Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

tahanson43206 · 2022-09-25 20:37:11

For SpaceNut re gasoline prices ... your comments about production of gasoline are interesting (to me at least) ...

I caught a presentation on why business executives are reluctant to invest in gasoline production plants these days. Those plants cost billions and take decades to build, and the world is moving away from fossil fuel. Someone who cared about his money (as i am sure you do) would NOT waste it on a plant that will never pay you back.

Slowing production is NOT what this is about, as nearly as I can tell. The existing plants will be operated until they can't produce any more, and the world had better be converted over to electric vehicles when that happens.

If you want a government plant to make gasoline, I suppose that could be done, if enough taxpayers supported the idea.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-27 10:23:00

'It's a really big hole': Sabotage fears rise after gas leaks identified on Nord Stream pipelines
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022 … -gas-leaks

Syngas, a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and various hydrocarbons, produced by partial combustion of biomass, that is, combustion with an amount of oxygen.

"Gasification of plastic waste as waste-to-energy or waste-to-syngas recovery route"
https://www.scirp.org/journal/papercita … urnalID=69

Southern California gas prices surge overnight

https://news.yahoo.com/southern-califor … 54733.html

California gas is ‘out of whack’ – nearly $2 more than national average. Who’s to blame?

(subscription)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/23/ … l-average/

Who Gets Hurt From High Gas and Diesel Prices? There’s More Harm Than You Think.
https://www.heritage.org/coal-oil-natur … -you-think

SpaceNut · 2022-09-27 20:35:11

According to multiple websites news the north is going to see higher electrical bills long before winter gets here with increase already being requested from the companies due to rising fuel costs with the PUC of the state.

Calliban · 2022-09-27 22:07:07

Oil prices are about to reverse course
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/oil-p … rse-course

Spare capacity is non existant. Recent price declines are due to wide expectations of recession.

Terraformer · 2022-09-28 02:59:10

People were cheering on declines in gas prices, saying that the British gas price cap won't cost us much.

They posted graphs showing that the last *three times* prices were this low, they soon spiked back up again...

SpaceNut · 2022-09-28 19:09:06

Price continues to drop and rests at $3.51 a gallon. reports say oil is still dropping but with the Hurricane I would expect it to go up a little.

What Hurricane Ian means for food and gas prices

Oranges will be affected but little else should change.

Forecasters say Ian could douse Florida for days, prompting fears of 'catastrophic flooding'

SpaceNut · 2022-10-01 07:55:37

Gas has dropped again to $3.47 ...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday announced that oil refineries could start selling more polluting winter-blend gasoline ahead of schedule to ease soaring fuel prices, directly contradicting his own goals for reducing climate pollutants.

The average cost of a gallon of gas was $6.30 in California on Friday, far above the national average of $3.80, according to AAA.

Oil companies blame states summer blend costs while state wants to tax them and return that tax to them. Dumb as that means increased costs will be passed to the consumer.

NewMarsMember · 2022-10-01 08:17:31

For SpaceNut re #707

Out of curiosity (and having no idea if regulations prevent it) ... why couldn't an entrepreneur from a low price state simply deliver a truck load of gasoline to California and sell it for less than the local vendors?

That looks like a spread of 6.30 less 3.47 >> almost $3

I suppose transportation cost would eat up the profit, since this would be a large truck powered by more expensive diesel.

There may well be good and sufficient reasons why the price is so high in California.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-10-01 17:34:33

I would assume state law or regulations for what can be dispensed.

kbd512 · 2022-10-01 22:13:44

tahanson43206,

The "good reason" is called "Democrats want to spend your money", and probably most "Republicans want to spend your money", too. There is no other reason, nevermind a good reason. They have a love-hate relationship with the thing that keeps them warm / fed / housed / clothed / entertained. It's just dumb. Hurting poor people because you lack the creativity to devise better solutions is plain old evil, full stop.

Calliban · 2022-10-02 02:13:30

Looking at global CAPEX into oil and gas over the past 22 years, two trends are evident. Back in 2000, CAPEX was beneath $100bn. By 2014, it had surged to 7x its year 2000 level. Between 2014 and 2016, it dropped by about 40% and has remained at about that level ever since.
https://energyindustryreview.com/analys … -industry/

CAPEX is still 4x what is was in the early 2000s, but is much lower than it was in the peak years between 2010 and 2014. This article contains a graphic that extends the data back into the 90s. Oil and gas investment has quite literally exploded since then, but it has fallen back from the peak it reached in 2014.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016 … ears-time/

This article extends the data forward to 2020, where there was another significant drop. Since 2020, investment has rebounded to 2019 levels, but there is no sign of a return to 2010 - 2014 investment levels.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics … ort&page=6

Production of actual crude oil (which includes tight oil (shale) and tar, but not NG liquids, which is really propane and butane) increased from 68mb/d to 83mb/d between 2000 and 2019. This is an increase of 22%. Since 2005, all of the increase in global oil production has come from North American unconventional. Global production appears to show a peak in 2018. There is a difference of opinion at this point whether it will ever be possible for production to reach this level again. With Russian production mostly falling off of global markets and outside oil companies exiting the Russian space, it is looking unlikely. Russia is 10% of global oil production and East Siberia is an area that they do not have the expertise to develop without western help. I expect Russia to join the post-peak nations and for Russian oil production to drop by at least a third over the next few years.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022 … on-part-1/

Most of the world's oil production is conventional oil. Only North America has developed substantial unconventional production (tight oil and tar sands). The problem is that there really isn't much potential for conventional oil production to grow any more. All but a handful of producing nations are past peak production now. The problem with attempting to reverse that trend is that oil discoveries have been trending down since the 1960s and are now well below what would be needed to replace depletion in existing producing fields. So any increases in oil production from pre-peak nations will need to exceed the declines in all of the post-peak nations in order for production increases to be positive at a global level. As more countries pass their individual production peaks, this gets more challenging with each passing year.

The world outside of the USA has yet to begin tapping its tight oil deposits. US geology appears to be uniquely suitable for tight oil extraction. Indications are that whilst it will be possible to produce tight oil elsewhere, it will not be at US cost levels. This has clear implications for global oil production. Conventional oil production is declining and that decline cannot be reversed. North American tight oil has succeeded in balancing this decline up until recently. Very soon, it will be necessary to replicate the tight oil revolution globally if large production declines and shortages are to be avoided. Oil is an inelastic commodity. And the marginal producer sets the price. Expect prices outside of North America to be much higher in the years to come. Prices within the US will really depend upon how much longer the tight oil industry can continue to increase volumes at present cost levels. If global prices increase rapidly, you bet your bottom dollar that a populist US president will ban oil exports. That will moderate US price levels and increase prices outside USA. How much further US production can expand is a question that I don't have an answer to at present. At some point, refiners will need to rebuild refineries to process lighter oils, if heavy oils fall off the market. That is going to add a cost premium to oil products.

But all of this assumes business as usual. In an environment of globally mobile capital and stable demographics, conventional oil production would decline slowly and tight oil would replace it. Prices would be higher, but fuel efficiency standards would at least partially compensate. The trouble is, that probably is not the situation we are going to be in. Peter Zeihan's forecasts for the future appear to be pointing towards a world of increasing instability. The past few yesrs of geopolitics appear to bear out this prediction. Already, Russian oil has become inaccessible to most of the world and US withdrawal from the middle east is making a punch up between Saudi and Iran more probable. This sort of environment makes capital allocation to new oil projects more difficult and increases the risk that existing production will be compromised. This adds to the odds of future supply shortages.

The US Fed is hiking rates, which increases interest on dollar denominated debt. Eventually, over nations will be forced to do the same to hold up the value of their currencies. The world is far more indebted now than it was back in 2008. Expect the coming recession to be long and brutal. A lot of people will be much poorer coming out of this. And oil prices could be depressed for a long time to come, pushing oil producing companies into the red. In a world where the cost structure for oil has been trending upward and margins are already tight, it is difficult to see an outcome that will see production rising in the foreseeable future. I am prepared to stake that 2018 oil production will be the world's all time production peak. We will never produce that much oil in a single year ever again. Less oil means less trade. The decline of globalisation is therefore irreversible from an energetic perspective at this point. Demographic trends are another hard stop to globalisation. Economies are going to be smaller, more local and more disconnected from each other in the future. China will not survive the approaching great recession (dare I say depression?). European countries can be expected to become more imperial, because this is the only way they will survive. The future of space colonisation probably depends upon North America, which will be an island of relative stability in a world that will otherwise be a lot poorer and more chaotic.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-02 03:44:39)

SpaceNut · 2022-10-02 11:04:41

kbd512 wrote:

tahanson43206,
The "good reason" is called "Democrats want to spend your money", and probably most "Republicans want to spend your money", too. There is no other reason, nevermind a good reason. They have a love-hate relationship with the thing that keeps them warm / fed / housed / clothed / entertained. It's just dumb. Hurting poor people because you lack the creativity to devise better solutions is plain old evil, full stop.

We had the revolutionary war which was followed by the civil war and now we are in the civil-civil war where it's still an us versus them but if we look to the cities we are even still in turmoil with internal war some of which are still remnants of the previous wars and even the wars of those that left places that were not much better which came here, taking their war with them to America rather than leaving it behind where they came from.

Calliban · 2022-10-03 10:52:24

The latest data on US oil production from Peak Oil Barrel.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-june-oil-p … le-growth/

Growth in the Texas and New Mexico shale patch is balancing decline in all other 48 states. US liquids production will hold steady as long as the Permian can increase production faster than other basins decline.

This is similar to the problem faced globally. As more countries pass peak production and start to decline, increasing total world production requires increasing output from an ever smaller number of pre-peak countries. With Russia past peak, it is very likely that the entire world is now post peak-oil. If export bans are imposed, then it is possible that we will see a huge differential in energy price between the US and the rest of the world.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-03 10:57:10)

tahanson43206 · 2022-10-03 13:33:07

With a nod to Calliban for Post #713 and long term outlook, here is a close-in look at California...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/a95234b … aying.html

This article caught my eye due to recent discussion of California gas prices in the forum...

Commodities Corner
Why California is paying nearly 70% more for gasoline at the pump than the rest of the country
Published: Oct. 3, 2022 at 2:08 p.m. ET
By Myra P. SaefongFollow
Average California price stood at $6.25 a gallon Monday

California has pretty much always paid much more than the nation for gasoline at the pump, in part due to higher taxes and a more expensive blend of fuel, but an average price that’s nearly 70% more than most everyone else in the U.S. is a bit extreme.
The national average price for regular gasoline is little changed from a month ago, but drivers in California have seen a jump of nearly 20% from Sept. 3, as refinery issues tighten supplies of the fuel in the Golden State.
The average price for regular unleaded gasoline stood at $3.765 a gallon early Monday afternoon, down 0.4% from $3.779 a month ago, according to data from GasBuddy. The average in California, however, was at $6.25 Monday, That’s 66% higher than the national average and up nearly 20% from $5.221 on Sept. 3.

Average prices for regular gasoline in California. vs. the nation GASBUDDY
The Golden State pays more than double the $3.024 average price for the state of Mississippi, GasBuddy data show. California’s average price also isn’t far from its record high of $6.429 from June 14 of this year.
There are “many refinery issues in the West, including six refineries that are either undergoing planned or unplanned maintenance,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, on Monday. “That has caused gasoline supply on the West Coast to drop to its lowest level in a decade and caused wholesale gas prices to skyrocket.”
Total motor gasoline inventories on the West Coast were at 24.9 million barrels for the week ended Sept. 23, at the lowest since 2012, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
NOW PLAYING:

(th)

Calliban · 2022-10-03 14:42:37

If you live close to the California border in Nevada or Arizona, you could probably earn a tidy living from a gas station. So long as you are on the Nevada or Arizona side of the border, you will be cheaper than any supplier in California.

Maybe Arizona would be a good place for one of Kbd512's synthetic fuel plants. The fuel could be sold in California. As this is a form of solar energy, it would presumably be free from tax. A price of $6.25/gallon is 16.6 cents per kWh. If the fuel synthesis from electricity is 50% efficient, producing synthetic gasoline at this price might just about be feasible using a solar thermal electricity source. Starting with biomass instead of CO2 would help as well, as onky 1/3 as much electricity would be needed per unit fuel.

Synthetic ammonia would be more valuable in most of the world. This is a directly usable nitrogen fertiliser and making it using sunlight would free up scarce natural gas for other uses. Ammonia can be used as a fuel in high compression ratio diesel engines. In enclosed spaces ammonia fumes are as toxic as gasoline fumes. Ammonia has an obnoxious smell, like stale piss. On the plus side, it is almost impossible to ignite in air. A big downside for ammonia is low energy density, which is only one third that of diesel. But anhydrous ammonia can be stored indefinitely in steel tanks. It's vapour pressure is comparable to propane or LPG. Ammonia may be a good fuel for farms, given that it can power the vehicles and function as fertiliser, allowing both functions to be met be a single steel tank. Ammonia has a very high heat of evaporation. This means that it is easily transportable as a chilled, non-pressurised liquid. We could put solar ammonia plants in some really isolated places like North Australia, where land is otherwise worthless. The plants would fill up tanks of liquid ammonia, which are shrouded in soil for insulation. The tanks would drain by gravity into tankers docked at jetties off of the coast. From these jetties, the tankers could deliver fuel to population centres.

PS. It turns out that ammonia can be mixed with gasoline and the blend can be burned in conventional petrol engines. That is an interesting option.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … on_engines

Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-03 15:52:15)

SpaceNut · 2022-10-03 17:43:10

Shell brand fuel was talking it up about extra nitrogen. Shell said its new “nitrogen-enriched” gasoline, introduced recently in all three pump grades, “seeks and destroys” an engine’s carbon deposits, also known as gunk.

edit
Many fuel additives have been tried with some ended up in the water supplies.

tahanson43206 · 2022-10-03 18:59:39

Thanks to SpaceNut for finding and posting the report about Nitrogen added to gasoline.

I wondered if this additive might contribute to Nitrogen emissions.

The answer appears to be "it depends" ... The better long term answer appears to be to go electric.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/L … -pollution

Nitrogen in gasoline: Does it cause pollution?
Some oil companies are adding nitrogen to their gasoline. But does it cause pollution as well as boost performance a bit?

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-10-05 18:36:26

Under my plan, we would arrest the ridiculous vehicle weight increases by adopting more stringent CAFE standards, boosting fuel economy requirements to 60mpg for passenger cars, using 25hp air-cooled single-cylinder engines for vehicles akin to street-legal go-karts, fiber-infused PET plastics (stronger than traditional plastics, weaker than true fabric-and-resin-based composites) chassis, and/or adopt weight restrictions that favor lighter vehicles. I expect 2-passenger models to weigh around 1,000lbs.

For the 1.4 trillion miles Americans drive each year, 60mpg this represents 64 million gallons of gasoline per day. At 50% conversion efficiency, 4.35 terawatt-hours of solar thermal power are required per day. That equates to 105 million tons of steel for solar trough collectors and a similar tonnage of concrete. This plan's power requirement assumes Direct Air Capture of CO2, use of thermal power to supply most of the total input requirement, use of the Sabatier reaction to produce Methane, and use of the Socony-Mobil process for gasoline production. It will be very expensive to construct these plants, but the alternative is running out of fuel to power the economy, which is vastly more expensive.

These vehicles will have to meet NHTSA crash standards and use automotive safety glass, but they should be able to meet that weight target. Features such as power steering won't be present, but they will run at 70mph. A YouTuber who goes by the screen name of "Robot Cantina" has already taken an early-2000s-era 1,300 pound Honda InSight up to 70mph using a 420cc 25hp Honda / "Predator" single-cylinder go-kart / cement-mixer engine, and achieved that level of fuel economy, so this is clearly within the realm of feasibility and doesn't require new technology or performance requirements that can't be achieved with carburetors or EFI (he used both in his experimentation). Other crash safety features such as air bags will be deleted in favor of 5-point racing harnesses that are lighter / simpler / cheaper than air bag systems and provide more usable protection to the occupants. This is an application of racing technology to passenger vehicles, and lately racing crash safety results look a lot better than passenger vehicle crash safety results- most racers with 5-point harnesses walk or even run away from crashes that would otherwise be unsurvivable using air bags and 3-point restraints.

I can't say whether or not this will be viewed as a step backwards or not, but it meets what I consider to be minimum requirements for safe and reliable transportation on 4 wheels. This is 17.3% of present-day total daily consumption. 200 million vehicle chassis would require 73 million tons of plastic. Global production is 380 million tons per year for comparison.

If all of this looks rather expensive, the alternative is running out of cheap domestic oil and gas in about 5 to 10 years. I'm sure we'll find more over time and could convert coal to liquids, but that's what current US oil and gas reserves are listed as. In order to maintain our way of life, we need realistic alternatives, and continuing to synthesize oil and gas from atmospheric and ocean CO2 is the most realistic path forward.

An enormous amount of energy has been spent on batteries and electronics, but we've already hit practical efficiency and energy density limits for electrical / electronic systems. Compressed air has equivalent energy density to various Lead-acid to Lithium-ion batteries. The batteries are a bad trade for ESOEI, with compressed air being at least an order of magnitude better in that regard. CFRP tanks can be "recharged" approximately 20,000 times before they're unfit for service, and capacity over charge/discharge is still 100% of its initial storage capacity.

Nuclear would greatly reduce total material requirements, but not total plant operating cost over time, except over photovoltaics / wind turbines / batteries on account of their poor comparative service life and general durability in harsh environments. Since we're making motor vehicle fuel, not electricity, I think the nuclear fuel should be reserved for base load electricity and possibly process heat. Consuming rather than dumping nuclear waste heat has a role to play, though, as there are already nuclear plants built that could capture atmospheric or ocean CO2 or supply input thermal power to produce Methane or finished motor gasoline products. Nuclear reactor passive capture of ocean CO2 could drastically reduce the input power requirements. 50% of the total solar thermal power requirement is devoted to CO2 capture and the current fleet of water-cooled reactors could easily capture enough CO2 to negate that requirement.

While we're at it, we need to look into compressed air power and storage for city-based vehicles, perhaps a variant of a plastic chassis vehicle design, which does not emit anything except cold air, on account of how extreme population density and therefore extreme vehicle density has the propensity to cause concentrated air pollution, in turn creating chronic health problems. For example, for my 25 mile one-way commute (Houston, Texas city-based driving, and example of a physically "big" or "spread out" urban area, or Los Angeles), can feasibly be handled using compressed air. The vehicle will probably have a 55mph top speed on a highway, but that's sufficient.

If we can get 50 to 100 miles of range out of a "real car" powered by compressed air, it's hard to imagine how fossil fuels are a net benefit under that real-world driving scenario, especially when the tanks can be recharged in mere minutes, same as gasoline, and will last 20,000+ pressure cycles for composites or perhaps an infinite number using a corrosion-protected steel or Aluminum alloy. The near total lack of high-temperature parts will greatly aid vehicle longevity as well. As far as danger from compressed air is concerned, a fully composite tank with a plastic liner is about as impervious to corrosion as we're likely to get and in a worst case scenario the air tank turns into Carbon spaghetti when its destroyed through rupture. Going with the 40% weight reduction general rule for greater strength-to-weight ratio of lighter alloys and composites, as compared to steel, the steel tanks to achieve about 75 miles of range, with a 200bar working pressure, CrMo steel alloy is 588lbs, 6061 Aluminum is 353lbs, and CFRP and plastic is 212lbs. Toyota Mirai's pair of H2 storage tanks have a 122L capacity and store H2 at a working pressure of 10,000psi / 680bar and weigh 193lbs, so 82,960L of air, and are rated for 20,000 full pressure cycles.

The greatest weight reduction is steel to Aluminum, at 235lbs less weight. Aluminum to CFRP saves an additional 141lbs. Overall weight savings is 376lbs, which is about equal to the weight of an all-Aluminum V6. This tracks well with what I've seen in the way of commercially available air tanks with equivalent storage capacity. NHTSA imposes a 240 bar (3,528psi) working pressure limit on all steel and Aluminum tanks transported via highways, with only full composite tanks allowed to operate at higher working pressures.

Gast 4hp Air Motor

We would need 4 such air motors or a larger single air motor to supply 20hp, or 1 larger air motor. Each of the Gast-branded cast Iron air motors weighs 16lbs, or 64lbs in total to supply our 20hp. That would be somewhat reduced by switching to a single larger motor, perhaps 45lbs to 50lbs by reducing the number of heavy side-plates. We would stick with stainless steel or a high-Silicon ductile Iron for ultimate durability and corrosion resistance, even if an Aluminum alloy air motor only weighs half as much. We would operate the air motors at 300psi/42.6cfm vs 100psi/128cfm, so we need 170.6cfm to generate 20hp and 98ft-lbs of torque with a 3.5 reduction (gears or CVT, but probably CVT), which would produce a top speed of around 57mph using the same tires as the Honda InSight and same or very similar vehicle weight to that used by Robot Cantina. Acceleration would be as good as or better than the original. Honda Insight could generate 91ft-lbs of torque in total, using its 1.0L gasoline-fueled 3-cylinder engine, which supplied 67hp at 5,700rpm with 55ft-lbs of torque at 3,000rpm (IIRC), along with an additional 36ft-lbs of torque from an electric motor and up to additional 13hp. Our air-powered car will accelerate faster, but have a much lower top speed and a drastically reduced range. Insight's gas tank was 10.6 gallons and highway range was listed as 646.6 miles. Our air-powered vehicle will have a top speed of 55mph and range of 27.5 miles. However, if driven 15,000 miles per year in a city, the CFRP tanks will last for more than 36 years before it has to be discarded. Fill-ups can be accomplished in mere minutes, unlike batteries, and no batteries on this planet will last for 36 years.

The 10,000psi H2 tanks cost somewhere between $3,200USD and $3,600USD to manufacture at 1,000 units per year for a 275L tank capacity, which is above the 244L capacity I modeled for the air-powered urban transport vehicle. At 10,000 units per year, cost drops to less than half of that. The HDPE liner required for Hydrogen storage is still "thrown in" to the cost.

OSTI - Final Report: Hydrogen Storage System Cost Analysis - September 2016

Batteries seem like a superficially "good" alternative until you consider that Lead-acid, which is truly recyclable, could supply a fraction of the power required without suffering from internal damage. Renogy, for example, says do not discharge below 50% capacity or you risk shortening the service life of the battery.

Renogy 12V 200AH AGM Battery

Each battery weighs 128lbs, 4 of them could supply 400AH at 14.4V, and that's 5,760Wh of energy. After the batteries are discharged, you need hours of recharge time to avoid internal damage. This would supply about 46 miles of range at 125Wh per mile, although it could be substantially better during the summer or low-speed driving, possibly up to double that figure, but no more than that. A pair of 20hp EV motors are required to supply the 20hp of continuous output power, but as always, acceleration performance would be spectacular. The initial cost of 4 batteries is only $1,480, but those have to be recycled and replaced every 5.5years or less (expected service life is 3000 cycles at 50% Depth-of-Discharge), if taken below 50% DoD.

A 244L capacity 10,000psi air tank(s) are therefore double the initial cost of 4 200AH AGM batteries, or approximately the same cost if truly mass-produced, but you pay 6.5X as much over time using recyclable AGM Lead-acid batteries and electric motors, ignoring the cost differential beween electricity and compressed air. Compressed air will be cheaper than electricity if the waste heat from compression is fed into a Sabatier reactor or other reactors used to produce gasoline or Propane for highway vehicles. At present, we dump waste heat because we don't do much in the way of fuel synthesis or production of electrical power using supercritical-CO2 vs steam, but that will all change after we realize that we have to start synthesizing our own fuels to continue to enjoy the same standard of living that we do today.

The fossil fuels were Mother Nature's one-time "gifts to humanity" from the Earth, which allowed us to industrialize and move beyond abject poverty, but there's no rule or law written anywhere that says we cannot go "backwards in time" to the way we lived (subsistence farming) prior to industrialization. Now we desperately need to start producing our own energy from scratch using mass-recycling techniques. Over decades, abundance will return and humanity will leap forward again. We have fission, fusion on the near-horizon, and colonization of other worlds on the near-horizon if we master recycling and stick to thoroughly proven methods of using energy and materials.

We do not need exotic technology to do this. Solar heat, CO2 or oil for thermal power transfer, steel, concrete, plastics, and a dash of aerospace technology for fuel synthesis and energy storage is all that's required for humanity to have a perpetually sustainable technologically-advanced way of life that everyone on this planet and the ones we choose to colonize can enjoy. There are presently no actual shortages of anything we require to do this, but over-consumption must be arrested in the near future using methods that do not cause us to regress backwards in time by becoming further impoverished. Time is not standing still, either. The window to do this won't exist forever. Whether or not climate change turns out to be a more serious issue than it's been up to this point, resource exhaustion will be a big deal under any future operating scenario.

Calliban · 2022-10-06 02:31:31

I think compressed air hybrids are a sensible way to go in reducing vehicle fuel consumption. A problem with using stored compressed air as a stand alone power source for a vehicle, is that expansion energy is derived from the internal energy of the gas. Without some source of supplimentary heat, the air gets almost cryogenically cold as it expands from 240 bar. You end up losing a lot of expansion energy because temperature drop causes pressure drop between the turbine stages. This makes a pure air engine poorly efficient. This is why most compressed air vehicle concepts are hybrids, with waste heat from an engine providing reheat between turbine stages. You get more mpg that way, but the downside is you need both an IC engine and an air engine and a fuel tank and air tank. That makes design a bit more complicated.

However, our goals are to reduce fuel consumption to a level that makes syn fuels affordable and to reduce urban air pollution. A hybrid can do that by reducing fuel consumption on short distance urban journeys, thanks to its compressed air. At the same time, it retains the range advantage of an ICE vehicle for longer trips. These represent a smaller proportion of total miles driven, but are a capability that most drivers want available. The question is whether the added complexity, weight and cost of a hybrid is worth the fuel it woukd save on shorter trips? If fuel is expensive and electricity is cheap, then probably yes. If both are expensive, then maybe not.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-06 02:39:11)

Calliban · 2022-10-07 05:38:15

This reference discusses the possibility of blending ammonia into diesel and gasoline for IC engines.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … on_engines

I find this particularly interesting, because it obviates the need to develop new engine technologies for ammonia and also allows this synthetic fuel to be distributed using existing infrastructure. Ammonia is non-flammable under standard conditions and usually requires a high compression ratio to ignite. This makes it more suitable for diesel engines as a stand alone fuel. However, mixing it with hydrocarbons avoids this limitation, as ammonia will combust along with hydrocarbon fuel.

The world is presently facing a shortage of pig iron due to the boycotts of Russian iron and the destruction of the Ukrainian steel industry. The Russians also produce most of the world's noble gases, which are derived from the air seperation units that feed their blast furnaces. Ammonia is facing shortage globally, because of the loss of Russian natural gas. European ammonia plants have shut down.

There is an opportunity for countries with abundant electricity supply to integrate all three processes. Ammonia plants need air seperation units to produce pure nitrogen. The same plants can produce noble gases. The haber reactors also need a supply of hydrogen, which can be produced using electrolysis. Hydrogen can also be used to produce reduced iron, which can be processed into steel using electric arc furnaces. The pure oxygen from the air seperation can be burned with hydrogen to produce gypsum for cement production. These processes can all take place on the same site. What is required to make these processes work is cheap, baseload electricity. Ammonia is needed most urgently as fertiliser. However, as production expands beyond this need, it can be blended into fuels as a way of stretching out oil supplies.

tahanson43206 · 2022-10-07 07:13:13

For Calliban re #720

Bravo for your forward looking post! If there is a bold entrepreneur in the audience (of NewMars forum including non-members) please think about how you (or your team) might be able to build systems to address the needs opened up by the behavior of Russia in recent times.

SearchTerm:Ammonia combined with hydrocarbon
SearchTerm:opportunity to create industries to meet current needs

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-10-07 15:35:57

Late yesterday's meeting with Saudi's was met with a rise in cost to American with less quantity and a lowering of price to the EU with an increase in quantity. Of course, we are only hearing part of the deal that was made with this meeting.

Here is one such article Why the Saudis and Emiratis back Russia’s call for oil production cuts

Today's price at the pump did rise to 3.69 a gallon with some of the same stations elsewhere were still lagging in the price changing and were still down to 3.39 a gallon.

kbd512 · 2022-10-07 19:14:56

Calliban,

As you've pointed out before, there are hybrid technologies that provide fuel consumption reduction benefits without drastically increasing the overall complexity, such as hydraulic hybrids. There's an associated weight penalty regardless of the solution. The extent of the complexity penalty is a design decision. Chasing after design perfection is what typically drives cost / weight / complexity. A practical 2-seat passenger car (most cars contain 1 to 2 people when driven) doesn't need much more than 25hp using a plastic chassis, 50hp at most for 4 to 6 seat vehicles (for people with children). At that power level, significant fuel consumption reduction is not readily achievable. If the vehicle is kept light and simple, then its total power requirement is minimized. A 25hp gasoline engine can already provide 60mpg at 55mph. A diesel engine could potentially provide somewhat greater fuel economy, but 60mpg is realistic.

If no-Sulfur synthesized CNG or LPG is used as the fuel source, then that's pretty clean on its own. CNG and LPG diesels don't require DEF / Urea treatment, but may require PM2.5 filtration in the future. They still produce NOx, but a lot less. CNG diesel provides 97% PM reduction and 58% NOx reduction over "normal" diesel fuel, according to real-world testing using city / metro buses here in America. I doubt other practical forms of transport provide similar emissions reductions using something as simple as a fuel swap. At 60mpg, what practical benefit would hybridization provide? The primary issue is that most motor vehicle manufacturers produce much larger and much more complex engines that generate 200hp to 450hp, which consume significant quantities of gasoline or diesel fuel as a result.

All prices listed in USD...

* China supplies 20hp to 30hp air and liquid-cooled diesel engines for $250 to $1,000 per copy.
* A 50L 700bar CNG tank would cost around $1,000 if it was mass-produced, but 4 of the 6.9kg (27.6kg total) 12L 300bar CFRP diving tanks already cost about $1,000. 48L capacity at 300bar is enough CNG to run a 25hp diesel engine at full rated output for a little over 2 hours.
* The PET plastic in the chassis of the car is $1,000 USD per metric ton, so assuming each chassis contains 250kg of plastic and a glass fiber fill doubles the cost of the base material, then that's $500 USD for that material. The 2-seat chassis would have a front-opening glass hatch, rather than doors, similar to the AirPod vehicles, in order to increase side-impact strength and reduce mold costs.
* 14" steel wheels and tires will run $125 a piece, because that's about what you'll pay for steel wheels and Honda Insight type tires.

25hp All-Aluminum Air-Cooled CNG-fueled or LPG-fueled Dual-Cylinder Diesel Engine: $1,000
Manual Tap-Shift 4-speed Transmission (RWD): $750
4 12L CFRP Tanks and Plumbing for CNG: $2,000; 2 12L CFRP Tanks and Plumbing for LPG: $1,000
Fiber-Filled PET Plastic (20% to 40% Glass Fiber Infused into Plastic Pellets): $1,000
14" Steel Wheels and Honda Insight Load Capacity Tires: $500
Independent Suspension (4 Hydro-Pneumatic Struts and Trailing Arms): $500
Manual Brakes: $500
Tempered Automotive Safety Glass: $750 (Large Front Hatch Window, 2 Side Windows, 1 Rear Window)
Interior (Lightweight Bucket Seats, 5-point restraints, Steering Wheel, Cup Holders, Simplified Dash, iPad Dash Mount, Air Ducting): $1,500
Electrical Package (Motorcycle Battery, Headlights / Taillights / Dome Light): $500

Total Simpified CNG Diesel Vehicle Cost: $9,000
Total Simplified LPG Diesel Vehicle Cost: $8,000

* 70mph-capable (55mph more realistic)
* 60mpg-capable (at 55mph)
* No Powertrain Electronics
* Dash Instrument Cluster with Speedometer / Odometer / Fuel Tank Pressure / Engine Tachometer / Oil Pressure and Temperature
* LED Lighting Package ( Headlights / Taillights / Blinkers / Hazard Warning / Dash / Dome )
* Cabin Heat and Window De-Frost
* Air Conditioning using CFRP Air Tank (Optional)
* Pneumatic Engine Starter
* Pneumatic Power Windows
* Pneumatic Tap-Shift Manual 4-Speed Transmission
* Service Air Port for Tire Inflation (Included with Optional Air Conditioning)
* Parking Brake
* Manual Braking System
* Manual Steering
* 5-Point Restraint Harness for Driver and Passenger
* 2 Cup Holders
* iPad Mini Dash Mount for Navigation (iPad is Customer-supplied)
* Full-Size Spare and Bottle Jack (Optional)

Some marketing:

Q: Can you spend a lot more money to get a better car? Sure. The sky's the limit, in that regard. However, what are you wiling to pay for, merely to drive to work everyday, pick up your kid from school, or get groceries? Can you afford the gas, tires, and oil changes?
A: If you're like most of us, you have a budget. This vehicle is focused on economy, simplicity, reliability, ultimate durability, and recyclability. Eventually, all that stuff we mass-produce has to go somewhere after it's no longer usable.

Q: Can you readily service those more expensive vehicles without assistance from a well-equipped shop?
A: If you have even a little bit of technical skill and some hand tools, then you can service this vehicle. How many other car companies want you, the owner-operator, to be in charge of maintaining your own vehicle?

Q: If your vehicle breaks down, is it light enough for one person to push it while the other steers?
A: Many modern vehicles are so heavy that merely removing them from the roadway so other traffic can pass, all but requires the use of another operable motor vehicle. These vehicles are light enough for most adults to remove with minimal assistance. A Mini Cooper weighs 2,700 to 3,150 pounds. The Mini is an excellent car, but our vehicle is literally 1/3rd of a Mini Cooper in terms of weight and cost, ignoring the drastic reduction in fuel and maintenance costs. You can always pay more for a fancier product.

If money has utility to it, then you value its utility for all uses in your life. You understand that all cars are depreciating assets rather than investments, so this car is for you. We want to sell you a car, but the next time you show up at our dealerships, we expect to sell the next car to your children, not you. We're happy to perform routine maintenance on your vehicle, if you lack the time or desire to work on it yourself, but we would much rather you kept your money in your pocket by doing the work yourself. To that end, we will show you how if you have the time and patience to learn. If that sounds unbelievable, then you should understand that we're still just people like you and we have other fish to fry.

Q: Is the fuel supply removable for maintenance and storage without complex disassembly?
A: The most obvious answer is "no". Once gasoline goes into a car's gasoline tank, the only way it's intended to come out is through the engine. At our car company we want your energy supply to be accessible for whatever other uses you need it for. Whether it takes you places, provides a hot meal, or keeps you warm at night, is irrelevant to us. We view energy use as a means to get things done. We're pragmatists, not ideologues.

SpaceNut · 2022-10-08 20:21:01

Price did bounce a bit as it dropped to $3.63 a gallon so its a wait and see at this point for what the actual impact will be from the Saudi's actions.

Calliban · 2022-10-09 10:33:01

SpaceNut wrote:

Price did bounce a bit as it dropped to $3.63 a gallon so its a wait and see at this point for what the actual impact will be from the Saudi's actions.

Before OPEC made this announcement, they were 3m b/d beneath their production targets. Most of their members have had declining production for years. The fact that as a group, they can no longer reach their production targets tells us that the gulf states, Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, can no longer increase production sufficiently to make up for lagging production in Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Indonesia, etc. Reducing their targets by 4m b/d won't effect the supply situation that much. It just brings the target in line with reality. By publicly reducing their target, they make it look as if they are still in control of the situation and are voluntarily reducing supply. The reality is that years of under-investment and geological depletion, have eroded any spare capacity that the group once had. OPEC oil production has peaked.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-09 10:37:10)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#701 2022-09-25 20:37:11

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#702 2022-09-27 10:23:00

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#703 2022-09-27 20:35:11

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#704 2022-09-27 22:07:07

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#705 2022-09-28 02:59:10

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#706 2022-09-28 19:09:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#707 2022-10-01 07:55:37

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#708 2022-10-01 08:17:31

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#709 2022-10-01 17:34:33

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#710 2022-10-01 22:13:44

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#711 2022-10-02 02:13:30

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#712 2022-10-02 11:04:41

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#713 2022-10-03 10:52:24

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#714 2022-10-03 13:33:07

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#715 2022-10-03 14:42:37

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#716 2022-10-03 17:43:10

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#717 2022-10-03 18:59:39

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#718 2022-10-05 18:36:26

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#719 2022-10-06 02:31:31

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#720 2022-10-07 05:38:15

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#721 2022-10-07 07:13:13

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#722 2022-10-07 15:35:57

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#723 2022-10-07 19:14:56

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#724 2022-10-08 20:21:01

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#725 2022-10-09 10:33:01

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Board footer