1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Gasoline - Stray thoughts

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Libsmasher, May 30, 2008.

  1. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where I am, gasoline is now $4.14/ gallon at the cheaper stations. Because the price of gas has been turned into a political football by libs, because of ecofascism, and because politicians and others seem strangely blind to one of the key reasons for higher costs - that its price is controlled by a cartel, I think the price of gas will never come down, and the ever-increasing price will continue to cause ever-mounting destruction to american society. I'm sure arabs are laughing themselves sick at the political paralysis.

    Whereas I always hope for the best, I plan and act for the way things are. I've heard that a lot of people who take summer driving vacations are cutting them back. This is exactly wrong - if you can afford the gas, and you take such vacations, you should drive like crazy and do everything you want to do, because it will only get more expensive - I predict $7/gallon this time next year.
     
  2. Here We Go

    Here We Go New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]Once upon a time, while living in a palatial lean-to in an alley, a loving mother cares for her children. Ok children, let’s be thankful for the discarded door roof over our heads. Also, for the three cans of vienna sausage and day old bread Daddy brings us with the money he has left over after buying gas to get to work.
     
  3. revolution4PAUL

    revolution4PAUL New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So much for land of the free home of the brave..... When are people going to get angry enough to kick these mother fockers out of power? When are people going to realize that in the past 24 years its been the same two families running our country- Bush and Clinton. When are people going to realize that we could be saving thousands of dollars by using hydrogen and not gas. If anyone has question about hydrogen tech, just ask and I'll get into more detail about the potentials.


    RON PAUL REVOLUTION

    ~PEACE~
     
  4. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Potentials" you say? I am to drive to work using your pie-in-the-sky "potentials"? :)
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hydrogen is a scam. The technology thus far is far more expensive, both in initial cost, and for continued use.
     
  6. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    they all are at first. A dvd player use to cost 1000 bucks, now its 19.99.
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah one difference is that good technologies do not need Federal funding in order to be successful. DVDs never needed a government subsidy. The reason is because those in the market new it would be successful and profitable without them.

    However, Hydrogen as fuel, is similar to Ethanol as a fuel, in that no one produces Ethanol without a government subsidy, because without it, Ethanol is economically bankrupt. Hydrogen as a fuel is the same.

    Currently, I only know of 3 specific way to create Hydrogen. Which, that in itself is an issue. Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen must be created. Wood is a fuel, you can go chop down a tree and use it. Oil is a fuel, you pump it and use it. Hydrogen... is not found in nature in pure consistent quantities.

    Hydrogen must be created, and whatever energy source you use to create it, is the 'fuel'. If you burn coal to make electricity to turn water into Hydrogen... the coal is the actual fuel.

    But back to the 3 ways of making Hydrogen.

    CHEMICAL: First and least known, is a chemical break down of water. This involves putting water into a solution with fuel rods that are reactive and cause the break down of the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Problem: The fuel rods are very expensive and use precious metals, and the containment system is expensive, plus the cost of a fuel cell system to covert the newly created Hydrogen back into electricity to move the car. So very expensive. The fuel rod would need replaced about twice a year for around $300-$500 per rod. This system holds the most promise, but is extremely cost prohibitive. So a major break through would have to happen.

    ELECTROLYSIS: The second and most known, is the break down of water using a electrical current through dissimilar plates submerged in water. The key here is the amount of electrical power to do this is incredibly high.

    This leads to a situation where the amount of power (and thus money) needed to create hydrogen using this method, is many times greater than that needed to charge a battery. Thus it would be cheaper to simply charge an electric car, than power a hydrogen generator with electricity and fuel the car with that. Plus the cost of an electric car is a fraction of that of a fuel cell. So, more expensive to build and buy, and more expensive to fuel. Better to stick with batteries.

    REFINING: The final, lesser known, yet most used method, is breaking down of high hydrogen content material into hydrogen gas. The high hydrogen content material being, namely, oil.

    This is the dirty truth of governments push for hydrogen. This is why the oil companies push for hydrogen instead of fight it. It's this: The largest source of pure hydrogen comes from breaking down oil (hydro-carbons). The oil companies know this, and that's why they push for "The Freedom Car" which will free us from Oil, by using hydrogen.... which is produced from Oil, which we'll then be free of.... huh?

    The other methods are far too expensive and too limited, and do not produces enough consistent clean pure hydrogen as this method. Yet this method will be just as dependent on Oil, as we currently are already. Thus we will spend billions in government subsidies, thousands to buy expensive small cars with this system on it, and all this cost passed on to us the consumer, in order to never reach the goal claimed... being oil independence. Meanwhile, the oil companies will charge us more for hydrogen than oil (because it's more expensive to do), and at the same time will receive tax payer funding to do it. (we pay them to make it, then pay them to buy it. Isn't government great?)

    In conclusion... IT IS A SCAM.

    Also, as a side note, the DVD comparison is a bit off base. The reason why DVDs cost $1K when they first came out... had nothing to do with the cost of materials and production. It had to do with low supply and high demand. DVD players didn't get any cheaper to build, the market became more saturated and the supply became more prevalent.

    However none of that is at issue here. The problem here is the extensive precious metals that must be used (they won't be coming down in price, and in fact using them may jack the price up like Hybrids have done to Nickel). Unless there is a major scientific break through, the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars will always be incredibly high.

    One may hold out hope for such a break through, but consider the all the research of NASA (where fuel cell technology came from) has been mulling this over for since the 1960s, and the technology was invented in 1845. My guess is, if they have not made some great leaps in 160 years, and in 50 years of subsidized government research... Ah... don't hold your breath.
     
  8. all_arm

    all_arm New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    this is the method that is being studied.

    apparently, they have recently developed a fuel cell that uses a nickel-tin alloy instead of precious metals, and the technology is on pace to meet the department of energy's goal of $30/kw by 2010, which will allow a 140 hp engine to be produced for $3000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Fuel_cell_cost)

    i'm no fuel-cell expert, but it seems like this technology could very well by viable within 5 years or so, along with other options like pzev hybrids, and plug-in electrics like the chevrolet volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt)

    we definitely need to accelerate the development of these technologies though, hopefully president obama will provide for that in his green energy initiative. :)
     
  9. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama would shell out billions of taxpayer dollars for "technologies" - it'd all come to nothing.
     
  10. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Errr... BUZZ! Wrong answer!

    See, this is why I believe nearly all Democrats are complete hypocrites. Start a thread on 'Bush bad!' and you'll see dozens of posts about how horrible it is that we have a 9 trillion national debt... yet when issues come up for debate, what's the first thing Democraps run to? SPEND SPEND SPEND! We need money to development of technologies!

    There is no money for this. Stop spending us into oblivion!

    Second... the governments track record on this is horrible. Why do we never learn from the past? Did you completely erase from your memory the millions given to GM to develop batteries? Or the billions spent on the Ethanol farce? How many more billions are you going to blow on government funded research before you figure this out?

    If the technology is good and sound, then it will be developed by the free market without government funds. If it isn't, then your blowing billions on nothing, like that last 20 years have shown.

    That said, I was totally and completely wrong. The issue is not precious metals, as you correctly stated. It's Nickel. Nickel is the cost issue. The cost of nickel has gone up nearly 620% since 2000. The reason is due to it's wide use in Hybrid cars. In early 2002, Nickel was under $3 per pound. Now it's hitting $8 per pound, with some areas buying for $15 per pound. This trend will explode if Hydrogen cars are introduced requiring for more nickel than hybrids. In other words... We need a scientific breakthrough that moves off of Nickel.
     
  11. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Sometimes there are large technical things that need to make it work, that make it not cost effective to start with though, also market forces do not always react to demand well when they are not forced to. Dvds where not some really new thing, but rather a lot of things that where being put to new uses. Where as this change is a much bigger change to go to mass produced Fuel Cells that perform as well as people expect in a car. By the same idea, one could say the cure for some Disease well be found because it will make money...but that does not mean Government help, can make that cure come a lot faster or make sure it happens at all.
     
  12. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Thank you for those well thought out "facts" now would you care to add something of value to the conversation?
     
  13. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patent nonsense - free markets always respond to demand.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's really an excuse. If it was simply a matter of initial setup expenses, then why not have the corporations pay for it? See the alternative is government grants to corporations for such and such R&D.

    For example, my corporation where I work, makes power systems for large / industrial vehicles like RVs, Busses, 18 wheelers. Now several years back the product we now sell, wasn't yet made. Instead of paying some engineers to make it, we got federal grants to have the tax payers foot the bill. And they did, and we're selling the product we created for free. The company board members got a sweet bonus package for it too.

    I just recently found out the company plans to make a new product. We are purposefully not funding R&D on it because the company CEO is sure he can secure another government grant for it (and of course secure another huge bonus for doing so).

    In both cases, we could (and would if we had to) fund the research ourselves, but we're not because we're going to take YOUR tax money for it. In a way, I should be happy about it since I'll likely get a huge profit sharing check. Profit is easy to secure when you are not funding R&D for any of your products (at tax payer expense of course).

    But the hypocrite issue comes up again. Isn't it the Democrats who talk about how horrible corporate welfare is? Yet here you promote it! Oddly, me the non-democrat is against it, yet I'm benefiting from it. You should be against it, yet your for it. I should be for it, yet I'm against it! Irony!

    But oddly, you made my point. There was nothing new about DVD technology at the time. It was old tech used in a new way. So the $1,000 first offering price tag was not due to some great manufacturing technique or the drop in price because the material somehow 'got cheap'. It was simply supply and demand at work.

    Again, the problem with hydrogen technology isn't simply that it needs mass produced and it will become cheaper, it won't. It's the cost of materials. Just because it's cost effective for NASA with infinite federal dollars, doesn't mean it will work for Joe and Jane on a $50K a year income.

    This is the whole problem in my mind. If hydrogen fuel worked, and was cost effective by any stretch, the military would have started using it ages ago. Further, hydrogen power has been researched for ages since before the 60s. Many here seem to act like, 'if we just fund research for it'... what are you talking about? We have for 50 some odd years!

    "Well yeah, but if we just dump even more money on this problem it will suddenly instantly just pop a solution into existence unlike the last 50 years... I just know it"

    What are you talking about? If all the funding of military research into it's use, and all the NASA research into it's use, hasn't come up with something for over 50 years, and that's not including all the pet projects from corporations and universities all over the planet... why oh why do you think it will suddenly happen now?

    Because Obama said "yes we can" over and over? Time to grow up. Dreaming is great, but let's not sell out future generation in an ever increasing debt for it. When the new break through scientific discovery happens, we'll deal with it then.
     
  15. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Part of the issue is, car companies if they wanted could never make the thing work, and so long as people bought cars , it would not effect them. But the Problems caused by Gas powered Cars, Oil Dependency, and other such factors make getting US Oil use down a major issue for the government as well. I mean honestly most people know the only reason we are in Iraq, or in the middle east at all, is basically for oil. When people look at Global warming, and the real risk is has to everyone, the government has a job to work on this issue. Ways to do this are alt fuels, thus The Government has its own goals that may not meet with goals the auto industry may place on alt fuels.

    I for one don't wish to see US Policy based on hoping the CEO of GM, Ford and Dodge do what we want for us just for profits. If Say Ford makes it work, and had Fuel Cells out in 10 years in mass, ( not that I think its that soon) Ford would yes make a great deal of money out it, but if i does fail, it stands to lose a great deal. The Government has a Great Deal to Gain as well, and a lot to lose If we don't find new ways to get power. Thus it seems logical that the Government should be willing to help ( not pay for, but help) cover some of the costs of tech that is of great interest to it.

    and to be real, its realy down to GM or Ford, Dodge is still lost in 1960 or something I think. Ford was slow , but starting to get it now. And GM,,,,well half there cars they decided to rather then make them get better mpg...they would just say they will pay for part of your gas for 3 years.. Is it any wonder Japan and Korea have most of the cars people want?
     
Loading...

Share This Page