Still_Small_Voice

8 Reasons Gasoline Prices Are Going Up in America

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Asse was a salt mine and seemed at the time to be geologically stable.  However, it was not and improper procedures (so, yes, there were improper actions taken that also contributed greatly to the situation)

ANY solution when handled improperly becomes a bad solution.  So, what do you want?  A foolproof solution?  Fools are too ingenious for that.

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The difficulty with nuclear power is not the power it generates, but the waste that comes out of it and what to do with it. 

Do you have a problem with all the C14 radiation from our current energy sources? It produces a WHOLE lot more than the equivalent nuclear power generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mores said:

ANY solution when handled improperly becomes a bad solution.  So, what do you want?  A foolproof solution?  Fools are too ingenious for that.

Do you have a problem with all the C14 radiation from our current energy sources? It produces a WHOLE lot more than the equivalent nuclear power generation.

I take it you are referring to Carbon-14 which typically is released into the air.

There are various differences that are a stark contrast to each other when discussing Carbon-14 and other radioactive isotopes.

I think you are trying to equate the naturally occurring isotope and it's dispersion via coal burning (or is it some other thing, it is very hard to address such a vague inference) into the atmosphere, though I think that the actual higher concentration we have of C14 in the atomosphere today is due more to the nuclear tests that we (and other nations, some of which continue to do this) have participated in.

In regards to coal burning, I think that depends on what my thoughts on Global Warming and how much I feel coal burning plants (as well as perhaps others) have hastened the effect of Global climate change and how large of an impact human influence has had on it.

That is a much harder thing to address.  I feel that there may be elements of manmade climate change occurring, but that political power has greatly exaggerated some of the effects of it and the proclamation of events to try to gain political points on various sides of the political spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think you are trying to equate the naturally occurring isotope and it's dispersion via coal burning (or is it some other thing, it is very hard to address such a vague inference) into the atmosphere, though I think that the actual higher concentration we have of C14 in the atomosphere today is due more to the nuclear tests that we (and other nations, some of which continue to do this) have participated in.

For a purported historian, you don't really keep up.  That effect you speak of has basically been nullified with time.

Most of the C14 in the atmosphere today comes from carbon emissions.  And all that radioactivity is taking a back seat to supposed climate change. I even placed it right in front of you, and you chose to believe global warming is a greater threat than all the radioactivity we are spewing into the atmosphere, while at the same time living in fear of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Any links would be very much appreciated.  I’ve seen articles suggesting that the amount of extant waste, by volume, is much lower than commonly believed; but nothing suggesting the stuff reactors produce can be safe in under a couple of thousand years.

I want to love nuclear; but at this point, it still scares me.

The vast majority of radioactive nuclear waste, including "hard" waste of various long-lived isotopes, is largely a result of our solid-fuel-pellet system devised by Admiral Rickover in the 1940s

Molten salt reactor technology covers a multitude of sins. Seriously, read up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

Molten salt reactor technology covers a multitude of sins. Seriously, read up on it.

I took up Vort's challenge....  https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

All I can say is Wow... I am impressed... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, some years ago an uncle of mine suggested (I don’t know if he’d read it somewhere) that we have plenty of sites in the Nevada desert where nuclear warheads were detonated underground, leaving subterranean caverns lined with fused/glassy rock.  He thought that these caverns might do for nuclear waste storage.  Is that feasible?

Second question:  I vaguely remember 15-20 years ago reading a history of the Soviet sub fleet and reading that they preferred a molten-salt-type reactor that the author seemed to think had the potential to go hideously wrong; the American fleet’s reactors were presented as being much more stable.  Thoughts/responses?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, some years ago an uncle of mine suggested (I don’t know if he’d read it somewhere) that we have plenty of sites in the Nevada desert where nuclear warheads were detonated underground, leaving subterranean caverns lined with fused/glassy rock.  He thought that these caverns might do for nuclear waste storage.  Is that feasible?

It seems to me* that fused/glassy rock is a good thing, but only if:

  • It is sufficiently thick
  • It completely encloses the volume in question
  • It doesn't have any cracks or leaks
  • We can be reasonably sure that it will last for 250,000 years, until the plutonium and actinide wastes have decayed sufficiently

So while it's a nice idea, I suspect it's vastly oversimplified and wouldn't work in real life.

*Note that preamble, which effectively means "Don't pay any attention to what I say".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Second question:  I vaguely remember 15-20 years ago reading a history of the Soviet sub fleet and reading that they preferred a molten-salt-type reactor that the author seemed to think had the potential to go hideously wrong; the American fleet’s reactors were presented as being much more stable.  Thoughts/responses?

Two thoughts:

  • Most Western analyses of Soviet efforts (and even technology) will skew toward the critical. I'm not sure this is a political matter so much as a "devil-you-know" mindset.
  • The molten salts are largely lithium-based, which I understand prejudiced Rickover and others against their use in seagoing vessels (though I'm not sure why; afaik, lithium salts don't explosively react with water).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Two thoughts:

  • Most Western analyses of Soviet efforts (and even technology) will skew toward the critical. I'm not sure this is a political matter so much as a "devil-you-know" mindset.
  • The molten salts are largely lithium-based, which I understand prejudiced Rickover and others against their use in seagoing vessels (though I'm not sure why; afaik, lithium salts don't explosively react with water).

I honestly do not know anything (currently) about the molten salts reactors idea.  No idea if it is clean, if it is stable, or anything else.

I know of current problems with our energy production today (coal/gas = air pollution and possibly warming, nuclear = radioactive waste [I suppose this is the solid nuclear items rather than the salt reactor you are talking about], solar = bad processes that damage environment making batteries and panels, wind farms = kills nice birdies...etc...etc...etc) but to be honest, half the reason we live such nice lives is because we have abundant energy. 

If it is such a stellar idea, why hasn't the molten salt reactors taken off?  Or have they and I am just not aware of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I need to admit to not having read all of the posts in this thread.  But thought I might give you some perspective on fuel prices.

In the UK we are currently paying about £1.35  a litre = @3.8 litres per US gallon = £5.10 per gallon. Conversion for currency = ~ $6.60

And we are enjoying a fall in prices over the last 3/4 years, I can remember prices up to £1.60 a litre.  A large percentage of the fuel cost is tax - Fuel duty is currently levied at a flat rate of 57.95p per litre , whilst VAT (value added tax added to all purchases except for a few exempt goods in the UK) at 20% is then charged on the total price (the product price + the fuel duty).  Retailers have a very small margin and make more money on goods and produce sold in the shop. The taxes are obviously a significant government income stream and rises are lobbied for on environmental grounds.

The bottom line is we pay because we have to, and suck it up because there is no other choice. OH and drive small cars

 

Enjoy your cheap fuel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KScience said:

Retailers have a very small margin and make more money on goods and produce sold in the shop. The taxes are obviously a significant government income stream and rises are lobbied for on environmental grounds.

The same is true for retailers here.  

If you take a typical franchise gas station like Exxon for example, it works like this:  The land the station sits on is owned by Exxon.  The business itself is owned by a private business which rents the land from Exxon.  (Maybe the building too, I'm not sure.)  They also have to buy their fuel from Exxon as part of the franchise agreement.  

It used to be very common to see an auto repair shop attached to gas stations, but convenience stores have a much higher profit margin with lower risk so most of them converted form shops to retail. 

But yeah, whenever I get annoyed at fuel prices I think about our cousins across the Atlantic and I feel a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, unixknight said:

But yeah, whenever I get annoyed at fuel prices I think about our cousins across the Atlantic and I feel a little better.

Glad I made you feel  little better :flowers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 6:46 PM, JohnsonJones said:

The question that everyone never asks, but never wants in their backyard either (even Utah doesn't want one permanently) is where do we put all the nuclear waste?

In @MormonGator's back yard of course!. As much and as fast as possible, ideally while he is in his backyard. Or even in his lounge room. Why do you ask such obvious questions? :) 

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 8:04 AM, Mores said:

I'm not sure what it's like today.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/competition-bureau-mum-on-metro-vancouver-gas-price-investigation

About $1.80 in the Vancouver area. It's not as bad across the country, but it's not pleasant either:

https://www.gasbuddy.com/CAN

 

Edited by SpiritDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2019 at 7:02 PM, SpiritDragon said:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/competition-bureau-mum-on-metro-vancouver-gas-price-investigation

About $1.80 in the Vancouver area. It's not as bad across the country, but it's not pleasant either:

https://www.gasbuddy.com/CAN

 

That's about $7 US/gallon.  SMH.  Around here, it's $2.60/gal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vort said:

Cows urinate, Mozart composes, Texans brag.

Well, you're in Greenie Central.  So, what do you expect?  I'm guessing you're about $4.00/gal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mores said:

Well, you're in Greenie Central.  So, what do you expect?  I'm guessing you're about $4.00/gal?

Not quite. The local Costco is the cheapest place around, and it's at $3.379. Other stations are between $3.469 and $3.769, so we are not yet quite to apocalyptic levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not quite. The local Costco is the cheapest place around, and it's at $3.379. Other stations are between $3.469 and $3.769, so we are not yet quite to apocalyptic levels.

Well, God Bless Texas!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mores said:

That's about $7 US/gallon.  SMH.  Around here, it's $2.60/gal.

$2.45 in San Antonio. Probably a bit cheaper along the coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 2:08 PM, Scott said:

Here are the current average gas prices per state, if anyone is interested:

https://www.gasbuddy.com/USA

The fact that California is more expensive than Hawaii is insane.  That Washington is nearly the same as Hawaii is whacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mores said:

The fact that California is more expensive than Hawaii is insane.  That Washington is nearly the same as Hawaii is whacked.

Gas prices in California have been high for a long time, but I'm more surprised by Utah, Idaho, and Nevada.    Right now they are quite a bit higher than the national median.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now