FUEL PRICES

[w0tdh]

Great Day ! Not even the high din of whining from the "Rich" have persuaded Congress to do something about high gasoline prices.........So, I guess this poor country boy will have to.........



Dear President Bush,

We voted for you and will again. We support you 100%. Now we need your help.

The Big Green monster ( greed ) has reared it’s ugly head several times in the past little while. On your Watch I might add. Causing spendable income of ordinary Citizen’s to shrink, yet again.

The larger head, of the several headed green monster, seems to be "Fuel Prices".

The Common Work A Day Family, has been hit very hard by the sharp increase in fuel prices. Milk jumped in price to $3.35 per gallon from $2.99 in one week, which I might add was already at an all time high.

Every item on the grocer’s shelves has jumped in price as well. All due directly to higher fuel prices. Every item shipped across this Great Country has risen in price as well. The average family income will never keep pace with the ever increasing " Cost of Living".

Our " Standard of Living" continues to fall, as the purchasing power of the Dollar decreases.

We, the Citizens of these United States, need you to do something about this ever growing problem.

Respectfully,

Thomas F. Fischel - KØPJG -
8274 Cullowhee Mountain Road
Cullowhee, NC 28723
k0pjg@earthlink.net

P.S.

If we can send men to the Moon and beyond, why can we not make Hydrogen to fuel our Country? Every High School kid knows that placing two wires, connected to a battery, into water produces H2 and O2. Metal hydride pressure tanks can and will be the preferred storage device for H2. They are available and will decrease in price as more are produced. Turn key H2 generating plants are available off the shelf in any size needed. Why are we delaying making this Country independant of Oil?

[KG4CGC]

Bravo! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
# # # # # # # # # Hey, they know what they are doing. High gas prices make the Bushs and the Cheneys more money because it all goes into profit. Increasing the profit margin is what it's all about. It is true that in a free nation you can charge what the market will bear but in this case it comes from the blood and sweat of working families. In these days of multi-billion profit quarters, GREED RULES!

[AG3Y]

I'm really curious about this, even though it might sound like a "troll". Remember the Hindenburg ? What would prevent I-270 ( lets say ) during rush hour from becoming one gigantic "Hindenburg"-like disaster if all the cars were fueled by Hydrogen, and someone decided to drop a load of napalm on the "mixing bowl"! D.C. and Baltimore area commuters will understand the examples, the rest of you can certainly figure it out !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

73 from Jim

[K9STH]

Unfortunately, it takes more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than the energy that "burning" hydrogen to produce energy (and make water as a byproduct) produces!

Thus, to use hydrogen as a fuel is actually counter-productive under present circumstances.

Glen, K9STH

[AG3Y]

I've got a personal "conspiracy theory" I'd like to mention.

Just at the edge of Frederick MD. there is a solar panel manufacturing company. #It was originally built and owned by "SolarEx". #The company, and that plant have been on rocky ground ever since it was constructed.

Now, I see that the logo has been changed on the side and top of the plant. #Guess who owns it now? # BP ( British Petroleum ) ! # How quickly do you think that a PETROLEUM company is going to work on developing Electric power? #

BTW, here is an interesting item about a subject of the use of Hydrogen as a fuel. I just found this as I was looking up the BP logo to make sure I had my companies right.

http://www.bp.com/generic....2017980 (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=120&contentId=2017980)

I admit, I'm confused! # Anybody else have any ideas!

73 from Jim AG3Y

[W3MIV]

STH is quite correct. Too costly to be of benefit. We would be burning tons and tons of high-sulphur coal to lower oil consumption minimally.

Hydrogen, being a gas, must be kept under enormous pressure to be used in any quantity, else it must be liquified. Both of these make for extremely costly systems.

In addition, hydrogen is far more dangerous than petrol products, because it is highly explosive, colorless and odorless. You can smell and see gasoline, even though it (when vaporized) is one of the most powerful explosives available.

Therefore, the answer (it seems to me) is to send more and more troops and take over the whole of Middle Asia, splitting the resources with the former Sovs (eager to accommodate once they see we are serious) and then dictate terms to the rest of the world.

I remain available for the post of Maximum Leader. Email or call me when we start.

[W3MIV]

AG3Y:

Why do you think that BP would NOT be interested in getting in on any other form of energy use or saving modality. It behooves them to make the investment.

For years BGE (whatever they call themselves now) and most other major power generator/suppliers carried on a number of active research projects into all sorts of alternative energy sources, including solar.

In constant 2004 dollars the highest price of gasoline in recent history going back to 1956 was in march of 1981 where it hit the equivalent of $3.00 in 2004 dollars. The average for the whole year was arround $2.70 in 2004 dollars a $1.57 in 1981 dollars.

Yes gas is cheaper today than it was in 1981. In fact it is a deal at the price today. In 1980 I bought a brand new F-150 4X4, it cost me $7,170. If trucks had only gone up as much as gas I should be able to find a new one for about $9,200.

73, Marty WB2RJR

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ May 17 2004,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...These use gasoline as the source of the hydrogen - I don't know the details but some process makes hydrogen out of the gasoline and then uses the hydrogen in fuel cells to drive electric motors....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hydrogen charging facilities that the public could use would be a very dangerous idea, I believe.

As to spliting hydrogen out of gasoline, that would seem to be carrying coals to Newcastle, wouldn't it?

Current hybrid technology could use currently available NMH batteries more efficiently, I would think.

All of this is, in my opinion, little more than &quot;Gore-speak&quot; until somebody sees that a profit will come out of alternative energy sources. At that point, the rush will be on and progress will come fairly rapidly, if progress will come at all.

[KC5SAS]

Alternative energy sources must be tried. #But until a massive nation wide movement, backed by government rebates and subsidies, takes place the average consumer will be unable or unwilling to pick up the cost of these tenochologies. #I have stated before that I would welcome the idea of having every rooftop in the nation covered in solar panels to lower our dependence on the power grid. This week I picked up a copy of the April 2004 edition of Popular Mechanics magazine and inside it had a article on just what I was thinking of. #Shingles covered with solar panels for the average home. Here's a link to the company- http://www.atlantisenergy.org/sunslates2.html .
Even by decreasing the need on foriegn oil we will not see a major decrease at the fuel pump. #What would happen if tommorrow everyone decided to trade in their gas guzzlers for economic and fuel efficient cars? #What if everyone bought gas/electric hybrid cars capable of 60 or 70 miles to the gallon? #Would you pay less at the pump? #If the plans of some States become reality then you may not see much of a savings. #See, when people buy less gas the States get less tax revenue which is spent on things like road repair. So, as people have started switching to more fuel efficient vehicles, States are losing money and are looking at ways to keep you paying. #One idea, which has already been implimented and may be coming to your State, is taxing people based on the miles they drive. Don't believe me? #Here's the link from the CBS Evening News report- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/15/tech/main617662.shtml #They will track your vehicle and each time you fuel your car a signal will be radioed to a computer which calculates how far you've driven and when and where you drove those miles. Then you will be taxed based on that information.
I'm 36 years old and I can remember how mad my father was when he pulled our family suburban into the gas station to fill up and gas had hit a dollar a gallon. #Now it is over two bucks a gallon and there is no end in sight? Even if the price of oil fell back to $30 a barrel I doubt we would see prices fall anywhere near the $1 a gallon mark again. #Once the oil companies and our government has gotten us used to seeing prices rise as we adapt and continue paying whatever they ask there is no going back.
Comments?
Steve, KC5SAS

I've always wondered why the sunny, dry western desert isn't covered with solar panels making free electricity (except for the price of the panels). I was astounded a few years ago that the resorts in Death Valley don't make their own power from the sun, but were on the end of a power line paying high rates for power.
Why aren't we making Hydrogen from solar power? Seems like solar panels would become cost effective in the desert, there's no weather to deteriorate them except sun. Yes there is the problem of holding the fuel and using it, but that'll be solved by you kids.

[wd5kca]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7SYY @ May 17 2004,16:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've always wondered why the sunny, dry western desert isn't covered with solar panels making free electricity (except for the price of the panels). I was astounded a few years ago that the resorts in Death Valley don't make their own power from the sun, but were on the end of a power line paying high rates for power.
Why aren't we making Hydrogen from solar power? Seems like solar panels would become cost effective in the desert, there's no weather to deteriorate them except sun. Yes there is the problem of holding the fuel and using it, but that'll be solved by you kids.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There was a study done by ASME back in the '70s that considered using massive offshore windmills to make electricity to hydrolize sea water. The hydrogen was piped to shore where it was burned to produce electricity.

Capital cost of the system is very high and the efficiency poor. The economics just don't pay out.

Same with solar panels, you might as well just make the electricity directly.

Harold

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG3Y @ May 17 2004,13:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've got a personal &quot;conspiracy theory&quot; I'd like to mention.

Just at the edge of Frederick MD. there is a solar panel manufacturing company. #It was originally built and owned by &quot;SolarEx&quot;. #The company, and that plant have been on rocky ground ever since it was constructed.

Now, I see that the logo has been changed on the side and top of the plant. #Guess who owns it now? # BP ( British Petroleum ) ! # How quickly do you think that a PETROLEUM company is going to work on developing Electric power? #

BTW, here is an interesting item about a subject of the use of Hydrogen as a fuel. #I just found this as I was looking up the BP logo to make sure I had my companies right.

http://www.bp.com/generic....2017980 (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=120&contentId=2017980)

I admit, I'm confused! # Anybody else have any ideas![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually BP is doing more on solar power than just about anyone else. Instead of crying &quot;conspiracy&quot; you should check the facts and sources. BP announced that initiative many years ago and has simply been following up on its longer term plan as announced. They are also into hydroelectric power, wind generation and other sources of replenishable energy.

As a matter of fact, all of the major oil companies have been and continue to look at alternate energy sources. It only makes sense to keep track of economics and technology, see what the competition is doing, and diversify as much as possible. Especially in the oil business, failure to do that is a recipe for disaster - which is a part of the reason the traditional oil companies have all disappeared. The oil inductry is too cyclic with prices going up and down. The only way to stay solvent is to have a varied portfoilio, which includes traditional oil business, refining and transportation, and alternative energy. That pretty much guarantees that not all of the business is bad at the same time.

When I was with Shell we looked at solar, biogenic gas (you wouldn't believe how much there is), fuel cells, and lots of other things. The sad fact is that none of them can compete with oil and natural gas, since mother nature has invested the energy in creating them for us. All the rest we have to invest the energy and it takes more energy to create the resources than you get out of them. Basic thermodynamics gets you every time.

Now, interestingly, the last time I updated my figures, things start to get really interesting when oil prices stay above about $35/barrel. At that &quot;magic&quot; price, all sorts of things start to get competitive, like enhanced oil recovery, solar, non-conventional gas, etc. I'm not sure if the $35 figure still holds. It may need to be a little bit higher to compensate for the drop in the dollar.

At any rate, we can complain all we want, but the fact of the matter is that in the long term we must either rely on our favorite benovelant Arabs to produce more oil or get used to paying the equivalent of $35 - $40 per barrel equivalent for energy. No conspiracy there - just basic thermodynamics at work. And the Arabs studied thermodynamics, too, many at our own universities.

73,

[XV2PS]

To produce hydrogen, you need electricity, to produce electricity, you need other energy. You loose at two transformation steps. Hydrogen is clean that is all (all according to my understanding).

[K9STH]

Well, you can't use wind power, at least in some parts of California. The &quot;Greenies&quot; got upset that a few birds couldn't tell if the blades of the windmills were moving or not and thus met their demise. The result was a court injunction prohibiting wind generation of power in certain areas of California.

Glen, K9STH

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG3Y @ May 17 2004,10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm really curious about this, even though it might sound like a &quot;troll&quot;. Remember the Hindenburg ? What would prevent I-270 ( lets say ) during rush hour from becoming one gigantic &quot;Hindenburg&quot;-like disaster if all the cars were fueled by Hydrogen, and someone decided to drop a load of napalm on the &quot;mixing bowl&quot;! D.C. and Baltimore area commuters will understand the examples, the rest of you can certainly figure it out !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

73 from Jim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Gasoline isn't any different than hydrogen.

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC5SAS @ May 17 2004,15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Even if the price of oil fell back to $30 a barrel I doubt we would see prices fall anywhere near the $1 a gallon mark again. Once the oil companies and our government has gotten us used to seeing prices rise as we adapt and continue paying whatever they ask there is no going back.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's not true. Gasoline is a commodity product and its pricing bounces around a whole bunch based on a variety of market conditions. But it's not going to bounce down for a while because
we're competing for oil with many other nations. The industrial giant we've given birth to, China, has nearly the thirst for oil we do. There isn't a glut of oil on the market, so there is no reason for the prices to go down.

Most of the price jumps over the past month have been due to market conditions, not oil pricing. These are price changes caused by speculative pressures like the war in Iraq, terrorist worries and a futures broker's kid needing new braces.

The production of gasoline in this country has been invaded by government regulation. Refineries are now forced to create oxygenated fuels for many markets adding to the cost and the time it takes to produce gasoline. Refineries are running at 100% and they can't keep up with demand. Since no one wants a refinery in their backyard, there won't be any more built in this country.

Most importantly, this is the come-uppance for years of backstepping fuel efficiency. It was all fun and games when gas was a buck twenty-five and those 15 MPG vehicles were cool to drive, but now that we've sucked away all the glut of oil and gasoline production reserve capacity, it's time to pay the band.

As far as states taxing you by the miles you drive, I don't see that happening. Taxes at the gas pump are straight-forward and nearly cheat-proof (albiet some diesel vehicle drivers do purchase home heating oil and burn that in their cars). Devices that measure the miles driven are certainly prone to tampering and if they became widespread, an entire cottage industry of tampering and fraud devices would appear on the Internet.

Furthermore, this method of taxation is contrary to any attempts to become fuel efficient and clean-air responsible. It wouldn't take much of a counter-campaign to make this one dead on arrival. Especially since the expense for the measuring devices would fall squarely on the tax payer, I'm seeing this legislation as a one-way ticket out of office for anyone giving an approving vote. And rightly so.

[KI4BOO]

Motor oil is still the same price it has been for about 5 years or so, maybe a few cents more for inflation.

Odd...

I suspect that the oil companies are looking into alternative fuels like Solar, so that they can overcharge us to use the sun as well. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Dear Mr. President,
I am a high school student, and I have a part time job. I can not afford to buy the gas to get to school or to work.

Thanks,
-Dustin

[KI4BOO]

We are also just pumping a lot of Natural Gas back into the ground after extracting the oil. There is TONS of Natural Gas. Havent seen any natural gas stations around lately, have you?

[KC7ATO]

KI4BOO, the use of natural gas (CNG) is growing in many large Fleet and Transit Authority applications. EPA requirements mandate usage of &quot;cleaner fuels&quot; and CNG Transit Busses are replacing &quot;Diesel&quot; busses. UPS (Brown Trucks) in many large cities are now running on CNG and costs related to &quot;Fueling Stations&quot; are starting to be recovered from better engine performance and lower emissions. CNG for use in the family &quot;Belchfire 8&quot; remains highly doubtfull if ever.

[W4CGP]

The only way we'll ever be able to use hydrogen from its most plentiful source is when we find some sort of catalytic converter that will split the hydrogen and the oxygen in water from each other.

The only way splitting the two off would be useful right now is to use solar or wind power to power the hydrogen plants.

[K3RRR]

I did not read all posts, so I might be repeating something.

It has been proven that the Hindenberg did not burn because of the hydrogen. Many years later the Germans produced documents that they knew that fact back not long after it happened. A researcher in the US proved that it was the paint on the outside that burned so quickly. The paint was made using rocket fuel components because of the feared heat that would be on the surface. Go figure!

The space program uses hydrogen fuel cells in space because it is safe and the results of the burning renders only water and oxygen.

The thinking that hydrogen is too difficult to handle is old school. Yes, it is the most difficult of the gases considered for fuel, but technology can overcome that problem...

bob

[AG3Y]

Bob, I would love to see that document about the paint! All I can say is that they must have had a h**l of a lot of paint on that ship, because all that was left of the thing was a mass of twisted, rusted metal. I sincerely doubt that they would have used that much paint on it. Weight factor and all that sort of thing.

I have been accused of not researching before I posted my &quot;theory&quot;. On the contrary, I do a lot of research before I post, so I don't look like a fool ! ( usually works! ) But regarding these topics, there seem to be a lot of conflicting statements and controversy. That's why I said I was &quot;confused&quot;, and that's why it makes for a fascinating topic of conversation!

Best 73 from Jim AG3Y

[w0tdh]

1994 Corvett that will go 700 miles on H2 then revert back to gasoline. For fuel injected cars.......... You also start the Corvett with gasoline to warm up the hydride tanks for better H2 output.

Metal hydride tanks es a small H2 generator to fuel up at home. They admit to still having to solve several problems though.

Re-charging the tanks for one. O2 contamination when refueling will ruin the hydride.

They at least are putting forth a great effort.

Germany has announced plans to State sponsor #30 #H2 re-fill stations in their country. Method there will be to use H2 directly with modified carbs as the United Nuclear car does. That will also power transport trucks as well.

Don't know if all that will work either, but again Germany is putting forth a great effort.

The letter to the President was to seek a solution to an economics problem with H2 as a side bar as a possible remedy long term.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm

73, Tom - KØPJG

Tnx for all the comments.

[ki4bgo]

My vehicles run on gasoline. I have NO car payments. I have NO plans to replace them. New fuel would mean needing a new vehicle. I will not buy ANY of the hideous looking semi-plastic crap coming out of Detroit lately. So, looks like gas is a neccesity for me for quite some time! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ...unless someone can come up with a new fuel, that can go in current cars, works like gasoline, and won't cause any damage!

[K6UEY]

AG3Y,
Jim , on the Hindenberg,there is a complete documentary that has been shown on the PBS channels. And yes it was concluded that it was the paint on the outer surface that was the major culprint. I don't know if a copy of the Documentary is available to the public or not,I first saw it about 3 to 5 years ago, and have seen it on since. Usually when they are begging for money they show it.
BTW it was several American Scientist's who took on the task of discovering what happened. # 73, # ORV

[W5HTW]

That's true. The full story was on PBS a year or so ago, with all the details of how the Hindenberg fire started. Once it started, though, certainly the hydrogen contributed to the rapid burn-up.

Back in the early seventies there were a couple of experimental cars burning hydrogen. They were not for consumers, but were test beds. However, they operated on the roads for a while. One problem, as I understand it, was weight - the container for the hydrogen was very heavy. It was believed then, that hydrogen could be safely handled by the general public, just as we handle gasoline or propane. And as noted by MIV, evaporated gasoline is an extreme explosive. I think I recall some tests 15 years or so ago in which it was stated a quarter cup of gasoline, evaporated, had the explosive power of several sticks of dynamite. We don't normally work with evaporated gasoline, but with it in liquid form.

Also a few years ago I read that solar and wind power would, at very best, (at that time) provide the nation with only about 15 percent maximum of its energy needs. But we have added another hundred million people since then, and probably a milions tons of computers, TVs, and other electronic gadgets. Not likely that solar or wind energy, even combined, will ever provide more than 15 percent. That means 85 percent must come from something else.

Of course the real solution to electrical power is nuclear. There is no other viable technology known. But if we commissioned a new nuclear plant tomorrow, it would take ten years before it could go on line, and in that time, we'd add another 150,000,000 people to our population! So we'd need not one, but 20 nuclear power plants.

They could ease some of the strain on fixed location energy production, perhaps preventing us from burning more fossil fuels. But they help us not at all with transportation.

Natural gas is an interim fix, but really it is used by corporations and transit systems because it is clean burning, not because it is available in unlimited supplies, or is cheap. It comes down to the fact that a gallon of this or a gallon of that is still going to cost us big bucks to put it into our cars.

I envision a time in the not distant future where driving inside a city will be completely prohibited. You may live out of town and drive TO the city, but then you will be forced to ride public transit (which we can hope will be vastly improved by then!) I can even see a time when your license plate will determine (odd or even or vanity) on which days of the week you can drive. We have 'been there, done that,' with gas rationing of the 1970s! It could return permanently, across the nation.

I recall, too, when Bill Clinton was asked by many to release the oil reserves. He chose not to, a wise move. Now the pressure is on George Bush to release them and he, too, is saying 'no.' I agree with both of these Presidents on this. We cannot use the emergency reserves for our day-to-day needs. I hope Bush sticks to his guns on this, just as Clinton did.

We have to tighten our belts. Few of us were around during World War II (I was just a kid, with a pedal car, no worries about gas) but those who are will remember rationing. You did not go anywhere if it wasn't a necessity. You walked to the store, to school, to church. We may go there again, but this time it will be prices that put us there.

I think, too, of another fact. We could possibly entice the Arabs to increase production. Perhaps we could get more from Venezuela. Maybe we can drill more on our shores. But in the long run, the Earth is a bowl. It has finite resources, and accelerating their use will simply deplete them sooner. There can come a time when we really DO run out of oil, when the wells run dry. We can say &quot;not in my lifetime, so what the hell&quot; but it could be in the lifetime of your children.

In energy, as well as in precious metals, the value of the well (mine) is not in what is coming out of it, but what is estimated to be left in the ground. If you are selling oil from Well ABC at 40 bucks a barrel today, but there is only one barrel left in the ground, the value of the well is 40 bucks. Those are the reserves (not the reserves mentioned earlier that some people want released for general use.) Those are the money in the bank. Again, if you have 20 bucks in your hand, and 20 bucks in the bank, when you spend that first 20, your net value is now 20 bucks. The nations with oil left underground want to manage it. It comes down to supply and demand. If we demand it, we can get it, but we must pay the price of the dwindling reserves.

In 40, 50, 100 years, oil is going to be gone. We aren't making anymore! With population doubling frequently around the world, by maybe 2010 we will have gone from 6 billion people to ten billion people. The use of all our resources will have accelerated drastically. From those figures, we could have 20 billion people on the planet by 2050. Not an appealing figure! What will they do for energy? (What will they do for food, but that's another story!)

We must have alternate energy, but not just the pebble in a bucket of solar and wind. We need real energy. Nuclear for our electricity and hydrogen or other for our transportation, and we need it very quickly. We can hope the energy companies, now wrapped up in oil, can redirect much of their resources to inventing that new energy. Doing so will make them a profit, and assure those 20 billion people still can get around the planet!

Ed

[K3XR]

If you are looking to send a letter about high fuel prices, start with the liberals in Congress. #They are the people that keep fighting the President's energy policy.

Next time you fill up your tank thank an evironmental nut-case when you go to pay the tab. #They, along with their friends in the Democrat Party have put a stop to oil drilling in this country.

You can't force alternate fuel sources on the public, the market place will determine when alternate fuel will replace carbon based fuel. #You will recall, high fuel prices of the seventies had folks driving around in little puddle jumpers, they faded quickly when prices came back down.

For me, will keep putting the hi-test in my performance vehicle and placing the blame where it belongs.

DAN, K3XR

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4BOO @ May 18 2004,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are also just pumping a lot of Natural Gas back into the ground after extracting the oil. There is TONS of Natural Gas. Havent seen any natural gas stations around lately, have you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The reason natural gas is reinjected (pumps don't work well with gases) is not due to waste or stupidity. If you haven't studied any physics, I can understand your misunderstanding.

If you did study physics, then you will recall that mechanical energy is defined as the differential of pressure times volume. (Chemical energy and combustion are totally different and not of interest here, since we don't want to burn or react our resources in the ground, usually.) Now, most people will agree that the size of a reservoir doesn't change too much - otherwise there would be massive subsidence and siesmic activity associated with oil production. That means that the volume is nearly constant, so the only thing that can change is the pressure as you extract fluids. Thus, the reservoir pressure is a direct measure of the mechanical energy remaining in a reservoir at any time. When you run out of energy, you have to pump or use other expensive means to produce more oil.

In addition, much of the oil is a liquid in the reservoir, but contains a large amount of dissolved gas. It's pretty much like a Coke at high pressure. When you start producing the oil and lowering the pressure, the gas comes bubbling out, just like the CO2 does when you open a Coke. We all know that if you put your finger over a Coke bottle, you can squirt a lot of liquid out of it, using the internal energy of the liberated gas. But if you don't limit the gas by putting your finger over the Coke bottle, the gas gets out quick and almost no liquid goes with it. So our everyday experience is consistent with the laws of physics. By conserving the rate at which gas is released and maintainig the pressure high as long as possible, we increase the recovery of the liquids. In fact, the most efficient way to empty a Coke with almost no effort is to shake it up, turn it upside down and then open it. All of the liquid will rapidly get pushed out without releasing hardly any gas at all.

An oil reservoir works in a similar way, except there's no way for us to turn it upside down. The prudent thing to do is produce the liquid oil without producing all the gas, but that isn't hardly ever possible due to the geology. So the next best thing is to put the gas back into the reservoir and it acts just like it never left, helping to maintain the mechanical energy and increasing the oil recovery. In many reservoirs the recovery by pure depletion (producing oil and whatever gas comes with it) is around 10 - 15% of the oil in place. If you reinject the gas and have a good quality reservoir rock, the recovery can go up to in excess of 70%, although somewhere around 50% is probably more typical.

So, generally you have a choice. You can produce all that gas and leave the oil in the ground to be extracted through expensive pumping later, or you can reinject the gas and recover 4 or 5 times more oil. The choice is partly yours, but most regulatory agencies control things to keep the idiots from wasting resources.

Most regulatory agencies did study physics. And believe me, a cubic foot of oil releases a lot more energy when burned than does a cubit foot of gas.

73,

[wd5kca]

Another reason for reinjecting gas is the lack of a viable market. There are many so called &quot;stranded gas&quot; pockets around the world. One close to home is the Alaska North Slope. Reserves there are estimated at 35 trillion cubic feet.

A pipeline to bring it down to the lower 48 has been estimated at $20 Billion. At that cost the economics don't work out.

There have been studies of bringing the gas on tankers in liquid form, LNG. This method is more economically viable, but projects are bogged down by opponents with over exagerated safety fears.

Harold

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka8ncr @ May 17 2004,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG3Y @ May 17 2004,10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm really curious about this, even though it might sound like a &quot;troll&quot;. Remember the Hindenburg ? What would prevent I-270 ( lets say ) during rush hour from becoming one gigantic &quot;Hindenburg&quot;-like disaster if all the cars were fueled by Hydrogen, and someone decided to drop a load of napalm on the &quot;mixing bowl&quot;! D.C. and Baltimore area commuters will understand the examples, the rest of you can certainly figure it out !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

73 from Jim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Gasoline isn't any different than hydrogen.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Always one to check my work, hydrogen is indeed a tad nastier than gasoline.

For starters, hydrogen will ignite in a wide range of atmospheric conditions of 20 to 55 % by volume.

Hydrogen has over 10 times less energy requirements to get it to fire off as compared to gasoline. So, I was wrong in my previous post.

It does, however, have nearly 3 times the stored energy potential as gasoline.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif so if it is more flammable than gasoline., let us leave it alone.

Too many nuts out there that could be suicidal; and that is just in a 10,000 city population.

73

---ai4ep---

[w0tdh]

A Reply from my Senator. Might not be the answer, but at least he has responded;


Dear Mr. Fischel:

Thank you for writing to share your views about rising gas prices. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share your concern about the price of gasoline. When gas prices rise, North Carolina truckers, farmers, small business owners, and everyday commuters experience a tight financial squeeze. I agree that the hardships caused by dramatic price fluctuations demand an effective, long-term solution.

The price we pay for gas at the pump is connected to the supply of crude oil in the market. As you know, several factors have contributed to rising gas prices in the United States. I appreciate your suggestion of holding Congressional hearings to investigate these factors, and I will certainly share your thoughts with my colleagues in the Senate.

In addition, I believe we in Congress must work to create an effective, long term solution to these dramatic price fluctuations. We must reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, and we must develop motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels. Although Congress is limited in the short-term impact it can have on the high price of gas, various proposals have been introduced. I have proposed legislation that would provide Americans with a $500 energy tax credit which taxpayers can use to help pay high gas prices. Please know that I appreciate your input and will keep your concerns in mind as the Senate considers legislation affecting the price of gas.

Again, thank you for your letter. Please keep in touch.

Yours sincerely,

John Edwards
United States Senate




**PLEASE NOTE: You have received this message from an electronic correspondence system that is not capable of receiving responses. Messages sent in direct response to this message will not be received by my office. To communicate further with me about this or any other issue of concern to you, please return to my online web form at http://edwards.senate.gov/mailform.html. I thank you for sharing your concerns, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

You may also choose to write to me with your concerns via my Washington, D.C. or Raleigh offices. Those messages should be directed to:

Senator John Edwards
United States Senate
225 Dirksen Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
fax (202) 228-1374

- or -

301 Century Post Office Bldg.
300 Fayetteville Street Mall
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919) 856-4245
fax (919) 856-4408

http://edwards.senate.gov/

[w0tdh]

OK, how does propane stack up against H2 ?

Is not propane more dangerous to handle than gas ? How much more dangerous is H2 to handle than propane?

Sucides es terrorist ? Total number of Deaths due to the automobile still far exceed our losses in any war. Gasoline powered I might add.
What is your point - just keep going the route we are on til Oil runs out or another war begins because of the lack of it?

GOOD GRIEF! We are being held hostage to Oil as it is.

Time to do something different. I put this subject here because you folks are a bit brighter than most. A very good think tank this forum is. Dust off those craniums es find a solution. If H2 is not it then BY GEORGE come up with a viable alternative to Oil please and that lucky person can retire early http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)

The hydrogen &quot;economy&quot; is an insanity, its difficult, dangerous and VERY expensive. The answer is bio-diesel, obtainable from several plant sources, oil seeds etc and simple chemistry. As a byproduct you get animal feed, fibres, soaps, fertilisers etc etc, and most importantly a ZERO impact on CO2 emissions, as that which you release today, will be absorbed by new plant growth for next years fuel.
South African farmers were growing all their diesel needs on a small percentage of their land and processing it in co-perative set ups nearly 20 years ago.
Half of Europe is growing diesel, but typically here in the UK the oil companies and the government dont want to know. You think US gas prices are high ? gas here is nearly four UKP a gallon, thats roughly seven dollars !

[W3MIV]

From the NC lawyer:

&quot;In addition, I believe we in Congress must work to create an effective, long term solution to these dramatic price fluctuations. We must reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, and we must develop motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels. Although Congress is limited in the short-term impact it can have on the high price of gas, various proposals have been introduced. I have proposed legislation that would provide Americans with a $500 energy tax credit which taxpayers can use to help pay high gas prices. Please know that I appreciate your input and will keep your concerns in mind as the Senate considers legislation affecting the price of gas.&quot;

What a crock, and its contents are not oil! First, consider that the Congress is part of the PROBLEM and not of the solution. Also, where in H is he going to get the $500 he wants to dole out? Care to guess?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[w5klb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4BOO @ May 17 2004,21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are also just pumping a lot of Natural Gas back into the ground after extracting the oil. There is TONS of Natural Gas. Havent seen any natural gas stations around lately, have you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Dustin,

This were you and I both agree (amazing isn't it?). My state has one of the largest Natural Gas fields in the lower 48. But the biggest one belongs to Alaska. It seems rather odd that we can build a crude oil pipeline from the North Slope to the Gulf of Valdez but we can't find a way to transport this Natural Gas, from the same area, to where it can be made available to the consumer. Like you said, it just gets pumped back into the gound. I think it would be cheaper to invest in something like this until we can find a safe, economic way of producing and using Hydrogen gas. But using Natural Gas#would involve some risk also.

My opinion to be filed under &quot;For what it's Worth&quot;.

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 19 2004,09:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This were you and I both agree (amazing isn't it?). My state has one of the largest Natural Gas fields in the lower 48. But the biggest one belongs to Alaska. It seems rather odd that we can build a crude oil pipeline from the North Slope to the Gulf of Valdez but we can't find a way to transport this Natural Gas, from the same area, to where it can be made available to the consumer. Like you said, it just gets pumped back into the gound. I think it would be cheaper to invest in something like this until we can find a safe, economic way of producing and using Hydrogen gas. But using Natural Gas#would involve some risk also.

My opinion to be filed under &quot;For what it's Worth&quot;.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Can you say &quot;hydrates&quot;? Take a look at hydrocarbon phase behavior and the temperatures in Alaska. Also estimate the energy content based on density and determine what pressure you will need to compete with the BTU content of Alaskan oil. Then, calculate the wall thickness of the pipeline to withstand burst and estimate the tons of steel needed.

It also amazes me why people always assume that professionals are either too stupid to have done their homework or are involved in a conspiracy.

Then again, this is the internet ...

73,

[KA9VQF]

This may be off topic but that never stopped anyone before.

I have one of the old fashion reel type man powered lawn mowers. Today I was using it to mow my yard. My neighbor was sitting on his deck having a beer and watching me. After a bit he got up, got in his truck and left. I really didn’t pay much attention but in just a bit he came back. He reached in the back of his truck and got out a gas can. He brought it over to me and said “ Is your lawn mower broken?” I said “no” he said, “ Then use this, I’ve been watching you for the last half hour and it’s killing me to see you work that hard.”
Nice guy, but I really wanted the exercise.

Yeah, I used his gas and even did his yard to boot. Maybe that was what he was angling at in the first place, what do you think?

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0PJG @ May 19 2004,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, how does propane stack up against H2 ?

Is not propane more dangerous to handle than gas ? How much more dangerous is H2 to handle than propane?

Sucides es terrorist ? Total number of Deaths due to the automobile still far exceed our losses in any war. Gasoline powered I might add.
What is your point - just keep going the route we are on til Oil runs out or another war begins because of the lack of it?

GOOD GRIEF! We are being held hostage to Oil as it is.

Time to do something different. I put this subject here because you folks are a bit brighter than most. A very good think tank this forum is. Dust off those craniums es find a solution. If H2 is not it then BY GEORGE come up with a viable alternative to Oil please and that lucky person can retire early http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Propane is more dangerous because when it explodes, it creates huge pressure waves where hydrogen doesn't do that (strange, but true). Certainly enough hydrogen will create a nasty explosion, in a 1 for 1 ratio with something like dynamite, hydrogen will give off more energy but create a fraction of the pressure wave.

However, I don't think propane can ignite in such a wide range of atmospheric conditions. Ostensibly, it's because the hydrogen is attached to a carbon atom seeing that propane (I think) is CH3CH3CH2.

The hydrogen economy is possible. Unfortunately, it's not going to save pollution, it's not going to save money, and it is likely to have some nasty consequences as a result of making it.

Really, the answer is methane. Methane can be produced in a number of ways and tons of it are burned off in waste from household waste dumps.

Methane is being produced and used from waste dumps. If your local dump isn't generating power from the methane, your town is way behind the times.
Hint: Methane is heavier than air. You have a collection ditch installed under the sanitary landfill, filled with a gravel to prevent it from collapsing. That is piped to a turbine engine and generator.
Been there, built an addition on the landfill. That site happens to have a LOT of wind generators that were shut down, I was told, because birds were being hit by the wind turbines. (As Glen reported also). Wind was blowing trash everywhere everyday, yuck. Great fun watching the crew welding repairs to the seams of the HDPE (high density poly esther something plastic) liner together with a torch, the methane would lite and have a nice traveling explosion under the HDPE, feels like an earthquake. You could watch the jump of the plastic over the explosion, seems like the leading edge would travel about, say 40 mph. I was told they made power for 5000 houses from the methane there.
N7SYY

[N2ACX]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif Of all the various methods of extracting viable power from all the materials available from A to Z. And all the methods of injecting etc for maximum milage doesn't mean &quot;SQUAT'.
As long as greedy companies and stockholders control our energy we will continue to get screwed, so no need to discuss all the ways that we can extract energy, even if the engines would run on AIR these companies would &quot;Meter&quot; the airflow and charge you for it!
What the consumer needs to do is fight back the only way they can and that is to stop using the vehicles, period. Don't drive them one or two weekends a month maybe more and only move them in cases of emergencies. A one day &quot;boycott&quot; is so ridiculous, I can hear the major oil companies laughing at our pathetic attempt to&quot;send a message&quot;.
It seems many consumers need a '2X4 up side the head' to get them to realize that you cannot stop those in control of our energy to stop this fleecing of our bank accounts. I guess that means $5 to $10/gal before we &quot;take action'.
No one in this country sticks together and the rest of the world knows it. The wealthy here in the USA and around the world,are ONE, and they know the american people will pay anything to keep their lifestyle, so get ready for $4 to $5/gal by the end of 2005 and higher, by the month, till someone says &quot;STOP&quot;
If we don't react, we &quot;ain't seen nothing yet&quot;
73 Gary

[wd5kca]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7SYY @ May 19 2004,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hint: Methane is heavier than air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Horsefeathers! #Methane is lighter than air

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7SYY @ May 20 2004,02:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Methane is being produced and used from waste dumps. If your local dump isn't generating power from the methane, your town is way behind the times.
Hint: Methane is heavier than air. You have a collection ditch installed under the sanitary landfill, filled with a gravel to prevent it from collapsing. That is piped to a turbine engine and generator.
Been there, built an addition on the landfill. That site happens to have a LOT of wind generators that were shut down, I was told, because birds were being hit by the wind turbines. (As Glen reported also). Wind was blowing trash everywhere everyday, yuck. Great fun watching the crew welding repairs to the seams of the HDPE (high density poly esther something plastic) liner together with a torch, the methane would lite and have a nice traveling explosion under the HDPE, feels like an earthquake. You could watch the jump of the plastic over the explosion, seems like the leading edge would travel about, say 40 mph. I was told they made power for 5000 houses from the methane there.
N7SYY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think you need to check your figures. Methane has a molecular weight of 16, which is substantially less than air (average about 29 for a normal mixture). If it &quot;flowed&quot; downhill, it was heavier than a molecular weight of 29 and wasn't anything I'd want to have around!

In addition, gas from mature landfills contains around 400 - 600 BTU per 1000 standard cubic feet (average natural gas is around 1000 BTU per 1000 standard cubic feet) and also contains significant amounts of H2S, CO2 and nitrogen, which is the reason for the low BTU content. You can look up the numbers and figure how much landfill gas it would take to boil a cubic foot of water. (Hint, water weighs 62.4 lb/ft3, water requires 1 BTU to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree F, the latent heat of vaporization is about 450 BTU/lb, if I recall off the top of my head.) I will tell you that at atmospheric pressure you'd need about a quarter acre of the stuff 1 foot deep - if you could get it to stay put and not disperse. And that's just for 1 lb of water.

The real reason methane content of landfills concerns most operators is due to the high fines for letting the pressure rise and expelling the &quot;leachate&quot; which is basically raw sewage. Without the fines imposed, hardly ever would anyone be able to make a commercial venture of landfill gas. Basically it's usually much cheaper to try to do something with the gas than it is to pay the fines. Either way, the costs are passed back to the public via taxes.

The ditches I've seen are used to drain leachate from the landfills and prevent ground water contamination, not to collect gas. The gas does indeed rise and if not released will buildup pressure and can cause excess leachate drainage. If those drains plug, there goes your ground water supply, which is usually used for drinking, among other things.

73,

Took me a while to find the reference. Methane specific gravity is 0.5549, while air is 1.0. Looks like you got me there. But I found one for Biogas, specific gravity of 0.904. 60% Methane, C02 35%, H2S 1.67%, Ammonia 1.67, water 1.67. 652BTU/ft3. Closed environment, maybe that's how it was heavier, they are running biogas through the jet turbines. Just helped build the thing and reporting. Altamont Land Fill, west of Tracy, CA, fall of 1998. They were making power for 5-6000 homes.

[KG4CGC]

Soon enough, the use of hydrogen will be as common as tapwater. First, conversion of internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. Second, hydrogen electric.
# What comes down the pike next is narrow field magnetic propulsion. A pipe dream you say?

[w6ez]

I'm just going to wait for hydrogen fusion.(hot or cold.)

I'll upgrade then.

[kc9esf]

I haven't had a chance to read through all the posts on this topic, but I would like to add the following.....


Back in the 70's when the first oil crisis came about, there was interest in producing grain alcohol for fuel. If I remember correctly, it was stated that if gas reached X dollars a gallon, there were more than a few companies that would consider it cost effective (and profitable) to convert to alcohol.

I have looked at hyrdogren production, but i do not see it as a viable way of running a car (I wanted it for rocket fuel http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ). now just about anyone can grab some corn, let it ferment, and run it through a still. getting pressurized hydrogen in a safe format is a bit more problematical.

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tater1337 @ May 26 2004,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....grab some corn, let it ferment, and run it through a still....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And you would BURN it? Seems to me there are lots of OTHER uses for such a substance. Got a friend or two, empty fruit jar...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[kc9esf]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 26 2004,03:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tater1337 @ May 26 2004,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....grab some corn, let it ferment, and run it through a still....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And you would BURN it? Seems to me there are lots of OTHER uses for such a substance. Got a friend or two, empty fruit jar...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
well.....

when you are making 100 gallon batches, no reason to &quot;test&quot; a gallon or two.

please remember, fuel grade alcohol is much more potent than store bought stuff, so make sure to &quot;test&quot; in moderation

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tater1337 @ May 26 2004,09:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 26 2004,03http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tater1337 @ May 26 2004,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....grab some corn, let it ferment, and run it through a still....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And you would BURN it? Seems to me there are lots of OTHER uses for such a substance. Got a friend or two, empty fruit jar...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
well.....

when you are making 100 gallon batches, no reason to &quot;test&quot; a gallon or two.

please remember, fuel grade alcohol is much more potent than store bought stuff, so make sure to &quot;test&quot; in moderation[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Something always bothered me about a guy running alcohol through a distillation process using copper pipe with lead-sweated fittings. Not to mention using his grandmother's turkey thermometer to control the distillation between methanol and ethanol, which has nary 13 degrees &copy; of difference. 13 degrees between a good time and time for a funeral.

I guess it's a good thing that distillation of grains doesn't naturally produce a lot of methanol. It's only when the process gets contaminated with a lot of fructose that the nasties start happening.

[KG4CGC]

Would that be enough lead in the mix to lubricate the valve seats? I know it's not but I just had to ask!


During the mid 80's, I had a 1972 VW Super Beetle. I wanted to rebuild the engine and one of the factors I had to take into consideration was to make sure the new heads had chromium molybdenum #coated/plated valve seats due to the fact that all gasoline is now unleaded.




I wonder what manufacturers use these days?

[W3MIV]

Just saw this on Car Connection newsletter:

&quot;The Associated Press reports that Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and his department are studying ways to reduce gasoline prices - and one way could be to streamline the number of gasoline blends. 'We've got to think real hard whether we need 17, 18, 19, 20, whatever it is, different varieties of fuel in this country'...&quot;

Could reason be raising its ugly head in DC? Stay tuned, fuel fans, to see how this plays out.

[w5klb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ May 19 2004,16<!--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It also amazes me why people always assume that professionals are either too stupid to have done their homework or are involved in a conspiracy.

Then again, this is the internet ...

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Walt,

The oil companies have already done the math and think that a natural gas pipeline can be built.The burning (no pun intented) question is: Is it feasable to build the pipeline from Alaska? The answer is &quot;no&quot;-for now. Alaska has 35 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves for natural gas. The U.S Geological Survey estimates that there is a potential for 100 trillion cubic feet. But, IMHO, something will have to be done untill we can improve our hydrogen technology. And I beleave we will, one day, find a way, to do this. I didn't mean to imply that these guys are &quot;stupid&quot;. There are some pretty talented individuals working to solve these problems but, feasability seems to be a real issue. The oil companies need to make a profit off of it and that the real reason why anyone would have a business in the first place.

There are no conspiracies with me OM. I don't beleave in them PERIOD.

[KF4ZHL]

Alchohol fuels are not viable at this time. The energy(cost) it takes to make it is more than petroleum. Alchohol also likes to absorb water and break down rubber and silicone making it a very corrosive and freeze prone fuel. Petroleum by-products are also used extensively, helping offset the cost of producing the fuel. We would have to find alternatives for those and pick up the cost difference.

Obviously, the sun is the most immediate answer. It puts out more energy than we could ever use and sends it directly to us! We already posess the capability to convert light into electricity. What we need, is an efficient and effective way to store it. Current battery technology is woefully inadequate. The charging rate is too slow and the capacity is too little. Current electric engine efficiency leaves somthing to be desired also. Now that we have hybrid cars, I think we will see more advances in these areas, but it will be slow in coming as petroleum is still a viable and relatively cheap energy source with by-products that are extensively used, and with an infrastructure already in place.