Energy Policy

Subtle · Post by **Subtle** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:34 pm

Lucid comments at www.techcentralstation.com.

Read "Snake Oil Policy", dated Sept 11.

Since the high in July the wholesale price for gasoline has dropped from 2.29 to 1.53.

That's down 33% and it will eventually work its way to the pump price

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:59 pm

Intersting. He's right about ANWR economically, but he misses the reason why we haven't drilled. We haven't done so because most people don't care for displacing an ecosystem. But anyways, that doesn't help lower gas prices.

Personally, I think $3 a gallon is a self-fulfilling solution- people will eventually realize the pitfalls of driving their SUVs (I've seen 2 hummers and 2 escalades For sale on the side of the highway here for 3 months and haven't sold) and move on to more fuel efficient vehicles. The big problem with this is that it might take a while for the stubborn, thick skulled americans to realize this problem.

I really think the government should do something to spur the car companys to make more fuel efficient vehicles. IIRC, the 3 new Japanese imports (the Fit, Yaris, and that Nissan thingy) don't get any more than 40 mpg Highway. Their larger counterparts (civic, corolla) get better mileage with more size and bigger engines. That's not the answer I think most people concerned about mileage were looking for. This is GMs chance to go out there and make a driveable small car that gets 45-50mpg! I mean, jeezus, they can make the Corvette & Impala V8 engines get 25+, why not make a 2.0L 4cyl get 45-50?? I really think it would spur them back out of their financial tailspin, instead of adding MORE SUVs to their lineup

GM is the largest industry in America (even with overseas plants) and the American economy rises and falls with it. They need to get on the ball for all of our sakes.

Subtle · Post by **Subtle** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:22 pm

Price allocates resources much more efficiently than can politicans.

While gas prices may be falling, so is the boom and with that sobriety can return.

In which case, big extravagant cars will become unfashionable.

This being accomplished through market forces will be much more constructive than being carried out through coercive political bullying.

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:31 pm

it's been proven in the past that positive reinforcement (ie: tax breaks for progressive technology that reduces energy consupmtion) is always better than negative reinforcement (like forcing regulations and restrictions on individuals or businesses.)

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:39 pm

wiscon_mark wrote:it's been proven in the past that positive reinforcement (ie: tax breaks for progressive technology that reduces energy consupmtion) is always better than negative reinforcement (like forcing regulations and restrictions on individuals or businesses.)

I second that notion Mark.

However I disagree with you on ANWR. Technology has come a long way since the last Alaskan drilling site was constructed. With today's low impact methods, there wouldn't be much disturbance to the wildlife. Actually, a report I read some time ago stated that little wildlife lives in the proposed drilling site. That which does live there will likely adapt to their new surroundings. Remember the caribou? They walk right under the pipeline and rarely, if ever, use the bridges built for them.

If you knew for a fact that 10 million dollars was buried under your mother's flower garden, I'd bet you 100 to 1 that you'd figure out a way to get it.

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:52 pm

Richard, I didn't really mean that ANWR was in serious danger by the oil industry-if things are done right, they should be very low impact, I was just saying, that was the concern that stops the drilling from happening, not what the economist was saying.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:53 pm

Today's 'small' engines will have to go smaller or cars will have to go lighter, eliminating many features and sissiy safety crap people want. The Corvette gets such mileage because of decent aero efficiency and a big motor with more torque than a small engine can make at low rpm so that it can be geared into the stratosphere.

Better yet, bring back steam.

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:58 pm

Yes, lighter cars are a must.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:11 am

Flintstonemobiles get great mileage. They might even be the answer to our obesity problem.

More horses wouldn't be a bad idea in some cases.

I'm all for lighter cars. Imagine a Lotus with diesel-electric propulsion.

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:23 am

Richard wrote:Imagine a Lotus with diesel-electric propulsion.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:23 am

But a diesel electric system would be heavy. I suppose a modern steam set up with flash boiler, condensers, engine, and associated plumbing wouldn't be terribly light either, but then there's no dependence on fossil fuels (even oil could be derived from vegetables and cheaper than the internal combustion engine-grades that have been developed as absolute top rpms would be maybe 1500). Am I the only one that likes the idea of 1000 lbs./ft @ 0 rpm and bullet-proof durability? I guess then they'd have to come up with a less oil dependent way to manufacture the many tires I'd need...

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:24 am

Steam would be awesome. I'm really not sure what's holding people back from boiler powered vehicles...

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:56 am

Check out the Doble Steam car of the late twenties. Full steam in under a minute, 60 mpg of water, 100 mph huge luxury car, and a 100,000 mile warranty. I have copies of the patents Abner Doble held. I'd run the boiler off electricity once under way to increase fuel mileage and knock emissions to near nothing.

The main thing I like is that it doesn't need an infrastructure to support it (like if say, it collapsed) other than damned tires.

Murphy · Post by **Murphy** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:26 am

evolutionmovement wrote: The Corvette gets such mileage because of decent aero efficiency and a big motor with more torque than a small engine can make at low rpm so that it can be geared into the stratosphere.

actualy it get the mileage because during normal driving conditions your only using 4 of the cylinders, so you have a 3L V4, it does this by shutting off the valves and spark to the unused cylinders

when you punch the throttle and the other 4 kick in you getting more like 17mpg, the same technology goes into all of GMs sport V8s which is why they all suposedly get 25+mpg, but anyone who like driving at 85-90mph on the highway will probably be using all 8 and getting horrible mileage, so it depends on how you drive, but it helps that it only wieghs 2000lb and my Legacy is something like 3700lb

the GT500 is supposed to get about 21mpg, Ford also does not use the valve shut-off technology (forgot what its realy called), which for 500hp realy doesnt seem bad, my budies 05' V6 stang gets about 27mpg which is the same as my Legacy (but the faster i drive the better mileage i get to a tank)

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:40 am

The Corvette doesn't have cylinder deactivation. They also weigh over 3k and even at 90 mph they're hardly turning over since the gearing is so high. Compare that to a 1.6 Honda spinning away at that speed just to keep the car moving due to a lack of torque. Floor the Vette and you'll suck gas, yes, but then you don't need to floor it like in the lawn-mower engined Honda example. And when you want to floor it, you don't care about the mileage and you have that option of rapid acceleration you don't have with the Honda. Your Legacy might be 3700 lbs. with some fat people on board.

The steam car would be a single speed (no current car transmissions could handle the power anyway), geared so that max rpm would take it somewhere around 120 and turning about 1500 rpm, yet it still would have the balls to fire off quickly. The benefits of massive torque.

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:51 am

1 gear would be killer in a drag race

Fuzzylee · Post by **Fuzzylee** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:00 am

So how ya gonna heat the water?

Electric is terribly inefficient(sp).

Ya, I was already trying figure out how to swing the cash for a 1 ton vette.

Post by **Legacy777** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:32 pm

I can tell you why steam won't ever be mainstream.....it's due to the maintenance issues, and potential problems/dangers that could occur.

Steam is very corrosive, and will eat out piping and boilers given enough time. Plus you have to wait for steam to be generated, it's not instantaneous power. Also, you need a supply of water......

We have two combined cylce steam facilities used to move natural gas. They use gas fired turbines with boilers on the exhaust (reheat) to heat boiler feed water. These boilers are supplemented by separate gas fired boilers. That steam is then used to drive steam turbines. Steam is used across the plant in heating, power generation, etc.

It's gotten to the point that with the age of the system and the on-going maintenance costs, it's cheaper to put new gas-fired turbines in to replace steam system.

Other thing to not, and I mentioned it is. You need HUGE amounts of cooling to condense that steam back to water. About the only thing that will give you that at an economical rate is evaporative cooling, ie cooling towers.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:50 pm

Check out the Doble, Josh. Full steam in under a minute from cold and 60 mpg of water with its condensers. It used a flash boiler with and a turbine that would blast hot air from the burners over the coils. The requirements for turbine powerplants and recicrocating 2-stroke engines are much different. As far as weather is concerned, I believe they used to run an antifreeze solution, but that's only from anecdotal evidence. The electric heaters would be run off power from alternators spun by residual exhaust steam energy.

Another reason for the water efficiency may be due to the triple expansion cylinders that would use more of the steam's expansive energy than a simple ICE-type piston/cylinder design like in the Stanley Steamers.

Corrosion would be a problem, but I'm sure there's something out there. Even so, component replacement shouldn't be worse than engines, transmissions, or brake lines in ICE cars depending on its design.

Considering how inefficient and complicated the ICE is it's amazing that's made it this far. Damn Cadillac and the self starter. If Doble was ten years earlier and a better business man the world would maybe be a much quieter place today.

Post by **Legacy777** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm

Yeah.....I had an ICE class up at the university of Wisconson a couple weeks ago. The big reason the ICE is still around is because of the fuel source. The amount of energy you get out of hydrocarbons per the amount of hydrocarbons you have is the highest for all the different fuels out there.

So I'm sure that has something to do with the reason the ICE is still around.

wiscon_mark · Post by **wiscon_mark** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:31 am

You were at the UW? Next time you come up here tell me!

Post by **Legacy777** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:46 am

Yeah I was up there for for 3 days I think. If I'm up there again, I'll be sure to let ya know.

legacycentral bbs

A forum for 89-94 BC-BF(BJ) Legacy Owners and Fans

Energy Policy

Energy Policy