At 11:22 AM 7/9/01 -0400, Chad wrote:
>Joe,
>
>joe wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for continuing this thread but I couldn't let this one pass!
>
>Wow, I don't' usually get that kind of response :-)
Sorry but I get feed up with people that just quote the latest party
line and don't pay attention to what's going on. For months last year the
oil companies said publicly that the latest shortage and higher prices were
due to a lack of refinery capacity. Then after GWB took office, he
announced that it was due to a lack of oil wells and decided to try and
open up ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico for drilling. Doesn't that seem
strange to you?
Do you remember earlier this year when the oil companies and the
Republican administration said that this shortage would last for several
more years and that prices would continue to rise for at least another
year? Do you remember when the Democrats called for an congressional
investigation into the supposed shortage but couldn't get one since they
were a minority in both houses? Doesn't it seem strange that after the
Democrats gained control of the Senate recently that the "shortage"
immediately ended and prices have steadily fallen since?
>
> > I think you need to do your home work. The oil companies have been
> > shutting down refineries. They've shutdown almost 30% of the refineries in
> > this country in the last ten years.
>
>Why?
Good question. Dammed if I know.
> Even if they import the oil, they still have to refine it?
Of course.
> >
> > > They may need to build more. or rebuild burned ones. The
> > >electricity problems comes from growing and growing use, without
> > >appropriate updates on the power system.
> >
> > That's very true but the problems with the electrical power industry
> > are due to a shortage of generating stations (particularly in California)
> > and has NOTHING to do with oil refinery capacity or any supposed oil
> shortage.
>
>Didn't I essentially say the same thing?
Maybe you meant that but you suddenly changed subjects when you said
"They may need to build more. or rebuild burned ones. The electricity
problems...." and it sounded like you thought the electricity shortage had
something to do with the oil shortage.
> I don't think the oil "crisis"
>has anything to do with the electricity "crisis". Our (US) electrical
>grid/system hasn't been upgraded to keep pace with demand and maybe not
>even kept current (no pun intended :-)
As I understand it, the electrical power problem is mainly confined to
California and is a result of them not building any generating plants in
the last few years. Of course, the problem will affect all of us directly
or indirectly since companies in other states will soon be selling their
power to California (because they'll pay more) and will start shorting the
people in their own states. (PLEASE! Let's not get into another long
argument about who or what caused the problems in California.
I did hear that more power
stations are being built more than ever before, However. I guess
someone thought it was a good idea to build a few :-)
I think you're right but I don't like the trend that I see
developing. A lot of companies are now building "merchant" plants in
states other than where they operate. These plants will generate power and
sell it to the highest bidder with no regard to the people in the state
that they're located in or where the company is (supposed to be)
located. I know a lot of you don't see a problem with that but the power
companies are monopolies and are supposed to operate at a reasonable profit
for the benefit of the people that they serve. Now they're going to be just
another big money-grubbing company but still retain the powers and benefits
of a monopoly and benefit no one but themselves. FWIW Duke Power is
building one of those plants about 20 miles from where I live. The plans
are for all of the power that they generate to go to the Carolinas. We
only "benefit" that we will see is them sucking 2,000,000 gallons of water
per day out of the underground water aquifer for their own use (we're
already under mandatory water use restrictions and have been for several
years). Also we will get the "benefit" of their toxins and other emissions
from their coal fired boilers. Oh, and somehow they're gong to have to
move a thousand tons of coal into the area every few days. I'm sure their
are other "benefits" that we haven't found out about yet.
> >
> > >Drilling in new locations isn't supposed to increase refinery capacity.
> > >It is part of a longer range solution.
> >
> > Horseshit! They're closing down wells everyday and have been for
> > years! Take a drive through Lousianna sometime! I was in Alaska a couple
> > of years ago and toured nearly the full length of the Alaskan pipeline.
> > Even it's only running at about 40% of it's capacity. The only reason that
> > they want to drill in ANWAR and GOM is because the oil companies want a
> > CHEAPER source of oil so they can increase their already record profits!
> > That's the same reason that the US continues to import oil from the middle
> > east. Even with their price increases it's still cheaper to buy their oil
> > than it is to produce our own.
>
>What I have always heard, was that our oil, "Texas oil" wasn't the same
>quality as oil from the middle east, and that Alaskan oil was much
>closer in quality to oil from the middle east. I know our oil isn't all
>in Texas and Alaska, but those are the two big name places everyone in
>the US thinks of.
Actually I think we get more oil from California and Oklahoma than we
do Texas. I can't say that I know much about the "quality" of oil but I
bet they measure it in $/barrel!
>How is drilling new wells, with fancy new technology cheaper than using
>existing wells with existing technology, i.e. wells and technology that
>are paid for and proven already?
>
>Don't quite a few cars get mileage in the 30's already? I drive a
>truck, so I am not as familiar with car gas mileage anymore.
Yes, a lot of them do but a lot of others don't. I think you'll find
that the average is a lot lower than 30mpg. Look at the surge in the sales
of the huge new SUVs like the new ones from Cadilacc. Would you care to
guess what their mileage is?
>
> > If the government is serious about a "long range solutions" then they
> > should mandate that ALL cars achive 30mpg by say 2006, then raise it to
> > 35mpg by 2011, then 40 mpg by 2016, etc until we achive the best practicle
> > mileage.
>
>Don't quite a few cars get mileage in the 30's already? I drive a
>truck, so I am not as familiar with car gas mileage anymore.
>
> > 50 mpg is very possible, a number of standard production cars
> > have already achived it. That's only one step, there are hundreds if not
> > thousands of other practicle solutions. Another solution would be to
> > mandate solar hot water heaters in all homes.
>
>I don't think solar hot water heaters would work very well here in
>Michigan. We have to many clouds and overcast days, unfortunately.
Yes, they are some areas where some ideas don't work. That's one
problem with government solutions, they always to a one-size-fits-all
solution. But there are a lot of things that work great on a local basis
like David's use of chip-oil to power his car.
> > I have one in my home and
> > it's been my only source of hot water for over 15 years and I've never run
> > out of hot water.
>
>How does it work? Is it homemade, or a commercial product?
It's a mix. About 18 years ago the government was giving tax rabates
to people that installed solar energy devices so a lot of solar energy
product manufacturers (and salesmen) sprung up. I looked at several ready
made systems but most of them left a lot to be desired so I designed my own
using commercail components. The state of Florida operates a solar enegy
center at Kennedy Space Center and they have tested all the different
collectors
and other devices and have papers with all the test results. I bought a 4 x
8 foot collector that was rated the second best of all the ones that they
had tested. I also bought a good quality 1/10 hp pump, an 80 gallon glass
lined Lockenvar tank and a good controller. The controller turns the pump
on when the temperature of the collector is 10d higher than that of the
water in the tank. In cold weather it also turns the pump on when the
collector's temperature drops below 40d F. That pumps hot water from the
tank through the collector to keep it from freezing. I also added a
mechanically operated vent valve at the top of the collector. It opens when
the temperture drops below 38d. When it opens, hot water from the tank
flows up through the collector and is then vented. That system relies on
water pressure alone and uses no electricity. It's there in case we have
freezing tempertures and the power is off. That's about it, there's some
bells and whistles like cut off and drain valves, electrical overrides and
a flow gauge but they're not really necessary. I put it all in and hooked
it up almost 18 years ago and I've had zero problems with it. We don't get
a lot of freezing weather here but it has survived down to 12d F. I don't
do anything to it to prepare it for old weather, everything is automatic.
> >
> > > Drilling in new locations is
> > >something a lot of countries are doing.
> >
> > Sure, because they all want to be independent of foreign sources and
> > because it's a huge source of revenue.
> >
> > > Drilling in the North Sea is
> > >being done now, or maybe deeper water than normal..... I don't recall.
> > >I have seen a show on Discovery or TLC about the building of the
> > >platform. It was a huge engineering feat the way they built it.
> >
> > Yes, the engineering is impressive but again that has nothing to do with
> > the "nessesicity" for drilling in ANWAR or GOM.
>
>Well my point wasn't really the engineering, that was a bonus :-)
Gadget freak! Hey, that reminds me, somewhere I have an
oil-drilling program ROM for my HP-41. I've played with the programs and
read the manual but I'll be dammed if I understand what they're talking about!
> > I know a good bit about alcohol powered vehicles, I've been
> > experimenting with them since the late 60s. Alcohol is not nearly as
> > powerfull, cost effective or as efficient as gasoline.
>
>Then why do certain classes of race vehicles use it, if it isn't as
>powerful?
They make up for the inherent lack of power (about 20% less) by
turbo-charging the engines. The Indy cars are a good example. The top
fuel dragsters are another good example but they cheat by adding
Nitro-Methane! (I once tried 40% alcohol and 40% Nitro-Methane in a model
airplane engine. Boy, did that thing go!) Alcohol is preferred because
it's a lot safer. Compare an alcohol fire and a gasoline fire sometime. You
can literally hold alcohol in your hand while it burns (just put it out
before it completely burns up!)
> > Alcohol also has
> > major incompatibilities with the components of automotive fuel systems.
>
>Doesn't it just take a switch to stainless steal for lines, tank, etc.?
You'd think so but I guess there are a lot of "rubber" seals in the
pumps, fuel injectors and pressure regulators that aren't as easy to
fix. Besides have you ever compared the price of stainless steel vs
regular steel? WOW! I'm sure it's not something that the car companies
would do willingly.
> > A
> > number of companies have tried selling gasoline with alcohol added
> > but AFIK they're all dropped it due to the cost, performance and other
> > problems.
>
>You mean gasohol... I remember that stuff :-)
>
> >
> > > Something might
> > >have to be done about people drinking the contents of ones gas tank :-)
> >
> > That would cure the population problem!
>
>I don't buy the whole population problem deal either, but lets save that
>one for later :-)
Yeah, let's save that one for another flame-war. Sellam and Richard
already have a good one going!
Joe
>Chad Fernandez
>Michigan, USA
Received on Mon Jul 09 2001 - 12:28:53 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:50 BST