I may own a 58 vette, but unlike most of you, i (unfortunately) can not tear apart an engine and rebuild it, modify it and do to it what I want. And for that, I'm jealous of your abilities with these engines. so let me ask you guys, the experts, why has the engine gone unchanged in general terms so that for the past 50 years we haven't increased fuel economy to the extent we could. Could we develop an engine that gets 50, 60, 70 miles per gallon or more? I don't know but as they say, we can put a man on the moon... It just seems to me that Detroit wouldn't have gotten into energy efficiency if it wasn't for the imports that started eating into their business. Then they play catch up. Many of the people on this board and ncrs were on the lines, in the plants or offices of GM, Ford and others 20-30+ years ago. We increased horse power, but why no variation of the gasoline engine. I'm not criticizing or blaming, I'm just asking do you think there is a way or is Detroit and the oil companies their own cartel that keeps mileage efficiency down to sell more gas and thereby both profit (except Detroit now realizes they should have put more effort into alternative technology). Is this engine able to be tweaked to become for efficient and still burn fossil fuels (as opposed to electric, hydrogen or enthanol)? I'd love to know from you guys who know these engines inside and out. Seems like there must be some engine designers who could come up with something better than there is--or isn't there. Please let me know.

 

Less than 20% of the oil is linked to futures trading. Supply and demand dictate prices.

 

No.

Thermodynamics dictate engine efficiency. Basically, temp of combustion minus temp of waste gas and waste heat to cooling system, in degrees kelvin, determies efficiency, thus the ~30% efficeincy of a gasoline engine. Other engine designs are more efficient, diesel for example and the combustion temps and pressures are higher.

Vehicle weight and rolling resistance and air resistance and acceleration habits dictates fuel economy.

Doug

 

OPEC this morning suggested that oil could be $200 per barrel by year end. They have decided not to increase production nor develop increased capability to suggested 15 million barrels/day. It's no secret anymore that for every nine barrels of oil we consume, we are only discovering one. It is also no secret that Chinese new car buyers will number 6 million in 2008. Chinese demand is not flagging but growing.

Did you realize that BIOFUELS now comprise 50% of the extra fuel coming to the market from sources outside the OPEC’s oil cartel this year. William Ramsey, deputy executive director at the IEA stated that “If we didn’t have those barrels (Biofuel), I am not sure where we would be getting those half a million barrels [from], ”adding that OPEC has said it would not raise supply.”

How high can the price of oil rise? If China alone should reach the per capita living standard of the US, energy prices would more than double.

Did you also know that Oil prices are not expensive....at least not from an historical perspective.
For oil to surpass its 1980 high price adjusted for:
1) CPI – it would have to exceed $118.00.
2) PPI – it would have to exceed $94.00.
3) Growth in personal income since 1981 – it would have to exceed $134.00.
4) Its 8% share of disposable income in 1980 - $145.00.
5) The 5.9% share of global output in 1981 it would have to exceed $150.00.

Which confirms that the price of oil is not driven, at its root cause, by a
falling dollar, negative real interest rates or hedge fund managers.

The days of Cheap Gas is gone gents....I can't blame any Oil company for not investing in new refineries.
Especially if we have decided not to allow any more discovery drilling.

RK

 

If only 20% of the price of oil is related to the futures traders, why is it that the cost is driven on the NYSE by the traders. Another thought, I saw the other day oil producing countries pay less then $1.00 per gallon for gas, even as low as .14 a gallon in Venezuela.

 

Dubya has been doing ABSOLUTLY NOTHING / ZIP / ZERO for Seven FREAKIN YEARS. NOW when the chips are down he gets worried about his legacy and starts talking the way he should have SEVEN FREAKIN YEARS AGO.

I am not saying that a ***** to the Wall energy independence policy could have got the job done in seven years but we sure could have been farther ahead than we are now. Were we are now is nowhere and that is at least in some part Dubyas fault.

He started a war he had no business starting...he had the ***** for that but of course other people did the dying in the war. Telling his "Texas T" buddies that he was heading the country off into non oil based energy usage NO F---N way. He did not have the ***** for that. Not a freakin chance. After all he has to go back to Texas after he leaves office and those oil guys would not be too happy if he upset their apple cart. They might not invite him to the next big barbecue at the ranch. Can't have that so to hell with the country.

***** to send people of to a war that destabilized the Middle East....sure easy. ***** enough to cross his oil buddies ...NO WAY.

 

Destabilize the Middle East? It has been unstable for the last 50 years.

Why did the big three oil company's give 85% of there campaign money to Democrats?

Opec is getting scared, this is there last run at the big gouge. In a 10 years, when Iraq has a McDonalds on every corner, dish TV, Movie theatres, cars, air conditioning, the neighboring countries will look at that and ask why they cannot have the same.

Democracy will rise in Saudi Arabia; Iran will have an internal war, etc.

To think "W" and Cheney are behind the big oil price is just ridiculous. It's the liberals and the environment people killing any new refineries and oil productions state side.

Why is it we have no Nuclear Power Plants in mass. Home heating oil should be done away with, if it's stationary, it should be powered by electricity at a fair price.

We handicap ourselves from within our own borders. Ignorance is our most expensive commodity we have in the U.S. All this green peace, the Chinese are laughing there azz off at us as they steamroll ahead.


Mark

 

All I can say is "It Sucks"!

 

There is just sooooo much of what you said that is just so wrong, that they can't and shouldn't be answered here. Please try to refrain from the typical sound bites, and simply engage some honest thought, history, and facts......before embarassing yourself.

 

Also Exxon only makes .08 on the dollar (8% PROFIT) NOW IF THEY HAD RAISED THE Price of gas ,
,the way oil has gone up in the last few months gas would be over 4.00 You can see that the Refining Oil Companys are not making the money they did last year. Now the Democrats want a wind fall tax on the big oil companys .If that happen and they do not invest as much to find oil LOOK OUT

 

I was scoping out a used Echo on Craigslist today...

 

Cost is driven mostly by supply and demand, the value of the US $ in relation to other currencies, and the type of oil. It is also being driven by the increased demand from China, India and other developing nations. Even the demand in Saudi Arabia has increased greatly in the past few years. You can not look at prices in other countries and compare them to here as some give heavy subsidies - Venezuela, Mexico and others. In other countries high taxes increase the cost to their citizens. There is very little spare capacity to fill any shortfalls. Even refining capacity comes into play. One reason diesel is so high is because most of Europe's cars use diesel and they do not have enough extra to ship here. When more gas is needed here we can get it from Europe. A comparision for exchange rates shows that the price for oil in Euros is below $80 brl. About 4 years ago the Euro was worth about $.80 to the US $, today it is slightly under $1.55 to the dollar - meaning the US $ has lost nearly half it's value in relation to the Euro in a few years.

 

It's still cheaper than water!!!! Think about it, you pay $1.25 for a 20oz bottle of water from the machine at work. That's about $8 a gallon.

 

I don't , I pay just a few dollars for a 12 pack of Dr. Pepper, and leave the water to my dogs :-)

I'm just glad I live 3 miles from the office, and drive about 6,000 miles a year total.

 

Gas was $1.35 a gallon when King George took office. He has done nothing but provide huge tax breaks,and record profits for his buddies in the oil industry. I heard today that if the US government would stop filling up the strategic reserve,gas prices would drop from 18 to 25 cents a gallon. When asked by a reporter today if he would open the reserves,like Clinton did in the 1990's,his answer was NO! He could care less that the American people are suffering. He's going to do the same thing he has done for 7 years.....NOTHING! He doesn't want to hurt the profits of his oil buddies.

 

You are right, lets face it, does anyone think W has any idea how to pull something off like that.

I mean, he ran a few companies he was running into the ground already, before he became President, one was an oil company.

Apparently he is trying to keep a perfect track record

 

I may be restating some part of previous posts, but my 2 cents:

- The bottleneck appears to be refinery capability. No one that I'm aware of in the US Oil Industry has brought any significant refining capabilities on line.

- I would like the environment to stay livable for my kids and theirs, etc. I hate the idea of global warming and that fossil fuels appear to contributing to the upward trend in temperatures (yes, the global climate is chaotic, and we have only a very small window of data upon which to base our theories, but the laws of physics say we are contributing). But, do we really need so many different summer-time formulations (I agree a switch is required for smog (and vapor lock), but come on).

- India, China, and Africa will continue to accelerate their demand, population increases or not. That's a fact and nothing will change it short of eradicating them though war or pestilence (I'm not advocating either). In fact, in most foreign policy arenas in those areas of the world, the pervasive (yet not often publically stated) attitude is - the western world has had over 140 years to consume as much petroleum as they wanted, now its our turn to consume as well. They see it as Western (and particularly US) arrogance to basically say tough s--t, if you got to the party late - no oil for you!

- If the government (and I'm a federal govt employee) put the same sort of impetus as was put into the space race, then we could greatly accelerate the transition to hybrid and then full non-gasoline/diesel-power vehicles (with the same or better hp - or power/weight ratios). The fact that all the cheap oil (and by cheap I mean both easy to extract and of a good quality - not shale oil, or something that isn't light, sweet crude) is probably gone, it remains that what is in the ground will cost more, regardless of supply and demand. Add in the demand factor and oil isn't going to drop anytime soon (if ever again), unless we decide to make Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia the 51st through 54th states (also, I think Mexico and Canada provide the US with more oil than any of the Arab states or Hugo Chavez). I would think this would scare the US government just as much, if not more than Ike waking up in Oct 1957 and hearing Sputnik I beeping away in orbit.

- Obviously, if we lessen the overall demand on oil by shifting other uses to clean or atom splitting energy, that would free up supply for gasoline. Many states are exploring wind farms, despite those on Cape Cod and the Islands who don't want their views spoiled. Also, I'd don't know why the government isn't exploring tidal power, or ocean wave oscillation-based power generation more. Both have the potential to produce unbelievable amounts of energy. I have to think that investment/non-reoccurring costs that may be been unattractive in the days (not to long ago) of $15/barrel oil, may be more attractive now.

- Nuclear Power - yes, it's pandora's box...one real Home Simpson moment could yield a large part of the US unlivable for thousands of years...yes, that is scary...but, come on, we have been operating nuclear reactors in the Navy for over 50 years now without a single major incident or loss of life. What is needed is for the same sort of scrunity, oversight, and professionalism that the Navy's Nuclear Power Program imposes on our submarines and carriers. I can tell you as a Navy professional that this program is the absolute best quality and safety program in the world - period. NASA has come to us (twice) trying to get control of safety risks after both shuttle accidents. So, lets get more nuclear plants built, but lets have the correct oversight, training, and resources to ensure no so much as a cup of coolant water gets lost.

- Offer bigger tax credits on hybrid vehicles.

- My wife is not a car person - cars are appliances, like dishwashers. She postulated that their should be a law limiting the access/purchase of large SUVs and trucks to those that have a demonstrated and justifable need...She's a lawyer, and understands the constitutional issues (but not the outright rebellion) this would provoke. However, she brings up a good point - how about having the self-control, self-confidence (no small phallic p---ker purchases of a large truck to offset ones shortcomings, no keeping up with the Jones, and a "for the greater good" attitude by not purchasing an F350 to go to Home Depot once a month, or buy your wife a Hummer because a minivan or CRV doesn't match her fashion sense? I for one, am going to look hard at a hybrid SUV when my kids get older - we have 3 of them 16 months apart in age (3 year old, 18 month old twins)...we have to haul so much stuff already, that I have a Thule box and a hitch box on my wife's Sienna (which doesn't get as good mileage as the new Tahoe hybrid).

- How about increasing bio-fuel production, but not at the cost of food staples...you want World War III, keep shifting production of corn, etc. over to bio-fuels, only to have food stuffs go through the roof. If some of more dire global warming predictions are true, we're likely to see significant shifts in weather in the world's bread baskets and rice bowls, which like the bad rice harvest in India last year, could lead to food hoarding, famine, etc. (only in a wider and more pronounced way). Add this on to a diversion of food stuffs for gasoline additives/replacements, and the whole planet is screwed.

- Finally, if you think competition for oil is the sign of a slip towards total war, wait until drinking water issues exceed or compound the energy issue....not a pretty picture of the future.

- I'm as patrotic as the next guy, and spilled my blood accordingly, but wrapping yourself in the Flag and saying screw the rest of world (which was implied - I don't know if in jest or seriousness in some of the preceeding posts) isn't going to solve a thing.

 

...Armaggedon is around the corner-the Bible said it will be over God, but really it'll be over Oil. We need to take the Middle East for ourselves then we will have our own oil. Make it the 51st State and have Al Gore for governor.

 

Very good point

This is where the real ugly in people is going to show. I don't believe this is that far into the future either. I believe we best ALSO be looking into converting All types of water (Sewage, Salt, re-captured, etc...) water to fresh drinking water

 

In spite of the hysterical media reporting to the contrary, the sky will not fall.

Most of us remember various economic hard times, and yet Americans somehow have always adapted to whatever the situation because of individual or corporate entrepreneurship, capitalism, or plain old common sense. Successful innovation and profits have always brought out those who seek opportunities in the negative.

Those Greenies standing in the way of and trying to restrict those who want to tap all of God's natural resources on this planet are idiots. They are the hypocrites who have driven up the price of energy, not President Bush or the energy related companies who operate for a profit.