Gas Prices -- Help at last?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.


Matt

The other Matt

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.

However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
out dependence on foreign crude. Nothing magical is going to happen
to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so. So
I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
to force a change.

I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
years through incremental maintenance.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Matt

The other Matt

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.

"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.


However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
out dependence on foreign crude.
Correct -- producing enough crude or other supplies is another issue.

Nothing magical is going to happen
to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so.

Yes, there will; PRICES.No maginc involved, just reality. Prices are the
balance point between supply and demand. There's no thuggery of force
involved. If the utility you get from $4 or $5 a gallon is significant to
you, you use it; if not, you don't. There's always options.

In running my business, fuel for my airplane is worth it, even at $4.00 or
more a gallon. In my case, fuel costs are a tiny portion of running the
business. OTOH, for my private use in my car or PU truck, $2.70 a gallon
gas means I don't make frivolous trips to the store to buy a handful of
goods.

So
I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
to force a change.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.


I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
years through incremental maintenance.

Yes, there is much to encourage keeping them as technically "state of the
art" as feasible. As for "rebuilding them every ten years", that sounds
rather hyperbolic.

The issue I'm addressing is that with shale, tar sands and other options
hopefully coming along, we'd not be able to produce what we need. Running
refineries at 95+% of capacity is an invitation to a boondoggle, both
economically and strategically.

About two years ago, the pipeline that supplies Phoenix with gasoline was
broken for about five days. My in-laws described it as "reminiscent of the
1970's waiting in line for gas".

Katrina was another example, but as Mike Rappoport said, it was a 50 year
incidence. And he's right. It should, though, give a clue as to our
vulnerabilities. What if Rita has gone a bit further south and took out
Houston/Galveston? Most of our remaining refineries are in very tenuous
locations.

Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
tempt "fate"?

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:04:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
tempt "fate"?

It's true that the number of hurricanes per year appears to vary as a
result of a natural cycle, the reasons for which are not well
understood at this point. There have been years in the past when many
hurricanes developed. However, the intensity of hurricanes is purely
the result of the fuel that feeds them: The warmth of the ocean under
which they develop and travel. Upper level atmospheric pressure also
plays a part, but the biggest factor is the warmth of the ocean. The
warmer the ocean under which the hurricane spawns, the better the
chance it will develop into a strong storm. Katrina is a perfect
example, it reduced in intensity during it's passage over the Florida
penninsula, and then intensified into a category 5 hurricane once it
moved onto the gulf of Mexico where the waters were very warm.

More storms per year are occuring in the last few years and the warmer
oceans are creating storms of high intensity.

That the oceans are warmer than they've ever been in recorded history
is not at question, you only have to look at the temperatures over the
last 100 years or so to see that they've been going up.

Another data point is the melting of most glaciers the world over.
They are melting because the average temperature has increased in the
last several decades. Still another data point is the ocean level is
rising.

That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

Corky Scott

wrote:


That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
to the "Little Ice Age". The simple fact of the matter is that the
earth cools and warms on its own. Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

In article ,
Newps wrote:

Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Newps wrote:


Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.


of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

We did. No effect.

("Bob Noel" wrote)
Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.


I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.


Montblack

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Newps wrote:


Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.


of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.


Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.


Matt

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Newps wrote:

Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
occasionally today?