Government milking us like cows; Oil

[GENIERE]

I am greatly concerned for the survival of modern society, if we do not alter our current consumption practices.

The former depends on the later; you need to increase the scope of your analysis.

 

[GENIERE]

QUOTE=edward]Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.
Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.:yuck:[/QUOTE]


I believe about 10% of the crude is required to obtain the gasoline distillate. Heating oil and diesel fuel require less. The later are more efficiently made but produce more particular pollutants when used. I don’t know about the losses incurred in transport, maybe Mercator will comment.

The efficiencies of producing alcohol from grain or biomass may, at least according to some researchers, be negative. Proponents may say otherwise. I don’t know enough to comment. It is a lot less efficient than gasoline production but may have other benefits to consider.

Every direction I’ve explored has always lead me to the nuclear option.

 

[Skyhunter]

The former depends on the later; you need to increase the scope of your analysis.

We are getting off topic.

I should have said enlightened society. Modern society is infected with consumerism, but it has many institutions that aid individuals on their path to enlightenment. I would like to see more enlightenment and less consumerism.

 

[Mercator]

I don't think there are any alternatives that are viable. That's why I asked: What is the alternative? It wasn't a rhetorical question, I am really asking you what you think the alternatives are.
You mentioned "solar and electric" - well solar is electric, but if you mean direct solar power and battery power, do you understand that neither is currently capable of coming anywhere close to the performance of gas/diesel powered cars? And at the same time as they give you much, much less performance, they also cost much, much more.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "government milking us" - are you talking about gas taxes?

Solar is not electric. I have a solar powered water heating machine on the roof, which consists of a tank and plastic, coated tubes. It's common in the Chinese countryside and it's one of the reasons why China consumes but a fraction of Amercian energy consumption and Chinese still look clean.

 

[Mercator]

We are getting off topic.
I should have said enlightened society. Modern society is infected with consumerism, but it has many institutions that aid individuals on their path to enlightenment. I would like to see more enlightenment and less consumerism.

How many Watts of enlightment?

 

[Mercator]

QUOTE=edward]Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.
Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.:yuck:[ /QUOTE]

I believe about 10% of the crude is required to obtain the gasoline distillate. Heating oil and diesel fuel require less. The later are more efficiently made but produce more particular pollutants when used. I don’t know about the losses incurred in transport, maybe Mercator will comment.
The efficiencies of producing alcohol from grain or biomass may, at least according to some researchers, be negative. Proponents may say otherwise. I don’t know enough to comment. It is a lot less efficient than gasoline production but may have other benefits to consider.
Every direction I’ve explored has always lead me to the nuclear option.

Depends on location and sofort, but average 10 % of the potential energy from a crude is indeed wasted to produce fuels. Biofuels may help us a bit but are no long term solution. All of us should have read "Visions" of our beloved Dr. Kaku. To be able to survive as a species we have to go to a next level of energy which is indeed only achievable the nuclear way. Fuse me baby!
The evaporation losses and related emmissions during production, transport and storage of hydrocarbons are a bigger factor in total emmisions than these coming from combustion in vehicles. With other word, refineries are worse than the cars they feed.
Let me say it again: let's keep oil to produce invaluable chemicals and not burn it. Do it the Belgian way and produce 90% of your energy by nuclear power. Fission as long as fusion is not commercially available.

 

[Mercator]

QUOTE=edward]Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.
Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.:yuck:

I believe about 10% of the crude is required to obtain the gasoline distillate. Heating oil and diesel fuel require less. The later are more efficiently made but produce more particular pollutants when used. I don’t know about the losses incurred in transport, maybe Mercator will comment.
The efficiencies of producing alcohol from grain or biomass may, at least according to some researchers, be negative. Proponents may say otherwise. I don’t know enough to comment. It is a lot less efficient than gasoline production but may have other benefits to consider.
Every direction I’ve explored has always lead me to the nuclear option.[/QUOTE]
Depends on location and sofort, but average 10 % of the potential energy from a crude is indeed wasted to produce fuels. Biofuels may help us a bit but are no long term solution. All of us should have read "Visions" of our beloved Dr. Kaku. To be able to survive as a species we have to go to a next level of energy which is indeed only achievable the nuclear way. Fuse me baby!
The evaporation losses and related emmissions during production, transport and storage of hydrocarbons are a bigger factor in total emmisions than these coming from combustion in vehicles. With other word, refineries are worse than the cars they feed.
Let me say it again: let's keep oil to produce invaluable chemicals and not burn it. Do it the Belgian way and produce 90% of your energy by nuclear power. Fission as long as fusion is not commercially available.

 

[Mercator]

I guess I should specify that I wouldn't tax diesel fuel as much since it is much more efficient than gasoline.
At first, it would be hard for to people to get used to driving smaller more efficient vehicles but they would get use to it and the economy would bounce back.

Agree on the efficiency of vehicles, but a refinery with a certain crude oil can only tune it's yield of diesel, gasoline and other fractions to a limited extend. It is not possible to turn crude oil in 100% diesel fuel. So the tax issue should perhaps be brought to the refinery level, to get them to optimize yields for environmental efficiency, in stead of putting it on the consumer.

 

[Curious3141]

I'm sorry, I haven't scoured the thread yet, but has anyone mentioned biodiesel ? That, IMHO, is the most viable short term alternative to petrol. As good as diesel (and many passenger cars run excellent diesel engines today), completely renewable and gentler on the environment.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

i personally don't like the sound of anything that is "gentler" on the environment. I'd rather see something that is completely nonharmful to the environment ... making things that are gentler are going to get us stuck where we are today, just 100 years from now. Think ahead.