MyFox
 

JosephThePoet's Blog

by JosephThePoet from Barrie, Ontario Canada

Last Post 1 day, 4 hours Ago


Reducing Gas Costs
Apr 22, 2008 | 8:47 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

 

The best way for us to permanently reduce our gas costs is to reduce petroleum demand worldwide, and the real cost is not just the current fill-up value at the pumps but also what it costs us and the planet in getting and using this energy source.

It makes no sense to go down the additional polluting path of increasing petroleum refineries, and of pumping out and shipping around these large volumes of oil to cause further destruction to our environmental requirements for life.

The more non petroleum electricity we produce for all our power requirements the less the demand for oil sourced power will be.  And ensuring local communities have their own power sources will provide a level of protection for these communities against excessive fuel cost increases and any disruption in their power sources from outside influences.

Can you imagine walking around your community without having to breathe in the foul poisonous fumes of vehicle exhausts?  We could live like that if our leaders choose to promote it.  This lifestyle will help reduce many health problems and help reign in health costs increases also.

We need to remember that our country and world are made up of small communities.  All these communities need to be nurtured and protected because together they make up our cities, states and countries.  Local community security is not just about guns or borders, as things like local employment and energy are also very important.  The best protection for our local community is the protection of all the communities around us as well, and many communities everywhere in the world would benefit from having their own local power sources even if just to provide their drinking and crop irrigating water.

We need leaders who will protect us from threats and lead us intelligently through our lifetime and into the future.  That is why we choose leaders, make councils and create governments.

I try to communicate intelligent thoughts for our leaders to consider, like in my open letter to politicians, at sites like:

http://www.myspace.com/josephthepoet

http://rhymster.com/members/Joseph_McNeil/

 

13 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 13
Page 1 of 1
AMOM read my blog
Apr 22, 2008 | 10:40 AM

Where are you going to find an intelligent leader????????

After the 60's, it seems that everything started to turn upside down.

Could have been the grants, the government started putting people that would not work, or was low on the pole of intelligence through school, then they placed them in classrooms.

The really smart people went out and started business'es. Remember the old saying, "If they can't make anything out of you, then you will teach.

Well, it watered out educational system so far down, that I'm not sure that we can recover.

So, in order to get people who can do the job, they seem to have to bring them from another country.

Apathy that is rampant in our population has just about distroyed our country.

I really wish we could do something about it.

But, that is what everyone says, "WELL, you can't do anything, so just go along with it."

Hillary can't tell the truth from a lie. They sold us out with NAFTA. Obama, I'm not sure, because if he is going along with this racial thing of his so-called preacher, WRight.

McCain, I don't know if he could even do anything, with the people in Washington, like Kennedy,a drunk, and some of the other mis-fits.

Just pray, that God will give us what we stand in need of.
Jimmy-42 read my blog
Apr 22, 2008 | 2:37 PM

Joseph, very little electricity is produced using petroleum. Most is produced by coal, nuclear or water/gravity (hydroelectric).

For powering vehicles, there is really no good technology that exists today except petroleum. Yes, there are some electric cars/trucks, but for most they are really not practical for the average person/business. That's not to say that we still cannot reduce our dependence on petroleum, because we can. But, with the technology that exists today, we can't completely eliminate, or even drastically reduce, our dependence on petroleum.

One of the good side effects of rising petroleum prices is that it makes the investment into the research/development of alternatives more financially attractive.
Chickenkiller read my blog
Apr 22, 2008 | 9:22 PM

Methinks that Joseph is part of the new-left 'Hate America First' crowd who has stayed up too late at night watching too many Algore movies.

The solution is to 1) Build more refineries in the US, 2) Drill in ANWAR now, 3) Drill off the coast of California now, 4) Drill off the coast of Florida now, and 5) drill the Bakken shale in North Dakota, now! If you started doing this today its going to take 4-5 years until such time as these new sources are online producing and refining product.

Concurrent with this we need to stimulate the development of alternate sources, but this stimulation should be in the form of tax breaks, not by direct involvement of the Federal government.

I'd be willing to bet that our 'expert' Joseph has never set foot on a drilling rig, a production platform or a refinery. He's just parroting what Algore would want him to.
JosephThePoet read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 8:36 AM

We use a lot of oil to heat our buildings, to drive electrical generators, and to derive gasoline for our vehicles.

Even just a small 5% reduction in the US oil consumption would result in a large global demand reduction that would ease prices.

Natural gas vehicles work, electric vehicles work well enough for city commuting, and hydrogen powered vehicles work. The main reason we don’t see a lot of hydrogen powered vehicles on our roads is the fact that there are no refilling stations for people to refuel their vehicles everywhere they wish to drive.

If we want to be completive worldwide and not fall behind in making and using the new power technologies then we must invest, big time, now. Or we can fall behind, instead of leading the world, and be left behind in many new technologies.

Chickenkiller, maybe you should read my posts before jumping to any conclusions. I am not anti-US nor do I want the government to get into the purchasing and distribution of anything. In my posts I have suggested using the $160 Billion to rebate the costs of the purchase and operational installation of wind and solar electrical generators instead of scattering the money around willy-nilly and hoping something good will happen. My idea has the people having spent the money, and companies having employed people for training, manufacturing and installation before the government rebates any money. A lot more than $160 Billion would be invested into the economy by doing this and the stimulation would occur right away as companies geared up to get their piece of the pie.
Pugman
Apr 23, 2008 | 12:04 PM

Joseph, Hydrogen is not cost efficient as yet as it takes more energy to produce that what is gained.

As stated in another blog, we import fuel and export oil as our refineries can not refine ALL the oil we currently produce.

I think we need to readdress our needs and start buying/driving more fuel efficient vehicles as well as modifying our homes to use less fuel (be it electricity, gas or fuel oil). Why not add a few solar panels to our roofs or a small wind turbine to generate electricity? That we could do ourselves and cut our costs on the energy we use everyday.
For those that live in and around hot springs, why can they not use some of that geothermal energy to heat their homes in the winter months.

There are a lot of options that could be used if we just get off our collective butts!

I will now pass the “Soap Box” to someone else. Thank you for my rant and I hope I did not offend anyone.
IneedUrHelp read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 3:29 PM

Ok, conserving gas is a nice idea, but if we are conserving because of an ending supply, then we must realize that conserving is just putting off the inevitable. Shouldn’t the focus be on replacing this item rather than saving it so we dont just push the horror of “there is no more” to a generation past ours? Conserving is not a solution unless the limited supply is only limited for a certain period of time. Then conserving until more is available makes sense. Is the supply ending or can we only produce a certain amount per year? If its cause of polution, then again, an alternate source is the solution, not using less and poluting slower.
And why is it that we can not make enough gas to keep up with the demand when we are completely aware of what the typical demand is at all times of the year? I heard something about the reason being that we cannot house the amount of oil we need for the summer demand. We don’t stock up in the winter and I wonder why that is. Seems if you need more of something 3 months out of the year, you would try and stock up during the other 9 months. Someone want to explain why we don’t suck out of the earth the amount we know we will need before we're behind? Someone tell me why the focus isn’t on alternative energy as much as it is on conservation? Are we running out of oil? When, at the current rate of use, is the supply expected to be exhausted?
Pugman
Apr 24, 2008 | 7:46 AM

IneedUrHelp, All good questions. And the answer is: ?????

We are all in a state of denial. We think there will always be more and in fact we are using it up at an alarming rate! Yes, we need to look for a renewable resource that is environmentally and cost effective. Hydrogen is one thought since we have so much of it but that too could be exhausted in the future. Right now it takes more energy to produce 1 gallon than it does about 10 gallons of gasoline; that is not very cost effective. Biodiesel is eco friendly but we do not have the land mass to produce enough to completely wean ourselves off of gasoline. Electricity is another source but think of what it takes to produce. We burn coal (that pollutes the air), we dam up our rivers for hydroelectric power or we have Nuclear power plants that have radioactive waste that needs to be disposed of. Yes we need to keep looking for another source of energy for our needs.
IneedUrHelp read my blog
Apr 24, 2008 | 3:48 PM

Ok, did some investigating and here’s what I found out.

First off, we are not running out of fuel. It’s a capacity issue. We simply don’t have the ability to produce the gas we use. The reason? We need more refineries and the oil guys don’t want to invest in them because it is very costly and would lower their profits. The govy wont do it cause there is no money. The govy wont even incent the oil co’s to build new NON-polluting refineries cause there is no money to do it.

As for alternative energy, it’s about cost too. We don’t have the money needed to really focus on it. Between the war and the current deficit, we are too broke to do the needed R&D and even if we figure out an alternative, we can’t pay for it.

So the answer is for everyone to conserve until the US can get its budget in shape. It’s like using less toilet paper until Dad brings home another paycheck. Cept, there is no paycheck coming. So peeps, conserve all you want and put off the inevitable. Suffer so the oil co’s can get as much as they can. Let the govy pretend it cares about you and the earth while it hides the real issue.
Chickenkiller read my blog
Apr 24, 2008 | 11:11 PM

Joseph - just where does this magic number of $160 billion come from? Who supplies it, who gets it. We don't want to turn this country into another Canada with little pointy-headed bureaucrats wanting to micro-manage every detail of a person's life.

Ineedurhelp - partially right. The problem isn't just refinery capacity. Currently we import approximately 55% of our total crude requirements and approximately 17% of the refined products we currently consume. We need both production AND refining capacity.

The reason that the 'oil guys' don't want to build more refineries is because of the stranglehold we have placed them in with over-regulation by OSHA and EPA. Why would you want to construct additional facilities that allow overzealous regulators to come in and fine away any potential for increased profitability? Its a bad risk and its a bad business case.

We have all the capital necessary right now for developing alternate sources, but you just can't plunk billions on a table and tell someone you want it solved by tomorrow. It takes time. In the meanwhile the need and technology to explore, drill, produce and refine is already there. Use it!!
JosephThePoet read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 9:15 AM

Chickenkiller- The $160 Billion is the amount they are going to scatter around in small amounts to taxpayers as a so-called economic stimulas package. If you'd read some of my other posts you'll find this and other information and concerns.

Hydrogen is in massive abundance in our universe and here on earth. Water can be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen by electricity. If we have an abundance of electrical production then during reduced demand times the energy could be redirected to this cause.
Chickenkiller read my blog
Apr 27, 2008 | 6:02 PM

Joseph - $160 billion in wasteful spending.

Someone before now already told you.....it costs more to produce the hydrogen than it does gasoline. And, it takes more units of hydrogen to produce the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. In shorts its not an economical solution.

Even if it were economical the environmental whiners would be wanting to outlaw its use since they consider water vapor to be a 'greenhouse gas' and won't be happy until we've changed our standard of living back to around the 18th century.
JosephThePoet read my blog
Apr 28, 2008 | 10:39 AM

Chickenkiller - Everything costs more when it first enters the market place, then the price reduces via mass production. The method of production must be considered when discussing the cost of any product, as different methods vary the costs. If someone is using oil or gas to produce the hydrogen then the cost will be greater then just using the gas or oil. Add in the competition factor, when an easy to produce product is in great demand, and the price again reduces and new low cost methods of production will be discovered as well. Do you remember your school science class showing you how water can be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are salable products?

I'm sure you must be joking about water vapour being considered a problem greenhouse gas by anyone.
IneedUrHelp read my blog
Apr 28, 2008 | 12:05 PM

How do we have capitol for research and implementation of alternatives? We are in debt up to our eyeballs. We dont have the capitol. And 55% is too low, its more like 70%, but whats the difference? if you cant refine, doesnt matter if you have a lot or a little. Theres no worry that we wont or cant get our requirements from other countries, cause first off, they want our money, but they also dont want us to be forced to take. and we would. The only issue is capacity. And all this crap about Green this and Green that is simply a way to distract the people, unite them under a common purpose, and fool them into thinking they are really making a difference. The only thing all this Green bull will do is put off the enevitable and buy those in the govy time to get out before it crashes down.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




JosephThePoet

I have diplomas in electronics and computer programming, and an employment background that includes security, supervisory, and laser communications components manufacture and trouble shooting. I am receiving a small provincial disability support and am trying to earn a living as a poet. My first poetry book "Life is a Puzzle" by JosephThePoet can be found at: http://www.barnesandnoble
.com/ http://www.publishamerica
.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ Anyone wishing to copy and share my posted poems with others may do so if they include the following, provided they do not try to make any money from them: Author JosephThePoet of Life is a Puzzle by PublishAmerica. Anyone wishing to share my posts and my comments may also do so provided they indicate they are mine and don’t try to make money from the practice. If you share a debate I make in a comment area please follow the same rules and also eliminate any person’s moniker I may have referenced if I used part of their comment in my argument.

Member Since: 1/17/2008


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?