Fill'er up today Options

[mitchntx]

Katrina is gonna cause a $.20 spike in fuel costs .....

[v7guy]

Filled up last night before I went to work when I saw it was tearing through there and picking up speed, after I saw that several refineries had shut down, or diminshed productivity I knew the shit was going to hit the fan.

Still, $40 to fill her up makes me say ouch.

[Ojustracing]

Yeah Already done as of last night. It might be more than .20 if the oil platforms, refinaries become Junk. Enjoy a great end of the summer driving season. John

[Teutonic Speedra...]

Enjoy a great end of the summer driving season. John

Good thing I've only got two more scheduled track days this year......but I don't think the prices next year are going to be any better. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[BigEnos]

This is fantastic, right before I tow my car to Topeka. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/nutkick.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif)

Round trip is gonna be over $500 at this point just for gas.

[severous01]

i'm surprised that all you track gurus arent running alcohol as a daily thing. it's easy to set it up that way and it's cheaper. alcohol is only 1.75 a gal here. if i lived closer to the track i'd be running it all the time

[trackbird]

Alcohol contains less energy per unit than gasoline. You have to use considerably more of it (as in "tons" more), this negates some of the savings. And, alcohol fuel systems need drained and cleaned when not in use since they tend to accumlate water and nasty gunk. So, flushing the tank every week or so would cut into those savings. And, alcohol is hard on lines and fittings and causes them to have a very different (short?) lifespan. This is all off the top of my head (since I left Jegs years ago, I haven't had to field alcohol questions these days), but I think I'll stick to gasoline.

[bubba353z]

Isn't it about 2 to 1 - takes twice as much alcohol to make the same power as gasoline?

Doesn't it also wash down the cylinders?

[rmackintosh]

....my local gas stations are charging $3.29 a gallon TODAY for DEISEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

Gotta fill her up to go racing this weekend..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

[ProjectJ]

Yeah, I've always gone with the 2:1 figure. I'm sure it's not exact, but I'd say it's a safe guess given that on a carbureted car, you'll typically only need to increase your jet sizes about 50-75% (...usually)when converting to alcohol from gasoline.

Wash-down is a problem if you don't use a secondary lube in the fuel, like the "top-lube" we sell.

[pknowles]

I told the wife on my way out the door to top off the truck today because I also heard that gas is likely to go up because of the storm. I filled the truck up last week for $80 at a very cheap, but name brand station. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/nutkick.gif)

[98_1LE]

I spent $60 at QT yesterday.

[axoid]

Yeah, I've always gone with the 2:1 figure. I'm sure it's not exact, but I'd say it's a safe guess given that on a carbureted car, you'll typically only need to increase your jet sizes about 50-75% (...usually)when converting to alcohol from gasoline.

Wash-down is a problem if you don't use a secondary lube in the fuel, like the "top-lube" we sell.

I don't know about straight alcohol, but E85 (85% ethanol) only costs you about 10% on the gas mileage. It's also 100 octane, so you car run more compression or timing. I remember that Ford built a test car that could run on both E85 and standard gas and they got 10% more power out of the car on E85 and it ran cooler.

[z28barnett]

Not all alcohol is the same.

You see two main types.

Methanol - Made from natural Gas.

Ethanol - Around here know as "Moon-Shine"

So since Methanol is made from natural gas, it is a fossil fuel and a product mainly of the oil industry.

Ethanol is much less corrosive than Methanol and a denser hydrocarbon.

Methanol eats rubber, steel, aluminum, and many plastics. Cars running pure methanol need stainless Steel fuel tanks and chrome plated carbs ect.

Unless I get a big price difference, I will not run either one. Less energy for the same price is not a good deal.

I am not sure that ethanol is a good idea either. You grow corn with petro-chemical fertilizer and hall it to the Ethanol plant with diesel trucks and trains. Heat and process it to get Ethanol, more energy put in the process. Haul it by truck to service stations.

At the end of this process you may have used more oil to produce the ethanol than the energy that you will get from burning it. Bad idea, lose lose, situation.

There is no real alternative to what we are doing now.

Something really scary was a stat that I read one time about food production. They stated that we expend 3 calories (A measure of heat) of fossil fuel for every calorie of food that we eat.

Real simple, we will starve without oil. Not a good situation.

I don't have a solution, but these ideas that people are hanging their hopes on are pretty worthless, the truth of the matter is that it is alot worse than people think.

I don't like our boys dieing in Iraq, but that oil is very important.

Z28

[ProjectJ]

I remember that Ford built a test car that could run on both E85 and standard gas and they got 10% more power out of the car on E85 and it ran cooler.

Yeah, there were a number of those that came out a few years ago (maybe more). I think alot of them would run on both types of fuel (gas or E85). I guess they just didn't seem to catch on very well, as I haven't heard much about "flexible-fuel" vehicles lately.

[axoid]

I remember that Ford built a test car that could run on both E85 and standard gas and they got 10% more power out of the car on E85 and it ran cooler.

Yeah, there were a number of those that came out a few years ago (maybe more). I think alot of them would run on both types of fuel (gas or E85). I guess they just didn't seem to catch on very well, as I haven't heard much about "flexible-fuel" vehicles lately.

It's still a fairly big deal in Iowa, Minnesota and some of the grain belt states.

There is a load of oil burned in transporting and refining gasoline. Bus as it was said, there is no magic solution. Not Alcohol, Not Electricity, No Hydrogen.

[mitchntx]

Not walking ....

[nape]

The gas spike has already hit my local gas stations. $2.98 for Regular, 30 miles SW of Chicago. Add $.10 at each step above that.

[Pilot]

Not electricity? What about solar energy? Wind energy? Hydroelectric energy? Nuclear energy?

They each have their downfalls, but they CAN be completely independant from all fossil fuel resources.

[Rob Hood]

$2.82 for premium on base tonight...expect it to go up tomorrow as the in-town price jumped four cents today, from $2.91 to $2.95.

The way around this is to force the left-wing liberals out of their cars, thereby removing the "hypocrite" moniker attached to their socialist butts...and that will solve two things - gas prices will drop, and traffic congestion will go away. Make THEM ride the bus and carpool instead...

[z28barnett]

Not electricity? What about solar energy? Wind energy? Hydroelectric energy? Nuclear energy?

They each have their downfalls, but they CAN be completely independant from all fossil fuel resources.

Independence of fossil fuel and usefulness in real application to power needs are not compatiable goals at this time.

Electricty is mostly produced by fossil fuel.

Storage of electric power in compact ways is not very efficent.

Solar energy exists and has some uses but imagine the width of the roads required for solar cars with football field sized arrays on the roof. Wind energy has the same problem, difuse energy sources do not do a good job of meeting concentrated demand.

Hydroelectric causes problems also, silting, disruption of natural fishing, huge cost ect.

Nuclear energy (Fission) has an unproven life cycle cost. Waste that is toxic for 25,000 years and so on. Fusion holds great promise but it doesn't exist yet.

If you wound the US economy we would bleed oil.

The problem with alternative fuels is false hope. People hop right over huge problems with important sounding political sound bites. An example, Where is Arnolds Hydrogen powered Hummer? Big poltical sound bite about it, nothing happened.

I wish the hype around alternative fuels was true, but I have to live in the real world. Things are much more stark there, without the hollywood glow that politicans and media have cast.

The USA should be making a huge effort on future energy sources, what we have now is less than nothing, because it acts as a subsitute for a real effort.

It is even more depressing to realize that only about 25% of oil is used for fuel. The petrochemical use is enormous. This should be real eye opener to people like ourselves that drive a car with such a high percentage of plastic. All produced from oil.

I would love to have a quick easy answer, but it is very clear to me that people who offer those answers have no appreciation of the depth of the problem.,

Sorry, I will hop off the soap box now.

But if you disagree with me, I issue a challange, check deeper into the reality of the situation, that will be more useful than trying to tell me I am wrong. It is all physics, can't fool with mother nature. I may have messed up some details, but in general the energy situation is very bad and getting worse.



Z28

[Pilot]

I didn't mean to challenge you or even to say that I disagree with you. I also think the future of energy looks bleak, but I feel that there ARE advances to be made in those fields that could aid in a lot of our stationary power requirements. I don't know the numbers, but solar power apparently has a LOT of energy per quantity in comparison to say oil. From what I understand, we can only harness a small amount of that energy.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, or trying to say that we do have alternative power sources and are not reliant on oil. We are. I just wish there was some actual attempts at real development of those sources... and the use of materials other than plastics (which I dislike anyway).

[Rob Hood]

I'd love to have a solar-powered house. Living in Phoenix only makes sense...but the cost to convert the house will take too many years to pay off.

Go figure - France sells its surplus electricity generated by nuclear power...and we can't get a new nuke plant or oil refinery because of a bunch of hypocrites...

[mitchntx]

Nuclear energy (Fission) has an unproven life cycle cost. Waste that is toxic for 25,000 years and so on. Fusion holds great promise but it doesn't exist yet.

Will not argue about the long term toxicity of high level radioactive waste. A real problem.

But it is extremely manageable.

The nuke where I work generates about 500 cubic feet of high level waste in a fuel cycle (18 months). About 1/3 of that is recycleable (fuel reconstitution). That 350 cubic feet is a problem, granted. But realize just how big 350 cubic feet really is ... it will fill a room that measures less than 8' x 8' x 8'.

That's a small room filled problem for 12,000,000,000,000 watts of electric power generated over an 18 month cycle. (1200Mw/hr unit with a 98% capacity factor on an 18 month cycle)

The rest is considered low level and our nuke generates about 1/3 the amount that a large research type hospital generates.

The nuclear industry and technology has come a lot further than the hype of the '70s surrounding nukes. and one has to believe in the future ... a belief that the industry will continue to grow with technology and the amount of high level waste will continue to decline and the same technology will help dispose of what's left in a safe manner.

Most nukes generate somewhere in the $12-14 per megawatt hour.
A coal burner generates in the $11-13 per megawatt hour.
Gas/oil fired units are in the $18-24 per megawatt hour.

The difference between the 3 is the coal burners require a LOT of fossil energy to deliver the fuel to be burned. Gas and oil have obvious issues dealing with market trends.

A nuke is designed as a base loaded plant. It works best at 100% power. And they are designed and run for 18 or 24 month cycles. Of the 100+ nukes in the US, the industry had fewer than 20 scrams last year. That's a capacity factor well above 98%.

Not all is rosey. There are a handful of US plants that have had problems over the years ... 3 major problems since the nuke industry was born in the 60s. Three Mile Island, Milstone and Davis Besse. But, by design, nothing was released to the public, no one was ever in danger and the system has proven itself to work.

In each of those cases But those issues are being resolved.

And don't even bring up Chernobyl ... The US, France and Canada have no graphite moderated plants, the inherent problem that caused Chernobyl to pop. Only a few of the former Soviet owned plants are graphite moderated.

I suggest, if you are really interested, do some research, using data authored in the 90s and not rely on information gleened in the early 80s.

[robz71lm7]

:stupid:

I'll add the History Channel as a really neat re-enactment of the last hours of Chernobyl and you'll see why it happened. It was doomed from the day it started.

[Pilot]

:stupid:

I'll add the History Channel as a really neat re-enactment of the last hours of Chernobyl and you'll see why it happened. It was doomed from the day it started.

Saw that... it was cool. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[pknowles]

I worked in the Nuclear industry doing catasrophy research for a few years. Nuclear power has come a long way since the 60's, just like almost every other technology. The problem is that the new designs (for power generation) are built oversea's because we havn't built one since the 70's. Coal is still very cheap and in the end it comes down to cost. As gas prices rise, the shipping of coal may not be so cheap anymore. One good thing about Nuclear power is you pretty much know the operational costs up front, unless a catasrophy happens of course. I.E. the cost of refining U238 doesn't change as much as coal prices can.

Alternative energy sources all have issues although fuel cells look more and more promising. Europe pays about twice the price for gas that we do and guess what, they still use gas and deisel because alternative energy can't offer the same benifit for even eqaul money.

This post has been edited by pknowles: Aug 30 2005, 02:59 PM

[mitchntx]

The plant I work at came on-line in '90 and '92 respectively.

Do a search on CANDU reactors ... it takes it to whole level ...

Also, there is a "modular" designed reactor out there, which has the whole plant built in a controlled envronment, shipped to a licensed site and assembled. Significantly reduces build costs, licensing time and completion time. They are smaller reactors, at only about 650Mw ...

Look for the fleet operators (Exelon, Entergy, ...) to apply for a license to build a new plant in the near future ...

This industry has gotten a LOT smarter in the last 10 years ....

[robz71lm7]

Mitch how many MW are your current unit/units? The coal fired power plant I work at has three active units with 160, 180 and 270 MW respectively. Yes it's an old plant with our active units having been built in the 60's.

[mitchntx]

1200 Mw each ...

[z28barnett]

Mitch,

You raise some good points, and provide some good info from first hand experience.

The 8x8x8 room is a small volume. But it is important to note that you need to rent that room for 25,000 years or longer depending on what the half lives of the isotopes in question are.

I still don't have much faith in the life cycle cost. Even if the nuclear industry has gotten smarter, they thought they were smart enough back when the first plants were built. It stands to reason that time may show us that we are still pretty dumb.

Fusion would be the best solution but no pratical system exists at this time.

But on the plus side, nuclear energy is the only proven alternative to fossil fuels around. Even if it is a bad idea, we may have to go to it anyway.

Around here some plant is making oil from turkey guts, so many things are possible. But everything comes down to cost.

Z28

[rmackintosh]

...just filled up this morning..........

$72.15!!!

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif)

[mitchntx]

The 8x8x8 room is a small volume. But it is important to note that you need to rent that room for 25,000 years or longer depending on what the half lives of the isotopes in question are.

100% accurate ....

IF, technology stands still for the next 25,000 years ....

[BigEnos]

Where we get our electricity from is important, but the oil we use is a bigger immediate threat. The foreign policy implications alone are sobering enough, much less the economics of it all. No good alternative exists, but using as little as possible will go a long way toward lessening our dependence. That and new oil exploration anyway.

[TOO Z MAXX]

I think renewables have a place in helping with the energy problems, but no the answer to everything. Most of these so called envirormentalists think this is the answer to everything. I think most Americans for the most part are just a bunch of pigs and we all could conserve a hell of a lot more if we wanted to.
I still think solar could have a big future, not so much as a power plant, that would take to much space. The space is everyones rooftops, thats a lot of area that could be converted to solar and we wouldnt lose any open space or add the infrastructure. My next house, which I plan to build will run on solar. If you live in the house for more than 8 yeras it will pay for itself, plus I will be installing it myself so I am sure it will pay off for me even sooner.
Their is a company in LA and another one in San Jose that will take your hybrid car and add a solar panel to the roof and add more batterry capacity for 3 k or 6 k depending on which package you want. Some of these guys are getting over 150mpg with these hybrids.
Oh and I filled up 2 days ago for my Dodge Ram, $80.00

[z28barnett]

The 8x8x8 room is a small volume.  But it is important to note that you need to rent that room for 25,000 years or longer depending on what the half lives of the isotopes in question are.

100% accurate ....

IF, technology stands still for the next 25,000 years ....

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years.

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production. But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years. I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species.

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors? The USA should be able to perform better than the french. I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center? Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

This post has been edited by z28barnett: Aug 30 2005, 09:08 PM

[CMC #37]

2.93gal for reg. unleaded today at Interstate in my town. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Diesel 3.10

[gillbot]

Nuclear energy (Fission) has an unproven life cycle cost.  Waste that is toxic for 25,000 years and so on.  Fusion holds great promise but it doesn't exist yet.

Will not argue about the long term toxicity of high level radioactive waste. A real problem.

But it is extremely manageable.

The nuke where I work generates about 500 cubic feet of high level waste in a fuel cycle (18 months). About 1/3 of that is recycleable (fuel reconstitution). That 350 cubic feet is a problem, granted. But realize just how big 350 cubic feet really is ... it will fill a room that measures less than 8' x 8' x 8'.

That's a small room filled problem for 12,000,000,000,000 watts of electric power generated over an 18 month cycle. (1200Mw/hr unit with a 98% capacity factor on an 18 month cycle)

The rest is considered low level and our nuke generates about 1/3 the amount that a large research type hospital generates.

The nuclear industry and technology has come a lot further than the hype of the '70s surrounding nukes. and one has to believe in the future ... a belief that the industry will continue to grow with technology and the amount of high level waste will continue to decline and the same technology will help dispose of what's left in a safe manner.

Most nukes generate somewhere in the $12-14 per megawatt hour.
A coal burner generates in the $11-13 per megawatt hour.
Gas/oil fired units are in the $18-24 per megawatt hour.

The difference between the 3 is the coal burners require a LOT of fossil energy to deliver the fuel to be burned. Gas and oil have obvious issues dealing with market trends.

A nuke is designed as a base loaded plant. It works best at 100% power. And they are designed and run for 18 or 24 month cycles. Of the 100+ nukes in the US, the industry had fewer than 20 scrams last year. That's a capacity factor well above 98%.

Not all is rosey. There are a handful of US plants that have had problems over the years ... 3 major problems since the nuke industry was born in the 60s. Three Mile Island, Milstone and Davis Besse. But, by design, nothing was released to the public, no one was ever in danger and the system has proven itself to work.

In each of those cases But those issues are being resolved.

And don't even bring up Chernobyl ... The US, France and Canada have no graphite moderated plants, the inherent problem that caused Chernobyl to pop. Only a few of the former Soviet owned plants are graphite moderated.

I suggest, if you are really interested, do some research, using data authored in the 90s and not rely on information gleened in the early 80s.

The biggest problem in nukes is the people running it. I definately think nuke is a great source for power, I just wish the red tape was worked out.
EDIT> I forgot to mention, I used to work at a Nuke plant so yes, I AM BIASED. I was highly concerned as many are but after I worked there, it's a really great source of energy. There also really is NOT that much waste generated either. The plany I worked at was Beaver Valley Power Station in Shippingport PA and all of the spent fuel was stored onsite. That plant has been running since the 70's or something like that and ALL that used up fuel was contained in a storage pool about the size of an average americans backyard pool. That's not very much for 30+ years of power IMHO.

As for Ethanol, there's alot of info here:
http://e85fuel.com/index.php

E85 gives me more work so I'm ok with it!

This post has been edited by gillbot: Aug 30 2005, 09:48 PM

[Pilot]

As for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants... this might be a crazy thought... but what would be wrong with say launching the waste into the sun? I doubt we'll be going there anytime soon, and it is already a site of high levels of radiation and nuclear reactions... I can't imagine that would affect it too much...

[mitchntx]

As for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants... this might be a crazy thought... but what would be wrong with say launching the waste into the sun? I doubt we'll be going there anytime soon, and it is already a site of high levels of radiation and nuclear reactions... I can't imagine that would affect it too much...

Beaver Valley is a top performing plant ... what did you do there?

Pimp ... the cost of leaving the earth's atmosphere is too great ...

[mitchntx]

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years.

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production. But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years. I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species.

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors? The USA should be able to perform better than the french. I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center? Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

Don't lose sight of the fact of what "technology has done over the past 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...
There is no reason to think that technology will not continue to move forward.

The "waste" as we define it in 2005 and the "danger" as we define it in 2005 could very well be mitigated in 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...

I see it as the glass being 1/2 full ... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I can't even fathom your outlook about the dark ages and humans evolving back into monkeys, if that is your belief system. If it is and your vision is true, why would we care? Ouir species has ceased to exist ...

The trend right now is moving the opposite direction from that, though. I see no reason to believe anything but further advances.

Good discussion ...

The French adopted a "Henry Ford" mentality ... build them all the same and the costs remain low.

As it stands right now, there are not 2 reactors in the US that are identical. Each requires it's own unique set of operating procedures, training and maintenance. Capitalism at it's best, eh?

[axoid]

As for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants... this might be a crazy thought... but what would be wrong with say launching the waste into the sun? I doubt we'll be going there anytime soon, and it is already a site of high levels of radiation and nuclear reactions... I can't imagine that would affect it too much...

The first problem is it costs $10,000 per pound to launch something into space. The second problem is rockets fail and explode and then where is all of that material going.

The greenies go ape shit when NASA launches just 1 pound for nuclear material to power deep space probes.

[Pilot]

Well that's the cost by nasa's terms... what about alternative launch platforms? Something designed to offload waste wouldn't require anything in terms of crew safety, pressurization, climate control, etc etc.

My thought was just that if the waste becomes a serious issue due to the half life of the fuel, wouldn't the cost become justified?

[axoid]

Well that's the cost by nasa's terms... what about alternative launch platforms? Something designed to offload waste wouldn't require anything in terms of crew safety, pressurization, climate control, etc etc.

The 10 grand per pound is for an satellite launch, not the Shuttle. The only other launchers are the French, Chinese and the Japanese, all who have event worse success rates that NASA.

People freak out over trains carrying the stuff because of a possible accident. If a rocket blows up, it would dump 20+ tons of the stuff spread over a 5 state area.

[timyerby]

The hydroelectric is looking more promising every day.

Several companies are working on tidal systems that could be deployed in the ocean and provide lots of clean, renewable power.

Lots of links on this if you google em.

It won't be a short term fix because we have to build lots of them, but they could be a solution.

Also a lot of progress on hydroelectric systems that don't require a dam - they are just installed inside the river. We only have a few rivers that are capable of running significantly sized ones, but the Mississipi and Ohio are up to the task.

As far as the nuclear waste is concerned - why do you think we're trying to pump the middle east dry ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[mitchntx]

Hydro plants work fantastic .... where there is fast flowing water.
And we all know the environmentalists support building dams ...

And you can't generate electricity using hydro in Washington and ship it to Arizona.

Research VARS ... it's what keeps 60 cycles at 60 cycles over long transmission lines.

[TOO Z MAXX]

Using the tides and the ocean waves will not work that well. They are better off putting the money into wind and solar power.
I used to work in the wind industry. The wind industry had a very rocky start but the new machines they have out now are awesome. The wind farm I worked at had 336 65kw machines. We were able to mod these things out to 110 kw machines. We put on better gear boxes, rewound the generators and repitched and polished the blades. Now they come from the factory in 1 MW machines and higher. The only problem is no wind, no juice.

[Crazy Canuck]

it's 116.9 / liter here.
figure 4 liters per gallon.
that's way over 4$ / gallon.

[v7guy]

The highest I've seen on my limited outting today has been 2.98


Why is it I just keep getting the creepy feeling that this is just the begining (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[Ojustracing]

Well Overnight it went up .30.. Super is now $3.27 (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/nutkick.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/drink.gif) . I always see higher prices in California so I hate to think what its going to be out there for super $4.00+. Later John

[mitchntx]

It only jumped $.20 here, since yesterday morning ....

Premium (93) is $2.95

[AllZWay]

It jumped 25 cents yesterday. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[Teutonic Speedra...]

$3.03 to $3.53 here in NJ for 93!

[z28barnett]

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years. 

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production.  But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years.  I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species. 

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors?  The USA should be able to perform better than the french.  I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center?  Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

Don't lose sight of the fact of what "technology has done over the past 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...
There is no reason to think that technology will not continue to move forward.

The "waste" as we define it in 2005 and the "danger" as we define it in 2005 could very well be mitigated in 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...

I see it as the glass being 1/2 full ... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I can't even fathom your outlook about the dark ages and humans evolving back into monkeys, if that is your belief system. If it is and your vision is true, why would we care? Ouir species has ceased to exist ...

The trend right now is moving the opposite direction from that, though. I see no reason to believe anything but further advances.

Good discussion ...

The French adopted a "Henry Ford" mentality ... build them all the same and the costs remain low.

As it stands right now, there are not 2 reactors in the US that are identical. Each requires it's own unique set of operating procedures, training and maintenance. Capitalism at it's best, eh?

Mitch,

I was making a joke when I mentioned "Big Hairless Monkeys".

Not expecting de-evolution, I consider my self to be a big hairless monkey. Other people are BHM's to greater and lesser degree.

I don't really expect the darkages, but neither did the people of that time.

I don't think we will make that advances will help much with Nuclear Waste. Too fundamental of a problem, nature of matter its self.

The lack of standards is a real problem. What you describe is worse than I thought, not good.

I have allways wondered if the nuclear industry grew out of the need for spent fuel rods. Those spent rods can be used to produce nukes. Our huge nuke bomb supply may have need those rods. That would have allowed the cost of the warheads to be hidden partly in civil projects.

I know how freaked out everyone gets when there is even a hint of fuel rod reprocessing in any other country, like iran.

Z28

[mitchntx]

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years. 

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production.  But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years.   I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species. 

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors?   The USA should be able to perform better than the french.  I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center?  Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

Don't lose sight of the fact of what "technology has done over the past 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...
There is no reason to think that technology will not continue to move forward.

The "waste" as we define it in 2005 and the "danger" as we define it in 2005 could very well be mitigated in 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...

I see it as the glass being 1/2 full ... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I can't even fathom your outlook about the dark ages and humans evolving back into monkeys, if that is your belief system. If it is and your vision is true, why would we care? Ouir species has ceased to exist ...

The trend right now is moving the opposite direction from that, though. I see no reason to believe anything but further advances.

Good discussion ...

The French adopted a "Henry Ford" mentality ... build them all the same and the costs remain low.

As it stands right now, there are not 2 reactors in the US that are identical. Each requires it's own unique set of operating procedures, training and maintenance. Capitalism at it's best, eh?

Mitch,

I was making a joke when I mentioned "Big Hairless Monkeys".

Not expecting de-evolution, I consider my self to be a big hairless monkey. Other people are BHM's to greater and lesser degree.

I don't really expect the darkages, but neither did the people of that time.

I don't think we will make that advances will help much with Nuclear Waste. Too fundamental of a problem, nature of matter its self.

The lack of standards is a real problem. What you describe is worse than I thought, not good.

I have allways wondered if the nuclear industry grew out of the need for spent fuel rods. Those spent rods can be used to produce nukes. Our huge nuke bomb supply may have need those rods. That would have allowed the cost of the warheads to be hidden partly in civil projects.

I know how freaked out everyone gets when there is even a hint of fuel rod reprocessing in any other country, like iran.

Z28

I wasn't sure about your state of affairs as evolution went ... sorry 'bout missing that.

The uranium used to power nuke plants is in no way, shape or form resemble the uranium used in bombs. It's as different as apples and oranges. It would take tonage of power grade NEW nuke fuel to make firecracker's worth of weapons grade uranium.

Sure, the waste could be used to create widespread panic (note panic, not destruction) if blown up into the atmosphere. However, more destruction and havoc could be seen by polluting water supplies with a chemical agent.

And the agent is much cheaper and less conspicuous that a many 8x8x8 cubicles of waste needed to do the same job.

[Jeff97FST/A]

I've seen $3.15 in my part of New England - for 89 octane (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif)

Must've been one strong hurricane to have an effect on gas that's already in the stations tanks (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)

[Pilot]

3.29 here for 93 octane... Ugh.

[JonV]

I just paid 1.24 for a liter of regular.

1.24 x 4.5 ltr/ imp. gal = 5.54

I think we are going to see a lot of more of this too. In Europe they pay much more than we do here. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[z28barnett]

Premium $3.05 southern missouri.

[z28barnett]

[quote=mitchntx,Aug 31 2005, 11:31] [[/QUOTE]
I wasn't sure about your state of affairs as evolution went ... sorry 'bout missing that.

The uranium used to power nuke plants is in no way, shape or form resemble the uranium used in bombs. It's as different as apples and oranges. It would take tonage of power grade NEW nuke fuel to make firecracker's worth of weapons grade uranium.

Sure, the waste could be used to create widespread panic (note panic, not destruction) if blown up into the atmosphere. However, more destruction and havoc could be seen by polluting water supplies with a chemical agent.

And the agent is much cheaper and less conspicuous that a many 8x8x8 cubicles of waste needed to do the same job. [/quote]
Mitch,

Fuel rods are reprocessed for nuke production.

See below.

Z28

How Does Reprocessing Fuel Rods Help Build Nuclear Bombs?
By Brendan I. Koerner
Posted Friday, April 25, 2003, at 3:41 PM PT


Among North Korea's feather-ruffling moves this week came the claim that the country has reprocessed 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods. What does rod reprocessing have to do with building fresh nukes?

It's basically the poor man's way of obtaining plutonium, the substance most prized for the fabrication of nuclear weapons because of its relative stability. The fuel rods in question are leftovers from North Korea's reactors, which were ostensibly built for nonmilitary purposes. Such rods are initially filled with enriched uranium—that is, uranium that has a relatively high content of the fissile uranium-235 isotope. Naturally occurring uranium is approximately 99.3 percent uranium-238, which doesn't do the trick when inserted into a reactor. Enriched uranium has been "purified" in order to up the uranium-235 percentage to about 5 percent.

When a fuel rod is made, enriched uranium is baked into inch-long pellets and inserted into metal tubes. In the belly of a reactor, the atoms of this fuel split apart, releasing tremendous amounts of energy in the form of heat. That heat turns the surrounding water into steam, which in turn pushes a turbine. During this process, the uranium-238 converts into plutonium-239, which is ideal for weapons production. However, since civilian reactors are designed to keep pumping until all the fuel's spent, the morphing doesn't stop there. Some of those plutonium-239 atoms absorb an additional neutron and become plutonium-240. The new isotope isn't fissile and thus not what military engineers crave.

After a year or two, the fuel rods are tapped out. They're often transported to a nearby water tank, where they cool down for a while—the irradiation process creates so much heat that rods need one to three years to become sufficiently chilly. That's when reprocessing can commence. The simplest approach is to dissolve the rods in nitric acid, a technique known as the Purex Process. The end result is approximately 96 percent uranium, 1 percent plutonium, and 3 percent assorted toxic byproducts. (The ratio of Pu240 to Pu239 in the resulting plutonium depends on a variety of factors, including the percentage of uranium-235 in the pellet and the length of time the rod was used.) Proponents of nuclear energy argue that recycling the rods reduces waste, since the plutonium and uranium can be reused as fuel.

The downside is that the resulting plutonium can also be used for more nefarious projects. The U.S. Department of Energy officially defines "weapons-grade plutonium" as that containing at least 93 percent of the fissile plutonium-239 isotope. (The rest can be nonfissile Pu240.) But even crude "reactor grades"—those that contain less than 80 percent Pu239—can still pack a wallop. There's also no way of knowing whether the North Koreans operated their reactors specifically to minimize the conversion of plutonium-239 to plutonium-240, which would produce truly menacing nuclear material.



http://slate.msn.com/id/2082084/

[trackbird]

3.29 here for 93 octane... Ugh.

Better look again, it's now $3.19-3.29 for regular (87). Premium is getting a premium.....

[trackbird]

Well that's the cost by nasa's terms... what about alternative launch platforms? Something designed to offload waste wouldn't require anything in terms of crew safety, pressurization, climate control, etc etc.

My thought was just that if the waste becomes a serious issue due to the half life of the fuel, wouldn't the cost become justified?

(IMG:http://www.webcom.com/sknkwrks/trebuch2.jpg)

http://www.trebuchet.com/


(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

[nape]

$3.35/gal for regular in the Chicago 'burbs. Probably $3.45-3.65 depending on which part of the city.

$3.55+/gal for premium makes me damn glad I don't own anything that needs it to run, well, the track car takes it in small amounts so we won't count it :drive:

One thing I noticed while I was going to/from the gym, was the 5 tanker trucks that I noticed in the 14 mile round trip. I think this "shortage" is because everyone is filling up everything they own because "gas is going to go up because of the hurricane". Bullshit, this "shortage" is because the media has everyone worried that they need to buy gas. Don't worry about it, fill up as you need to, and you'll be fine.

Case in point, the husband of one of the ladies I work with went and filled up their 3 vehicles, his boat, and some gas cans yesterday because of what the media is saying. Now that's 100+ gallons of gas that was bought that normally wouldn't have been purchased. How many other times did that same occurance happen? To sum it up, fuck the media. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[edit] They weren't just any tanker trucks either, they were all fuel trucks. Just to clarify.

This post has been edited by nape: Sep 1 2005, 01:46 AM

[Mericet]

Well that's the cost by nasa's terms... what about alternative launch platforms?  Something designed to offload waste wouldn't require anything in terms of crew safety, pressurization, climate control, etc etc.

My thought was just that if the waste becomes a serious issue due to the half life of the fuel, wouldn't the cost become justified?

(IMG:http://www.webcom.com/sknkwrks/trebuch2.jpg)

http://www.trebuchet.com/


(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

Sort of like your hammer theory, hey Kevin. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

[firehawkclone]

I kinda like this (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) :leaving: I am a bicycle tech by trade (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) and work has been slow the last few weeks (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

You guys should go buy a bike, a CHEAP one from say....... Target, Kmart!

[Rob Hood]

Premium is $3.01 on base today...$3.11 just off base. Hard to believe we're lower than other areas...

Heard that they will start rationing gas in Alabama tomorrow...

[JKnight]

A guy on my E36 M3 list saw $2.78 when he went to work this AM, and $4.69 on his way home. Apparently price gouging is in effect in Atlanta, in honor of hurricane Katrina (which I managed to avoid in Florida over the weekend).

Jason

[Rob Hood]

The GA Gov did sign an executive order to sanction gas station owners who are caught gouging gas prices. I just hope they get their eyes gouged out... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)

[pknowles]

$3.55 for premium this morning. I can't believe I was paying $1.39 for premuim exactly 2 years ago. I'm considering looking around for a beater.

[Teutonic Speedra...]

$3.55 for premium this morning. I can't believe I was paying $1.39 for premuim exactly 2 years ago. I'm considering looking around for a beater.

The beater takes a long time to have payback benefits after you figure in the vehicle cost, insurance, registration, etc........saying that, I drive a beater, but it primarily started b/c of keeping miles on the Camaro down, and for alternate transporation in rain/snow.......which then led to a track only car requiring a truck and trailer.

You won't save money....but you will still feel good when filling up! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[pknowles]

The beater takes a long time to have payback benefits after you figure in the vehicle cost, insurance, registration, etc........saying that, I drive a beater, but it primarily started b/c of keeping miles on the Camaro down, and for alternate transporation in rain/snow.......which then led to a track only car requiring a truck and trailer.

You won't save money....but you will still feel good when filling up! 

Keeping miles down on the Camaro is one of my reasons as well. Only problem is the wife wants a 4 door and I want a little 2 door. I doubt we will get one until I see around $5 a gallon.

[Teutonic Speedra...]

$4.49 for 93 at the Gulf right next to work. Was $3.37 this morning!

[v7guy]

I saw 3.09 yesterday, it went up .11 in 12 hours, I haven't been out today. I however expect it to be more expensive. Good thing I only drive 10-15 miles a day round trip the ol' 21 speed needs some new rims and I haven't rode it in over a year, maybe I should get back to it. consider it a weight reduction mod, gained 10lbs since I stopped riding it regularly (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[BigEnos]

I kinda like this (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) :leaving: I am a bicycle tech by trade (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) and work has been slow the last few weeks (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

You guys should go buy a bike, a CHEAP one from say....... Target, Kmart!

If only I could ride my bike to work. I live 25 miles away and I can't think of a route that I would consider safe. My Mom's neighbor has a cool idea. He drives his truck to work, rides the bicycle home. The next day he rides the bicycle to work and drives the truck home. I think he leaves clothes at work for the next day so he can just shower when he gets in. Bonus for me because where I work is secured, no worry about leaving the car over night.

Still, I don't think I could deal with a 2 hour ride to work. I'd rather ride the motorcycle and get 45mpg. That's not so bad.

[trackbird]

I'm 12 miles each way, but it's a trip through the 'hood by bike. I'll pass thanks.

[Mericet]

I'm 12 miles each way, but it's a trip through the 'hood by bike. I'll pass thanks.

Just drag a trebuchet along for protection! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

I have enough property, maybe I should get a horse?

[Teutonic Speedra...]

I'm going 50 miles EACH way to work! It's not too bad in the beater. The truck just sits in the driveway. I'm getting an 06 Corolla S next week to replace the 211k mile Honda. The Corolla gets 41mpg on the highway with the 5spd....that's not why I'm buying it, but it won't hurt!

[trackbird]

I'm 12 miles each way, but it's a trip through the 'hood by bike. I'll pass thanks.

Just drag a trebuchet along for protection! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

I have enough property, maybe I should get a horse?

A "Trebuchet ACP"?

What caliber is that anyway.....

I've considered a cheap (Kia, etc) "driver". If it keeps up, I might just do it (though I want less car payment not a second one).

[Mericet]

A "Trebuchet ACP"?

What caliber is that anyway....

Whatever you choose and can carry! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/2thumbs.gif)

[v7guy]

and to think with the motor rebuild I've been debating between a 383 and a 355 (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[Sam Strano]

$3.55 for premium this morning. I can't believe I was paying $1.39 for premuim exactly 2 years ago. I'm considering looking around for a beater.

I realize the cost of oil is way up, and that a lot of the refineries were hurt by the Katrina. Both of which hurt badly at the pumps.

But, I've been keeping an eye on CNBC in the mornings.... Crude Oil is down about $1.50 from what it was *BEFORE* Katrina hit anything at all but had already shut down the Gulf Oil Rigs. CNBC has a "gasoline" tab on the screen most of the day. I just looked, and it's showing around $2.38-2.40. That appears to be wholesale price, yesterday it was $2.69 or so. So while that's dropping, the prices keep climbing at the pump. If we add 15% to the that price for a retail figure, you come up around $2.75 a gallon. Still outrageous, but better than the $3.19 and $3.29 regular is here right now. I firmly believe we have been and continue to be raped for fuel. Let's not forget that the oil companies have been making record profits all along the way be closing refineries and being able to say "oil prices are high".

Everyone is effected by the price of fuel, whether they are car folks or not. We are a fuel based economy. Everything runs by car or truck. All the goods you get are brought by trucks burning diesel. You get to work in a car, and most of live too far away to get to work otherwise. If something is not done, the economy will be wrecked and very soon.

I wrote to my US Senators months ago about the increases in fuel not matching the increases in Crude prices, and how it was hurting me since I use my truck for work and drive a lot. I mentioned my concerns about how the economy will be hurt by folks putting what used to spending money into their tanks. I got an answer from Rick Santorum, and that was basically..... we don't care, and can't do anything about it. That's crap.

Might I suggest everyone take the time to figure out how $3 or $4 a gallon fuel will effect you life and put that on paper (or your computer screen) and send it to your Senators and Representitives.

This is crisis stage, and Republican, Democrat, or Hippie you need to let your government know that you will be hurt. Otherwise we'll keep on this road until we just can swing it anymore and the economy collapses.

Bush is big on lowering your taxes because you best know how to spend you money. But it's ok if that money goes to the oil company coffers and pads their profits? It's ok if that money goes to gouging gas stations?

Please, please let you government know what's going on outside of DC for the folks that don't make $200k a year and get lifetime pensions!!!

[robz71lm7]

From what I understand it's not so much the crude oil, but rate at which it can be refined. Then throw in the recent events and the media and boom you have $3 gallon gas.

[Sam Strano]

From what I understand it's not so much the crude oil, but rate at which it can be refined. Then throw in the recent events and the media and boom you have $3 gallon gas.

It's not the crude oil now... Now it's the lack of refining and the scare of shortages driving the prices.

But, there is *always* a reason coming from the oil companies why the prices are up up and away. And it's *never* because they are raking in more money than ever.....

[mitchntx]

Mitch,

Fuel rods are reprocessed for nuke production.

See below.

The fuel rods in question are leftovers from North Korea's reactors, which were ostensibly built for nonmilitary purposes. Such rods are initially filled with enriched uranium—that is, uranium that has a relatively high content of the fissile uranium-235 isotope. Naturally occurring uranium is approximately 99.3 percent uranium-238, which doesn't do the trick when inserted into a reactor. Enriched uranium has been "purified" in order to up the uranium-235 percentage to about 5 percent.

Korean spent fuel rods, not those built by Siemens or Westinghouse (approved for use in the US), which have less than 1/2 that enrichment factor and a different chemical make-up altogether.

[Teutonic Speedra...]

Media sucks! They screw everything up. I hear at work (Army) all the good going on Iraq from Soldiers, etc, but all the media tells is bad and negative stuff. I don't blame Bush for any of this stuff either.

This post has been edited by Teutonic Speedracer: Sep 2 2005, 01:40 AM

[nape]

Might I suggest everyone take the time to figure out how $3 or $4 a gallon fuel will effect you life and put that on paper (or your computer screen) and send it to your Senators and Representitives.

I made myself a budget last month because I've been pretty broke lately and not only does it suck, but the race car wasn't getting finished. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)

Anyway, 12% of my take-home is spent in fuel to drive to/from work. I haven't written yet but it has been on my mind lately since a buddy and I were talking about it last week.

The only good thing about gas going up is I decided I couldn't afford to smoke anymore, so I had to quit (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

[bubba353z]

Might I suggest everyone take the time to figure out how $3 or $4 a gallon fuel will effect you life and put that on paper (or your computer screen) and send it to your Senators and Representitives.

Not to pee on everyone's Cheerios here, but Europe has been paying $4-5 per gallon for years. Granted a lot of European cities have better mass transit and are more centralized than many US cities, but they are surviving. How? - small cars and diesels power are commonplace there.

I haven't read all of this thread, so forgive me if this has been discussed - but there are market forces at play here as well. Supply and demand dictates the price. OPEC is keeping the barrel price up, by curtailing production - and demand is up. Oil companies are also partly responsible, but it's not all their fault either. Countries like China are starting to "discover" the automobile, and if one billion Chinese start buying cars - look out.

Perhaps if more people drove reasonable cars and stop buying Suburbans and Hummers to drive their 2 year old to daycare - we'd all be a little better off. Maybe I'm being smug because I drive a 32 mpg Civic, but a lot of people are buying the status as opposed to the utility of SUV's and big cars.

I do feel for the big rig drivers (especially owner operators) and the working folks who use their truck as part of their trade - those are the people who really need the help. All of the H1 owners can kiss my a$$.

[Ojustracing]

Well gas here is up again to 3.59 a gallon and 4 dollars a gallon is right around the corner for the weekend. I have some sobering figures about my father and his drive to work. My father is a Pain in the ass to work with, anybody that works with a family member will know what im talking about. But his drive to work is 76 mile one way. So 152 miles a day, 760 a week, and he does about 60,000-65,000 a yr.

60,000 60,000 60,000 60000 60,000
17mpg 15 mpg 28 mpg 38mpg 15mpg
3529 gal 4,000 gal 2143 gal 1,579 gal 3529gal
$3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.75
$10,587 yr $12,000 yr $6429yr $4737yr $13,273yr

I have been on his case for the last yr to buy a more fuel efficeint car and he cant drive a small car becasue he is not 'comfortable'. Well dad if you are looking at this you are just freeking stupid/stuborn (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif) :leaving: Buy a CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

His truck averages 15mpg for the yr, He just doesn't get it. And he doesnt make 100K+ a yr. Sorry for the Vent. John

[BigEnos]

Rode the motorcycle to work today. 40-45mpg, great parking, and it'll do a wheelie! Gotta love it! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/whip.gif)

Of course I'm far too much of a wuss to ride in the cold so it'll be back to the Maxima when the temps drop too far.

This post has been edited by BigEnos: Sep 2 2005, 01:01 PM

[axoid]

Not to pee on everyone's Cheerios here, but Europe has been paying $4-5 per gallon for years. Granted a lot of European cities have better mass transit and are more centralized than many US cities, but they are surviving. How? - small cars and diesels power are commonplace there.

The major reason that the Europeans pay so much for gas is because their governments tax the hell of of there citizens. The UK has a 76% tax on gas. If you took away the taxes, the cost would be about the same.

[sgarnett]

I'm 12 miles each way, but it's a trip through the 'hood by bike. I'll pass thanks.

Just drag a trebuchet along for protection! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

I have enough property, maybe I should get a horse?

A "Trebuchet ACP"?

What caliber is that anyway.....

Well, I've seen them demonstrated in calibers ranging from small rock to grand piano. However, they are almost invariably single-shot breech loaders, so I doubt if there would be an "A"CP load.

However, I suppose you could just dump in a bunch of anything from .25 to .45 ACP (no powder or primers needed) if you want to take out a flock of low-flying geese .... A 55 gallon drum's worth should be about right.

Of course, an auto-loading trebuchet would be tres cool (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[trackbird]

Of course, an auto-loading trebuchet would be tres cool  (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

We have the brain trust here to make that happen (if anywhere can....ok, maybe second to CC.com) if it's possible.

We can start the first anual FRRAX road course/autocross/track day/spare tire launching event. Maybe we could dig up some cracked blocks and start launching "dead" LS1 cores for distance.....

[sgarnett]

We can start the first anual FRRAX road course/autocross/track day/spare tire launching event. Maybe we could dig up some cracked blocks and start launching "dead" LS1 cores for distance.....

Now that would be cool (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Sure, anybody can run an autocross course that's laid out in the morning and doesn't change. Lobbing in new obstacle son the fly makes it a whole new ballgame (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Back (somewhat) on topic, I was planning to mow the field this weekend, but at $3.09 a gallon and 10~15 gallons to mow, I may just embrace my "wildlife conservation zone".

[bubba353z]

Not to pee on everyone's Cheerios here, but Europe has been paying $4-5 per gallon for years. Granted a lot of European cities have better mass transit and are more centralized than many US cities, but they are surviving. How? - small cars and diesels power are commonplace there.

The major reason that the Europeans pay so much for gas is because their governments tax the hell of of there citizens. The UK has a 76% tax on gas. If you took away the taxes, the cost would be about the same.

I know that (I was being lazy and just didn't bother to type it in), but the net result is still the same. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Could you imagine what Europe is paying now - if they aren't adjusting the taxes to keep the pricing steady (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)

[TOO Z MAXX]

Not to pee on everyone's Cheerios here, but Europe has been paying $4-5 per gallon for years. Granted a lot of European cities have better mass transit and are more centralized than many US cities, but they are surviving. How? - small cars and diesels power are commonplace there.

The major reason that the Europeans pay so much for gas is because their governments tax the hell of of there citizens. The UK has a 76% tax on gas. If you took away the taxes, the cost would be about the same.

That is correct and I sure as hell do not want our government taxing the hell out of our gas. We all know how well that tax money will be spent.

[bubba353z]

I'm currently just North of Charlotte NC, and there is no gas available down here - all of the pumps are bagged up. We were heading to Columbia SC, but that may be on hold / cancelled, as we may not be able to find gas to get back.....

Price is not an issue for me right now.... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[UKCamaroSS]

I hope any of you who are in the affected area's caused by Katrina are all OK, and I know that any gas, no matter what the price is, is what you all need and hopefully you get it soon. The people of my local area in Cambridgeshire, England all wish you well.

Just to give you a laugh though (and to the rest of the US who are paying so much for gas now), here in my city the normal price is £0.93(p) per liter.... which is at today's exchange rate $1.71 a LITER........... and this is normal, but it is expected to go up due to the effects of gas shortages / market. This price is for Unleaded regular, which is the cheapest type of gas here.

Stay safe,
UKCamaroSS

[bubba353z]

Just to give you a laugh though (and to the rest of the US who are paying so much for gas now), here in my city the normal price is £0.93(p) per liter.... which is at today's exchange rate $1.71 a LITER........... and this is normal, but it is expected to go up due to the effects of gas shortages / market. This price is for Unleaded regular, which is the cheapest type of gas here.

Stay safe,
UKCamaroSS

My point exactly.....

We Americans are spoiled, especially when it comes to gasoline - and are now starting to get a taste of what others are going through. There'd probably be riots, if we got to $6.50 a gallon.

This post has been edited by bubba353z: Sep 3 2005, 12:30 PM

[gillbot]

As for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants... this might be a crazy thought... but what would be wrong with say launching the waste into the sun?  I doubt we'll be going there anytime soon, and it is already a site of high levels of radiation and nuclear reactions... I can't imagine that would affect it too much...

Beaver Valley is a top performing plant ... what did you do there?

Pimp ... the cost of leaving the earth's atmosphere is too great ...

At Beaver Valley I was in Maintenance.


I can also see alot of people using E85 in vehicles that weren't designed for it since gas has spiked. It can and will cause ALOT of damage. You need Viton seals and stainless everywhere since it's highly corrosive and eats rubber like chewing gum.

[v7guy]

I looked at gas here for the first time in a couple days 3.25 for premium. I've still got 3/4 a tank, but any of you who own an F-body know after 1/2 tank it goes QUICK.



A NOTICE TO ALL THOSE IN THE DFW AREA

I read an email from the Wal Mart home office that said our Sams club in Irving TX will not recieve any more gas shipments until further notice. Realize the Sams club/Wal mart are wholesale purchasers. This means one of two things, either the price isn't low enough so the buyers won't bite............this is debateable as Sams routinely looses money at it's gas stations. Or that even TX is due for a shortage. If anyone is interested I'll use my member ship to get you gas if you give me the cash equivelent (I need to use my membership card and debit or it could raise suspiscion). The gas was sitting at 2.16 last night for premium.