Fuel prices

Saw a good analysis of this on another site. Record high oil prices were hit during the Iranian hostage crisis, a little over $90 a barrel. And to put it in perspective, the top grossing movie of all time, adjusted for inflation is still: Gone With the Wind.

Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross
1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,293,085,600 $198,676,459
2 Star Wars Fox $1,139,965,400 $460,998,007

Gone With the Wind came out in 1939, when you probably paid a nickel to see a movie.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Show me something with as good energy density per pound as oil.
<snip>

[/ QUOTE ]

Uranium?
 
[ QUOTE ]

I remember in college reading something about OPEC, and it said the ideal goal price for oil was around $20 a barrel. OPEC worried that if it charged more than that, it would cause the world to gear up alternative fuel sources, therefore rendering OPEC useless. I guess that whole plan fell by the wayside.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! In order for alternative fuel sources to be explored, the barrel will have to maintain a high price for an extended period of time, like it is now.

Look at Boeing & Airbus right now, pumping technology into producing more effiicent aircraft that use less fuel, the sales of the Hybrid have been increasing, etc.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But isn't the problem coming from a bottleneck at the refineries and not a lack of pumping?



[/ QUOTE ]

High oil prices are being felt all over the world, many factors:

Chaos in the middle east (not just Iraq)
Developing countries such as India & China increasing their imports of oil.
Polictical problems in Venezuela .
Decrease in the discovery of new oil fields.
Threat of Iran starting their Nuclear program
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico
Civil unrest in Nigeria
 
[ QUOTE ]
Civil unrest in Nigeria

[/ QUOTE ]

...damn those Nigerians,damn them all!!!

wink.gif


-Matthew
 
We need to get a bunch of scientists together from around the world and make it the next space race... like a race to a new form of fuel... make it all patriotic or something... then give whoever wins a billion or so...
 
You guys must understand - it's not the place of the U.S. to fight high fuel costs. We're not here to find alternative fuels. We're here, sent by The Maker, to fight terra!
sarcasm.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
(in my Sean Hannity voice:)

Lloyd... Why do you hate 'Merica?

sarcasm.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

That's usually how it goes, isn't it . . .
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
There hasen't been a new refinery built in the US since the late 70s. Since that time hundreds have been shut down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to get all political, but Hillary Clinton was a big proponent of a bill that caused that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we are going in the direction of ethenol engines.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ethanol is a net energy loser, so it won't help us. It requires massive fossil fuel inputs, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel to run a tractor, not to mention that it is energy-intensive to process corn into ethanol...Another thing to consider is that we likely wouldn't have enough arable land for a massive transition to ethanol to fuel automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I agree that ethanol and other organic fuels are the wave of the future, at least until something better like super-safe and easy nuclear power comes along. Here's my reasoning.

1.) Organic fuels require very little modifications to existing powerplants (engines), and in some cases require non at all, such is the case with biodiesel. Biodiesel (the diesel equivalent of ethanol) is made from oil seed plants such as corn, canola, etc. and requires no modifications whatsoever in the majority of diesel engines to use. Jet fuel is highly similar to diesel fuel (minus a few lubricants required for the pistons in a diesel engine mainly), therefore an organic fuel to replace Jet A is not entirely out of the question.

2.) Yes, it does take energy to produce these biofuels, but one of the largest current users of biodiesel is in fact agriculture. About 80% of modern farm equipment uses diesel fuel making biodiesel ideal for these machines, especially since they need no mods. Hence this reduces greatly the need for oil to produce the biofuels. As for the energy put into manufacturing equipment, fertilizers, and the milling of crops, I think this needs to come from advancements in nuclear power and renewable energy such as wind energy.

3.) Yes, arable land is a limiting factor, but there are many things that need to be considered. To begin with there is far more arable land out there than one might realize that is not in use mainly because of costs. Current crops with low relative grain prices are not profitable therefore the land goes unused. There is a government program called CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) which actually pays farmers to plant their cropland to native grasses to provide habitat for wildlife, reduce erosion, etc. etc. Thousands of farmers enroll their land in this program as their retire or just simply because they can't otherwise break profit off of their land. This along with all the farmland in developing countries would provide a substantial base for oilseed crops required for biofuels, which in turn would also boost agriculture.

Finally, I do believe this is only a temporary fix and that the future lies with renewable resources and nuclear energy. Maybe someday nuclear energy will be advanced enough to power our cars and aircraft. Just think about it, nuclear powered airliners! Wouldn't that be cool!
rawk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just think about it, nuclear powered airliners! Wouldn't that be cool!
rawk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Already tried it. The containment was way too heavy for practical use since it had to be lead.
 
Has anyone ever computed how many gallons of fuel is burned to fly 1 person across the country (say LAX to JFK) on a commerical plane?

I would think that it is pretty significant even if split amoung the 200 or so people on board a plane.
 
Well, if it passed since Clinton's been a Senator, it must have had a lot of support from the party that holds both houses of Congress and the White House right now, correct?

Not to pick on you, but it sure seems a little silly to be blaming Clinton when she's one Senator in a party which doesn't control a single branch of government right now.
 
[ QUOTE ]
she's one Senator in a party which doesn't control a single branch of government right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

And hopefully that party won't control a single branch of government for a very, very, very, very, long itme.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone ever computed how many gallons of fuel is burned to fly 1 person across the country (say LAX to JFK) on a commerical plane?

I would think that it is pretty significant even if split amoung the 200 or so people on board a plane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back in my school days, a Boeing engineer claimed that a fully loaded 747 got about 21 MPG per person.
smile.gif
 
Yes, because things were so CRAPPY during the years that Clinton was in the White House. I mean, things were just horrendous.
cwm27.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because things were so CRAPPY during the years that Clinton was in the White House. I mean, things were just horrendous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true Tony. But we've got to move on .org
 
Back
Top