Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Calliban · 2021-11-30 07:12:04

Producing synthetic hydrocarbons using CO2 scavenged from the atmosphere would be easier if there were a method of concentrating CO2. It turns out that CO2 is far more soluble in water than oxygen or nitrogen.
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanogr … es-oxygen/

The solubility of all three components decreases as water temperature rises. CO2 could be concentrated by allowing cold water to absorb atmospheric gases in ponds. The water can then be heated in closed vessels. By heating water to temperatures approaching boiling point, dissolved gases are released. These will be enriched with CO2. By compressing the resultant gases and spraying cold water through them, CO2 can be progressively concentrated. The main source of energy involved is low grade heat, which nuclear reactors produce in great abundance as waste heat.

The problem is that producing liquid fuels from CO2 is much more energy intensive than achieving the same thing using biomass. To produce methanol the following chemical equation is applicable:

CO + 2H2 = CH3OH

Biomass can be gasified to produce a syngas with composition approximately: CO + 1.5H2

We only need add to this 0.5mols H2 from electrolysis to produce a syngas suitable for methanol synthesis. So a complete equation would look like this:

CO + 1.5H2 + 0.5H2(e) = CH3OH

To produce methanol using carbon dioxide, we must first reduce CO2 and then add even more hydrogen for methanol synthesis.

CO2 + 3H2(e) = CH3OH + H2O

We must produce 6x more electrolytic hydrogen for each unit of methanol if we start with CO2. This makes synthetic fuel production from atmospheric CO2 quite energy intensive. But with a cheap enough source of energy it could work. Liquid sodium cooled reactors could reach high enough temperatures for thermochemical hydrogen production. Gas cooled reactors are generally more suitable for operating at these temperatures.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-30 07:22:41)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-30 07:49:23

For Calliban re Post #376 and topic ...

Humans have known how to liberate atomic energy since December 2, 1942.

It's long past time to start using a power source that is 1,000,000 times more powerful than chemical energy.

Why are we still talking about nickel-dime energy supplies to make hydrocarbon fuels?

This is a ** social engineering ** problem! It is NOT a technical problem.

The technical solutions have been known for decades, and in some cases hundreds of years.

The answer seems to be that we (United States) has lost all powers of innovation as children grow up in a culture that thinks it is only possible to HOLD a job, never to create one.

Only immigrants, who have NOT grown up believing that the only way to achieve in life is to hold a job, appear to be capable of thinking in new ways, and able to imagine themselves starting new businesses.

This has ** nothing ** to do with how intelligent or educated immigrants might be. The United States has millions of educated bright people who appear only to be able to hold jobs.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-11-30 07:57:42

My strategy is to make motor vehicles much lighter within reasonable limits, rather than considerably heavier for equivalent performance, so that most commuter-type vehicles can be air-powered, and heavier on-highway transport vehicles can be powered by much smaller and more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines, such as the hydraulic hybrid concepts Calliban detailed in various threads. It's quite reasonable to make passenger cars simpler lightweight machines that give good rather than superlative performance for minimal energy expenditure. Simpler machines enabled by judicious use of high technology in the right places will have profound implications to reversing our inexorably increasing energy consumption trend. Hopefully, they can also lessen the worst effects of natural resource and fossil fuel depletion, thus associated global warming.

If we can mass produce air-powered motor vehicles that provide 100 miles of driving range, then we have spectacularly economical machines, which is what we actually need, for young people who need minimal cost and complexity. There's nothing economical about battery electric vehicles. By the time energy payback is reached for all the fossil fuels invested in their manufacture, the vehicle has either stopped functioning, it's been damaged to the point of not being economically repairable after an accident, or the user has already purchased a newer model vehicle.

Until we figure out how to economically recycle all or most of the high-embodied-energy materials that go into making electronic vehicles, we've only shifted where the over-consumption occurs to an even more constrained supply, which is still fundamentally generated by fossil fuels, not "renewable energy". The people who mass manufacture solar panels and batteries assert that it will never be economical to recycle them, so absent government mandates forcing the implementation of recycling processes that are more expensive than mining virgin materials, because they're more energy-intensive, our net accomplishment is the creation of a brand new natural resource consumption problem at a dramatically increased scale and exacerbated by energy poverty to boot. As such, batteries and electronics should be used sparingly.

The US consumed about 2.95 billion barrels / 123.73 billion gallons of motor gasoline in 2020, according to US EIA. US EPA defines 1 gallon of motor gasoline as containing 33,700Watt-hours of energy. 123,730,000,000 gallons of gasoline * 33,700 Watt-hours/gallon = 4,169,701,000,000,000 Watt-hours / 4.1697 PetaWatt-hours of energy were provided by gasoline. Another 44.61 billion gallons of diesel fuel were consumed, or 1,815,627,000,000,000 Watt-hours / 1.815627 PetaWatt-hours. We know that on a per-mile basis, the Tesla Model 3 (350Wh/mile) is only 50% more energy-efficient per mile than the Mazda 3 (700Wh/mile). US EIA said we generated 4 trillion kiloWatt-hours / 4PWh worth of electricity in 2020, and 80% of that came from burning fossil fuels or nuclear power.

So we "only" need to come up with "renewable energy" generating systems capable of producing 6 PetaWatt-hours of energy without burning anything. The embodied energy in an electric vehicle is approximately 3X higher than it is for combustion engines, which is why they're around 3X the cost without government subsidies. That means we need to replace some 400 million vehicles that require 3X as much energy to manufacture, all while generating 6 PWh worth of electricity without burning anything or splitting any atoms since our purported "environmentalists" despise the efficiency of splitting atoms. Without drastically reducing the energy consumption associated with the embodied energy contained within all those manufactured vehicles, all I can say is- GOOD LUCK!... Because we're all going to need it. Some form of minor miracle along the way wouldn't hurt, either.

Does all of that seem remotely feasible to do in the next 10 years, or is it time for a "come to Jesus" moment regarding what can and cannot be done with current technology photovoltaics and wind turbines?

kbd512 · 2021-11-30 08:07:49

I almost forgot, but the heat associated with compression of air can be used at home to heat hot water tanks, rather than natural gas or more electricity. Otherwise, a lot of power would otherwise be lost. At an industrial scale, waste heat from air compression could be used for water desalination. Beyond that, approximately 20% to 25% of the electric power generated by photovoltaics will be lost to internal or wiring resistance before the power touches the lines that feed the grid, so that wasn't factored into the net generating capacity required, and the 6 PWh number merely represents consumption. The total generating capacity must fall somewhere between 7 PWh and 8 PWh after losses are taken into account, or approximately double current electric generating capacity of the US- using sources that mandate 100X to 1,000X more consumption of scarce natural resources. That's a recipe for failure, to be frank.

Calliban · 2021-11-30 09:54:53

Kbd / TH, I will respond in more detail later.

1. Regarding electric vehicles, there is no free lunch. The amount of work needed to propel a vehicle against air resistance and rolling resistance (gravity), will be the same regardless of energy source. Two vehicles with the same mass and same aerodynamics, one powered by diesel and the other by electricity, both driving at the same speed, require the same amount of physical work for propulsion. There may be different conversion efficiencies involved with different power sources and maybe braking energy recovery, but the only other ways of improving efficiency are to reduce vehicle weight, frontal area and drag coefficient.

2. Tesla model 3 is an energy efficient fuselage. By that I mean that a lot of components that would be steel on other cars are replaced with carbon fibre composites in an attempt to partially negate added battery mass. The car has a very low drag coefficient compared to many competitors. But a Tesla body carrying a diesel engine would still be an efficient car. The low energy density of batteries has a direct impact on curb weight and will push up the energy consumption per km. The longer the required range between charging, the worse this problem becomes. A short range EV could be light. Energy consumption per km and embodied energy increase progressively as range requirements increase, regardless of the distance of any particular journey. It makes no sense building a 400 mile range BEV for the same reason it makes no sense building a 4000 mile range ICE car. In the end, most of the energy ends up being eaten just moving the mass of the energy store.

3. All of the proclaimed operating cost advantages of electric vehicles would disappear if road use electricity were taxed at the same rate as petrol and diesel. I showed on another thread that if electricity and diesel were taxed at the same rate at UK fuel tax rates, then an electric vehicle would have twice the operating cost of a diesel car that gets 60mpg. This is in addition to the 3x greater purchase price. And the battery must be replaced after 5-7 years, which is a significant additional expense. Car manufacturers used to joke about electric vehicles, that if a customer could afford the battery, they would throw in the car for free! Hybrid vehicles get past this limitation, by using a relatively small battery for short journeys and braking energy recovery. This is an intelligent strategy because it works around the energy density limitations of a battery, whilst retaining its benefits of reducing fuel consumption over the lifetime of the vehicle, by powering short journeys and recovering braking energy. At the same time, the energy density benefits of the ICE are retained for longer journeys. But battery weight is a real drag, literally. There are other options other than battery electric for hybrid propulsion.

4. Energy payback time studies fail to capture the energy cost of replacement batteries, which may be needed within 5-7 years of purchase (2000 charge cycles). This needs to be captured in any realistic lifecycle energy assessment and will dramatically increase the lifetime embodied energy of a BEV. The shorter the range requirement, the less of an issue this is.

5. The energy payback time of an electric vehicle will be shorter and the concept more sustainable, if we allow range to decline in proportion to reduced energy density. It is not reasonable to expect a power source with one tenth the effective mass energy density, to match the range performance of a diesel powered ICE car. A 50 mile range electric car would be far more sustainable (and affordable) than a 400 mile range EV. There is nothing wrong with using EVs within their limitations. But the concept is being bent to applications for which it is inherently unsuitable. There will certainly be a market for short range EVs in the future, especially if batteries can be removed for charging.

6. Efficiency of compressed air energy storage depends upon whether compression is adiabatic or if intercooling is used between compression stages, the pressure of the air and whether compression heat is captured either for reuse in expansion or use elsewhere. Usihg compression energy to heat domestic water is a good idea. At the end use, expansion converts internal energy of air into kinetic energy. Adiabatic expansion will be less efficient, because the temperature of the air will decline as internal energy is extracted and pressure will decline disproportionately as volume increases. One way of negating this is by heating the air between expansion stages. Probably the best way of doing this is to use exhaust heat from an ICE. Hence, compressed air works best as part of a hybrid. In this mode, using compression heat for domestic heating and engine waste heat to aid expansion, it is both energy efficient and sustainable. Compressed air tanks will outlive most vehicles and can be reused.

7. A 100mpg car is certainly achievable if lighter fuselage can be developed, along with smaller engines. The article below was written 15 years ago. It makes the point that a 7% reduction in weight reduces lifetime fuel consumption by 5%. However, the added cost of materials and drive train were considered to outweigh the lifetime fuel cost savings of a 100mpg car. A lot has changed since 2006. Carbon fibre is used far more extensively now and costs have gone down. Fuel costs have risen dramatically and there is more awareness of the problems of CO2 emissions. As OECD oil production stumbles, energy security is going to be more important in the years ahead. I believe the time of the 100mpg diesel car has arrived.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a769/3374271/

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-30 10:27:43)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-30 10:08:38

For Calliban re thermal energy storage as it might relate to automobiles ...

In recent days, kbd512 opened a line of discussion of using molten silicon as an energy storage method.

In the Thermal Energy topic, I have attempted to encourage further thinking along those lines, with suggestions for how a small energy storage package might be fabricated. If you have a moment (I know you're busy with work, family and numerous other interests) please see if that concept might work for an automobile. The idea that a molten silicon storage system needs to be large may be correct. I simply don't know ...

In the Thermal Energy topic, I'm looking for development of the idea to yield a storage device capable of delivering 15 Amps at 120 VAC for an hour.

In this track, I would be looking for a comparable device able to power a vehicle comfortably for 500 miles at highway speeds, including air conditioning and vehicle electronics.

What mass of molten silicon would be needed to achieve that performance?

Edit: I note that such an energy storage system would be of the "use it or lose it" variety .... there are plenty of industrial scale applications where the concept would work. On the other hand, the system would NOT be ideal for a camping trip.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-12-01 03:21:47

Interesting concept. Chilled anhydrous ammonia is much easier to handle than pure hydrogen, as it can be liquid at atmospheric pressure at -33°C. At room temperature, it remains liquid if compressed to around 5 bar(a). An ammonia based diesel engine would need a higher compression ratio. But higher compression ratio improves engine efficiency, partially compensating for the lower energy density of the fuel, which is about 1/3rd that of diesel.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … echno.html

This isn't free energy of course. The ammonia must be manufactured using nitrogen and hydrogen that is either produced via electrolysis, plasma arc decomposition of water, or steam reforming of hydrocarbons. Ammonia has less than half the energy density of diesel. It is also toxic and ammonia fumes are irritant and have a repulsive odor, rather like stale piss. If there were a perfect solution to our energy problems, we would be using it already.

On the plus side, ammonia doesn't really pose a flammability hazard. It takes a lot of compression to ignite it. Huge volumes of chilled liquid ammonia could be stored in underground tanks. A far more practical solution than hydrogen, which is a deep cryogen. Ammonia would be a good synthetic fuel for ships and trains, where large diesel engines can burn it very efficiently. The lower energy density would reduce the effective range of an aircraft. A transatlantic flight might be achievable, but an ammonia fuelled 747 would need at least two stops if flying from Britain to Australia. Anhydrous ammonia has good chemical compatability with steels, which makes storage a lot easier.

LOX / Ammonia would work as a lower stage rocket propellant. The reduced energy density would appear to make it less desirable as an upper stage propellant.

Producing ammonia cheaply is a challenge. The key I think is to build up scale economies and concentrate production. Unlike electricity, there is no requirement for the ammonia production facility to be close to target markets. It can be shipped by tanker or pipeline. We would probably cluster dozens of large nuclear reactors and electrolysis plants on a single site, with ammonia synthesis chemical reactors built close by. This allows nuclear workforce, suppliers and chemical engineers, to form a clustered community, with a steady stream of orders.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-01 04:19:28)

kbd512 · 2021-12-01 18:09:16

Calliban,

I still think we're much better off with light hydrocarbons (especially Propane), if energy density is important, and much lighter vehicles powered by much less powerful combustion engines. Using Ammonia becomes much more practical for ships or stationary power generation plants. I don't think we'll see Ammonia used to power passenger motor vehicles, though perhaps trucks could be powered by Ammonia. To reduce the embodied energy in composite structures, we could use fiber-filled plastics.

The chassis of the Chrysler Composite Concept Vehicle of 20 years ago was glass fiber filled plastic. Today, many vehicles uses fiber filled plastics for crash protection. There's no real reason why the entire chassis could not be reinforced plastic. This is not fiber impregnated with resin, but plastics filled with shorter chopped fiber strands. Overall, the structures would come in at a weight slightly below that achievable using welded Aluminum monocoque construction. It would be feasible to have a 1,200 pound 4 seat car that meets crash protection mandates, with a 50hp air-cooled combustion engine. Using a combination of ultra-lean burn enabled by plasma spark ignition, prompt combustion, and lightweight components that minimize drivetrain losses, 100mpg is an attainable goal. By virtue of being 1/3 the weight of a steel combustion engine car or 1/4 the weight of a battery electric car, it will require no more total energy than a Tesla, will be a minor fraction of the cost, and since it won't rust or otherwise degrade, it should last for at least 20 years. The plastic valve covers for the V6 in my 14 year old Dodge Charger are still every bit as functional as the day it was made in 2007.

Chrysler’s Composite Concept Vehicle (CCV)

From the article:

Thanks to the new technology developed by the team, the CCV can be assembled in about 6.5 hours, compared to 19 hours for a conventional compact car. The four large body panel mouldings are part of a general design aimed at cutting the number of parts by a quarter. Overall, instead of the 80 steel components that make up a traditional chassis, the CCV only needs six plastic parts. This design should reduce manufacturing costs by as much as 80%, and plant space required for assembly could be only one sixth of that for a conventional vehicle.

I want to eliminate the use of side doors and instead use a wide-body / lower-CG chassis with a front loading design, similar to the AirPod, but with a small rear mounted compressed air or gasoline engine. The molding is more complex and expensive than welding steel, but requires mere minutes to complete and very little touch labor, as the article indicates. The extreme reduction in weight, total parts count, and assembly time will make up for the energy cost of the molding equipment and plastic, which is recyclable and is in fact recycled by the automotive industry.

If we were consuming closer to a billion gallons of motor gasoline per year, rather than 3 billion, then we have actually reduced our rate of consumption. All we've done thus far is increase consumption with these ever-more powerful and heavy machines. I think it's time to move in the other direction, simplifying everything that does not seriously affect performance or usability so that we can live within the resource constraints of a finite planet. We can use all the steel conserved for solar thermal or nuclear thermal power plants backed by molten salt or metal / compressed air / liquid hydrocarbon energy storage. No matter how much we fight against simple physics, simple physics will always win.

By using tubular steel chassis, gasoline engines with improve efficiency enabled by prompt combustion and ultra-lean burn, and the associated weight reductions those technologies enable, we can convert our diesel Class 8 heavy duty trucks to use light hydrocarbons. There's no magic in diesel engines. They're very heavy for the power they generate, very expensive to service, and they don't produce as much power as gas / petrol engines for equivalent boost levels. If you were to run as much boost pressure in a gas engine as is so common in a diesel, then the gas engine would easily best the diesel engine in both torque and total power output.

If you run 32psi of boost in a 750 pound 632cid (10.35L) Big Block Chevy V8, then it will produce as much or even more torque than a 2,700 pound 915cid (15L) Cummins ISX. While it's clearly desirable to run high boost pressures to make more power, for approximately 1/3rd the weight, you have equivalent torque and power when compared to a much heavier diesel engine. While that power level requires a much stronger crankshaft, connecting rods, pistons, and a fully studded head and block combination, a Big Block Chevy (BBC) ZZ632 ($30K) would be less expensive than a brand new Cummins ISX15 ($42K), even after the turbo and everything else is purchased.

A "fully built" 632cid BBC engine could include a Dart CGI block (other makes of the block are available, such as Chevy, but for the money Dart's blocks are more or less top of the heap), (Bryant / Callies / Crower / Lunati / Winberg- any high quality 4340 crank will work) billet crankshaft, Chevy / Dart / Edelbrock Aluminum heads (Chevy's new design is a marked improvement, unless you go with the obscure CID symmetrical port Heads), Comp Cams / Lunati camshaft, Callies / Lunati H-beam rods, ARP 625 Inconel stud kit, CP Carillo / JE / Mahle pistons, fully welded stainless exhaust headers, and you're still only talking about $25K in parts.

Modern diesels have become even more hideously complicated and expensive than gasoline engines, so if you can cut the weight that the tractor frame / chassis carries with it by about 1/3rd, then you can run a much lighter tractor. Virtually all of them are taken out of service in 5 to 10 years time since the diesel engines are not economical to repair, so it would pay to use less material as part of a weight-optimized design. The tractor accounts for 10,000 pounds to 25,000 pounds of weight out of your 80,000 pound GVWR limitation on US highways, dependent upon the model, so cutting enough weight from the tractor and trailer combination could enable the tractor to run on 4 super singles for most loads, instead of 10 wheels, which would cut additional weight / cost / rolling resistance / fuel consumption.

Calliban · 2021-12-02 18:21:00

Kbd, that sounds very promising. I do not have such a good understanding of automotive systems. But what you describe sounds good. A practical vehicle that reduces embodied energy and energy consumption at the same time, whilst keeping a lid on purchase cost. And, most importantly, a long operating lifetime. I think there will definitely be a market for something like this after the next big recession. Maybe a business opportunity for those that have the capital and expertise to exploit it.

I think it unlikely that ammonia will compete with petrol any time soon. To be genuinely emissions free, it must be made from hydrogen that is produced using electricity or nuclear heat in thermochemical cycle. That will make it expensive to produce. And the toxicity will add other overheads. There is also the matter of consumer acceptance of a fuel that smells like stale urine. When I was at university, I had to walk past a chemical engineering lab that used ammonia as a solvent. The smell of it made my eyes stream. I don't think I would want to visit a filling station where people were dripping it on the floor. I can't imagine many people wanting to live nearby either.

Greater fuel efficiency across the economy is essential for keeping oil producers in business now. Most of the super majors have declining production. There is a lot more to say about this than I can bring into this discussion. If analysts like Goehring are to be believed, Non-OPEC oil production is likely to decline over the next several years and production costs are slowly ticking upwards. The more consumers are able to pay for each additional barrel, the more we can stretch the resource base into the future. There has been very little new refining capability built in the US since the 80s. This says a lot about refinery revenue and what consumers are able to afford. The dilapidated state of US refining infrastructure should have been a warning sign of growing systematic stress in the real goods economy.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-02 18:27:56)

Calliban · 2021-12-06 15:29:17

Gail Tverberg's latest analysis is intriguing and worth a read.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2021/12/03/i … end-times/

I wish she would keep religion out of her posts. It just doesn't sit well in any scientific analysis. If you can tolerate that, her piece is useful in understanding how energy resource depletion is gradually pushing the global economy to some sort of systematic collapse. Not for the faint hearted though.

kbd512 · 2021-12-06 16:14:33

Calliban,

Whenever someone starts talking about "end times", I generally stop listening or reading. There's an endless supply of "doom & gloom" available for anyone seeking it out. The world is always "ending" for someone, somewhere.

Calliban · 2021-12-07 06:26:14

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
Whenever someone starts talking about "end times", I generally stop listening or reading. There's an endless supply of "doom & gloom" available for anyone seeking it out. The world is always "ending" for someone, somewhere.

Yes. And so long as those people really don't know what they're talking about, then no worries. But when there is substance behind such a claim, it is wise to at least listen.

What Gail is saying is that our physical economy is structured to run off of cheap liquid fossil fuels. They need to be cheap because a lot of surplus energy is needed to run the systems and pay for the maintenance of infrastructure. Think roads and ports, fresh water, sewage treatment, food supply and distribution and other heavy energy consuming infrastructure. This is why oil prices cannot rise very high for very long. We need a lot of surplus energy just to run and maintain the infrastructure that keeps society going even at a basic level. We now face the problem that the price that oil and gas companies need to be able to invest in new production capacity, appears to be much higher than the economy (I.e consumers) can afford without running into unsustainable levels of debt.

I think this is what Gail means by 'end of times'. We appear to be approaching the situation where the systems that we rely upon are going to start failing and will be impossible to maintain. When the energy supply is not longer sufficient to run and maintain infrastructure, you are stuffed. Nothing works anymore. At that point, there will be a rapid discontinuity in the functioning of society and living standards, nutrition and health will decline rapidly. There will be a rapid reduction in human numbers and societal complexity. That is the definition of collapse. The buildup to it is usually gradual, but the final collapse, like that of the USSR, can occur relatively quickly. I begin to think that Western Countries may be approaching this point. It seems to be what Gail is alluding to.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-07 06:46:52)

Calliban · 2021-12-12 07:34:55

The next recession will likely be caused by oil shortages.
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/running-o … il-markets

SpaceNut · 2021-12-19 21:04:14

The pandemic has been a roller coaster of supply and demand for oil and its distillates.
Oil prices drop 2% as rapid Omicron spread dims fuel demand outlook

of course the price at the pump did fall back a few weeks ago to $3.31

clark · 2021-12-21 02:29:28

Collapse says the 20yr old. Nope. Things will just get expensive. So the 20 yr old has a "collapse", while those in the 40's just take one less vacation. It sucks, but it ain't a collapse. It is a redistribution of wealth.

A collapse hits us all equally. Those higher on the food chain just look at you and smile.

kbd512 · 2022-01-28 17:40:20

$10,000 later, my 2007 Dodge Charger has passed its state inspection and emissions test. The car was only worth $5,000, which is what I paid when I purchased it from its previous owner. Virtually every major electronic component was replaced. The vehicle apparently had the timing chain on backwards and out-of-time, but fortunately that did not bend or break a valve. The timing chain replacement was the final repair. The battery also died and had to be replaced. Anyway... Now it runs like a champ. It's not the fastest car on the road, nor jam-packed with the latest and greatest computer technology, but it still runs and drives, which is all that I'm interested in. The wiring turned out to be the only part of the entire vehicle that did not require replacement.

Repairs were as follows:

1. Both catalytic converters were replaced
2. The timing chain and chain tensioner were replaced and the engine timed correctly by a specialist
3. All 6 fuel injectors were replaced and intake manifold seals replaced by me
4. All 4 O2 sensors were replaced twice
5. All of the various engine (crank / cam position / temperature / etc) sensors were replaced
6. The upper control arms were replaced on the front suspension
7. The brake rotors were re-machined and the brake pads replaced with new ones
8. Brand new tires were added because a couple of them were nearly bald
9. The engine oil / radiator fluid / transmission fluid / windshield wiper fluid systems were all flushed and replaced with fresh fluids

My future repairs will be as follows:

1. Preemptively replace the fuel pump and sending unit before those electronic gadgets fail as well
2. Replace the front headlights with new units because the plastic on the existing ones crazed over time
3. Replace the plastic fascia plate between the windshield and engine bay, because it's cracking and I don't want water ingress
4. Preemptively replace the gas cap
5. Repaint the plastic front bumper since the paint has peeled / chipped off over time
6. Replace the plastic shifter column linkage with a metal part because the plastic part has failed and sometimes it gets stuck in "park"
7. Replace the door seal rubber and plastic trim
8. Replace the dented rocker panel underneath the driver's side doors

Apart from the painting, I have the tools to do that work myself. Some of that work is cosmetic in nature, but most of it is functional. The interior looks great, although I would also like to find a replacement steering wheel and center console.

My wife said it's very easy to drive, but it feels like she's sitting on the ground.

SpaceNut · 2022-01-28 20:51:55

Wow that was a lot that was in need of replacement for sure.
Myself I just had to get a different vehicle as I do not have a garage to replace the alternator again escape as to get the warranty replacement I need to remove it and bring it to them for a bench test. I am looking at upgrading the amperage so as to keep it from happening when I buy the replacement. Just to cold on the ice to replace it at this time.
I had been making payments on plan b which is the 2007 Toyota Prius which was gotten for 2500 plus the junk 2008 Subaru.

kbd512 · 2022-01-28 22:31:44

SpaceNut,

The only thing I actually learned is that modern motor vehicles are not user-serviceable in any practical way, without first spending hundreds of dollars on specialty tools and many thousands of dollars worth of electronics diagnostics tools. Their little electronics diagnostics toy cost more than that car, even after all the repairs. I think the shop owner said their scanner cost $20K just of the scanner tool.

In the end, straight visual inspection of the defective parts was required, which is how I diagnosed the fuel injector issue and how the shop diagnosed the timing chain screw up and catalytic converter failure. This brings me right back to my assertion that only mostly mechanical vehicles are economical to maintain, and that all motor vehicles should be built as durable goods rather than disposable electronic appliances that rely upon computer control where none is required or even beneficial to the operation of the vehicle. The mechanical parts of the engine and transmission were fine, but all of the electronics were tossed in the trash like the garbage they truly are.

SpaceNut · 2022-01-29 08:48:58

I spent time in the 90's writing code for a wyne kerr machine to simulate a running car to test the car computers of the day from salvage operations so that Cardone could resell them.

Yes there are cheaper computer scanners for automobiles but the one which the garage have are way more capable to the task.

I would agree that a car should not need all of the electronics to make them run.

SpaceNut · 2022-02-20 17:32:00

The U.S. is now energy independent 572d12950a9eeac904ca3b3ec4ee179b

tahanson43206 · 2022-02-20 20:57:19

For SpaceNut re #395

In an ideal world, the graph you showed us would angle down from here, with both production and consumption falling in step.

Of course, the world is ** not ** ideal.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-02-20 21:11:18

While I am only one with a prius that consumes less gas there are many which have bought other types of vehicles that are also going to continue that consumption downward but that does not change production directly.

tahanson43206 · 2022-02-20 21:22:41

For SpaceNut re production ... When the underground reservoirs dry up, there won't be any magic replacement.

The scientists and engineers that ** do ** magic by probing the Earth crust with sound waves and entities like Muons will eventually exhaust the sites where oil still exists.

What I was referring to is an orderly transition away from production of oil from underground sources, because using those stored resources adds to the Carbon burden. Making hydrocarbons from air and water is being done on a small scale today, and the scale could be increased.

making hydrocarbons from air and water is not a new subject. There is a topic in the forum dedicated to that specific activity.

***
Thanks for mentioning the Prius again!

i assume (hope?) you are charging the Prius at home, so you can use the electricity from the utility instead of from the little onboard gas engine.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-02-20 21:31:51

This is one of the earlier version that does not have the car charging plug built in. I am exploring how to add in some sort of option for the main battery use but even the small gas battery needs the car to run to charge it as well.
So solar options are many for the small battery but anything for the larger one is a custom made.

tahanson43206 · 2022-02-20 22:32:23

For SpaceNut re #399

Glad you have the Prius, even if it is an early version. My understanding is the small engine runs as a constant load charging system, so is spared the stress of service that a regular gasoline engine has to endure, and it may last longer as a result. You've already indicated it is economical in gas consumption.

I have a 2001 Echo, and recently had to invest more than was comfortable, due to it's having well exceeded 100,000 miles. Even a machine as well engineered as that one has to be maintained. I bring this up because my understanding is the engine in the Prius may be in the same class as the one I have. However, the duty cycle may be less severe, so the engine may well last comfortably past 100,000 miles.

After all you've been through with the Subaru and the Escape, I hope the Prius gives you reliable service for many years.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#376 2021-11-30 07:12:04

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#377 2021-11-30 07:49:23

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#378 2021-11-30 07:57:42

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#379 2021-11-30 08:07:49

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#380 2021-11-30 09:54:53

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#381 2021-11-30 10:08:38

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#382 2021-12-01 03:21:47

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#383 2021-12-01 18:09:16

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#384 2021-12-02 18:21:00

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#385 2021-12-06 15:29:17

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#386 2021-12-06 16:14:33

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#387 2021-12-07 06:26:14

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#388 2021-12-12 07:34:55

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#389 2021-12-19 21:04:14

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#390 2021-12-21 02:29:28

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#391 2022-01-28 17:40:20

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#392 2022-01-28 20:51:55

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#393 2022-01-28 22:31:44

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#394 2022-01-29 08:48:58

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#395 2022-02-20 17:32:00

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#396 2022-02-20 20:57:19

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#397 2022-02-20 21:11:18

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#398 2022-02-20 21:22:41

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#399 2022-02-20 21:31:51

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#400 2022-02-20 22:32:23

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Board footer