User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: Gas Prices

  1. #51
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I've made some conversions as well, because I was intrested. Here the prices are:

    7,5 $/gallon (1,50 €/l) for diezel
    8,2 $/gallon (1,62 €/l) for gasoline
    4,2 $/gallon (0,83 €/l) for LPG

    GDP p.c. is 10k below the US

    Seems like fuel is nowhere as cheap as it is in the US (except for France maybe they are very cheap as well). Regarding the States being a huge country tho this is understandable. In Germany I think 75% of the price is taxation.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #52
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    We can't even afford to convert to the metric system yet...
    Are we still planning to?

    That was a movement that started when *I* was in elementary school, about how we were switching to the metric system in a few years. And then it just never happened. It just got dropped. Thirty years later, we do have metric units on many items, but always as the secondary measurement for the old system verbage.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #53
    Senior Membrane spirilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    InTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp
    Socionics
    INTj Ni
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    I dont even think that safety is the biggest problem, the much bigger problem is waste disposal. Here you have a good historical example: America is a very huuuuge country, you can dispose waste anywhere. Germany is not and when the first waste needed to be disposed, people had to search for a place to store it for a very long time. And when they had found one, the local farmers started protesting. You could have basically dumbed it anywhere, the place is so small that there would have been always people who went protesting. This protests then grew so massive and became a historical event which led to the foundation of the green party, which are today with around 10% votes part of our government.

    And thats the biggest problem with nuclear: where to with the waste. Its not only burnt out reactor coils, all the stuff that comes into touch with the radioactive material, like reactor housing, coolant all that is waste, which does kill people slowly and gruesome if you come in contact with it. Tho the press tries to disclose the whole Fukushima accident, if you do a little internet reasearch and look for what is going on in that region, you'll find a huge contaminated area, which doesnt immediantly kill people but slowly lets the cancer grow.

    I am not into banning research on nuclear energy, but regarding the additional waste its no problem solver for the future. that would turn our planet into a very dirty and partly damaged place. Its like sawing on the branch you sit on.

    They did a calculation for my country and found out that we easily could replace within a few years our whole energy consumption with wind energy converters. More efficient electronics speak in favor of that technology. Most basic problems is short term supply and what to do when the wind doesnt blow. For that we'll need accumulator tanks which do store converted electrical energy. Such things often being water storage tanks need to be build first of course. So its a very slow process.

    I see the whole renewables and energy efficiency movement from a more pragmatic point of view. Its a huge chance to make a lot of money, especially wind turbines are a chance for poor farmers to regain some of their strength. So far you can make a lot of money with the energy supplied and you barely have to put physical work into it, just working capital.

    You shouldnt miss that opportunity for industrial growth. Even if the world later wasnt intrested in your renewable products, they will still buy your machines and stuff cause they are the most energy efficient and make your production cheaper. This a huge step towards technological leadership.
    All good points, I sort've group waste disposal into "safety issues" personally though. I've heard (currently vapor) promises of nuclear power tech that eats its own waste or the waste from conventional power plants, I think Bill Gates invested in a company that's doing that; IMO that's the kind of thing that we should be developing ASAP and with substantial vigor. My vision is that 100 years from now we'll look back at the 1950-2010 era of nuclear power and shake our heads at how infantile and hideously dangerous it was.

    The renewables are great, but, horrible for base-load generation as I understand it. Hence why you guys (and us) all use 40+% coal. I think renewables would make a fantastic solution for peak-load generation with (futuristic star trek-esque) nuclear as base-load. And the self-sufficiency of farmers owning windmills, solar panels, etc. is an attractive thought.
    intp | type 9w1 sp/sx/so

  4. #54
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spirilis View Post
    All good points, I sort've group waste disposal into "safety issues" personally though. I've heard (currently vapor) promises of nuclear power tech that eats its own waste or the waste from conventional power plants, I think Bill Gates invested in a company that's doing that; IMO that's the kind of thing that we should be developing ASAP and with substantial vigor. My vision is that 100 years from now we'll look back at the 1950-2010 era of nuclear power and shake our heads at how infantile and hideously dangerous it was.

    The renewables are great, but, horrible for base-load generation as I understand it. Hence why you guys (and us) all use 40+% coal. I think renewables would make a fantastic solution for peak-load generation with (futuristic star trek-esque) nuclear as base-load. And the self-sufficiency of farmers owning windmills, solar panels, etc. is an attractive thought.
    ^^

    I've read that concerning Bill Gates efforts as well. Thats not bad. Sadly the people of my country are realists and you wont convince them with arguements that nuclear energy can become save. As long as that isnt safe, nuclear will be on the backward development for us. regarding coal and base-load yea thats a problem. Since that couldnt been solved for years now, they are so hesistant to shut off nuclear at all.

    the biggest problem tho is that our energy industry is making trillions of dollars with their competence in building nuclear plants all over the World. Since our government decided to close all nuclear plants until 2022 the energy industry is having massive losses and of course started to blackmail the government by closing up locations and letting people be thrown out on the street. Alone the energy company of my homestate just closed an administration leaving 6000 people jobless.

    I dunno if that new found idealism will kill us. But if its only greed that helps you to survive in this World, I wouldnt want to live no more either ways.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  5. #55
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I dont even think that safety is the biggest problem, the much bigger problem is waste disposal. Here you have a good historical example: America is a very huuuuge country, you can dispose waste anywhere. Germany is not and when the first waste needed to be disposed, people had to search for a place to store it for a very long time.
    I prefer nuclear waste to atmospheric pollution, but then again we have a big mountain out west to hide it under.

    When it comes to generating electricity for the grid, I don't see any reason to stay on fossil fuels any longer than we have to.

    There are a ton of ways to capture energy from the environment, one of my favorites is underwater wind turbines that capture the energy of tidal flows.

    The power potential is tremendous given the density of water, and the power contained in currents and tidal flows.

    I would personally like to see the US export most of its domestic coal and natural gas production.

    I'm ok with the use of petrol for most transportation applications, given the huge hurtle of scaling alternative energy engines to fit in cars/planes/trains. Clearly we need to continue to try to increase efficiency in these systems, but it will be a while before we have a viable alternative to internal combustion.

    The regs on electricity production should be much more stringent than they are.

    Before we can move forward globally, I think we need an international body to create an iron clad treaty for global development.

    In order give it teeth, make signing the treaty a requisite of membership in the international body.

    Basically my thoughts on the treaty for global development are this. The more technologically advanced a nation becomes, the more it is able to shift to alternative energy sources for power production.

    As the US taught us early last century, and China is showing us now, in order to transition from a 3rd world status to 2nd and then 1st world, it requires a massive capacity to produce energy domestically.

    For less technologically developed nations, it's nigh on impossible to do this with alternative energy sources (Brazil being the bright shining exception to this rule). Most 3rd world countries require the cheaper proven technology centered around fossil fuels to catalyze an industrial revolution.

    For this reason I think the treaty should have three tiers of energy regulations. Each tier will state the level of technological development required qualify for the class defined by the tier. These tiers will be, 3rd world nations with zero capacity produce energy cleanly. 2nd world nations transitioning to a more diversified energy portfolio. And 1st world nations with the most stringent environmental reg.s and alternative energy requirements (as they are the ones most able to bear the cost of energy R&D and the burden of it's implementation).

    As you move from the lowest tier up, the enviro requirements become more stringent. This system would free up massive amounts of fossil fuel to help pull the third world out of backward squalor. Get rising economies comfortable with the fact that they have to transition to a more diversified energy portfolio. And force 1st world nations, to remain on the forefront of energy development, while serving as an example to the rest of the world.

    EDIT - for the purposes of my argument, I class nuclear energy as alternative, and speculate that it is the only tech. we have (currently) that could replace coal for domestic energy production.

    EDIT2 - as we become more technologically advanced globally, the requirements in all three classes will become more strict to reflect the greater ability to produce energy to with emerging tech.

  6. #56
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Basically my thoughts on the treaty for global development are this. The more technologically advanced a nation becomes, the more it is able to shift to alternative energy sources for power production.

    As the US taught us early last century, and China is showing us now, in order to transition from a 3rd world status to 2nd and then 1st world, it requires a massive capacity to produce energy domestically.

    For less technologically developed nations, it's nigh on impossible to do this with alternative energy sources (Brazil being the bright shining exception to this rule). Most 3rd world countries require the cheaper proven technology centered around fossil fuels to catalyze an industrial revolution.

    For this reason I think the treaty should have three tiers of energy regulations. Each tier will state the level of technological development required qualify for the class defined by the tier. These tiers will be, 3rd world nations with zero capacity produce energy cleanly. 2nd world nations transitioning to a more diversified energy portfolio. And 1st world nations with the most stringent environmental reg.s and alternative energy requirements (as they are the ones most able to bear the cost of energy R&D and the burden of it's implementation).

    As you move from the lowest tier up, the enviro requirements become more stringent. This system would free up massive amounts of fossil fuel to help pull the third world out of backward squalor. Get rising economies comfortable with the fact that they have to transition to a more diversified energy portfolio. And force 1st world nations, to remain on the forefront of energy development, while serving as an example to the rest of the world.
    Yea thats good. What you speak about is the so called Kuznets - Curve ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve ). This exactly illustrates what you said.
    I'ld only add some sort of incentive system for countries advancing from 3rd to 1st tier, so they wont disclose their industrial level of development. Its always better to control stuff, before stuff starts to control you.

    Here's an intresting project as well, the Stirling engine:



    I have build it once from a construction set. It basically works like this: You heat one side of the can and leave the other cool. In the middle of the can there is a piston in a closed system. The medium is air and when its heated there will be a pressure difference following the formula of p1/T1 = p2/T2. the piston needs to be modelled as a thing that doesnt give off energy too quickly, to increase the degree of efficiency. For that you can use a botany sponge or steel woll. It then does move up an down the working piston thru the pressure difference and that rotates a wheel which captures the energy for a while in rotation. Does generate enough energy to power my small transistor radio on the beach thru the sun. It became obsolute for me when solar panels came out.

    Such projects actually are pretty cool and there are dozens more.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #57
    Member DisneyFanGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Posts
    92

    Default

    I'm job searching so I don't have much money to begin with. Gas is sucking me dry. Thank you, America.

  8. #58
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    There are a ton of ways to capture energy from the environment, one of my favorites is underwater wind turbines that capture the energy of tidal flows.

    The power potential is tremendous given the density of water, and the power contained in currents and tidal flows.
    I know one of the problems with windmills is that they can kill lots of birds, including endangered ones. Would there be the same problem of killing endangered marine life?
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  9. #59
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Depends on the design and placement of the turbine.

  10. #60
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    I work a job that requires a lot of driving (city driving in my case) but fortunately drive an efficient vehicle, so I don't really spend more than $10 a day on gas, which isn't bad compared to most people I know

    it really occurred to me that I live in a cheap region of the country a few years ago when a friend stopped to visit me for a week while moving from hawaii to the dc area... I'd been horrified by the fact that regular unleaded was $5 a gallon here and she was so impressed by how CHEAP the gas was in comparison to hawaii that she bought me a tank to shut me up I hadn't realized that my complaints were that pointless to the rest of the world...

    public transportation really sucks around here because the city has never invested that much money in it, people with low paying jobs usually live quite close to where they work... I run across quite a few people who walk to work every day because they only live a couple of blocks away... it's when you get to the higher paying jobs that people drive quite a ways to get there... balances things out gas price wise a bit I guess

    yes, it would be nice not to be dependent upon such things, but a shift in mindset would be essential in order for such technology to really take off... most people just seem to think that finding MORE gasoline somewhere would fix the problem, not that finding another source would be a good plan... people are comfortable with what they know (and have known for the past 100 years or so) and even discussions about how alternative energy sources are environmentally friendly and could potentially be a lot cheaper don't interest them because it's an unknown good, and we ALL know that known evils are preferable to unknown goods because they are KNOWN I don't see any serious funding and embrace of alternative energy sources until it becomes economically viable due to a high demand... that's just how things work, unfortunately... why would a company want to fully jump into funding something different without knowing for sure that people will buy it like mad? they may throw a few bucks that direction in order to appear "green" and get a pat on the back by the environmental groups and the government, but it's quite clear that they could easily be more invested in coming up with something better and therefore would have a greater chance of coming up with something better if they really wanted to
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

Similar Threads

  1. Vincent Price
    By TenebrousReflection in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2016, 04:25 AM
  2. Obama: Ill make energy prices skyrocket
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 11:41 PM
  3. How much does gas cost?
    By miss fortune in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 07:07 AM
  4. Commuting Prices
    By Eileen in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO