Honda Car Forum

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:10:18 GMT, "Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote:

>
>"Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message
>news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06...
>>
>> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> Price per barrel:
>>>
>>> Oil $133
>>> Coca Cola $126
>>> Milk $163
>>> Perrier Water $300
>>> Budweiser $447
>>> Starbucks Latte $954
>>> Ben & Jerry's $1,609
>>> Tabasco Sauce $6,155
>>> Chanel No 5 $1,666,560
>
>I don't see the nations economy and infrastructure running on lattes and
>Coke. Or F-22's or M1 Abrams for that matter. Idiot.
>
Well, the Abrams will run on Chanel No 5, or jack Daniel's, for that matter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:b8J7k.10954$3F5.5275@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted
> to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining
> product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there
> are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be
> cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined
> from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on
> average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume
> there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel.
>
> Some of you morons cannot read (no offense).

Okay, I'll rephrase my response to you.

Depending on each individual's requirements, that would last some longer
and others far
less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage
to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel
tank (at today's price).

By the way, you still appear to be a moron.

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:b8J7k.10954$3F5.5275@bignews2.bellsouth.net.. .
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:91J7k.866$2G6.26@edtnps83...
>> I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence
>> meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on
>> each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others
>> far less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I
>> manage to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in
>> the fuel tank (at today's price).
>
> No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted
> to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining
> product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there
> are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be
> cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined
> from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on
> average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume
> there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel.
>

I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is
economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude oil
because the crude oil has different components with different properties.

These articles seem to confirm this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm


--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is
> economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude
> oil because the crude oil has different components with different
> properties.
>
> These articles seem to confirm this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm
>
>
> Ray O

I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is
refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons
of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value. So
the economic value of the output of the refining process needs to be
distributed among the products produced.

So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of
crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one
half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming that
the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of oil
(including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a lot of
airlines and homeowners).

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_2_7k.11604$PZ6.9198@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it
>> is economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of
>> crude oil because the crude oil has different components with different
>> properties.
>>
>> These articles seem to confirm this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm
>>
>>
>> Ray O
>
> I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is
> refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21
> gallons of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic
> value. So the economic value of the output of the refining process needs
> to be distributed among the products produced.
>
> So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of
> crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one
> half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming
> that the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of
> oil (including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a
> lot of airlines and homeowners).
That explanation makes a lot more sense.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Mark A wrote:
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is
>> economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude
>> oil because the crude oil has different components with different
>> properties.
>>
>> These articles seem to confirm this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm
>>
>>
>> Ray O
>
> I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is
> refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons
> of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value.

with just distillation, that would be about right, though it depends on
what's being distilled. however, if we introduce modern hydrocracking
and catalysis, which refiners do in fact use, we can get substantially
more than 21 gallons of gasoline [and a lower quantity of heavier product].


> So
> the economic value of the output of the refining process needs to be
> distributed among the products produced.
>
> So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of
> crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one
> half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming that
> the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of oil
> (including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a lot of
> airlines and homeowners).
>
>

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> said:

> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it
>> is economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of
>> crude oil because the crude oil has different components with different
>> properties.
>>
>> These articles seem to confirm this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm
>>
>>
>> Ray O
>
> I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is
> refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21
> gallons of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic
> value. So the economic value of the output of the refining process needs
> to be distributed among the products produced.

But you said, "No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if
they wanted to."

Which is completely false. Now, you're backpeddling.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:20:21 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

>
>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:i8I7k.10929$3F5.1056@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..
>>
>> There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is
>> made into gasoline during the refining process, the remaining half is made
>> into other products that sell for about the same price as gasoline (on
>> average). So you can either assume that a barrel of oil does produce 42
>> gallons (they could do that if they wanted to), or the price per barrel
>> should be cut in half, since the other half of the barrel is made into
>> other valuable petroleum products.
>>
>> Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel and our car averages 25 miles per
>> gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than
>> a month. You claim it only lasts 1 day.
>>
>> Now who is the moron?
>
> I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence
>meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on
>each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far
>less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage to
>squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel tank
>(at today's price).
>

Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes,
generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and
other merchandise you want and need?

The truth is that per capita consumption of oil in the US is little
more than two barrels a month. A typical family of four would go
through a barrel in about three days.

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hj9764hihcg54aj7g1asp6psc7r4lmn391@4ax.com...
> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes,
> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and
> other merchandise you want and need?

Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in the
northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as crude
oil.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:41:14 "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote...

>> Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes,
>> generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and
>> other merchandise you want and need?
>
>Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in the
>northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as crude
>oil.

Okay, I have to call you on this one.

Natural gas for mobile applications is not practical, except for
fleet uses like city buses or trash trucks where they can have
refueling stations at the fleet yard - a miniscule fraction of overall
transportation fuel use.

The energy density is not there with CNG, the vehicles are literally
built around huge fuel tanks and they still have to be refueled every
night with a compressor station that takes energy to run. And LNG is
hazardous to handle without special training - and you have to expend
energy to refrigerate and liquefy the gas.

And coal is unheard of for transportation - the steam railroad
locomotive is the only practical transportation prime mover that can
burn coal, and they are long extinct.

And the EPA and State AQMD's will not let the steam locomotive come
back burning coal or wood - the survivors still operating in museums
and excursion duty are mostly converted to oil burners.

And if you add up all the various uses of crude oil to make all the
raw materials that go into the finished goods you buy or eat or use
every day, and transport them through the manufacturing chain to you,
two 42-gallon barrels a day per person is not out of the question.

Train Locomotives run on "red diesel" (plain diesel that is dyed red
to quickly show the road-use taxes were not paid if it is put in a
road car or truck), not natural gas or coal.

Almost all farm tractors and powered implements run on red diesel,
not natural gas or coal. Steam tractors and stationary engine "Steam
Jenny's" are extinct too.

Virtually all over-the-road cargo trucking is done with diesel
powered tractors, not natural gas or coal.

Much of the northeast US is not piped for natural gas for heating
and cooking energy, even though the population density is there to
support it. They use "Distillate #2" heating oil (which is basically
red diesel) or Propane, not natural gas or coal.

Much of rural America outside heavily populated cities isn't piped
for natural gas for heat, so they have to use either heating oil or
Propane - which is an oil byproduct - and not natural gas or coal.

And that fuel delivery truck is burning diesel or propane to get the
fuel to your home tank.

The only time it is practical to use coal-fired furnaces or boilers
is large industrial or educational sites or electricity generating
plants, where the wages of stationary engineer(s) can be justified to
fire and monitor the system. It can only be made semi-automatic, it
still needs a person to monitor it. And the pollution control
equipment (fluidized bed combustion, stack scrubbers) is too large and
heavy to be made mobile.

Electricity is too inefficient for resistance space heating and only
marginally better running a heat pump, so electricity is usually not
the primary choice for heating. If nuclear electric generation had
caught on and truly made electricity "too cheap to meter" as they
promised in the 1950's we wouldn't worry about efficiency. But it
didn't, so we do.

Electricity generation and stationary large boiler plants are about
the only place that coal and natural gas is still a large prime-mover
energy source.

SOLUTIONS:

If we are going to work our way out of this corner, cranking up to
mass production levels of biodiesel from canola or rapeseed, and mass
production levels of ethanol from sugar cane or switchgrass or
cornstalks (and other non-foodstuff agricultural wastes) is going to
be a critical factor.

We MUST abandon corn as a primary ethanol source - we're removing
edible food and food-growing acreage from the food supply stream,
choosing between eating or moving. And if we have floods droughts or
other crop failures, energy and food both take a hit.

There are too many mobile uses where you need the energy density and
ease of use and fueling of a diesel fuel or E-85 Gasohol. Hydrogen is
way too far out on the horizon and has severe safety problems, and
both pure ethanol and hydrogen are unsafe (invisible fires).

But Biodiesel and E-85 "Flex Fuel" Gasohol we can do with current
technology, and we need to start NOW. With a "Manhattan Project" or
"Apollo Project" level of urgency.

And we also need to start drilling and putting new oil wells into
production NOW. A postage-stamp sized plot in ANWR, deep water off
the coasts, deep water in the Gulf. We can do it, quickly, without
oil spills and disruption - but we need a unified will and shove the
NIMBY whiners off the nearest cliff....

The platforms will be at or over the horizon, so the Hollywood
Glitterati can complain that those few platforms will spoil their
million-dollar views from Malibu or Monterrey or Key West or
Hyannisport - but we all know it's a load of unexpurgated bullshit.

Make it a goal for the US to be energy self-sufficient and not
import a drop of crude oil inside 10 years unless we choose to, and
tell OPEC they can eat sand and drink crude oil if they don't like it.

--<< Bruce >>--