• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

Gas thoughts

Share this page

Bruce Bowker

Bruce Bowker

Obi Wan
Offline
With gas threatening to hit $5 a gallon (it is $6 here on Bonaire) it is not as if no one was warned. Decades ago we we were told oil would, one day, actually be gone. I attended the 1980 Ford Convention where Mr. Ford himself and his men in charge told the US that Ford would continue to make big cars that America wants. Soon after the Japanese proved very much different.

A few years ago too many people wanted big and bigger SUV's (not to mention big Hummers) while others warned it might not be a good idea saying gas will go up. And it did.

So if gas does hit $5 a gallon and someone has a vehicle that averages 10 miles to the gallon, if they bought a car that got 20 to the a gallon, it would be the same as if gas was $2.50 a gallon and so on until we should have vehicles that get 80 to the gallon or more. Back in 1959 the Mini was getting 40 or more. Someone was smart.

One problem I do see with selling less gas though is that the people who are the investors in the oil industry won't get the profits if less gas is sold so prices may have to go up only to satisfy investors.
 
I think that with world demand, the state of the US refinery infrastructure, and the many other issues affecting gas prices, that we will be LUCKY to go forward with stable price of $4 a gallon in the next 5-10 years.
 
I, respectfully, disagree. I think gas will drop in the future. This whole thing has the look of a "bubble". Several analyst have stated the price of oil is way beyond supply and demand prices. While we will never see $1 a gallon again, I believe gas will go down. Then again, I saw the tooth fairy last night. :hammer:
 
Buy stock in railroads... :devilgrin:
 
Maybe Chesapeake and Ohio passenger travel?
 

Attachments

  • 11614.jpg
    11614.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 330
I have gas thoughts, but then we have a lot of Green Chili here in New Mexico.
 
In the 1820s, wagon transport was getting way too expensive (feeding those oxen was *real* pricey!). So people started investing in canals (Erie, Hudson, etc.).

Within 10 years the canals were obsolete. Something called a "rail road" had arrived.

(I'm betting oil drops in price, due to the speculation bubble bursting. But gas prices won't go down.)

Tom
 
DrEntropy said:
Buy stock in railroads... :devilgrin:
Click to expand...

We went through something similar in the 70s, and the rail industry was getting very concerned with being dependent on Diesel. I can't remember which rail line did it, but one of them went as far as to put engineers to work designing a new steam locomotive to replace, or at least supplement the need for diesel on the non-electrified lines.

A problem they had (apparently) was a lack of really good data on steam. Even though it had been used for 100+ years, they didn't have the specific details they wanted to look for. So, they rebuilt a steam locomotive and put it to work on a daily basis, hauling freight.

The story goes that the oil concerns (both supply and price) faded roughly a year after they got their steam testbed on the rails. There was no longer the demand for the steam locomotive, so the project was scrapped.

WOO-WOO! :laugh:
301266527_HAs2E-L-0.gif
 
aerog said:
DrEntropy said:
Buy stock in railroads... :devilgrin:
Click to expand...

We went through something similar in the 70s, and the rail industry was getting very concerned with being dependent on Diesel. I can't remember which rail line did it, but one of them went as far as to put engineers to work designing a new steam locomotive to replace, or at least supplement the need for diesel on the non-electrified lines.

A problem they had (apparently) was a lack of really good data on steam. Even though it had been used for 100+ years, they didn't have the specific details they wanted to look for. So, they rebuilt a steam locomotive and put it to work on a daily basis, hauling freight.

The story goes that the oil concerns (both supply and price) faded roughly a year after they got their steam testbed on the rails. There was no longer the demand for the steam locomotive, so the project was scrapped.

WOO-WOO! :laugh:
301266527_HAs2E-L-0.gif
Click to expand...

I vaguely recall reading something about this in a book. I know the C&O tested steam turbine locomotives, for it's stillborn flagship <span style="font-style: italic">The Chessie</span>. Union Pacific used oil fueled turbines in the sixties, but for freight only.

My new job takes me into Chicago every day, and I happily take Metra. Aside from not having to deal with traffic into the city every morning, not driving five days a week means I'm filling up every two weeks or more.

Its too bad that intercity rail was killed off back in the seventies. I've been trying to visit my sister in Nashville, but Amtrak does not go there-plenty of lines did back in the day, though. I refuse to go to the hassle of flying that short a distance and I don't want to pay for the gas.

-Wm.
 
It might have well been Chessie that ran the tests. The films I saw were of an <span style="font-style: italic">old</span> locomotive. Whatever they were watching was technical data they didn't keep, or had no way of recording when they were mainstream.
 
aerog said:
It might have well been Chessie that ran the tests. The films I saw were of an <span style="font-style: italic">old</span> locomotive. Whatever they were watching was technical data they didn't keep, or had no way of recording when they were mainstream.
Click to expand...

The C&O streamliner was the M-1, built by Baldwin in 1947-ish. It was a coal fired steam turbine/electric. Reliability problems were never solved, so the project was shelved. Massive engines, the biggest built at the time.

Coal, of course, isn't really a solution to oil use. Wonder if a steam turbine can be fired by ethanol fuels?

-Wm.
 
ethanol just runs up the cost of grain/cereal foods, because they stop planting as much other grains to make way for the corn needed to make the ethanol, because they make more money for the corn.

Ethanol is not the answer, it is the beginning of a bigger problem.
 
William said:
Wonder if a steam turbine can be fired by ethanol fuels?
Click to expand...

Of course. It can also be powered by uranium. A nuke plant is just a big steam-driven turbine generator. :smile:
 
Personal flatulent methane gas reclamation! I smell a solution. :devilgrin:

I agree with the bubble idea. When the price gets high enough to really affect usage, it will stabilize
 
rlwhitetr3b said:
Personal flatulent methane gas reclamation! I smell a solution. :devilgrin:

I agree with the bubble idea. When the price gets high enough to really affect usage, it will stabilize
Click to expand...


For that source, you need to see my thread titled "Four more weeks!"
 
kennypinkerton said:
ethanol just runs up the cost of grain/cereal foods, because they stop planting as much other grains to make way for the corn needed to make the ethanol, because they make more money for the corn.

Ethanol is not the answer, it is the beginning of a bigger problem.
Click to expand...

Didn't think of that.
 
GregW said:
Basil said:
I have gas thoughts
Click to expand...
I limit my thoughts about that to "Is anyone standing nearby?"
Click to expand...
and the denser the crowd the better! :jester:
 
Back
Top