Exxon

markmarc

Macleod:
BioFuel is already in use, the technology exists in every new diesel vehicle sold in the USA as it can burn 100% biofuel. In addition, places like NE Colorado already sell biofuel at stations for the same price as gasoline. Third, by going this route, you effectively eliminate lawyers fees as the opposition to virtually "clean" fuel is the goal of the greens. Thus speeding up the infrastructure development.

A bit of history, at the beginning of 1942, the War department predicted that by thwe end of 1943 the US war need for rubber would be greater than all the rubber in production in the entire world. So, we set up a crash course and developed artificial rubber using all new discoveries.

Like I pointed out before, Brazil is already there, so biofuel is nothing new. Do we have the will that would make our own country economically stronger and less dependent on unstable regions of the world, or do we sit back with our head in the sand.

MacLeod

Coming up with an engine that can run on water is a bit more complicated than coming up with an alternative to rubber.

Im not sure how you figure we've got out heads in the sand. Do you think biofuel just magically appeared? Nope, it took several years of development but you didnt know about it til it was out. Its the same with all technology. For every new breakthru you see there were several years of research and development that you didnt see. You think nobody is trying to come up with an alternative to gasoline, well I can assure you there are more people than you can shake a stick at working hard on it right now. In fact they have been trying to figure that one out for several decades.

All the auto manufacturers are working on it as well as several crafty inventors. The first person or company that comes out with an alternative to gasoline will have riches beyond Bill Gates' wildest dreams! Thats a pretty big incentive.

Already in the last 30 years we've had cars become several times more effecient in gas mileage. We've had electric cars and now hybrid cars and eventually we'll have the solution but it takes time and usually comes in small steps.

amulford

The whole problem with the new energy sources scheme is the oil refining consortium DOESN'T want this technology to develop. When a new idea comes along, the rights get bought and it disappears. Who do you think is buying those rights? It sure as hell ain't Greenpeace.

The other problem is the current administration, as noted before. Basically it's corruption on an untouchable scale, boys and girls. Even though the politicians in power right now do not directly draw a salary, there is nothing stopping them from recieving benefits at a later date for help right now...

In New Jersey we had some of the highest auto insurance rates in the nation. One of the states' insurance commisioners agreed to let the industry raise it's rates time and time again during his term in office. When his term was up, he "miraculously" landed a job at one of these companies as a vice president with an annual salary of $500K a year, plus bonus' and incentives, for a ten year contract, without EVER actually having WORKED in the industry. Do you think he just knocked on the door and got that job???

The problems are numerous and pervasive. Doing one thing will not solve it, this is a Hydra which has to have ALL of it's heads cut off. Whacking off one or two just ain't gonna do it...

MacLeod

There is no conspiracy to keep new technology from us. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda are the biggest companies on earth and I seriously doubt Exxon could push them around. If that were true then GM would never have come out with their electric car and Toyota would never have been allowed to come out with a hybrid but they did!

And to think Exxon would just buy the rights to an engine that can run on water and then trash the plans is ridiculous. If you came up with such an engine it would be worth tens of billions of dollars! Besides, most likely itll be one of the auto manufacturers that comes up with such an engine and like I said, GM aint gonna be pushed around by Exxon.

Youve been watching too much X-files Anthony.

POLKOHOLIC

I'm currently staying in Karachi. Its a city in Pakistan. Anyways, we have a 'semi-alternative' to petrol (gas). It's called CNG - Compressed Natural Gas. Instead of feeding the engine with liquid petrol, it is fed with natural gas - in its gasous form contained in a tank situated in the trunk. It does make transportation quite economical. Perhaps, 50% reduction in fuel expenses. A negative aspect on the other hand is that engine performance drops somewhat. I do remember reading that the new Civic has an option for CNG kits and what not. Something to look into perhaps? Ill be back in New York in January so I might consider something of that sort. We do have the highest taxes on petrol in New York if I remember correctly.

-Fahad

audiobliss

Natural gas is an alternative. However, hydrogen fuel cells is a much better alternative.

markmarc

Macleod:
If you think the Oil industry is working HARD on alternative fuels, I have wonderful property you might be interested in.

The Oil companies are doing only as much as they need to stay out of trouble, and as little as financially possible. The status quo keeps their business model working, deviate from it leads to independent thinking. All those companies are doing is perpetuating their own massive death down the road by failing to get serious about the future.

Remember IBM, they thought they controlled computers, now they are just another company that blew their chance.

The amount of people working on alternative energy is nowhere near where it needs to be. You wonder why Toyota and Honda are years ahead of GM, Ford, & Chrysler. because they can see beyond the next hill and realize how quickly it can all change. Ford has licensed Toyota's hybrid technology, that is how far behind the US Auto industry is.

I can't stress enough the simple fact that alternative energy is the next economic boom. Whatever country gets the entire widget first, is the next great economic power, period. GWB is too busy paying back his oil buddies who financed his career to see the truth.

I just see a future filled with small energy wars if we don't get serious about alternative energy. I don't know about you, but I'd rather finance serious energy research then pay for wars. Keep this thought in mind: If China puts the same percentage of scientists as we do into alternative energy research, that is 4X the brain power as we have. Guess who will win that race???

amulford

Not to mention the fact that if they succeed, they will have a greater fuel source for their military machine. With the sheer numbers of their military, who do you think will be the "Superpower"?

The only thing keeping us ahead is our cutting edge technology. Lose that advantage, well...

PolkThug

Saw gas down to 2.17 today!

Demiurge

Yeah, and man never really landed on the moon.... :rolleyes:

markmarc

Fahad:
My brother in law is a big executive with a natural gas company and owns a Civic CNG car. The problem in the western half of the USA is that virtually all homes built since WWII use natural gas to heat. In addition, many factories used NG as well. There was no financial incentive to build CNG fuel stations since all the gas found could be sold directly to the power companies.

AudioBliss:
I would love to see hydrogen succeed. But what people don't realize is the massive amount of energy it takes to prepare it to be a fuel source. That is the biggest stumbling block.

audiobliss

markmarc wrote:

AudioBliss:
I would love to see hydrogen succeed. But what people don't realize is the massive amount of energy it takes to prepare it to be a fuel source. That is the biggest stumbling block.

There are quite a few proposed methods of isolating hyrdrogen to prepare it for use in a fuel cell. First there is using fossil fuels. Or Nuclear power. Or electricity from wind. Or solar power. Or Escherichia coli - "a bacterium that's one of the most efficient producers of hydrogen known" (Road & Track Aug2003).

I admit there is a lot to overcome with regards to the hydrogen powered fuel cell (isolation of hydrogen, storage and transportation of hydrogen, and a hydrogen distribution infrastructure), but it is possible and will pay the most dividends if we can work it out.

MacLeod

markmarc wrote:

Macleod:
If you think the Oil industry is working HARD on alternative fuels, I have wonderful property you might be interested in.

The Oil companies are doing only as much as they need to stay out of trouble, and as little as financially possible. The status quo keeps their business model working, deviate from it leads to independent thinking. All those companies are doing is perpetuating their own massive death down the road by failing to get serious about the future.

Remember IBM, they thought they controlled computers, now they are just another company that blew their chance.

The amount of people working on alternative energy is nowhere near where it needs to be. You wonder why Toyota and Honda are years ahead of GM, Ford, & Chrysler. because they can see beyond the next hill and realize how quickly it can all change. Ford has licensed Toyota's hybrid technology, that is how far behind the US Auto industry is.

I can't stress enough the simple fact that alternative energy is the next economic boom. Whatever country gets the entire widget first, is the next great economic power, period. GWB is too busy paying back his oil buddies who financed his career to see the truth.

I just see a future filled with small energy wars if we don't get serious about alternative energy. I don't know about you, but I'd rather finance serious energy research then pay for wars. Keep this thought in mind: If China puts the same percentage of scientists as we do into alternative energy research, that is 4X the brain power as we have. Guess who will win that race???

And if you can find where I said oil companies will develop an alternative energy source, Ill buy your property. Auto makers will likely be the ones to develop it because its in their interest.

IBM is also a perfect example of how the market place works. Im sure there were lots of theorys about how they secretly control all the technology and whenever something better pops up they squash it. Now they say the same thing about Microsoft. I dont care how big a business is, you come out with a better alternative and youll win.

I guarantee you that you wouldnt be able to count the number of people working on alt fuels right now. The incentive of being overnight billionaires can motivate a lot of people.

Yup youre a public school teacher alright. I was taking you seriously til those last two paragraphs. Its the same old tired talking points. "Bush is only interested in making his oil buddies rich thats why we're fighting in Iraq." "No blood for oil." "Make love not war." "Nuclear arms cant hug a child."

If Bush was interested in making his oil buddies rich he would be pushing for more drilling here in the US and for building more refineries. This would be a windfall for the oil companies but he's not doing it.

markmarc

Macleod:
You have a poor read on me. I voted for GWB both times, though I wish the Dems had a better candidate (Lieberman or Richardson comes to mind). We are fighting in Iraq because of several reasons, none of them are because GWB wants his buddies to get rich. He has however given them preferencial treatment. Just look at his energy policy, favors the energy industry (of course it is a well known fact that the energy industry practically wrote it word for word). Nowhere did he mention conservation or increasing the 15 year old CAFE standards. Instead it was about tax breaks for exploration. Now, I do agree that more refineries need to be built, but the consolidation of the oil industry in the 80's and the followup of closing down of a large percentage of refineries is as much to blame as the Greens.

In the past year, he has repeatedly called for more refineries, going so far as to suggest they and reactors be built on military installations (a good idea).

Everything I mention in this reply can be verified.

My opinion on Iraq, well there are levels to it. At the base level, we went in based on faulty info and a total lack of understanding of how that part of the world works (i.e. tribal). Secondly, we pulled out vast amounts of intelligence experts from Afghanistan, leaving us blind for several months regarding Osama and the Taliban.

On a geo-political level the results are more favorable. By invading Iraq we now can pressure Syria from both the Med. Sea and Iraq. Secondly, it originally put pressure on Iran from two sides as well from Afghanistan and Iraq. The added bonus of Khaddafi caving in on terrorism and Lebanon's chaotic independence makes it look all positive. However, it is apparant that the Iranian people fearing a US invasion voted far more conservatively, bringing in that semi-psycho as their president. In addition, Iranian agents have successfully gained control of several southern Iraqi cities including Basra. They have imposed very strict religious views inspite of the British presence (see Time, Christian Science Monitor, etc.). Not to mention that they are finally rid of their arch enemy Saddam, without spending a dime or firing a shot!

Third, allowing Rumsfeld to invade with only 150,000 troops when he was warned over and over that it would take at least 100,000 additional troops to properly occupy and secure the hidden weapons caches.

Fourth, the invasion of Iraq has allowed the Saudi Royal family to rid itself of plenty of potential terrorists, because they now want to attack the "infidels". That is good news on the financial front, as the Saudi's buy a healthy chunk of our debt bonds.

BTW, I don't teach in the public schools. My students receive not one penny of public funding. Does that clarify things a bit?

Demiurge

I love the "I voted for Bush, but..." folks.

MacLeod

Well, unfortunately, I voted for Bush and am completley disappointed with him. Other than the tax cuts, John Roberts and the war on terror I cant think of a single thing Ive supported him on. He caves in to leberals constantly and spends so much money that Ted Kennedy says "whoa".

Mark - I take it back. Youre not a typical public school teacher. And I agree with most of your statement except for the energy policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it favoring oil companies in the way of tax breaks for exploration because thats exactly what we need. As for pushing for new refineries Ive not heard him mention anything about it. If he approached that issue like he did the war, by going around and talking to the public and building support, we would be building new refineries and drilling in ANWR but he's too worried about not pissing anybody off so he does things that he hopes will make everybody like him (i.e. Harriet Meirs).

PolkThug

I love burning fossil fuels. Hit 389RWHP on the Dyno today! woot!

amulford

MacLeod wrote:

If Bush was interested in making his oil buddies rich he would be pushing for more drilling here in the US and for building more refineries. This would be a windfall for the oil companies but he's not doing it.

I kind of seem to remember him saying we need to do that very thing. The drilling that is. But that's where the tree huggers have their little part.

It would be a windfall, for the more production volume, the lower the price but more profit due to volume...

X-files, huh???

W WALDECKER

MacLeod wrote:

And if you can find where I said oil companies will develop an alternative energy source, Ill buy your property. Auto makers will likely be the ones to develop it because its in their interest.

IBM is also a perfect example of how the market place works. Im sure there were lots of theorys about how they secretly control all the technology and whenever something better pops up they squash it. Now they say the same thing about Microsoft. I dont care how big a business is, you come out with a better alternative and youll win.

I guarantee you that you wouldnt be able to count the number of people working on alt fuels right now. The incentive of being overnight billionaires can motivate a lot of people.

Yup youre a public school teacher alright. I was taking you seriously til those last two paragraphs. Its the same old tired talking points. "Bush is only interested in making his oil buddies rich thats why we're fighting in Iraq." "No blood for oil." "Make love not war." "Nuclear arms cant hug a child."

If Bush was interested in making his oil buddies rich he would be pushing for more drilling here in the US and for building more refineries. This would be a windfall for the oil companies but he's not doing it.

the big oil companys dont want more refinerys. this is a little well kept industry secret that is just coming to light outside of the oil industry. the lack of ample oil refinerys allows the oil companys to create artificial shortages by manipulating the supply and thereby reaping tremendous profits at the publics expense. why else would you have over a 50% increase in demand in the past twenty five years and build no new refinerys ? years ago Standard oil was broken up into seven smaller sister companies by the US government because they constituted a monopoly and could unfairly manipulate the market and in a more recent trend alot of the big oil players have merged into mega oil companies like Exxon/Mobile and BP/Amoco just to name a couple of them. all of this manuvering makes them more powerful and cuts way down on competition. this is not a good thing for consumers at all. thanks....WCW III

MacLeod

Anthony - He's mentioned it but hasnt pushed for it like he should. A President can go out and speak directly to the American people. He can use the bully pulpit to build support and persuade people to his views. He did it with the war and with tax cuts but refuses to do it with oil which is B.S.

I miss X-Files. Scully was HOT!

W - The reason we havent built any new refineries in this country in nearly 30 years is the same reason we havenet built any new nuclear plants in this country in nearly 30 year, the environmentalist wackos. Having more refineries means having more oil which mean lower prices which means selling more of it which is good for oil companies. Oil companies dont want expensive gas either because of what just happened. 1) The American people, pitchforks and torches in hand, were ready to storm the gates of Exxon. 2) People start buying less gas, start selling their V8 SUV's in favor of I4 Honda Civics and driving less.

Think of WalMart. They sell stuff very cheap but make tons of money because tey sell a lot of it. If they marked their prices up x3 they wouldnt because they wouldnt sell the volume they did before.

Dennis Gardner

Somthing that needs to always be considered when searching for new energy sources is that most new energy sources aren't found, they are created and that in itself takes/wastes energy.

Oil wasn't made by man, it was found to be in a crude, but generally in natural form is an energy ready source....extract it, refine it, burn, it. Very cost effective once the infrastructure was in place. Cost effective but not renewable.

Enter the renewable fuel brigade......nice idea to be able to create your own fuels forever, but at what cost.

Take bio fuel for example:

The ground to plant the kernel has to be plowed, tractor burns fuel.
The corn needs planted, tractor burns fuel.
The corn needs fertilized, fertilizer machine burns fuel.
The corn needs water, powering the irrigation system...burns fuel.
The corn needs pest control, the plane.....burns fuel.
The corn needs harvested, the tractor burns fuel.
The corn needs trucked, the truck burns fuel.
The corn needs refined, the process burns fuel.

Making your own renewable resource sounds good in theory, but the fuel burned in the process of creating it is far more than using old dinosaurs that gave there lives so we can drive our luxury cars today.


This is an oversimplification of both processes, but less fuel is burnt getting oil products from ground to our tank than anything that man can create.

audiobliss

Dennis - Consider this article:

Just The Basics On Hydrogen wrote:

Indeed, all energy systems lose energy (an average coal plant loses 70 percent of the energy in the coal), so we need to think very carefully about where we are going to get this energy. The sun could be the answer. Think about it for a minute and you'll realize that we are all solar powered - the food we eat for our energy ultimately comes from plants converting solar energy to carbohyrdates with an efficiency of about 1 percent. Of course, by the time the food hits the table the efficiency is much lower, probably around 0.1 percent. Current commercial solar cells can convert solar energy with an efficiency of more than 15 percent.

If we take that energy and make hydrogen and use that hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle, the overall efficiency of sunlight to vehicle power is about 4 percent. So using hydrogen from sunlight, we can drive ourselves around with an efficiency of at least 40 times greater than we can walk.

cam5860

exxon's sales were 100 billion but there net profits were 9.9 billion dollars. There is a lot of difference in sales and what you actually make on a sale. Althought 9.9 billion is a record profit for exxon. Also you have to realize exxon is the biggest oil company in the world also. One other thing i want to touch on is regular gas overtime hurts the performance of your car. Regular gas has a lot of sufer in it that causes carbon build up behind intake valves. I think everyone knows Amoco which BP bought out makes the best gas in the world. There premium gas is the best in the world thats all i run. The performance of this gas is amazing. Better gas mileage, better performance and it has cleaning additives in it to keep carbon build up off the intake valves for better performance. It's worth the extra 20 cents to me.

MacLeod

Chevron with Techron for me!

RSTERN

I would like to see bio-diesel work, at least my money would go to the american farmer.
I personal don't think the auto industry has done a whole lot in increasing mpg. My wife had a 83 honda accord, 1.8l carburated, 32mpg on highway, 25 mph in town. That was with 180,000 on the car. Most cars are not doing better than this today.
Rob

markmarc

Dennis:
You said:
Take bio fuel for example:

The ground to plant the kernel has to be plowed, tractor burns fuel.
The corn needs planted, tractor burns fuel.
The corn needs fertilized, fertilizer machine burns fuel.
The corn needs water, powering the irrigation system...burns fuel.
The corn needs pest control, the plane.....burns fuel.
The corn needs harvested, the tractor burns fuel.
The corn needs trucked, the truck burns fuel.
The corn needs refined, the process burns fuel.

The same holds true for petroleum energy which needs massive amounts of energy on its own to find, extract, transport, refine, transport again. The fact is that right now biofuel is as energy efficient as petroleum. Yes, some infrastructure needs to be developed for mass consumption (the refining stage only, and that is more of part replacement than building new), but how much better will our economy and environment be off when those hundreds of billions of dollars each year stay here in the states?! Not to mention the lives saved when we won't have to fight conflicts/wars over dwindling petroleum supplies while demand increases.

Skynut

RSTERN wrote:

I would like to see bio-diesel work, at least my money would go to the american farmer.
Rob

Rich farmers? the powers that be would never want that to happen.

I do, farmers deserve a chance to get their rewards.
Farmers work hard.

jdhdiggs

Rich Farmers? Most of them are more wealthy than you think. Some of my relatives are farmers in ND of all places and are multimillionaires (from farming). They get theirs, as do ranchers.