Bush looks offshore for remedy to high oil prices - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 20th, 2008, 08:22 PM   #41
DocRamcharger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-09-08
Location: MI
Posts: 232
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Even so, refineries haven't been built in decades, why not update the area's facilities to modern day technology, maybe make them more eco-friendly, etc., as the topic of this thread is Bush's (and McCain's) energy plan, including offshore drilling and building new refineries. When you think about it, the cost to build a new traditional refinery is probably about the same cost as building one with the capacity to hold natural gas, especially when you are talking in the 7 digits and higher. A pipeline would be an added benefit, but not absolutely necessary, and if needed, they could still burn a smaller volume of gas instead of the full amount. An even better idea would be to run the refinery on the natural gas that is needed to be burned, thereby reducing the need for electricity.

Besides, I think there would be enough demand for natural gas in the immediate area where wheeled transportation is appropriate to warrant such an endeavor. I would have to look up everything needed to convert an engine to natural gas, I do know that my Ramcharger actually has factory specs for running propane and natural gas, including timing and Idle RPM. Most likely is just changing fuel delivery system including carb, doubt the intake would need to be changed though. I'm sure many farmers in the area would definitely be able to use it in some way as well.
DocRamcharger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 20th, 2008, 08:34 PM   #42
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocRamcharger View Post
Even so, refineries haven't been built in decades, why not update the area's facilities to modern day technology, maybe make them more eco-friendly, etc., as the topic of this thread is Bush's (and McCain's) energy plan, including offshore drilling and building new refineries. When you think about it, the cost to build a new traditional refinery is probably about the same cost as building one with the capacity to hold natural gas, especially when you are talking in the 7 digits and higher. A pipeline would be an added benefit, but not absolutely necessary, and if needed, they could still burn a smaller volume of gas instead of the full amount. An even better idea would be to run the refinery on the natural gas that is needed to be burned, thereby reducing the need for electricity.

Besides, I think there would be enough demand for natural gas in the immediate area where wheeled transportation is appropriate to warrant such an endeavor. I would have to look up everything needed to convert an engine to natural gas, I do know that my Ramcharger actually has factory specs for running propane and natural gas, including timing and Idle RPM. Most likely is just changing fuel delivery system including carb, doubt the intake would need to be changed though. I'm sure many farmers in the area would definitely be able to use it in some way as well.
i am sorry dude, but you just dont get it. you need pipelines. period. no other way to get the gas to the large expensive plant where you can bottle it. bottling it is not a easy process, and is costly. in the long run you would end up paying more....
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2008, 08:57 PM   #43
DocRamcharger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-09-08
Location: MI
Posts: 232
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

How do I not get it. A "new, expensive" refinery could be built, per the whole idea of the "energy plan," in the area, thereby "replacing" the decades old other "large expensive" refineries. There is a HUGE need to replace aging refineries, there is a huge need to make transportation more efficient, cost effective, and safer. Piping the natural gas from Rosebush might be as simple as building a pipeline to Alma, which is only 25 miles away.

It will definitely cost money to make it happen, I am not disputing that fact. It takes money to make it though, and I would much rather run a cleaner, more fuel efficient fuel in my vehicles at the same price as gasoline, as a conversion kit is only about $300 on average, plus tanks. I would gladly pay $4 a gallon for a fuel that is going to reduce emissions and make the world a teeny bit cleaner than running gasoline alone.

Most of the world is running natural gas right now, even in dual fuel setups, hence why "flaring" is illegal in those countries. Canadian Shells, Sunocos, and every other major oil company have natural gas pumps at most of their fueling stations. If other countries can do it, why is it such an obstacle for the great technological US to do it? Maybe it is time to suck it up and follow in another country's footsteps for once. If it were available to me right now, I would switch in a heartbeat.

I will leave you with an analogy, which you will probably just will scoff at. Burning off the natural gas at the refinery due to cost makes about as much sense as someone leaving their car running 24/7 because they do not want the wear and tear on an engine and starter when the starter is engaged, causing wear on both the starter and the engine (oil not lubricating at startup), leading to a future replacement cost. Better to use properly than waste frivolously.

Last edited by DocRamcharger; June 20th, 2008 at 09:01 PM.
DocRamcharger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2008, 07:16 AM   #44
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

It would seem more efficient to me to use the natural gas to make electricity and then use that electricity to power an electric car. Combustion engines are very inefficient.

That would solve the need for new pipe lines. Build the power plant near the fuel source and send the resulting electricity along the existing infrastructure.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2008, 04:28 PM   #45
DocRamcharger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-09-08
Location: MI
Posts: 232
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

3-foot, that is another great idea for using natural gas instead of burning. Conversion might take a little longer as damn near every gasoline vehicle can be easily converted to natural gas with somewhat minor changes, but not a lot of people have access to electric cars right now as its kinda a niche market.

More thinking on the topic, it would be great for Michigan as new jobs would be created, we would be going along with the whole "Granhole tech and biotech" plan, and auto producers would be able to make some sales using vehicles they already produce in nearby countries, such as Canada.

Also, recycling used to be a thorn in every companies side just a few years ago even. Yet, every company is going green and realizing that they can actually make money from recycling 100% of their waste into reusable products. One of the Michigan Coke Bottling facilities did this, I think Van Buren, and made I believe $8,000 in one year from going to 100% green, including any garbage disposal they did have to pay for. There are hundreds of Coca-Cola facilities across the US, and if each one saved $8,000 on average, you are talking close to a million dollars a year saving from just one company.

Long story short, there is no significant difference between recycling solid waste and harvesting natural gas.
DocRamcharger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2008, 09:29 PM   #46
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,038
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Building a power station or pipeline to a bottling station would be big $$ as it stands today. It would have to be big volume to be able to recoupe costs. Having said that fukc a duck you'd think someone would have figured out how to make it happen and make a living off it by now =(
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2008, 09:54 PM   #47
jeepman784
Now pedals a bicycle
 
jeepman784's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-10-07
Location: grand rapids area, michigan
Posts: 1,578
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to jeepman784
Default

if we are importing oil at such high prices, why do we export wheat and grain products at low prices...

you want to eat??? we want to drive???

i vote 95 dollas for a bushel of wheat.

we need to stop being so humanitarian
jeepman784 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2008, 08:29 AM   #48
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,811
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
It would seem more efficient to me to use the natural gas to make electricity and then use that electricity to power an electric car. Combustion engines are very inefficient.

That would solve the need for new pipe lines. Build the power plant near the fuel source and send the resulting electricity along the existing infrastructure.
that sounds about right.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2008, 02:23 PM   #49
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
that sounds about right.
I say build more nuke plants and drop the waste product on all the oil producing nations. LOL
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.24771 seconds with 47 queries