waste in the process, although with more capital expenses you can recycle portions of it. Something a lot of people don't know is that a farmer cannot continually plant corn on the same plot of land year after year. Corn absorbs more nutrients than it returns to the soil, draining the soil of any substance. So farmers are forced to "rotate" fields, planting vegetation that is high in nutrients that they can't sell. Instead they till that field with the new, high nutrient plants on it to re-fertilize the soil. All this craze for converting corn to ethanol is stupid. Its driving up the cost of corn (and all its by-products). Like feed for cattle, which in turn drives up the cost of milk and beef. Anyone notice that milk is $3+ a gallon now? However, since the government subsidizes the growth of corn for ethanol production it has taken a lot of farmers away from their normal crops and has them growing corn anywhere they can plant it for the financial reward. The end result is a sharp increase is a lot more consumer products and no lowering of gas prices. Congratulations US government. They strike again!

what do you think about cellulosic ethanol?

[EasyEJL]

what do you think about cellulosic ethanol?

ethanol is crap, plain and simple. It will never really work out. Between its corrosiveness to rubber and other commonly used materials as well as its cost of manufacture (particularly as populations continue to rise and open land becomes more and more valuable for food purposes).

We'd have a much better cleaner time building a significant amount more of nuclear power plants, and then moving to hydrogen fuel cell based vehicles. The nukes would provide enough electrical power through existing grids to set up small electrolysis plants so there isn't some crazy new whole system of delivery required to shuffle hydrogen from large centralized plants. Decentralizing like that also helps reduce the risk of any incidents at the pumps - if all hydrogen is created from water on demand, there is no storage of combustibles.

Also, poof no emissions at all unless you include steam. thats it.

[Nabisco]

what do you think about cellulosic ethanol?

Not really sure. A few South American countries are fuel independent now, because they convert sugar cane into ethanol. Works out well for them. I'd have to agree with EasyEJL, there are just so many better ways.

[anabolicrhino]

Oil is the most practical and efficient form of energy in use today.

There is no oil shortage. Oil scarcity is a fraud used to control prices and economies.

The pollution standards have been improved by technology to the point of an improving emissions ratio in the USA.

Ethanol uses more fuel energy to grow, harvest and process corn than it can return.

Hydrogen is also created by burning oil fuel energy which also makes it less efficient than fossil fuels.

Nuclear has that nasty waste product problem.

I prefer the smelly efficient oil system, which would be even more efficient, if the newer engine technologies were allowed to flourish

[CDB]

Nuclear has that nasty waste product problem.

I say send anything that can't be recycled to Mercury, or some other planet we won't conceivably colonize anytime in the far future.

[EasyEJL]

I say send anything that can't be recycled to Mercury, or some other planet we won't conceivably colonize anytime in the far future.

or seal it up in lead deep enough in the earth. its a much nicer solution, we have time to deal with it. Oil is still a crappy solution just based on the fact that it isnt' renewable. we will run out eventually. I can't believe i'm arguing against oil with a democrat on the for side

[CDB]

or seal it up in lead deep enough in the earth. its a much nicer solution, we have time to deal with it. Oil is still a crappy solution just based on the fact that it isnt' renewable. we will run out eventually. I can't believe i'm arguing against oil with a democrat on the for side

Meh. It might leak and scare the greenies. Send it to Mercury and no one can complain about five legged dogs.

[EasyEJL]

Meh. It might leak and scare the greenies. Send it to Mercury and no one can complain about five legged dogs.

Hey, if we're taking it to mercury, may as well fire it right into the sun, that way it keeps burning for longer since it has more fuel

[CDB]

Hey, if we're taking it to mercury, may as well fire it right into the sun, that way it keeps burning for longer since it has more fuel

Nah, the sun is too key to our survival to think of messing with it, even if we aren't actually messing with it. Mercury is an iron ball that's too hot even for the skinnyfat and old chicks in my last office. No one cares about Mercury.

[Tiberius]

Oil is the most practical and efficient form of energy in use today.

There is no oil shortage. Oil scarcity is a fraud used to control prices and economies.

The pollution standards have been improved by technology to the point of an improving emissions ratio in the USA.

Ethanol uses more fuel energy to grow, harvest and process corn than it can return.

Hydrogen is also created by burning oil fuel energy which also makes it less efficient than fossil fuels.

Currently, won't necessarily always be true. NASA developed extremely efficient solar cells which instead of generating electricity, split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. They did this for the Helios project. The cells were far more efficient at converting the water into hydrogen used to refuel a hydrogen fuel cell than modern solar cells are for electricity directly.

Nuclear has that nasty waste product problem.

FBRs don't. FBRs convert all waste into fuel. There is no waste in an FBR. The problem with them though is the initial cost to build one is much higher than a standard reactor, and the cost of Uranium and the cost of waste storage is still less than the initial cost of building an FBR.

When FBRs were first designed, many in the energy industry didn't want them because they knew the public demand would be high for the decrease in waste. So the tactic used was a standard one: scare tactic. FBRs are breeder reactors so politicians gave the false impression that these reactors could be used to build weapons. They can be modified to do so but they don't necessarily do so by design. This wasn't just in the US they did that though. They did that in France and Germany as well. It was a much bigger deal in those countries because of the huge nuclear power industry there.

I prefer the smelly efficient oil system, which would be even more efficient, if the newer engine technologies were allowed to flourish

What we need is more efficient BATTERY technology. Lithium Ion is the best right now and they are still too heavy for the power they store IMO. And still too expensive as well. Tesla and some other companies have developed some really awesome electric cars with high ranges. One new car will have an optional gas generator you can attach that would be used to recharge the batteries for long road trips. When it is used it gets 80mpg. When it isn't used you get about 250+ miles before needing to recharge the batteries.

The following need to happen to make electric more feasible:

1) Batteries need to be cheaper
2) Batteries need to be able to recharge in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank; i.e. 1-3 minutes.
3) On a full charge a car needs to be able to get over 300 miles reliably (which is the current standard min for most gasoline powered cars)

The cost of recharging the batteries of a Tesla Roadster is about $2.50 at current energy prices. It gets 250 miles on a full charge. It takes about 10 minutes to recharge the batteries to 80% but many hours to go from 80% to 100%. So right now it is only good for commuting or summertime leasure driving. You can't take it on long trips because you can't even go 200 miles before you have to stop for at least 10 minutes.

Additionally battery replacement is ridiculous. It costs thousands to replace a single battery (these are not simple car batteries) in an electric car. Over time batteries degrade and have to be replaced. In fact, probably in only 5 years.


Electric cars have many advantages though if they can get over the battery issues. Maintenance is very light. The engines are actually very simple and are low heat low friction. You can lube them with vegetable oil and they don't require oil changes because they don't heat up so the oil never breaks down. They have regenerative breaks also which increases the lifespan of break pads and rotars incredibly. Regenerative breaks can last well over 100,000 miles without ever needing any kind of work whatsoever.

Plus while some car enthusiasts might not like it, people not driving the cars will: electric cars are almost silent.

So if we can get over those 3 hurdles with battery tech, you'll see a revolution in the auto industry.

[CDB]

What we need is more efficient BATTERY technology. Lithium Ion is the best right now and they are still too heavy for the power they store IMO. And still too expensive as well. Tesla and some other companies have developed some really awesome electric cars with high ranges. One new car will have an optional gas generator you can attach that would be used to recharge the batteries for long road trips. When it is used it gets 80mpg. When it isn't used you get about 250+ miles before needing to recharge the batteries.

Got a link for this? I had always thought the oil paranoids had a point because it seemed odd to go with the massive complexity of a hybrid car over simply using a fossil fuel powered electric generator to power an otherwise fully electric car. The only reason for choosing the hybrid over the latter (technically still hybrid) seems to be to keep people on the gas station line. If you had an electric car that just needed a generator, that unit being interchangable, you could use propane, hydrogen, ethanol, etc. Pretty much whatever you choose. Kinda cuts the oil companies out right from the get go if you so choose.

Edit: Just looked into it a bit and it looks like GM is set to offer one fairly soon.

For anyone who is interested: EcoWorld - The Global Environmental Community - Nature and Technology in Harmony

1) Batteries need to be cheaper
2) Batteries need to be able to recharge in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank; i.e. 1-3 minutes.

Don't the ones where you change electrolytes pretty much accomplish this?

[EasyEJL]

I still think why carry around a battery when you can carry around a fuel cell, or heck if the solar cells are that impressive, just carry water

[spunkles182]

Currently, won't necessarily always be true. NASA developed extremely efficient solar cells which instead of generating electricity, split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. They did this for the Helios project. The cells were far more efficient at converting the water into hydrogen used to refuel a hydrogen fuel cell than modern solar cells are for electricity directly.



FBRs don't. FBRs convert all waste into fuel. There is no waste in an FBR. The problem with them though is the initial cost to build one is much higher than a standard reactor, and the cost of Uranium and the cost of waste storage is still less than the initial cost of building an FBR.

When FBRs were first designed, many in the energy industry didn't want them because they knew the public demand would be high for the decrease in waste. So the tactic used was a standard one: scare tactic. FBRs are breeder reactors so politicians gave the false impression that these reactors could be used to build weapons. They can be modified to do so but they don't necessarily do so by design. This wasn't just in the US they did that though. They did that in France and Germany as well. It was a much bigger deal in those countries because of the huge nuclear power industry there.



What we need is more efficient BATTERY technology. Lithium Ion is the best right now and they are still too heavy for the power they store IMO. And still too expensive as well. Tesla and some other companies have developed some really awesome electric cars with high ranges. One new car will have an optional gas generator you can attach that would be used to recharge the batteries for long road trips. When it is used it gets 80mpg. When it isn't used you get about 250+ miles before needing to recharge the batteries.

The following need to happen to make electric more feasible:

1) Batteries need to be cheaper
2) Batteries need to be able to recharge in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank; i.e. 1-3 minutes.
3) On a full charge a car needs to be able to get over 300 miles reliably (which is the current standard min for most gasoline powered cars)

The cost of recharging the batteries of a Tesla Roadster is about $2.50 at current energy prices. It gets 250 miles on a full charge. It takes about 10 minutes to recharge the batteries to 80% but many hours to go from 80% to 100%. So right now it is only good for commuting or summertime leasure driving. You can't take it on long trips because you can't even go 200 miles before you have to stop for at least 10 minutes.

Additionally battery replacement is ridiculous. It costs thousands to replace a single battery (these are not simple car batteries) in an electric car. Over time batteries degrade and have to be replaced. In fact, probably in only 5 years.


Electric cars have many advantages though if they can get over the battery issues. Maintenance is very light. The engines are actually very simple and are low heat low friction. You can lube them with vegetable oil and they don't require oil changes because they don't heat up so the oil never breaks down. They have regenerative breaks also which increases the lifespan of break pads and rotars incredibly. Regenerative breaks can last well over 100,000 miles without ever needing any kind of work whatsoever.

Plus while some car enthusiasts might not like it, people not driving the cars will: electric cars are almost silent.

So if we can get over those 3 hurdles with battery tech, you'll see a revolution in the auto industry.

Another problem with the lithium Ion is that they sometimes explode. its a 1/10,000,000 chance but the Telsa car has 7,000 batteries in it and with the cost of the car $100,000 I dont think that the investment will make up for the savings in fuel cost. but companies like Altair Nanotechnologies are projecting to 50% returns on their iinvestment in mid 2009 early 2010 so we'll see what happens.

Lithium-ion battery fires concern auto enthusiasts

[Tiberius]

Another problem with the lithium Ion is that they sometimes explode. its a 1/10,000,000 chance but the Telsa car has 7,000 batteries in it and with the cost of the car $100,000 I dont think that the investment will make up for the savings in fuel cost. but companies like Altair Nanotechnologies are projecting to 50% returns on their iinvestment in mid 2009 early 2010 so we'll see what happens.

Lithium-ion battery fires concern auto enthusiasts

The Tesla Roadster is a powerful sports car. They aren't selling it becuase it saves money. They are selling it to rich people who want to "go green." I know I sure as heck would rather drive a Tesla than a damn Prius. The Tesla goes 0-60 in 4 seconds with a top speed of like 140. That sucker is FAST. It performs on the level of Ferraris. In other words, it performs on the level with other $100,000 sports cars.

If you look at Tesla's plans though the next car will be a luxury car like the high end 5 series Beemers (why they are targetting the 5 instead of the 7, I don't know). I imagine Tesla would have problems meeting demand anyway with economy cars at this point, nevermind the fact that with the current tech they'd lose money on each car in order to be competitive.

No Tesla's plan is a good one. Start with a niche group that has high profit margins. High end sports cars. Once you clear a profit on those, you use that to target a slightly larger group with slightly lower margins. Upper midrange luxury cars. Then at the last you go for the broadest group with the slimmest margins. Family sedans.


Plus look at the minds behind it, eBay and Paypal. These are smart businessmen. They'll likely succeed. It won't be overnight, but give them 10 years and they'll have very strong market presence.