been-there
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2002
- Posts
- 58
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Goldman Sachs warned oil could reach $105 a barrel
- Thread starter canyonblue
- Start date
- Watchers 24
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Full of LUV
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2002
- Posts
- 1,021
California Liberals!
You Cali leftcoast libs take the cake.
Which way is it? Bush is bad because he went to war to take Iraqs cheap oil or is it he likes high oil prices despite the damage to the economy because it is somehow in his "personal interests"?
First, Hybrid cars invented because the pompous California legislature mandated it? Give me a break! If that's the solution, the why don't the dems just mandate that all cars run on dirt by 2006 and halt the production of gas? What the previous poster who pointed out that hybrid cars loose their effectiveness when used on the highway vice stop and go has never driven around LA for long as most of your highway time is stop and go.
Second,
"Alternate fuels only through government action"? Alternate fuels will become available when it makes since to use them. Cash rules and when we have an economy based on low oil prices that allow gas to be cheaper than the bottled water in the minimart, then there is no less efficient/clean/ and less expensive fuel. The best idea floated and shot down by the public by old Ross Perot during the '92 election was a plan to raise the gas tax by 5cents a year for five years or until it started the process of weaning the economy off of the black gold. The price of oil will rise, it's just a matter of when and at what rate. The easy to drill reserves are going to dwindle, leaving the harder production areas.
Third
Cali technocrats rid themselves of leaded gas? Who put the lead in there in the first place???? It was added to slow the burn of the fuel and improve MPG, of course like most other Cali technocrat guesses, it turns out that the pollution caused much more damage than they had guessed. It took them over 20 years to realize it. What about MTB??? We forget so quickly it only took the Cali legislature a few years this time to pollute the groundwater in countless counties.
Bottom line, if you want to wean the economy off of oil, you need a slow, steady, predictable climb in it's price, and let the marketplace loose to answer the problem. Many a venture has been burned by the fact that you spend you capital to work towards a goal only to see the price of oil tank leaving you with a half developed technology with no market. You can by no means just "legislate" the answer.
Now I gotta go and send Barbara Boxer a link so she can trick out her Excursion.
You Cali leftcoast libs take the cake.
Which way is it? Bush is bad because he went to war to take Iraqs cheap oil or is it he likes high oil prices despite the damage to the economy because it is somehow in his "personal interests"?
First, Hybrid cars invented because the pompous California legislature mandated it? Give me a break! If that's the solution, the why don't the dems just mandate that all cars run on dirt by 2006 and halt the production of gas? What the previous poster who pointed out that hybrid cars loose their effectiveness when used on the highway vice stop and go has never driven around LA for long as most of your highway time is stop and go.
Second,
"Alternate fuels only through government action"? Alternate fuels will become available when it makes since to use them. Cash rules and when we have an economy based on low oil prices that allow gas to be cheaper than the bottled water in the minimart, then there is no less efficient/clean/ and less expensive fuel. The best idea floated and shot down by the public by old Ross Perot during the '92 election was a plan to raise the gas tax by 5cents a year for five years or until it started the process of weaning the economy off of the black gold. The price of oil will rise, it's just a matter of when and at what rate. The easy to drill reserves are going to dwindle, leaving the harder production areas.
Third
Cali technocrats rid themselves of leaded gas? Who put the lead in there in the first place???? It was added to slow the burn of the fuel and improve MPG, of course like most other Cali technocrat guesses, it turns out that the pollution caused much more damage than they had guessed. It took them over 20 years to realize it. What about MTB??? We forget so quickly it only took the Cali legislature a few years this time to pollute the groundwater in countless counties.
Bottom line, if you want to wean the economy off of oil, you need a slow, steady, predictable climb in it's price, and let the marketplace loose to answer the problem. Many a venture has been burned by the fact that you spend you capital to work towards a goal only to see the price of oil tank leaving you with a half developed technology with no market. You can by no means just "legislate" the answer.
Now I gotta go and send Barbara Boxer a link so she can trick out her Excursion.
SkyWestCRJPilot said:
8vATE
Cruel, Nice, Whatever
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 538
GogglesPisano
Pawn, in game of life
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2003
- Posts
- 3,939
LAXSaabdude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 431
been-there said:
Interesting read, and I agree with the need for radical changes in the very near future, but I take issue with the general tone of the article. It pretty much takes every attempt to utilize alternative energy and says "no, that won't work either". What's the point, then?
I remember back at the height of the cold war in the 1980s, a research group made some statement that "at no time in history has there ever been a buildup of arms that were not used." I basically just threw up my arms, and said to myself, "well, we're screwed, then!" Same feeling.
A sense of resignation does nothing to motivate people to change. People need to feel empowered, and they need to feel that there is some positive outcomes to their actions, otherwise they will not be motivated to change.
We all know that we are not close to running out of oil anytime soon, it is just that our demand is going to outpace our ability to produce it easily. Since there is little we can do to change the production curve, we need to address the demand curve, so that as production peaks, demand can peak along with it. Ultimately this will buy us time to delve into real alternative energy sources.
Hybrid cars will continue to comprise a larger percentage of autos, E-85 (85% ethanol) and biodiesel fuels are expanding in use, and Mazda is working on an internal combustion (non fuel cell) hydrogen engine for its RX-8. None of these inventions will single-handedly change our energy needs, but by diversifying our usage of energy, it will allow us to greatly slow our oil usage.
Just my random thoughts.
LAXSaabdude
FastCargo
Is that the tanker?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2001
- Posts
- 240
Just thinking...
Rant mode: On
Okay, this response is going to take a while so bear with me.
Subject: Cars
Cars have always been an essential part of the US culture. It can be considered one of the very basic expressions of freedom. Part of the culture dates back the expansion of the west, by a lot of individuals...that expression of freedom thing again. Also, unlike Europe, where cities have been around for centuries and there are not "huge tracks of land" to traverse and expand into, the United States...heck, North America in general, is simply big! Trains, trams, mass transit don't necessarily work here outside of large cities. So, cars, in general, I don't think are going away anytime soon.
That being said, cars now are still for all intents and purposes, still the same basic horse carriage derived vehicles old H. Ford himself built back in the day. In fact, if he were around today, I'll bet he'd have no problems figuring out the basic operations of the majority of parts in a modern car. Most cars are still powered mainly by the old internal combustion engine...a very inefficent powerplant. Think about it, turning vertical to circular motion, while having to drive cams and valves that have to turn the circular motion back into vertical motion. I'm an old gearhead from way back...but even I see the problems staying with such a design.
Most cars are designed today by simple inertia...we've always done it that way and the infrastructure has grown up to support that. There have been other ways tried before. Chrysler actually produced (not just prototyped) a turbine powered car. GM tried an all electric actual street car (EV1). Both efforts flopped...turbine was too new, expensive and unreliable...the EV1 was slow, heavy, and very short ranged.
The biggest enemy of getting an efficent car is inertia...more specifically, weight. Japan has some of the best gas miser cars...unfortunately, they can't sell them here because they wouldn't come close to meeting US crash standards. Some of those cars are TINY! Look at modern motorcycles...they are great misers...relatively speaking, because of lack of weight. Volvo and Toyota have both shown cars that carry only 2 or 1 persons. Next time you drive in heavy traffic, especially in rush hour, look at how many 4-5 passenger cars actually only have one person in them. A single-person car ('pod') as a secondary car (ie the one you use 5 days out of the week to go to and from work) would have many advantages. Things such as increased fuel effiency, less emissions, less gridlock, less material used to make the vehicle, ultimately lower cost to produce overall. However, such an idea would require MAJOR infrastructure overhauls, including exclusive 'pod' only lanes to prevent carnage due to semi truck/pod interactions, possible reevaluations of crash test standards, getting people to transition to the idea of a single use vehicle, etc.
Other advances include hybrids...but where the electric motors are the primarily means of motivation, with the combustion powerplant for additional power and to recharge the batteries. In fact, if you made that switch, there isn't any reason why you couldn't use a turbine as the power plant. It's not like auto makers aren't familiar with turbines. If you look at a modern car turbocharger...they aren't much different from an aircraft APU. Also, hybrids have become more practical because of technology. It wasn't until laptops and cell phones became popular that serious research was invested into advancing battery tech, which has bled over into cars now. I see hybrids as big advance now...hydrogen has it's own problems, which I'll dive into later.
So, in general, the car as we know it is changing finally. I think you'll see the evolution to most cars as electric/turbine hybrids, with continued advances in weight reduction and safety. I don't think you'll ever see a single-person car take hold in the US unless you have a major shift in thinking. Assuming of course we remain litigation happy and not grab some sanity.
Subject: Energy
Historically, no civilization has ever decreased it's need for energy, except by collapse. Assuming that remains true, especially as computer technology continues to advance, availability of petroleum will only be one problem.
Conservation sounds good in theory, but is hard to apply, especially with the energy needs of the increasing amount of high tech devices in the world. I'm not saying you can't build more energy efficent devices...but those devices in general are increasing in number exponentially. You will lose the contest unless you can get more sources.
So lets look at some sources. Of course we use a lot of petroleum, but not just for basic consumption. Remember, a lot of our plastics are also petroleum based. Don't let anyone fool you saying we are running out either. There is plenty available...if we are willing to invest to get at it. Under the Gulf, within the deep ocean trenches, in the ANWR (no, we are not mining all of Alaska...sheesh...5%). Of course, this takes time and money, and may have consequences. For instance, Canada (who is one of our major suppliers) has lots of oil wrapped up in sand (kind of a slush). It's usable oil...but takes a lot of energy to get it. Oh, and it produces CO2 in the process.
Uh oh.
We can also get oil from coal...of which we have LOTS of...but it also has waste products. Arsenic, CO2, some others...
What about solar and wind? Both are clean but both have problems. Mainly, both require LOTS of space and are subject to weather. Windmills in particular have been coming under fire from enviromentalists for a) they chop migrating birds and b) residents don't want windmills spoiling their view of nature (...cough...Cape Cod...cough...). Solar could be great if you raised the panels into geosync orbit and beam the energy in coherent microwaves to capture grids on the planet. Of course, that raises it's own set of problems, including possible bleed warming of the air, aircraft straying into the beam, and of course spoiling of the night sky (whatever...).
Nuclear is making a comeback, even among a lot of enviromentalists (see the latest issue of Wired magazine). Europe uses a lot of reactors, and China is getting on board testing a new type of reactor using pebble-bed tech that literally cannot meltdown. What's interesting about the pebble bed reactor is that's it's fairly small, modular and easily expandable. Also, if you use a breeder reactor design, the waste products from the reactor can actually be used back into the reactor...getting 2 or 3 uses from the same supply of fuel. Nuclear is relatively clean, the final radioactive waste products not withstanding. It doesn't take up nearly the space that other types of energy generation need, and we have supplies for centuries of use even at our growing rate. If we have the political will, and can get over the old fears about it, nuclear could be the way out in the long run...at least until the technical problems with fusion can be overcome.
Also, if we decide to transfer to a hydrogen economy, we WILL need cheap energy and lots of it. Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to obtain, and doesn't hold a lot of energy for its mass, even chilled and compressed. Hydrogen can be burned, especially in a turbine...so planes may not have to be majorly changed to burn hydrogen directly, except for the cryonic storage tanks that will be significant heavier than normal fuel tanks. Fuel cells have their own problems in addition to hydrogen's difficulties, including efficency, cost of manufacture, space and weight. These will come down eventually, but there has to be motivation. Oil at over $100 a barrel might be that motivation...
Summary:
Energy issues are growing problem. The question is, are you willing to do what is needed to fix it? I don't mean just trading your Excursion for a Prius. I mean are you willing to have a nuclear reactor nearby? How about increasing taxes to build space solar stations? Spend money to revamp the transporation infrastructure? Drive a car that has a 6000 PSI bomb for a gas tank? Live without a personal TV or computer? Pay 3 times the amount you pay now for gas? Risk increasing global warming so we can burn biofuels ?
If you want to change big, you had better be willing to risk big.
Rant mode: Off
Rant mode: On
Okay, this response is going to take a while so bear with me.
Subject: Cars
Cars have always been an essential part of the US culture. It can be considered one of the very basic expressions of freedom. Part of the culture dates back the expansion of the west, by a lot of individuals...that expression of freedom thing again. Also, unlike Europe, where cities have been around for centuries and there are not "huge tracks of land" to traverse and expand into, the United States...heck, North America in general, is simply big! Trains, trams, mass transit don't necessarily work here outside of large cities. So, cars, in general, I don't think are going away anytime soon.
That being said, cars now are still for all intents and purposes, still the same basic horse carriage derived vehicles old H. Ford himself built back in the day. In fact, if he were around today, I'll bet he'd have no problems figuring out the basic operations of the majority of parts in a modern car. Most cars are still powered mainly by the old internal combustion engine...a very inefficent powerplant. Think about it, turning vertical to circular motion, while having to drive cams and valves that have to turn the circular motion back into vertical motion. I'm an old gearhead from way back...but even I see the problems staying with such a design.
Most cars are designed today by simple inertia...we've always done it that way and the infrastructure has grown up to support that. There have been other ways tried before. Chrysler actually produced (not just prototyped) a turbine powered car. GM tried an all electric actual street car (EV1). Both efforts flopped...turbine was too new, expensive and unreliable...the EV1 was slow, heavy, and very short ranged.
The biggest enemy of getting an efficent car is inertia...more specifically, weight. Japan has some of the best gas miser cars...unfortunately, they can't sell them here because they wouldn't come close to meeting US crash standards. Some of those cars are TINY! Look at modern motorcycles...they are great misers...relatively speaking, because of lack of weight. Volvo and Toyota have both shown cars that carry only 2 or 1 persons. Next time you drive in heavy traffic, especially in rush hour, look at how many 4-5 passenger cars actually only have one person in them. A single-person car ('pod') as a secondary car (ie the one you use 5 days out of the week to go to and from work) would have many advantages. Things such as increased fuel effiency, less emissions, less gridlock, less material used to make the vehicle, ultimately lower cost to produce overall. However, such an idea would require MAJOR infrastructure overhauls, including exclusive 'pod' only lanes to prevent carnage due to semi truck/pod interactions, possible reevaluations of crash test standards, getting people to transition to the idea of a single use vehicle, etc.
Other advances include hybrids...but where the electric motors are the primarily means of motivation, with the combustion powerplant for additional power and to recharge the batteries. In fact, if you made that switch, there isn't any reason why you couldn't use a turbine as the power plant. It's not like auto makers aren't familiar with turbines. If you look at a modern car turbocharger...they aren't much different from an aircraft APU. Also, hybrids have become more practical because of technology. It wasn't until laptops and cell phones became popular that serious research was invested into advancing battery tech, which has bled over into cars now. I see hybrids as big advance now...hydrogen has it's own problems, which I'll dive into later.
So, in general, the car as we know it is changing finally. I think you'll see the evolution to most cars as electric/turbine hybrids, with continued advances in weight reduction and safety. I don't think you'll ever see a single-person car take hold in the US unless you have a major shift in thinking. Assuming of course we remain litigation happy and not grab some sanity.
Subject: Energy
Historically, no civilization has ever decreased it's need for energy, except by collapse. Assuming that remains true, especially as computer technology continues to advance, availability of petroleum will only be one problem.
Conservation sounds good in theory, but is hard to apply, especially with the energy needs of the increasing amount of high tech devices in the world. I'm not saying you can't build more energy efficent devices...but those devices in general are increasing in number exponentially. You will lose the contest unless you can get more sources.
So lets look at some sources. Of course we use a lot of petroleum, but not just for basic consumption. Remember, a lot of our plastics are also petroleum based. Don't let anyone fool you saying we are running out either. There is plenty available...if we are willing to invest to get at it. Under the Gulf, within the deep ocean trenches, in the ANWR (no, we are not mining all of Alaska...sheesh...5%). Of course, this takes time and money, and may have consequences. For instance, Canada (who is one of our major suppliers) has lots of oil wrapped up in sand (kind of a slush). It's usable oil...but takes a lot of energy to get it. Oh, and it produces CO2 in the process.
Uh oh.
We can also get oil from coal...of which we have LOTS of...but it also has waste products. Arsenic, CO2, some others...
What about solar and wind? Both are clean but both have problems. Mainly, both require LOTS of space and are subject to weather. Windmills in particular have been coming under fire from enviromentalists for a) they chop migrating birds and b) residents don't want windmills spoiling their view of nature (...cough...Cape Cod...cough...). Solar could be great if you raised the panels into geosync orbit and beam the energy in coherent microwaves to capture grids on the planet. Of course, that raises it's own set of problems, including possible bleed warming of the air, aircraft straying into the beam, and of course spoiling of the night sky (whatever...).
Nuclear is making a comeback, even among a lot of enviromentalists (see the latest issue of Wired magazine). Europe uses a lot of reactors, and China is getting on board testing a new type of reactor using pebble-bed tech that literally cannot meltdown. What's interesting about the pebble bed reactor is that's it's fairly small, modular and easily expandable. Also, if you use a breeder reactor design, the waste products from the reactor can actually be used back into the reactor...getting 2 or 3 uses from the same supply of fuel. Nuclear is relatively clean, the final radioactive waste products not withstanding. It doesn't take up nearly the space that other types of energy generation need, and we have supplies for centuries of use even at our growing rate. If we have the political will, and can get over the old fears about it, nuclear could be the way out in the long run...at least until the technical problems with fusion can be overcome.
Also, if we decide to transfer to a hydrogen economy, we WILL need cheap energy and lots of it. Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to obtain, and doesn't hold a lot of energy for its mass, even chilled and compressed. Hydrogen can be burned, especially in a turbine...so planes may not have to be majorly changed to burn hydrogen directly, except for the cryonic storage tanks that will be significant heavier than normal fuel tanks. Fuel cells have their own problems in addition to hydrogen's difficulties, including efficency, cost of manufacture, space and weight. These will come down eventually, but there has to be motivation. Oil at over $100 a barrel might be that motivation...
Summary:
Energy issues are growing problem. The question is, are you willing to do what is needed to fix it? I don't mean just trading your Excursion for a Prius. I mean are you willing to have a nuclear reactor nearby? How about increasing taxes to build space solar stations? Spend money to revamp the transporation infrastructure? Drive a car that has a 6000 PSI bomb for a gas tank? Live without a personal TV or computer? Pay 3 times the amount you pay now for gas? Risk increasing global warming so we can burn biofuels ?
If you want to change big, you had better be willing to risk big.
Rant mode: Off
STL717
CL-215 Lake James, NC
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 251
This is an article about Rosen Motors. They were developing a new drive train for cars in the mid '90s. Good numbers but auto manufacturers want their own drive train in each auto, plus there is 100 years and $100 billion worth of R & D in internal combustion engines. Rosen Motors closed in 1997. The flywheel could transfer the equivalent of 270 HP to the wheels and it took 6 weeks to spin down.
Hal Rosen's powertrain hybrid
Woodland Hills, CA--Harold Rosen led the team that designed the first geostationary communications satellites ever built. Rosen spent 37 years at Hughes Aircraft Corp. He was awarded more than 50 patents and received many engineering awards, in-cluding the Design News Special A-chievement Award for 1992. Now, funded by his brother Benjamin, chairman and co-founder of Compaq Computer, Harold Rosen is developing a world-beater of a hybrid powertrain.
Rosen Motors' hybrid electric powertrain consists of a turbogenerator, a flywheel-driven motor-generator, electric drive motors, and an electronic control system. The flywheel has a carbon-filament-wound composite cylinder and ring, titanium hub, and steel shaft. Supplied by Capstone Turbine, another company with which the Rosen brothers are involved, the turbogenerator will burn gasoline in a catalytic combustor and also serves as a motor when starting the vehicle.
In the Rosens' powertrain, a dc bus connects all the motor/generator sets. A controller containing both logic and power sections governs all the motor/generator sets and monitors the bus voltage (nominally 400V). In milliseconds, the flywheel-driven generator either adds energy to or subtracts energy from the bus as bus voltage tries to fluctuate.
"In the process of accelerating the car with the drive motors, the flywheel starts slowing a bit," says Harold Rosen. When the controller recognizes the reduction in flywheel speed, "the turbine control system starts adding power to the bus, and that causes the flywheel to charge up," he explains. "It's a proportional control system, and it's a continuous system."
During operation on a test rig or in a vehicle, the electronic controller dynamically blends power from the flywheel-generator and turbo- generator to supply the drive motors. The drive motors are the only components connected directly to the drivetrain. Using a fixed-gear reduction, coupled with the characteristics of an electric drivetrain, result in vehicle acceleration as smooth as that achieved with a continuously variable transmission, according to Rosen Motors.
In the company's current system, the turbogenerator provides a maximum of 30 kW; future versions will utilize a 45-kW (60-hp) unit. The current design goal for flywheel self-discharge time is approximately 1,000 hrs, and the turbogenerator can recharge the flywheel. At maximum charge, the flywheel stores 1 kW-hr; of that energy, 80% can be recovered over the flywheel's operating speed range of 28,000 to 62,000 rpm. It can deliver or accept energy at a maximum rate of 150 kW.
At the present time, work continues on the turbogenerator's catalytic combustor. Until the unit reaches the level of performance desired by Rosen Motors engineers, the turbogenerator will use a conventional combustor.
Early this year, Rosen Motors successfully road-tested its powertrain in a converted 1993 Saturn at Willow Springs racetrack near Edwards Air Force Base. A second car, more of a prototype than the Saturn, is also being built. This latter car, a Mercedes Benz E-Class, has four motor/generators on board. Two drive-motors in the rear wheels function as generators during regenerative braking. Harold Rosen expects to see the E-Class on the road with its hybrid powertrain before the end of 1997.
Rosen and his colleagues say cars equipped with their drivetrain will a-chieve a fuel efficiency of 45 to 80 mpg and be capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in six or seven seconds. They claim their type of hybrid system has many packaging advantages over hybrids that use batteries. "We don't need a purpose-built car," says Rosen, "our powertrain is not too hard to introduce into an existing vehicle."
Hal Rosen's powertrain hybrid
Woodland Hills, CA--Harold Rosen led the team that designed the first geostationary communications satellites ever built. Rosen spent 37 years at Hughes Aircraft Corp. He was awarded more than 50 patents and received many engineering awards, in-cluding the Design News Special A-chievement Award for 1992. Now, funded by his brother Benjamin, chairman and co-founder of Compaq Computer, Harold Rosen is developing a world-beater of a hybrid powertrain.
Rosen Motors' hybrid electric powertrain consists of a turbogenerator, a flywheel-driven motor-generator, electric drive motors, and an electronic control system. The flywheel has a carbon-filament-wound composite cylinder and ring, titanium hub, and steel shaft. Supplied by Capstone Turbine, another company with which the Rosen brothers are involved, the turbogenerator will burn gasoline in a catalytic combustor and also serves as a motor when starting the vehicle.
In the Rosens' powertrain, a dc bus connects all the motor/generator sets. A controller containing both logic and power sections governs all the motor/generator sets and monitors the bus voltage (nominally 400V). In milliseconds, the flywheel-driven generator either adds energy to or subtracts energy from the bus as bus voltage tries to fluctuate.
"In the process of accelerating the car with the drive motors, the flywheel starts slowing a bit," says Harold Rosen. When the controller recognizes the reduction in flywheel speed, "the turbine control system starts adding power to the bus, and that causes the flywheel to charge up," he explains. "It's a proportional control system, and it's a continuous system."
During operation on a test rig or in a vehicle, the electronic controller dynamically blends power from the flywheel-generator and turbo- generator to supply the drive motors. The drive motors are the only components connected directly to the drivetrain. Using a fixed-gear reduction, coupled with the characteristics of an electric drivetrain, result in vehicle acceleration as smooth as that achieved with a continuously variable transmission, according to Rosen Motors.
In the company's current system, the turbogenerator provides a maximum of 30 kW; future versions will utilize a 45-kW (60-hp) unit. The current design goal for flywheel self-discharge time is approximately 1,000 hrs, and the turbogenerator can recharge the flywheel. At maximum charge, the flywheel stores 1 kW-hr; of that energy, 80% can be recovered over the flywheel's operating speed range of 28,000 to 62,000 rpm. It can deliver or accept energy at a maximum rate of 150 kW.
At the present time, work continues on the turbogenerator's catalytic combustor. Until the unit reaches the level of performance desired by Rosen Motors engineers, the turbogenerator will use a conventional combustor.
Early this year, Rosen Motors successfully road-tested its powertrain in a converted 1993 Saturn at Willow Springs racetrack near Edwards Air Force Base. A second car, more of a prototype than the Saturn, is also being built. This latter car, a Mercedes Benz E-Class, has four motor/generators on board. Two drive-motors in the rear wheels function as generators during regenerative braking. Harold Rosen expects to see the E-Class on the road with its hybrid powertrain before the end of 1997.
Rosen and his colleagues say cars equipped with their drivetrain will a-chieve a fuel efficiency of 45 to 80 mpg and be capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in six or seven seconds. They claim their type of hybrid system has many packaging advantages over hybrids that use batteries. "We don't need a purpose-built car," says Rosen, "our powertrain is not too hard to introduce into an existing vehicle."
coolyokeluke
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2002
- Posts
- 313
Flic1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Posts
- 129
If the morons that own SUV's are out there complaining about gas prices going up, they should not have an SUV in the first place because their finances must be f'ed up. $600+/month lease payment for your lame H2 Hummer and an extra $50 a month in gas is hurting your wallet???? Can't take the kids to the beach this summer because of the gas prices?? Please.....
FastCargo
Is that the tanker?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2001
- Posts
- 240
Hmmm...
...I had understood that turbines were more efficient because they tend to burn fuel more completely. Maybe I have that wrong. I wonder if they could be used more efficiently because they wouldn't need to be throttled if they were used as an APU. My understanding also was that turbines tend to adapt to different kinds of fuel easier than an internal combustion engine could...
Also, as far as I know it's not large SUV drivers that are complaining (or at least not anymore so than anyone else). I have an ugly truck I use for hauling dirt, rock, etc...old work truck. I know it sucks gas...but I can live with it because I knew that when I bought it.
Ironically, I've seen 2 vehicles with the bumper sticker:
"Doing my part to piss off the radical right"
Which would be unremarkable, except both vehicles were large SUVs (a Chevy Tahoe and Jeep Grand Cherokee)...sort of the antithesis of the left.
Hey, like I said, I'm an old gearhead (had a 1971 Mustang Mach 1 from high school until a few months ago) and so I still have a thing for large, inefficient gas engines that stomp out loads of horsepower. But, I'm all for advancing tech...look at the Subaru WRX STi, or Mitsu Lancer EVO...
You want to stop Hummers, Excursions, etc to be sold? Simple, let gas prices climb. Let the free market decide. And people keep blaming the big 3, but say nothing about Toyota (Land Bruisers), Nissan (Armadas), BMW (X5), Land Rover, etc. Plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, the consumer can help decide...if you give them incentives. That's what will help push tech in the right direction.
FastCargo
...I had understood that turbines were more efficient because they tend to burn fuel more completely. Maybe I have that wrong. I wonder if they could be used more efficiently because they wouldn't need to be throttled if they were used as an APU. My understanding also was that turbines tend to adapt to different kinds of fuel easier than an internal combustion engine could...
Also, as far as I know it's not large SUV drivers that are complaining (or at least not anymore so than anyone else). I have an ugly truck I use for hauling dirt, rock, etc...old work truck. I know it sucks gas...but I can live with it because I knew that when I bought it.
Ironically, I've seen 2 vehicles with the bumper sticker:
"Doing my part to piss off the radical right"
Which would be unremarkable, except both vehicles were large SUVs (a Chevy Tahoe and Jeep Grand Cherokee)...sort of the antithesis of the left.
Hey, like I said, I'm an old gearhead (had a 1971 Mustang Mach 1 from high school until a few months ago) and so I still have a thing for large, inefficient gas engines that stomp out loads of horsepower. But, I'm all for advancing tech...look at the Subaru WRX STi, or Mitsu Lancer EVO...
You want to stop Hummers, Excursions, etc to be sold? Simple, let gas prices climb. Let the free market decide. And people keep blaming the big 3, but say nothing about Toyota (Land Bruisers), Nissan (Armadas), BMW (X5), Land Rover, etc. Plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, the consumer can help decide...if you give them incentives. That's what will help push tech in the right direction.
FastCargo
8vATE
Cruel, Nice, Whatever
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 538
Thedude said:
Australia's local oil refineries constantly compete with imported petroleum products from large highly efficient refineries in Asia, regardless of the cost of importing and refining crude oil. Consequently, the price of petrol at Australian refineries is based on international petrol prices. If local prices were higher than international prices, imports of petrol would displace local production.
To the right are the market prices for unleaded petrol, diesel and crude oil. The charts show that crude oil, diesel and petrol prices are closely linked, as the price of crude oil accounts for the vast majority of the cost of producing a litre of petrol or diesel. Crude oil is purchased in US dollars, meaning that changes in the value of the Australian dollar against the US dollar have a direct impact on the relative price of crude oil in Australian dollar terms. Therefore, changes in the Australian dollar/US dollar exchange rate must be taken into account when looking at movements in crude oil prices.
Are you sure...??
The aussies buy oil in dollars..
I believe that is the "standard"....
STL717
CL-215 Lake James, NC
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 251
The Washington Times
$55 oil won't last
By Lawrence Kudlow
Published March 14, 2005
When I put a $55 barrel of oil on the table and look at it from all angles, there's no way to justify the current price. As a free-market disciple, I am compelled to accept the market verdict: $55 a barrel. But that doesn't mean it will last.
Today's oil episode is demand-driven, quite unlike the supply shocks of 25 years ago. Back then, OPEC withheld oil because members disagreed with the U.S. policy-tilt toward Israel. Additionally, under Presidents Ford and Carter, U.S. energy policy generated strict price controls and supply allocations, a most bizarre policy combination that kept oil from those population centers that most needed it.
Oil is certainly flowing today, but at much higher prices. In fact, in real inflation-adjusted terms, today's oil price is the highest since 1983. To a certain extent, we owe this to a favorable development: the global spread of market capitalism in emerging economies such as China, India and Eastern Europe. At the margin, the increasing oil demands of these countries have undoubtedly boosted the barrel price.
It is instructive to note how much higher oil prices have jumped in comparison to other commodities. From the 2001 low, oil has increased 214 percent. Over the same period, an index of metals -- equally in demand from the emerging economies -- has risen 122 percent. Seemingly along for the ride, gold prices have increased 73 percent. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 stock index has rallied 55 percent from its late 2002 low point while the broader Wilshire 5000 has gained 62 percent.
That oil has increased so much more than these commodity and financial-asset prices is important. It suggests the oil sector is way out of line. Increased China demand cannot alone explain it -- overspeculation is also a culprit.
Hedge funds are rumored to have used low interest rates to leverage and borrow to buy oil market contracts. Big oil companies may also be speculating on higher future oil prices, with or without leveraged borrowing. Perhaps tanker companies also have slowed deliveries as they wait for still higher prices.
Fortunately, the U.S. economy is now much less susceptible to the tax-increase effect of higher oil prices. Many studies have shown greater oil and energy use efficiencies cut our vulnerability to energy shocks by about half compared to 25 years ago. Rather than stagflating, today's economy is quite healthy. So, what to do?
Ultimately, the answer to high oil prices is a lot more production. That's exactly what the Bush administration intends to do. New Energy Secretary Sam Bodman has been put in place to carry out Bush policies for greater nuclear energy use, increased use of clean coal, development of a free-trade national electricity grid and foreign coordination of liquid natural gas. Also in the policy mix is new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Is Mr. Bodman the right man for this job? Absolutely. Mr. Bodman, a chemical engineering scientist who has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was chief operating officer of the super-sized Fidelity mutual fund company and is a former venture capitalist. This guy will quietly manage the U.S. effort to break out of the current OPEC-reliant paradigm and shift to developing multiple new energy sources.
We're already seeing signs of progress. The Excelon utility company just received an early site permit for nuclear power, and Duke Power has nearly completed its combined operating license permit, including a preapproved reactor design.
Meanwhile, there's still a great deal of oil out there. "Hard Green" author Peter Huber has suggested 3 trillion barrels of oil are buried in Venezuela and Alberta, Canada. Washington policy analyst James Lucier also notes individual states are exercising states' rights to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. In Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mark Warner is expected to sign an OCS drilling bill passed by his legislature to do exactly that.
The key is to let markets work. Free-market pricing will best allocate shifts in both demand and supply. Spiking energy prices will reduce consumption. They will also attract capital investment leading to much greater production. That is, if government policies allow markets to work.
Meanwhile, small investors thinking about jumping on the gravy train of higher oil prices should beware. Bubbles happen. And a major oil bubble could be on the verge of bursting.
Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
$55 oil won't last
By Lawrence Kudlow
Published March 14, 2005
When I put a $55 barrel of oil on the table and look at it from all angles, there's no way to justify the current price. As a free-market disciple, I am compelled to accept the market verdict: $55 a barrel. But that doesn't mean it will last.
Today's oil episode is demand-driven, quite unlike the supply shocks of 25 years ago. Back then, OPEC withheld oil because members disagreed with the U.S. policy-tilt toward Israel. Additionally, under Presidents Ford and Carter, U.S. energy policy generated strict price controls and supply allocations, a most bizarre policy combination that kept oil from those population centers that most needed it.
Oil is certainly flowing today, but at much higher prices. In fact, in real inflation-adjusted terms, today's oil price is the highest since 1983. To a certain extent, we owe this to a favorable development: the global spread of market capitalism in emerging economies such as China, India and Eastern Europe. At the margin, the increasing oil demands of these countries have undoubtedly boosted the barrel price.
It is instructive to note how much higher oil prices have jumped in comparison to other commodities. From the 2001 low, oil has increased 214 percent. Over the same period, an index of metals -- equally in demand from the emerging economies -- has risen 122 percent. Seemingly along for the ride, gold prices have increased 73 percent. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 stock index has rallied 55 percent from its late 2002 low point while the broader Wilshire 5000 has gained 62 percent.
That oil has increased so much more than these commodity and financial-asset prices is important. It suggests the oil sector is way out of line. Increased China demand cannot alone explain it -- overspeculation is also a culprit.
Hedge funds are rumored to have used low interest rates to leverage and borrow to buy oil market contracts. Big oil companies may also be speculating on higher future oil prices, with or without leveraged borrowing. Perhaps tanker companies also have slowed deliveries as they wait for still higher prices.
Fortunately, the U.S. economy is now much less susceptible to the tax-increase effect of higher oil prices. Many studies have shown greater oil and energy use efficiencies cut our vulnerability to energy shocks by about half compared to 25 years ago. Rather than stagflating, today's economy is quite healthy. So, what to do?
Ultimately, the answer to high oil prices is a lot more production. That's exactly what the Bush administration intends to do. New Energy Secretary Sam Bodman has been put in place to carry out Bush policies for greater nuclear energy use, increased use of clean coal, development of a free-trade national electricity grid and foreign coordination of liquid natural gas. Also in the policy mix is new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Is Mr. Bodman the right man for this job? Absolutely. Mr. Bodman, a chemical engineering scientist who has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was chief operating officer of the super-sized Fidelity mutual fund company and is a former venture capitalist. This guy will quietly manage the U.S. effort to break out of the current OPEC-reliant paradigm and shift to developing multiple new energy sources.
We're already seeing signs of progress. The Excelon utility company just received an early site permit for nuclear power, and Duke Power has nearly completed its combined operating license permit, including a preapproved reactor design.
Meanwhile, there's still a great deal of oil out there. "Hard Green" author Peter Huber has suggested 3 trillion barrels of oil are buried in Venezuela and Alberta, Canada. Washington policy analyst James Lucier also notes individual states are exercising states' rights to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. In Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mark Warner is expected to sign an OCS drilling bill passed by his legislature to do exactly that.
The key is to let markets work. Free-market pricing will best allocate shifts in both demand and supply. Spiking energy prices will reduce consumption. They will also attract capital investment leading to much greater production. That is, if government policies allow markets to work.
Meanwhile, small investors thinking about jumping on the gravy train of higher oil prices should beware. Bubbles happen. And a major oil bubble could be on the verge of bursting.
Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
atpcliff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,260
Hi!
Let's let the market work! Lets pay the full cost for a gallon of gas at the pump, instead of having it held down artificially.
We now pay about 1/2 the price of gas via other taxes and deficit spending. Gas costs about $5/gallon here in the US, but we don't pay that much at the pump.
Cliff
PNS
PS-ANWR will get us about 1 year's worth of oil.
Let's let the market work! Lets pay the full cost for a gallon of gas at the pump, instead of having it held down artificially.
We now pay about 1/2 the price of gas via other taxes and deficit spending. Gas costs about $5/gallon here in the US, but we don't pay that much at the pump.
Cliff
PNS
PS-ANWR will get us about 1 year's worth of oil.
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Connecting Jump Pack to EarthX Battery
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
