600 mile range Federal law needed

How do I change the password?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Chrysler > 600 mile range Federal law needed 19 September 2005 08:57:26

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

ha ha ha... loh mlya....da…
ha ha ha... loh mlya.... da, da... imenno you!!!!

da da da.....
da da da.....

They have birthday today:

YJlady

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

How to clean cloth upholstery
I have a '95 LeBaron with cloth upholstery, mostly tan with some black woven in and maybe another color…

2002 Voyager Drain Plug…
Need help locating radiator drain plug for 2002 Voyager. Would appreciate someone sending back location…

2001 PT Cruiser Problems??????
Recently bought one. Love it! Anything in particular I should watch for? Anybody have anything…

Chrysler-Dodge 2005 manuals…
=ybegin part=470 line=128 size=168867988 name=2005-LX-SM.pdf =ypart begin=117062401…

concorde heater system
I have the usual problems with the heater controls on my 95 Concorde. I took out the circuit board and…

Recent forum topics:

...96 Accord tranny issue
I have a 1996 honda accord ex automatic. on a cold start the car shits gears realitively fine. however…

i just want to find out how…
i just want to find out how much it will cost to change an ignition to a 2001 pontiac grand am and can i…

What is causing my 97 Toyota…
What is causing my 97 Toyota Camry to hesitate like it is about to stall?

94 Dodge Intrepid
How do I go about finding and unsticking or replacing the gas float on a 94 Dodge Intrepid. I ran out of…

Recent forum comments:

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
Well, I passed on the 4th roadtest. The examiner said I should have passed it the first time. I have…

RE: turn signal problams
Try a new flasher because it's cheaper. If that doesn't work then you probably need a new turn signal…

RE: Chevy 305 Timing Chain…
Sprucing up a low mileage 305 chev. Crank sprocket has one keyway. Looking at the front end how many…

RE: 95 maxmia
my 95 Nissian Quest jerks A Lot:-? when it warms up and I push on the accelerator, I was told…

RE: 4x4 usefulness
I live in the mountains of colorado, and most of the time I am able to get by with my very powerful…

Модератор:

Administrator


600 mile range Federal law needed
Nomen Nescio 4 September 2005 03:50:05
	During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road fuel availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers. It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to achieve 600 range with reserve. Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their throats with a Federal Law.
		Add comment


Wraithyjeep 4 September 2005 04:49:57 [ permanent link ]
	ya but at what point do you stop paying to transport gas around. 1st rule of fuel economy drive light on the peddle and make sure the car is light. I can't recall how much 1 gallon of gas weighs in at. nor can I recall how many lbs of weight removal = increase of available horsepower. point being is driving around with nearly 2 times the amount of fuel = 2 times the amount of weight there for fuel economy would suffer. and would ppl pay $60 to fill a dodge neon. nope better off driving with 1/2 tank just like it is now. "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road > fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Jonathan 4 September 2005 05:15:28 [ permanent link ]
	During the hurricanes that hit Florida last year, fuel supply was an issue for several months - as it will be in Louisianna, Alabama and Mississippi. However, mandating a 600-mile range on vehicles with more federal regulation isn't the answer and didn't mean anything when you couldn't get gas in the first place. It does nothing to put in larger fuel tanks if nobody can afford to fill them, and the people who most needed to evacuate seldom had cars to begin with. Start with something that makes more sense, like mandating that gas stations must have a way to retrieve the fuel from their in-ground tanks when the electricity fails. That makes more sense than a larger gas tank in your car. There's going to be plenty more beaurocracy and enough federal rules and reccomendations to choke a horse when all this is done - let's concentrate on the important ones and not something that means little and is worth even less. It scares me to think of what people are going to be screaming for all in the name of public safety after this - perhaps federalizing all agencies in state and local governments, conscription, siezing personal property (boats, buses, aircraft, etc.)? Let's not make this harder and more confusingly complex than we have to by overloading it with little unimportant issues. My first prediction is that whatever spending bill to fund disaster preparedness is passed after this is all over will contain more unrelated pork than it will have money that actually gets to the people who need it in order to minimize the potential tragedies of the next major event - and you can take that prediction to the bank! Jonathan "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road > fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Srg 4 September 2005 05:31:24 [ permanent link ]
	Nomen---OH SHUT UP!!! "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road > fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Sarge 4 September 2005 08:20:13 [ permanent link ]
	Nomen Nescio wrote: "During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road fuel availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers. It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to achieve 600 range with reserve. Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their throats with a Federal Law." The problem is not how far a car can travel without refueling. The problem is many stations lost electrical power to run the pumps. I drove home to the area from Hots Springs, Arkansas. I anticipated having fuel problems once I arrived home. I started looking for a gas station in Vicksburg , MS and was not able to find one that had power. Got to Natchez, MS and found power on a one station and a line of cars 1/2 mile long trying to fuel up. Got to the second car in line and the power went out. I then head West down US 84 until I found a gas station with power. Only fuel they had left was the premium. Made it home to find all the electricity was off and no one was selling fuel. The next day power was restored In a neighboring town and I waited 2.5 miles to fuel up. They owner of the station was handing out water to customers in line. He told me that he was able to secure two truck loads of fuel and that was it. Many gas stations are not open even though they have power because they can't get the fuel. Nine refineries have been shut down in the affected areas. Gasoline supplies will be limited until all of them get back on line.The following facilities should be starting up Shell Chemical Mobile, Alabama, Motiva Convent, LA, Marathon Oil Garyville, LA. The following facilities will be starting up as soon as wind damage can be repaired Motiva/ Shell Chemical Norco, LA, Valerio, Norco, LA. The following will need extensive repair due to wind and flood damage: Conoco-Phillips in Belle Chase, LA, Chalmette Refining LLC Chalmette, LA, Shell Chemical St Rose, LA and Murphy Oil U.S.A. Inc. Meraux, LA. Gasoline will be in short supply across the nation until the refineries start back up and at full operation. At present, Louisiana lost the refining capacity of 1,470703 barrels of crude a day. Normally Louisiana could refine 2,772,723 barrels of crude a day. So over half the refining capacity has been affected by the storm. See the facts at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/state/la.html Offshore production will be cranking back up for several deepwater rigs. As of 09-02-05 88 percent of the oil production in the Gulf of Mexico has been shutdown. 20 platform or rigs are missing. One pipeline is damaged. See the facts at http://www.ocsbbs.com/Hurricane_katrina_evacuation_stats_Sept_2_2005.htm The LOOP offshore oil facality has been shutdown due to damage to on shore power grid needed for the LOOP to operate. Repairs are in progress. The refineries that are operating will be operating on short supplies and will not be running at full rates due to the lack of crude even with the strategic reserve. Sarge
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 4 September 2005 11:30:33 [ permanent link ]
	"Sarge" <licker@lickersacademy.edu> wrote in message news:dfdslu0vp1@enews3.newsguy.com...> Gasoline will be in short supply across the nation until the refineries> start back up and at full operation. I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon gasoline prices have remained flat for the last month or two. I strongly suspect that the oil companies don't like to pay a lot of money to ship gasoline all over the place and that a lot more of it is refined and sold locally than most people would believe, and that the oil companies will admit. I also strongly suspect, going on what I know about how business is conducted in LA, that a lot of the oil companies down there are giving wildly exaggerated estimates of how short the fuel supplies are going to be over the next weeks and months, simply in an effort to keep fuel prices high to they can profiteer. Given that the oil companies own the current President, you won't see any tangible effort to stop the price gouging from the White House either, I am sorry to say. Of course, I also know that saying all this is like rubbing salt in the wound to the people in that area that are reading this. But you should know that the media is lying to you, gas prices in the rest of the country haven't spiked like a Super Bowl football on a touchdown. (at least, not here) I just bought gas at a 76 station on Friday at $2.66 a gallon and it was within 7 cents a gallon of that a month ago. Consider also that summer is over and people are mostly pretty much finished with their summer vacation driving, and gasoline sales during this period go down anyway. Ted
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 4 September 2005 12:00:25 [ permanent link ]
	"Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QUrSe.5793$Wd7.2668@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> During the hurricanes that hit Florida last year, fuel supply was an issue> for several months - as it will be in Louisianna, Alabama and Mississippi.> However, mandating a 600-mile range on vehicles with more federal regulation> isn't the answer and didn't mean anything when you couldn't get gas in the> first place. It does nothing to put in larger fuel tanks if nobody can> afford to fill them, and the people who most needed to evacuate seldom had> cars to begin with.> Start with something that makes more sense, like mandating that gas stations> must have a way to retrieve the fuel from their in-ground tanks when the> electricity fails. That makes more sense than a larger gas tank in your> car.> Not really. Most people pay with credit or debit cards and don't carry $40 around in cash just to buy gasoline (what it costs to fill my tank) and when the power goes, those forms of payment are useless. In any case, this is a matter better handled by the states. I'm sure that Montana doesen't have to worry much about massive hurricanes coming through and flooding it's major cities for weeks at a time. less. It scares me to think of what people are going to be screaming for> all in the name of public safety after this - perhaps federalizing all> agencies in state and local governments, conscription, siezing personal> property (boats, buses, aircraft, etc.)? Why? Nothing concrete was done after 911 other than invade two foreign countries, well this time there's nothing to invade. Ted
		Add comment


351cj 4 September 2005 13:47:02 [ permanent link ]
	Hum... My 2005 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel carries 59 gallons of diesel (Just shy of 420 pounds of diesel fuel). (Diesel weighs about 7.1 pounds per US gallon) (Gasoline weighs about 6.2 pounds per US gallon) Truck Gets 14.5 miles per gallon. That equals 855 miles per fill up. You don't need any Federal Law, what you are asking for is already on the market. At $3.15 per gallon, today's price, that's $185.85 to fill up from empty. I just spent $140 doing it yesterday. "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road > fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Andrew Rossmann 4 September 2005 16:40:48 [ permanent link ]
	In article <cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com>, nobody@dizum.com says...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law. Why build bigger gas tanks? Why not mandate better fuel economy to get the same effect? -- If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying! All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!! http://home.att.net/~andyross
		Add comment


Repairman 4 September 2005 17:44:53 [ permanent link ]
	Yeah, and we need "reproduction permits" to cleanse the gene pool also............
		Add comment


Aussie Bongo 4 September 2005 18:26:58 [ permanent link ]
	"Repairman" <repairman54@earthlink.net> wrote in message newsTCSe.6483$9i4.3173@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...> Yeah, and we need "reproduction permits" to cleanse the gene pool> also............> how many you want ....... i have my printer working again
		Add comment


Big Al 4 September 2005 18:30:56 [ permanent link ]
	"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1d84a74ed444bed498971e@newsgroups.comcast.net...> In article <cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com>,> nobody@dizum.com says...>> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road >> fuel>> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.>> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to>> achieve 600 range with reserve.>> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since>> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their>> throats with a Federal Law.> Why build bigger gas tanks? Why not mandate better fuel economy to get> the same effect?> If cars had bigger fuel tanks they would collect more moisture. Most people would still run around with 5 gallons or less in them Al
		Add comment


Petebert 4 September 2005 18:35:09 [ permanent link ]
	I made it from Niagara Falls to Dayton Ohio without filling up in my 99 windstar with a car top carrier, I couldnt imagine needing to flee further then that from anything. "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road > fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Sarge 4 September 2005 21:20:26 [ permanent link ]
	"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote: "I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon gasoline prices have remained flat for the last month or two. I strongly suspect that the oil companies don't like to pay a lot of money to ship gasoline all over the place and that a lot more of it is refined and sold locally than most people would believe, and that the oil companies will admit. I also strongly suspect, going on what I know about how business is conducted in LA, that a lot of the oil companies down there are giving wildly exaggerated estimates of how short the fuel supplies are going to be over the next weeks and months, simply in an effort to keep fuel prices high to they can profiteer. Given that the oil companies own the current President, you won't see any tangible effort to stop the price gouging from the White House either, I am sorry to say. Of course, I also know that saying all this is like rubbing salt in the wound to the people in that area that are reading this. But you should know that the media is lying to you, gas prices in the rest of the country haven't spiked like a Super Bowl football on a touchdown. (at least, not here) I just bought gas at a 76 station on Friday at $2.66 a gallon and it was within 7 cents a gallon of that a month ago. Consider also that summer is over and people are mostly pretty much finished with their summer vacation driving, and gasoline sales during this period go down anyway." And you don't believe 9 less refineries producing gasoline will affect the price? Most of the gasoline refined in Louisiana does not supply your area in Oregon. The pipelines from this area supplies mostly the Northeast and immediate area. Gasoline supplied to the West Coast is supplied by plants in California 21 (refineries 2,017,401 barrels a day) and Washington (5 refineries 616,150 barrels a day). Louisiana refine 2,772,723 barrels a day, which is greater then both California and Washington together. So tell me how the supply of gasoline is not going to be reduced? The last new refinery built was in 1976 in Garyville, LA. It is owned by Marathon Oil. We need more refineries to reduce the cost of gasoline or we need to reduce our need. Gasoline cannot be stored long term like crude oil. Several of your major oil companies have announced a price freeze to its jobbers on the cost of gasoline in the affected states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Texas 27 refineries and 4,627,611 barrels per day cannot increase production of gasoline they are all running at capacity. Mississippi 4 refineries at 364,800 barrels per day cannot increase production. Their biggest refinery in Pascagoula @ 325,000 BCD is shutdown due to damage. There are other states that refine oil. Texas, Louisiana and California are the largest. The US gasoline consumption is about 9.0 million bbl/d. Lost of production from 8 to 9 refineries has to hurt the supply. Before the Hurricane I paid 2.49 for a gallon of gasoline regular. Yesterday I filled up my truck and paid 2.54 a gallon. The biggest problem is finding stations that have fuel since the entire area of Jefferson Parish, Orleans Parish, and St Tammany Parish have no electricity. The people that live in theses areas are now trying to get home to see what's left or living with friends or relatives in the metro area. My household has increased by 2 and my sisters by 4 and my parents by 6 since our relatives have no place to go home or no electricity where they live at. My mother's home looks like a used car lot with 8 extra cars in her driveway. Sarge
		Add comment


David Starr 4 September 2005 21:43:52 [ permanent link ]
	"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message >news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...>> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road >> fuel>> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.>> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to>> achieve 600 range with reserve.>> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since>> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their>> throats with a Federal Law. If the Federal Government designed cars, they would: Come to think of it, they HAVE - the H-1 Hummer. Although for urban areas, I'd prefer the Bradley or the M1a1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Page: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		Add comment


Don Phillipson 5 September 2005 00:53:26 [ permanent link ]
	"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message news:newscache$xi7ami$x8e$1@news.ipinc.net...> "Sarge" <licker@lickersacademy.edu> wrote in message> news:dfdslu0vp1@enews3.newsguy.com...> > Gasoline will be in short supply across the nation until the refineries> > start back up and at full operation.> I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon gasoline> prices have remained flat for the last month or two. I strongly suspect that the> oil companies don't like to pay a lot of money to ship gasoline all over place and that a lot more of it is refined and sold locally than most people would> believe, and that the oil companies will admit. It is extra interesting to see Oregon gas prices are stable. In eastern Canada as soon as Katrina shut down the Gulf wells retail gas prices went up by 25 per cent (and Canada produces 100 per cent of what Canada produces -- although for cheapness western Canadian oil is exported to the USA and we import US oil in eastern Canada. -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
		Add comment


R 5 September 2005 04:12:25 [ permanent link ]
	If you talk to anyone that has pulled tanks out of newer cars to change a fuel pump, you will see they usually fit pretty tight. I think the automakers are more worried about space in the car than the tank. Of course this doesn't apply to trucks that have lots of room and huge tanks. I would hate to pay the bill on a 1 ton with dual tanks. "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road > fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Vuarra 5 September 2005 06:55:58 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 01:00:25 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: less. It scares me to think of what people are going to be screaming for>> all in the name of public safety after this - perhaps federalizing all>> agencies in state and local governments, conscription, siezing personal>> property (boats, buses, aircraft, etc.)?> Why? Nothing concrete was done after 911 other than invade two>foreign countries, well this time there's nothing to invade. Like that would stop the American Empire? Vuarra Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur. (That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)
		Add comment


351cj 5 September 2005 07:42:39 [ permanent link ]
	"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message news:agJSe.724$5I2.2019@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message> news:newscache$xi7ami$x8e$1@news.ipinc.net...>> "Sarge" <licker@lickersacademy.edu> wrote in message>> news:dfdslu0vp1@enews3.newsguy.com...>> > Gasoline will be in short supply across the nation until the refineries>> > start back up and at full operation.>> I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon> gasoline>> prices have remained flat for the last month or two. I strongly suspect> that the>> oil companies don't like to pay a lot of money to ship gasoline all over> the>> place and that a lot more of it is refined and sold locally than most> people would>> believe, and that the oil companies will admit.> It is extra interesting to see Oregon gas prices are stable.> In eastern Canada as soon as Katrina shut down the> Gulf wells retail gas prices went up by 25 per cent (and> Canada produces 100 per cent of what Canada produces> -- although for cheapness western Canadian oil is exported> to the USA and we import US oil in eastern Canada.> -- > Don Phillipson> Carlsbad Springs> (Ottawa, Canada)> Well... Oregon Fuel prices are NOT "Stable" !!! Just before Katrina, #2 Diesel was around $2.80 per gallon, it is now (as of Saturday) at $3.15 per gallon. Gasoline has hovered right under these prices, rising right along with them...
		Add comment


Happy Traveler 5 September 2005 14:54:15 [ permanent link ]
	There is only one reason for me to wish for a larger fuel tank: be able to cross the otherwise great state of Oregon without buying gas. Are you guys going to change that ridiculous 'no self serve' law in any foreseeable future? Is there anything genetically wrong with Oregon residents making them unable to stick a nozzle in their gas tank when they grow up past high school age? For goodness sake, find something productive to do for those 5000 kids 'employed' in your gas stations! I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon gasoline> prices have remained flat for the last month or two.
		Add comment


Frank Ross 5 September 2005 16:45:26 [ permanent link ]
	Its all fuckin% bullshi%. gas is $2.99 in one town and $3.35 in another, not 20 miles apart. You, me and everyone else is being lied to. the only think katrina had to do with the price of a gallon of fuel is that it was an excuse that sounded plausable. this is from a yankee in new hampshire. by the way screw the 600 mile theory it sounds dumb. it just makes your car a bigger bomb, duhhhhh.
		Add comment


NeedforSwede2 5 September 2005 17:02:02 [ permanent link ]
	In article <wCDSe.165054$kM5.129306@fe01.news.easynews.com>, castle@nthrax.org says...> I made it from Niagara Falls to Dayton Ohio without filling up in my 99 > windstar with a car top carrier, I couldnt imagine needing to flee further > then that from anything.> And if you do, it is far too late for running to be an option. -- Carl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
		Add comment


Andrew Rossmann 5 September 2005 17:28:05 [ permanent link ]
	In article <SP2dnZ2dnZ2daU3HnZ2dnUqggd6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>, frankdross@comcast.net says...> Its all fuckin% bullshi%. gas is $2.99 in one town and $3.35 in another, not > 20 miles apart. You, me and everyone else is being lied to. the only think > katrina had to do with the price of a gallon of fuel is that it was an > excuse that sounded plausable.> this is from a yankee in new hampshire.> by the way screw the 600 mile theory it sounds dumb. it just makes your car > a bigger bomb, duhhhhh. Be aware that many gas stations are independent or regional chains that don't own refineries or oil supplies rely on the spot market. Prices and supplies there are all over the place and constant flux. The big-name, company-owned, stations have a more consistent supply, and prices are often set according to corporate rules. They will rise and fall at a slower rate. -- If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying! All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!! http://home.att.net/~andyross
		Add comment


Andrew Rossmann 5 September 2005 17:29:55 [ permanent link ]
	In article <wCDSe.165054$kM5.129306@fe01.news.easynews.com>, castle@nthrax.org says...> I made it from Niagara Falls to Dayton Ohio without filling up in my 99 > windstar with a car top carrier, I couldnt imagine needing to flee further > then that from anything. But you weren't on an overloaded road with tens of thousands of cars. If you look at the evacuation, it was mostly stop-and-go for MILES. -- If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying! All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!! http://home.att.net/~andyross
		Add comment


Bill Putney 5 September 2005 18:12:16 [ permanent link ]
	Happy Traveler wrote: There is only one reason for me to wish for a larger fuel tank: be able to> cross the otherwise great state of Oregon without buying gas. Are you guys> going to change that ridiculous 'no self serve' law in any foreseeable> future? Is there anything genetically wrong with Oregon residents making> them unable to stick a nozzle in their gas tank when they grow up past high> school age? For goodness sake, find something productive to do for those> 5000 kids 'employed' in your gas stations! Isn't this or wasn't this the case also in NJ? Liberal union crap. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


Howard Nelson 5 September 2005 19:19:25 [ permanent link ]
	I typically buy gasoline in Washington County. I live in PDX and the prices> with> the city boundary appear to be at least 10-20 cents a gallon higher than> right outside> of it, such as in unincorporated Washington County (along US 26) and in> East Multnomah county outside of Gresham. I don't know the PDX situation but here in california cities and counties may have their own additonal taxes on gasoline or may require special formulation all of which may result in markedly different prices as you move to and from their jurisdiction. Howard
		Add comment


Me! 5 September 2005 19:28:02 [ permanent link ]
	Thank you TED !! I don't like to see the little guy get screwed anymore than anyone else here.... however.. if there is EVER to be any "work" on alternative energy, dino power has to get up there where the alternative people have a chance to make a buck...( for the record Exxon stockholders voted against sinking money into alternative energy) ... Sorry kiddies but when there's "no change" (in something new) there isn't going to be any change or motivation to change. .
		Add comment


Frank Ross 5 September 2005 20:37:00 [ permanent link ]
	both stations are irvings "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1d8603e1ca50ddd7989720@newsgroups.comcast.net...> In article <SP2dnZ2dnZ2daU3HnZ2dnUqggd6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>,> frankdross@comcast.net says...>> Its all fuckin% bullshi%. gas is $2.99 in one town and $3.35 in another, >> not>> 20 miles apart. You, me and everyone else is being lied to. the only >> think>> katrina had to do with the price of a gallon of fuel is that it was an>> excuse that sounded plausable.>> this is from a yankee in new hampshire.>> by the way screw the 600 mile theory it sounds dumb. it just makes your >> car>> a bigger bomb, duhhhhh.> Be aware that many gas stations are independent or regional chains> that don't own refineries or oil supplies rely on the spot market.> Prices and supplies there are all over the place and constant flux.> The big-name, company-owned, stations have a more consistent supply,> and prices are often set according to corporate rules. They will rise> and fall at a slower rate.> -- > If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!> All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the> law!!> http://home.att.net/~andyross
		Add comment


Big Al 5 September 2005 23:02:40 [ permanent link ]
	"David Starr" <davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:fecmh1p7odh5qi2qkcc5f9f82lh7vqqtea@4ax.com...> If the Federal Government designed cars, they would:> Come to think of it, they HAVE - the H-1 Hummer. Although for urban > areas, I'd> prefer the Bradley or the M1a1> The WW2 Jeep was a great vehicle for what was needed. So simple, and reliable. Why do we need something like a H-1 now? Al
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 6 September 2005 00:29:12 [ permanent link ]
	"Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler@abc.net> wrote in message news:lM-dnTEnWeJFvoHeRVn-2Q@comcast.com...> There is only one reason for me to wish for a larger fuel tank: be able to> cross the otherwise great state of Oregon without buying gas. Are you guys> going to change that ridiculous 'no self serve' law in any foreseeable> future? Is there anything genetically wrong with Oregon residents making> them unable to stick a nozzle in their gas tank when they grow up past high> school age? For goodness sake, find something productive to do for those> 5000 kids 'employed' in your gas stations!> It's cheaper for us to use the gas stations as convenient job generators for the bottom feeders than for us to run big social programs that create make-work jobs for them. The kids do pump some gas, true, but many people who might otherwise be stuck permanently on welfare have used gas pumping jobs as stepping stones to better jobs. Considering that Oregon has practically no big corporate headquarters in it left, after all the mergers gutted the economy here, there's not a hell of a lot to the economy other than extracting money from all the multinationals that are operating here. PDX and Eugene have a few corporate headquarters left, but profits for just about every industry, including forest products, largely go out of state. The most profitable economic sectors involve separating transplanted Californians from the money they bring into the state, I'm afraid, and growing Marijuana (which I believe we still lead the nation in) The dope-growing profits all feed into the local economy since those operations are all ma-and-pa ones that are headquartered here, and we don't have the feds extracting their chunks. But just about every other industry you can name, is headquartered elseware, and corporations in those industries all carefully protect the high-paying jobs by keeping them close to their corporate offices (which aren't here) Of course you won't find this mentioned anywhere in the economic reports! It took the oil companies a long time to figure out that the people of Oregon understood this, but once they finally did they stopped funding the self-serve initative ballot measures which kept getting defeated. The other thing is that the majority of voters in OR live in Portland Metro and there's enough traffic to Vancouver WA for people here to be familiar with fuel prices in WA (which has self-serve) We haven't observed any difference in fuel prices in WA than over on this side of the river so the arguments that self-serve will save us money aren't believable. Ted
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 6 September 2005 00:38:19 [ permanent link ]
	"me!" <me @ nowhere.com> wrote in message news:6uZSe.155$nt1.88@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...> Thank you TED !!> I don't like to see the little guy get screwed anymore than anyone else> here.... however.. if there is EVER to be any "work" on alternative energy,> dino power has to get up there where the alternative people have a chance make a buck...( for the record Exxon stockholders voted against sinking> money into alternative energy) ... Sorry kiddies but when there's "no> change" (in something new) there isn't going to be any change or motivation> to change.> . That is true, but consider also that once the initial, expensive R&D has been paid for and these alternative energy industries are up and running without the need for government incentives/support/etc, if we don't see an overall, permanent decrease in the cost of energy, then really these alternative energy sources wern't worth developing. The goal of a "solar powered car" and any other kind of alternative energy program powered car should be to be able to reduce the cost of powering the car. It shouldn't be to just replace one system with another just because someone is enraptured with a different system. Otherwise we really ought to stop bothering with screwing around with vehicle fuel and just concentrate on building plants that convert coal into gasoline, or convert biomass into gasoline, or some such. Consider that oil AKA hydrocarbons, originally came from solar-powered plant material and solar-powered plankton growth, it should be possible to use genetic engineering to make an organism that you input sunlight and get oil out of. Ted
		Add comment


351cj 6 September 2005 03:07:40 [ permanent link ]
	"Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler@abc.net> wrote in message news:lM-dnTEnWeJFvoHeRVn-2Q@comcast.com...> There is only one reason for me to wish for a larger fuel tank: be able to> cross the otherwise great state of Oregon without buying gas. Are you guys> going to change that ridiculous 'no self serve' law in any foreseeable> future? Is there anything genetically wrong with Oregon residents making> them unable to stick a nozzle in their gas tank when they grow up past > high> school age? For goodness sake, find something productive to do for those> 5000 kids 'employed' in your gas stations!> I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon> gasoline>> prices have remained flat for the last month or two.> It has been on the ballet 3 separate times the last time within the last year or so, there are just to many lazy people who prefer sitting their car not getting fuel on their hands to get enough votes to resend it! I still can't get a straight answer about why the hell they ever enacted such an asinine law... Everything from to put otherwise unemployable people to work to some misconceived idea that it may be safer... BTW the law evidently does not apply to diesel. (weather or not a particular station knows it). I pump my own Diesel at a number of places.
		Add comment


Joe Pfeiffer 6 September 2005 07:24:04 [ permanent link ]
	I know this is a foolish question... but is there any reason people are still responding to Nomen's mindless ravings? -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer skype: jjpfeifferjr
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 6 September 2005 09:54:55 [ permanent link ]
	"351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> wrote in message news:0d4Te.20225$cy4.80@trnddc05...> "Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler@abc.net> wrote in message> news:lM-dnTEnWeJFvoHeRVn-2Q@comcast.com...> > There is only one reason for me to wish for a larger fuel tank: be able cross the otherwise great state of Oregon without buying gas. Are you guys> > going to change that ridiculous 'no self serve' law in any foreseeable> > future? Is there anything genetically wrong with Oregon residents making> > them unable to stick a nozzle in their gas tank when they grow up past> > high> > school age? For goodness sake, find something productive to do for those> > 5000 kids 'employed' in your gas stations!> > I don't believe this is the case across the nation. Here in Oregon> > gasoline> >> prices have remained flat for the last month or two.> > It has been on the ballet 3 separate times the last time within the last> year or so, there are just to many lazy people who prefer sitting their not getting fuel on their hands to get enough votes to resend it!> I still can't get a straight answer about why the hell they ever enacted> such an asinine law... Everything from to put otherwise unemployable people> to work That's the real reason - you won't find it on record anywhere though. In any case what would you rather have done with the unemployables - do you want to support them on your tax dollar? I certainly don't. For what the state government would bite out of my taxes to support the unemployables, private industry in gas stations can do it at a quarter of the cost. to some misconceived idea that it may be safer...> That's the "official" reason that everyone knows is bullcrap. There are LOTS of official bullcrap reasons that are used all the time. For example, when Iraq needed to be invaded in order to remove a brutal human-right violator and his 2 insane sons from power, the official bullcrap reason given was WMDs which everyone with any intelligence knew at the time was a huge fat lie. Unfortunately the feeble minded that couldn't handle the truth needed some bullcrap to believe in which is why the WMD reason was dredged up to begin with. (of course, the problem now is that they can't come right out and say that the objective has been met and thus it's OK to go home, and they haven't come up with an official bullcrap reason to use to justify getting out of there that won't tear the veil to the feeble-minded and show those people that they knew the WMD reason was a lie at the time) This is SOP for all governments, why are you upset about it? BTW the law evidently does not apply to diesel. (weather or not a particular> station knows it). I pump my own Diesel at a number of places.> Most stations also allow motorcycle riders to fill their own tanks. Ted
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 6 September 2005 10:02:23 [ permanent link ]
	"Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ck1Te.5741$4P5.2041@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...> Puleez...> You need lots of electricity to seperate hydrogen from oxygen in water, Before you go off half-cocked, know they have developed solar cells that decompose water directly and can produce hydrogen and oxygen directly from seawater and sunlight, no electricity is involved, not even within the cell itself. That doesen't of course negate the storage problems and make hydrogen even remotely usable for vehicle fuel, but it does pretty much blow away the 'takes more energy to produce it then you get back" argument. It took more solar energy to produce the oil deposits than we get back from them, also. The difference is that you can pretty much assume that solar energy is unlimited on the Earth and available almost everywhere, so even if we can only generate a watt of power for every 10 watts of power in sunlight that we get, since the sunlight is free, after the initial cost to setup, there's no continuing costs for the raw energy. Ted
		Add comment


Bill Putney 6 September 2005 13:59:54 [ permanent link ]
	Joe Pfeiffer wrote: I know this is a foolish question... but is there any reason people> are still responding to Nomen's mindless ravings? Yes. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


Bill Putney 6 September 2005 14:08:05 [ permanent link ]
	Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:ck1Te.5741$4P5.2041@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...> Puleez...>> You need lots of electricity to seperate hydrogen from oxygen in water,> Before you go off half-cocked, know they have developed solar cells> that decompose water directly and can produce hydrogen and oxygen> directly from seawater and sunlight, no electricity is involved, not even> within the cell itself.> That doesen't of course negate the storage problems and make hydrogen> even remotely usable for vehicle fuel, but it does pretty much blow away> the 'takes more energy to produce it then you get back" argument.> It took more solar energy to produce the oil deposits than we get back> from them, also. The difference is that you can pretty much assume that> solar energy is unlimited on the Earth and available almost everywhere,> so even if we can only generate a watt of power for every 10 watts of> power in sunlight that we get, since> the sunlight is free, after the initial cost to setup, there's no continuing> costs for the raw energy. Exactly - that was the point of my previous post. The thing we can't do is plug a power cord into the wall to do these inconvenient-to-convenient energy source conversions. The most obvious way to do it is to capture power from the sun that is essentially one of God's gift to mankind. However, you just wait - environmentalists a hundred years from now will come up with a reason that we can't do it, or that it has to be very heavily taxed to discourage its use. They'll quit talking about our mother the earth and start talking about our mother the sun or the great sun god or godess that we have to respect or some such other crap. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


Matt Whiting 6 September 2005 14:23:06 [ permanent link ]
	Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: It took more solar energy to produce the oil deposits than we get back> from them, also. The difference is that you can pretty much assume that> solar energy is unlimited on the Earth and available almost everywhere,> so even if we can only generate a watt of power for every 10 watts of> power in sunlight that we get, since> the sunlight is free, after the initial cost to setup, there's no continuing> costs for the raw energy. Yes, and that energy was integrated over a fairly long period of time as best we know. It is hard to replicate that now so we need to look for means of using sunlight in "real time", not things that take years to store up to get a day's worth of energy in return. Matt
		Add comment


Me! 6 September 2005 20:19:15 [ permanent link ]
	Don't laugh everyone... In an argument (family discussion) we put forth the idea of launching nuclear waste to the sun..(however fraught that is with all kinds of other problems among them an explosion showering us with nuclear waste...) one of the kids came up with "NOW YOU WANT TO POLLUTE THE SUN" !!!! So Bill there it is.. !!
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 7 September 2005 04:49:04 [ permanent link ]
	"351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> wrote in message news:NIdTe.13856$B34.7155@trnddc09...> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message> news:newscache$9xrdmi$7yg$1@news.ipinc.net...> > Not in the Portland metro area.> Yes in the Portland metro area.> You ought to look around before you make such statements.> http://www.portlandgasprices.com/> No, not in the Portland metro area - again. Look at the site's chart here: http://www.portlandgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx Note the average price 8/27 - 8/30 was 2.60 Look at today - the top 15 stations on the front page of the site are at 2.63 - 2.66. Where is this price jump in the Portland metro area? Your looking at their average price rise - the problem is that their average does not represent a real average of a price per gallon because the stations aren't reporting their volume. Some of the low volume stations in PDX are using the hurricane as an excuse to gouge, that's all. 2 weeks ago the spread between high price and low price was much smaller. Now those low volume stations are skewing the average. This is what they mean when they say statistics lie. We have a spread of 2.59 for the low and 3.15 for the high - a whopping 56 cent spread. The stations that are gouging 50 cents a gallon extra will get away with it for a few weeks then everyone will stop going to them and when they start losing money they will drop the price. 3 weeks ago I would guess that there was no 56 cent spread on that site. Banks does not see the PDX-to-coast traffic as it's not right on US 26,> > everyone> > has filled their tanks long before going by there, that's a low-volume> > station.> I guess I should have specified, ALL the places in between too, Like> Aurora, 3 stations right across the street from each other on I-5 (also a> major truck refueling stop)> Wilsonville, Tigard, Beaverton, Aloha, Hillsboro, Cornelius, Forest Grove,> Clackamas, Milwaukee, Oak Grove, Portland, ETC. ETC. ETC.> Sigh. Go back to that website and start looking at the top 15 again. Let's see, Clackamas, Hillsboro, Portland, Beaverton Damascus, Linnton. Canby is not on a major arterial, most people use I-5 not 99E, once more> > it's> > low-volume> FYI:> I monitor Fuel prices quite closely, and Canby and Cornelius consistently> have some of the lowest prices in the greater Portland area...> http://www.oregongasprices.com/> http://www.portlandgasprices.com/> I would guess Not Anymore. I suspect your favorte stations are just using the hurricane as an excuse to gouge. We are going to see a lot of that I think. Truth is I have been rather surprised to see this at certain stations - I've seen stations with a 10 cent difference in price right next to each other in the last week, so has my wife. Previously the biggest difference we have seen was 3 cents in these instances. And some of the stations that I've avoided over the last 6 months because they always ran 3-4 cents higher are now lower. For example the 76 right next to my house has always been 3 cents higher than the Shell down the road, now it's reversed. I can understand fuel price gouging when there's fuel shortages but we don't have a shortage here, I've yet to see a gas station with a sign out saying they are out of gas. Cool site though, I'll have to start reporting the stations I pass daily. Ted
		Add comment


Don 7 September 2005 05:31:51 [ permanent link ]
	"Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QUrSe.5793$Wd7.2668@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> snip> Start with something that makes more sense, like mandating that gas > stations must have a way to retrieve the fuel from their in-ground tanks > when the electricity fails. That makes more sense than a larger gas tank > in your car.> more snippage> Jonathan> What would really make sense, is making vehicles that don't use gasoline, or at least very little of it. I say we should have cars that get 100 mpg or better. Bush gave billions of your $$$$$$ to the oil companies but should have given it to those who would find alternative fuel sources instead. Then we wouldn't be fighting wars in foreign lands for their oil, and our National Guardsmen would be home to protect our cities during a time of crises like we are seeing on the news channels 24/7.
		Add comment


Bill Putney 7 September 2005 13:08:26 [ permanent link ]
	Don wrote: "Jonathan" <Fire_Capt651@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:QUrSe.5793$Wd7.2668@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> snip>> Start with something that makes more sense, like mandating that gas >>stations must have a way to retrieve the fuel from their in-ground tanks >>when the electricity fails. That makes more sense than a larger gas tank >>in your car.>> more snippage>> Jonathan>> What would really make sense, is making vehicles that don't use gasoline, or > at least very little of it. I say we should have cars that get 100 mpg or > better. Bush gave billions of your $$$$$$ to the oil companies but should > have given it to those who would find alternative fuel sources instead. Then > we wouldn't be fighting wars in foreign lands for their oil, and our > National Guardsmen would be home to protect our cities during a time of > crises like we are seeing on the news channels 24/7. Oh please!! So where was all that money for alternative energy going before Bush? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


351cj 7 September 2005 22:20:25 [ permanent link ]
	http://www.oregongasprices.com/>> http://www.portlandgasprices.com/>> Cool site though, I'll have to start reporting the stations I pass daily.> FYI: Aurora and Brooks have the cheapest diesel 2.89 in Oregon today...
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 7 September 2005 22:37:51 [ permanent link ]
	"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message news:e6eTe.220$lb.29129@news1.epix.net...> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:> It took more solar energy to produce the oil deposits than we get back> > from them, also. The difference is that you can pretty much assume that> > solar energy is unlimited on the Earth and available almost everywhere,> > so even if we can only generate a watt of power for every 10 watts of> > power in sunlight that we get, since> > the sunlight is free, after the initial cost to setup, there's no continuing> > costs for the raw energy.> Yes, and that energy was integrated over a fairly long period of time as> best we know. It is hard to replicate that now so we need to look for> means of using sunlight in "real time", not things that take years to> store up to get a day's worth of energy in return.> Use a really, really, really BIG magnifying glass! I think the oil-creating process that took a failrly long period of time was probably on the order of .000000000000000000001% efficiency. It's impossible to calculate of course, since we don't know how many hundreds of gallons of plant oil had to be produced for one drop of it to find it's way down thousands of feet of rock and sand into an oil dome. But clearly, we should be able to do a lot better than that with solar energy. Ted
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 7 September 2005 22:38:49 [ permanent link ]
	"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:dfjpq8$3us$1@news.isdn.net...> way to do it is to capture power from the sun that is essentially one of> God's gift to mankind. However, you just wait - environmentalists a> hundred years from now will come up with a reason that we can't do it,> or that it has to be very heavily taxed to discourage its use. They'll> quit talking about our mother the earth and start talking about our> mother the sun or the great sun god or godess that we have to respect or> some such other crap.> You've been listening to George Carlin again. Ted
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 7 September 2005 23:02:59 [ permanent link ]
	"Don" <nunya@myhouse.com> wrote in message news:bqrTe.27068$mb4.13249@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...> better. Bush gave billions of your $$$$$$ to the oil companies but should> have given it to those who would find alternative fuel sources instead. It's not finding the sources that's the problem, go outside and look up and there it is. It's developing the alternative ones that have an ongoing cost of operation that's cheaper than just digging oil up out of the ground. Consdier also that if the US ever seriously did that, that the Mid East oil producers could easily drop the price of a barrel of oil down to $5 a barrel or some such - they might have to give up a few solid gold bathroom fixtures to do it - for long enough to make sure that such alternative sources would be throughly quashed. Oil production is like diamond production. It's rediculously cheap and a massive conspiracy called OPEC exists to make sure it stays expensive, in order to bleed as much money as possible out of consumers. Last I checked raw sunlight is free - in fact in most homes we spend a lot of money getting rid of what we call "waste heat" via air conditioning that is generated by that sunlight falling on those homes. It is simply a matter of converting all that free energy into a more usable and storable form. Once someone invents a photovoltiac solar cell that has an efficiency on the order of 80% instead of the miserable 15-20% today, we already have zinc-air battery technology available that could make use of that. There's some promising research on 50% efficient solar cells here: http://trnmag.com/Stories/2002/121102/Material_soaks_up_the_sun_121102.html Ted
		Add comment


Bill Putney 8 September 2005 02:06:43 [ permanent link ]
	Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message> news:dfjpq8$3us$1@news.isdn.net...> way to do it is to capture power from the sun that is essentially one of>>God's gift to mankind. However, you just wait - environmentalists a>>hundred years from now will come up with a reason that we can't do it,>>or that it has to be very heavily taxed to discourage its use. They'll>>quit talking about our mother the earth and start talking about our>>mother the sun or the great sun god or godess that we have to respect or>>some such other crap.>> You've been listening to George Carlin again. > Ted Oh crap! You're telling me that I'm thinking like George Carlin! Seriously I don't listen to him. This is upsetting! 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


Bill Putney 8 September 2005 02:10:09 [ permanent link ]
	Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: "Don" <nunya@myhouse.com> wrote in message> news:bqrTe.27068$mb4.13249@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...> better. Bush gave billions of your $$$$$$ to the oil companies but should>>have given it to those who would find alternative fuel sources instead.> It's not finding the sources that's the problem, go outside and look up and> there it is. It's developing the alternative ones that have an ongoing cost> of> operation that's cheaper than just digging oil up out of the ground.> Consdier also that if the US ever seriously did that, that the Mid East oil> producers could easily drop the price of a barrel of oil down to $5 a> barrel or some such - they might have to give up a few solid gold> bathroom fixtures to do it - for long enough to make sure that such> alternative> sources would be throughly quashed.> Oil production is like diamond production. It's rediculously cheap and a> massive conspiracy called OPEC exists to make sure it stays expensive,> in order to bleed as much money as possible out of consumers. No - our politicians (and apparently those in Europe) would just tax it more. Remember that Beatles song "The Taxman" that I quoted a few weeks ago: "...Take a walk and I'll tax your feet..." Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


Don 8 September 2005 02:43:58 [ permanent link ]
	"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:dfnog3$36f$1@news.isdn.net...> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:> Remember that Beatles song "The Taxman" that I quoted a few weeks ago: > "...Take a walk and I'll tax your feet..."> Bill Putney> They can go ahead and tax my feet. Just so long as I'm not working my life away to pay for some Arab. We need independence from foreign oil. Don't be so pig-headed and admit that your boy bush is a mistake.
		Add comment


351cj 8 September 2005 03:33:18 [ permanent link ]
	"Don" <nunya@myhouse.com> wrote in message news:O2KTe.27372$mb4.7402@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > news:dfnog3$36f$1@news.isdn.net...>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:>> Remember that Beatles song "The Taxman" that I quoted a few weeks ago: >> "...Take a walk and I'll tax your feet...">> Bill Putney>> They can go ahead and tax my feet. Just so long as I'm not working my life > away to pay for some Arab.> We need independence from foreign oil.> Don't be so pig-headed and admit that your boy bush is a mistake.> You do realize that this "oil" system was in place LONG before either Bush and will be in place long after, don't you?
		Add comment


Don 8 September 2005 03:40:26 [ permanent link ]
	"351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> wrote in message news:2NKTe.306$3B2.66@trnddc02...> You do realize that this "oil" system was in place LONG before either Bush > and will be in place long after, don't you?> Unfortunately, yes. I'd rather pay for some other method of getting around as long as no bush or an Arab is getting rich off my need to travel to and from work etc. But until that time, I will suffer along with the rest of you.
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 8 September 2005 11:48:02 [ permanent link ]
	"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:dfnoaj$31j$1@news.isdn.net...> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message> > news:dfjpq8$3us$1@news.isdn.net...> > way to do it is to capture power from the sun that is essentially one of> >>God's gift to mankind. However, you just wait - environmentalists a> >>hundred years from now will come up with a reason that we can't do it,> >>or that it has to be very heavily taxed to discourage its use. They'll> >>quit talking about our mother the earth and start talking about our> >>mother the sun or the great sun god or godess that we have to respect or> >>some such other crap.> >> You've been listening to George Carlin again. > > Oh crap! You're telling me that I'm thinking like George Carlin!> Seriously I don't listen to him. This is upsetting! 8^)> He has a great monolog about religion where he says he's decided to cut all the crap and just worship the sun. Ted
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 8 September 2005 11:50:09 [ permanent link ]
	"Count Floyd" <Count Floyd@sctv.com> wrote in message news:wNXq1lnvlQd7-pn2-yErJoRpXcWm5@localhost... Didn't the Nash 600 come out in the early '40's claiming 30mpg on a 20> gallon gas tank?> There's been a lot of those in automotive history. Secret: make the car really really light with a really really small underpowered engine. It works really well until you decide to go up a hill, drive fast on the interstate, or another bigger car runs into you. Ted
		Add comment


R Steenerson 17 September 2005 04:38:26 [ permanent link ]
	Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it. I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds and the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am not sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would be about 200 pounds.) "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:dg1gt2$9nb$2@news.isdn.net...> R Steenerson wrote:> I think it would be great to have a 600 mile range on a gas tank. I> > have been driving a Taurus for the last 3 years and the range for city> > driving is only 200 miles.> You're asking for 600 miles city driving? So you want a 33 gallon tank?> I don't think you would be happy with that, and when full, your milage> would drop dut to the weight.> Bill Putney> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my> address with the letter 'x')
		Add comment


Dori A Schmetterling 17 September 2005 16:08:52 [ permanent link ]
	It is interesting. You have a number of 'non-friends' in this (Chrysler) NG and yet you manage to start very long threads... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com...> During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road> fuel> availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.> It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to> achieve 600 range with reserve.> Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since> car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their> throats with a Federal Law.>
		Add comment


Bill Putney 17 September 2005 16:26:58 [ permanent link ]
	You're right - I assumed 200 miles on a typical intermediate car gas tank of 11 or 12 gallons, so to get 600 mile range, I tripled the gas tank size. That works out to about 18 mpg - today's car doesn't get much better than that in city driving - but that also was part of your point. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') R Steenerson wrote: Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on> a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be> about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it.> I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds and> the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be> less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope> that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am not> sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would be> about 200 pounds.)> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message> news:dg1gt2$9nb$2@news.isdn.net...> R Steenerson wrote:>> I think it would be great to have a 600 mile range on a gas tank. I>>>have been driving a Taurus for the last 3 years and the range for city>>>driving is only 200 miles.>> You're asking for 600 miles city driving? So you want a 33 gallon tank?>> I don't think you would be happy with that, and when full, your milage>>would drop dut to the weight.
		Add comment


Albert Finley 17 September 2005 17:34:33 [ permanent link ]
	Bill Putney wrote: You're right - I assumed 200 miles on a typical intermediate car gas> tank of 11 or 12 gallons, so to get 600 mile range, I tripled the gas> tank size. That works out to about 18 mpg - today's car doesn't get> much better than that in city driving - but that also was part of your> point. And how much more fuel will the nation consume while hauling the extra (He said triple the size)= 24 gallons = 91 liters = 90 Kg = about 200 lb.. Sorry I should have read the previous post! (same point, different numbers) Bill Putney> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my> address with the letter 'x')> R Steenerson wrote:> Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on> > a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be> > about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it.> > I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds and> > the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be> > less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope> > that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am not> > sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would be> > about 200 pounds.)> > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message> > news:dg1gt2$9nb$2@news.isdn.net...> > R Steenerson wrote:> >> I think it would be great to have a 600 mile range on a gas tank. I> >>>have been driving a Taurus for the last 3 years and the range for city> >>>driving is only 200 miles.> >> You're asking for 600 miles city driving? So you want a 33 gallon tank?> >> I don't think you would be happy with that, and when full, your milage> >>would drop dut to the weight.
		Add comment


Matt Whiting 18 September 2005 23:13:48 [ permanent link ]
	R Steenerson wrote: Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on> a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be> about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it.> I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds and> the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be> less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope> that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am not> sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would be> about 200 pounds.) Of course 175 pounds of weight makes a difference to a vehicle. Every extra pound takes energy to accelerate, decelerate and haul up hills. Matt
		Add comment


R Steenerson 19 September 2005 06:25:49 [ permanent link ]
	Well, I am writing from Minnesota. We don't have many hills here. But, the 175 lbs is total weight for a 25 gallon gas tank, the incremental difference from say 12 gallons is not 175, but would be about 90 pounds. For better, gas mileage people are encouraged to not carry around a lot of stuff in their trunks and their is value in that but, if 90 pounds or 200 pounds affects mileage more than .3 or .5 miles per gallon I would be disappointed with my car. My basic point, is that I like the idea or having a range of 600 miles for a vehicle. Of course not all vehicles are equal either but, for cars it would be nice if they could get 25 mpg or so. However, it might be impossible to have a V-8 SUV or pickup truck with a lot of towing capacity be able to get 25 or even 20 mpg. Maybe the max there would be 16 mpg in which case the gas tank might need to be 40 gallons. For a 12,000 lb truck with 6 or 7 mpg maybe a 100 gallon tank would be unreasonable and maybe some classes of vehicles would be excluded but, I still like being able to go along way without stopping for gas a lot. "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message news:0UjXe.851$lb.64563@news1.epix.net...> R Steenerson wrote:> Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on> > a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be> > about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it.> > I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be> > less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope> > that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would about 200 pounds.)> Of course 175 pounds of weight makes a difference to a vehicle. Every> extra pound takes energy to accelerate, decelerate and haul up hills.> Matt
		Add comment


351cj 19 September 2005 08:57:26 [ permanent link ]
	Like I already posted to this thread My 2005 Ford F-450 4x4 Crew Cab (10,000 pounds full of fuel and unloaded) 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel carries 59 gallons of diesel (Just shy of 420 pounds of diesel fuel). (Diesel weighs about 7.1 pounds per US gallon) (Gasoline weighs about 6.2 pounds per US gallon) This truck Gets 14.5 miles per gallon. That equals 855 miles per fill up. At over $3.00 per gallon, that's over $185 to fill up. "R Steenerson" <rsteenerson@mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:1dqXe.74537$3S5.55889@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...> Well, I am writing from Minnesota. We don't have many hills here.> But, the 175 lbs is total weight for a 25 gallon gas tank, the incremental> difference from say 12 gallons is not 175, but would be about 90 pounds.> For better, gas mileage people are encouraged to not carry around a > lot> of stuff in their trunks and their is value in that but, if 90 pounds or > 200> pounds affects mileage more than .3 or .5 miles per gallon I would be> disappointed with my car. My basic point, is that I like the idea or > having> a range of 600 miles for a vehicle.> Of course not all vehicles are equal either but, for cars it would be> nice if they could get 25 mpg or so. However, it might be impossible to> have a V-8 SUV or pickup truck with a lot of towing capacity be able to > get> 25 or even 20 mpg. Maybe the max there would be 16 mpg in which case the> gas tank might need to be 40 gallons. For a 12,000 lb truck with 6 or 7 > mpg> maybe a 100 gallon tank would be unreasonable and maybe some classes of> vehicles would be excluded but, I still like being able to go along way> without stopping for gas a lot.> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message> news:0UjXe.851$lb.64563@news1.epix.net...>> R Steenerson wrote:>> Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile> range on>> > a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs> to be>> > about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it.>> > I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds> and>> > the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25> would be>> > less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less.> Hope>> > that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am> not>> > sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would> be>> > about 200 pounds.)>> Of course 175 pounds of weight makes a difference to a vehicle. Every>> extra pound takes energy to accelerate, decelerate and haul up hills.>> Matt>
		Add comment


Alex Rodriguez 19 September 2005 22:12:14 [ permanent link ]
	In article <cf567ecc60bfc971e4aa4434fc8da64b@dizum.com>, nobody@dizum.com says... During the evacuation of New Orleans, on-board fuel supply and on-road fuel>availability was of considerable importance and worry to car travellers.>It is feasible to build cars with fuel tanks of sufficient capacity to>achieve 600 range with reserve.>Car makers consider 325 miles with reserve good enough. It isn't. Since>car makers won't build cars this way, we need to force it down their>throats with a Federal Law. Why not add hurricane testing to federl crash standards too? Then you don;'t have to worry about the vehicles range. It's makes just as much sense as your suggestion. ------------- Alex
		Add comment

CarGuru > Chrysler > 600 mile range Federal law needed 19 September 2005 08:57:26

	see also: NHRA: Seattle: Tony Pedregon Saturday… F1: Hungarian GP: Renault preview AMA-SBK: Supersport standings after…		pass tests:		see also: 1998 plymouth voyager Eatx Shutdown

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

600 mile range Federal law needed

Add new comment