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

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.

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

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.

This is fantastic, right before I tow my car to Topeka.

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

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

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.

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?

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



Gotta fill her up to go racing this weekend.....

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 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.

I spent $60 at QT yesterday.

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.

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

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.

Not walking ....

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.

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.

$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...

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

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).

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...

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.

: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.

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.

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 ....

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.

1200 Mw each ...

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

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

$72.15!!!

100% accurate ....

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

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.

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

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

2.93gal for reg. unleaded today at Interstate in my town. Diesel 3.10

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!

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 ...

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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

Well Overnight it went up .30.. Super is now $3.27 . 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