Breaking Point

[Deadman_ny]

Germany and other European countries have already figured out that producing gasoline from corn isn't going to work so they're switching to other meathods such as using weeds and other organic material not linked to our food supply suit that need. In the hope that it won't have the negitive effect of driving up the price of food product. Ironically using fuel from corn and such creats even more pollution. What now then?
Gas prices are never going to go down and people who have to commute on a dayly babses can see their checks shrinking I'm sure. Leaving less money for things they need and even less for things they want. Don't drive so much you may say and it makes sence. But it's not juast limited to the end user. The trucks, planes, ships that ship goods to us use gas or it's dirivitives aswell and they have to pass that cost onto the consumer sooner or later.
At first the rising fuel prices may have helped our country counter inflation, but there is a breaking point. Once people start spending all of their "exspendible" income on fuel they wont have money to spend elsewhere on nonessential crap. So they'll stop buying. People stop buying the usless crap buisnesses go under, less sales tax for cities and counties, fewer jobs....domino effect ya know?
So what do you guys think the breaking point is? Cheapest gas in these parts is $3.65 a gallon. It's not like on the 70's where there was a shortage. You can still get get gas, it's just a matter of being able to afford it. And with the price of everything else rising along with fuel it won't be long until everything grinds to a halt.

 

[Frosty]

Your post is in need of dissection and clarification. Please note that the things I say are meant to bring perspective to what you've said, and are in no way a statement of my personal opinions unless explicitly claimed to be (as in, "in my opinion...")

Germany and other European countries have already figured out that producing gasoline from corn isn't going to work so they're switching to other meathods such as using weeds and other organic material not linked to our food supply suit that need.

The substance they sought and we all seek to produce is ethanol, not gasoline. I'm almost positive you know this anyway, but it needs to be said so nobody gets the wrong idea.

Any link to our food supply isn't something we should worry about for the reasons the internet does. Advanced western nations produce massive excesses of food every year. In America's case, we grow a shitload more corn than we should because farmers are paid millions of dollars by the federal government specifically for running a surplus. A lot of farmland could be co-opted for fuel growth before anyone ever noticed less on their plate.

In the hope that it won't have the negitive effect of driving up the price of food product.

Food prices are already artificially driven. There's very little reason to expect a noticeable increase in expense.

Ironically using fuel from corn and such creats even more pollution.

Many people who know more about ethanol production (from corn, sugar, or other sources) than I do will tell you that's not necessarily true. In any case it should be a surmountable problem.

What now then?
Gas prices are never going to go down and people who have to commute on a dayly babses can see their checks shrinking I'm sure.

What is meant by "gas prices are never going to go down"? Gas prices have been higher than they are now, and we can expect them to be lower. It would be unreasonable to expect to pay a dollar per gallon ever again, but I think the good people of San Francisco can feel assured they won't be paying 4+ forever. It's simple supply and demand. The demand is increasing, and so follow prices, but they can only go so high before the producers begin to make less money, at which time they go back down.

Why would anyone's checks be "shrinking"?

Leaving less money for things they need and even less for things they want. Don't drive so much you may say and it makes sence. But it's not juast limited to the end user. The trucks, planes, ships that ship goods to us use gas or it's dirivitives aswell and they have to pass that cost onto the consumer sooner or later.

Jet fuel, gasoline and diesel don't really track each other exactly in terms of pricing.

At first the rising fuel prices may have helped our country counter inflation, but there is a breaking point.

I don't believe they did.

Once people start spending all of their "exspendible" income on fuel they wont have money to spend elsewhere on nonessential crap.

This is a scenario that simply will never occur. The market will reject price increases long before that could ever happen.

So they'll stop buying. People stop buying the usless crap buisnesses go under, less sales tax for cities and counties, fewer jobs....domino effect ya know?

No.

So what do you guys think the breaking point is? Cheapest gas in these parts is $3.65 a gallon. It's not like on the 70's where there was a shortage. You can still get get gas, it's just a matter of being able to afford it. And with the price of everything else rising along with fuel it won't be long until everything grinds to a halt.

There is no breaking point.

Prices don't exist in a vacuum, and they do not, deaf to the cries of consumers, continue to rise forever. Gasoline and everything else in this world is only as expensive as people want it to be. We've been paying relatively rapidly-increasing gas prices for a few years now because we can accept it, and our wealth can sustain it. Prices will never exceed our willingness to pay them. It's just not how markets work.

 

[t.c.cgi]

I'm a bit concerned that the rising cost of gasoline will result in flights to the international space station being cancelled due to a lack of paying passengers outside of peak season.

That said, I remember an end-of-the-world tale from 2005(?) that said the world's oil supplies would be drying up around 2010 or some such. I miss the days when the end of the world involved Jesus or Soviet mind control or some flashy apparatus in a James Bond movie. Oil is such a boring and mundane way to go out.

 

[Frosty]

I'm a bit concerned that the rising cost of gasoline will result in flights to the international space station being cancelled due to a lack of paying passengers outside of peak season.

What?

 

[Edfilho]

We've been making fuel from sugar cane for at least 30 years. It works fine. Most brazillian cars (and we make a LOT of cars around here) are at least bi-fuel (gasoline and ethanol), not to mention the thousands of cabs that run on vehicular natural gas (as in a gaseous thing, not short for gasoline).

 

[Frosty]

My primary gripe with ethanol is that per any given volume unit it contains less energy than an equivalent amount of gasoline. Worse mileage.

On the plus side you get the ludicrous octane rating, so you can go insane with boost and make hilarious power that is really out of reach for gasoline engines that don't resort to some kind of water injection or what have you.

 

[Darkmage]

heh it's funny that the plant the government hates from its association with marijuanna is also the plant that can solve the fuel problem. Hemp contains more oil than corn and can produce about 10 times more methanol than corn for the same land being used.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

heh it's funny that the plant the government hates from its association with marijuanna is also the plant that can solve the fuel problem. Hemp contains more oil than corn and can produce about 10 times more methanol than corn for the same land being used.

Now lets see the hippies apply the same argument to Plutonium.

 

[Max Gene]

I like that idea...

 

[Frosty]

heh it's funny that the plant the government hates from its association with marijuanna is also the plant that can solve the fuel problem. Hemp contains more oil than corn and can produce about 10 times more methanol than corn for the same land being used.

You are either the world's most un-ironic person or an expert troll. Hemp can solve the "fuel problem."

Magnificent.

 

[Panda]

Now lets see the hippies apply the same argument to Plutonium.

If we're going to rely on nuclear power, we will need efficient and lightweight portable energy storage. Conventional batteries won't cut it. On the other hand, we can use nuclear power to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, and use fuel cells. It's funny though - everyone loves fuel cells, and yet those same people don't want to see nuclear power plants. What are we going to charge the fuel cells with, coal? That's not exactly a clean power source....well, at least we can mine our own coal instead of buying it from people who will promptly donate a portion of it to the folks trying to kill us.

Thanks to a nuclear nonproliferation treaty, we no longer produce any plutonium, not even enough for radiothermal generators on deep space probes. Hilariously, we now buy said plutonium from Russia....and they sell weapons to everybody. On top of that, you have a pack of idiots protesting "nukes in space" every time NASA launches an RTG powered spacecraft. The most dangerous thing that could happen is the rocket could fail, and the RTG could fall out of the sky onto someone's head.

I wouldn't consider myself a conservative by any means, but as an engineer, well, this is really silly.

 

[Frosty]

I think the United States has pretty much outgrown the anti-nuclear impulse. It takes decades to go from deciding you want one to having it operational, though. I'd expect new facilities within 30 years, but not anytime very soon.

Hydrogen, in any case, is a chimera. It's foolish to waste all the energy it takes to produce it when you could just do whatever you want with the electricity in the first place. I'm far more inclined to bet on battery and capacitor capability advancements than any means of making hydrogen truly economical and efficient as a fuel for anything.

Russia is an obnoxious country but not truly belligerent, and regardless of any treaties we do what we want. You know this, I know this, so does everyone else in the world. That's hardly a real obstacle.

 

[ELTEE]

I used to be pretty excited about hydrogen from a performance stand point. The high speed demonstrator that BMW created was impressive! The excitement diminished greatly, though, after realizing the effort and economics involved to make the technology accessible to the average consumer is substantial.

I'm so torn: I'm all for doing what's necessary to help the environment. On the other hand, I'm stubborn and I like high performance vehicles. Now, I'm certainly willing to give up the 427 or twin turbo 3.6 liter as we know and love them today, but I'm hungry for alternatives that retain good performance while being environmentally responsible. There are a few electric roadsters that are promising right now, so I'll have to keep my fingers crossed.

 

[Frosty]

There's more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of hydrogen. It's the least impressive automobile fuel known.

I would contend that nothing we do to automobile emissions has any benefit for "the environment" and can only serve to frustrate motorists the world over.

The only electric roadster I know is the Tesla, which is like an Elise, only bigger, heavier, slower, and with less range. Electric cars have been around for over a century, and they have never caught on. There is a reason for this: their performance - in every sense of the word - is dramatically inferior. Cars are heavy and piggish enough these days without replacing their light and compact internal combustion engines with large, heavy, and short-lived electric motors and battery banks.

Until those technologies give you and me the same acceleration, braking, handling, range, and service life as internal combustion, there is absolutely no reason to support them. It's not worth a damn to our ecosystem if we switch from gasoline to electric or whatever else.

Gasoline and diesel engines have not yet reached their peak efficiency, and they will be around for a very long time yet. Even long after they are no longer sold in showrooms, they will be on the road. There's no point in sweating the timeline.

 

[Panda]

I think the United States has pretty much outgrown the anti-nuclear impulse. It takes decades to go from deciding you want one to having it operational, though. I'd expect new facilities within 30 years, but not anytime very soon.

Hydrogen, in any case, is a chimera. It's foolish to waste all the energy it takes to produce it when you could just do whatever you want with the electricity in the first place. I'm far more inclined to bet on battery and capacitor capability advancements than any means of making hydrogen truly economical and efficient as a fuel for anything.

Russia is an obnoxious country but not truly belligerent, and regardless of any treaties we do what we want. You know this, I know this, so does everyone else in the world. That's hardly a real obstacle.

Hydrogen does have it's uses (mostly as a rocket fuel), but you're right, it's not so great as a portable fuel source. However, the ability to electrolyze seawater cheaply would be very beneficial in parts of the country where fresh water sources barely meet the demand. I am looking forward to seeing what super capacitors can do in a few years.

Russia is not belligerent, no, but they do sell advanced weapon systems to our enemies. That is hardly a reason to pick a fight with them, but it might be a reason to reconsider buying from the same industries that produce those weapons. I'm not accusing them of selling nuclear weapons, but they have, for example, sold Iran anti-aircraft weapons that are capable of tracking our early stealth aircraft. And generally we do what we want, regardless of the international consequences, but we haven't applied that principle to plutonium production.

Unfortunately, I disagree that the US has outgrown its anti-nuclear days. I won't believe that until I start seeing American students in nuclear engineering departments at universities - when that happens, it means that nuclear engineering is once again a culturally acceptable career choice, and then we can get back to building them.

 

[Frosty]

Student enrollment has a lot more to do with economic acceptability than cultural.

 

[Panda]

Student enrollment has a lot more to do with economic acceptability than cultural.

If so, then why are so many college kids getting unmarketable liberal arts degrees? Nuclear engineering pays very well - it's just not put forth as a career option for young people when they are considering college choices. There are more than enough jobs to go around.

 

[AD]

If so, then why are so many college kids getting unmarketable liberal arts degrees? Nuclear engineering pays very well - it's just not put forth as a career option for young people when they are considering college choices. There are more than enough jobs to go around.

If everyone was enrolling in Nuclear engineering then there would be that many more unemployed Nuclear Engineeers. Whether there are currently jobs available in that field it's an extremely small field and not everyone bases their college options of the possible monetary returns when there are only a handfull of that position availabe.

For example, my mother-in-law took some kind of specialized geology degree back in the 60s or 70s... Problem was that there was *only* two or three positions in the *entire* country that that degree was aplicable to. Years later the job did actually come up (and probably paid heftily) but by then her priorities had changed.

 

[t.c.cgi]

If so, then why are so many college kids getting unmarketable liberal arts degrees?

Because you can get a LA degree at any dime community/state college and with a similar level of intellectual investment. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by unmarketable.

 

[Max Gene]

As for the whole hydrogen thing- the only way I see it is if you power your hydrogen production using solar energy; essentially, taking said solar power and making it far more portable, as it were. I'm not saying it's the best way; I'm saying that if they're seriously thinking about using hydrogen as a source, then that's the way to go.

As for electric cars never catching on- I'm pretty sure that's how cars started. Before we had concrete roads, you probably couldn't go at even the Model T's full speed very well on a dirt road, and so it was moot. Once our roads improved, people wanted to move faster- and that was the point at which the ICE took precedence over electric.