Trucking and fuel.
Thread started by
bentstrider at 04.11.08 - 7:11 am
I read this article regarding the USAF wanting to utilize coal-to-liquid, gasification to fuel aircraft and other vehicles.
At the same time, I was thinking of how this could help the trucking industry, as far as owner-op/independent contractors go.
Not to mention what it would do for the other methods of product delivery.
It sounds a little, messy, but the Li-Ion battery-powered car department isn't moving too quickly either.
Besides, we're talking about transporting goods here.
Not Joe-Sixpack and his legion of beer-gutted, minions in their loud-assed, F-250's with glasspacks and 6" lift.
Not to mention since I've driven a rig not long ago, and am trying to get back into it, I might as well keep y'all informed.
reply
Most people don't realize how fossil fuel makes life possible for them. Did you think the bicycle fairy brought your bike to the shop? No, is was delivered by a truck. This is why the enviromentalist stance in cycling needs to be be re-thought, riding a bike does not make you exempt.
I did think the meth was also vital to the trucking industry.
rev10604.11.08 - 7:59 am
reply
@rev106, in regards to the meth industry.
-That all depends on whether you want to run your logbook legal, or illegally with no sleep and long, miles.
After the roll-over I got into, sleep I just decided that I'll sleep more when I get back into it.
Other drivers tend to owe some nasty, gambling debts to the various games they'll play when they dip into the wrong pool.
But, back onto the matter at hand, we should all feel a little, sympathy and concern for all matters and persons involved in the general, supply chain industry.
As far as regular car-transport goes, I'm not too concerned about that issue.
There are always alternatives to getting to/from work/store/'lil-league practice/school if you've got the will-power.
But, if anything, the transport of everyday goods/food/etc., should be given some high-priority when it comes to energy needs and whatnot.
bentstrider04.11.08 - 8:57 am
reply
Adam,
If you're going to reference an article, can you reference the article?
Taken from Wiki
here
All of these liquid fuel production methods release carbon dioxide (CO2) in the conversion process, far more than is released in the extraction and refinement of liquid fuel production from petroleum. If these methods were adopted to replace declining petroleum supplies, carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly increased on a global scale. For future liquefaction projects, Carbon dioxide sequestration is proposed to avoid releasing it into the atmosphere, though no pilot projects have confirmed the feasibility of this approach on a wide scale. As CO2 is one of the process streams, sequestration is easier than from flue gases produced in combustion of coal with air, where CO2 is diluted by nitrogen and other gases. Sequestration will, however, add to the cost.
Me -
So you have two "smoke and mirror scams working here. You have the industry telling you that goal to oil is viable, and you have carbon dioxide sequestration is viable. That's means viable to keeping our party of consumption going. Both are scams. Read up on it my friend.
Something that does show promise is
biofuels from algae. Now that has some promise worth getting excited over!
For those that like their info from only the hippest sources, there's a Wired article, but they seem to still be on this hydrogen economy bandwagon.
it's here
User104.11.08 - 10:44 am
reply
@user1
-It was some AP/Yahoo news article I read about a, week ago.
I would've tried to post it, but my HTML skills aren't exactly the greatest.
I didn't want to make the entire posting a purple one, like I've done each time, so far.
bentstrider04.11.08 - 11:28 am
reply
Another issue is how much energy it takes to obtain fuels from various alternative sources vs. how much energy is obtained from them. In other words, it takes a lot of energy to convert coal to oil (or tar sands to oil, or whatever), and so the resulting fuel is much more expensive relative to its energy output, as compared to gas and diesel fuel today.
Bottom line is that at some point, in the not-too-distant future, it won't be financially viable to truck/ship/fly goods all over the world like we do now, and economies are going to have to become more localized out of necessity.
I also hope that we can prioritize were the available fuel gets used, and personal transportation should absolutely be at the bottom of the list. Of all the industries, food production should be most favored.
angle04.11.08 - 11:29 am
reply
As far as the bio-fuels, madness is concerned, I wish people would stop hawking corn like it's going to save us all.
The algae sounds pretty good, as is hemp and anything that doesn't require an assload of acreage and drive up the costs of of other things, like foodstuffs in general.
bentstrider04.11.08 - 11:42 am
reply
"rev106
04.11.08 - 10:59 am"
"Most people don't realize how fossil fuel makes life possible for them. Did you think the bicycle fairy brought your bike to the shop? No, is was delivered by a truck. This is why the enviromentalist stance in cycling needs to be be re-thought, riding a bike does not make you exempt."
what needs to be re-thought? groceries and all are delivered by trucks. but i feel if you can say fuck it to cars and mass consumption, then why not say fuck you to the people who don't give a fuck?
fossil fuels have been around for how long? and we are going to have used almost all of them in about 200 years.
sure our country has made sure its dependent on them, control the world oil supplies and you control the world. but alternatives and renewable energy are what we have to do as the number 1 consuming country to survive. we want it all.
pacino04.11.08 - 11:46 am
reply
'sup patch....
my uncle was one of the scientists who developed coal gasification technology, and he was involved in building the first plants. I have been on a tour (around the outside perimeter) of one of these plants owned by Eastman in Tennessee. When I took the tour, concepts like global warming and peak oil were completely foreign to me. I don't know if coal gasification is better or worse than petroleum based fuels... but coal is another non-renewable resource.
tern04.11.08 - 11:56 am
reply
If anything, I'll be quite happy with battery-powered, semi-trucks and electrified railways going all over the place.
I mean, those did exist back in the 20's, so it's possible for that to make a comeback with all the advanced, technology available today.
On another note, if this were the 1800's all over again, I could picture myself being a wagon-driver, like Timmon's from "Dances With Wolves".
Except I'd be smarter to hide, or play dead and not end up getting scal.....nevermind.
bentstrider04.11.08 - 12:03 pm
reply
We only don't require fossil fuels to transport shit, we need it to make food. It ain't just about planting seeds into the ground and letting the sun and soil do their thing. We do a lot more to it, starting with the way we add nitrogen to the soil, something that used to be done naturally by planting beans. Farming is just as industrial these days as making cars or toys.
Biofuels might make us feel less guilty, but they aren't the solution. It's really inefficient because you have to put so much energy into making the damn corn in the first place and it also requires tons of land.
I highly recommend this book!
cabhauler04.11.08 - 12:57 pm
reply
Things will be simpler if there were less people. We are the problem.
sc_nomad04.11.08 - 1:00 pm
reply
cabhauler wrote
"Biofuels might make us feel less guilty, but they aren't the solution. It's really inefficient because you have to put so much energy into making the damn corn in the first place and it also requires tons of land. "
don't be fooled by the giant oil companies and their persuasion that biofuels don't work. over 60 percent of our grains are being fed to livestock. biofuels are very efficient, actually the midwest and farmers have been using biodiesel for years, their trucks run smoother fuel is cheaper and all the co2 is absorbed by plants also there is no dependancy on foreign oil.
we need a lot of solutions if we are to consume as much energy as we are today. its easy to say biofuels aren't the answer but its just as easy to say petroleum isn't the answer. but its also easy to say consume less, but who in this country really will? not the majority and not even close so far.
pacino04.11.08 - 1:31 pm
reply
Maybe if we figure out how to make biofuels from hemp or algae or recycle waste oil biofuels will be more viable, but for now I don't see corn being the solution. But I do agree, it's better than using oil.
cabhauler04.11.08 - 1:44 pm
reply
User 1--My uncle was among the first to build a coal gasification plant with interstate pipelines with diameters measured in feet--that already provide energy for some of the industries that make the products we consume. Come off it with the Nazi stuff. Nazis weren't to big in the '20's, were they?
tern04.11.08 - 1:44 pm
reply
Anyway, It was just some info I had. I'm not an expert, and I don't have time at the moment (working) to search wikipedia to fact check everything my friends say. So, I'm off of the thread..
tern04.11.08 - 1:49 pm
reply
p.s. I'm happy, not mad. Not insulted or anything...User 1 your comment that the tech had its genesis in '20's Germany is interesting. I didn't know that. Okay, bye.
tern04.11.08 - 1:56 pm
reply
The Nazis benefited and in large part came to power by having technology that others hadn't. This was seen in the manufacturing plants and their inventiveness. The US benefited by using the Nazi's scientists in chemical research, aeronautics and the goal industry, just to name a few. It's not dropping the other "n" word, it's history.
User104.11.08 - 2:08 pm
reply
I know ethanol is made from corn and not the best solution.
Bio-diesel though can be made from a huge variety of vegetable oils including waste oil. actually diesel engines were designed to run on pretty much any oil, they were first demonstrated in the late 1800's using peanut oil. the only difference between bio-diesel and straight vegetable oil is that Bio-Diesel is thinned to a less thick consistency.
any diesel engine can run on vegetable oil. meaning the entire trucking industry. The Midwest is actually the heart of the Bio-Diesel industry you'll see it at many of the truck stops.
why did they start running fossil fuels in diesel engines?
pacino04.11.08 - 2:19 pm
reply
@pacino
My guess is that there was plenty of it at the time and not much else to do with it.
Once the kerosene was cracked out of the raw petroleum.
Too bad the innovators of yesterday didn't think much beyond their time-frame.
It seems as if were doomed to keep cleaning up after each generation as they pass along.
Although, with all the concern in the air, it seems likely that the cycle might be broken.
bentstrider04.11.08 - 3:12 pm
reply
IMHO corn ethanol is about the worst alternative-energy idea ever for a variety of reasons, but it's obvious why it's taken hold so quickly - both the industrial-agriculture megacorporations and the petroleum megacorporations see it as a good way for them to maintain and increase their respective monopolies...
Locally produced is the new organic!
Lance K04.11.08 - 4:33 pm
reply
pacino-
why did they start running fossil fuels in diesel engines?
It was a matter of cost.
Petroleum diesel was cheaper.
In regards to ethanol, there's been alot of studies that show no to a minor energy gain developing ethanol. It's basically another scam with the government and the large farm industry. It survives with a large input of subsides.
Biodiesel on the other hand shows anywhere from a 3 fold to 5 fold net energy gain in varying reports. Currently doing quite well with minimal support from the government.
User104.11.08 - 5:33 pm
reply
personally i'm all into Bio-Diesel and other alternative fuels, not into Ethanol at all. Though I rather use it than use oil from Iraq.
The Corn industry in this country is pretty bizarre, ever wonder why High Fructose Corn Syrup is subsidized by the U.S. Government and in about every product at the grocery store? try that the u.s. government artificially makes the cost of sugar in this country super high, by putting huge tariffs on sugar imports. then the U.S. government gives Archer Daniels Midland huge amounts of money to drive the cost of High Fructose Corn Syrup down. for every $1 of profit that AMD gets it costs U.S. tax payers $10 for HFCS, for every $1 of profit for ethanol its costs U.S. tax payers $30. this is public information if you can find it, and pretty bizarre.
also i read that article about the transition to petroleum fuel vs. vegetable fuel in the early 1900's it said petroleum fuel was cheap it never said it was cheaper than vegetable oil.
pacino04.11.08 - 5:55 pm
reply
Word, User 1...Ethanol is crap for the reasons you mentioned and biodiesel is much better. What's a bummer, though, is that because of rising soybean prices, biodiesel is now very expensive.
In 2003 it was $1.30 /gallon, now it's $4.64/gallon (regular diesel is $3.31/gallon). Bummer, i had big hopes for biodiesel because the energy returns are good. But if the prices are really high, that's a non-starter. There's no easy answer, I guess.
0gravity04.11.08 - 5:59 pm
reply
It still pays to use biodiesel. Matters on what you are going to drive, but looking at it strickly on fuel cost. Biodiesel and diesel gives you 30-40% more power which equates to 30-40% better mpg. So you would come out ahead, just not that far. I haven't seen prices of for local biodiesel, you have a page for prices? I also know that there's a coop in the westside that sells 99% biodiesel at cost. They put 1% fossil diesel in it to get the subsides. The government subsides biodiesel blends but cuts it off if it's 100% biodiesel. Nice insentive huh?
You looked into this coop group?
User104.11.08 - 6:15 pm
reply
Here's that coop group in LA and Torrance.
http://labiodieselcoop.org/?q=node
They stated,
At this time, we are providing members with B99 at $4.30 per gallon. This includes all taxes and transportation expenses. We shop around for the highest quality, lowest price locally-produced fuel available.
User104.11.08 - 7:48 pm
reply
Just my two cents, but the only reason e85 and the lot were ever considered that I know of is not becuase they are more effiecient or have a higher energy potential but rather that the majority of the co2 emitted from the burning process is reused by the pants to grow the corn, thus less co2 in the atmosphere over time.
Personally I think bio desiel/desiel is what we should focus on. There is on down side to bio desiel that we see happening a lot in the Military with our equipemnt that run on the stuff. If it sits too long, week, two weeks, depends on how much is in the tanks, a bacteria is present that turns the bio desiel into sludge. Some times as thick as tar. It's cost more to clean or replace the tanks because of this than any financial or fuel efficientcy offsets that were hoped to be seen.
Were doing out part out here though. I've been here for three years now and when I first got here all of our government vehicles were gas powered, except for tactical vehicles. Now all but a very few of are either hybrid, electric, bio desiel, or cng. Even our JP5 and JP8 fuels (jet fuel which is actually desiel) is required to have higher flash points for better efficientcy and less environmental impact. It's nice to see it in action.
dolamyte04.12.08 - 10:40 pm
reply
@dolamyte
-I take it you probably went in during the 80's, or something?
Those good, old fashioned Willy's Jeeps were small, yet bad-ass enough to drive around in and roll over with.
I've been wanting to find me one of those things just to use as a vehicle for when I need one.
But, on the other hand, those Chevy Blazer "CUCV's" appear quite decent as well.
4X4 with a 6.2 liter Diesel, I feel that would be another, good vehicle to keep on hand for getting out to the rides with.
bentstrider04.13.08 - 8:04 am
reply
@benstrider
haha no I wasn't in the 80"s, I'll be turning 24 this month, and I'm still active duty. Those willies though are pretty cool, there was one for sale around here a couple of years ago, but they aren't really that great on gas.
dolamyte04.13.08 - 12:47 pm
reply
@dolamyte
-Shit, same age as I.
I thought you were in your mid-30's, the way you explained everything.
I'm guessing by government vehicles, you're talking about the Impala's and other ones that appear more, civilian-looking for general business.
Despite how awful the Willy's are on fuel, I'll still take one.
I only need a car about, 2-4 times a month anyway, so that won't even put a dent in my pocket.
bentstrider04.13.08 - 3:39 pm
reply
@benstrider
haha I could say the same about you, I though you were older too. Yea the vehicles i'm talking aobut are like, civics, suv's, impala's, vans, and trucks, all of them what you can buy from any dealer. We have these because they are better for us to drive around off base. The only difference in them is that they are monitored by GPA and on board video.....
If thats all you do for driving then shit man, go get one! look for some of those old post office ones at government auctions! I'ld say go for the military ones but they are buku bucks, especially if i'ts got all the origonal paint and numbers. Even the old ones are some cash. I'll keep an eye out for you!
dolamyte04.13.08 - 3:58 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
