It only jumped $.20 here, since yesterday morning ....
Premium (93) is $2.95
Full Version: Fill'er up today
It jumped 25 cents yesterday. 
$3.03 to $3.53 here in NJ for 93!
QUOTE (mitchntx @ Aug 30 2005, 16:46)
QUOTE (z28barnett @ Aug 30 2005, 15:06)
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
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 ...
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
QUOTE (z28barnett @ Aug 31 2005, 10:18)
QUOTE (mitchntx @ Aug 30 2005, 16:46)
QUOTE (z28barnett @ Aug 30 2005, 15:06)
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
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 ...
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.
I've seen $3.15 in my part of New England - for 89 octane 
Must've been one strong hurricane to have an effect on gas that's already in the stations tanks
Must've been one strong hurricane to have an effect on gas that's already in the stations tanks
3.29 here for 93 octane... Ugh.
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.
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.
Premium $3.05 southern missouri.
[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/
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/
QUOTE (pimpmaro @ Aug 31 2005, 17:30)
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.....
QUOTE (pimpmaro @ Aug 30 2005, 18:08)
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?
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?
http://www.trebuchet.com/
$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.
[edit] They weren't just any tanker trucks either, they were all fuel trucks. Just to clarify.
$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.
[edit] They weren't just any tanker trucks either, they were all fuel trucks. Just to clarify.
QUOTE (trackbird @ Aug 31 2005, 21:41)
QUOTE (pimpmaro @ Aug 30 2005, 18:08)
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?
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?
http://www.trebuchet.com/
Sort of like your hammer theory, hey Kevin.
I kinda like this 
:leaving: I am a bicycle tech by trade 
and work has been slow the last few weeks
You guys should go buy a bike, a CHEAP one from say....... Target, Kmart!
:leaving: I am a bicycle tech by trade and work has been slow the last few weeks You guys should go buy a bike, a CHEAP one from say....... Target, Kmart!
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...
Heard that they will start rationing gas in Alabama tomorrow...
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
Jason
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...
$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.
QUOTE (pknowles @ Sep 1 2005, 07:17)
$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!
QUOTE
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!
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.
$4.49 for 93 at the Gulf right next to work. Was $3.37 this morning!
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
QUOTE (firehawkclone @ Aug 31 2005, 22:03)
I kinda like this :leaving: I am a bicycle tech by trade and work has been slow the last few weeks
You guys should go buy a bike, a CHEAP one from say....... Target, Kmart!
:leaving: I am a bicycle tech by trade and work has been slow the last few weeks 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.
I'm 12 miles each way, but it's a trip through the 'hood by bike. I'll pass thanks.
QUOTE (trackbird @ Sep 1 2005, 14:11)
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!
I have enough property, maybe I should get a horse?
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!
QUOTE (Mericet @ Sep 1 2005, 13:21)
QUOTE (trackbird @ Sep 1 2005, 14:11)
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!
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).
QUOTE (trackbird @ Sep 1 2005, 14:34)
A "Trebuchet ACP"?
What caliber is that anyway....
What caliber is that anyway....
Whatever you choose and can carry!
and to think with the motor rebuild I've been debating between a 383 and a 355 
QUOTE (pknowles @ Sep 1 2005, 07:17)
$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!!!
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.
QUOTE (robz71lm7 @ Sep 1 2005, 15:07)
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.....
QUOTE (z28barnett @ Aug 31 2005, 19:27)
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Sep 1 2005, 14:00)
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.
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
QUOTE (Sam Strano @ Sep 1 2005, 14:00)
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$$.
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 :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
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
: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
Rode the motorcycle to work today. 40-45mpg, great parking, and it'll do a wheelie! Gotta love it! 
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.
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.
QUOTE (bubba353z @ Sep 2 2005, 06:10)
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.
QUOTE (trackbird @ Sep 1 2005, 13:34)
QUOTE (Mericet @ Sep 1 2005, 13:21)
QUOTE (trackbird @ Sep 1 2005, 14:11)
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!
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
QUOTE (sgarnett @ Sep 2 2005, 15:18)
Of course, an auto-loading trebuchet would be tres cool
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.....
QUOTE (trackbird @ Sep 2 2005, 15:37)
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
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
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".
QUOTE (axoid @ Sep 2 2005, 07:45)
QUOTE (bubba353z @ Sep 2 2005, 06:10)
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.
Could you imagine what Europe is paying now - if they aren't adjusting the taxes to keep the pricing steady
QUOTE (axoid @ Sep 2 2005, 07:45)
QUOTE (bubba353z @ Sep 2 2005, 06:10)
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.
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....
Price is not an issue for me right now....
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
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
QUOTE (UKCamaroSS @ Sep 3 2005, 06:24)
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
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.
QUOTE (mitchntx @ Aug 30 2005, 16:34)
QUOTE (pimpmaro @ Aug 30 2005, 16:09)
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.
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.
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.