$3.69-$3.89 Where/when does it end?

[Erik88]

It could always be worse. 

 

 

[JustEd]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

I cannot confirm this, but have been told that if everything went perfectly, it would take more than 50 years just to get the proper permits to begin construction of a nuclear plant.

I last heard 30 years, but its too long to help out anyway.

[Grayfox54]

The concept behind Biden's Build Back Better plan is great. Our nations infrastructure is in dire need of repair and update. The problem with it is that the Dems loaded it down with trillions in pork, totally unrelated BS and political favors. If they would just cut the fat, I could support it. 

[Grayfox54]

Gas in Europe has always been high. When I was  a young troop in Germany way back in 74-75,  gas was about $2.00  gallon then. We could have easily bought our own cars to use while there.  But couldn't afford the gas.  

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

I cannot confirm this, but have been told that if everything went perfectly, it would take more than 50 years just to get the proper permits to begin construction of a nuclear plant.

 

10 minutes ago, JustEd said:

I last heard 30 years, but its too long to help out anyway.

This is a political problem that can be solved easily if there was enough political will to do it. These bureaucratic roadblocks were intentionally erected when we stupidly decided to move away from nuclear power. Than can be removed in the same bit of legislation that funds plants. It’s all a choice that has to be made. 

[papa61]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Car engines didnt start like they are today.  They had to be adopted first. 


Someone earlier mentioned oils use in plastics etc.  Oil will still have a need to be drilled it just shouldnt be burned.

You would have to look at the refinement process. It isn't that simple. Before gasoline was used in engines it was waste that was dumped out on the ground. Each fuel or compound extracted leaves something else. Plastic is the worst pollutant refined from oil IMO.

[JustEd]

9 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

This is a political problem that can be solved easily if there was enough political will to do it. These bureaucratic roadblocks were intentionally erected when we stupidly decided to move away from nuclear power. Than can be removed in the same bit of legislation that funds plants. It’s all a choice that has to be made. 

Personally, I am willing to go nuclear power.  However, there are problems in long term spent fuel rod storage.  Transport of spent rods to Yucca Mtn can is suseptible to exposure due to accident of misshandling.  It's the same in every country that uses nuclear, what to do with the spent fuel,  That's what the worry is right now at Chernobyl with the power being cut off. 

idle rant:  I just heard some 'ss hole who claimed to be a nuclear expert say if the waste water boils off at Chernobyl just add more water.  Yeah, but where does that radioactive steam go to? 

Don't get me wrong a CIVILIZED nation should be able to handle nuclear power.  The Ruskies have repeatedly demonstrated they are not of that ilk.

Edited March 9, 2022 by JustEd

[Grayfox54]

At least we can keep our sense of humor. 

[peejman]

14 hours ago, JustEd said:

Personally, I am willing to go nuclear power.  However, there are problems in long term spent fuel rod storage.  Transport of spent rods to Yucca Mtn can is suseptible to exposure due to accident of misshandling.  It's the same in every country that uses nuclear, what to do with the spent fuel,  That's what the worry is right now at Chernobyl with the power being cut off. 

idle rant:  I just heard some 'ss hole who claimed to be a nuclear expert say if the waste water boils off at Chernobyl just add more water.  Yeah, but where does that radioactive steam go to? 

Don't get me wrong a CIVILIZED nation should be able to handle nuclear power.  The Ruskies have repeatedly demonstrated they are not of that ilk.

Very little transportation of spent fuel has actually happened. Last I was told, TVA has sent zero spent fuel anywhere. It's all stored on site and they don't expect to run out of space for a while. 

Our problems with nuclear power are mostly related to the antiquated design of pressurized water reactors.  They're huge, complex, use low density fuel, and make a lot of waste compared to newer ideas.  Government efficiency is hard at work streamlining the design approval process. 

[Handsome Rob]

5.49 in every station in Tullahoma for diesel this morning. 

Regular gas 4.09

[Moped]

23 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

Range when towing is severely diminished.  

Right now, that's true.  But I suspect that the future holds longer range and  ggreat towing capacity. 

But in order for this to work, a lot of things still need to fall into place.  First of all, we as a nation, need to decide on what type of resource we are going to use to make the future power that is going to be needed.  Coal is out. That's very clear. So are we going back to nuclear, or continue with natural gas/solar/wind/wave or something different like fission. Next we need to be start building new plants and new transmission lines, with new substations and switching stations. All this needs to be in conjunction with a network of charging stations, built across the nation. 

The specific planning for all this needs to start now.  We did this sort of planning once before, with Dwight D. Eisenhower's "Grand Plan" for the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. That got us the Interstate Hwy system we all enjoy now.  I'm not saying the Federal Government needs to foot the bill for all of this.  But they do need to be in on the initial planning and setting of standards. Then start turning it over to power generation and distribution companies for power and transmission portion of the implamentation and to commerical companies for the building the needed charging stations.  The Governement should get it rolling and then step out of the way and let us do what we do best! I believe that if this were to happen, then in 10 years we will be well on our way to energy independence.  

But make no mistake, we will always need petrolium products.  Crude oil just isn't for gas and diesel fuel. Anyone that thanks that, is a doofus.

[Capbyrd]

25 minutes ago, Moped said:

Right now, that's true.  But I suspect that the future holds longer range and  ggreat towing capacity. 

March Car and Driver did a piece on the Rivian R1T and with a 5650lb trailer, range was reduced from 270 to 110 miles.  They claim an 11000lb tow rating which would be even worse.  That’s a huge hurdle to overcome.  
 

personally, I think they went the wrong direction with batteries built in and charging stations.  Instead, hot swappable packs with swap stations.  

[RED333]

1 minute ago, Capbyrd said:

March Car and Driver did a piece on the Rivian R1T and with a 5650lb trailer, range was reduced from 270 to 110 miles.  They claim an 11000lb tow rating which would be even worse.  That’s a huge hurdle to overcome.  
 

personally, I think they went the wrong direction with batteries built in and charging stations.  Instead, hot swappable packs with swap stations.  

Add in extreme temps and the range gets ever worse! Battery powered cars and trucks is not the way to go, alternative fuels are the answer. CNG (compressed natural gas) trucks are on the road now, look close at a UPS rig the next time you get close to one. There even dumpster trucks as well running on CNG.

[Capbyrd]

5 minutes ago, RED333 said:

Add in extreme temps and the range gets ever worse! Battery powered cars and trucks is not the way to go, alternative fuels are the answer. CNG (compressed natural gas) trucks are on the road now, look close at a UPS rig the next time you get close to one. There even dumpster trucks as well running on CNG.

CNG causes the environmentalists just as much anguish as dinosaur sauce. 

[Erik88]

I don't see us making any necessary changes or investments until we are absolutely forced to. By then, making those changes will be a lot more expensive and difficult. It's hard not to feel discouraged when I look at the problems that we're facing. Our inability to agree on anything is going to cause us to fall behind other nations. Interesting times ahead of us I think. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Erik88

[JustEd]

6 hours ago, peejman said:

Very little transportation of spent fuel has actually happened. Last I was told, TVA has sent zero spent fuel anywhere. It's all stored on site and they don't expect to run out of space for a while. 

Our problems with nuclear power are mostly related to the antiquated design of pressurized water reactors.  They're huge, complex, use low density fuel, and make a lot of waste compared to newer ideas.  Government efficiency is hard at work streamlining the design approval process. 

I agree with you.  To my understanding the US gubbermint doesn't even allow the newer designs, such as those which process the spent fuel rods.  Could be out of date on that

[Moped]

2 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

March Car and Driver did a piece on the Rivian R1T and with a 5650lb trailer, range was reduced from 270 to 110 miles.  They claim an 11000lb tow rating which would be even worse.  That’s a huge hurdle to overcome.  
 

personally, I think they went the wrong direction with batteries built in and charging stations.  Instead, hot swappable packs with swap stations.  

I think that's a good idea too! This is the kind of things that they need to start planning for now.  Has Musk talked about anything like this?

[No_0ne]

3 hours ago, Moped said:

So are we going back to nuclear, or continue with natural gas/solar/wind/wave or something different like fission.

A minor point, but current nuclear power is fission.  Maybe you meant fusion?  In that case, consider that Edward Teller was proposing that fusion power represented a clean, cheap, easily obtainable source of infinite energy in 1946, when he was seeking funding for the development of what came to be known as the hydrogen bomb.  Despite 75 years of research and untold billions in funding, controllable fusion reactors probably aren't much closer to reality now than they were in Teller's day.  Fusion power does hold promise, but the technological challenges are immense, far beyond those which we faced during either the Manhattan Project or the Space Race.  There have been a few developments along this line, but despite the breathless promises that "fusion is just around the corner" that you read in assorted science and news articles on a yearly basis (similar stories have been written for decades), fusion remains but a tantalizing dream of the (distant) future ...

[Moped]

8 minutes ago, No_0ne said:

A minor point, but current nuclear power is fission.  Maybe you meant fusion?  In that case, consider that Edward Teller was proposing that fusion power represented a clean, cheap, easily obtainable source of infinite energy in 1946, when he was seeking funding for the development of what came to be known as the hydrogen bomb.  Despite 75 years of research and untold billions in funding, controllable fusion reactors probably aren't much closer to reality now than they were in Teller's day.  Fusion power does hold promise, but the technological challenges are immense, far beyond those which we faced during either the Manhattan Project or the Space Race.  There have been a few developments along this line, but despite the breathless promises that "fusion is just around the corner" that you read in assorted science and news articles on a yearly basis (similar stories have been written for decades), fusion remains but a tantalizing dream of the (distant) future ...

You're right.  Fusion is what I meant.  Still doesn't mean they won't figure it out in the next decade or two, though.  We've come a long way since we created the first atom bomb.  Now we are looking at mini nuclear plants. Also we are moving away from costly coal plants (from the stand point of clean air and ashfills) to gas turbine plants (environmentalists are still not happy about those, but they can suck it for the present.  They are a lot cleaner than coal plants).

[JustEd]

20 minutes ago, No_0ne said:

A minor point, but current nuclear power is fission.  Maybe you meant fusion?  In that case, consider that Edward Teller was proposing that fusion power represented a clean, cheap, easily obtainable source of infinite energy in 1946, when he was seeking funding for the development of what came to be known as the hydrogen bomb.  Despite 75 years of research and untold billions in funding, controllable fusion reactors probably aren't much closer to reality now than they were in Teller's day.  Fusion power does hold promise, but the technological challenges are immense, far beyond those which we faced during either the Manhattan Project or the Space Race.  There have been a few developments along this line, but despite the breathless promises that "fusion is just around the corner" that you read in assorted science and news articles on a yearly basis (similar stories have been written for decades), fusion remains but a tantalizing dream of the (distant) future ...

The running joke is that fusion will always be just 30 years away.  Saw a test fire of SHIVA back in the 80's, quite impressive and LOUD.  Sadly, have been no breakthroughs recently, just slow progress towards controlled fusion.  I have to wonder if its just too difficult to be practical?

Edited March 10, 2022 by JustEd

[No_0ne]

4 minutes ago, Moped said:

Still doesn't mean they won't figure it out in the next decade or two, though. 

That's true of course, there's no accounting for the timing of scientific insight or breakthroughs.  However, right now, in order for a test of a fusion reactor to be considered highly successful, worthy of celebration, the reaction has to produce a power output of a fraction of one percent greater than the power input for a few milliseconds.  To accomplish this takes a huge assembly of very complex machines, and enough input power to supply a small city.  Most of these tests fail, only a handful ever producing the required result to be considered "successful".  That's a really long way from the "unlimited free power" that most of these stories trumpet ...

[bersaguy]

Here is a link that might interest those that don't already know about it.

 

[1]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/usgs-releases-oil-and-gas-assessment-bakken-and-three-forks-formations__;!!OSngg4lOVAs!35I5G1LhRyfjaT1AEJucBdqjU0F35HTJMsoV_wu1uH3QtQKXe7VVwMvcsPYImGpSsw$

 

[Grayfox54]

I got out and about today. I paid attention to gas station signs. I live next door to Memphis. Highest was $4.19. Lowest was $3.98. My usual station was $4.09. 

[RED333]

1 hour ago, Moped said:

personally, I think they went the wrong direction with batteries built in and charging stations.  Instead, hot swappable packs with swap stations.  

The one weak point on electric fork trucks is the battery connection, if it is just a little bit loose the connection over heats and things go bad from there, fork trucks use 24 volt systems.

Cars on the road use bolt and nut connections, you do not want a loose connection on a car as there is much more than 24 volts.

[Capbyrd]

3 hours ago, Moped said:

I think that's a good idea too! This is the kind of things that they need to start planning for now.  Has Musk talked about anything like this?

Not that I’m aware of.  Some companies are doing it for their performance track models.  But no one is for street cars that I’m aware of.