Why are you paying so much for gas?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Found this Forbes article on the rapid rise of gas prices over the past decade, thought I should share this with you guys and get some more economic conversations going.

http://blogs.forbes.com/johntharvey/2011/04/26/why-you-are-paying-so-much-for-gas/

Sounds like yet another side effect of over deregulation causing bubbles.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Meh, I was unimpressed.

Speculation is part of it, but some of his arguments don't hold water.

Part one, on supply; known oil reserves doesn't mean much. It's a measure of how much oil we know is in the ground somewhere, not of oil that is ready to be pumped or will ever be pumped. This is due in part to a couple things; red tape in the US can delay oil drilling for years on average. Other huge reservoirs of oil (Alaska) are legally off limits because a gathering of know-nothings gets hysterical about impossible environmental damage.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, who have national oil industries, limit oil production to keep prices high.

And speaking of red tape, no new oil refinery has been built in the US since the 1970s, due to regulations and the ability of environ groups to sue constantly and force a halt to things even after a company has gotten regulatory approval. And given how many states have their own unique laws on what gasoline must contain, we can't readily import gasoline from other countries.

Part two; demand. He uses a simplistic world real GDP graph to say demand isn't rising. This is misleading. Countries like China and India have been increasing energy use, and oil use, for years. GDP doesn't correlate exactly with oil use.

Part three; speculation. It likely has some part in the price, but not just due to investors looking to buy futures in order to buy something. Consider the recent upheavals in the Middle East, which produces a huge part of the world's oil. Governments are falling left and right, even the Saudi monarchy is scared. The supply of oil is not certain in the near future.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Meh, I was unimpressed.

Speculation is part of it, but some of his arguments don't hold water.

Part one, on supply; known oil reserves doesn't mean much. It's a measure of how much oil we know is in the ground somewhere, not of oil that is ready to be pumped or will ever be pumped. This is due in part to a couple things; red tape in the US can delay oil drilling for years on average. Other huge reservoirs of oil (Alaska) are legally off limits because a gathering of know-nothings gets hysterical about impossible environmental damage.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, who have national oil industries, limit oil production to keep prices high.

And speaking of red tape, no new oil refinery has been built in the US since the 1970s, due to regulations and the ability of environ groups to sue constantly and force a halt to things even after a company has gotten regulatory approval. And given how many states have their own unique laws on what gasoline must contain, we can't readily import gasoline from other countries.

Part two; demand. He uses a simplistic world real GDP graph to say demand isn't rising. This is misleading. Countries like China and India have been increasing energy use, and oil use, for years. GDP doesn't correlate exactly with oil use.

Part three; speculation. It likely has some part in the price, but not just due to investors looking to buy futures in order to buy something. Consider the recent upheavals in the Middle East, which produces a huge part of the world's oil. Governments are falling left and right, even the Saudi monarchy is scared. The supply of oil is not certain in the near future.

CR

I agree with the first paragraph except for the "huge" reservoirs of oil in Alaska. From the numbers I have in front of me, the amount of oil in ANWR is enough to fuel US consumption anywhere from 303 days to 2.34 years. That imo is hardly worth going for considering the environmental costs unless we were facing a resources crisis on the scale only seen in "Fallout". So I don't think it is a bunch of know-nothings getting hysterical.

Saudi Arabia also has an incentive to keep oil prices low enough by making sure that competing sources of energy don't become more economically viable.

From what I have read, US petroleum production had its Hubbert's peak in the early 1970s just has Hubbert predicted in the 1950s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory). So I don't think it was regulations or greenpeace suing constantly. I don't understand the statement about why we need to readily import gasoline. Gasoline comes from fractional distilling of petroleum. If you want more gasoline, just import more petroleum, which is what we have been doing.

Your paragraph starting with part two seems valid to me.

Your paragraph starting with part three however, seems to be a bit over exaggeration. The biggest oil suppliers of the region, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are all stable and not experiencing any sort of Jasmine Revolution. Algeria from my understanding contributes only a very small amount of the world petroleum production and certainly not enough to justify the price going up the way it has.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree with the first paragraph except for the "huge" reservoirs of oil in Alaska. From the numbers I have in front of me, the amount of oil in ANWR is enough to fuel US consumption anywhere from 303 days to 2.34 years. That imo is hardly worth going for considering the environmental costs unless we were facing a resources crisis on the scale only seen in "Fallout". So I don't think it is a bunch of know-nothings getting hysterical.

I must disagree; enough oil to power the US for even a year is a huge amount of oil. Think about it; every car, truck, jet, boat, etc. powered with oil from one spot in Alaska for a whole year, without need for any imports whatsoever.

On the enviromental costs; they are negligible. With standard practices the effect on the habitat of ANWR would be tiny. The enviros like to pretend that animals would be killed or forced to live in pollution or that beautiful mountains would be covered in oil derricks. None of that is true. You don't need oil wells all over an oil reserve, just in one spot or so and you can get most of the oil (see the milkshake speech from There Will Be Blood). There'd be no suffering for the herds of caribou, no great smoke stacks spouting soot.

There's other deposits of oil in the US, and other hysterical people bent of preventing anyone from drilling there, ever.


From what I have read, US petroleum production had its Hubbert's peak in the early 1970s just has Hubbert predicted in the 1950s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory). So I don't think it was regulations or greenpeace suing constantly. I don't understand the statement about why we need to readily import gasoline. Gasoline comes from fractional distilling of petroleum. If you want more gasoline, just import more petroleum, which is what we have been doing.

When I spoke of refineries, I meant refineries refining oil into gas, not drilling. That's different from the oil production Hubbert speaks of, which involves taking the oil out of the ground.

We can only import so much oil because we only have so much refining capacity in the US - that is, we have a limit on how much oil we can turn into gas every day. The lack of new refineries means capacity doesn't increase much. So it's not as simple as ust importing more oil (which is hampered by enviros suing refineries to stop them from upgrading to handle more oil because the enviros are freaking out over how that oil in other countries is extracted.


Your paragraph starting with part three however, seems to be a bit over exaggeration. The biggest oil suppliers of the region, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are all stable and not experiencing any sort of Jasmine Revolution. Algeria from my understanding contributes only a very small amount of the world petroleum production and certainly not enough to justify the price going up the way it has.

I don't know if I would call Iraq stable. Iran is experiencing a power struggle between Amdinnerjacket and the religious leader. While they might not be experiencing uprisings themselves, their neighbors are, in a historically unprecedented way. It makes investors nervous.

CR

[Xiahou]

I didn't need to read any further after this:
The only apparent correlation with the gas-price chart is that it is the opposite of what we’d expect! Of course, this is oil in the ground and not what was pumped out, but even with that caveat it’s hard to imagine that supply, alone, is responsible for a doubling in prices over a mere 26 months. So in other words, the author produced a completely useless statistic and decided to use to to make his point anyway. Nonsense.


Speculation is part of it, but some of his arguments don't hold water.I think you've got to chalk a good portion up to QE2 as well. Investors fleeing a weaker dollar are sinking their money into oil futures. Additionally, the amount of gasoline that we have to import (http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wgtimus2&f=4) becomes more expensive as the dollar weakens. I think that's part of the reason we're expected a major gasoline price drop (up to $.50/gallon) as QE2 winds down over the next month or so.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I didn't need to read any further after this: So in other words, the author produced a completely useless statistic and decided to use to to make his point anyway. Nonsense.

I think you've got to chalk a good portion up to QE2 as well. Investors fleeing a weaker dollar are sinking their money into oil futures. Additionally, the amount of gasoline that we have to import (http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wgtimus2&f=4) becomes more expensive as the dollar weakens. I think that's part of the reason we're expected a major gasoline price drop (up to $.50/gallon) as QE2 winds down over the next month or so.

This is the main reason. Oil is priced, globally, in dollars. Weaken the dollar and the price goes up. Thank you King Ben.

[HoreTore]

I'm not paying anything at all, since I sold my car yesterday :beam:

[Greyblades]

Who's ben?

[HoreTore]

Franklin?

[Greyblades]

Huh
Thank you King Ben.
Was ben franklin the sort to have delusions of royalty?

[gaelic cowboy]

I must disagree; enough oil to power the US for even a year is a huge amount of oil. Think about it; every car, truck, jet, boat, etc. powered with oil from one spot in Alaska for a whole year, without need for any imports whatsoever.

On the enviromental costs; they are negligible. With standard practices the effect on the habitat of ANWR would be tiny. The enviros like to pretend that animals would be killed or forced to live in pollution or that beautiful mountains would be covered in oil derricks. None of that is true. You don't need oil wells all over an oil reserve, just in one spot or so and you can get most of the oil (see the milkshake speech from There Will Be Blood). There'd be no suffering for the herds of caribou, no great smoke stacks spouting soot.

There's other deposits of oil in the US, and other hysterical people bent of preventing anyone from drilling there, ever.



When I spoke of refineries, I meant refineries refining oil into gas, not drilling. That's different from the oil production Hubbert speaks of, which involves taking the oil out of the ground.

We can only import so much oil because we only have so much refining capacity in the US - that is, we have a limit on how much oil we can turn into gas every day. The lack of new refineries means capacity doesn't increase much. So it's not as simple as ust importing more oil (which is hampered by enviros suing refineries to stop them from upgrading to handle more oil because the enviros are freaking out over how that oil in other countries is extracted.



I don't know if I would call Iraq stable. Iran is experiencing a power struggle between Amdinnerjacket and the religious leader. While they might not be experiencing uprisings themselves, their neighbors are, in a historically unprecedented way. It makes investors nervous.

CR

Whats the cost in terms of a barrel of oil to retrieve Alaskan oil or these other deposits, if it is more than a barrel then it's a waste of time and effort. Saudi crude is valuable cos there is a shed loads of it plus it's near the surface relatively speaking and the quality is superior to many other deposits.

Most of these supposed deposits like offshore stuff in Ireland or shale in Canada is in my view a scam on both investor and taxpayers.

[gaelic cowboy]

I didn't need to read any further after this: So in other words, the author produced a completely useless statistic and decided to use to to make his point anyway. Nonsense.

I think you've got to chalk a good portion up to QE2 as well. Investors fleeing a weaker dollar are sinking their money into oil futures. Additionally, the amount of gasoline that we have to import (http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wgtimus2&f=4) becomes more expensive as the dollar weakens. I think that's part of the reason we're expected a major gasoline price drop (up to $.50/gallon) as QE2 winds down over the next month or so.

That makes no sense to flee the dollar to go into a commodity only priced in dollars, if only the USA prints dollars your investment in oil would be worth less and less every day.

[Major Robert Dump]

If the main exchange currency for oil were the Peso or the Dong this would not be happening. I've been saying this since April 2011.

[Xiahou]

That makes no sense to flee the dollar to go into a commodity only priced in dollars, if only the USA prints dollars your investment in oil would be worth less and less every day.When the dollar gets weaker, the price of oil in dollars goes up. Your oil can be easily converted back into dollars, but it's insulated from the weakness of the dollar. If I sink money into oil at $80/barrel and the dollar weakens contributing to a price rise to $100/barrel, I can sell the futures for dollars and not be hurt by it the same way I would if I still had $80.

Other people can paint the picture more eloquently, but hopefully that gives you the general idea.


Was ben franklin the sort to have delusions of royalty? I'm pretty sure he means Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

EDIT:
If the main exchange currency for oil were the Peso or the Dong this would not be happening. I've been saying this since April 2011.No one wants to hear about your Dong!

[Beskar]

US gets oil/petrol very cheaply compared to other places in the world, such as Europe.

[HoreTore]

....which is good for europe.

Gas should be expensive. Very expensive.

[gaelic cowboy]

When the dollar gets weaker, the price of oil in dollars goes up. Your oil can be easily converted back into dollars, but it's insulated from the weakness of the dollar. If I sink money into oil at $80/barrel and the dollar weakens contributing to a price rise to $100/barrel, I can sell the futures for dollars and not be hurt by it the same way I would if I still had $80.

Except the idea becomes somewhat circular cos if oil goes up then the cost of living will also go up requiring more long and short term investment to stay ahead.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Who's ben?

Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve. Printing trillions of $ + near %0 interest rates = hyper-inflation.

[Lord Winter]

I didn't need to read any further after this: So in other words, the author produced a completely useless statistic and decided to use to to make his point anyway. Nonsense.

I think you've got to chalk a good portion up to QE2 as well. Investors fleeing a weaker dollar are sinking their money into oil futures. Additionally, the amount of gasoline that we have to import (http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wgtimus2&f=4) becomes more expensive as the dollar weakens. I think that's part of the reason we're expected a major gasoline price drop (up to $.50/gallon) as QE2 winds down over the next month or so.

Wouldn't we expect to see a sustained level of inflation then. Overall inflation has been and is fairly constant. CR is right the main culprit is raising demand from China and India.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If the main exchange currency for oil were the Peso or the Dong this would not be happening.

That's all very well now, but what if the dong weakens?

With due acknowledgement to Devastatin' Dave. :bow:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Wouldn't we expect to see a sustained level of inflation then. Overall inflation has been and is fairly constant. CR is right the main culprit is raising demand from China and India.

Here's a chart of global inflation rates (http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/INFLATION1101/INFLATION1101.html#view=ecSizeDESC). Bernanke's playing with fire. A weaker dollar may have helped side-step deflation, but the trade deficit remains way out of balance and will only get worse with the uptick of oil prices. Furthermore, while a reasonable level of inflation helps support demand there comes a tipping point when hyperinflation – such as skyrocketing gasoline and food prices we are seeing now – outpaces wages at an alarming rate and wreaks havoc on household budgets. If wages can’t keep pace with inflation, as is clearly the case the last 6 months, then the net result is that people see their money buying less and less with each passing day.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I missed a very good point; the weakness of the dollar.


US gets oil/petrol very cheaply compared to other places in the world, such as Europe.

Isn't that because they tax it very high?


Gas should be expensive. Very expensive.

Yup, we don't want quality of life to advance fast or anything. Best to have everything cost a lot to transport. Best to make it expensive for people to move around the world freely.

CR

[HoreTore]

Yup, we don't want quality of life to advance fast or anything. Best to have everything cost a lot to transport. Best to make it expensive for people to move around the world freely.

CR

Yes, because noone has invented "collective transportation" or "the train" yet.


..........wait, what?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yup, we don't want quality of life to advance fast or anything. Best to have everything cost a lot to transport. Best to make it expensive for people to move around the world freely.

CR I think what you are referring to is the cost of crude, here. What those ships burn is practically crude (once removed, essentially). What those trucks burn is or should be diesel or methane. Taxes work rater differently for business than for consumers, anyway (including petrol taxes for which companies can get a partial refund here IIRC). Still, one fill at the pumps for diesel in a reasonably modern car will give you about 1200-1500km of range easily. :shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, because noone has invented "collective transportation" or "the train" yet.


..........wait, what?

So the government gets cheap fuel, but the serfs do not? And people can only go where and when public transport goes?


Taxes work rater differently for business than for consumers, anyway (including petrol taxes for which companies can get a partial refund here IIRC).

So big businesses get rebates the average individual cannot get?

A very free society.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

So big businesses get rebates the average individual cannot get?

A very free society.

CR

Umm CR, I would think twice before making that comment. USA seems to have that factor going on 10x more than Europe.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So big businesses get rebates the average individual cannot get?

As opposed to other forms of income/cost categorisation in tax forms? Yes, a trucking company doesn't pay the same per liter of fuel in taxes, as you or I would.

[HoreTore]

So the government gets cheap fuel, but the serfs do not? And people can only go where and when public transport goes?

Government? Where? Are you saying that the market cannot provide a bus service that meets peoples needs....? Also, funny how a free market guy like you read "train" and translated it into "public". The propaganda is getting to you, CR.

I'm not saying we should solely take the bus, just like we shouldn't solely depend on cars. A high gas price(or in other words, one closer to the true cost to society at large) won't eliminate cars, but it will reduce the dependence on cars. People will start using cars only when they actually need to, and will start using other forms of transportation. For example, taking the train to and from Oslo to get to work if you live in one of the surrounding cities/towns. Of course, some will stubbornly stick to their cars and lose a lot of money, but frankly, I don't care about those.

[ReluctantSamurai]

On the enviromental costs; they are negligible. With standard practices the effect on the habitat of ANWR would be tiny.

I'm sure BP said the same thing about Deepwater Horizon, as did Tepco about the Fukushima Diichi nuclear complex.


Gas should be expensive. Very expensive.

Exactly! 10 years ago, here in the US, the only cars even approaching 30 mpg were all foreign and very few of those. Now, there's a whole plethora of cars that get 30 or 40 mpg, many of which are US-made. When gas hits 6 or 7$/gal or more, maybe the hydrogen car will get a big monetary boost and we can do away with this stupidity of running vehicles on a non-renewable energy source.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Umm CR, I would think twice before making that comment. USA seems to have that factor going on 10x more than Europe.

I didn't say the US was better. :inquisitive:


Government? Where? Are you saying that the market cannot provide a bus service that meets peoples needs....? Also, funny how a free market guy like you read "train" and translated it into "public". The propaganda is getting to you, CR.

Heaven forbid you move your eyes down a degree and look at the second half of my post. :rolleyes:


I'm not saying we should solely take the bus, just like we shouldn't solely depend on cars. A high gas price(or in other words, one closer to the true cost to society at large) won't eliminate cars, but it will reduce the dependence on cars. People will start using cars only when they actually need to, and will start using other forms of transportation. For example, taking the train to and from Oslo to get to work if you live in one of the surrounding cities/towns. Of course, some will stubbornly stick to their cars and lose a lot of money, but frankly, I don't care about those.

Ah, you want to use the government to force your personal morality on the public. The 'true cost' - what a wonderfully arbitrary amount, to be determined by what a bunch of governmental morons think it ought to be in their personal opinion, and foisted on everyone with taxes.


I'm sure BP said the same thing about Deepwater Horizon, as did Tepco about the Fukushima Diichi nuclear complex.

BP screwed up because they got greedy and didn't go the safe route. Most of the time companies do.

As for Fukushima - excuse me, are you saying that was poorly designed? I'm curious; just how much damage do you think a refinery or power plant ought to be able to take and still run?

That plant suffered a huge earthquake and was flooded by a tsunami - and still didn't go into meltdown. Or is every plant that can't take a point blank nuclear strike

What a ridiculous argument. Such an event could not be foreseen and is in no way comparable to the BP spill. It's like scolding a company for a ship leaking oil after said ship gets hit by a meteorite the size of a car.


Exactly! 10 years ago, here in the US, the only cars even approaching 30 mpg were all foreign and very few of those. Now, there's a whole plethora of cars that get 30 or 40 mpg, many of which are US-made. When gas hits 6 or 7$/gal or more, maybe the hydrogen car will get a big monetary boost and we can do away with this stupidity of running vehicles on a non-renewable energy source.

Hydrogen is stupid because it is not energy efficient; it takes so much energy to make hydrogen fuel that it could not possibly survive, ever, without government subsidies, no matter how expensive gas got.

And where do you think that energy to make hydrogen fuel comes from? Coal plants.

But somehow that inefficient energy source is not 'stupid' while the very energy-efficient (in terms of how much energy it takes to get the fuel versus how much energy that fuel provides) oil is stupid, just because, in decades and decades they'll be a lot less?

CR

[HoreTore]

I'm noting how you did not respond to whether or not the free market is capable of running a transportation service, CR...

[ReluctantSamurai]

BP screwed up because they got greedy and didn't go the safe route. Most of the time companies do.


As for Fukushima - excuse me, are you saying that was poorly designed? I'm curious; just how much damage do you think a refinery or power plant ought to be able to take and still run?

My point is that many environmental factors cannot be foreseen and so there is always the risk of extensive damage to the environment. And if you trust large energy conglomerates to do the right thing, then I've got some prime oceanfront property in Montana I'd like to sell to you:rolleyes:


And where do you think that energy to make hydrogen fuel comes from? Coal plants.

I suggest you educate yourself a bit more before making such a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/

And this article about hydrogen fuel:

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/files/hydrogen-future-energy-carrier.pdf

Chapter 3 covers the hydrogen cycle and various means for producing H2.

And this little snippet is quite descriptive:


Automobiles generate by far the largest demand for fossil fuels worldwide and
give rise to the most troublesome emissions. Hence, the transport sector is likely
to be decisive in deciding these arguments, and leading to a hydrogen cycle-based
infrastructure as shown in Fig. 3.6. Hydrogen and fuel cells are the only realistic
options capable of avoiding dire economic and climatic consequences. Whilst the
efficiencies of the overall cycle appear to be low (4–12 %), it should be recalled
that the well to wheel efficiency for a gasoline car is only around 15 %. Given that
the raw materials needed to feed the hydrogen cycle are nondepletable, potentially
secure and lead to more flexible transportation and power supply systems, a small
percentage loss of efficiency would seem a small price to pay. Increased efficiencies
for all parts of the hydrogen cycle are the key drivers for the large research and
development Hydrogen Roadmap programs in the US, Japan and the EEC.

...as is the conclusion of said chapter:


Despite the lack of agreement on how best to achieve a transition from fossil
fuels, there is a growing acceptance that hydrogen cycle-based fuel systems will
have a role in major economy energy systems by the end of the twenty first century.
How quickly this new age will dawn is very dependant on the views and resources
of individual nations. It is worth recalling that the oil crisis of 1973 accelerated
the development of nuclear power in many advanced economies and, as a result,
produced a blip in global carbon dioxide production. The moral would seem to be
that economic catastrophes can galvanize global action. Could the recent sequence
of excessively hot summers in Europe of 2003 have a similar effect? On the political
front, all plans will be compromised should there be further disruption in the
security of petrochemicals from major Middle Eastern suppliers. Faced with these
scenarios governments could be forced to adopt accelerated measures to combat
global warming.

Chapter 5 deals extensively with most of the specific ways to generate H2.

And even if coal were to become the chief source for hydrogen fuel (which needn't be the case), the US could significantly lower it's trade imbalance by making it's own fuel for cars, seeing that it has the largest coal reserves in the world. What's so wrong with that?

The only reason hydrogen is not competitive with oil is the fact that oil is still relatively cheap. When gas prices continue to climb (as they will) then companies will find a way to make hydrogen fuel an affordable reality.


just because, in decades and decades they'll be a lot less?

Sure....lets wait until we've squeezed every last drop of oil from the earth before we do something more sensible:rolleyes:

[Tellos Athenaios]

@CR: substitute nuclear for coal, substitute anything you care to for coal actually. You just need the raw oomph, doesn't really matter which fuel you use.

[Husar]

Coal-powered trains and cars? ~D

[gaelic cowboy]

Coal-powered trains and cars? ~D

Funnily enough there are advantages to steam style engines http://www.greensteamengine.com/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqPir7ZwQZs&feature=related

[HoreTore]

An electricity plant running on oil extracts about 90% of the energy stored in oil. The same for coal plants.

A very high efficiency combustion engine extracts about 15%.


To say that electric cars and such are messy because they're powered with coal/oil energy is nonsense.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My point is that many environmental factors cannot be foreseen and so there is always the risk of extensive damage to the environment. And if you trust large energy conglomerates to do the right thing, then I've got some prime oceanfront property in Montana I'd like to sell to you:rolleyes:

Of course there's always some risk; it comes with life. The trouble is people seem to be incapable of rationally assessing risk.



I suggest you educate yourself a bit more before making such a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/

Oh my, this is going to be fun.


And this article about hydrogen fuel:

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/files/hydrogen-future-energy-carrier.pdf

Chapter 3 covers the hydrogen cycle and various means for producing H2.

Chapter 5 deals extensively with most of the specific ways to generate H2.

So, we have a wikipedia article that doesn't contradict anything I said, and a very biased website that links to an article that assumes AGW and is, again, written by supporters of hydrogen as fuel.

Let's go back to the website;
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-fuel.htm

The most common method of producing hydrogen fuel today is steam reforming of natural gas. Hydrogen is not only produced by extracting it from the natural gas (methane) but from extracting it from the steam (H2O) as well. There are some home systems such as a prototype developed by Honda that produce hydrogen fuel by this method.

And then to wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_reforming

During the conversion of the fossil fuel into hydrogen, carbon is released into the atmosphere, typically as carbon dioxide.[4] As a result, fuel cell systems using reformed fossil fuels would emit substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, so would not make much contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, as is expected to be necessary to tackle global warming.

Back to that page on the H2 car site:

Another common and promising way to produce hydrogen fuel is by electrolysis of water. Some critics argue that there is a net loss in energy when one applies brute force electrolysis to water. And for the moment they are correct. But, the critics are not as correct as they think.

So get back to me when that's not the case.


And even if coal were to become the chief source for hydrogen fuel (which needn't be the case), the US could significantly lower it's trade imbalance by making it's own fuel for cars, seeing that it has the largest coal reserves in the world. What's so wrong with that?

HA! The enviros are so against coal that they don't even want it shipped out of the US to China to be used there. They, likely the same sort of people who support the H2 car, want the coal to remain, unused, in the ground forever.

And trade imbalances are of little consequence unless you're a mercantilist.


The only reason hydrogen is not competitive with oil is the fact that oil is still relatively cheap. When gas prices continue to climb (as they will) then companies will find a way to make hydrogen fuel an affordable reality.

Indeed. The thing is, this will happen without government money. Actually, use of a smarter fuel beside hydrogen is more likely, because hydrogen is stupid for use as a fuel. But the point is that when oil supplies drop, the cost will go up, and other sources of energy will become relatively more affordable.

Unless, of course, the enviros fight to smother such a source as they currently do with nuclear. Which is why, Tellos Athenaios, we can't use nuclear.


Sure....lets wait until we've squeezed every last drop of oil from the earth before we do something more sensible

Congratulations! You've successfully argued against a phantom argument of your own imagining.


An electricity plant running on oil extracts about 90% of the energy stored in oil. The same for coal plants.

A very high efficiency combustion engine extracts about 15%.

To say that electric cars and such are messy because they're powered with coal/oil energy is nonsense.

That's an interesting assertion.

Because in this 2001 study (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_reports/well2wheel/well2wheel.htm), you're wrong; ethanol and hydrogen powered vehicles required the most energy to travel one mile in a car. (page 29 of volume one, or page 38 in your pdf reader).

This 2005 study (PDF warning!) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transportation.anl.gov%2Fpdfs%2FTA%2F339.pdf&rct=j&q=energy%20efficiency%20well%20to%20wheel%20hydrogen%20gas&ei=g9LOTfHuIZKisQO46tCsCw&usg=AFQjCNHVNFuyP5Oc9_q--1k07O-NXWrhEg) says the same thing. (page 87/101 of 238 in reader)

Of course, that's because they take into account the fact that an electricity plant making electricity does not include actually making Hydrogen fuel and getting it into the car and then having said car run the fuel.

I'm curious as to how a plant being efficient means it doesn't pollute. :inquisitive:

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

Coal-powered trains and cars? ~D

Coal powered trains have literally a proven track record. Coal powered cars: no, you need to carry coal which weighs rather a lot per amount of energy you are going to extract from it. The nice thing about steam engines is that they're just a small version of what is sitting your basic coal power plant -- instead of driving a turbine you drive a bunch of wheels, so you make one purpose built for delivering particular rpm or torque and you can optimise. With cars you need to get a lot out of little volume, whereas with a train you simply add more wagons/engines in the arrangement if you need to.

@CR: there are ways to extract hydrogen from various “natural” compounds which doesn't involve emitting CO2 (it involves turning a H$XC-C$XH bond into a double $XC=C$X bond where $X is whatever else is attached) or you can use Lewis acids. Similarly, there is electrolysis (of water or various acids) which isn't terribly complicated either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think a lot of people miss the point that in the near future, energy for transportation is going to be more expensive no matter what.

Look at it this way:

We do not produce petroleum. We merely extract it from the ground and fractionally distill it into the individual components we need. Hydrogen will need to be produced. Electricity for electric cars will need to be produced.

Gasoline is one of the most energy intensive substances that is in convenient liquid form and we get it for free not including the cost of taking it out of the ground.

Now that any new source of energy has to be produced before it is consumed, of course it is going to look worse from an economic standpoint for quite a while.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, electrolysis is very possible - but it takes more energy to separate the H2 than you can get using the now-separated H2.

Which I mentioned in that post. And that's the technique the H2 car site touted as promising.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, electrolysis is very possible - but it takes more energy to separate the H2 than you can get using the now-separated H2.

Which I mentioned in that post. And that's the technique the H2 car site touted as promising.

CR

I wasn't commenting specifically on the electrolysis I was just making a general statement. We won't have have cheap energy for transportation like we did in the 20th century for the 21st. It just isn't technologically possible either in the near future or even a few decades after that.

For some reason people like to think that new sources of energy can compete with gasoline head to head without realizing they are on uneven ground.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I wasn't commenting specifically on the electrolysis I was just making a general statement. We won't have have cheap energy for transportation like we did in the 20th century for the 21st. It just isn't technologically possible either in the near future or even a few decades after that.

For some reason people like to think that new sources of energy can compete with gasoline head to head without realizing they are on uneven ground.

Yeah, your post ninja'd mine; I wasn't disagreeing with you.

I know new energy sources will be able to compete with gas - but only as the supply of gas lessens and the cost goes up. Right now, as you say, they can't.

I'm not sure about there not being cheap energy, though.

CR