£1 a litre/$3 a Gallon

[Type941]

Originally Posted by August

On average, taxes (State and Federal combined) make up about 23% of the cost of a gallon of gas in the US. What percentage do you pay?

Now I will chat with a colleague who is dealing with commodities tomorrow may be and get more deep into this topic, as your explanation sounds completely ... well, too simple. I live in north eastern europe.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

The problem is that on Earth, all of the hydrogen is bonded to oxygen, in the form of water. In order to retrieve the hydrogen, a large amount of energy must be put into the water. That energy has to come from somewhere.

You hit the nail right on the head, sir.

Oil is an energy storage unit. Energon is an energy storage unit. Beer is an energy storage unit. Spinach is an energy storage unit.

The oil has been storing up energy for several million years. All I'm saying is use hydrogen to store the energy from man-made nuclear reactors. Coupled with core re-processing, we can buy all the uranium we need from Australia and Canada. Very soon, India is going to be using thorium breeders to power their country, and would likely be interested in a bit of trade.

We need to decentralize power production, such that the transmission losses are far less than what they are now; a superconductive transmission grid would help alleviate this particularly significant issue. We also have tons of radioactives left over from 30 years of plutonium production, quite a bit of which can be used in the medical industry as well as the power production industry. In fact, our airline industry can use some of the radioactives for non-destructive material integrity testing. The rest can be vitrified and for various localized purposes, such as de-icing the sidewalks; not that you would just roll the bloody barrel down the sidewalk, but designing a small system of thermal transfer is within the capability of even the most inexperienced civil engineer.

The problem has been, and continues to be even today, nuclear proliferation. Pakistan, China, Bill Clinton, and Iran have taken care of that issue for us, so there's really not much utility left in a non-proliferation agenda.


I think on-site hydrogen production, especially for the highly populized east and west coasts, is the viable energy transfer solution for America. It's even possible to pump ocean water into the central states instead of actual hydrogen, using the resultant salt for dietary and industrial purposes.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Whats the problem? most of the Earths surface is also Hydrogen so why would you want to go to Jupiter? Might be a cool place to visit, but doubt I want to get my gas from there when we have more than we know what to do with right here, and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to refine it here than send spacecrafts for it.

-S

But Jupiter is 317.8 times the mass of Earth (that should be sufficient to supply the current population of Earth till the Sun dies or close to it), it has 63 moons to colonize- the four Galilean Moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) are about equivalent to our moon, our Moon is about the size of the United States so how much industry could be built there and take advantage of the low gravity?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

But Jupiter is 317.8 times the mass of Earth (that should be sufficient to supply the current population of Earth till the Sun dies or close to it), it has 63 moons to colonize- the four Galilean Moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) are about equivalent to our moon, our Moon is about the size of the United States so how much industry could be built there and take advantage of the low gravity?

I'm thinking from a cost to gather perspective. When the technology to travel to Jupiter and back becomes economical, then by all means!

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I'm thinking from a cost to gather perspective. When the technology to travel to Jupiter and back becomes economical, then by all means!

The thing is we basically have the technology we just don’t have the will or the infrastructure to use it.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The thing is we basically have the technology we just don’t have the will or the infrastructure to use it.

Thats exactly what I said. Problem is, that technology is expensive!

[TLAM Strike]

But once the Infrastructure is in place the cost drops a lot. Take space elevators and mass drivers for example one expensive piece of equipment makes everything down the line a lot cheaper (dollars and cents cheaper). The days of the rocket are over I just wish NASA and the ESA would realize that.

Making hydrogen fuel on Earth will fuel humanity for what a century or two? Going out and getting it will fuel it forever. Someone was complaining about the short sightedness of energy policy well this is about as long term as you can get without quoting Prof. Dyson.

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

But once the Infrastructure is in place the cost drops a lot. Take space elevators and mass drivers for example one expensive piece of equipment makes everything down the line a lot cheaper (dollars and cents cheaper). The days of the rocket are over I just wish NASA and the ESA would realize that.

Making hydrogen fuel on Earth will fuel humanity for what a century or two? Going out and getting it will fuel it forever. Someone was complaining about the short sightedness of energy policy well this is about as long term as you can get without quoting Prof. Dyson.

Earth's supply of hydrogen would technically last indefinitely. How so, you ask? When you burn hydrogen, it bonds to oxygen and reverts to the water that it was originally taken from (except that it is in the form of water vapor). This water vapor will eventually condense in the atmosphere and rain back down upon the Earth, where it can be recollected and re-separated into pure hydrogen and oxygen, to be reused for energy. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only problem is getting the energy to re-split the hydrogen from the oxygen.

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

The problem is that on Earth, all of the hydrogen is bonded to oxygen, in the form of water. In order to retrieve the hydrogen, a large amount of energy must be put into the water. That energy has to come from somewhere.

P.S. Isn't chemistry wonderful?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

Earth's supply of hydrogen would technically last indefinitely. How so, you ask? When you burn hydrogen, it bonds to oxygen and reverts to the water that it was originally taken from (except that it is in the form of water vapor). This water vapor will eventually condense in the atmosphere and rain back down upon the Earth, where it can be recollected and re-separated into pure hydrogen and oxygen, to be reused for energy. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only problem is getting the energy to re-split the hydrogen from the oxygen.

That’s true. The possibility of large amounts of He 3 on our Moon and in Gas Giants makes the possibility of mining out there cost effective if it could be put to use in fusion.

Besides we will need a lot of extra Hydrogen if we ever want to seed Mars with water.

[I-25]

Funny Dow here in mexico we havent ever relyed on persian gulf oil (we have our own reservers) but sice the US cranked up the prices i shot up in mexico too! All a money making scam ohh well thats mexico jaja :rotfl: any ways i got (well my dad) a 83 diesel VW rabbit and get 50 miles to the gallon! thats 700 Miles to a tank!

[Type941]

August, yup, it's about the tax, you were correct. Turns out we just have this taxation that's slightly different. In a nutshell, in europe consumption is taxed, so everyone is hit with it at the pump, while in US tax is dfferent and in a nutshell, those who use most get taxed through their income indirectly. Which makes much more sense.

I don't know whethere US is entering a stage where they start using their own reserves, as past WW2 they decided to keep them untouched for a while. But yes, we should be whining now, I want my cheap gas. But we are forced on another hand to drive more efficient cars, better for environment.

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

August, yup, it's about the tax, you were correct. Turns out we just have this taxation that's slightly different. In a nutshell, in europe consumption is taxed, so everyone is hit with it at the pump, while in US tax is dfferent and in a nutshell, those who use most get taxed through their income indirectly. Which makes much more sense.

I don't know whethere US is entering a stage where they start using their own reserves, as past WW2 they decided to keep them untouched for a while. But yes, we should be whining now, I want my cheap gas. But we are forced on another hand to drive more efficient cars, better for environment.

We may be entering that stage. A lot depends on who is in control of Congress come 2009-10. The other thing is whether we're going to continue to prevent refineries (and nuke power plants) from being built.

All that aside, one big thing that has retarded the acceptability of small gas-saving vehicles here in the US is the distances we commonly have to travel both for work and play. It's bad enough to drive 2-3 hours a day but to do it in a small, cramped car can rapidly become intolerable.

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by August

...
All that aside, one big thing that has retarded the acceptability of small gas-saving vehicles here in the US is the distances we commonly have to travel both for work and play. It's bad enough to drive 2-3 hours a day but to do it in a small, cramped car can rapidly become intolerable.

Plus we have not supported (either in terms of money or in our individual choices) passenger/commuter rail as Europe has. We are too automobile-dependent; we'd rather be "packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes" because it gives the false impression of freedom (even though we spend a lot of that freedom sitting in highway logjams). There's a social stigma in this country when it comes to using public transportation - the unspoken sentiment is that only people who can't afford the "normal" mode of transportation - cars - use buses and trains.

It is far too difficult to "survive" in the U.S. if you don't or can't drive yourself; it restricts your access to jobs, housing, grocery stores, places of worship, education, recreation - everything. Can't afford to live inside the beltway? Better have a car so you can drive the 20 or 30 miles (c. 30-50 km) out to cheaper housing.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy. I drive a gas-guzzler; it's paid for, but it's not worth a whole lot in terms of selling it or trading it in for a more economical vehicle. So I'm stuck with it until I can afford to buy a new car outright - which hopefully won't take too much longer. But IMO it's not just a question of developing and using economical cars, but also of developing and using alternative forms of travel.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Wanna actually encourage conservation? Let the price continue to go up. Nothing impacts consumer behavior like taking it in the wallet. If the price goes too high people will change their driving habits and cut back on their use and eventually that'll result in a glut on the market causing the price to come back down.

But when the govenment steps in and starts monkeying with the system for a few short term gains...it usually creates more problems than it solves.

I agree with this completely. Part of the problem is derived from the meddling of gas prices in the past with the result that alternative sources of energy and of transportation have remained comparatively expensive and thus either undeveloped or barely utilized. Now consumers are taking it in the wallet and any more meddling will only further America's dependence on fossil fuels and postpone the day of reckoning. But it will come all the same, and likely be even more severe.

Will that stop politicians from meddling to keep gas prices artificially low? Doubtful. They're in for a short term of office and then the problem becomes someone else's. While the voters possess an unusual sense of entitlement for cheap gasoline, which is unreasonable given the US hit peak oil in the 70s, and will lay the blame for high prices on the doorstep of whoever happens to be elected. Though that's not to say that they are entirely blameless either.

I cited the US though some of this is somewhat true in Canada as well. Although I would say we don't have quite the same sense of entitlement toward cheap gasoline, have better developed and more extensive mass transportation, and are subject to more extreme weather that provides a rationale for a more widespread use of more fuel intensive automobiles.

[tycho102]

And the rest of our economy will slow down along with those high gas prices. Meaning that the cost of goods will up. As well as less tax revenue for the politicians to spend, and it generally makes it more difficult for them to pander to the lobbists (larger sums of cash).