Gas Prices - Page 4 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

JohnR · 09-01-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip N

The folks were told to evacuate. And the experts did say NO would be under water if they got a direct hit. Some just couldnt get out or for whatever reason stayed. Did anyone see the comments by one of The Kennedys yesterday essenially blaming the hurricane on republicans and W. What a wacko that guy is.

Some did not have the means to do it and should have been moved but how many figure they would judt ride it out and be fine? Not trying to make excuses for gvmt officials in NO but evacuating 1.1 of 1.4 milion people 250+ miles in two days with few proper egress route options is a positive accomplishment.

Raven · 09-01-2005, 08:06 AM

a positive accomplishment. true... but the number of buses they are using now had to be used prior to the storm for those that really didnt have the option of driving their own vehicles....especially when evacuation was mandatory... also it was the timing ...and it was said that people were just about to recieve money that would have aided them in that endeavor and then katrina hit. trains should have been utilized too.

despite that...you would still have people that would stay no matter what.

Nebe · 09-01-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip N

Give me FACTS how he is to blame and we'll talk and i'll listne. Im F'ing fed up with $3 a gallon gas trust me. If W is to blame and is in on some big conspericy i will rip him up (yes i did say that!) But you leftys stop drinking the cool aid and look at the saudis....THEY are the ones %$%$%$%$ing us over. And it drives me nuts!!!

i dont think we can blame him for the 3$ spike because this hurricane has dammaged oil rigs, refgineries, etc... thus limiting prduction. However, i will definately blame him and his chronies for causing a global crisis out of a useless unjust war based on lies and bad intellegence. That alone has raised the price of oil buy a buck.. Saudi's dont set the price, buyers bid on the price and any time something 'might happen' buyers will bid higher based on fears. The saudi's are making $ but its not by their doing.

Many people say the Iraq war was all about oil and that we were just going in there to take thier oil.. I disagree, we arent going to take thier oil, we just went in there to create a global conflict which forced oil prices up. OIl companies are making trillions of $ in profits every quarter... American oil companies.

no coolaid drinking here, just paying attention and not blindly following the shephard.

Mr. Sandman · 09-01-2005, 11:59 AM

I do feel bad for all those people, really I do but I just don't understand why a coastal city was built below sea level that relys on a system of levies and pumps to keep them dry. (and I live on an island). It is just stupid in my view to build below the ocean in a area frequented by storms and regular flooding that requires an active system to keep them dry and safe. Everyone down there was expecting "the big one" someday. IMO they should not rebuild the city. If your beach house washes away in the storm you don't get to re-build, why should they? It will happen again, and again. Who says we learn from history? My vote would be to take down all the levies and turn it into a large reef. Those folks could move elsewhere.

Frankly I am surprised it was not hit by a terrorist already, it looks like an easy target that could do massive damage.

I hope the best for the people who choose to live down there but it seems odd to be to rebuild that infastructure.

Pete_G · 09-01-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I do feel bad for all those people, really I do but I just don't understand why a coastal city was built below sea level that relys on a system of levies and pumps to keep them dry. (and I live on an island). It is just stupid in my view to build below the ocean in a area frequented by storms and regular flooding that requires an active system to keep them dry and safe. Everyone down there was expecting "the big one" someday. IMO they should not rebuild the city. If your beach house washes away in the storm you don't get to re-build, why should they? It will happen again, and again. Who says we learn from history? My vote would be to take down all the levies and turn it into a large reef. Those folks could move elsewhere.

Frankly I am surprised it was not hit by a terrorist already, it looks like an easy target that could do massive damage.

I hope the best for the people who choose to live down there but I seems odd to be to rebuild that infastructure.

This is why I'm a little disapointed with the evacuation and the timetable in which it took place. The potential for what has taken place was SO high. My Dad lived there for a while in his early 20's and has been predicting this eventuality for decades.

Iwannakeeper · 09-01-2005, 12:24 PM

the army corp of engineers designed and built the system with the hopes it could support a category 3 storm.

Agh.....wasn't this close to a cat 5 storm.

RIROCKHOUND · 09-01-2005, 12:33 PM

But the cost benifit analysis said Cat 3 was the best choice;
Bet thet Cost-Benefit analysis looks pretty bad right now...
ACOE; what do you expect...

Bass Nut · 09-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Has anyone checked out www.bostongasprices.com ? put in your zip code or town and it lists the prices of gas stations in your area.

The Exxon on 28 in Readinghad no gas Monday night, delivery truck never came. Price posted was from Saturday 2.73 for regular. The Mobil down the street had gas and was selling at 2.53 for reg.

To think I almost bought a Yukon XL Denali a couple of weeks ago...
think I'll wait for the hybrid on this one!

Bass Babe · 09-01-2005, 02:06 PM

I almost agree on the not rebuilding front. Really, what's left? It's not like even major repairs will be needed. They'll have to mow down Nola and start from scratch. May as well have residents move elsewhere -- it's not like they have anything left. That way nobody would be put in such a dangerous situation ever again. And who, after this whole debacle, would WANT to move back?

Homerun04 · 09-01-2005, 02:17 PM

Next wealthest person in the world (sorry Bill Gates, you will be replaced) will be the person who designs a commercially affordable non-combustion engine......one that runs on a non-pollutant alternative source......duh......why not solar???.......H2O???.......wind???.....all are free, and all have ZERO negative by-products......

Man, I wish I was an engineer..............

Pete_G · 09-01-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homerun04

Next wealthest person in the world (sorry Bill Gates, you will be replaced) will be the person who designs a commercially affordable non-combustion engine......one that runs on a non-pollutant alternative source......duh......why not solar???.......H2O???.......wind???.....all are free, and all have ZERO negative by-products......

Man, I wish I was an engineer..............

That is a bright side to all this. Companies are definitely going to be putting the thinking caps on.

Also, Canada is likely to suddenly come to life and start figuring out better ways to pull all the oil out of the ground under their country. And unlike Alaska, there is some serious oil in Canada. It's in sand though, so it's expensive to process it, but since it comes from this continent it doesn't support terrorists.

Mr. Sandman · 09-01-2005, 05:48 PM

Well I am an engineer and it will not be in your lifetime that you see something like your talking about. Fossil fuels have an energy density that is hard to match for the cost. Yes you can create other fuels from plants and alike but that ***takes*** energy to produce it. That energy cost money. Crude you pump from the ground and will burn as is. Solar even at 100% efficiency is not going to do it. It might help charge a battery but it is not reliable and has such a low energy density it will be impossible to power much of anything. Next generation Fuel cells/hybrids I think will be a stepping stone to some kind of fully electric vehicle with a rapid charge system. I have no idea what they are going to do for boats, as I doubt a fuel cell will get you to the canyons at 30 knots.

Longer term (about 100 +years from now) we will not burn fossil fuels. We will have some kind of atomic plant that has no waste problem. This will produce unlimited nearly free electric power for all. Something akin to the voice communications system we have evolving today. I honestly believe this is the ultimate solution. I don't want to get into all the reasons why but I am nearly sure of it.

You can forget about windmills, solar panels, canola oil, wave energy and cow farts to power this nation, even at 100% eff you would have to cover the entire country to provide adequate power for the masses. We will blaze the trail in atomic technology. I wish I would be alive to see it...maybe my grandkids will be. Until then I think we need to build a load of refineries and pump Alaska and put some pressure on the mid east ***WHILE*** put some money into research for atomic alternatives. We have 100's of years of fuel on this earth that will hold us until then. I am not worried.

As far as super carburetors that general motors or some oil company bought the patents then sat on them...I do not believe it. There is only so much energy in a gallon of gas. It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate a vehicle with a given mass to some velocity. Today most engines could only get a few more percent of efficiency, there is no "super carburetor" that is going to produce 10X the mileage...a physical impossibility. Yes you can make a super lightweight car that get 300 miles to the gallon but don't expect to turn on the AC while driving 60 and the ride might be a bit stiff. Again it is all about how much energy is in a given amount of fuel, the engine just converts this energy with some mechanical efficiency loss, There are no huge gains possible in a given vehicle, you have to go smaller and lighter to really gain much. Power Boats are in for a real problem in my view.

The price of gas at the pump near my house today was 3.44

Homerun04 · 09-01-2005, 06:04 PM

Sandman - nice analysis.

Not that I am for it, but when Einstein, Bohr and other noted theoretical physicists decided to spilt an atom to release it's energy, that was a revolutionary concept of releasing - therfore transferring - energy. All I am saying is we need that kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking again....and soon.

I think there might be even better ways to release energy then splitting atoms, due to the energy by-product of radiation released during that process. Let's figure out how to turn a turbine using only pressurized steam, and harness that pressurized steam for use when and where we need it.....then, we might be on to something. Robert Fulton is still waiting for us to "get it".......imagine filling your car/truck at the nearest pond, lake, bay, etc. and the only by-product is steam -- which would evaporate, condense, come down as rain to be used all over again. Totally enclosed, zero waste cycle. Nothing more efficient.

Can't a case be made that the expansive use of the combustion engine (diesel, gas, etc) over the past 100 years was based on our society's inability to be patient and wait to more fully develop alternative sources? Looking to history will show that America's insatiable appetite for combustion technology was fueled by our military's need for quick, powerful, dependable energy during WWI.....and it was the right decision to move fast forward in this direction due to the national security ramifications of winning WWI and WWII.......but perhaps it is time we re-think where we spend our R&D dollars.

Diamond Tackle · 09-01-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homerun04

Next wealthest person in the world (sorry Bill Gates, you will be replaced) will be the person who designs a commercially affordable non-combustion engine......one that runs on a non-pollutant alternative source......duh......why not solar???.......H2O???.......wind???.....all are free, and all have ZERO negative by-products......

Man, I wish I was an engineer..............

How do you know this has not already been done?, and the idea was already bought out and BURIED for a long long time. This may be why the OPEC countries are so arrogant. The technology is available on a larger scale as some of our Subs run on H2O, splitting the molecule, creating Oxygen and Hydrogen, their only limitation is food on board.
I also mentioned this before, I owned a Honda CRX that got avg 52 mpg (on gas) & around town .This was back in like 1987, almost 20 yrs ago. Today we struggle to make 40 mpg cars???? Whos BS'ing who? Technology is deliberately being held back as long as possible til all the fossil fuel $ has been made and divided, and god help you if you get in their way.

"Solar even at 100% efficiency is not going to do it. It might help charge a battery but it is not reliable and has such a low energy density it will be impossible to power much of anything."

Sorry, I Disagree with you on this one.
You can set up your entire house to run completely on solar(heat,hot water, and ALL appliances) for about $36K. Then you get approx $20KTotal in grants from the Govt and credits from the power co. In other words it will cost you $16K out of pocket. Your avg elect bill will then be $5- 50/month as you will sell electricity back to the util co. during sunny days and only use their elect at night. I saw this exact scenario recently on a tv program, its no BS. This is a 20-25 % return on your investment, and you are liberated from all future increases. Solar is starting to sound real good

Another small note.
Someone mentioned forget about Canola oil etc?
The Diesel engine was INVENTED to run on Peanut Oil . Thats right, the first diesel ran long BEFORE the oil companies made the fuel to run it. The oil companies then later manufactured #2 fuel/ diesel .
Again, whos BS'ing who?

Pete F. · 09-01-2005, 06:24 PM

The only plot I know of and it was quite unfortunate was the one that eliminated streetcars. By eliminating streetcars and local trolley systems the death of the passenger rail system was ensured, after all if you have to have a car to drive to the RR station why not just drive the whole way. It will be interesting this year in VT to see the ressurection of the skitrains, they have been running for afew years with some sucess but this should make the difference. Also for the past 60 years we have subsidized the highway system and ignored rail, think about it while you drive down a highway that's been beat to @#$% by tractor trailers. Count the Wal mart trucks.
We could just go all nuclear, but between the nimbys and bananas it will be a while before that happens.

Raven · 09-01-2005, 06:34 PM

i tend to agree with your analysis ....but am holding out hope that carbon nano tube technology will come to the rescue in both electrical storage and in producing a material thats stronger than steel and produce a car that will weigh 1/10th of a modern day vehicle.....
from what i've been reading . But that technology is still only in its infancy stage right now.
.................................................. .................................................. ...
as far as the energy required to produce a bio-diesel product...yes it requires energy to produce it...our country is oil poor but rich in land (acreage)but our tax dollars which required our human energy origionally
to create the surplus money the government uses to pay farmers not to grow crops like tobacco is a huge waste. anything that utilizes solar power ie sunlight to create something else is doing it because of the origional fusion of hydrogen which we havent figured out how to do yet -cost effectively.

Homerun04 · 09-01-2005, 08:06 PM

Right on Tinman...right on...

And I agree, nano technologies might hold the key to many issues -- including our energy crisis.

Raven · 09-01-2005, 08:13 PM

"Solar even at 100% efficiency is not going to do it. It might help charge a battery but it is not reliable and has such a low energy density it will be impossible to power much of anything."

one thing about solar power is loss of electricity in the conversion process...
but with carbon nano tube technology there is almost zero loss and the material is perfect for electrical transmission which is why i remain hopeful.

bassmaster · 09-01-2005, 09:39 PM

%$%$%$%$ these %$%$%$%$ing gas prices

Vermonter · 09-02-2005, 11:11 AM

Prices must be brutal on the Cape, most here were at 2.99 last night when I came home tho one station still had gas at 2.87. Im hearing that it will be at least 3.20 by sunday in this area.

MAC · 09-02-2005, 11:29 AM

I was at the pumps at Cumby's getting gas when the attendant came out with a 4 in his hand. (Gas was $3.11 when I was filling up) I asked him if it was going up to $3.14, he said no...$3.41

Karl F · 09-02-2005, 11:38 AM

got to look around, if ya can, saw it as "low" as $2.99, and as high as $3.55, both for regular, this AM, in Orleans/Eastham area

RIROCKHOUND · 09-02-2005, 11:44 AM

10 years ago I had a 1974 land rover; got 12miles/gallon, had a 12gallon tank; cost me 12 bucks to fill it (1.09 was alot)

I'm no economist; but I dont think the 'stringent' environmental laws have increased the production cose by 3X; yet cost has gone up to 3X its price 10 years ago....

While I dont just blame this administration, this blows; it is crippling anyone making minimal wage or there abouts; especially outside of RI where people actually DRIVE some distance to a job...

rwilhelm · 09-02-2005, 11:50 AM

I cannot believe it I just went out to get some lunch and the price was $3.26. This is getting outta control.

bassmaster · 09-02-2005, 11:57 AM

im swipin" a tanker of super, who wants some

Pete_G · 09-02-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

10 years ago I had a 1974 land rover; got 12miles/gallon, had a 12gallon tank; cost me 12 bucks to fill it (1.09 was alot)

I'm no economist; but I dont think the 'stringent' environmental laws have increased the production cose by 3X; yet cost has gone up to 3X its price 10 years ago....

While I dont just blame this administration, this blows; it is crippling anyone making minimal wage or there abouts; especially outside of RI where people actually DRIVE some distance to a job...

Agreed, around here a LONG commute is 8 or 9 miles one way. Elsewhere 20 to 30 one way is probably a more normal commute. That translates into BIG money over a month for the average family.

I bet that it's no conicidence that the shop has been pretty dead the past few days, yet the website is very active.

Vermonter · 09-02-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassmaster

im swipin" a tanker of super, who wants some

Deal me in.....Ill throw the cordless sawzalls in the truck, they come in handy. This area being fairly rural sees some longish commutes to jobs. Ive got a Ford Ranger that Ive had for 3 years, cost roughly 20.00 to completely fill it when I first got it, put in 3/4 of a tank yesterday and it was 35.00

Tho at least the news isnt ALL bad today apparently:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...es/P128480.asp

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...902&ID=5083380