What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Why does diesel cost the same as Gas now?

gmcjetpilot

gmcjetpilot

Well Known Member
Why diesel cost same as Gas now & complaining

Diesel engine's for airplane's? This spark's people's imagination. I started looking at diesel cost. I am considering buying a diesel car more than an airplane diesel, simply because there are no airplane diesels for planes, widely available and proven as of yet (another debate).

However my question is: Why is diesel more than gas now? Why is premium car gas almost as much as aviation gas? Why is jet and avgas about the same now?

When I was a kid there was a big difference in diesel cost v. gas (and jet v avgas). Car gas was way more than diesel. Now diesel is more! Was there some artificial subsidy way back than, or is there now an artificial gouge now on diesel?

Gas avg USA as of today is $2.978, Diesel is $3.280. Humm why why why. It's true that diesel has more "energy", but it should be cheaper to produce? What is the deal? I have my suspicions, like oil companies making $40,000,000,000.00 profit.

May they started to charge on energy or density verses cost to produce (thus making more money). A gal of gas is about 6 lbs/gal, diesel about 7 lbs/gal. They might have figured they where giving energy away and should charge on energy, not cost to produce? I don't know.

ANY IDEAS? Inquiring minds want to know.

According to the energy industry the break-down cost for gas/diesel, for gas/diesel, is:
Tax 13%/14%,
distributing&marketing 11%/8%
Refinery 8%/15%
Crude 68%/62%
(total is 100%)

Diesel has +1% tax, -3% distribution&marketing, +7% refinery cost and -6% crude. Higher refinery cost may be artificially controlled, because they can choose to control production and lower supply v demand.

This is all well and good, but it does not explain the higher cost only the break-down. With crude oil cost going up ($100 barrel), you would think the diesel (and Jet A) would have an edge since crude cost is 6% less. It does not explain why diesel is more now, unless refinery cost have gone way up.

Jet fuel avg is a little lower than Avgas by 11 cents. Jet and Avgas are about the same $4.70 v $4.81. Jet fuel like diesel use to be much less than gas.

As far as premium car gas in planes, the difference is about $1.00/gal roughly to 100LL. It is still not enough to make me want to use it. I'll pay the $1.00/gal more. As avgas goes up so does premium car gas, and that $1.00 difference gets smaller anyway. There is no way around the pain of high gas prices.

Do gas companies artificially mess with cost of fuel at the pump, in some secret and capricious way?

You want to cry, auto gas was $1.29/gal in Jan 2000, diesel was $1.30/gal May 2002.

UPDATE: I found this article that kind-a explains it? LINK
 
Last edited:
My guesses:
1) increased demand
2) increased refinery costs (low sulfer)
3) increased taxes
 
Diesel fuel is now 'ultra low sulphur', with additives for lubricity to prevent injection pump and injector plunger scuffing. Water is worse for a diesel engine than for a gas engine, so filtering is more complete. All these costs add up. I also heard that the refining process was changed to get more gas from a barrel at the expense of diesel fuel, but I can't verify that. As a side note, a barrel of crude oil is 42 gallons, not 55 like a drum you see at a garage. Also, the price of a barrel of crude oil depends on it's specific gravity-10 being equivalent to water, up to 50 or so gravity natural gasoline, or condensate. The lighter the crude,the more valuable it is because of the higher percentage of gasoline and light ends that can be refined out. The Saudis have an awful lot of light crude, we have an awful lot of heavy crude and MILLIONS of tons of coal, which can be gassified and made into 'synthetic' fuels. Ah, the oil patch, I do miss it............:)
 
tax and refinery cost

Well the government just loweredd the sulphur ppm in Diesel and we spent 30 to 50 million on a new unit to produce the ultra low sulphur diesel, prior to that we had to do the same thing on no lead fuel's also since the removal of the mtbe, (ground water contamination , why don't we fix the leaking tanks instead of outlawing the stuff that is leaking out of the tanks in the water I don't want non mtbe fuel in my water either) we had to convert out MTBE (octane booster) into iso octeen and build more units in all the refinerys
but to anwser the question about diesel and gas mostly its the all the
government specification's, environmental permits and cost of oil that is driving the price, we buy the oil from the other countrys, and our profit margins are base on cost , labor ,electricity, equipment repairs, natural gas
, hydrogen prices, cost alot to build or buy refinerys.. vrs wholesale prices where they load the trucks, not to mention the 38 -45 cents per gallon of tax at the pump.. I work in a refinery and I don't like paying 3.00 gallon either, also they don't pay us more when the price of fuel goes up..

hope that helps..

Danny..
 
Low sulpher and demand are the main reasons, winter heating oil production is another. Even though the cost of a gallon of diesel is more, the milage & longevity of the motors is amazing and worth the $$$. I really would like to see Delta Hawk engines get off the ground.
 
G-R-E-E-D

Its all a bunch of yada, yada, yada... until you read the end of the article that George linked us to...

I'm not sure any of this helps Ted Haberkorn. But this might: I asked a friend who is in the petroleum industry why they charge so much for diesel.

"Because we can," he said.

That, I understand.
Click to expand...

And that I agree with. There is ONLY one reason that fuel prices are where they are. The shameless greed of the oil industry owners. Did anybody see this little news item this past Friday?

Exxon Mobil Corp. reported on Friday the largest annual profit of any company in U.S. history: US$40.6-billion for 2007.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Yes... that's BILLION with a 'B'.

Greed. With a capitol 'G'. I rest my case. :mad:

DJ
 
Record profits for Exxon and the others shows that there is money to be in made fuels at today's prices.
 
Last edited:
Dielsel Price

Don't confuse price with cost. To an economist they are very different things. Costs are hard realities. In simplistic, but mostly true terms, prices are whatever the market will bear. With 300 million Americans driving to the nearest store in monster trucks and with 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians aspiring to do the same, the market will bear a lot. There are huge amounts of petroleum and substitutes left in the ground, but demand is growing faster than suppliers can add capacity. America can lower demand, mostly by adding to the cost of transportation, but our reductions will have little effect on worldwide consumption. Our cuts will simply lower international prices and make those 2.3 million Asians very happy.
 
Look at yourself

Before you go blaming the oil corps on high prices, you might want to look in the dictionary under "free market economy" and you might want to go look in your garage and then go look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really need a car that only gets 15 mpg. If we all drove cars that got 25 mpg on average, we would not have any high priced gas problem. But... thats the decision everyone made when gas was at 1.90. Maybe this latest rise will cause some smarter thinking........
 
dtaylor said:
Before you go blaming the oil corps on high prices, you might want to look in the dictionary under "free market economy" and you might want to go look in your garage and then go look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really need a car that only gets 15 mpg. If we all drove cars that got 25 mpg on average, we would not have any high priced gas problem. But... thats the decision everyone made when gas was at 1.90. Maybe this latest rise will cause some smarter thinking........
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree... (shouldn't this be under the never-ending debate heading? :) )
Why don't cars get better mileage?
I have a Renault diesel minivan that gets 33 mpg. hauling 6 and luggage.

I don't think prices would be any lower if we all did drive higher mileage cars..
chunt0 said:
prices are whatever the market will bear.
Click to expand...
the Europeans and the Brits have been getting nailed for years on price.. part of the theory here is the more they tax , the less people will drive.. less consumption/less pollution..

They will charge whatever we will pay.... and more..
 
Better mpg!

The market sells what we buy not the other way around. There aren't many good mpg cars because everyone wants to drive an SUV so they can sit up higher than cars on the road. That's fine. That's the market at work. All of our prosperity is due to this mechanism, (see adam smith). So don't complain about it now. Use your head. Buy a car that gets better MPG! Buy a diesel!
 
It is simplistic to blame Exxon and their profits. For one thing, there are lots of oil companies, Exxon is just one, a very big one, but still just one.

Some oil outfits have to buy all or much of their crude; others get much of it from their own wells which they acquired years ago when the price was low. If you own your own wells which you bought on the cheap, when world demand and prices rise, you get record profits. If you have to pay world prices for your crude you don't get the same profit increase.

15 years ago I bought my acreage and built my house; I have about $170K invested. A year ago, before the slump, it was worth about $500K. Had I sold it would there be anything unethical about my profit? Had I bought an oil field instead and sold it now based on current demand driven prices, would that have been unethical? What if I just sold a barrel at a time?

Complicating the issue is that in the early 80's there was a collapse in oil prices. Oil companies found it safer and cheaper to buy out other companies which had proven reserves than to search for new fields on their own, so there has been a slow down in exploration. Current high prices may be driving increased exploration, but any results will be years off. Adding to all this is speculation which adds about $10 to $15 per barrel to the costs--some claim much higher speculation premiums. The war in Iraq, Katrina, hurricanes in the Gulf, unrest in Venezuela and Nigeria all add to the speculation.

Add to all this, the increased demand from developing countries, particularly India and China (China was an exporter a few years ago and now imports) and you have lots of reasons for price increases, all working together.

It isn't just Exxon making record profits.
 
RScott said:
15 years ago I bought my acreage and built my house; I have about $170K invested. A year ago, before the slump, it was worth about $500K. Had I sold it would there be anything unethical about my profit? Had I bought an oil field instead and sold it now based on current demand driven prices, would that have been unethical? What if I just sold a barrel at a time?
Click to expand...
If you owed a huge court settlement to the citizens of Alaska and refused to pay a penny of it, it would.
 
n5lp said:
Yep, and buy your own part of Exxon so the huge profits are going to you! That's the great thing about public companies.
Click to expand...

Yep, and for a mere half trillion dollars or so you could buy the whole company, and keep all $30 billion in profits for yourself. About 6% return, or just a little better than putting it in the bank. I find it a mystery how we love to beat up on the very companies that keep us warm, move us around, and, oh yeah, allow us to fly. Envy of oil profits sure keeps politicians employed, though.

Record profits posted by a company are irrelevant. What matters is rate of return. The oil company's long term returns is typical for public companies. We should be happy the leading companies in the world are in the US. They won't stay long if we keep beating up on them. Think of that next time you see someone's life saved by a drug pioneered here.

Who is John Galt?
 
True enough, Exxon and all the others are just trying to keep shareholders happy, they just happen to produce something most of us need. If the market will stand it, the prices are increased and they will continue to. In Europe, prices are about double what the they are in the US and they still drive cars there- smaller ones though and distances are much shorter.

You can always buy stock but as others have pointed out, there are probably other better investments out there.
 
It's a Bargain

Compared to the price of other common liquids gas and diesel are a bargin. You ought to be glad you that cars and planes don't run on milk, OJ or the latest energy drink.

When you think about it, the fact that the oil companies can explore for oil, pump it from deep underground or from the bottom of oceans, transport it, refine it, pay royalties and distribute it to the end-user for $3 a gallon (including taxes) and still make a nice profit is quite an accomplishment.

Most other liquids that we buy cost a lot more on a per gallon basis - it just that we buy a lot of fuel and usually can't do without it.

P.S. I am not affiliated with any oil company nor do I work in the oil industry. :)
 
Economics studies how the market prices scarce resources with alternative uses. Simply stated, prices rise until people find an alternative to be competitively priced - then they switch.

If you are tired of the price of gasoline and diesel for your personal commuter vehicle, check out one of these solutions:

- Tesla Motors
- Phoenix Motor Cars

These are here today. Next year promises many more. If you want to take a n extended trip, you can travel extended distances by towing a small diesel generator behind you - or if you have a 2 family household keep one car that runs on petroleum.

Practical electric aircraft are less than 10 years away, probably more like 5 for early adopters.
 
Low Sulfur

I am retired from Motiva in Port Arthur, Texas but like alot of retirees I am back at work for my old company. One of the projects I was working on was following the conversion of our diesel hydrotreating units to produce low sulfur diesel. We converted five reactors on three units to produce low sulfur diesel. The new trays had to be inspected by the Shell engineers that had designed the trays and during the inspection I asked what low sulfur diesel would do for the driving public, he said higher prices and lower fuel milage. I am now working on an expansion that will make the Motiva refinery in Port Arthur the largest refinery in the U.S. but one thing it will not be producing is aviation gasoline. A couple of weeks ago the lead additive tank was cleaned and then hauled off.

Frank Foreman
 
The Tesla lists for $98k, who knows what out the door will cost. I could not find the Phoenix's cost, but I will bet is is up there a bunch.

The Tesla compares very closely to my Mazdaspeed Miata. It cost about $23,500 out the door. Gets over 30 MPG

$75k buys a lot of gas.

Until the government, (or someone else subsidizes) the cost, I will still expect to see more Miatas on the road that Teslas.

Good looking car though.
 
A lot of refineries have spent a lot of money to get the sulfur out of diesel fuel. It is now harder to manage diesel through pipelines - it's easier to get it contaminated with high-sulfur diesel. This all means higher costs. The sulfur had to go because it was not compatible with advanced catalysts that make diesel engines able to meet more stringent emission controls.

Mike S said:
The Tesla compares very closely to my Mazdaspeed Miata. It cost about $23,500 out the door. Gets over 30 MPG.
Click to expand...
It amazes me that GM goes on and on about its flex-fuel cars. Sure, they run on E85, but SUVs that get 14 mpg city? :eek: Does GM even make a 4-cyl car anymore?

The Miata, by keeping the pounds off and using a good 4-banger, is fun, cheap, and economic. We don't need to use different fuels, just less of it.

TODR
 
Miata????

Mike S said:
..........
The Tesla compares very closely to my Mazdaspeed Miata. It cost about $23,500 out the door. Gets over 30 MPG
.......
Click to expand...
Your Miata does 0-60 in under 4 seconds?

I agree the Tesla is expensive, but I don't think the Miata is a good comparison.

Miata's are cools cars, but I think this is apples and oranges.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
It amazes me that GM goes on and on about its flex-fuel cars. Sure, they run on E85, but SUVs that get 14 mpg city? :eek: Does GM even make a 4-cyl car anymore?
Click to expand...


Sure they do - trouble is, nobody wants to buy them - at least not yet. If fuel hits $5 that will begin to change. I bought a new pickup last year and the dealership almost blew the sale because the salesman kept trying to push the smaller engine on me despite my insistence on the 5.7L - but I'm pulling a heavy trailer frequently and my fuel costs are picked up by my employer, so I'm a special case.
 
Steve Brown said:
Your Miata does 0-60 in under 4 seconds?

I agree the Tesla is expensive, but I don't think the Miata is a good comparison.

Miata's are cools cars, but I think this is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

No, it dosent, at least not that I know of. Just havent tried it, but with the turbo spool up time needed, I suspect 0-60 is over 4 sec.

That is why I chose the word "closely", instead of exactly.

Aside from the obvious gas/elect power, there appears to be more similarities than there are big differences.

Excuse me, I should have said "aside from the obvious gas/elect power, and the price";)
 
Last edited:
Going back to George's original question;

I think we're seeing a shift in marketing, and maybe even a touch of oil patch politics.

Consumers are very sensitive to gasoline prices, but far less sensitive to diesel prices because most don't buy diesel directly. Ask 100 citizens how much they pay for gasoline, and most will nail the current price in their local market. Ask 100 citizens to quote the price of diesel fuel and most will give you a blank look. Push up the price of gasoline and people scream. Push up the cost of diesel and the electorate is silent. Diesel fuel increases are passed along to them in the form of higher prices for goods and services, but most don't realize it.
 
zilik said:
Take a look at what comes out of an average barrel of oil. 51% of that barrel is distilled into gasoline and 15% goes to fuel oils. The demand for diesel has been rising throughout the world and a lot of people heat their house with it too, hence the price goes up.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html
another look with slightly different numbers
http://www.americanroyaltycouncil.com/Resources/WhatsInABarrelofOil/tabid/104/Default.aspx
Click to expand...

Gary, thank you!!!!

I had heard this (3 to 1 gas/diesel from crude) years ago, but could never find documentation of it.

When you consider that crude is what is being used up in the world, the old argument of "drive a diesel----save the world" is brought into the light as the lie it truly is.

When diesels cars start to get a hundred miles per gallon, then they will start to equal gas engines for efficiency. Think the Subaru diesel now being developed will hit this mark???

Diesels have their place, (I know, I drive one) but so do gasoline engines.
 
Steve Brown said:
Your Miata does 0-60 in under 4 seconds?

I agree the Tesla is expensive, but I don't think the Miata is a good comparison.

Miata's are cools cars, but I think this is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
True. In the $90k range, the Tesla is competing against the likes of the Boxter, Audi RS4 cabrio (we're talking roadsters here) and others, cars which will be more fun on the track, particularly after a few laps when the Tesla's batteries go flat. And then there's the 'Vette Z06, which gets sub-4 0-60s and 12 sec 1/4 miles for $77k.

A supercharged Miata (street legal, mind you) will only do around 6 sec 0-60, but the Miata is about being a well balanced car, not just raw speed. Much like the RV series is about balance, not just speed (e.g., Lancair).

Just my $0.02.

TODR
 
Mike S said:
The Tesla lists for $98k, who knows what out the door will cost. I could not find the Phoenix's cost, but I will bet is is up there a bunch.

The Tesla compares very closely to my Mazdaspeed Miata. It cost about $23,500 out the door. Gets over 30 MPG

$75k buys a lot of gas.

Until the government, (or someone else subsidizes) the cost, I will still expect to see more Miatas on the road that Teslas.

Good looking car though.
Click to expand...

Phoenix is a bit over $40k. 10 years of gas for that vehicle would be around $25k. Actually reasonable if you want to make a statement about the ecology - although they won't shift into high volume production until late this year or into next year.

But yes they are still leading edge. Prices will fall soon, because one of the major cost factors is the voltage controller / charger (around $10-15k of the vehicle cost).
 
Steve Brown said:
Your Miata does 0-60 in under 4 seconds?

I agree the Tesla is expensive, but I don't think the Miata is a good comparison.

Miata's are cools cars, but I think this is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

You should really compare the Tesla to a Lotus.

The Lightning is another one slated for 2008, with 700bhp available from a dead stop. The Altairnano batteries can receive an 80% charge in under 10 minutes. The Zap-X (also here) IS a Lotus, aimed at the family market

As gas goes up and controllers come down, electric will gradually replace gasoline not just because they are cleaner but because they are better. I really like the idea of having 700hp in my vehicle, yet paying only about 1 cent per mile while being eco-friendly.

And I eat MEAT!!!

:)
 
Last edited:
My guess is that eventually battery charging will not be an issue. You will pull off the road into a battery station, they will unplug the battery in your car, pull it out and slide in another one. Kind of like propane tank exchange, which is widely done in our area.
 
Where do you think the electricity comes from that will charge the batteries in automobiles?
We still have to burn natural gas or coal as the main sources to produce electricity. That process Still produces polution for the environmentalists.
If we keep consuming more and more electricity the price will go up and not gain anything.

THE PROBLEM WITH FUEL PRICES COMES DOWN TO TAXES. THE % OF PROFIT THE OIL COMPANIES MAKE ARE A LOT LOWER THAN THE TAXES PAID ON IT. NOT JUST WHAT WE PAY AT THE PUMP, BUT THE TAXES THE OIL COMPANIES ARE PAYING ON ANY MONEY THEY MAKE.
If anyone else heard these numbers, feel free to correct me. I believe the oil companies make around 5% profit and the total taxes are around 40%.

The next time a politician complains about fuel prices or big oil profits, ask them when they will be willing to cut taxes to really help us out!!!

Just needing to vent.
Todd
 
Clean renewable electricity.

Pallet said:
Where do you think the electricity comes from that will charge the batteries in automobiles?
We still have to burn natural gas or coal as the main sources to produce electricity. That process Still produces pollution for the environmentalists.
If we keep consuming more and more electricity the price will go up and not gain anything. Just needing to vent. Todd
Click to expand...
To follow the rules of the forum and not be argumentative or political, electricity can come from solar, wind, hydro and nuclear. I hate to say it, the French figured this out long ago and have all kinds of Nuke power plants. In the USA, we got spooked and stopped building Nuke plants due to public concern and backlash of 3 mile island (remember the movie China Syndrome). We need more Nuke plants; even environ groups are coming on board. The first new nuke plant since 1973 has been approved. There will be more. Of course the spent fuel storage will be an issue. We just don't need a nuke plant owned by Mr. Burn's and workers like Homer Simpson to run them. :D

Point taken, hybrid or electric cars are not a solve all solution. Just like ethanol is not a panacea. Corn ethanol is a flat boondoggle. Its going to take a little of everything. For people that drive within a 10 mile radius, soccer moms to the school, store, daycare and work, all electric is viable. Those high tech batteries are expensive. What do you do with them after they are worn out? Hydrogen fuel cells? You will never run out of hydrogen. Fluorescent lights? Harsh light and mercury but way more efficient? There is no one answer or free lunch. As far as oil companies Exxon posted a $40,000,000,000.00 profit, that is PROFIT, billions not millions! Not bad. I think your 5% margin number and 40% tax is off. I know the oil companies play poor mouth. We the people pay the tax on gas, not the oil companies.
 
Last edited:
ITS THE BATTERIES

breister said:
...........
But yes they are still leading edge. Prices will fall soon, because one of the major cost factors is the voltage controller / charger (around $10-15k of the vehicle cost).
Click to expand...

I agree the price of controllers will fall to the $2k-6k range, but that's not going to fix the problem with electric vehicles:

BATTERIES

I think Richard has the right idea:
"My guess is that eventually battery charging will not be an issue. You will pull off the road into a battery station, they will unplug the battery in your car, pull it out and slide in another one. Kind of like propane tank exchange, which is widely done in our area."

Since batteries batteries loose capacity with age, they would have to be "smart" enough to know how much charge they have.

this solution deals with the fast re-charge issue and with disposal. The cost of a charge could include depreciation on the battery. I think "unplug" is a bit of an understatement considering the size and weight of the batteries, but it is conceptually possible.

One problem is depreciation of the batteries. Its a huge cost. Most people don't consider the real costs of driving and would not appreciate being forced to deal with it at every fill up.
 
The problem of battery weight will be dealt with by developing an insertion / removal device, a specially made machine that will reach in & pull it out, put it in a charger and get another to slide in. The crude version would be a forklift, but it wouldn't be long before the operator gets careless and runs it into your fender.

Soapbox time:
Nuclear fuel disposal has been another boondoggle question. Our standard has been unsophisticated, short sighted and reflects a lack of faith in technological progress. My grandfather was born in 1873. No electric lights, no phone, no cars, no airplanes, the idea that germs cause disease was finally getting accepted by doctors. Some people still traveled on the Oregon Trail by wagon, even though they did have the choice of taking the train. Just 3 generations ago. Think about how far we have come in the last 100, 200 years. We need now to develop safe nuclear waste storage for a couple hundred years at most, not the multi thousands we look for now. In 100 years they will have better solutions that we could not possibly dream of today. Sure it sounds irresponsible to slough off our problems for future generations to deal with, but how responsible is it to continue to use coal fired power plants that are huge contributors to greenhouse gases? We make tradeoffs all the time and this is just another tradeoff. Go nuclear!
 
Nuclear, Solar, wind, all good ways to recharge batteries for cars.

HOWEVER, I don't see any way that our aircraft will be powered by anything but liquid petroleum for many years to come. Jet-A isn't a shoe-in for "fuel of the future" but it has a lot going for it. 100LL (or its unleaded equivalent) appears to be the fuel of Today for us.

TODR
 
Pallet said:
Where do you think the electricity comes from that will charge the batteries in automobiles?
We still have to burn natural gas or coal as the main sources to produce electricity. That process Still produces polution for the environmentalists.
If we keep consuming more and more electricity the price will go up and not gain anything.

THE PROBLEM WITH FUEL PRICES COMES DOWN TO TAXES. THE % OF PROFIT THE OIL COMPANIES MAKE ARE A LOT LOWER THAN THE TAXES PAID ON IT. NOT JUST WHAT WE PAY AT THE PUMP, BUT THE TAXES THE OIL COMPANIES ARE PAYING ON ANY MONEY THEY MAKE.
If anyone else heard these numbers, feel free to correct me. I believe the oil companies make around 5% profit and the total taxes are around 40%.

The next time a politician complains about fuel prices or big oil profits, ask them when they will be willing to cut taxes to really help us out!!!

Just needing to vent.
Todd
Click to expand...

Thanks Todd - good segue. And, for the moderators, this topic IS related to RVs because a) it could become the next alternative engine and b) if gas consumption goes down globally it will reduce demand and thus price for AvGas for existing planes.

Ok, the segue. Practical electrical storage (batteries) changes the balance far more than just shifting oil to coal or nuclear power. Once you have practical storage, you also suddenly find that you can COMPLETELY remove electrical generation geographically from electrical consumption.

Why is this an important shift of paradigm?

Example: Iceland produces so much more cheap clean geothermal power than it needs that they opened two aluminum processing plants. Manufacturing aluminum is extremely power intensive. They import the materials to be processed and export the product, but are profitable despite all the shipping because their power is nearly "free." So, imagine filling a tanker ship with batteries which hold more equivalent energy per pound / cubic foot than oil; plugging it into the Icelandic power grid for a few days while they run the generators flat out; and sailing that tanker cleanly on electric motors over to New York Harbor. How much money do you think they could charge to unload a Terrawatt of energy into our grid? Send one every week, and suddenly Iceland becomes, well, maybe not a superpower but still... (Love the Icelandics! Godin Dagin!) Iceland, by the way, could easily and quickly expand their electrical production. They even investigated an underwater power cable to Great Britain.

Solar and wind power out west today are only fractionally efficient because the power must currently be transmitted many hundreds of miles, losing the majority of the power generated. Load that power on a train (powered by batteries) and ship it all to New York, lose only a few percent of the total power carried....

The Rockies have enough EASILY accessible geothermal power to meet projected demands for over 20,000 years. Improvements in drilling may allow economical geothermal energy ANYWHERE, but I suspect 20,000 years is enough time to investigate alternatives.

Starting to get the picture?

Oil will no longer be king for power in only a few decades, if not sooner, and will become irrelevant for power as quickly as legacy machines reach the end of their lifecycles. This will happen in our lifetimes, and it is virtually unstoppable.

But, don't sell Exxon, etc.!!! They are heavily invested in alternatives, and initial pricing will be "value set" to rough parity with oil. Only when every household in America has solar panels and a home power storage cell will we again near independence from Big Utilities for our power. This will take many decades to become common.
 
Steve Brown said:
I agree the price of controllers will fall to the $2k-6k range, but that's not going to fix the problem with electric vehicles:

BATTERIES

I think Richard has the right idea:
"My guess is that eventually battery charging will not be an issue. You will pull off the road into a battery station, they will unplug the battery in your car, pull it out and slide in another one. Kind of like propane tank exchange, which is widely done in our area."

Since batteries batteries loose capacity with age, they would have to be "smart" enough to know how much charge they have.

this solution deals with the fast re-charge issue and with disposal. The cost of a charge could include depreciation on the battery. I think "unplug" is a bit of an understatement considering the size and weight of the batteries, but it is conceptually possible.

One problem is depreciation of the batteries. Its a huge cost. Most people don't consider the real costs of driving and would not appreciate being forced to deal with it at every fill up.
Click to expand...

Absolutely True: Batteries are only the bridge technology, as doomed as Oil and with a far smaller window of time to stand in the limelight. I don't think the "battery swap" plan will gain any traction - Altairnano is producing a variation on lithium-ion batteries TODAY which can receive an 80% charge in less than 10 minutes with the right charging setup.

The real solution lies with Capacitors. Last week Lockheed-Martin, notoriously conservative in their partnerships, signed a deal with EEStor, a secretive Texas company that claims to have developed a capacitor solution.

Capacitors do not "wear out," they store their power as electrical charges rather than in a chemical conversion.

EEStor may yet not pan out (they have many people claiming it is snake oil); however, scientists have incontrovertibly demonstrated that carbon nanotube capacitors can pack more energy into a pound / cubic foot than oil. That technology still requires advances in manufacturing to realize that potential in an economically practical package, but is ultimately a certainty - so the only variable left is the time frame. Based on lab-to-mass-production timeframes currently being seen in the semiconductor industry, I cannot imagine practical solutions being more than a decade away and probably much sooner.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Nuclear, Solar, wind, all good ways to recharge batteries for cars.

HOWEVER, I don't see any way that our aircraft will be powered by anything but liquid petroleum for many years to come. Jet-A isn't a shoe-in for "fuel of the future" but it has a lot going for it. 100LL (or its unleaded equivalent) appears to be the fuel of Today for us.

TODR
Click to expand...

Don't worry about air travel!

If the energy density of power storage exceeds petroleum alternatives, the changeover for piston aircraft is already a no-brainer.

Current electric motors do not pack the hp/weight ratio of modern jet engines. However, "Power storage" (e.g. Jet A) takes over 30% of total mass on many flights for jets, giving you a VERY large mass budget. Jets CAN be replaced by electrically-powered high bypass ducted fans similar to todays' jets with a weight penalty. If that penalty is less than the savings in fuel weight, you end up with a net advantage.

But even if Jets remain competitive from a weight perspective, switching every other oil-burning application from oil to electric will send petroleum prices back down to the $0.50 / gallon range.

Happy vacation!
 
Snake oil it is

breister said:
Absolutely True: Batteries are only the bridge technology, as doomed as Oil and with a far smaller window of time to stand in the limelight. I don't think the "battery swap" plan will gain any traction - Altairnano is producing a variation on lithium-ion batteries TODAY which can receive an 80% charge in less than 10 minutes with the right charging setup.

The real solution lies with Capacitors. Last week Lockheed-Martin, notoriously conservative in their partnerships, signed a deal with EEStor, a secretive Texas company that claims to have developed a capacitor solution.

Capacitors do not "wear out," they store their power as electrical charges rather than in a chemical conversion.

EEStor may yet not pan out (they have many people claiming it is snake oil); however, scientists have incontrovertibly demonstrated that carbon nanotube capacitors can pack more energy into a pound / cubic foot than oil. That technology still requires advances in manufacturing to realize that potential in an economically practical package, but is ultimately a certainty - so the only variable left is the time frame. Based on lab-to-mass-production timeframes currently being seen in the semiconductor industry, I cannot imagine practical solutions being more than a decade away and probably much sooner.
Click to expand...

The problem with carbon nanotube capacitors, or any high density capacitor technology is charge/discharge rates. High capacity does not correlate to fast charge rates. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. The geometry that dramatically increases the plate surface are of the capacitor also dramatically increases the equivalent series resistance (ESR) of the capacitor. Ohm's law is the enemy:
Power = current^2 x Resistance

That is why as a general rule the RMS current ratings go down as storage density goes up. Fast charge or discharge rates are limited by heating of the capacitor.

That "general rule" only changes (significantly) when you use a different conductive material (silver, copper, aluminum, etc). Carbon is not a great conductor so I'm doubting a carbon nanotube capacitor will have a relatively high RMS current rating.

Also, 80% charge in 10 minutes? Sounds like a heat generating situation. Assuming the battery is designed to discharge over at least 2 hours, the current handing capability is designed around a discharge rate 1/5 the charge rate. In other words, I^2 is 25x normal during that fast charge cycle.

That requires either huge over design of the conductors (25x cross section), including battery electrodes, or some really novel thermal design.

You may get away with this for a cell phone battery(I have my doubts), but scaling up for propulsion is a different matter. I'd say, it isn't going to happen.
 
Its a seasonal thing...Diesel is heating oil, so wait til Spring and watch prices reverse course. Pays to buy and store in Fall before refiners switch and cold wx. drives up H.O. /diesel. Happens every year.
 
FWIW, a guy called me out of the blue today asking if I know whoever it was that was building an electrically powered RV-8. Someone referred him to me, probably because I run our EAA chapter's builder's group, I guess. Anyway, I referred him to this forum. Maybe we'll hear about an electric RV.
 
Steve Brown said:
The problem with carbon nanotube capacitors, or any high density capacitor technology is charge/discharge rates. High capacity does not correlate to fast charge rates. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. The geometry that dramatically increases the plate surface are of the capacitor also dramatically increases the equivalent series resistance (ESR) of the capacitor. Ohm's law is the enemy:
Power = current^2 x Resistance

That is why as a general rule the RMS current ratings go down as storage density goes up. Fast charge or discharge rates are limited by heating of the capacitor.

That "general rule" only changes (significantly) when you use a different conductive material (silver, copper, aluminum, etc). Carbon is not a great conductor so I'm doubting a carbon nanotube capacitor will have a relatively high RMS current rating.

Also, 80% charge in 10 minutes? Sounds like a heat generating situation. Assuming the battery is designed to discharge over at least 2 hours, the current handing capability is designed around a discharge rate 1/5 the charge rate. In other words, I^2 is 25x normal during that fast charge cycle.

That requires either huge over design of the conductors (25x cross section), including battery electrodes, or some really novel thermal design.

You may get away with this for a cell phone battery(I have my doubts), but scaling up for propulsion is a different matter. I'd say, it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Steve, I won't question your knowledge about the physics of individual capacitors - however, I'll just point out that a "Power Cell" doesn't have to be one single huge device.

Charging 10,000 small cells in parallel is unlikely to have the same heating problems as charging one Ginormous cell in the same period of time. Resistance is also a function of distance traveled, and tiny distances mean much less heating.

When the folks at MIT & other places are saying it is possible - I believe them. Doesn't mean my faith in that is right, though. As I frequently say, history will prove us all wrong!

:)
 
Sparky fly's

RScott said:
FWIW, a guy called me out of the blue today asking if I know whoever it was that was building an electrically powered RV-8. Someone referred him to me, probably because I run our EAA chapter's builder's group, I guess. Anyway, I referred him to this forum. Maybe we'll hear about an electric RV.
Click to expand...
Can't say but EAA mag showed an electric Sonex. It was a ground pic, not sure of the flight status if any.
 
One inherent disadvantage about electric flight is that the batteries weigh exactly the same depleted as they do fully charged. If you consider the difference between mtow and mlw in airliners, that's all going to be lost payload. (don't get me wrong though, I am a big fan of electric flight)

About diesel, me and four friends went on summer holiday in a diesel Merc C220 stationwagon last summer. Mostly highway cruising at speed limit or slightly above. With all our luggage we were 150 lbs overweight, still did 34 mpg. :)
 
Ola said:
One inherent disadvantage about electric flight is that the batteries weigh exactly the same depleted as they do fully charged. If you consider the difference between mtow and mlw in airliners, that's all going to be lost payload. (don't get me wrong though, I am a big fan of electric flight)
Click to expand...

Whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage depends entirely on the energy-density of the storage devices. If they store MORE energy than petroleum, then you gain a greater potential payload for the same range (assuming not too big a difference between max T/O weight and max Landing weight). Too, you don't have to manage your fuel feed to keep weight and balance correct - just hook 'em all up to the buss (with individual circuit breakers in case of a short).

The current (pun intended) situation, with energy density being less than petroleum, gives the advantage to petroleum.

About diesel, me and four friends went on summer holiday in a diesel Merc C220 stationwagon last summer. Mostly highway cruising at speed limit or slightly above. With all our luggage we were 150 lbs overweight, still did 34 mpg. :)
Click to expand...

Diesel is a good interim strategy, and it's a shame they didn't develop the Junkers design earlier for GA aircraft use. Even with per-gallon prices slightly higher, the higher energy density (see a thread here?) compensates.
 
Phyrcooler said:
Its all a bunch of yada, yada, yada... until you read the end of the article that George linked us to...



And that I agree with. There is ONLY one reason that fuel prices are where they are. The shameless greed of the oil industry owners. Did anybody see this little news item this past Friday?

:rolleyes:

Yes... that's BILLION with a 'B'.

Greed. With a capitol 'G'. I rest my case. :mad:

DJ
Click to expand...

Ben Stein had an interesting op ed piece in the 03/02 New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/b...em&ex=1204693200&en=e669aa2b828d4e7a&ei=5087

Keep in mind, too, that merely showing gross profits without also revealing gross sales is meaningless. Several other types of business have higher percentage profits than do the oil companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top