|
Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > Price per barrel: > > Oil $133 > Coca Cola $126 > Milk $163 > Perrier Water $300 > Budweiser $447 > Starbucks Latte $954 > Ben & Jerry's $1,609 > Tabasco Sauce $6,155 > Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 This has been posted in here before and let me say again, it is f-ing retarded. Are you an apologist for big oil? I am sorry but how much Ben and Jerry's do you need? How much Tabasco sauce do you need? How much Perrier do you need? Furthermore, how the f__k do you think that stuff gets to your location when you do decide to dabble in it? Stop being a dumbass moron. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06... > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> Price per barrel: >> >> Oil $133 >> Coca Cola $126 >> Milk $163 >> Perrier Water $300 >> Budweiser $447 >> Starbucks Latte $954 >> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 >> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 >> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 I don't see the nations economy and infrastructure running on lattes and Coke. Or F-22's or M1 Abrams for that matter. Idiot. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote in message news:uuE7k.851$2G6.661@edtnps83... > > "Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message > news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06... >> >> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >>> Price per barrel: >>> >>> Oil $133 >>> Coca Cola $126 >>> Milk $163 >>> Perrier Water $300 >>> Budweiser $447 >>> Starbucks Latte $954 >>> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 >>> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 >>> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 > > I don't see the nations economy and infrastructure running on lattes and > Coke. Or F-22's or M1 Abrams for that matter. Idiot. indeed, but maybe exxon will find a way to make a cocacola engine, and then they can raise the cost 7 more dollars a barrel. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06... > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> Price per barrel: >> >> Oil $133 >> Coca Cola $126 >> Milk $163 >> Perrier Water $300 >> Budweiser $447 >> Starbucks Latte $954 >> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 >> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 >> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 > > This has been posted in here before and let me say again, it is f-ing > retarded. Are you an apologist for big oil? > > I am sorry but how much Ben and Jerry's do you need? How much Tabasco > sauce do you need? How much Perrier do you need? Furthermore, how the f__k > do you think that stuff gets to your location when you do decide to dabble > in it? > > Stop being a dumbass moron. If you want to look at it your way. A barrel of each would last a person: Oil 1 day(maybe) Coca Cola 3 months Milk 3 months Perrier Water 3 weeks Budweiser 2 months Starbucks Latte 2 year Ben & Jerry's 2 year Tabasco Sauce 20 years Chanel No 5 100 years(really don't use the stuff myself) Now if a barrel of oil could last as long as any of these we would be doing real good. You dumbshit! These are my estimation and not to be taken serious. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message news:xyE7k.2767$gE.1234@trnddc07... > > "Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote in message > news:uuE7k.851$2G6.661@edtnps83... > > > > "Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message > > news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06... > >> > >> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message > >> news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > >>> Price per barrel: > >>> > >>> Oil $133 > >>> Coca Cola $126 > >>> Milk $163 > >>> Perrier Water $300 > >>> Budweiser $447 > >>> Starbucks Latte $954 > >>> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 > >>> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 > >>> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 > > > > I don't see the nations economy and infrastructure running on lattes and > > Coke. Or F-22's or M1 Abrams for that matter. Idiot. > > indeed, but maybe exxon will find a way to make a cocacola engine, You obviously never saw the ORIGINAL Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or you would have remembered the Wonkamobile. Ted |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Ripcord" <kf@beth.net> wrote in message
news:oBG7k.10844$PZ6.5290@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. . > If you want to look at it your way. > A barrel of each would last a person: > Oil 1 day(maybe) > Coca Cola 3 months > Milk 3 months > Perrier Water 3 weeks > Budweiser 2 months > Starbucks Latte 2 year > Ben & Jerry's 2 year > Tabasco Sauce 20 years > Chanel No 5 100 years(really don't use the stuff myself) > Now if a barrel of oil could last as long as any of these we would be > doing real good. > You dumbshit! > > These are my estimation and not to be taken serious. There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is made into gasoline during the refining process, the remaining half is made into other products that sell for about the same price as gasoline (on average). So you can either assume that a barrel of oil does produce 42 gallons (they could do that if they wanted to), or the price per barrel should be cut in half, since the other half of the barrel is made into other valuable petroleum products. Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel and our car averages 25 miles per gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than a month. You claim it only lasts 1 day. Now who is the moron? |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote > There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is > made into gasoline during the refining process,..... > Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel... > and our car averages 25 miles per > gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than a > month. You claim it only lasts 1 day. > > Now who is the moron? Er, you'd only have 21 gallons, thereby only getting 525 miles/barrel For someone living where I do who commutes 50 miles and back each day to work on the offshore oil rigs, that would last them about 5 days :-) Furthermore, the Ben and Jerrys would probably only last a day or two at my place :-) |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:i8I7k.10929$3F5.1056@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. . > > There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is > made into gasoline during the refining process, the remaining half is made > into other products that sell for about the same price as gasoline (on > average). So you can either assume that a barrel of oil does produce 42 > gallons (they could do that if they wanted to), or the price per barrel > should be cut in half, since the other half of the barrel is made into > other valuable petroleum products. > > Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel and our car averages 25 miles per > gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than > a month. You claim it only lasts 1 day. > > Now who is the moron? I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel tank (at today's price). |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:91J7k.866$2G6.26@edtnps83... > I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence > meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on > each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far > less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage > to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel > tank (at today's price). No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel. Some of you morons cannot read (no offense). |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Ripcord" <kf@beth.net> wrote in message news:oBG7k.10844$PZ6.5290@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. . > > "Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message > news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06... >> >> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >>> Price per barrel: >>> >>> Oil $133 >>> Coca Cola $126 >>> Milk $163 >>> Perrier Water $300 >>> Budweiser $447 >>> Starbucks Latte $954 >>> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 >>> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 >>> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 >> >> This has been posted in here before and let me say again, it is f-ing >> retarded. Are you an apologist for big oil? >> >> I am sorry but how much Ben and Jerry's do you need? How much Tabasco >> sauce do you need? How much Perrier do you need? Furthermore, how the >> f__k do you think that stuff gets to your location when you do decide to >> dabble in it? >> >> Stop being a dumbass moron. > > If you want to look at it your way. > A barrel of each would last a person: > Oil 1 day(maybe) > Coca Cola 3 months > Milk 3 months > Perrier Water 3 weeks > Budweiser 2 months > Starbucks Latte 2 year > Ben & Jerry's 2 year > Tabasco Sauce 20 years > Chanel No 5 100 years(really don't use the stuff myself) Chanel No. 19 is nicer, anyway. ;-) Cathy > Now if a barrel of oil could last as long as any of these we would be > doing real good. > You dumbshit! > > These are my estimation and not to be taken serious. > > |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:10:18 GMT, "Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote:
> >"Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message >news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06... >> >> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >>> Price per barrel: >>> >>> Oil $133 >>> Coca Cola $126 >>> Milk $163 >>> Perrier Water $300 >>> Budweiser $447 >>> Starbucks Latte $954 >>> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 >>> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 >>> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 > >I don't see the nations economy and infrastructure running on lattes and >Coke. Or F-22's or M1 Abrams for that matter. Idiot. > Well, the Abrams will run on Chanel No 5, or jack Daniel's, for that matter. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Speak softly and carry a loaded .45 Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:b8J7k.10954$3F5.5275@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. . > > No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted > to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining > product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there > are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be > cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined > from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on > average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume > there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel. > > Some of you morons cannot read (no offense). Okay, I'll rephrase my response to you. Depending on each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel tank (at today's price). By the way, you still appear to be a moron. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:b8J7k.10954$3F5.5275@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. . > "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message > news:91J7k.866$2G6.26@edtnps83... >> I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence >> meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on >> each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others >> far less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I >> manage to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in >> the fuel tank (at today's price). > > No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted > to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining > product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there > are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be > cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined > from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on > average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume > there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel. > I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude oil because the crude oil has different components with different properties. These articles seem to confirm this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. .. > I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is > economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude > oil because the crude oil has different components with different > properties. > > These articles seem to confirm this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery > http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm > > > Ray O I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value. So the economic value of the output of the refining process needs to be distributed among the products produced. So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming that the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of oil (including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a lot of airlines and homeowners). |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:_2_7k.11604$PZ6.9198@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. . > "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message > news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. .. >> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it >> is economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of >> crude oil because the crude oil has different components with different >> properties. >> >> These articles seem to confirm this: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery >> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm >> >> >> Ray O > > I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is > refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 > gallons of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic > value. So the economic value of the output of the refining process needs > to be distributed among the products produced. > > So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of > crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one > half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming > that the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of > oil (including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a > lot of airlines and homeowners). That explanation makes a lot more sense. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
Mark A wrote:
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message > news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. .. >> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is >> economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude >> oil because the crude oil has different components with different >> properties. >> >> These articles seem to confirm this: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery >> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm >> >> >> Ray O > > I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is > refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons > of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value. with just distillation, that would be about right, though it depends on what's being distilled. however, if we introduce modern hydrocracking and catalysis, which refiners do in fact use, we can get substantially more than 21 gallons of gasoline [and a lower quantity of heavier product]. > So > the economic value of the output of the refining process needs to be > distributed among the products produced. > > So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of > crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one > half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming that > the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of oil > (including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a lot of > airlines and homeowners). > > |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> said:
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message > news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. .. >> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it >> is economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of >> crude oil because the crude oil has different components with different >> properties. >> >> These articles seem to confirm this: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery >> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm >> >> >> Ray O > > I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is > refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 > gallons of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic > value. So the economic value of the output of the refining process needs > to be distributed among the products produced. But you said, "No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted to." Which is completely false. Now, you're backpeddling. -- Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:20:21 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote: > >"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:i8I7k.10929$3F5.1056@bignews2.bellsouth.net. .. >> >> There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is >> made into gasoline during the refining process, the remaining half is made >> into other products that sell for about the same price as gasoline (on >> average). So you can either assume that a barrel of oil does produce 42 >> gallons (they could do that if they wanted to), or the price per barrel >> should be cut in half, since the other half of the barrel is made into >> other valuable petroleum products. >> >> Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel and our car averages 25 miles per >> gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than >> a month. You claim it only lasts 1 day. >> >> Now who is the moron? > > I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence >meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on >each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far >less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage to >squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel tank >(at today's price). > Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and other merchandise you want and need? The truth is that per capita consumption of oil in the US is little more than two barrels a month. A typical family of four would go through a barrel in about three days. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hj9764hihcg54aj7g1asp6psc7r4lmn391@4ax.com... > Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, > generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and > other merchandise you want and need? Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in the northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as crude oil. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:41:14 "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote... >> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, >> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and >> other merchandise you want and need? > >Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in the >northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as crude >oil. Okay, I have to call you on this one. Natural gas for mobile applications is not practical, except for fleet uses like city buses or trash trucks where they can have refueling stations at the fleet yard - a miniscule fraction of overall transportation fuel use. The energy density is not there with CNG, the vehicles are literally built around huge fuel tanks and they still have to be refueled every night with a compressor station that takes energy to run. And LNG is hazardous to handle without special training - and you have to expend energy to refrigerate and liquefy the gas. And coal is unheard of for transportation - the steam railroad locomotive is the only practical transportation prime mover that can burn coal, and they are long extinct. And the EPA and State AQMD's will not let the steam locomotive come back burning coal or wood - the survivors still operating in museums and excursion duty are mostly converted to oil burners. And if you add up all the various uses of crude oil to make all the raw materials that go into the finished goods you buy or eat or use every day, and transport them through the manufacturing chain to you, two 42-gallon barrels a day per person is not out of the question. Train Locomotives run on "red diesel" (plain diesel that is dyed red to quickly show the road-use taxes were not paid if it is put in a road car or truck), not natural gas or coal. Almost all farm tractors and powered implements run on red diesel, not natural gas or coal. Steam tractors and stationary engine "Steam Jenny's" are extinct too. Virtually all over-the-road cargo trucking is done with diesel powered tractors, not natural gas or coal. Much of the northeast US is not piped for natural gas for heating and cooking energy, even though the population density is there to support it. They use "Distillate #2" heating oil (which is basically red diesel) or Propane, not natural gas or coal. Much of rural America outside heavily populated cities isn't piped for natural gas for heat, so they have to use either heating oil or Propane - which is an oil byproduct - and not natural gas or coal. And that fuel delivery truck is burning diesel or propane to get the fuel to your home tank. The only time it is practical to use coal-fired furnaces or boilers is large industrial or educational sites or electricity generating plants, where the wages of stationary engineer(s) can be justified to fire and monitor the system. It can only be made semi-automatic, it still needs a person to monitor it. And the pollution control equipment (fluidized bed combustion, stack scrubbers) is too large and heavy to be made mobile. Electricity is too inefficient for resistance space heating and only marginally better running a heat pump, so electricity is usually not the primary choice for heating. If nuclear electric generation had caught on and truly made electricity "too cheap to meter" as they promised in the 1950's we wouldn't worry about efficiency. But it didn't, so we do. Electricity generation and stationary large boiler plants are about the only place that coal and natural gas is still a large prime-mover energy source. SOLUTIONS: If we are going to work our way out of this corner, cranking up to mass production levels of biodiesel from canola or rapeseed, and mass production levels of ethanol from sugar cane or switchgrass or cornstalks (and other non-foodstuff agricultural wastes) is going to be a critical factor. We MUST abandon corn as a primary ethanol source - we're removing edible food and food-growing acreage from the food supply stream, choosing between eating or moving. And if we have floods droughts or other crop failures, energy and food both take a hit. There are too many mobile uses where you need the energy density and ease of use and fueling of a diesel fuel or E-85 Gasohol. Hydrogen is way too far out on the horizon and has severe safety problems, and both pure ethanol and hydrogen are unsafe (invisible fires). But Biodiesel and E-85 "Flex Fuel" Gasohol we can do with current technology, and we need to start NOW. With a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project" level of urgency. And we also need to start drilling and putting new oil wells into production NOW. A postage-stamp sized plot in ANWR, deep water off the coasts, deep water in the Gulf. We can do it, quickly, without oil spills and disruption - but we need a unified will and shove the NIMBY whiners off the nearest cliff.... The platforms will be at or over the horizon, so the Hollywood Glitterati can complain that those few platforms will spoil their million-dollar views from Malibu or Monterrey or Key West or Hyannisport - but we all know it's a load of unexpurgated bullshit. Make it a goal for the US to be energy self-sufficient and not import a drop of crude oil inside 10 years unless we choose to, and tell OPEC they can eat sand and drink crude oil if they don't like it. --<< Bruce >>-- |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Bruce L. Bergman" <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:kvr864ltmoiou4cg5c6vf7encr2ph4r90d@4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:41:14 "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote... > >>> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, >>> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and >>> other merchandise you want and need? >> >>Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in >>the >>northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as >>crude >>oil. > > Okay, I have to call you on this one. > > Natural gas for mobile applications is not practical, except for > fleet uses like city buses or trash trucks where they can have > refueling stations at the fleet yard - a miniscule fraction of overall > transportation fuel use. > > The energy density is not there with CNG, the vehicles are literally > built around huge fuel tanks and they still have to be refueled every > night with a compressor station that takes energy to run. And LNG is > hazardous to handle without special training - and you have to expend > energy to refrigerate and liquefy the gas. > > And coal is unheard of for transportation - the steam railroad > locomotive is the only practical transportation prime mover that can > burn coal, and they are long extinct. > > And the EPA and State AQMD's will not let the steam locomotive come > back burning coal or wood - the survivors still operating in museums > and excursion duty are mostly converted to oil burners. > > And if you add up all the various uses of crude oil to make all the > raw materials that go into the finished goods you buy or eat or use > every day, and transport them through the manufacturing chain to you, > two 42-gallon barrels a day per person is not out of the question. > > Train Locomotives run on "red diesel" (plain diesel that is dyed red > to quickly show the road-use taxes were not paid if it is put in a > road car or truck), not natural gas or coal. > > Almost all farm tractors and powered implements run on red diesel, > not natural gas or coal. Steam tractors and stationary engine "Steam > Jenny's" are extinct too. > > Virtually all over-the-road cargo trucking is done with diesel > powered tractors, not natural gas or coal. > > Much of the northeast US is not piped for natural gas for heating > and cooking energy, even though the population density is there to > support it. They use "Distillate #2" heating oil (which is basically > red diesel) or Propane, not natural gas or coal. > > Much of rural America outside heavily populated cities isn't piped > for natural gas for heat, so they have to use either heating oil or > Propane - which is an oil byproduct - and not natural gas or coal. > > And that fuel delivery truck is burning diesel or propane to get the > fuel to your home tank. > > The only time it is practical to use coal-fired furnaces or boilers > is large industrial or educational sites or electricity generating > plants, where the wages of stationary engineer(s) can be justified to > fire and monitor the system. It can only be made semi-automatic, it > still needs a person to monitor it. And the pollution control > equipment (fluidized bed combustion, stack scrubbers) is too large and > heavy to be made mobile. > > Electricity is too inefficient for resistance space heating and only > marginally better running a heat pump, so electricity is usually not > the primary choice for heating. If nuclear electric generation had > caught on and truly made electricity "too cheap to meter" as they > promised in the 1950's we wouldn't worry about efficiency. But it > didn't, so we do. > > Electricity generation and stationary large boiler plants are about > the only place that coal and natural gas is still a large prime-mover > energy source. > --<< Bruce >>-- I was referring to "heat your homes, and generate your electricity." Most of these 2 are done with natural gas or coal, except in the northeast as I noted. In some places like Florida, heating is often electric, but their electricity is generated from natural gas or coal. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
One can buy a home heating unit that can burn anthracite coal or fuel oil.
I use coal and oil in two of my Pennsylvania homes. It is much more economical to burn coal during the heating season, September through May. It is more convenient to burn fuel oil to heat domestic hot water in the warm months, not ash to be disposed. The ratio of coal to oil use is one ton of anthracite coal to 200 gallons of oil. Coal is currently $150 per ton and oil $4.20 a gallon. Anthracite coal burns cleaner than fuel oil. You can do the math. There are several manufactures in Pa the offer this type of home heating unit. One is EFM Manufacturing in Emmaus Pa. The price of around $6,000 will be amortized in a relatively few years "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:6g49k.14478$Xe.4315@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "Bruce L. Bergman" <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message > news:kvr864ltmoiou4cg5c6vf7encr2ph4r90d@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:41:14 "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote... >> >>>> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, >>>> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and >>>> other merchandise you want and need? >>> >>>Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in >>>the >>>northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as >>>crude >>>oil. >> >> Okay, I have to call you on this one. >> >> Natural gas for mobile applications is not practical, except for >> fleet uses like city buses or trash trucks where they can have >> refueling stations at the fleet yard - a miniscule fraction of overall >> transportation fuel use. >> >> The energy density is not there with CNG, the vehicles are literally >> built around huge fuel tanks and they still have to be refueled every >> night with a compressor station that takes energy to run. And LNG is >> hazardous to handle without special training - and you have to expend >> energy to refrigerate and liquefy the gas. >> >> And coal is unheard of for transportation - the steam railroad >> locomotive is the only practical transportation prime mover that can >> burn coal, and they are long extinct. >> >> And the EPA and State AQMD's will not let the steam locomotive come >> back burning coal or wood - the survivors still operating in museums >> and excursion duty are mostly converted to oil burners. >> >> And if you add up all the various uses of crude oil to make all the >> raw materials that go into the finished goods you buy or eat or use >> every day, and transport them through the manufacturing chain to you, >> two 42-gallon barrels a day per person is not out of the question. >> >> Train Locomotives run on "red diesel" (plain diesel that is dyed red >> to quickly show the road-use taxes were not paid if it is put in a >> road car or truck), not natural gas or coal. >> >> Almost all farm tractors and powered implements run on red diesel, >> not natural gas or coal. Steam tractors and stationary engine "Steam >> Jenny's" are extinct too. >> >> Virtually all over-the-road cargo trucking is done with diesel >> powered tractors, not natural gas or coal. >> >> Much of the northeast US is not piped for natural gas for heating >> and cooking energy, even though the population density is there to >> support it. They use "Distillate #2" heating oil (which is basically >> red diesel) or Propane, not natural gas or coal. >> >> Much of rural America outside heavily populated cities isn't piped >> for natural gas for heat, so they have to use either heating oil or >> Propane - which is an oil byproduct - and not natural gas or coal. >> >> And that fuel delivery truck is burning diesel or propane to get the >> fuel to your home tank. >> >> The only time it is practical to use coal-fired furnaces or boilers >> is large industrial or educational sites or electricity generating >> plants, where the wages of stationary engineer(s) can be justified to >> fire and monitor the system. It can only be made semi-automatic, it >> still needs a person to monitor it. And the pollution control >> equipment (fluidized bed combustion, stack scrubbers) is too large and >> heavy to be made mobile. >> >> Electricity is too inefficient for resistance space heating and only >> marginally better running a heat pump, so electricity is usually not >> the primary choice for heating. If nuclear electric generation had >> caught on and truly made electricity "too cheap to meter" as they >> promised in the 1950's we wouldn't worry about efficiency. But it >> didn't, so we do. >> >> Electricity generation and stationary large boiler plants are about >> the only place that coal and natural gas is still a large prime-mover >> energy source. >> --<< Bruce >>-- > > I was referring to "heat your homes, and generate your electricity." > > Most of these 2 are done with natural gas or coal, except in the northeast > as I noted. In some places like Florida, heating is often electric, but > their electricity is generated from natural gas or coal. > |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:41:14 "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote... > >>> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, >>> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and >>> other merchandise you want and need? >> >> Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe >> in the northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not >> as much as crude oil. > > Okay, I have to call you on this one. > > Natural gas for mobile applications is not practical, except for > fleet uses like city buses or trash trucks where they can have > refueling stations at the fleet yard - a miniscule fraction of overall > transportation fuel use. > > The energy density is not there with CNG, the vehicles are literally > built around huge fuel tanks and they still have to be refueled every > night with a compressor station that takes energy to run. And LNG is > hazardous to handle without special training - and you have to expend > energy to refrigerate and liquefy the gas. > > And coal is unheard of for transportation - the steam railroad > locomotive is the only practical transportation prime mover that can > burn coal, and they are long extinct. > > And the EPA and State AQMD's will not let the steam locomotive come > back burning coal or wood - the survivors still operating in museums > and excursion duty are mostly converted to oil burners. > > And if you add up all the various uses of crude oil to make all the > raw materials that go into the finished goods you buy or eat or use > every day, and transport them through the manufacturing chain to you, > two 42-gallon barrels a day per person is not out of the question. > > Train Locomotives run on "red diesel" (plain diesel that is dyed red > to quickly show the road-use taxes were not paid if it is put in a > road car or truck), not natural gas or coal. > > Almost all farm tractors and powered implements run on red diesel, > not natural gas or coal. Steam tractors and stationary engine "Steam > Jenny's" are extinct too. > > Virtually all over-the-road cargo trucking is done with diesel > powered tractors, not natural gas or coal. > > Much of the northeast US is not piped for natural gas for heating > and cooking energy, even though the population density is there to > support it. They use "Distillate #2" heating oil (which is basically > red diesel) or Propane, not natural gas or coal. > > Much of rural America outside heavily populated cities isn't piped > for natural gas for heat, so they have to use either heating oil or > Propane - which is an oil byproduct - and not natural gas or coal. > > And that fuel delivery truck is burning diesel or propane to get the > fuel to your home tank. > > The only time it is practical to use coal-fired furnaces or boilers > is large industrial or educational sites or electricity generating > plants, where the wages of stationary engineer(s) can be justified to > fire and monitor the system. It can only be made semi-automatic, it > still needs a person to monitor it. And the pollution control > equipment (fluidized bed combustion, stack scrubbers) is too large and > heavy to be made mobile. > > Electricity is too inefficient for resistance space heating and only > marginally better running a heat pump, so electricity is usually not > the primary choice for heating. If nuclear electric generation had > caught on and truly made electricity "too cheap to meter" as they > promised in the 1950's we wouldn't worry about efficiency. But it > didn't, so we do. > > Electricity generation and stationary large boiler plants are about > the only place that coal and natural gas is still a large prime-mover > energy source. > > SOLUTIONS: > > If we are going to work our way out of this corner, cranking up to > mass production levels of biodiesel from canola or rapeseed, and mass > production levels of ethanol from sugar cane or switchgrass or > cornstalks (and other non-foodstuff agricultural wastes) is going to > be a critical factor. > > We MUST abandon corn as a primary ethanol source - we're removing > edible food and food-growing acreage from the food supply stream, > choosing between eating or moving. And if we have floods droughts or > other crop failures, energy and food both take a hit. > > There are too many mobile uses where you need the energy density and > ease of use and fueling of a diesel fuel or E-85 Gasohol. Hydrogen is > way too far out on the horizon and has severe safety problems, and > both pure ethanol and hydrogen are unsafe (invisible fires). > > But Biodiesel and E-85 "Flex Fuel" Gasohol we can do with current > technology, and we need to start NOW. With a "Manhattan Project" or > "Apollo Project" level of urgency. > > And we also need to start drilling and putting new oil wells into > production NOW. A postage-stamp sized plot in ANWR, deep water off > the coasts, deep water in the Gulf. We can do it, quickly, without > oil spills and disruption - but we need a unified will and shove the > NIMBY whiners off the nearest cliff.... > > The platforms will be at or over the horizon, so the Hollywood > Glitterati can complain that those few platforms will spoil their > million-dollar views from Malibu or Monterrey or Key West or > Hyannisport - but we all know it's a load of unexpurgated bullshit. > > Make it a goal for the US to be energy self-sufficient and not > import a drop of crude oil inside 10 years unless we choose to, and > tell OPEC they can eat sand and drink crude oil if they don't like it. > > --<< Bruce >>-- http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"Commentator" <commentator@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GLg9k.22048$5Y1.32@fe195.usenetserver.com... > Bruce L. Bergman wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:41:14 "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote... >> >>>> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes, >>>> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and >>>> other merchandise you want and need? >>> >>> Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe >>> in the northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not >>> as much as crude oil. >> >> Okay, I have to call you on this one. >> >> Natural gas for mobile applications is not practical, except for >> fleet uses like city buses or trash trucks where they can have >> refueling stations at the fleet yard - a miniscule fraction of overall >> transportation fuel use. >> >> The energy density is not there with CNG, the vehicles are literally >> built around huge fuel tanks and they still have to be refueled every >> night with a compressor station that takes energy to run. And LNG is >> hazardous to handle without special training - and you have to expend >> energy to refrigerate and liquefy the gas. >> >> And coal is unheard of for transportation - the steam railroad >> locomotive is the only practical transportation prime mover that can >> burn coal, and they are long extinct. >> >> And the EPA and State AQMD's will not let the steam locomotive come >> back burning coal or wood - the survivors still operating in museums >> and excursion duty are mostly converted to oil burners. >> >> And if you add up all the various uses of crude oil to make all the >> raw materials that go into the finished goods you buy or eat or use >> every day, and transport them through the manufacturing chain to you, >> two 42-gallon barrels a day per person is not out of the question. >> >> Train Locomotives run on "red diesel" (plain diesel that is dyed red >> to quickly show the road-use taxes were not paid if it is put in a >> road car or truck), not natural gas or coal. >> >> Almost all farm tractors and powered implements run on red diesel, >> not natural gas or coal. Steam tractors and stationary engine "Steam >> Jenny's" are extinct too. >> >> Virtually all over-the-road cargo trucking is done with diesel >> powered tractors, not natural gas or coal. >> >> Much of the northeast US is not piped for natural gas for heating >> and cooking energy, even though the population density is there to >> support it. They use "Distillate #2" heating oil (which is basically >> red diesel) or Propane, not natural gas or coal. >> >> Much of rural America outside heavily populated cities isn't piped >> for natural gas for heat, so they have to use either heating oil or >> Propane - which is an oil byproduct - and not natural gas or coal. >> >> And that fuel delivery truck is burning diesel or propane to get the >> fuel to your home tank. >> >> The only time it is practical to use coal-fired furnaces or boilers >> is large industrial or educational sites or electricity generating >> plants, where the wages of stationary engineer(s) can be justified to >> fire and monitor the system. It can only be made semi-automatic, it >> still needs a person to monitor it. And the pollution control >> equipment (fluidized bed combustion, stack scrubbers) is too large and >> heavy to be made mobile. >> >> Electricity is too inefficient for resistance space heating and only >> marginally better running a heat pump, so electricity is usually not >> the primary choice for heating. If nuclear electric generation had >> caught on and truly made electricity "too cheap to meter" as they >> promised in the 1950's we wouldn't worry about efficiency. But it >> didn't, so we do. >> >> Electricity generation and stationary large boiler plants are about >> the only place that coal and natural gas is still a large prime-mover >> energy source. >> >> SOLUTIONS: >> >> If we are going to work our way out of this corner, cranking up to >> mass production levels of biodiesel from canola or rapeseed, and mass >> production levels of ethanol from sugar cane or switchgrass or >> cornstalks (and other non-foodstuff agricultural wastes) is going to >> be a critical factor. >> >> We MUST abandon corn as a primary ethanol source - we're removing >> edible food and food-growing acreage from the food supply stream, >> choosing between eating or moving. And if we have floods droughts or >> other crop failures, energy and food both take a hit. >> >> There are too many mobile uses where you need the energy density and >> ease of use and fueling of a diesel fuel or E-85 Gasohol. Hydrogen is >> way too far out on the horizon and has severe safety problems, and >> both pure ethanol and hydrogen are unsafe (invisible fires). >> >> But Biodiesel and E-85 "Flex Fuel" Gasohol we can do with current >> technology, and we need to start NOW. With a "Manhattan Project" or >> "Apollo Project" level of urgency. >> >> And we also need to start drilling and putting new oil wells into >> production NOW. A postage-stamp sized plot in ANWR, deep water off >> the coasts, deep water in the Gulf. We can do it, quickly, without >> oil spills and disruption - but we need a unified will and shove the >> NIMBY whiners off the nearest cliff.... >> >> The platforms will be at or over the horizon, so the Hollywood >> Glitterati can complain that those few platforms will spoil their >> million-dollar views from Malibu or Monterrey or Key West or >> Hyannisport - but we all know it's a load of unexpurgated bullshit. >> >> Make it a goal for the US to be energy self-sufficient and not >> import a drop of crude oil inside 10 years unless we choose to, and >> tell OPEC they can eat sand and drink crude oil if they don't like it. >> >> --<< Bruce >>-- > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY Too bad he played the god card after his -based hypocrisy was revealed. He's got some good stuff to say on other subjects. |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:33:19 GMT, "Dont Taze Me, Bro!"
<DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote: > >"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net. .. >> Price per barrel: >> >> Oil $133 >> Coca Cola $126 >> Milk $163 >> Perrier Water $300 >> Budweiser $447 >> Starbucks Latte $954 >> Ben & Jerry's $1,609 >> Tabasco Sauce $6,155 >> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560 > >This has been posted in here before and let me say again, it is f-ing >retarded. Are you an apologist for big oil? > >I am sorry but how much Ben and Jerry's do you need? How much Tabasco sauce >do you need? How much Perrier do you need? Furthermore, how the f__k do you >think that stuff gets to your location when you do decide to dabble in it? > >Stop being a dumbass moron. How many Kg of Cashew nuts to the barrel? Sanisbury's 100g bag £14.40/Kg Tesco 250g bag £5.28/Kg Bet Lidi is cheaper. -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets! |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:F7KdnYbiya2pHf3VnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Mark A wrote: > > "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message > > news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. .. > >> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is > >> economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude > >> oil because the crude oil has different components with different > >> properties. > >> > >> These articles seem to confirm this: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery > >> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm > >> > >> > >> Ray O > > > > I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is > > refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons > > of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value. > > with just distillation, that would be about right, though it depends on > what's being distilled. however, if we introduce modern hydrocracking > and catalysis, which refiners do in fact use, we can get substantially > more than 21 gallons of gasoline [and a lower quantity of heavier product]. Providing it's not Venezualian crude "Venezuelan crude yields little gasoline (about 5%), whereas Texas or Arabian crude yields about 30% gasoline. This is called "straight run" gasoline." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/eng99288.htm |
Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...
Dave wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:F7KdnYbiya2pHf3VnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Mark A wrote: >>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message >>> news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. .. >>>> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is >>>> economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude >>>> oil because the crude oil has different components with different >>>> properties. >>>> >>>> These articles seem to confirm this: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery >>>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> Ray O >>> I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is >>> refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons >>> of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value. >> with just distillation, that would be about right, though it depends on >> what's being distilled. however, if we introduce modern hydrocracking >> and catalysis, which refiners do in fact use, we can get substantially >> more than 21 gallons of gasoline [and a lower quantity of heavier product]. > > > Providing it's not Venezualian crude > > "Venezuelan crude yields little gasoline (about 5%), > whereas Texas or Arabian crude yields about 30% gasoline. This is called > "straight run" gasoline." > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/eng99288.htm > "straight run" is simple distillation. ability to turn heavy hydrocarbons into lighter ones is why catalysis is such a big deal. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands