Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

louis · 2021-06-16 17:00:46

I haven't read it yet but I agree with your summary. We are heading to a new serfdom. This is not because of green energy which promises huge prosperity across the world but because of elitist anti-populist forces allying to crush people's aspirations. There is a very poisonous alliance of mega-rich globalists, Far Leftists, CCP Communists, Islamists, PC ideologues, extreme feminists, race-based identitarians, Big Pharma, and Big Tech all seeking to destroy nation states and populist movements. Obviously this is a fairweather alliance, many parts of the alliance hating other parts but as we saw in WW2, such alliances can hold while they focus fire on the enemy. The enemy is us: the mass of people who aren't dogmatists and are simply looking for modest material improvement, peace and reasonable safety. The evil alliance latches on to genuine issues of concern like green energy, climate change, anti-racism. social equality, gender equality, or world poverty and uses them as wedges to drive division in society. The World Economic Forum (Davos) is at the centre of much of this. The UK government is basically following the whole Davos agenda.

Calliban wrote:

The latest article from Tim Watkins (a UK based economist and policy researcher) on the economic prospects of a post COVID world. Written from a UK perspective, but a valid analysis for the US as well.
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2021 … th-spiral/
It makes sobering reading. It will also give me pause for thought next time I complain about my wages. His articles summarise the growing problems that we face more succinctly than I could hope to. We face a return to Feudalism, as a tiny, but wealthy, mobile, global super-rich; determine the politics and values of an increasingly impoverished underclass, that own nothing and have no rights.

kbd512 · 2021-06-16 22:03:50

Louis,

If the elitists are the ones pushing green energy, then how will that lead to prosperity, presuming you believe the rest of what you stated?

kbd512 · 2021-06-16 23:44:31

What's everyone's thoughts on Brilliant Light Power's (BLP), formerly Black Light Power, Hydrino energy extraction system?

If we can extract roughly 25,000 times more energy from Hydrinos than by burning Hydrogen or anything else, by transforming Hydrogen into what they call Hydrinos, would that provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels?

It uses TPVs, and that's a type of PV, so does it qualify for "green magic" status?

According to Dr. Randell Mills, 1 liter of water contains enough energy from Hydrinos to drive a Tesla approximately 2,200 miles, so you don't need much in the way of battery power. 5% of the energy is used to continue the reaction and the other 95% is available for use. It doesn't produce any long-lived radioactivity, although it does produce extreme amounts of heat and EUV light, enough to liquefy many kilograms of Tungsten in mere seconds if the reaction isn't controlled, apparently. This thing has been tested by professors from at least a dozen big name science and engineering universities across America and Europe. All of them say that it works as advertised and they've done short duration and endurance testing to measure exactly how much energy in vs energy out that they were getting, six ways to Sunday. If he's truly selling snake oil, then he's fooled an awful lot of supposed experts at this point from most of the developed world.

BLPs reactor vessel does use Gallium metal to help facilitate the reaction, but very little, it doesn't get "used up" in any way, and the reactor vessel is made from Inconel or Tungsten or Carbon, with TPVs surrounding it, or Silver plasma-based for their MHD apparatus. Their 250kWe unit cost them around $5,500 USD to build. That's about what used 300hp to 400hp LS engines in junkyards go for, so that seems pretty reasonable. He's claiming that a capital investment of around $210B could replace just about every power source in the world except for batteries used in portable electronics.

I have no idea how true any of this is, but I'm always on the lookout for new energy technology and thought I'd throw this out there since we're just "throwing stuff at the wall" to see if anything sticks. If it does work, then maybe we can come up with enough surplus energy for The Green New Steal.

Calliban · 2021-06-17 01:39:18

Kbd512, in my opinion, Louis's political assessment is a valid assessment of the state we're in. But having done the maths, I don't see wind and solar power coming to our rescue in any way. Maybe I have overlooked something. Time will tell.

I had not heard of hydrinos. It sounds a lot like LENR / Cold Fusion. If it works, then it is clearly a game changing technology and would solve just about every energy problem that we have. If 1kg of water can release that much energy, then it is clearly an important technology for space travel as well. A lot of physicists and technologists, if they cannot understand how it works in a conventional physics framework, will assume that it doesn't work. Again, time will tell.

At the moment, big oil companies have a lot of spare cash that essentially has nowhere to go. They cannot afford more exploration and are running out of places to explore. The world just doesn't have any conventional oil deposits left that aren't already developed. I would expect that if there is any value in this invention, big oil will begin pouring money into it soon.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-17 01:41:31)

kbd512 · 2021-06-17 04:02:40

Calliban,

I didn't say his political opinions were valid or invalid, rather, if you think the governments are trying to control everything and they're pushing this "green energy" agenda despite an apparent lack of results, then why continue to support it?

I like the idea of powering everything with the Sun. It's a fine idea. The major problem, as you noted, is that the math doesn't work.

Anyway, Dr. Mills has theorized that "dark energy" is simply atomic Hydrogen in an energy state that doesn't radiate. Since the atomic Hydrogen he's producing acts the same way, maybe, just maybe, he's onto something (the idea that all that missing matter and energy is attributable to Hydrogen that's in an energy state that doesn't radiate). All the other theories have no evidence, so I'm going with empirical measurement from novel lab experiments on atomic Hydrogen that, oddly enough, produce the same noted effects, until we the astrophysicists can show us evidence or math that adds up.

Oil companies are not nearly so well funded as you or whomever you're listening to, imagines them to be. OPEC may be different, but the rest of the producers are not OPEC.

Calliban · 2021-06-17 08:09:15

Alice Friedmann discusses the low energy return of Solar PV in northern climates (EROI <1 and a net energy sink). Solar modules are typically scrapped after 17-18 years - most EROI studies assume 25-30 year life.
https://energyskeptic.com/2021/negative … rn-europe/

Whole system EROI needs to be 10-14 to sustain an industrial society. This is impossible for PV as things stand, on Earth or Mars and we cannot therefore reasonably expect PV to replace the energy that we receive from fossil fuels on Earth, or provide the energy needed to drive Martian colonisation. For a PV powerplant built in free space at Earth distance from the sun, exposed to 1350W/m2 of sunlight 24/7, I think the conclusion would be different. But world political leaders expecting PV to be the bedrock technology for an energy transition are going to see those hopes dashed. Solar module prices are up 40% just this year.

For wind power, the embodied energy requirements are less excessive, EROI is as high as 20 before storage and there are better prospects for wind energy contributing to a global energy transition. Unless required embodied energy declines substantially, the rapid solar PV build out of the second decade of the 21st century, is likely to be remembered in the same way that the rush to build hydrogen filled airships in the early 20th century, is remembered today. A romantic idea, which looked like a sure bet for a while, but ultimately proved to be unsustainable.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-17 08:17:12)

louis · 2021-06-17 09:00:18

The Bolsheviks were very keen on electrification of the villages...doesn't mean they weren't oppressors and manipulators. Likewise the
NSs in Germany pushed autobahns, very state of the art for motor transport. But their principal concern was not the betterment of the nation, rather they were on a power trip.

If you trust people like Karl Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg with your future you deserve all you get!

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
If the elitists are the ones pushing green energy, then how will that lead to prosperity, presuming you believe the rest of what you stated?

louis · 2021-06-17 09:05:01

BLP have been making this claims for ages now. I became very disillusioned with the claims of LENR researchers having previously followed them closely. If BLP have finally come up with something well that's great. But the record in this area has been bad. I still think there's something "there". IIRC BLP experiments involve tiny amounts of energy so are not very indicative of anything.

kbd512 wrote:

What's everyone's thoughts on Brilliant Light Power's (BLP), formerly Black Light Power, Hydrino energy extraction system?
If we can extract roughly 25,000 times more energy from Hydrinos than by burning Hydrogen or anything else, by transforming Hydrogen into what they call Hydrinos, would that provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels?
It uses TPVs, and that's a type of PV, so does it qualify for "green magic" status?
According to Dr. Randell Mills, 1 liter of water contains enough energy from Hydrinos to drive a Tesla approximately 2,200 miles, so you don't need much in the way of battery power. 5% of the energy is used to continue the reaction and the other 95% is available for use. It doesn't produce any long-lived radioactivity, although it does produce extreme amounts of heat and EUV light, enough to liquefy many kilograms of Tungsten in mere seconds if the reaction isn't controlled, apparently. This thing has been tested by professors from at least a dozen big name science and engineering universities across America and Europe. All of them say that it works as advertised and they've done short duration and endurance testing to measure exactly how much energy in vs energy out that they were getting, six ways to Sunday. If he's truly selling snake oil, then he's fooled an awful lot of supposed experts at this point from most of the developed world.
BLPs reactor vessel does use Gallium metal to help facilitate the reaction, but very little, it doesn't get "used up" in any way, and the reactor vessel is made from Inconel or Tungsten or Carbon, with TPVs surrounding it, or Silver plasma-based for their MHD apparatus. Their 250kWe unit cost them around $5,500 USD to build. That's about what used 300hp to 400hp LS engines in junkyards go for, so that seems pretty reasonable. He's claiming that a capital investment of around $210B could replace just about every power source in the world except for batteries used in portable electronics.
I have no idea how true any of this is, but I'm always on the lookout for new energy technology and thought I'd throw this out there since we're just "throwing stuff at the wall" to see if anything sticks. If it does work, then maybe we can come up with enough surplus energy for The Green New Steal.

louis · 2021-06-17 09:08:08

There is nothing wrong with advancing the green energy economy which is where the future lies. There is everything wrong in stopping hard working people having a holiday abroad or owning a car. The World Economic Forum (Davos) explicitly want to stop people owning cars or travelling in jets for holidays.

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
I didn't say his political opinions were valid or invalid, rather, if you think the governments are trying to control everything and they're pushing this "green energy" agenda despite an apparent lack of results, then why continue to support it?
I like the idea of powering everything with the Sun. It's a fine idea. The major problem, as you noted, is that the math doesn't work.

kbd512 · 2021-06-17 10:13:08

Calliban,

I had no idea it was that bad. Now I understand why the Germans are burning so much coal and gas. So many of these wild assumptions that our green energy zealots base their ideology upon are objectively false, by direct observation of how long a solar panel actually lasts, how fast it degrades, how often they fail in operation, etc. Those direct observations of the PV situation in Germany means pretty much anywhere you go on Mars, it's utterly hopeless for merely maintaining human civilization there, never mind increasing economic output to the point where it's self-sustaining. At best, you might be able to break even in certain places. If you can't do that, then the entire endeavor fails without outside intervention. To your point, in its own special way, PV is a "bedrock" technology. Widely implementing it ensures that the global economy hits bedrock after it slams into the ground. Surely offshore wind power is much better than that, though. If wind power is out of the question as well, then I sure hope Dr. Mills invention actually works, or we're pretty screwed.

kbd512 · 2021-06-17 10:22:46

louis wrote:

BLP have been making this claims for ages now. I became very disillusioned with the claims of LENR researchers having previously followed them closely. If BLP have finally come up with something well that's great. But the record in this area has been bad. I still think there's something "there". IIRC BLP experiments involve tiny amounts of energy so are not very indicative of anything.

Well, they're measuring 20 MegaWatts of EUV per micro Liter now because they finally solved the plasma instability and photon recycling problems.

Apart from a bolt of lightning or a solar flare, do you know of anything else with that kind of power density?

I don't.

kbd512 · 2021-06-17 10:40:33

louis wrote:

There is nothing wrong with advancing the green energy economy which is where the future lies. There is everything wrong in stopping hard working people having a holiday abroad or owning a car. The World Economic Forum (Davos) explicitly want to stop people owning cars or travelling in jets for holidays.

Louis,

There's no future in something that fundamentally doesn't work for at least half of the people on the planet. I value empirical evidence over claims that contradict the available evidence. The reason the electricity rates only go up as more PV and wind are installed is because those energy sources require 2 or even 3 complete separate power plants and numerous grid upgrades to replace a CCGT or nuclear reactor. The electricity rates paid by the consumers are a real phenomenon, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

If electricity rates are increasing as more and more wind and solar are installed, and electricity rates are objectively increasing, then it's because it costs more to deliver the power using wind and solar, not less. I have yet to see you address that fundamental truth. You're either ignoring it or pretending that it doesn't exist or hoping that some radical performance improvement will materialize for technologies that have been in use for more than half a century, because simply acknowledging that fact doesn't agree with your worldview on wind and solar energy. That's ideology at play, not science. An objective person doesn't look at dramatic increases in electricity rates as more wind and solar come online and think to themselves, "Well, this must be due to some other phenomenon unconnected to what's so obvious- namely, that the rate increases were caused by the abysmal energy return of wind and solar as compared to fossil fuels."

kbd512 · 2021-06-17 11:15:31

louis wrote:

The Bolsheviks were very keen on electrification of the villages...doesn't mean they weren't oppressors and manipulators. Likewise the
NSs in Germany pushed autobahns, very state of the art for motor transport. But their principal concern was not the betterment of the nation, rather they were on a power trip.
If you trust people like Karl Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg with your future you deserve all you get!

Louis,

No, I don't trust people like that, nor the "green energy" agenda they're peddling, specifically because the basic math doesn't work out and the ideological echo chamber they've created for other people with near zero engineering knowledge gleefully ignores observable reality in favor of a fundamental lie / misrepresentation of how well those technologies actually work. To wit, wind / solar / batteries are not any sort of like-kind replacement for fossil fuels at all, period and end of story.

At all other times in human history when the total energy supply decreased, we experienced a rapid and highly destructive economic contraction that made life far worse for everyone, not better, and was often fatal to poor people. So, no, I don't approve of these yahoos preaching economic destruction to people who clearly don't understand what they're being led into by these evil clowns with evil agendas. It's astonishing that people like you who claim to distrust those people don't stop to ask themselves why they're so blindly following their agendas. I guess if they dress up the pig fancy enough, they can bedazzle you with their BS. Confirmation bias much?

For example, solar power "works" in Texas specifically because Texas is subjected to blazing sun for nearly every month of the year. Solar power does not work in Germany, AT ALL! They had nuclear reactors, which they shut down, so now they're burning more coal and gas, not less. The German government "caring" about making energy choices intended to stop climate change was clearly a big bright shining L-I-E, put on display for all the world to see. It's about ideology, plain and simple.

I don't get it. There's no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. It's just a landfill piled sky-high with toxic electronic waste. It pisses me off that we don't have a better solution with all the money and brainpower we've thrown at our energy problems, but I won't simply sit quietly and watch while these clowns screw over everyone else so that they can make that last dollar off of something that they know doesn't work, and even state as much in public the way Warren Buffett did. For goodness sake, stop buying into their fraud, do some math that involves observational evidence of actual performance, rather than the glittering claims of companies trying to sell their product, and then see if you still feel the same way about what you're supporting.

I'm not enamored with combustion engines or nuclear reactors because that's what I want my children's future to be. However, I do want them to be economically prosperous, but that's not possible with "green energy". I can do enough simple math to understand what is or isn't feasible using current technology and when someone is obfuscating something about their numbers. Right now, that stuff is the best we have, and sadly, not for "lack of trying" to develop something better.

Calliban · 2021-06-17 11:43:36

It is a lot worse than just rising electricity prices. Remember that all of our thermal energy needs, 97% of our transport energy needs and almost all industrial energy needs aside from electricity, are still met by fossil fuels. Electricity is only 15-30% of consumed energy, depending on where you live. And solar is a tiny fraction of that, with electricity supply still dominated by fossil fuels. There is no hope whatsoever of providing large amounts of power using a technology that is a net energy sink. A solar PV panel is really just Chinese coal energy, stored in silicon and then released somewhere else. It might as well be a disposable battery. What happens when the Chinese coal production begins declining and they stop being so generous?

At least wind turbines provide a semi-decent net energy return. The intermittent generation costs a lot of money to deal with. But we could use these things to generate power if we didn't mind being poor. Solar PV just isn't going to work at any level when the subsidy of cheap fossil fuels is removed from their manufacture.

kbd512 · 2021-06-17 16:23:54

Calliban,

I'm of the opinion that we could do more to electrify vehicles like trains and use some hybrid power on ships, but land passenger vehicles are right at the edge of technological feasibility, electric heavy duty trucks are still a pipe dream, and electric airliners are still wildly impractical. That's why we need something fundamentally better, like Hydrinos or Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions. Both NASA and the US Navy say LENR is real, so that's good enough for me, even though I want to see a commercial application in the near future. After everyone else gets down off their high horse, it's time to put development of that tech into Ludicrous Mode, because PV and batteries aren't going to cut it. BEVs are to EVs as Space Shuttle is to Starship. It was a good first attempt, and better than never trying to build something better at all, but it also fell short of the goal- namely, affordable / reliable / indefinitely sustainable personal transportation to help drive economic growth and personal freedom.

If it turns out that Hydrinos or whatever energy generation effect they purportedly create is real (science can call it the "ooga-booga" effect for all I care), and there's evidence that they are (such as individual solar flares producing more total power output than the entire Sun, for example, which should be utterly impossible unless there's another energy source causing that to occur), then we should most definitely use that technology for everything it's worth, because there's no shortage of Hydrogen.

Calliban · 2021-06-18 09:05:59

I think that if the political classes remotely understood the energy supply crisis that looms ahead of us, there would be a panicked rush into developing better public transportation and rail infrastructure, rather than battery-electric vehicles that 99% of people cannot afford. Here is the latest news on our oil supply situation.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … risis.html

This essentially means that another Great Recession is now baked in and unavoidable, maybe two years away at most. Global oil production peaked in November 2018 at 84.6mbpd. We are now 10mbpd down from that peak. Large increases in production are going to be difficult to achieve, as drilling and exploration budgets have slumped since 2014. But the truth is that the world is running out of places left to explore and oil deposits that can be exploited at a decent net energy return.
https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/t … _large.jpg

For all the hoo-ha about electric vehicles, these represent a tiny fraction of automobiles on the road. They do nothing to address the approaching oil crisis because: (1) So far EVs have only made a modest penetration into the luxury automobile market and are much more expensive... (2) Automobiles are responsible for only 20% of oil-energy consumed in advanced economies...(3) Most of which is gasoline, which is a waste product of the oil industry. The really valuable oil derived fuel is diesel, which powers the world's ships, trucks, trains and aeroplanes. These are the prime movers of the real goods economy. In essence, the entire real goods economy runs on diesel power. With the minor exception of electrified railways, which are mostly legacy infrastructure, electric vehicles haven't done a thing to reduce our dependence on oil based energy. The small quantity of BEV vehicles sold to mostly wealthy individuals, has done nothing to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It is a pointless, token effort. In many ways, by reducing refiners profits from otherwise useless petrol, BEVs will aggrevate the oil supply problem, by reducing the price than refiners can afford to pay for oil and increasing the profitable price for diesel. It is diesel that powers the wealth creating parts of our economy.

Likewise the supposedly huge investments in renewable electricity, have done nothing to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels. A decade ago, shortly after the Great Recession, fossil fuels provided 80.3% of global delivered energy needs. After 10 years of rapid growth in renewable electricity sources, in which we are assured that the end of fossil fuels was just around the corner, fossil fuel energy provides 80.2% of delivered energy. Wind a solar power make an almost negligible contribution to global energy supply.

People need to pull their heads out of the sand. The fact of the matter is that ten years from now, we are more likely to bike to work than we are to use a Tesla, assuming we still have jobs. Cars will still use IC engines, but fewer people will be able to afford them. Fossil fuel production will decline, because people will be poorer and less able to afford the products made from it, not because we found anything better. This is the trajectory that we are on.

Things that might help us in the future:

(1) Better rail networks, capable of delivering goods to transportation nodes, using less energy per tonne-km than trucks, with road based vehicles transporting goods to and from nodes, rather than point to point.

(2) Efficient solid oxide fuel cells for trains, trucks and ships. These could reduce fuel energy consumption per tonne-km by at least one third and could work on low sulphur gasoline or LPG, dramatically reducing diesel consumption and improving the profitability of oil production.

(3) Better public transport, including trains and trams, but especially buses. Buses are far more flexible than automobiles, and could be powered by diesel, gasoline, natural gas in a roof tank, flywheels, hydraulic cylinders and compressed air. Unlike trams, they do not depend as heavily of purpose built infrastructure, like rails and overhead catenary.

(4) A return to cycling as a major mode of transportation.

(5) Velomobiles. Small, fully enclosed vehicles that are either entirely human powered, or more commonly, electrically assisted. These achieve greater energy efficiency than a bicycle, but offer many of the benefits of a car.

(6) Greater use of walking.

(7) Home working. Around a third of those still in employment are already doing this. It is likely to continue.

(8) Combined cycle gas turbines. These convert chemical energy in gas into electrical energy with efficiency up to 60%. They can use integrated biogas, biomass gasification and even coal gas as feed. Hydrogen energy storage can be integrated into these units, for short-term energy storage. A well integrated system would use waste heat from electrolysis cells to pre-heat feed water in the steam cycle.

(9) A renaissance in nuclear regulation, reducing costs.

(10) The development of small modular, high-temperature nuclear reactors, capable of generating electric power and forming part of synthetic fuel production.

(11) Solar-assisted coal and biomass powerplants, with inbuilt thermal energy storage. Using solar thermal energy to pre-heat feed water can reduce fuel consumption per MWh by around 10% in a coal burning powerplant. Excess electricity from the grid can be stored as heat in molten salt and used to raise steam, with super-heat then provided by a coal or biomass boiler. Ultra-critical steam cycles now reach efficiency approaching 50%. Thermal energy storage in hybrid powerplants is a relatively low-cost energy storage option, that achieves respectable whole cycle efficiency.

(12) Grid connected storage heaters, that switch on when power is over abundant and can store a weeks worth of heat for hot water and a couple of days worth of space heat. A low capital cost option for absorbing excess electricity from wind farms, as wind energy conveniently produces more power in the winter.

(13) Small, fuel efficient petrol or LNG driven automobiles, equipped with hybrid propulsion. Hybrid propulsion options are more likely to focus on hydraulic accumulators or flywheels, which absorb braking energy and provide acceleration energy. Top speeds will be limited. Cars will be smaller, lighter and will carry minimal gadgets. The design intent will be to improve fuel economy, whilst also reducing capital cost. This will be the best marketing strategy for manufacturers, whose customers are getting poorer.

There are undoubtedly a lot more options. But these are just a few that come to mind. Absent very low cost electricity, which doesn't seem to be on the cards, mass car culture is going to decline along with the low cost liquid fuels that enabled it. Automobiles are a very energy intensive mode of transportation. They were made possible by temporarily cheap liquid fossil fuels and the economic boom allowed by very low cost fossil energy, whose only expense was digging it out of the ground. In the poorer world of the future, cars will be smaller, there will be fewer of them. They will still run on gasoline, but with better mpg and generally lower top speed and poorer acceleration.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-18 10:39:17)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-06-18 11:20:37

Calliban-
I completely understand your orientation because of where you live. Most Europeans don't fathom the magnitude of the problem we face here in the USA, due to the size of the country. Public Transportation is only within the big, major cities and rural areas are entirely dependent on fossil fuel operated private vehicles. EVs are a joke because they don't have adequate range for use in the Western United States. I would personally love to have a Tesla as a SECOND car. One for in-town use and local errands, shopping, etc. My current car is a Mini Cooper which gets ~ 30 mpg, yet still has adequate performance for taking long trips. I see the so-called Full Size automobiles becoming obsolescent in the next few years as fuel prices skyrocket. The current fuel prices are based on political decisions about fracking, and pipelines to move crude oil, not lack of the resource.

Calliban · 2021-06-18 13:10:50

High oil prices are a direct result of global depletion of conventional oil reserves. With each passing year, more and more oil producing nations pass their production peaks, after which production begins irreversible decline. It happened in the US in 1971 and conventional oil production has fallen ever since. UK North Sea production peaked in 1999. Production has declined by 2/3rds. There is no means whatever of reversing that decline. Most OPEC countries are now past peak. China peaked in 2015. Only a handful of OPEC countries still have spare capacity
https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-june-2021/

Russia is the latest country to reach peak.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/04/ … ent-a73558

Tight oil (shale oil) refers to oil trapped in pores within sedimentary rock deposits. Because the oil is not free flowing, hydraulic fracturing is needed to free the oil. Each well can only access oil from a relatively small volume of rock. It therefore has high depletion rate- about 60% per year - compared to 2-5% for conventional oil wells. This means a much higher rate of drilling is needed to maintain production. Even at very low interest and bond rates, shale oil has not been profitable. The US was able to increase production by several million barrels per day, by running up debts of hundreds of billions of dollars. Production is now collapsing. The decision by the Biden administration to cancel the Alberta pipeline, will make it difficult to increase production again. Canadian syncrude is needed to blend shale oil, to produce a mixture with the right API for US refiners.

SpaceNut · 2021-06-18 17:19:27

To continue with thought of Oldfart1939 for distances between where we live and where we can find work. Most are trying to live in the cities that they work in but slow as time passes the amount to house one's self puts working and living in the same location generally out of reach quickly. That said we have learned to live a short distance from where we work but that makes small towns grow up into cities over time say 1/2 hour from that work sight. So we tend these days to live an hour from most places with cities in all directions of travel to get the most chances for employment that pays.
That sums up the time and now for the road speeds in those areas which are at most 30 mph unless you can get to a major road that would provide 50 mph and of course if you can achieve access to a highway up to 80 mph might be possible for some of the travel distance for the times.
For America bikes can use the 30 and 50 mph unless they are posted against use and none for highway at all...safety is a concern for using a bike on rural roads as most have no shoulder for safe use and you are then in the road to assure not falling over the sides. The typical 50 mph has a automotive break down lane but motorists are not going to care about you being on a bike so you must drive defensive when approaching side ramps and crossings.
Last you must be fit enough to pedal for that period of time and thats where we are not so capable these days as we age towards retirement.

e anything would help for the distance but classes of these for license means capable under 30 mph

SpaceNut · 2021-06-18 22:21:50

I figured this would be the case 1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas because charging their cars is a hassle, research shows

Standard home outlets generally deliver 120 volts, powering what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while the higher-powered specialty connections at 240 volts are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers," which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, run on 480 volts.
Even with the faster charging, a Chevy Bolt he tested still needed nearly six hours to top its range back up to 300 miles from nearly empty - something that takes him just minutes at the pump with his family SUV.

energy density wins

kbd512 · 2021-06-19 11:37:36

SpaceNut,

The key to improving fuel economy for future cars is hybridization. That Mercedes-Benz engine is a small displacement turbocharged variety that connects an electric motor to the turbo to recover energy from the exhaust. The end result is that their engine extracts nearly 2/3rds of the energy from gasoline, rather than 30% or less. A small battery and braking energy recovery system is included for acceleration. This is practical technology that, while more complicated than what came before it, is still affordable and maintainable. Battery energy density has to increase wildly beyond what is presently achievable in order to become competitive with gasoline. Otherwise, the batteries will continue to account for a portion of total vehicle weight equivalent to an extra subcompact car. At the scale of a car, that's at the edge of feasibility, but it's not practical or sustainable, especially for larger vehicles like the heavy duty trucks necessary for transport of goods.

Calliban · 2021-06-19 14:41:53

Improvements in fuel efficiency and hybridisation are far more valuable from a whole systems viewpoint than any attempt to replace ICE with BEV. The lifetime embodied energy of a BEV is about the same of as an ICE, because of the high embodied energy of the battery. But the ICE is arguably more sustainable, as the fuel energy needs can be met using petroleum, compressed natural gas, coal or tar-sand derived fuels, biogas, hydrogen, or even synthetic fuels. These are more sustainable than non-recyclable batteries composed of rare elements.

But more importantly, an improved fuel economy ICE burning petroleum allows better financial returns to refiners, for what would otherwise be a waste product from oil refining. This is important because: (1) There are no practical alternatives to oil based fuels for goods transportation (presently, goods transportation is close to 100% diesel powered). (2) As conventional oil is increasingly depleted, unconventional resources like tight oil sands must be used to meet demand. These require higher oil prices to be profitable. The problem that we face is that the energy intensity of oil consuming processes within our economy, is too high to allow high prices to be affordable. The solution to this problem is greater fuel efficiency and to ensure that all products of the oil refining process find profitable uses. This will allow higher cost producers like shale, tar sand and offshore to remain profitable, as it will allow the economy to withstand higher oil prices.

SpaceNut · 2021-06-19 15:11:47

kbd512, its been done as Tesla Model 3 gets a gas engine hybrid conversion

technology in a prototype by adding a two-cylinder petrol engine and removing some batteries in the Model 3
“Zero Vibration Generator,” which is a small two-cylinder petrol engine with an output of 40 KW/54 HP and a weight of only 95 kg.
Obrist’s company also developed a 17.3 kilowatt-hours (kWh) battery pack that weighs 98 kg.
With the new engine in the frunk and the smaller battery pack, Obrist claims that the vehicle can travel 100 km (62 miles) on electric range, and up to 1,000 km (621 miles) with the petrol engine.
That all-electric range has its limitations, since the engine kicks in to recharge the battery when the vehicle drives at more than 65 km/h (40 mph).

Calliban · 2021-06-20 09:42:12

Why a Great Reset based on Green Energy isn't possible.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/07/17/w … -possible/

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2021/06/18/h … -go-wrong/

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-20 09:44:29)

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-20 10:34:58

For Calliban re #299

Thanks for the links in this post ... I'm back from reading the first ...

The author seems to be someone who can describe problems accurately, and we definitely need people like that in the mix.

However, the human race needs solutions, and it needs them quickly. The author of the article you cited is poorly equipped to offer solutions.

This forum is a place where bold solutions may be offered for first review.

Some of Void's creative ideas are likely to show up as part of history at some point.

This topic is about gasoline prices, and the article you cited seems admirably well suited for this topic.

I hope to have time to read the second article this weekend, but assume it is more of the same and therefore a duty rather than uplifting.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2021-06-16 17:00:46

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#277 2021-06-16 22:03:50

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#278 2021-06-16 23:44:31

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#279 2021-06-17 01:39:18

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#280 2021-06-17 04:02:40

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#281 2021-06-17 08:09:15

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#282 2021-06-17 09:00:18

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#283 2021-06-17 09:05:01

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#284 2021-06-17 09:08:08

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#285 2021-06-17 10:13:08

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#286 2021-06-17 10:22:46

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#287 2021-06-17 10:40:33

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#288 2021-06-17 11:15:31

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#289 2021-06-17 11:43:36

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#290 2021-06-17 16:23:54

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#291 2021-06-18 09:05:59

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#292 2021-06-18 11:20:37

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#293 2021-06-18 13:10:50

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#294 2021-06-18 17:19:27

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#295 2021-06-18 22:21:50

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#296 2021-06-19 11:37:36

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#297 2021-06-19 14:41:53

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#298 2021-06-19 15:11:47

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#299 2021-06-20 09:42:12

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#300 2021-06-20 10:34:58

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Board footer