Just an idea to lower gas prices

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

My suggestion: Do some research on drilling in Alaska before you reccomend it and praise the possibilities.
The rate at which they want to drill there would supplement very little of our current usage, IIRC it is some figure

Alaska does have resources, but it's not in oil at all...it's in methane (ie natural gas). Only problem is that we can't effeciently transport gas to the mainland. Learn some chemistry and design a catalyst for the conversion of methane to methanol and I'll make you a few billion dollars //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

do u have n e other ideas on how to get oil, other than what we have now, i think the statistic was that a new oil drilling place has not been opened since 1992 (i think i heard that on the radio)

 

[pwnt by pat 10+ year member]

My suggestion: Do some research on drilling in Alaska before you reccomend it and praise the possibilities.
The rate at which they want to drill there would supplement very little of our current usage, IIRC it is some figure

Alaska does have resources, but it's not in oil at all...it's in methane (ie natural gas). Only problem is that we can't effeciently transport gas to the mainland. Learn some chemistry and design a catalyst for the conversion of methane to methanol and I'll make you a few billion dollars //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Biggest problem I've seen by far is actually the refining capibilities. Our refinaries are running several decade old technology and the expansion of current facilities is almost non-existant. Biproducts of crude oil are kerosine and gasoline, probably some other stuff, and waste. We can't do without either kerosine for heating or gasoline for travel, however with optomizations in refining technology, we can cut down the wasted crude.

Or we can just use the process of coal straining - a proven technology developing gasoline by filtering water through coal (dumbed down). By using coal, one of the most abundant resources on the planet, we could essentially run on petrol for hundreds of more years. If I recall correctly, there is enough coal in MN alone to feed just the country for over a decade if the refining establishments were in place. The only problem with this is that no compaines want to take the leap to coal-based-gasoline. Right now it's not cost effective, however, with more focused research, the time to cost-effective implimentation could be easily within 5 years.

ftw?

edit: typo

 

[marleyskater420 5,000+ posts]

what are the companies each of exxon and shell owns?

 

[pwnt by pat 10+ year member]

deff stupid considering 80% of the business aroun here goes to this place called DELTA and exxon, shell and mobil (wich is exxon) are still in business... especially since if they lower there price by 2 cents less anyways, they will get all the business they have been missing for the past week in 2 days.

IIRC, exxon, amco, mobile, and another were SO, Standard Oil, before the anti-trust split up. BP is from Britian. Shell is actual a Finnish company. I think.

I should have payed more attention to the history of oil compaines in my econ class last sem.

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

Biggest problem I've seen by far is actually the refining capibilities. Our refinaries are running several decade old technology and the expansion of current facilities is almost non-existant. If we Biproducts of crude oil are kerosine and gasoline, probably some other stuff, and waste. We can't do without either kerosine for heating or gasoline for travel, however with optomizations in refining technology, we can cut down the wasted crude.
Or we can just use the process of coal straining - a proven technology developing gasoline by filtering water through coal (dumbed down). By using coal, one of the most abundant resources on the planet, we could essentially run on petrol for hundres of more years. If I recall correctly, there is enough coal in MN alone to feed just the country for over a decade if the refining establishments were in place. The only problem with this is that no compaines want to take the leap to coal-based-gasoline. Right now it's not cost effective, however, with more focused research, the time to cost-effective implimentation could be easily within 5 years.

ftw?

thats some deep shit, but the only problem w/ coal is it leaves black somg (like China) or would this be cleaner burning?

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

another thing that sucks about living in Cali is that the gov't puts about a 18 cent tax on all gas, thats why we are the most expensive

 

[pwnt by pat 10+ year member]

thats some deep shit, but the only problem w/ coal is it leaves black somg (like China) or would this be cleaner burning?

The coal isn't burnt. It's compressed, condensed, packed, and then I believe water is ran through it. It's been a while since I read up on it.

Anyway, the biproducts are oil and waste. I forget if the waste is toxic or not but I think I just made that up?

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

hell if its cheaper than 3 bux a gallon im all for it

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

I say we just bring back the dinosaurs and kill them and then let them naturally decay and git us some more oil.

Brilliant plan.

 

[pwnt by pat 10+ year member]

I would have one of those little spitty things (like the one that killed Neuman in Jurassic Park) for a pet, provided one of my dogs didn't eat it.

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

As much as it hurts me to say this because I'm poor, I think gas prices need to keep increasing. Right now they're beginning to reach a point where it's hurting people and the economy, and that needs to continue until people have had enough of it.

Innovation rises from necessity. When the price gets high enough we'll actually FOCUS resources on developing alternative sources of fuel, and end the oil dependence, as well as decrease CO2 emissions. A win-win situation as I see it.

Hydrogen is very close, we just need a few clever material science engineers to develop an efficient ion transfer medium. Ethanol is a step, but I don't think the right one...though maybe logical in a progression because of the simplistic engine conversion (a little added heat tolerance).

I don't know, there are a lot of options. I'm not familiar with the coal compression, but it sounds like a reasonable approach if it could become cost effective. At any rate though, I do feel that if gas prices go down we'll only continue to tolerate gas, while dreaming rather than acting on new fuel sources.

Also, just throwing it out there, gas isn't really overpriced right now. With inflation it's beginning to reach where it should be. The problem is that it's tripled in the past like 5 years rather than increasing slowly like it should have.

 

[trevor87 5,000+ posts]

not either one of those stores within an hour of me

 

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

As much as it hurts me to say this because I'm poor, I think gas prices need to keep increasing. Right now they're beginning to reach a point where it's hurting people and the economy, and that needs to continue until people have had enough of it.
Innovation rises from necessity. When the price gets high enough we'll actually FOCUS resources on developing alternative sources of fuel, and end the oil dependence, as well as decrease CO2 emissions. A win-win situation as I see it.

Hydrogen is very close, we just need a few clever material science engineers to develop an efficient ion transfer medium. Ethanol is a step, but I don't think the right one...though maybe logical in a progression because of the simplistic engine conversion (a little added heat tolerance).

but what will i do with my diesel car? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crying.gif.ec0ebefe590df0251476573bc49e46d8.gif

 

[Decipha 10+ year member]

i think its about time we release new engines that run off of air compression and not gas

 

[pwnt by pat 10+ year member]

but what will i do with my diesel car? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crying.gif.ec0ebefe590df0251476573bc49e46d8.gif

Another alternative, but it would take a LOT of lobbying.

Everyone remembers from the economics thread how I feel about government subsidations? (the best subsidations are no subsidations and all sellers need to a adapt to the marketplace to survive rather than beg the governmnet for help - which is something it was never set up to do)

Biodiesel engines are cleaner burning and get better mpg than current petrol vehicles. Also, diesel engines have the potential to run almost forever without nickel and diming you.

Every year, hundreds of thousands (probably hundreds of millions) of pounds of crops are burned each year because the marketplace isn't fit for the flood of staple crops that farmers produce.

Well, where I'm going with this is this: There is a biodiesel fuel that can be made from excess crops. I'm not familiar with the process but essentially the crops are turned in to a crude biodiesel fuel. It's cost effective, but not a lot of cars run on it. Flex Fuel vehicles have the capability to, iirc. There would be no more agriculture subsidations, the market place would be fereocious once again, and we'd essentially have all the fuel we would need, provided farmers kept up current production and didn't overtax the land.

better for the enviroment? better for our government? better for the economy? better for farmers AND you? win/win/win/win/win situation if you ask me. Again, all we need are the refining capabilities.