RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

[Dick_A]

All other fuel threads will be automatically deleted. 🙂

[Fezziwig]

It's hot here in Cupertino but I'm sitting in shorts at a picnic table on the shores of lovely Stevens Creek Reservoir having my lunch and connected to internet with my new EVDO USB727. Very cool. Looks like this will make a good RV highspeed connection.

[AO_hitech]

Dick A wrote:
If you two don't quit arguing I'm goin to dunk ya both in the bay! 🙂

Okay, okay, I'll stop. The bay is too damn cold for me. :W

[crudeman]

AO_hitech wrote:

Fezziwig wrote:
"Oil companies are actively holding 10.6 billion barrels of oil hostage from the American people and this legislation would have required them to begin production immediately,” said Congressman Wexler. “While House Republicans claim they want to increase domestic supply of oil and gas to the market, by blocking this legislation they took a hard stand against the development of our domestic resources.

But the oil companies aren't manipulating the price of oil, and some of congress isn't "in on it".

What ever happened to those that claimed the oil compaines made a fair profit from oil (percentage wise)?

Your buddy there has run them off I think. 🙂

[Dick_A]

If you two don't quit arguing I'm goin to dunk ya both in the bay! 🙂

[AO_hitech]

Fezziwig wrote:
"Oil companies are actively holding 10.6 billion barrels of oil hostage from the American people and this legislation would have required them to begin production immediately,” said Congressman Wexler. “While House Republicans claim they want to increase domestic supply of oil and gas to the market, by blocking this legislation they took a hard stand against the development of our domestic resources.

But the oil companies aren't manipulating the price of oil, and some of congress isn't "in on it".

What ever happened to those that claimed the oil compaines made a fair profit from oil (percentage wise)?

[Fezziwig]

Instead of 'drill now drill here', how about using oil leases already granted

----------------------------------------------------------------------
(July 17) Today, Congressman Wexler voted for the Drill Act, which would bring 10.6 billion barrels of oil immediately to American consumers by requiring oil companies to being producing oil from acres of land already leased. The legislation would have allowed other companies to take over these leases if the oil company currently in possession failed to begin oil production. The Drill Act would have also required the Administration to oversee the construction of a pipeline from these Alaskan reserves for the transport of oil and gas to the lower 48 states. The pipeline project would have created an estimated 10,000 new jobs. In addition, the legislation banned the export of this American-made energy, reserving resources for here at home. Unfortunately, House Republicans blocked the Drill Act, which required a two-thirds vote of support in order to pass."Oil companies are actively holding 10.6 billion barrels of oil hostage from the American people and this legislation would have required them to begin production immediately,” said Congressman Wexler. “While House Republicans claim they want to increase domestic supply of oil and gas to the market, by blocking this legislation they took a hard stand against the development of our domestic resources.

[Dick_A]

ENOUGH!!!

[AO_hitech]

Fezziwig wrote:
"When what you say is many orders of magnitude exaggerated ..."

Nonsense! In engineering and science an "order of magnitude" is 10:1, a decade. 3:1 is barely more than an octave, 2:1.

You're not very hitech. And you're distorting.

I used the term in a non-technical sense. It gets my point across. Everyone here is not an engineer. Likely, less than 10% are. And, if we are rounding numbers, you were 4:1 off. :W

[Fezziwig]

"When what you say is many orders of magnitude exaggerated ..."

Nonsense! In engineering and science an "order of magnitude" is 10:1, a decade. 3:1 is barely more than an octave, 2:1.

You're not very hitech. And you're distorting.

[AO_hitech]

Fezziwig wrote:
The cited nuclear plant was about 1.1 acres/Mw, whereas the Carrissa Plains solar plant is about 3.7 acres/Mw, about 3 times as much...In terms of engineering, 3.7 in a pilot system compares very well with a mature legacy system at 1.1.

You claimed that a nuclear plant took almost as much room as a solar plant. That is not even remotely close. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. YOU WERE WRONG, PERIOD.

Fezziwig wrote:
If I happen across other numbers I'll post them. But it's not my job to educate you. That's your job. You should be researching these things. I'm way past this point myself, and don't have much interest in recapping it myself.

You’re certainly not educating anyone here. When what you say is many orders of magnitude exaggerated one would be a fool to take what you claim as the truth. You are here arguing your point of view. If you want anyone to take you seriously from now on I expect that you will have to back up your facts. Your gross exaggeration has lost you most (all?) of your credibility. And if you don’t care if anyone believes you, why bother to post?

[Fezziwig]

The cited nuclear plant was about 1.1 acres/Mw, whereas the Carrissa Plains solar plant is about 3.7 acres/Mw, about 3 times as much. That was just a plant that came easily to hand, not the best by any means. In fact, it's often difficult to get such numbers for either nuclear or solar plants.

In terms of engineering, 3.7 in a pilot system compares very well with a mature legacy system at 1.1. One project is early in it's development and can be expected to improve, the other is mature and can be expected to be at it's asymptotic value.

If I happen across other numbers I'll post them. But it's not my job to educate you. That's your job. You should be researching these things. I'm way past this point myself, and don't have much interest in recapping it myself.

Each one of us, sitting here at a computer connected to the internet, has before him the most extensive and complete library system ever created in the history of mankind. By ENORMOUS amounts. Scholars of 500 years ago (even 100 years ago!) would be astounded and overjoyed at such a resource. So should we.

Use it!

And use it to learn, not just to re-enforce naive conclusions inherited from other people. Decide for yourself. You should no more rely on me than anyone else for knowledge and a decision.

Do your homework! You can't skip to the back of the book to find the answers as you might have done in high school. The risks and rewards are too big for such cheatng.

Thanks for the citation for Calvert Cliffs at Chesapeake Bay. They do not list the surface area of the plant. But I have a nagging memory from someplace that everyone within a mile of that plant is required to have a supply of iodine in case of a nuclear emergency. Is that right? I can't remember and I'll probably not research it because I have little interest since I regard Nukes as a sunset legacy system. It's usefulness is almost finished.

I notice that Calvert Cliffs runs at about 35% efficiency, i.e., about 35% of the heat generated by the atomic core is converted to electricity. The other 65% is exhausted to the atmosphere. This seems to me to be a bad side-effect.

I've spent a fair amount of time in Europe, in fact my marital family is European. Europeans are very unsettled about their dependence on atomic power. At this point they view it as simply a bridge technology to get them from here to the future without being subject to mideast and Russian blackmail. They are hungry for new technology. But they have a lot of historical institutional blocks to doing it themselves (that doesn't mean they can't or won't; eventually they will because they are improving their institutions to be more American) so they look to the USA to provide technological leadership.

They are ASKING us to lead into the future! We'd be stupid not to do it. And we will. Just as we led the rest of the world in implementation of petrol energy, and just as we led with Atoms For Peace programs.

Don't fight it!

Because if the USA citizenship stymies alternate energy, then the pioneers in technology will go overseas and take those opportunities with them. Believe me, there is plenty of money in Europe, the mideast, saudi arabia, dubai, all thos homes of sovereign funds.

If We The People make bad decisions we will see opportunities slip away and we will become a third world country, standing on the sidelines , envying other peoples lives.

[AO_hitech]

Fezziwig wrote:
To be rude I might point out that strawfoot is unjustified in accusing me of being 1000% off since the very figures he listed show a 6:1 discrepancy not 10:1. He was misrepresenting the facts, and you can check that right there.

the figures I quoted for Carrica Plains can be easily checked by anyone with initiative and access to an internet browser. And that's just an obvious one I was reading about the other day.

You claimed that nuclear takes up almost as much space as solar. You were WAY off. Once you are more than 100% off it doesn't much mater.

Anyone can write anything they want here. Since you have proven that you write highly inaccurate posts, unless you can backup your claims, they are just ramblings. However, everyone here is free to believe you if they choose.

And feel free to be rude. :W


Added: It's "Carrisa Plains" for anyone wanting to do the research.

[Burp]

ORbiker wrote:
I think they (? who) shut down most of the nuclear plants years ago. Are they in mothball stage and just need to be re-certified and started back up?

We have a nuclear plant in Maryland that has been running since 1975. It was just recertified. They are submitting paperwork to add a new reactor, they already have 2. Downsides: They have to have sirens within 10 miles to warn people of a leak, people living within that range have to have iodine in stock (aids in prevention of radiation sickness), and they took out my old Boy Scout camp to build the plant. Still think it is safer than large oil tankers in the Chesapeake Bay.

Go to this link for detailed info on the power plant. At the bottom of the page you will find a list of all open and closed nuclear power plants.

[Fezziwig]

AO_hitech wrote:

Strawfoot wrote:
Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%?

A very valid point. I for one, will not believe ANY numbers unless they are backed up. That goes for facts too.

To be rude I might point out that strawfoot is unjustified in accusing me of being 1000% off since the very figures he listed show a 6:1 discrepancy not 10:1. He was misrepresenting the facts, and you can check that right there.

the figures I quoted for Carrica Plains can be easily checked by anyone with initiative and access to an internet browser. And that's just an obvious one I was reading about the other day.

[AO_hitech]

Strawfoot wrote:
Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%?

A very valid point. I for one, will not believe ANY numbers unless they are backed up. That goes for facts too.