Three Cheers for $4 Gasoline
Of course you must keep in mind that I am a retired engineer, living in the Smoky Mountains, who drives 10 miles to town once a week for groceries; these facts make it possible for me to develop a Solomon like understanding of reality from an Archimedean point of view.
Quickie from Wiki—“An Archimedean point is a hypothetical vantage point from which an observer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality. The ideal of "removing oneself" from the object of study so that one can see it in relation to all other things, but remain independent of them, is described by a view from an Archimedean point.”
Does $4 gas signify the beginning of the ending of a civilization of adolescent life styles divorced from the reality principle? Does it presage the beginning of the ending of a self-absorbed and largely fictional pattern of social behavior?
I doubt it but I can dream can’t I?
This morning I listened to NPR interviewing the mayor of Houston Texas speaking about anticipated efforts for completely remodeling the living and cultural standards of the citizens of Houston in anticipation of creating a city where citizens might work, shop, and live within walking distances of shops, supermarkets, and jobs.
Reality seldom challenges salient points of hero-systems largely because the earth has been so bountiful; natural bounty has thus far allowed Americans to live largely in a world of playful fantasy that may be beginning to crumble around a commercial-military hero-system of fantasy.
Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock because he tried to awaken the youth of Athenian society to this very reality-principle; he died a hero in the eyes of history because he asked the youth to question their own hero-system.
Will $4 gas lead you to question your own commercial-military hero-system?
I'm learning to shoot my rifle from my bicycle.
Not.
Not.
QUOTE
Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock because he tried to awaken the youth of Athenian society to this very reality-principle; he died a hero in the eyes of history because he asked the youth to question their own hero-system.
a moments silence.... long live Socrates...
I hope gas goes to $20 per gallon.... I can not wait... it is either gas and extinction or no gas and survival....
but LOL, I ran my car on water 30 years ago... LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 05:43 AM)
I ran my car on water 30 years ago... LOL
It sank, right? - pity you survived Bozo.
It sank, right? - pity you survived Bozo.
Zarkov,
I am very proud of you for honoring Socrates. You and I finally agree about something.
Will high gas prices really hurt the American economy or might the forced development of alternative fuels coupled with the possible increase in domestic manufacturing actually be a help in the long term?
I am very proud of you for honoring Socrates. You and I finally agree about something.
Will high gas prices really hurt the American economy or might the forced development of alternative fuels coupled with the possible increase in domestic manufacturing actually be a help in the long term?
Maybe the US will think it's worth $10 billion to build a working fusion reactor ASAP rather than have the economy take a hit which ends up costing them trillions of dollars....
That and shift from using vehicles which have 5miles/gallon fuel economy. All those people in RVs must be ****ing themselves. Particular those who hitch an SV behind them to have a car to 'run around town' with.
That and shift from using vehicles which have 5miles/gallon fuel economy. All those people in RVs must be ****ing themselves. Particular those who hitch an SV behind them to have a car to 'run around town' with.
Why would we spend $10 billion on something constructive when that money could be used to fund a month of the war in Iraq (almost)?
I agree pretty much with Coberst and add:
We here in the good 'ol U.S.of A. are living in a
country that is now so muscle-bound that it can
change nothing. We can only 'go with the flow'
Obama is a complete fraud . . .
We here in the good 'ol U.S.of A. are living in a
country that is now so muscle-bound that it can
change nothing. We can only 'go with the flow'
Obama is a complete fraud . . .
Yep, I am a McCain supporter. I disagree with some of his positions but he is not overtly anti-science and he is a better candidate than Obama.
I doubt very much will change for long because of the price of petrol.
It used to be that unless we could feed the populous, famine would keep check on progress. Now since consumerism, the panic is not how to correct the mistakes within our communities , but how to best exploit them.
already the disregard for the greater good is seen in the amount of agricultural land is being turned over to bio fuels. "short term fixes and profiteering" . The net result is that as soon as bio fuels become a viable solution, petrol producing economies will have a yard sale which will see many go to the wall as bio fuel cannot compete against a present and easily accessed 'crop'.
I can see this happening once prices have peaked enough to make bio fuels viable under 'current' conditions. If I planned to cripple an economy like America, few game plans would work as well as this. America has been strong because of the water and arable land and it's usage. This new direction will be punishing on America in the very near future......Watch this space.
Cheers
Iseason
It used to be that unless we could feed the populous, famine would keep check on progress. Now since consumerism, the panic is not how to correct the mistakes within our communities , but how to best exploit them.
already the disregard for the greater good is seen in the amount of agricultural land is being turned over to bio fuels. "short term fixes and profiteering" . The net result is that as soon as bio fuels become a viable solution, petrol producing economies will have a yard sale which will see many go to the wall as bio fuel cannot compete against a present and easily accessed 'crop'.
I can see this happening once prices have peaked enough to make bio fuels viable under 'current' conditions. If I planned to cripple an economy like America, few game plans would work as well as this. America has been strong because of the water and arable land and it's usage. This new direction will be punishing on America in the very near future......Watch this space.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 05:43 AM)
a moments silence.... long live Socrates...
I hope gas goes to $20 per gallon.... I can not wait... it is either gas and extinction or no gas and survival....
but LOL, I ran my car on water 30 years ago... LOL
Any thoughts on how you're going to feed the world if you had your wish granted? Are we suppose to go back to farming (and if so, can agriculture be efficient enough to produce enough food without modern agricultural methods ... I assume most metropolitans won't be able to import enough food, so we'll have to lift zoning laws and convert a lot of land to additional farming resources).
There are already countries having food shortages in Asia and the cost of energy is a part of the problem. At least you'll be happy with your water car.
Ted Kennedy once tried to run his car on water...it backfired and a woman was killed. Not recommended.
This looks like an exciting alternative!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25265682/
It is almost as good as a plane. It requires a whole new infrastructure, but then, a big public works project is just what an economy needs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25265682/
It is almost as good as a plane. It requires a whole new infrastructure, but then, a big public works project is just what an economy needs.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 21 2008, 02:14 PM)
Maybe the US will think it's worth $10 billion to build a working fusion reactor ASAP rather than have the economy take a hit which ends up costing them trillions of dollars....
That and shift from using vehicles which have 5miles/gallon fuel economy. All those people in RVs must be ****ing themselves. Particular those who hitch an SV behind them to have a car to 'run around town' with.
I talked to a physicist a few years ago, and since we are on a physics board, perhaps you grand fellows can enlighten me a bit. I would be quite the proponent of nuclear plants except for 2 things, shoddy safety history and no place to store the spent fuel.
I then became excited about fusion, saying that it would be the greatest thing since sliced cheese. This quiet fellow in the corner essentially told me I was full of shi*.
The problem with a fusion reactor (1990's time frame) he says, is that it radiates the entire complex eventually, leaving you with an incredibly radioactive containment area to deal with instead of just spent nuclear rods. and that the type of radiation is the type that effects biological tissues rather rapidly...
How true was that statement? Let the opinions fly!
"Batten down the hatches, wimmen and chillen below" arrrrrr
MM
That and shift from using vehicles which have 5miles/gallon fuel economy. All those people in RVs must be ****ing themselves. Particular those who hitch an SV behind them to have a car to 'run around town' with.
I talked to a physicist a few years ago, and since we are on a physics board, perhaps you grand fellows can enlighten me a bit. I would be quite the proponent of nuclear plants except for 2 things, shoddy safety history and no place to store the spent fuel.
I then became excited about fusion, saying that it would be the greatest thing since sliced cheese. This quiet fellow in the corner essentially told me I was full of shi*.
The problem with a fusion reactor (1990's time frame) he says, is that it radiates the entire complex eventually, leaving you with an incredibly radioactive containment area to deal with instead of just spent nuclear rods. and that the type of radiation is the type that effects biological tissues rather rapidly...
How true was that statement? Let the opinions fly!
"Batten down the hatches, wimmen and chillen below" arrrrrr
MM
Been to the UK lately? We Americans are still paying a LOT less than our British cousins are.
If it takes expensive gas to encourage development of alternate fuels, then so be it.
If it takes expensive gas to encourage development of alternate fuels, then so be it.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 26 2008, 07:53 PM)
Been to the UK lately? We Americans are still paying a LOT less than our British cousins are.
If it takes expensive gas to encourage development of alternate fuels, then so be it.
Why are the British paying even higher prices? Can't they import or compete in oil markets? It doesn't make much sense that prices should be significantly higher unless it's a political issue there.
For example, we could say that food is more scarce in Africa, and either say that Africa needs more food or other areas in the world should have less food. The issue would seem more of one of assuring food is available to Africa than in assuring less food is available elsewhere ...
If it takes expensive gas to encourage development of alternate fuels, then so be it.
Why are the British paying even higher prices? Can't they import or compete in oil markets? It doesn't make much sense that prices should be significantly higher unless it's a political issue there.
For example, we could say that food is more scarce in Africa, and either say that Africa needs more food or other areas in the world should have less food. The issue would seem more of one of assuring food is available to Africa than in assuring less food is available elsewhere ...
QUOTE (StevenA+Jun 26 2008, 08:26 PM)
Why are the British paying even higher prices? Can't they import or compete in oil markets? It doesn't make much sense that prices should be significantly higher unless it's a political issue there.
Europe taxes their gas pretty heavily. on average, their fuel is at LEAST twice what ours is...
MM
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jun 26 2008, 08:27 PM)
Europe taxes their gas pretty heavily. on average, their fuel is at LEAST twice what ours is...
MM
Ok, so you're saying it's a political result that the prices are higher there, but this still doesn't make sense unless England has joined the European Union or something and agreed to pay the Union higher taxes for gasoline (which would still leave the question as to where those resources are being rerouted).
I recognize the higher prices in the U.S. are largely polically motivated as well (ok, an army helps to stop oil production as well, but that's still politically driven).
MM
Ok, so you're saying it's a political result that the prices are higher there, but this still doesn't make sense unless England has joined the European Union or something and agreed to pay the Union higher taxes for gasoline (which would still leave the question as to where those resources are being rerouted).
I recognize the higher prices in the U.S. are largely polically motivated as well (ok, an army helps to stop oil production as well, but that's still politically driven).
Last I checked it was around 1 Pound 20 a litre (liter?) in the UK. That would be approx $8.00 US a gallon.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jun 26 2008, 08:30 PM)
Ok, so you're saying it's a political result that the prices are higher there, but this still doesn't make sense unless England has joined the European Union or something and agreed to pay the Union higher taxes for gasoline (which would still leave the question as to where those resources are being rerouted).
I recognize the higher prices in the U.S. are largely polically motivated as well (ok, an army helps to stop oil production as well, but that's still politically driven).
This might help.
In most of the industrialized world, including Europe and Japan, pump prices are much higher than in the U.S. – even though the wholesale price is roughly the same. The difference is a heavy tax load those countries impose to discourage consumption.
The Dutch have the dubious distinction of paying the most to fill 'er up, according to the U.S. Deptatment of Energy. (There are various agencies that track gasoline prices, but these are among the most recent figures available.) As of April 10, drivers in the Netherlands were paying the equivalent of about $6.73 a gallon at the pump. The gas itself cost $2.61; the rest — $4.12 — represented tax. That’s a 158 percent tax. By comparison, the U.S. has the lowest tax on gasoline of any industrialized country: about 15 percent at current prices.
and that is from 2006.... imagine what it is today...
I recognize the higher prices in the U.S. are largely polically motivated as well (ok, an army helps to stop oil production as well, but that's still politically driven).
This might help.
In most of the industrialized world, including Europe and Japan, pump prices are much higher than in the U.S. – even though the wholesale price is roughly the same. The difference is a heavy tax load those countries impose to discourage consumption.
The Dutch have the dubious distinction of paying the most to fill 'er up, according to the U.S. Deptatment of Energy. (There are various agencies that track gasoline prices, but these are among the most recent figures available.) As of April 10, drivers in the Netherlands were paying the equivalent of about $6.73 a gallon at the pump. The gas itself cost $2.61; the rest — $4.12 — represented tax. That’s a 158 percent tax. By comparison, the U.S. has the lowest tax on gasoline of any industrialized country: about 15 percent at current prices.
and that is from 2006.... imagine what it is today...
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
I talked to a physicist a few years ago, and since we are on a physics board, perhaps you grand fellows can enlighten me a bit. I would be quite the proponent of nuclear plants except for 2 things, shoddy safety history and no place to store the spent fuel.
We have Chernobyl as an example of a shoddy safety history and less significant 3 mile island, but many countries have been using nuclear energy successfully for a long time without much of a problem. What concerns are you thinking of here regarding safety and considering that Uranium is naturally radioactive, in what sense is a contained disposal site not preferrable to Uranium in a less constrained environment? (Considering the background levels of radiation people are exposed to, what additional effects would you consider to be a significant enough to warrant restricting energy to alternate forms, such as petroleum or solar etc.?)
We have Chernobyl as an example of a shoddy safety history and less significant 3 mile island, but many countries have been using nuclear energy successfully for a long time without much of a problem. What concerns are you thinking of here regarding safety and considering that Uranium is naturally radioactive, in what sense is a contained disposal site not preferrable to Uranium in a less constrained environment? (Considering the background levels of radiation people are exposed to, what additional effects would you consider to be a significant enough to warrant restricting energy to alternate forms, such as petroleum or solar etc.?)
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
I then became excited about fusion, saying that it would be the greatest thing since sliced cheese. This quiet fellow in the corner essentially told me I was full of shi*.
Great, make an efficient fusion power plant design that we can reproduce to supply energy needs and we have few problems, but for the interim what are your suggestions?
Great, make an efficient fusion power plant design that we can reproduce to supply energy needs and we have few problems, but for the interim what are your suggestions?
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
The problem with a fusion reactor (1990's time frame) he says, is that it radiates the entire complex eventually, leaving you with an incredibly radioactive containment area to deal with instead of just spent nuclear rods. and that the type of radiation is the type that effects biological tissues rather rapidly...
Shielding absorbs the radiation and you simply contain and replace the shielding before this occurs. Yes, there will be a slight increase in radiation near a reactor, but this is only a minor issue if radiation is kept contained.
Great, make an efficient fusion power plant design that we can reproduce to supply energy needs and we have few problems, but for the interim what are your suggestions?
Yes, the energy markets are quite a charged political subject.
Hi Masked Marauder
Uranium might be radio-active naturally, but you do not find it concentrated as in the rods used in nuclear reactors. A lot of intervening earth is refined to get the usable end product.
Having said that, Petrol that fuels motor vehicles and power plants(whether diesel oil or another form) is not found naturally in the form we use in cars either. There is much more impact from oil currently than would occur unless a number of Chernobyl's occurred.
One thing that still begs attention is the NEED for energy to be consumed in greater and greater quantities as we decrease the size of the earth by increasing technologies.
Why?......We can communicate faster...send more information than ever before, be in our workplaces "virtually", Be in other countries "virtually" , So what is fueling the need for more energy.....?
Toys ! If we gave up our toys we would practically halve the energy usage. In New Zealand we have a lot of hydro generation. This is great in years when the catchment is full, but means we turn to oil or coal when water gets low. In a recent effort to cut power, not just because of low lakes but also increasing prices, I have put essential and non-essential appliances on different lines. When I go to bed , the non-essential gets switched off.
One reason for this is that apparently , a television or video on 'standby' uses 80% of the power it uses when actually running. (lot of clocks running for no benefit)
I heard that microwaves are using more energy keeping the clock going than we are actually doing cooking with.
At night we should shut down all of these appliances with one switch, and have options on power boards to turn on just what we need instead of cheap power boards that just turn 6 on when we're only using one.
Cheers
Iseason
Shielding absorbs the radiation and you simply contain and replace the shielding before this occurs. Yes, there will be a slight increase in radiation near a reactor, but this is only a minor issue if radiation is kept contained.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
How true was that statement? Let the opinions fly!
"Batten down the hatches, wimmen and chillen below" arrrrrr
MM
Yes, the energy markets are quite a charged political subject.
"Batten down the hatches, wimmen and chillen below" arrrrrr
MM
Yes, the energy markets are quite a charged political subject.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jun 27 2008, 09:46 AM)
Great, make an efficient fusion power plant design that we can reproduce to supply energy needs and we have few problems, but for the interim what are your suggestions?
Yes, the energy markets are quite a charged political subject.
Hi Masked Marauder
Uranium might be radio-active naturally, but you do not find it concentrated as in the rods used in nuclear reactors. A lot of intervening earth is refined to get the usable end product.
Having said that, Petrol that fuels motor vehicles and power plants(whether diesel oil or another form) is not found naturally in the form we use in cars either. There is much more impact from oil currently than would occur unless a number of Chernobyl's occurred.
One thing that still begs attention is the NEED for energy to be consumed in greater and greater quantities as we decrease the size of the earth by increasing technologies.
Why?......We can communicate faster...send more information than ever before, be in our workplaces "virtually", Be in other countries "virtually" , So what is fueling the need for more energy.....?
Toys ! If we gave up our toys we would practically halve the energy usage. In New Zealand we have a lot of hydro generation. This is great in years when the catchment is full, but means we turn to oil or coal when water gets low. In a recent effort to cut power, not just because of low lakes but also increasing prices, I have put essential and non-essential appliances on different lines. When I go to bed , the non-essential gets switched off.
One reason for this is that apparently , a television or video on 'standby' uses 80% of the power it uses when actually running. (lot of clocks running for no benefit)
I heard that microwaves are using more energy keeping the clock going than we are actually doing cooking with.
At night we should shut down all of these appliances with one switch, and have options on power boards to turn on just what we need instead of cheap power boards that just turn 6 on when we're only using one.
Cheers
Iseason
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.