Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

kbd512 · 2022-11-21 20:43:13

SpaceNut,

So basically, no actual answer to that thorny problem of that family with 2 of these new EV cars requiring 4X more electricity per month, which implies 4X bigger pipes and 4X more generating capacity. I already know this is just about spending money. It's another Chinese fire drill dressed up to make the ignorant think it's about improving our electric grids. We'll get to see lots of activity, money spent as if it's on fire, with zero accomplishment at the end.

That's pretty much what I thought. We both know 13 billion is a joke without a punchline if that was supposed to be the money spent on upgrading and improving the grid. Basically, your favorite political party just blew 13 billion dollars on nothing, which you and I and every other tax payer are now on the hook for. Worse still, the grid won't magically improve after the money is gone.

I know how to translate all that futuristic-sounding gibberish to what the most probable end result will be, and since I'm both a man and an adult who can do basic math, I operate on probabilities rather than possibilities. This is pretty much the opposite of what Democrats do, because someone can sell an idea to them that sounds like a great concept on paper, but nobody's ever seen a successful implementation of the futurism fantasy. Flying cars, energy without burning something, smart grid / smart phone but no "smart" phone or grid users who can do basic math.

Democrats have spent plenty of our money without result, but poor people are still poor, physics is still physics, addition and multiplication are still real concepts, and so on.

I grew up with computers, remember?

I've yet to see a computerized system much beyond simple counting where errors were actually reduced. There are simply fewer people who can actually tell when a software program doesn't produce the result they expect.

So, blow some more money on useless nonsense, but accept that the end result will be no better than what we started with, and we'll still be out the money at the end of the insanity (doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result).

Calliban · 2022-11-21 22:11:04

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
The point I think is lost is that 100% of the output product from a fuel synthesis plant can be gasoline or diesel or ammonia, assuming you intend to produce specific products, and the same equipment with some tweaking can produce different products. $170 per barrel equates to $4.04 per gallon of gasoline, which is pretty much what we're already paying. SMRs, at least in theory, could make nuclear power half of its present cost, so $2.00 to $2.50 per gallon of gasoline, which would still permit organic economic growth and allow more people to rise up out of poverty, so that they can be indoctrinated to believe the various falsehoods sold to them as part of the package deal peddled by most indoctrination centers masquerading as secondary education institutions.

Maybe it can work. I certainly hope so. For it to work, the cost of new generation SMRs will need to be kept beneath a ceiling of about $2000/kWe. With a 10% capital amortisation rate, that gives a capital repayment cost of about $0.023/kWh at beginning of life, declining steadily as capital is repaid. With fuel and operating costs included, it is possible for new generation nuclear reactors to generate at $0.05/kWh at BOL. That is about the same cost as new PWR capacity brought online in China. South Korea was able to build at this cost level, despite having much higher wage levels. The US and Europe were able to build at these costs (in adjusted dollars) before about 1980. For nuclear power to meet bulk fuel needs, we would need to adopt either a closed fuel cycle or a breed-and-burn arrangement.

One thing is for sure, the current mainstream green revolution ambitions are not workable and actually contradict environmentalist goals. The materials budget necessary to impliment the wind / solar / battery revolution is prohibitive. Attempting to impliment it will scar the Earth and impoverish most people, because the net energy return from these energy sources is much poorer than legacy fossil fuels when all infrastructure is factored in. Many tech enthusiasts appear to have a willful blindness to the difficulty of replacing a high power density, controllable energy source, with a low power density, intermittent power source. Very few of them appreciate that what we call 'the economy' is a thermodynamic machine. A high level of material wealth is entirely dependant on cheap energy.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-21 22:48:52)

kbd512 · 2022-11-21 22:45:06

Calliban,

I'm just sick of the lying and pretending that unworkable schemes are doable for the right price. I ask the people who believe this stuff very simple and basic questions, but they don't know the answers. Even some of the ones who should've given it some thought because they're in the industry, don't know. All I get are blank stares and deafening silence. I'm obviously not a mechanical or aerospace engineer, but I know enough to know with certainty that this electronics-everywhere, for everything, scheme is wildly impractical. I won't say it's utterly impossible, but it's not practical using any technology that I know about. The good and bad part about knowing just enough to understand what's practical is that all the magic is gone. It's a very cold mathematical process with no excitement or wonderment, which is why I, like you, boil this down to a dollars and cents proposition.

We could spend near-infinite money and not be able to mine 29,000 years worth of production of certain critical minerals in the next 10 years, so the idea that we're going to do that is any time soon is an outright absurdity, and I've grown weary of absurdities. What it really shows me is that they're not serious about actually solving the problem, whereas I am, which is why I only propose things I think could actually work because they don't require tech that doesn't exist or more of something than we've ever mined during the entire history of mining.

Beyond that, yes, it's very contradictory in nature, and none of it is about preserving the environment for future generations. This is related to how we've "discovered" that forest fires are one of the reasons why America had a balance or mix of evergreen and deciduous trees as Void has pointed out. After industrialization was completed, there was no longer anything "natural" about the "natural environment". We changed all of that to be more to our liking, but most people are not aware that we did.

Calliban · 2022-11-21 23:56:40

Historical construction costs of the global nuclear power reactor fleet.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 1516300106

This pdf is free to access from science direct.

What it shows is that the high capital cost of new nuclear powerplants is a recent (and western) phenomena. Before 1980, nuclear powerplants were completed at costs <$2000/kWe in 2010 dollars in the US. Quite a few were completed for $1000/kWe. Cost increases rapidly with increasing build time. This is where SMRs may provide a distinct advantage. For the Nuscale SMR, the entire steam supply system is built within a factory and shipped as a single component to site, by road or rail.

If we could install new nuclear capacity at $1000/kWe today, then nuclear generated synthetic fuels could potentially undercut the price of gasoline produced from shale. Cheap fuel and cheap electricity could enable a new era of manufacturing growth that would lift a lot of people out of poverty.

The potential for nuclear power to generate at very low costs is a direct result of its high power density. The steam supply system for a 1000MWe PWR has a wetted volume of only a few hundred cubic metres. That is about the same volume as a detached 4 bedroom house. And a powerplant of this size would provide the electrical power needs of a city of 1-2 million people. A solar power system generating the same time averaged power would be as large as the whole city.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-22 00:02:13)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-22 14:56:05

Trying to equate gas values of energy per mile is sort of the reason that it's not believable.

A solar charging system is a by once typically for a 20 plus year duration of operation and if you size it right you get all of that energy for a known level of cost to make use of in any flavor of EV which can cost the same as a comparable sized gas vehicle or even hybrid.

Gas is a constant buying with a variable fuel cost and an even more variable mileage that it might achieve and that includes the hybrids as well.

EV driving is different in that you have a known capacity to achieve mileage with but even that can be quite variable depending on whom and how one drives the vehicle.

The you have all of the weather climate contending that changes all of the vehicle's ability to get the same mileage depending on it quite heavily.

So, we need way more data to be able to prove out that a package deal of solar plus power wall for a recharging unit is of any benefit or not given all typical locations for install.

kbd512 · 2022-11-22 16:11:33

SpaceNut,

With a given vehicle weight, plus engine displacement and power output, we get ballpark estimates for how much fuel is consumed. Ever notice how close different manufacturers are on fuel consumption figures for given vehicle weight and engine classes? They're competing with each other, after all. This obviously doesn't apply to factory race cars or race car driving, which most people don't drive, but using reasonably accurate estimates of total fuel consumption and total miles driven for passenger type vehicles, we can derive capacity requirements for a fuel synthesis plant to meet the total yearly demand.

For spark-ignited engines, the lower the engine displacement and the closer the engine operates to WOT, the more efficient it is (generally speaking). In other words, large displacement engines loafing along at low rpm are generally wasteful of fuel. This is why certain hybrids only operate their onboard engine at WOT (small displacement and constant full output while the engine is turned on) to recharge their onboard battery pack and then draw power through the pack at all times. BMEP is another common measure of engine efficiency. Many engines also exhibit a "fuel island" effect whereby the operate very efficiently over a narrow rpm range well below redline rpm / WOT (I've posted about such engines on this forum).

The corporate average fuel economy figures are also posted for all factory new vehicles and they tend to be pretty accurate under typical highway and city driving conditions. If it's extremely hot or cold, actuals are are a little worse. Our 2007 Dodge Charger 4-door sedan, 2017 Cadillac Escalade large SUV, and 2018 Toyota RAV-4 small SUV all consume fuel at rates that track pretty closely with what the manufacturer lists on the window sticker, or a little better if you drive conservatively. I know this is not universal, but I've owned Ford / GM / Chrysler / Toyota vehicles and they all do roughly what's claimed.

I fail to see how EVs are remarkably different, except that total "fuel tank capacity" diminishes with time or extreme temperatures. The same happens with combustion engines, but the fuel tank is so relatively "large" that it's difficult for most people to measure without using equipment they can't afford, so people record fuel consumption and miles driven instead, and then use simple division to arrive at average fuel economy under real-world driving conditions.

SpaceNut · 2022-11-22 17:04:38

Todays price at the pump $3.85 as quick drop from the other day.

Oil price collapse: Saudis, Russians rush to market’s rescue, 2 weeks early

OPEC+ — the alliance that bands OPEC, or the 13-member Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, with 10 other oil producers steered by Russia — agreed at its prior meeting to slash production by 2M barrels per day in order to boost Brent and U.S. crude prices that had fallen sharply from March highs.
WTI, which hit a session low of $75.30 on Monday, marking a bottom since January, recovered most of their losses by midday, responding to the remarks by Abdulaziz and Novak. The U.S. crude benchmark settled at $79.73 a barrel, down 35 cents, 0.4%.
Sunil Kumar Dixit, chief technical strategist at SKCharting.com, said oversold conditions could push WTI back towards the 100-week Simple Moving Average of $81.30. “But it has to get to and close above $80. Otherwise, there’s always the danger if it moving towards lows of $72.50 and $71.”
Global crude benchmark Brent sank to $82.36 earlier, its lowest since February, before recovering to settle at $87.45, down 17 cents, or 0.2%, on the day.

SpaceNut · 2022-11-23 10:00:25

Demand for more oil has seen a growth in production and a fall in prices.
Rising Enbridge pipeline apportionment may spell pain for Canadian oil patch

Calliban · 2022-11-23 11:16:28

Between 2010 and 2015, conventional upstream oil & gas exploration declined from 21% to 17% of upstream investment. New oil discoveries, collapsed from 26bn to 5bn barrels per year, a decline of 80%. By 2019, exploration had fallen to just 10% of upstream investments. Why? Could it be that corporate boards know that there isn't much left to be discovered? The world is now discovering only one out of every six barrels that are extracted each year. New discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have declined ever since.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-23 11:30:53)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-23 11:56:54

U.S. crude inventories fall as fuel stocks build on strong refining activity

Crude inventories fell by 3.7 million barrels in the week to Nov. 18 to 431.7 million barrels.
Refinery utilization rates rose by 1 percentage point to 93.9 of totally capacity last week, with rates on the East Coast hitting a record high, as refiners continue to run at high processing levels to meet demand.
U.S. gasoline stocks rose by 3.1 million barrels in the week to 211 million barrels, compared with expectations for a 383,000-barrel rise.
Distillate stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 1.7 million barrels, versus expectations for a 550,000-barrel drop.
Net U.S. crude imports rose by 1.12 million bpd, EIA said.
Oil prices, which were already lower on the day, dipped on the data. Brent crude was down $3.57, or 4%, to $84.79 a barrel, while U.S. crude dropped $3.53, or 4.4%, to $77.42 a barrel.

Calliban · 2022-11-23 13:13:34

Production projection from the Peak Oil Barrel website. This appears to agree with Exxon Mobile projections.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-23 13:15:07)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-24 13:24:51

As we have noted that green energy cannot be deployed fast enough to take the reins on the demand from other sources.

The renewable energy transition is failing

Of course, part of the issue is the source energy that is needed to make these devices and that keeps the selling price on them out of reach for most since those desiring them are not in ideal locations to make them profitable for the user.

Calliban · 2022-11-25 03:30:36

SpaceNut wrote:

As we have noted that green energy cannot be deployed fast enough to take the reins on the demand from other sources.
The renewable energy transition is failing
Of course, part of the issue is the source energy that is needed to make these devices and that keeps the selling price on them out of reach for most since those desiring them are not in ideal locations to make them profitable for the user.

The problem is that the high value, dispatchable renewable energy (hydropower, biomass) is either tapped out (large hydro), faces environmental problems, or is in direct competition with food production.

Low power density, intermittent renewable energy (especially wind power and solar) is of limited value in replacing fossil fuels for electricity production because they still need backup plants. Additionally, the low power density makes the infrastructure very energy intensive. The amount of concrete and refined metals needed per kWh of harvested elecrricity, is 1 - 2 orders of magnitude greater than competing fossil or nuclear energy sources. If we had to build renewable infrastructure using the energy from renewables to produce new renewables, the cost would be very high, because the energy return on investment (EROI) is low. A world that depends upon intermittent renewables will have much lower energy consumption per capita and will be much poorer.

In other news: Deep water oil & gas production to expand 60% by 2030.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News … -2030.html

Given the greater capital cost of deep water production, this is a sure sign that producing nations are scraping the bottom of the oil barrel.

There are solutions to these problems. But they are not being discussed seriously at the levels required at the present time.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-25 03:36:37)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-25 09:26:09

Price drop at the pump this morning to $3.75 a gallon for regular..

Gasoline and diesel prices will fall again next week

Fuel prices will change slightly next Monday, November 28.
According to the 'ECO' report, at dawn next Monday, the liter of diesel is expected to drop by 5 cents, to an average price of 1,651 euros per liter. Simple gasoline 95, on the other hand, should decrease by 4.5 cents per liter, to price at an average price per liter of 1.658 euros.
The publication specializing in economic issues adds that these figures already take into account the new revision of temporary fiscal measures to help mitigate the increase in fuel prices, which are updated at the beginning of each month. Thus, during the month of November, the liter of diesel fell 3.8 cents and gasoline 1.4 cents through the tax system.

https://eco.sapo.pt/

kbd512 · 2022-11-25 16:40:15

SpaceNut,

Is Diesel really going for 1,651 Euros per liter in mainland Europe?

If so, then Diesel costs more than double, almost triple, its weight in terms of Silver.

I know they're having fuel shortages in Europe right now, but that still seems questionable to me.

If that's actually correct, then I'll fill up a few barrels of Diesel, ship it over to someone in Europe, and pay off my mortgage in short order.

SpaceNut · 2022-11-25 18:07:42

https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/dies … es/Europe/

https://www.rhinocarhire.com/World-Fuel … urope.aspx

Sure seems that one could do so if it were not the Atlantic Ocean between us.

Biden Quietly Approved 2 Million barrels per day Texas Oil Termina

SpaceNut · 2022-11-27 20:08:35

Elon Musk: Fully Loaded Tesla Semi Just Completed 500-Mile Drive weighing in at 81,000 lbs, which is almost 100% of its Gross Combination Weight (GCW) of 82,000 lbs (37,195 kg).

The company currently produces the Tesla Semi in Reno, Nevada and aims to quickly ramp up production to 50,000 units per year, at some point in 2024. That would be more than 100 vehicles per day, on average, and enough to make Tesla one of the largest Class 8 truck manufacturers in North America.
However, the initial rate might be much lower. One of the reports indicated 100 units in 2022.
Tesla Semi specs (August 2022):
Fully loaded at 82,000 lbs (37,195 kg) Gross Combination Weight
Range: about 300 miles (483 km) or 500 miles (804 km)
(two battery options)
Energy Consumption: less than 2 kWh/mile (1.24 kWh/km)
Estimated battery capacity (based on range and energy consumption): 600 kWh or 1,000 kWh (1 MWh)
Acceleration 0-60 mph (96.5 km/h): 20 seconds (when fully loaded)
Speed up a 5% Grade: Highway speed limit
Powertrain: 3 independent motors on rear axles
(vs. four motors in the initial specs in 2017)
Fast Charging: up to 70% of range in 30 minutes
Estimated average charging power in 70% SOC window (based on specs):
600 kWh battery: 840 kW
1,000 kWh battery: 1,400 kW (1.4 MW)
Fuel Savings (est.): up to $200,000 over 3 years
Tesla MY2023 VIN Decoder
Initial prices (at unveiling in 2017):
Expected Base Price (300 mile range) – $150,000
Expected Base Price (500 mile range) – $180,000
Base Reservation – $20,000
Expected Founders Series Price – $200,000
Founders Series Reservation – $200,000
* Prices displayed in USD. International pricing will vary

SpaceNut · 2022-11-30 20:01:40

Today's prices has, dropped to $3.66 a gallon.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-02 20:58:59

well, it has dropped some more now down to $3.55 a gallon.

US gas prices plunge as Americans get much-needed relief at the pump ahead of the holidays

Calliban · 2022-12-07 01:18:32

Which countries are paying the most for energy?
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … -Fuel.html

Western Europe is getting hammered by high energy prices. North American prices, whilst high by historical standards, are low compared to most of the world. The German energy situation, is actually forcing them into deindustrialisation.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-07 21:04:21

gas pump price has dropped to $3.39 a gallon.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-09 18:22:05

Another drop of fuel cost has occurred and is down to $3.35 nearby with what I am told that a station not far is below $3 for a gallon.

News has it that price of a barrel of oil as well dropped.

More distillery as well have come back online making fuel as well.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-19 20:34:54

The US made $4 billion selling oil this year on President Biden's unprecedented releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve selling 180 million barrels of crude at an average price of $96.25 a barrel.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, is hovering around $80 a barrel, as of Monday. West Texas Intermediate is trading at roughly $75 a barrel.
The White House has said that it plans to start buying oil for the SPR when US crude price hit $70-$75 per barrel.
Last week, the Energy Department solicited bids for 3 million barrels to be delivered in February to its Texas storage facility.
Yet officials also said that the administration isn't rushing to completely top off crude reserves, which are now at about 382 million barrels, because current levels remain high enough to endure any supply shocks.

Void · 2022-12-19 21:06:15

I guess it was clever, if you understood that the oil was needed at that time on an emergency basis, and that it was likely that the world economy was going to crash. I will give credit for it.

But, if they were doing anything right, they would have many partly fracked wells established, so that they could also be brought online in an emergency.

So, the strategic petroleum reserve is not as critical as it once was before fracking methods were developed.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-19 21:08:55)

kbd512 · 2022-12-20 09:26:12

Void,

We have no more Strategic Petroleum Reserve, thanks to the utter incompetence of President Biden's administration. Although it would never occur to a Democrat, I wonder if they have another country they can all move to after they're done looting this one. I have to believe that their voters take no issue with what's being done, because they keep voting for more of it. Cuomo, Biden, and now Fetterman- they've established a clear pattern of voting for the most incompetent representatives imaginable.

President Trump was clever for filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices were actually negative. President Biden draining it to try to win votes is a sign of not caring about the results of their policies, but desperately wanting to continue implementing those policies. I'm sure it was very expedient from a political standpoint. Democrats can do any deed and tell any lie, so long as it's in service to the party. Their voters support that without questioning any of it. I don't think there's anything a Democrat politician could actually do that's beyond the pale, apart from switching sides and becoming a Republican. Remember when Governor Cuomo was "Presidential material" when he was busy killing grandma and grandpa during COVID? That was the very thing Democrats falsely accuse Republicans of wanting to do. Democrats actually did it, probably because someone in the Democrat Party saw it as a likely way to kill off Republican voters, and then they eject the guy from their club for maybe touching a woman inappropriately. I think they only got rid of him because he wouldn't run against President Trump. They certainly don't have any principles that they stand for, apart from win at all costs and spend other peoples' money.

Democrat politicians haven't accepted that consequences can't be postponed forever. I guess they believe that their voters will remain transfixed by their party's "the Republicans made us do it" farce, forever, and maybe they're right about that. After those people can no longer afford to eat or live indoors... Well... You saw what "fiery, but mostly peaceful" Democrat voters did to the cities they live in during their "summer of love". Imagine that being every city in the entire country, until most of them finally starve to death. It's going to get very ugly if they keep after it.

A working man or woman would notice that even if they have a job, inflation is consuming whatever money they do have, the economy remains a wreck thanks to the lockdowns and general idiocy surrounding COVID, and they just keep throwing more money at Ukraine and their donor class like it's going out of style. The party that was formerly "anti-war" when President Bush was in office, is now throwing 858 billion dollars at the US DoD. I thought it was getting out-of-hand when we were spending 750 billion.

Whenever Democrats play stupid games with food / energy / national defense, the rest of us win stupid prizes. Some of them have enough ideologically-motivated insanity to ignore the consequences of their poor decision making skills. When large numbers of them go to the supermarket and there's no food left to buy at any price, then and only then will they begin to contemplate the error of their ways. They'll still blame Republicans, though. Accountability is Kryptonite for Democrats. They don't have any and probably never will. Whatever they do, it's always someone or something else's fault. The more ridiculous their assertions become, the more they believe their own BS. It's a self-reinforcing anti-logic loop intended to avoid any accountability or responsibility for nonexistent decision making skills.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#801 2022-11-21 20:43:13

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#802 2022-11-21 22:11:04

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#803 2022-11-21 22:45:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#804 2022-11-21 23:56:40

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#805 2022-11-22 14:56:05

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#806 2022-11-22 16:11:33

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#807 2022-11-22 17:04:38

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#808 2022-11-23 10:00:25

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#809 2022-11-23 11:16:28

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#810 2022-11-23 11:56:54

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#811 2022-11-23 13:13:34

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#812 2022-11-24 13:24:51

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#813 2022-11-25 03:30:36

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#814 2022-11-25 09:26:09

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#815 2022-11-25 16:40:15

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#816 2022-11-25 18:07:42

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#817 2022-11-27 20:08:35

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#818 2022-11-30 20:01:40

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#819 2022-12-02 20:58:59

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#820 2022-12-07 01:18:32

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#821 2022-12-07 21:04:21

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#822 2022-12-09 18:22:05

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#823 2022-12-19 20:34:54

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#824 2022-12-19 21:06:15

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#825 2022-12-20 09:26:12

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Board footer