About Those Oil Prices

[czygvtwkr]

Fluorescents are a decent near term option, they use about 1/4 of the energy of regular bulbs. LED lamps will use less than 1/10th, never burn out, will not break, no flicker, and are solid plastic so no bad chemicals but they are a bit costly compared at the moment but things like tail lamps in cars are begining to be switched over to them.

I think if the US made it a priority we could cut our energy usage by 25% in 20 years but it isn't really a priority, I wager that will come back to bite us in about 100 years.

 

[willie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by willie
I have never heard a reasonable explanation why #2 fuel oil and diesel fuel are more expensive than premium gasoline when they are at the bottom of the refining process.

Its because they contain longer chains of hydrocarbons and they can be "cracked" to give more shorter hydrocarbon chain fuels like gasoline. They also have a higher energy density than gasoline.

.
That is a snow job from Big Oil. They refuse to increase refining ability because the profit in that part of the business is small. The huge, obscene profit is the price of the crude and that is set by OPEC. In my opinion, it is the humongous use of gasoline that screws the diesel owners because with the lack of refining capabilities, less diesel is produced but they still want their profit. With outragous diesel prices you will probably buy another gasoline car instead of diesel and the cycle of supporting the Arabs continues. Very true, a gallon of diesel has more energy than gasoline but the cost to produce and the time involved more than offsets the amount obtained from a barrel vs. gasoline. Before there was a refinery shortage, diesel was considerably cheaper than regular gas. It seems to me, if somehow diesels outnumbered gas engines, fuel usage would be down and diesel price SHOULD go down/ gasoline up.. It wouldn't, of course but gasoline would go up because of greed.

 

[czygvtwkr]

I never really supported the greed theory, we live in a free market economy. Why are house prices here so high? To combat this why dont you sell your house for far less than market value? Its supply and demand, if people would just drive less, buy more fuel efficient vehicles etc the big evil oil companies would probably lower prices but the demand is still there and it would still be there if they charged $4 for a gallon of gas.

Take for example a farmer and a crop of corn. If he sold his corn at $30 a ton as is but he had the possibility of selling grain alcohol at $30 a gallon which would he do with his corn?

 

[willie]

I misplace the greed part. That belongs to OPEC and the other producers and how they price a barrel. Take a deep look at Exxon/Mobil financial reports. Their production profit is obcene but sales of refined products is a marginal profit and refined aircraft product is at a loss. As we know, the corner gas station makes it's money on subs and fries not gas. It's like our present political situation, we need fresh, honest faces to turn this mess around.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Milk in recent years has increased in price about the same rate as gasoline anyone notice this?

 

[jazz lady]

What do you all think of biofuels? According to the latest National Geographic magazine if we double the farm land in the country the nation would be completely free of dependence on foreign oil.

I'm just reading that article tonight. We have so much farm land available it seems to be a no-brainer to try this. But I'm sure it will bring down the wrath of Big Oil and be a fight from the get go.

 

[jazz lady]

Fluorescents are a decent near term option, they use about 1/4 of the energy of regular bulbs. LED lamps will use less than 1/10th, never burn out, will not break, no flicker, and are solid plastic so no bad chemicals but they are a bit costly compared at the moment but things like tail lamps in cars are begining to be switched over to them.

I think if the US made it a priority we could cut our energy usage by 25% in 20 years but it isn't really a priority, I wager that will come back to bite us in about 100 years.

I have quite a few fluorescent fixtures in my house and they make a world of difference, both on energy used and heat produced. I've seen a lot of vehicles, especially commercial ones, using LED lamps.

Interesting factoid from National Geographic: replace on incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent lamp and you will save 500 pounds of coal.

Saving energy has NEVER been a real priority in the US. We lag so far behind Europe in conservation and working on alternative fuels it's not even funny.

 

[Triggerfish]

I'm just reading that article tonight. We have so much farm land available it seems to be a no-brainer to try this. But I'm sure it will bring down the wrath of Big Oil and be a fight from the get go.

Well, it's not really a no brainer. Did you know that #1 problem that the Chesapeake Bay has is nutrient pollution? Too much nitrogen and phosphorous from farms and people fertilizing lawns. They're trying to reduce fertilizers running into the Bay and doubling farmlands is not going to help
either.

The nutrients cause an algae bloom.
Which blocks the sunlight that the Submerged Underwater Vegetation(SAV)
needs. The SAV die and the animals that use the SAV as nourishment or shelter either die or move out of the area including the species that eat the algae. The SAV dying also lowers the oxygen level in the area. Not enough algae eating organisms mean that when the algae dies it sinks to the bottom and decompose. Decomposition of the algae and fish, oysters, etc requires oxygen which further depletes the bay of oxygen. In the end it creates a dead area.


I just finished doing a research paper on the human impact on the Chesapeake and spent a lot of time at the Chesapeake Bay Laboratory at Solomons and their website.

Other places around the country and the world is facing the same problems.

 

[Triggerfish]

Interesting factoid from National Geographic: replace on incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent lamp and you will save 500 pounds of coal.

Saving energy has NEVER been a real priority in the US. We lag so far behind Europe in conservation and working on alternative fuels it's not even funny.

I believe that they stated that 500 pounds of coal in the lightbulbs lifetime. 75% of electricty produced in MD is from fossil fuel burning power plants.

Also something that goes hand in hand with energy conservation is recycling.
I noticed while I was stationed in Japan that they recycle a lot more than this country. I remember they have about 4 different garbage days for different type of items.

 

[ylexot]

Also something that goes hand in hand with energy conservation is recycling.

Ummmmm, doesn't it take more energy to recycle than it does to make new stuff? Then there are also the nasty chemicals required and that recycling costs more than just making new. (Aluminum recycling is the exception)

 

[Bruzilla]

Everytime I hear stories about alternative fuels and how they are cheaper, I think of chicken! Yes... our cluckie friends. Many of us older types can remember that when it came to chicken, dark meat was king. The breast meat was considered too dry, and sold for quite a bit less per pound than legs and thighs. Then came the news that white meat was healthier, and voila! something good just had to become something more expensive. White meat not only passed dark meat in price, but did so by a factor of five or six. So too would go the price of alternative fuels the minute plans are made to make more use of them.

As for foreign gas, I've been to Spain, Italy, Britain, Bermuda, France, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, etc., and paid the skyhigh prices at each. I've also seen all the crappy tiny little econo-boxes the people drive, which shows me that driving more economical cars doesn't lead to cheaper gasoline. It results in lower demand, which results in higher prices as businesses restrict supply to keep prices up. Then add in the taxes, and you're paying $5.00+/gallon. I've also been to Saudi Arabia, where gas was about $1 per gallon, and to Venezuela where it was about .60 per gallon, which is where it would be in the US if we started pumping our own oil in earnest.

 

[jazz lady]

Well, it's not really a no brainer. Did you know that #1 problem that the Chesapeake Bay has is nutrient pollution? Too much nitrogen and phosphorous from farms and people fertilizing lawns. They're trying to reduce fertilizers running into the Bay and doubling farmlands is not going to help
either.

The nutrients cause an algae bloom.
Which blocks the sunlight that the Submerged Underwater Vegetation(SAV)
needs. The SAV die and the animals that use the SAV as nourishment or shelter either die or move out of the area including the species that eat the algae. The SAV dying also lowers the oxygen level in the area. Not enough algae eating organisms mean that when the algae dies it sinks to the bottom and decompose. Decomposition of the algae and fish, oysters, etc requires oxygen which further depletes the bay of oxygen. In the end it creates a dead area.


I just finished doing a research paper on the human impact on the Chesapeake and spent a lot of time at the Chesapeake Bay Laboratory at Solomons and their website.

Other places around the country and the world is facing the same problems.

I do know about nutrient and pollutant runoff. It's because we don't practice good, safe, and sound farming practices. A lot of it also comes from us, the residents of Maryland as we try to get the perfect lawn, etc.

When I was taking classes at the UMD, I took a class on the Chesapeake Bay with lots of interaction with the Solomons Lab. The whole course was VERY fascinating.

It's only in the last decade or so you've even SEEN farmers putting in a cover crop. Before, the fields just lay bare all winter and allowed for massive runoff. They are also indiscriminate in the application of fertilizer and pesticides. We can easily support MORE farms but WITHOUT the arcane farming practices they currently use that greatly contribute to the pollution of our waterways. Same goes for people. It's much easier to spray a chemical than to practice a safer but more labor intensive method to do the same thing.

 

[Triggerfish]

We can easily support MORE farms but WITHOUT the arcane farming practices they currently.

It can be done but I think the greater question is whether people will do it. There were some experimental farming in this state that significanty reduced the amount of run offs but a lot of small farmers can't afford to convert. However it looks like there is no such thing as a non-polluting farm.

Also a lot of the run offs are residential lawn fertilizers.

 

[Triggerfish]

Ummmmm, doesn't it take more energy to recycle than it does to make new stuff? Then there are also the nasty chemicals required and that recycling costs more than just making new. (Aluminum recycling is the exception)

Depends, paper recycling is very helpful also. It may cost more but it prevents trees from being cut down and less space in the landfills being filled up. The trees that were once abundant in this area used to suck up a lot of nutrients and pollution in the soil and in the atmosphere. They prevent erosion that can further send sediments into the bay and the rivers that feed the bay.

At least paper decomposes.....unlike plastics and glass that take up almost forever to decompose.

 

[ylexot]

Depends, paper recycling is very helpful also. It may cost more but it prevents trees from being cut down and less space in the landfills being filled up. The trees that were once abundant in this area used to suck up a lot of nutrients and pollution in the soil and in the atmosphere. They prevent erosion that can further send sediments into the bay and the rivers that feed the bay.

At least paper decomposes.....unlike plastics and glass that take up almost forever to decompose.

Paper comes from trees that were specifically planted to make paper from. If we don't make the paper, the trees don't get planted to be harvested.

As for filling up landfills...they aren't even close.

Trees in this area are cut down to make farm land, housing/commercial areas, building materials (maybe), but I doubt any of them are used for paper.

 

[Triggerfish]

Paper comes from trees that were specifically planted to make paper from. If we don't make the paper, the trees don't get planted to be harvested.

Some companies do that yes but a lot do not. Good example is Scholastic, they printed the Harry Potter books in the U.S. They printed 10.8 million copies of the Half Blood Prince from 217,475 non farmed trees.

 

[Triggerfish]

Ummmmm, doesn't it take more energy to recycle than it does to make new stuff? Then there are also the nasty chemicals required and that recycling costs more than just making new. (Aluminum recycling is the exception)

By Recycling 1 ton of paper you save:

17 trees
6953 gallons of water
463 gallons of oil
587 pounds of air pollution
3.06 cubic yards of landfill space
4077 Kilowatt hours of energy
(Source: Weyerhaueser Info)

In the manufacturing process of Recycled Paper:

74% Less air pollution is generated
35% Less water pollution is generated
58% Less water is required
64% Less energy is required
31 billion gallons of water could be saved every month by installing water efficiency shower heads in our homes.
(Source: Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries)

I have no idea why they included the last one.....


Also from the EPA
Recycling paper uses 60% less energy than manufacturing paper from virgin timber.
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/housewaste/src/paper.htm

Recycling a glass jar saves enough energy to light a 100-watt light bulb for four hours
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/housewaste/src/glass.htm

 

[Triggerfish]

As for filling up landfills...they aren't even close.

aren't even close to what? Filling up? If that is what you mean of course they can always create new land fills but they are running out of spaces in the east coast.....unless you want to start making landfills on land that is owned by someone else. Also sometimes trash is incinerated.

A new landfill generally costs more than an old one that has filled up. This is because it typically costs more to comply with new environmental regulations, to buy the land, to construct the landfill and to transport waste because new landfills generally are farther away than older ones.
http://www.resourcefulschools.org/html/facts.html



Again from the EPA

Why should we recycle?
Recycling reduces our reliance on landfills and incinerators.
Recycling protects our health and environment when harmful substances are removed from the waste stream.
Recycling conserves our natural resources because it reduces the need for raw materials.

http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/housewaste/src/recycle.htm#why

 

[jazz lady]

It can be done but I think the greater question is whether people will do it. There were some experimental farming in this state that significanty reduced the amount of run offs but a lot of small farmers can't afford to convert. However it looks like there is no such thing as a non-polluting farm.

Of course there isn't any such thing as a non-polluting farm, as there isn't a non-polluting car, etc. But we CAN reduce the pollutants if we as a nation are willing to invest in new practices. If we can subsidize farmers to NOT grow something, why can't we subsidize them to actually GROW things but using better, less-polluting methods? Change is always hard to effect. I used to have a sign above my desk that read "But we've ALWAYS done it this way." Getting people to think outside the box and try different things is sometimes nearly impossible.

Also a lot of the run offs are residential lawn fertilizers.

I did mention that. It's easier to use chemicals to kills weeds and fertilize than it is use more earth-friendly but labor-intensive methods like mulching and composting. Faster, quicker, easier is the norm but we ultimately pay the price for this convenience.

 

[Triggerfish]

jazz lady....do you have any idea why there are a lot of publishers still out there that does not use any recycled paper?