Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:13:29 -0700
Reply-To: Gabriel Ross <gabeross@ORO.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Gabriel Ross <gabeross@ORO.NET>
Subject: Re: Diesel vs. Gas
In-Reply-To: <BE967CDB.A7CB%camper@tactical-bus.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
OK, I've got to jump in here. The industry is acknowledging that fossil
fuels will run out IN OUR LIFETIME. More refineries might hold down prices
but does nothing about this underlying issue. As the oil and natural gas
runs out, it becomes harder and harder, and thus more expensive, to obtain.
Guess who will bear the costs? Using closed army bases is a good solution
to the problem of refinery placement, I agree, but why aren't we looking
very, very hard at alternative fuels and alternative energy generation? Do
a google search on "peak oil." Five years ago, the major players were
calling anybody talking about peak oil foolish and crazy environmentalists;
now, their own analysts are saying there is a problem looming. (With
sarcasm) Do you really think so? Think on this: before the "discovery" of
oil, the planet supported around two billion people. Now, the planet's
population is over six billion. What do you imagine will happen when
agri-business doesn't have the energy to continue current production
levels, or get product to market?
I'm with John Rogers who said, "Careful, careful, careful......it's taking
all I can do to keep my soapbox under the table and rant podium in the closet."
Gabriel
Nor CA Sierras
'84 Westy
At 11:43 AM 4/28/2005 -0600, jimt wrote:
>Interesting thing on the news last night. Seems most of the US refineries
>are right at max output and some are actually pushing past safety limits to
>meet demand. No new refineries have been built since the 70s. The
>restrictions on where and how to build them has made it way to expensive to
>build a new one and takes to many years to do the paperwork. To build a new
>refinery they would need a crystal ball that sees ten years into the future
>and hundreds of millions to fight the green people and meet the current
>placement laws. Part of the Bush fuels rules proposed would open old Air
>Bases for development by refiners. This actually makes sense because a lot
>of these bases were also on the pipe lines.
>Jimt
>
>
>
>On 4/28/05 10:21, "Jim Felder" <felder@KNOLOGY.NET> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget that China is getting big into agribusiness and is an
> > exporter of farm goods now. Of course all that runs on diesel, as it
> > does in India, to name two growing, diesel-based economies. And with
> > snow just off the ground in parts of the US, a cold spring also pits
> > heating oil against diesel supplies.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > On Apr 28, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Brent Berisford wrote:
> >
> >> The bottom line.
> >> Diesel in the past has always been the better value. Trucking firms
> >> and train better bang for the buck. The largest problem with diesel
> >> and cost at the moment is that the war machine runs on diesel not
> >> gasoline.We have created a demand by supporting the war in the middle
> >> east. Just my 2 cents. The demand for diesel high mileage cars also
> >> proves that diesel is the smarter choice at least in my local commuter
> >> market.
> >> Brent
> >>
> >
> >
>
>••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
>jimt
>Planned insanity is best.
>Remember that sanity is optional.
>http://www.tactical-bus.info (tech info)
>http://www.westydriver.com
| 
