America... Watch Out!
Granted we will not be solely relying on the SPR, in fact, it is highly doubtful the President will release any more than (my guess) 3-5 million barrels to keep the refineries from drying out while waiting for their shipments.
Now a little history on the SPR. The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis and accepted its' first delivery in '77. The fill was suspended in '95 for budgetary reasons/refurbishing and was resumed in '99. Just recently (August 17th to be exact) the SPR reached the 700 million barrel fill mark. There has been three times the SPR has been "tapped" - 1985 for a test sale of 1.1 million barrels, 1990-1 (Desert Storm) - 21 million barrels, 1996-7 non-emergency sales for deficit reduction - 28 million barrels.
*** Edited 8/31/2005 2:18:02 PM UTC by redman822***
--George H
We need a few new refineries and guess what everyone says to that. Not in my back yard!
*Gets off Soapbox*
It kind of put it in perspective to me exactly how much gas has gone up in the last 5 years. In 1999 gas prices started going up from what we were then used to paying 99 cents a gallon. I worked at a car wash/gas station from 98-00 and sometimes I got to take on the task of changing the gas prices which we did about once every two weeks when I started in 98 and by the time I left in 2000 we were changing prices twice a week.
I remember how customers pulling into the station would curse at me when I went out to change the prices in 2000, back when we thought gas was out of control. I still remember the amount as well as I was getting reamed because people were complaining about having to pay...
$1.29 a gallon.
We've come a long way since then and I can only imagine what those gas pump attendants are going through right now.
~Rob Willi
This is insane.
-Tina
Well, probably, but not exactly. A lot of scientists seem to believe that efficiently producing hydrogen as a byproduct of electricity generation via nuclear fission is a workable problem. As always, there would be a significant cost in re-engineering nuclear plants, but there's no doubt that the government would subsidize the crap out of that move. Even Bush the oil tycoon agrees with that.
Impulse-ive said:
Hydrogen, as was mentioned before, is probably the least viable of the alternative fuels out there.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
--George H
The problem with Hydrogen is storing it. Other than that, It's extremely efficient and powerful.
Basically about Half of Hydrogens molecules are dead space requiring twice the amount of storage for the amount of Hydrogen needed.
When they started developing Hydrogen Vehicles it took the whole back of a van full of Hydrogen fuel cells to run about 80 miles. Now they got it to about a 30 gallon cell to run 200 miles.
It will be awhile but Im sure it can be done.
Chuck
http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-nucleon
Granted it's about 50 years late and still a very scary concept for me to accept. I wouldn't want to be behind the wheel of a "portable nuclear reactor." Although coaster trips would be quite a bit cheaper.
~Rob Willi
there would be a significant cost in re-engineering nuclear plants
The problem with Hydrogen is storing it
There's a third problem; all the Automotive Engineering faculty around here that work on hydrogen also worry about the distribution infrastructure, which is related to the storage problem, but goes beyond it. For example, Hydrogen makes gasoline look about as flammable as water.
Hydrogen is waaay off in the distance as a mass-producible, sustainable alternative.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739
But the solution — boosting refining capacity to allow a greater margin for error — isn’t easy. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction. Used refineries currently sell for about 30 to 50 percent of the cost of building a new one, so it’s cheaper to buy an old refinery and upgrade it. Or squeeze a little more gasoline out of the refineries you already own.
We keep hearing the same thing over and over again. To date, the politicians (more a local issue) have resisted any action to decrease environmental standards so as to increase the possibilities for refinery production. You have to wonder if there mught be a public outcry coming that may shake things up a bit. Absent the availability of alternative fuel sources anytime soon (which I'm all for), I think it is clear that we either need more refinery capacity in the country OR we can expect the exponential gas price increases to continue (the article suggests price inflation started in 1997)! It will be interesting to see how this shakes out politically. Some of the same people complaining about fuel prices are the first to support the most strict of environmental regulation. Something will have to give. While it is easy and correct to preach the virtues of alternative sources, it does not mean a hill of beans in the present when we do not appear anywhere close to sending the gas engine to the horse and buggy graveyard!
P.S. I don't want a refinery in my back yard! :-)
P.P.S. I see no way that certain states (California for instance) will ever decrease their environmental standards in the name of fuel price stabilization... This argument could get as nasty as one of my opinion posts on CB! :-)
P.S. cheapest gas price in my area... at Wawa... 2.77 for 87 octane and 2.97 for 93 octane. *** Edited 8/31/2005 6:14:38 PM UTC by dragonoffrost***
You must be logged in to post
