News: Local businesses brace for $3-a-gallon gasoline

True, but it would be more accurate to say if we come up with a plan for disposal. Sending it into the sun might work, but launching a container filled with nuclear waste into the atmoshpere is a chilling proposition.

Hydrogen will probably gain momentum in the next 20 years. GM also had a prototype for a really neat flywheel system that was able to regain energy from momentum. I think the short term solution will be a composition of several technologies, rather than one save-all fix.

I am pretty sure it is a joint venture with DCX or Ford... Possibly both.

I believe it is both.
*** Edited 4/21/2006 2:17:19 PM UTC by djDaemon***

djDaemon said:
True, but it would be more accurate to say if we come up with a plan for disposal.

It was thinking like that that said we'd never get to the moon. Its not an if, its a when. It may not be in our lifetimes, may not be in our children's lifetimes, but it will happen.

You're probably right. I won't concede, though, until I see it happen. ;)

On the radio this morning, they mentioned that analysts predict the price of gas to hit $3 way before Memorial Day, at which point it will surely rise some more.

I said:
E-85 isn't really a solution. E-85 and BioDiesel are both options that can make a difference for people who can take advantage of them, but neither is practical on the scale at which America drives. There just isn't enough farmland to produce that much ethanol.

Coastern3rd replied:

Which is what we need, a temporary fix until such time that we can get hydrogen and advanced electrical vehicles out there.

E-85 and BioDiesel are not temporary fixes; in fact they really are not fixes at all. But they are alternatives, and on a limited basis (limited, of course, by the availability of ethanol and used french fry oil :) ) they can help. We should be exploiting all available alternatives. But while both of those alternatives are useful, they don't scale well. And what is needed is a transportation energy alternative that scales to the level of what we have now in terms of gasoline and diesel.

FACT: Hybrids, while they are a step in the right direction are worse for the environment. This is mostly due to the fact that they use more fuel to be produced, and then burn straight gasoline. What this means: A Toyota Prius will use more fuel in it's lifetime then a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe in its lifetime.

I can't speak to that. But some of that comes back in economies of scale and the efficiencies of mass production. The hybrid is a configuration that clearly makes sense, as the railroads have been using a form of that for decades with their diesel-electric locomotives. I see the hybrid as a logical evolution of the standard gasoline engine, nothing more than that. It's an attempt to solve the biggest problem with electric cars: you can't go from "empty" to "full charge" in less than five minutes. With a hybrid, you can. I imagine the next logical step will be a hybrid with a charging station in your garage so that you can run all-electric for short trips and still drive more than 60 miles a day.

My understanding is that many, if not most, of the vehicles built by the Big Five in the past 5 years, maybe longer, are flex-fuel and can run on E85. I don't know that for certain, although I do know that my '94 doesn't particularly want ethanol. Oh, and if you've been following the gasoline news lately, then you know by now that there is another problem with ethanol: it is hydroscopic...that is, it can absorb water, which doesn't burn too well.

Sort of... Anything that is combustible will technically run your engine, hence, your understanding. However, run E-85 through any engine not designed for E-85 (new or old) and your seals will break down and leak coolant and oil into your combustion chamber. Ethanol will eat at and corrode your seals.. your engine will burn up and sieze before you use up a half tank.

Except that my point is that the major manufacturers have quietly re-engineered many of their engines to avoid these problems and allow for the use of E-85. I suspect they did it so that they could sell the same engines in Brazil that they sell in the USA and Canada. Why build cars in an ethanol version and in a gasoline version when you can make some changes mostly to materials and end up with an engine that doesn't care what fuel you run it on? The other major difference between an ethanol engine and a gasoline engine is in the fuel delivery, as the mixture has to be a little different to account for the different energy densities of various fuels (ethanol is less efficient than gasoline). But with computer controlled engines, combustion is constantly monitored and adjusted anyway, which solves the problem. GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda and Toyota have been doing this for years. The auto makers don't sell fuel, and they don't care what fuel they have to build for. They just build cars that will run on what's out there.

Ethanol is Hydroscopic. But don't think that the engineers at the big 3 (there is no Big 5 in my eyes) did not think about this issue.. Your engine is sealed (or should be) tighter than a coffin. Couple that with a properly installed pump and storage facility for E-85 and you should not have to worry about water in your gas tank.

Any water in any engine regardlerss of fuel is bad news, however there is nothing more to worry about with E-85 than you would with a typical combustion engine.

It isn't a problem once it is in the car. The problem is in transportation and storage, where conditions are not quite as well controlled.

Short term, there really aren't any good answers. We do need someone to knock some sense into the commodities market, but as I noted earlier, until the oil glut unexpectedly appears and sends prices into a tailspin, it isn't going to happen.

Short term there are plenty of good answers for our wallet, but not for the environment. VW's TDI is excellent, however it's diesel and diesel never really burns clean. Hybrids as I explained earlier use more fuel than a full size Tahoe making it not very friendly for the environment and the Problem with E-85 as Dave said is there is not enough and it's already in short supply.

And besides, right now, diesel is more expensive than gasoline. It does have a higher energy density, so you get a little more efficiency, but I doubt that makes up for the increased cost. And of course, in the REALLY short term, which is what we're dealing with right now, there is nothing that most of us can do...the amount of fuel you use is determined by what you drive and where you live, and I don't know about you, but I can't afford to buy a new car, and I am not planning to move.

Long term, the most viable alternative fuel even for internal combustion engines is probably hydrogen, but because of the costs of production we aren't going to see that as a viable alternative for transportation fuel until we get a whole lot of nuclear power plants brought on line. And we're not going to see that happen until we get past an awful lot of fears about waste, safety, and weapons proliferation (which, I should remind you, is what the whole argument with Iran is all about).

Hydrogen is much closer than we think. GM, DCX and Ford all have hydrogen vehicles that run very well with very little bugs in the system.

Oh, hydrogen is very close in terms of the technology. In fact, you can run a gasoline engine on hydrogen without too much trouble. The problem is that right now there isn't a good way to get hydrogen extracted and made useful. The best way to do it is electrically, but you use a lot more power doing that than you get back, so it is an inefficient process. Which is why nuclear power is so important: it is the one means of producing electricity that produces clean power in huge quantities such that it can bring down the cost of breaking hydrogen to something reasonable. Right now, the most efficient way to use hydrogen is in fuel cells, which extract the hydrogen chemically from other substances that contain a lot of the stuff...most often gasoline, diesel fuel, or natural gas, all of which are fuels we need to be getting away from, so fuel cells aren't going to help us much until we can get the hydrogen problem under control. And once we do that, it will probably be easier to just burn the stuff in an internal combustion engine rather than running it through a fuel cell.

The problem with hydrogen is that first we don't have the means to produce it on a large scale, and second, we don't have a distribution system for it. But I fully expect to see hydrogen vehicles very soon. I would expect that the first ones might be flex-fuel, although that would require two fuel tanks since hydrogen has to be stored under pressure. The other problem with hydrogen is that it has a public relations problem, much the same as nuclear power. After all, when you think of nuclear power, you think of TMI and Chernobyl; when you think of hydrogen, you think of the Hindenberg.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Recently a probe was launched to Pluto called the New Horizons mission. It was launched on January 17th to be exact.

About 3 dozen protestors showed up to try and stop the launch of the probe which contains a Nuclear Generator to propel the probe.
I believe Cassini which is currently exploring Saturn uses the same propulsion system.

If only we could find a way to launch from somewhere other than Florida... like a safer area i could see sending waste to the sun.

Even if you launch from new mexico (just picking a desert), if you have an explosion of the rocket it would be a terrorists dirty bomb wet dream. That is the biggest issue. In the upper atmosphere, it doesn't matter where you launch from, its going to cause some serious problems not just in the US, but across the world.

I don't know that it really matters where you launch from. A vehicle filled with nuclear waste that explodes during launch would spread that waste across the globe, not just Florida.

I'm too slow for John. :(

;)
*** Edited 4/21/2006 3:12:36 PM UTC by djDaemon***

Am I the only one who thinks we just got spoiled by our tremendously low gas prices? Let's look at some historical gas price numbers, and then adjust for inflation. In 1990, the price for regular was 1.34 per gallon. If we use that number, and adjust for inflation, which was (on average) roughly 2.9% per year, times 16 years. So just the adjusted price of gas should be 2.08, and that's only since 1990.

If we go back to 1980, then this statement runs true: the cost of a gallon of gas in 1980 was $2.59 (in 2005 dollars).

So are the gas prices THAT out of line? I say yes, given that three years ago gas was very cheap, and we have seen a sharp rise lately. I for one blame the traders, it seems they are driving the prices up for gasoline futures (notice I didn't say oil). Also, remember a basic economics lesson here, if the price is high, there is more incentive for the companies to produce more, or for new players to enter the market. I for one am not too worried about the prices, if it gets to be more than I want to spend, then I'll change my habits, if not, so be it.

ejh1701 said:
As RideMan said above, it is abosulely ridiciously what is going on right now with gas prices. All the market forcasters keep on speculating about higher prices of this, higher prices of that, Iran, Iraq, hurricane, hurricane katrina from last year, it rained this morning...I could go on and on. While the gas companies sit there and abosutely love it, keep on spectulating and we'll make the speculation come true by raising prices! If the high prices right now are from speculation, what happens if there is a hurricane or something does actually happen with Iran? Can we expect 4 dollars a gallon?

Its also amazing how in the fall gas went up for Katrina, in the Winter they stayed relatively high because of oil being used to heat houses, and now there up for the summer driving season. There is always a reason, no matter what.

What pushed me over the edge is when I learned last week that the Exxon Mobile chairman received over 65 million dollars last year in total. 65 million dollars!!! That is a MF and Top Thrill Dagster, plus Magnum all in my back yard with money to spare!!! Plus he received over $400 million in about the most generous retirement package in history. But who is really paying for it, me and you, the everyday average consumer. I refuse to fill up at Exxon Mobile, not that I am telling you guys to do the same...

And just remember when you are paying the $3+ at the station that next year, the country of Brazil, will be completely mideast oil independent. Thats right, a country not even close in technology compared to the United States will not use one drop of mideast oil, why? Because back in the 1970's, their government mandated that all cars be able to run on Ethanol, and ethanol is made from sugar and Brazil is one of the biggest sugar exporters in the world. So just remember that our friends in Washington chose the oil and big business over what was sane and correct.

As Hooper said, if your on the way to or from cp on the turnpike and are going to pass I-280, they usually have the best gas prices around in Toledo. The Flying J has anywhere from $.20 to even $.50 cheaper.

Yup you pretty much sum it up perfectly. The main reason why we still depend on oil, is because the lobbyists up in D.C. The big oil people help pay for the legislators campaigns. Now why would they piss them off?? We will eventually switch to something else, when the big oil companies get their hands involved and are making the money. You gotta like Brazil, it seems they have their head on straight.

After working at CP for a summer, I think worked at a BP gas station for 3 years. We got a 25 cents a gallon discount. Man, what I would do to get that discount now.......

Dave I agree with almost everything you have said. Production of these alternatives is pretty slim making these alternatives not very feasible. However there are still a few problems..

I can't speak to that. But some of that comes back in economies of scale and the efficiencies of mass production. The hybrid is a configuration that clearly makes sense, as the railroads have been using a form of that for decades with their diesel-electric locomotives. I see the hybrid as a logical evolution of the standard gasoline engine, nothing more than that. It's an attempt to solve the biggest problem with electric cars: you can't go from "empty" to "full charge" in less than five minutes. With a hybrid, you can. I imagine the next logical step will be a hybrid with a charging station in your garage so that you can run all-electric for short trips and still drive more than 60 miles a day.

In a locomotive, Hybrid technology works well, in a vehicle... not so much.

The cost of production and fuel consumed for production is still impractical. The fuel saved is not nearly as much as Toyota would like you to believe and the tax incentives have yet to show their selves for the consumers that have bought these vehicles expecting the tax incentives.

I'll use the Prius as an example here, have you driven one? They can barely get out of their own way. Which is what the consumer does not want. Consumers (Americans anyway) want horse power and efficiency. Not a roller-skate that gets great mileage..

In order to prove my point you need to look at the whole picture and not just the part where the vehicle is in the consumers hands.
Recycling the battery is expensive as well as the cost to manufacture the battery. Not only that, but the battery itself is worse for the environment than the gas it burns. Which is another problem, hybrids still burn plain ol gasoline.

Hybrids also still sell around $2-$3K more than the same vehicle without the technology. So in the long run, you pay $2K more for a vehicle that is not any better for the environment, is slower than your average vehicle and costs more to maintain.

Hybrids are just another alternative that are not feasible for mass markets.

Except that my point is that the major manufacturers have quietly re-engineered many of their engines to avoid these problems and allow for the use of E-85. I suspect they did it so that they could sell the same engines in Brazil that they sell in the USA and Canada. Why build cars in an ethanol version and in a gasoline version when you can make some changes mostly to materials and end up with an engine that doesn't care what fuel you run it on?

There has not been any quiet re-engineering inside General Motors. The way things are going right now for us, if we did that we would be telling the whole world what we have done instead of keeping it quiet. A flex fuel engine costs us more to make right now than a standard 6 cyl engine. The seals and special coatings cost us too much to put into every engine. As far as I know, DCX and Ford are not doing anything either and Toyota plans to have it's first Flex Fuel capable vehicle on the road in 2008. But they are staying mum on the what will be Flex Fuel capable at this time.

If I had an extra 3 or 4 grand to buy a new LY7 engine and put E-85 in it to show what would happen (this is one of our newer engines in the CTS and STS also a Buick) It's entirely impractical or us especially considering or financial situation ( I almost lost my new job a few weeks ago.)

The engines we use in Brazil are very very different from what we use here in the U.S. , EU and China. We are not very concerned with our global market regarding engines except in a few select markets. After all we are an automotive company concerned about financial gain.

Some countries require we do things differently.. In Brazil they are concerned about the environment more so than their own wallets, while here.. we want our wallets and our gas tanks full while still being able to take the guy off the line next to us.

We are currently working on vehicles in the year 2015+ We are developing engines that run on Hydrogen, a couple of hybrid models, and we still plan on Gasoline. There are even a couple of very nice alternatives that we are throwing around. I'm just a lowly CAD designer, but I've seen some great things...

It isn't a problem once it is in the car. The problem is in transportation and storage, where conditions are not quite as well controlled.

In a deal with Meijer and a few other stores we (GM) and DCX are going to provide proper transportation vehicles. With multi level tankers.

Short term, there really aren't any good answers. We do need someone to knock some sense into the commodities market, but as I noted earlier, until the oil glut unexpectedly appears and sends prices into a tailspin, it isn't going to happen.

Agreed!

Coastern3rd - do you work at the RenCen? Or GM Tech? Only reason I ask is because we are one of your biggest suppliers of weld guns, primarily for the GMT900T & GMT900SUV programs in Oshawa, Ft Wayne, Pontiac, Arlington & Janesville.

Coastern3rd said:
FACT: Hybrids, while they are a step in the right direction are worse for the environment. This is mostly due to the fact that they use more fuel to be produced, and then burn straight gasoline. What this means: A Toyota Prius will use more fuel in it's lifetime then a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe in its lifetime.

Show me the math. You're completely full of crap. You're suggesting that the production of the car causes hundreds, or in my case more than a thousand gallons of gas to be produced.

JuggaLotus said:
Nuclear isn't really a bad option. Yes nuclear waste is bad, however, the amount of waste created by a nuclear plant compared to its power output is WAY below that of a coal or natural gas fired plant.

Agreed, and that's something overlooked due to fear and misunderstanding. The waste produced by nuclear fuel is negligible for the power it produces. But here's the kicker... there doesn't have to be any waste at all. Due to a Carter-era regulation, that irrationally prohibits the recycling of the fuel (out of a ridiculous fear that it could be refined for weapons), we don't reuse it all. France does, and the waste is almost zero.

And that actually connects to yet another subject in this thread, namely the production of Hydrogen. A lot of the energy created in nuclear fission could be used to produce Hydrogen, but no one wants to do the initial investment to do it. Retrofitting existing plants would be expensive.

The president, while a moron, can't do anything about gas prices, and frankly I don't think he should. The price is a result of a free economy, and I just assume it be left alone to correct itself. Indeed, I'd blame the commodity markets before I'd blame the oil companies.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the oil companies don't have any control over how much they are able to sell a barrel of crude oil for do they? If I understand right, that's all controlled by the idjits on wall street.

I believe you are correct, John.

And I was not aware that nuclear waste could be recycled. That's interesting stuff, and its a shame its not more well known.

I'm curious as to the end result of the fusion reactor they are building... in Europe, I believe? Someone help me out here...

Show me the math. You're completely full of crap. You're suggesting that the production of the car causes hundreds, or in my case more than a thousand gallons of gas to be produced.

First of all, Way to ruin an otherwise good argument by stating I'm full of crap as you so colorfully put it, Jeff.

I'm sorry, i failed to realise you worked in the industry.

here is a healthy article for you to read, and its not just in production, it is over the total life of the vehicle. Read the full context of my argument and not just pieces of it.

http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3627

Dj,

I work at Powertrain Pontiac, where they used to build the fiero.. I wish I had something to do with the new 900 truck platoform. I still have yet to see one.

Source: Bloomberg.com

Commodity: Price: Change % Change Time
Nymex Crude Future 75.10 1.41 1.91 14:23

What this means to your wallet:

In approx 30 to 60 days (dependent on settlement date of trade) you will be paying $ 75.10 / 43 x 2 for regular gasoline at your neighborhood station...

(That's 3.499 for you math challenged.)

Sheesh, I'm ALMOST dreading the drive from NH, especially blasting through NY. Thank god I bought a smaller car two weeks ago (from a '91 Olds minivan to a '94 Chevy Corsica). Anyway, I'm gotta be at CP to process in on May 1st.

This is going to put a crip on my trips to Geauga and King's Island, unless I can get some friends to pitch in for gas...

I find this very interesting. From Michigan Gov. Granholm

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-22080-141415--,00.html

It's a on-line petition to Pres. Bush... Funny a Governor would be asking for Bush to do something about this when some of us believe there is nothing the president can do.

Dear Mr. President:

I’m joining Governor Jennifer Granholm in asking you to immediately ask Congress to stop letting big oil reap excessive profits at my expense each time I fill up my vehicle. Please insist that Congress put a bill on your desk by Memorial Day that caps corporate oil profits and lowers gas prices, protecting consumers from further abuse.

You’ve said that government has a responsibility to watch and investigate possible price gouging. Leaders in Washington need to act NOW to protect families’ budgets and prevent runaway fuel cost inflation from further straining the economy.

Thank you,