repalcing stock water pump with SHURflo 5.7
Like several people here, I bought an Oxygenics shower head for my fiver. It worked great while hooked up at the campground but only trickled water when dry camping. I've purchased the SHURflo smart censor water pump that is capable of over 5GPM at 65PSI. Others have stated it solved the problem of low flow using the Oxygenics shower head.
Has anyone installed a replacement water pump? I can hear the old one when it is running. How do I locate it and replace it? I should mention to anyone else looking to swap out their stock pump that SHURflo insists that you also place a SHURflo Extreme strainer in line with the new water pump.
Strawfoot
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
Oil cos. can call the shots because they are an oligopoly, the next thing to a monopoly. So they can do as they please.
And just imagine, some people believe that oil cos. will DRILL NOW DRILL HERE if we grant them more oil leases! Imagine that: They'd cut their own throats just to glut the US market and supply more oil at lower prices to USA motorists.
Imagine that! Could anything be more hilarious!?
It's the fuzzy facts (or is it Fezzy Facts) of your post that is so hilarious.
Oil companies call the shots? Really? Oil companies want to drill for oil in the ocean off-shore from the U.S., but they can't. They want to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, but can't. Does that sound like they are calling the shots? Does it sound like Congress is rubber stamping their every wish? I don't suppose the oil companies want to pay $40,000,000,000 in taxes (or whatever the total is) to the U.S. government each year. Why don't they just call the shots and refuse to pay taxes? Does it do the oil companies good or bad to have GM go under, or need a bailout to survive? Does it do the oil companies good or bad to have consumers looking for alternative forms of energy to run their homes and cars?
I can just picture their board meetings; "Gentlemen, we need to quit drilling for oil until the American population is driving cars that run on electricity and have their homes heated running on solar and wind energy. Then we can really stick it to them, right? Wait a minute. If we allow fuel to rise to over $4 a gallon, it will be cheaper to operate bio-diesel cars and trucks, electric cars, and fuel cell cars and trucks. Maybe we need to look at this business plan that does little more than lead us to extinction.
It's about as bright as the horse and buggy salesmen withholding his horses or buggy's in order to keep people from shopping for automobiles. Imagine that! Hilarious.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
Strawfoot says:
"And don't believe for a minute, as Fez is suggesting, that Congress is doing it's best to help us all out."
Huh? Where did I suggest that? I think that you're trying to suggest that I suggested that. I don't have any confidence at all in congress. They are in the pay of the lobbyists.
You guys keep saying "drill drill drill" without realizing that Americans DO NOT CONTROL drilling. You can chant "drill drill drill" all day long and not one well will be drilled.
No oil drilling rigs are owned or commanded by the US government. So telling congress or anyone else in the government to "drill drill" will be FUTILE!
Here is exactly what you said;
A sure way to reduce short term gas prices is to release oil from the Strategic Petrol Reserve (SPR), which is 98% full. This can be accomplished either by executive order or congressional action. Congress is trying, but...
If you would had finished your sentence, it would have said Congress is trying but the President has failed to make an executive order. In other words, you are saying our Congress is doing what they can, while you are suggesting the President is not. It's just more baloney. There has been lengthy discussions regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Most experts disagree with you, and say it would have little effect.
Why do you continue failing to understand what people here are suggesting. They are not saying the Government owns oil rigs. Can you find a post where someone said they do? What they are saying is that Congress can open up ANWR and allow oil companies to come in and drill and extract crude oil.
Actually, you know this is what people are suggesting because they have said it. They have said many times they want the Congress to open up ANWR. So you are wasting more of everyones time by suggesting that some here think the Government owns the oil rigs. The Government is, however, essential in opening up areas for exploration and drilling.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
And so what if we drill, drill, drill. Then what? Will the price of oil and fuel go down? I doubt it.
People can do what they want. In my case, I want to go solar as soon as possible. Electricity has never gone down in price. I don't care what it costs me short term, in the long term it will pay off.
No more doubts and no more promises. I will take care of myself.
No, it's not a good point. You are looking at the current situation all wrong. It's not drill, drill drill to get the price of oil to go down. It drill drill drill to buy time and to keep the price from going up too rapidly.
People can keep repeating the notion that drilling won't produce results for 10-20 years but they are wrong. First of all, is it 10 years or 20 years? Second, is the notion that the U.S. can do something to take control out of the hands of foreign countries. It's all about the message getting out to our current suppliers. That in itself creates results overnight. Within 24 hours of announcing we are going to start drilling off shore and in Alaska, oil futures would drop, probably well under $100 a barrel. So if someone tells you there will be no results from drilling for 10-20 years, they are wrong. You'll see results in a matter of days.
I don't care what it costs me short term, in the long term it will pay off.
You don't care? Really. Say it costs you $50k in the short term. It might take 50 years to pay itself off. Do you care then? Lot's of us dream about living off the grid because we like the idea of not having to rely on others. But in the long run, most of us take the time to do the math, factor in our current age, and then make a more rational decision.
Look at people running out to buy a Prius. What did they pay? Probably full sticker price. Did they even understand what a hybrid was or how it worked? Some of these people commute on the highway each day, traveling hundreds of miles. Do they care that they are essentially driving a small gasoline powered car 98% of the time? They could have saved $5,000 and bought a Civic, or better yet, a diesel VW Jetta. How many of those Prius buyers even asked about the life span of their cars battery or how much it costs to replace it? They simply got fired up or fed up and ran out to make an impulse purchase. When their neighbors asked them why they paid so much for their Prius, they replied; I don't care what it costs me short term, in the long term it will pay off.
I live in Arizona. There is a group calling itself the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as a couple others with similar names. They are lawyers, mostly. After a large wildfire, there will be a proposal to go into the area and salvage the trees that are damaged. The groups like the Center for Biological Diversity will file papers asking a judge to stop the salvage, because they claim it will damage the environment, the land, the animals, the entire ecosystem.
Here's the punch line. They will lose in court and they know it. Yup, they lose almost every time, eventually. But they declare victory every time, because they win even when they lose in court. That's right. They know they don't need to win in court. They only need to stall for time. Those burnt trees can only be salvaged for maybe six months. After that, they are worthless dead timber. So those lawyers are not getting paid to win, but to stall for six months, which turns out to be a victory.
I'm not going to tell you which political party is more beholden to lawyers, especially trial lawyers. I would just be taking sides, as well as getting this post deleted. I'm just saying there are many things we wish our elected leaders were doing for us and for our country that they seem to fail to get done. We question them a little and wonder if they are influenced by all the donations from various special interest groups. That could explain why Congress has a 9% approval rating. We seem to agree they are not getting anything done. Perhaps it's time people in the private sector stepped up and come up with solutions that the American people can get behind and push forward, with or without the blessings of our elected officials.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
Nuclear? A solar plant occupying the same acreage produces almost as much electricity as nuclear...
Is it possible to call shenanigans on this claim without incurring another landslide of rants?
http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/azsolarfarm1.jpg
The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011 – IF AND ONLY IF Congress renews the clean energy tax credit that’s set to expire at the end of 2008. That's the clean energy bill which would shift about $18 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Palo_verde_NPP.jpg
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
The facility is on 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts electrical, and typical operating capacity 70%-95% of this. The plant is a major source of power for Phoenix and Southern California, capable of serving about 4 million people. The plant provides about 35% of the electricity generated in Arizona each year.
It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high.
So the Solar Power Plant is 1900 acres has been projected to produce 280 megawatts.
The Nuclear Power Plant is 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts, for a total of 3.72 gigawatts.
So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Nuclear Power Plant takes up twice the space and produces 13 times more electricity. It serves 4 million people vs. 70,000 homes, if those two can be compared.
So exactly how did you conclude the two were equal? Where are your sources. I simply looked at the Nuclear Power Plant here in Arizona and the proposed Solar Power Plant here in Arizona.
Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%? It would go a long way in explaining why you are met with so much skepticism. :)
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
I just couldn't understand the logic of asking people not to write diatribes against politicians after you (Fezziwig) wrote a diatribe against politicians. Or, for that matter, why the moderator deleted my post for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. So I guess, to be consistent, the mod will need to delete this post as well, which again, won't make any sense.
I'll just stand clear of the skunk and let him explain his logic.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
Well, if you are still reading, you pretty much have figured out that I'm not a socialist. A free market economy can and will help us solve the problems. The government just moves the problems around and sends us a bill for the privelege. Happy ranting.
I enjoyed what you had to say, Larry. I can't understand how people think I'm a socialist. All I am asking for is another Manhattan Project, only to create energy independence. Did people call it socialism when our government built the bomb that saved countless soldiers lives and ended the war in the pacific? Hardly. It was just government putting the best and brightest together and funding their work until they could come up with a weapon to defeat the Japanese. It would be great if we could do something like that to create large amounts of clean energy that we don't have to buy from other countries. It seems we already have the technology to build everything needed. We just need to get moving.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
The consumer will pay for the end product, thus allowing you to produce the product. - Jimbo
first of all, business does NOT PAY TAXES -Jimbo
Second that for JIMBO!!!! He is right on the mark and put it absolutley perfect.!! - The Weekenders
Explain how Jimbo was right on the mark. He states that because the consumer will pay for nuclear power, hyro-electric power, and solar power, this allows "you" to produce those products. Is that what they were teaching in economics class? Who is "you" and where do they get the authority to build dams and nuclear power plants? They just acquire the right-of-way on our rivers? They just dispose of spent nuclear fuel as they wish? They don't have to go through the government?
Businesses don't pay taxes? That's right on the mark? Exxon pays half of those large profits back to the government in taxes. Maybe Jimbo can explain to them that they needn't bother paying taxes. Our corporate taxes are about the highest in the world, but don't tell Jimbo.
Come om people, we can do better than this. How about some ideas. You know, solutions. I get it; you hate the way our government has failed you in the past. But at the same time you are still getting those prescription drugs paid for and you are still cashing your social security checks, even if you are 80 years old and have taken out twice as much as you ever paid in. You don't hate the government, you hate some of what government does and embrace other things they do. If you are a member of AARP, you are part of a huge political organization that tries to milk the government at every opportunity. You want them paying for all your medical needs and handing the bills to the next generation of taxpayers. Look at those colorful pie charts explaining where our taxes go. It use to be Medicare and Medicaid represented 1-2% of government spending. Soon they will be 30% and they will bankrupt the government. You can complain about our government but you can't do so while milking taxpayers because of a government program you happen to embrace.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/charts/Budget/Budget4_s.gif
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/charts/Budget/Budget3_s.gif
1966:
Defense: 43.0%;
Social Security: 15.0%;
Medicare & Medicaid: 1.0%;
Net interest: 7.0%;
All other spending: 34.0%.
1986:
Defense: 28.0%;
Social Security: 20.0%;
Medicare & Medicaid: 10.0%;
Net interest: 14.0%;
All other spending: 29.0%.
2006:
Defense: 20.0%;
Social Security: 21.0%;
Medicare & Medicaid: 19.0%;
Net interest: 9.0%;
All other spending: 32.0%.
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/PieChart.jpg
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
Strawfoot. The world has already had a failed example of Governmant directed and controlled industry and development. That was the USSR, even now Comunist China is far from that Marxist-Leninist/Socialist model.
We need Legislators that help folks do and develope industries that are honest,
and desired by folks willing to trade and buy them.
Government direction of business and development is a sure road to perdition.
Lets have "Change that works"!!
I see a world of difference between the USSR and say, NASA. Now I'm no fan of NASA but the U.S. government decided on a mission for the country. It set a ten year timetable and acquired the funding. Personally I feel it has been mostly a waste of money. We don't need to spend a few hundred billion dollars trying to send a human to Mars, just to prove it won't work.
However, that is the spirit I'm trying to get across. A project for our country to quickly move towards energy independence. I'm not saying the government should run everything. But how do you get 100 new dams and 100 new nuclear plants built without the government?
Gridlock is the result of people dragging their feet or opposing something and blocking all progress. They can have good reasons. They might not want to pay higher taxes. Sadly, they'll pay $10 a gallon for gasoline in five years, and still only be able to buy a limited amount each month due to rationing, but they won't have the insight to support building hydro-electric dams and nuclear power plants to provide a clean energy source that can't be manipulated by foreign countries.
I refuse to accept your notion that building new dams and nuclear power plants makes us like the USSR. I doubt we can do it without involving the U.S. government. We need new energy sources on a huge scale. 100,000 wind turbines, 100 or more nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams by the dozens, solar panels on every roof, geo-thermal plants, tidal power plants. Now, how does it happen? What are you suggesting?
For all of you living in California, why do you suppose they lead the nation in getting home owners and businesses to install solar panels? I think it's simple. They offer the largest tax break. I believe it's around 50% of the cost that gets refunded. Now you might not agree with the government handing out tax breaks for a select group of people, but it works. If my state offered that kind of deal, I'd order solar panels for my roof. I already have two panels on my fiver and love the solar system that allows me to dry camp and still have all the power needed to run my stereo and television.
Let's get some ideas from all those who say no to paying a tax to get new energy solutions. Don't tell me what won't work. Don't tell me the government always fails. Tell me how to get new, clean, reliable energy sources in the U.S.
RE: Oil prices still dropping like a rock, plus now speculators
DRILL,DRILL,DRILL, we can't burn GREEN Something-or-other in our Tow vehicles or Mortor Homes. Everything we use made out of plastic is an oil by-product. Oil will be around for the next 30 years. Lets use our own oil.
I'm no tree-hugger, Lynn. I'm a conservative and I'm not sure I buy into the whole climate change scare. If the world is getting warmer, just maybe it's because of activity on the Sun. After all, Mars is also getting warmer and you don't see too many SUV's running around that planet.
That being said, "our own oil" only amounts to 8 million barrels per day. Currently, we are using close to 21 million barrels a day. If oil is still around in 30 years, it won't be around in large enough supplies for the entire planet. If, in ten years, the U.S. wants/needs 30 million barrels of crude oil each day and there is only 10 million barrels available, well, how are we going to work it out? I like the idea of letting somebody else figure it all out when the time comes and not planning ahead, like most everyone else, but the time will come when failing to recognize the seriousness of the problem will cause great hardship for all. I think we will look back one day and wonder why we didn't do more when we could have.
RE: Oil prices still dropping like a rock, plus now speculators
Here's an idea. Congress has an approval rating of 9%. ..... ask the good people running Wal-Mart if they would take over the jobs of congress. They certainly know how to cut out unneeded spending. They would quickly get the books balanced and maybe start turning a profit. No more $200 toilet seats and other wasted spending projects. Just simple folks handling our tax money the same way we handle our own budgets. They won't spend more than they are taking in and they won't agree to buy from anyone who won't offer a competitive price.....
Yeah, they are a great bunch to have as leaders by killing off American jobs and sourcing 90% of their product base in China.
Wrong. Wal-Mart didn't kill off any jobs. You and I did when we decided to walk through their doors and buy products costing 50% less than similar products made in the U.S. We all could have just decided to buy American products, but we didn't. It wasn't just Wal-Mart, either.
We decided a Honda Accord and a Toyota Camry were better investments than a Dodge Neon or a Ford Escort.
Walk around your house and tell me how you have tried so hard to buy American. Your phone is made in China. Your stereo is made in the far east. Your wifes curling iron is made in Costa Rica, perhaps. Your camera is made in China. So are most of your shoes. Your television is Korean or Japanese made. Your sneakers are made by Nike, in Indonesia or India. That cell phone is made in China. The watch is made in China. The tires on your RV are made in China. Your clothes are made in Mexico, or China. My Ipod was designed by Apple and made in China. My mountain bike was made in Taiwan. My sunglasses were made in China. My flashlight was made in China. All the plugs and cords hanging out of my computer were made in China. My shower head - China. Ceiling fan - China.
It isn't just Wal-Mart. It is Home Depot, Target, Sears, Auto Zone, Best Buy, etc. They know what Americans want. They want cheap products and they could care less where they are made.
If people here could have save a couple thousand by buying a Chinese made RV, 90% would have done it. Wal-Mart happens to buy and sell Chinese made products more efficiently than anyone else. I don't blame them for being the best at what they do. Maybe you shouldn't either.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
I like the direction this topic has moved in. We are doing more than just blaming some group for the problem. But we are still short on ideas. Saying we can't trust the government to oversee or direct a major build-up of alternative energy sources is understandable considering the low approval rating of our congress. But what then is the solution?
Who is going to build 100 new hydro-electric dams? Who is going to build 100 new nuclear power plants? The government will have to play a major role. If the majority of Americans refuse to give them the ability to get these type of projects started, we will get deeper into trouble.
Ten years from now, when we still have zero new nuclear power plants and zero new hydro-electric dams, who do we blame? The politicians, of course. But they will tell us they got no support for building anything. They'll tell the press that thousands of Jimbo Alaska's wrote them letters saying they refuse to pay for anything other than fire. police and schools for their kids. They expect all that new infrastructure to just appear, as if by magic. Plus, they feel that at their age, they can run out the clock on what is left of traditional energy sources and let their grandkids solve the energy problems after they are dead and gone. Their logic is that "
The consumer will pay for the end product, thus allowing you to produce the product. ". So because the consumer wants cheap electricity, someone will simply "produce" it. That's how economics works, right?
Listen, Jimbo isn't A whacko environmentalist. He might be causing the same amount of gridlock as them but he is just an old timer who doesn't want to help fund any new energy projects with his tax dollars, based on the history congress has wasting those tax dollars in the past. So ultimately nothing is going to happen. We are going to experience higher and higher fuel costs and fail to take action to shift energy sources. It will get bad for the average consumer and then it will get really bad, and then it will get unbearable. All the while, people all over the country will log onto various internet forums and blame the government and oil companies and investors/speculators for the great big mess they got us into.
Does anyone here think we should be doing a bit more than just blaming others? That maybe we should seek long term solutions and pay the cost of implementing those solutions.
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
Are you for real? Take MORE of my money....NO SIR!
The "FREE MARKET" is where this boy wants to spend his money.
We need to DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, AND PAY LESS!
I'm all for WIND, HYDRO(with some exceptions), BIO(non foodstaple), TIDAL, and NUCLEAR....ALL THE ABOVE....
EXPAND ALL OUR ENERGY SOURCES
Your money will be taken, one way or the other. Just like the old tv commercial where the mechanic is speaking to the camera saying; pay me now or pay me later. Some people would rather skip $30 oil changes and then face the consequences of a $5000 motor rebuild.
What I'm talking about are capital expenditures. You want more wind power and more hydro power and nuclear power, etc. But who is going to lay out the capital? Who will pay to expand energy sources?
One thing most Americans have in common is they demand low taxes and lots of services from our government. In particular the older generation. They want medicare or medicaid to pay for a pair of new knees and maybe a hip replacement and they don't want to be out more than a couple hundred bucks. They want to dial a number from a television commercial and get a motorized cart to haul their lazy butt around and they don't want to pay for it.
Now you want cheaper fuel and more drilling and more hydro dams and more solar power and more wind turbines, and you want someone else to pay for the cost. You even blame Democrats and environmentalists for the current problems. Well, that might have some truth to it but you are no different than them. when it comes to a vote, you are going to vote no on hydro and solar and nuclear unless it is free. You are just as much of a road block as them.
My parents help pay for the moon landing and I personally believe that was a waste of money. I'd put all those NASA engineers to work designing a zero emission electric vehicle that will cover 300 miles between charges, and make them earn their pay instead on blowing up space shuttles at a cost of a billion dollars per. Still, somebody has to organize these huge projects and come up with the money to get the construction underway.
If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
RE: Oil prices still dropping like a rock, plus now speculators
Here's an idea. Congress has an approval rating of 9%. It's pretty clear no matter what party you support, you do not approve of how congress is failing you.
Let's toss them out. All of them. I don't mean toss them out and replace them with other career politicians. I mean send them packing and find someone new to run our government.
We head down to Bentonville, Arkansas and ask the good people running Wal-Mart if they would take over the jobs of congress. They certainly know how to cut out unneeded spending. They would quickly get the books balanced and maybe start turning a profit. No more $200 toilet seats and other wasted spending projects. Just simple folks handling our tax money the same way we handle our own budgets. They won't spend more than they are taking in and they won't agree to buy from anyone who won't offer a competitive price.
WAL-MART for Congress!
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
If we were always expected to "just accept a lower standard" we would not had the likes of the Wright brothers, Samuel Morse, Edison and others that have made the US what it is. I refuse to believe we have reached the time when we have to "accept a lower standard". Not me! Not in my lifetime!
Frank
I think you've badly missed the point. You can still wave your flag and be a proud American but you/me/we need to act a bit more responsibly. The "not in my lifetime" attitude isn't what gets us out of the current situation. It is what got us into it. If everyone keeps denying that there is an ever increasing demand for petroleum and a finite supply, we will get deeper into trouble. The same holds true for people who know there is a steadily increasing demand for a limited supply of crude oil, but don't wish to curb their use or conserve in any way.
If you are an old-timer as most here are, you'd remember what you were asked to do during WWII. For the benefit of the country and the war effort, Americans were asked to sacrifice, to avoid using or wasting certain things.
The problem today is that alone won't buy us much time. Americans, who use 1/4 of all the worlds crude oil, could conserve by driving less. This might reduce our need for crude oil from 21 million barrels a day to 20 million barrels. Meanwhile the rest of the world is using a total of 63 million barrels of oil per day at present. The problem is that the rest of the world, China and India in particular, is developing rapidly, almost exponentially. They are adding millions of cars and trucks and will need huge supplies of crude oil. China may go from needing less than 10 million barrels of crude oil per day to over 80 million barrels per day, in less than ten years! So even if Americans finally start conserving, it won't make much difference. The demand for crude oil will double in ten years and the supply will stay the same, or maybe, as many believe, the supply of crude oil has peaked, and it will gradually decline.
We are in deep trouble. We may face shortages and see rationing in the coming years. If you don't feel the need to make sacrifices for the good of the country, you are a part of the problem. Sadly, when the government is forced to hand out 100 gallon monthly ration coupons to all of us, it won't matter how well off you are financially. You'll get the same amount as the rest of us. You can drive your RV on a weekend vacation and use up all your allotted fuel, or you can conserve it and spread out the use to get you through the month.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Not right away. Let's hope we can build some nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams, and get solar panels on everyone's roofs, and harness more wind power, and create more bio-fuels, and design better batteries for the second generation hybrids that will rely more on electricity. It will require an effort similar to going to the moon. We all need to agree on the urgency and agree on allowing the government to take even more of our money to fund such a project. Plus we will need to move forward despite the voices that will tell us we are going to create more climate change. We have to weigh the current needs vs. the idea that we might be contributing to global climate change. We're just gonna have to solve that issue at a later time.
So what do you say? Are you willing to help out "in your lifetime", even if it means a lower standard of living? Better to choose to help out than force the government to step in and ration our fuel because we didn't care to cut back.
Strawfoot
RE: Oil Oil everywhere...what shortage?
Does anyone even read the original post before wandering off into fantasy land? It was titled; Oil Oil everywhere...what shortage?
It suggested that there were numerous oil tankers in Iran that were not being sent out to sea. Apparently even the original poster didn't bother to read the article he posted. It gave the reason. Just read...
Iran Has 15 Supertankers Idling in Persian Gulf, Signals Show
By Alaric Nightingale
June 16 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, OPEC's second-largest oil producer, has 15 supertankers stationed in the Persian Gulf capable of storing more than 30 million barrels of crude, according to ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
That compares with data compiled a week ago, which showed there were 14 such carriers.
The Hengam, owned by National Iranian Tanker Co., has been at the Kharg Island loading facility since June 5. The carrier Homa signaled June 12 it's been there since May 25. One carrier, the Noah, which had been at Kharg since April 2, set sail for Ulsan in South Korea.
Iran, which had to use tankers for storage while its refinery customers carried out annual repair works, will start using the carriers for deliveries again by mid-summer, Hojatollah Ghanimifard, executive director of international affairs at the National Iranian Oil Co., said June 2.
Now, was that so difficult? There are a lot of oil tankers because they are being used for storage while annual repairs are being done on refineries. No conspiracy despite how badly people want one.
Also, 30 million barrels might seem like a lot of crude oil but we would not be "swimming" in oil if that much was sent here. It would last about 2.5 days. We use over 20 million barrels a day and 2/3rds of that is imported.
Speaking to the notion that there is plenty of oil; what makes so many here believe that? What data or facts are you basing that conclusion on? It needs to be more that just that it fits into your government/oil company conspiracy theory.
This bares repeating until it soaks in; The world currently consumes 84 million barrels of oil each and every day. The U.S. consumes 25% of that total. The worlds refineries have a total capacity to refine 84 million barrels a day. If somehow the output of crude was boosted to 90 million barrels a day, the refineries could not keep up.
This is where investors have jumped in to buy futures and caused the prices to rise dramatically in recent months. They saw that the ability to refine crude oil is finite. It has hit a peak. Yet the demand for crude oil is rising. It is predicted that it will rise dramatically over the next decade, due to development in India and China. China adds 25,000 new cars to it's population each and every day. That's each and every day. That's a million new cars every 40 days. I believe China uses a mere 8 million barrels of oil per day, compared to over 20 million the U.S. uses. China says that in ten years it expects it will require over 80 million barrels of oil per day. So China will require all the crude oil that is pumped out of the ground. They want it all.
So those investors/speculators were simply falling back on their high school economics lessons when they decided to risk buying crude oil futures. They expect that future demand in the world will increase the value of oil by a large amount. It will. Currently the markets are moving back down. Not below $80 but below $125 a barrel.
Now we can make claims about Exxon profits (half of which are paid back in taxes), or government inaction, or environmental regulation or whatever flavor-of-the-month conspiracy you want to peddle, but in the long run, if you should decide to look at the actual fact and figures that are available and not hidden in a secret vault, you'll see that it was only a matter of time before the rest of the world was able to become bigger and better consumers, just like the U.S., and that their consumption was going to be fueled by crude oil in ever increasing amounts.
So our current cutbacks in summer travel may cause us drop from using 21 million barrels a day to 20 million barrels a day. Good for us. World demand will go from 84 million barrels to 83 million barrels a day, but only for a month or two. China and India are increasing their demands and will quickly cause world demand to exceed 90 million barrels. And then 100 million barrels. And then 115 million barrels. They are not going to let environmental concerns stop them from building refineries to handle their future demands.
China's rising demand for oil and pipelines has worldwide implications
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
The high cost of fuel is driving the price of everything up. I know it's making a big difference in my life. It's not that hard to figure out.
You fail to explain how Exxon's profits are to blame. We all understand that higher fuel cost impact most of us. Me more than you, probably. I drove 35,000 miles since mid-April delivering campers, as a transport driver. We have what could be an 80% turnover rate with drivers. They don't seem to be able to pay for their fuel and other expenses and still make a profit.
Almost 2/3rds of America's crude oil is purchased from overseas. Does Exxon set those prices? Who does? How are future crude oil prices set around the world? Does Exxon have anything to do with it?
The truth is, it is quite hard to figure it all out. Just look at how almost everyone here is pointing their fingers in every direction and telling us how they know who is to blame and the rest of us are blaming the wrong people.
If you blame the politicians, you are blaming all of us who failed to elect the people who would take more effective action. If you blame foreign oil suppliers, you are wasting your time. They know they hold huge reserves of crude oil and that Americans love to waste it. If you blame Exxon, you don't fully understand their role. They have many restrictions on where they can explore, so they can't supply the U.S. with all the crude oil they want. And does Exxon own all the U.S. refineries? I don't know but I doubt it. How much mark up is there on crude oil as it works it's way to the pumps. Are you forgetting to blame all those capitalists who are in business to make money for themselves and their investors?
people here are being so simple-minded when saying they know who is to blame. Why not just blame ourselves for expecting our government to take care of all our needs, while keeping our taxes low at the same time. We want more and expect to pay little or nothing for it. And now it looks like we can no longer put off paying for our decades of lavish living. I'm not happy about the situation but I'm not going to blame others for something my lifestyle helped create. I'm going to improvise and overcome.
Strawfoot
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
The US economy is going downhill BECAUSE of those record profits.
Explain how you come to that conclusion.
It seems normal for people to be upset at the cost of fuel. It seems normal for people to look to blame someone. If you read through this thread you'll find people blaming congress, oil companies, OPEC, liberals, environmentalists, investors/speculators, and perhaps President Bush. But almost nobody makes a case. They have conspiracy theories and make many wild unsupported claims. You just don't see people putting forth facts to back up their claims. So I guess what I'm asking is, can you make a factual case explaining why a company that pays more in taxes than most any other company on the planet, is causing the U.S. economy to go downhill?
Let's say you build houses and sell those houses for $200k. A group of investors/speculators sees that there is a shortage of land to develop in your area and starts buying up all available lots, for an astounding $400k per lot. Panic ensues as people are still needing new homes. They are offering $700k for new homes. Do we blame you, the home builder who is now selling his $200k homes for $700k? Or do we blame the speculators who caused the run-up in prices?
Oil companies don't buy and sell oil futures. People wearing suits in New York City do, and they know exactly what the potential for profit is. They know what future demand is going to be. They know how badly Americans want to drive their gas guzzlers. They are really no different than you. If you decide to sell your Bay Area home, and lets guess it's a 3 bedroom, two bath, with 1400 square feet of space. Even if you bought it for only $175k twenty years ago, you're going to hire someone to sell it for $1.2 million dollars because that is exactly what the market will get you in the Bay Area. So maybe you can add greedy home owners as one of the reasons the U.S. economy is going downhill. Or maybe all of us RVer's out on the roads getting 12 mpg hauling recreational vehicles up and down the highways. That can't be good for the economy. But I suppose it's a lot easier to just blame the oil companies. The people who make it possible for us to own our gas hog rv's in the first place. Think about it for a minute before you go and point the blame at Exxon.
Strawfoot
RE: front hitch bike hauling
If you are willing to have a receiver mounted to the front of the truck, why wouldn't you consider having a receiver mounted to the back of your camper? I had an RV repair shop reinforce the existing bumper and weld two receivers under it. One for the bike rack and the second for my generator. It's rock solid and protected from bugs, road debris, rocks, and stray deer. I've never liked the idea of a front receiver with a bike rack. It hinders parking, gets bugs all over the bikes, and creates a completely different air-flow over what was a somewhat aerodynamic designed front end, meaning lower gas mileage.
There are a number of ways to attach bikes to a camper. Talk to a welder or go to camping world and see what they suggest.
Strawfoot
RE: Fuel Rants & Raves - Post 'Em Here!
The oil companies are making a killing (exxon 100 billion aditional profit this year) with NO shortage, and their mouthpieces have many convinced to give them the drilling off FL and in the artic to "fix" the fictional shortage and save us.
Duh.
I can't even imagine what these folks are smoking... or is it drinking the Kool-aid??
They are robbing youj blind so give them everything they want.
Sounds like Reagan giving arms for the hostages. Like "Charlie's War where they created and armed Al-qeda. Muddled thinking and sheep following.
My vote for one of the best posts. Finally, someone that can look beyond the billboards...
The oil companies are not making a killing. They are making just about what other equal sized companies are making. They are returning modest profits to shareholders. They do pay more in taxes than just about any company, though.
No shortages? Says who? The U.S. requires over 20 million barrels of oil each day. Domestically, the oil companies are producing around 8 million barrels a day. 8 is less than 20, right? That leaves us in short supply and requires us to import oil from overseas. You following? It's hardly "fictional". China says it will require 84 million barrels of oil per day by 2018, the current maximum output worldwide. When you see supply charts leveling off at 84 million barrels a day and you look over at demand charts that have a line going almost straight up past 148 million barrels in less than a decade, well, you don't have to be a math wiz to figure out what will happen.
As far as drilling off the Florida coast or in Alaska, there hasn't been any decision to allow either. Not for U.S. oil companies. China is planning on drilling off the Florida coast, it was reported. There has already been plenty of drilling in Alaska. Maybe you heard about the pipeline we built up there. The proposed site is in a protected area. It is a very small parcel of land and could provide years of domestic oil supply. It would also help reduce the skyrocketing oil prices of today.
As far as the muddled thinking of politicians like Ronald Reagan and how he may have supported the Afghan rebels while they were fighting the Russians, you might remember a day when other such muddled thinking politicians sat down with, and did business with Stalin. Not the ideal ally, to be certain, but the greater good was to defeat the Nazi's.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/yalta2.jpg
