Well, how convenient. You left out your original comment that I was responding to, which is as follows:




The links you provided have absolutely nothing to do with your comments about Pat Robertson. Robertson's company bought a completely different refinery. It's well documented if you'll just look.

_________________
Liberty CRD - I love the smell of diesel in the morning....2005 Limited, 2.5" Daystar in Front & 2.5" OME springs in rear. Ranchos all around

It's not a matter of faith. Just like I don't have to have faith that water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can repeat the analysis of the makeup of the water molecule and arrive at the exact same conclusion as anyone else doing the same experiment. It's called the scientific method and as fact gathering mechanisms go it's a pretty darn good one. It's the same with crude oil; anyone with a minimum of lab experience and a minimum of organic chemistry can analyze crude oil and see for themselves the organic matter that is the origin of crude oil.

You say I would make a good oil company spokesman but it is YOU who are proclaiming your faith in the oil companies' ability to keep supplying us with our energy needs. It is YOU who parrots the oil companies' claims of reserves being greater than what can be shown scientifically to exist. You can use the word "theory" as a weapon all you like, that doesn't change a thing. The only way to change a theory is to introduce new evidence. That evidence is then open to peer review wherein anyone else following the same steps arrives at the same conclusion. So far that has not been the case with claims of abiotic hydrocarbons. None of the research has provided any evidence.

This is all a red herring. The real question is not whether hydrocarbons are or are not biotic. The real question is: Are there enough abiotic hydrocarbons making their way into the supply chain to dismiss the idea that there is a looming energy shortage?

I say the answer is "No, there are not". If you feel you have evidence to refute my answer then please refrain from petty character assasinations and provide some evidence to the contrary. I won't do your research for you. You are making a claim that I call BS on. The onus is on you to provide the proof to back your claim. Cite some legitimate studies that provide evidence of available abiotic hydrocarbons. Name one oil field that is known to have regenerated in our lifetime. Show us how two and a half billion people (the current combined populations of India and China) suddenly expecting to have a consumptive lifestyle that matches that of the US and western Europe are going to be serviced by hydrocarbons.

WOW, you do take your carbons personally.. Anyway Mr Seth, one question for you: How do you explain the recent NASA discovery of Methane in the atmosphere of planet mars? If you are interested in another point of view, read about Cornell Physicist Thomas Gold. He believes hydrocarbons were scattered at the time the universe was formed. If not, please at least think about methane on mars,,,,not much plant or animal life out there.....

Not wanting to steal Seth's thunder but despite the origin I believe the point he was trying to make is that this petroleum based resource is is finite, not infinate and that is true whether it happened in the big bang or whatever. It is also true that there are way too many now chasing this finite resource and the oil companies are laughing themselves silly all the way to the bank while we take pot shots at one another over why it is too expensive.

The solution is to clean out the politicians who get elected because they get huge political contributions from guys who retire on $400 billion dollar pensions and from their companies. The solution is a variety of alternative energy resources (solar, clean coal, nuclear, hydrogen, bio fuels) that never get developed for the same reason. The solution (no one will want to hear this) is planned communities that don't spread like cancer along freeways, communities where you can easily walk, ride a bike or quality public transportation to work, shop or play most of the time and jump in the Jeep when you want to Wheel. The solution is government of, by and for the people rather than of, by, and for folks and companies with the money to buy it like we have now.

_________________
Dave

'06 CRD Limited, Lt. Khaki, MOPAR Slush Mats/Skids, DrawTite Front Hitch, Mag Lite, Yakima Bars, Thule Bike Rack, Fumoto, ORM, 245/70 Revo 2

Wish list: Lift, Boulder Bars, Something Bigger in the Front and Back, More Lights

Not much to argue with there Cowcatcher. However, that pension was ONLY 400 million,,not billion. But with the price of gas, he is going to need it!!

My bad. Need to get off my break now and go power up my hydro and nuclear powered weed whip.

_________________
Dave

'06 CRD Limited, Lt. Khaki, MOPAR Slush Mats/Skids, DrawTite Front Hitch, Mag Lite, Yakima Bars, Thule Bike Rack, Fumoto, ORM, 245/70 Revo 2

Wish list: Lift, Boulder Bars, Something Bigger in the Front and Back, More Lights

Well, I figured my post would elicit a reaction. Whew! What a reaction! First, I am not a "wild-eyed" liberal or DNC spokesman--quite the opposite. I live in one of the biggest energy producing states in the US, and I'm around the energy business a fair amount. But, idealology can't change facts. The world is depleting its CHEAP oil reserves at a rapid and accelerating rate. Note the word "CHEAP"--it's important. Worse for the US, oil production peaked in this country in 1970 and has been declining since. The last world war was started by Germany and Japan, in part, because both sought to secure reliable oil supplies which they lacked in their own countries. Part of the reason the US was able to win that war was that it could supply the oil needed for its war machine from its own reserves. We could not do that now, and probably never will be able to again. We've blown part of our national security and sovereignty out the tailpipes of our fuel-guzzlers!

It is possible to find more oil, and to develop substitutes for oil, but they will not be cheap. Therein lies the problem. It's an economic conundrum--and it's why I hold on to my opinion that the days of cheap oil are about over--probably for good. Here's why: When prices increase, more expensive to produce oil and alternative technologies become attractive--but the price has to stay high for long enough for investors to be willing to risk the long-term investment to bring the production on-line. So, high prices probably will be around for a while. If high prices succeed in dampening some demand, prices may fall some, and that will discourage that increased production from more expensive sources. Prices go back up again. If production does come on-line in sufficient quantity to significantly lower prices, marginal higher cost production will once again cease--prices go back up.

So, prices for gasoline and diesel at the pump will probably flucuate up and down, but will probably never fall back to today's level, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. That is because, from here on out, cheaper to produce reserves that are exhuasted will always be replaced by more expensive to produce reserves. Know this: EVERY SINGLE NEW OR ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF FUEL STOCKS FOR MOTOR FUEL--TAR SANDS, OIL SHALE, DEEPER OFF-SHORE DRILLING, COAL LIQUIFICATION , ETHANOL, BIO-DIESEL, YOU NAME IT--COSTS MORE TO PRODUCE IN REAL TERMS THAN THE CHEAP PETROLEUM CRUDES THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO DATE. All of these "new" sources take a lot of energy to produce--sometimes as much as they yield in fuel. Even ethanol and bio-diesel start to look questionable when one realizes the energy inputs to produce them. The most forgotten one--that the fertilizer to produce the crop used for ethanol and bio-diesel is usually made from the chemical process of fixing nitrogen out the air--BY BURNING ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF NATURAL GAS!

So, for Joe Consumer, there is only one real good way to deal with this--USE LESS FUEL! The first step is to use the most fuel-efficient, cost-effective power plant in a vehicle. Today, I submit that is the diesel engine. Right behind that is the current gasoline-hybrid, with a diesel-hybrid being even better. To stay on topic on this Board--that's why I bought a CRD!

I'll close with this quote:

"We of an older generation can get along with what we have, though with growing hardship; but in your full manhood and womanhood you will want what nature once so bountifully supplied and man so thoughtlessly destroyed; and because of that want you will reproach us, not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted...So any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life."

It wasn't spoken by some EarthFirst! environmentalist or AlGore clone. It was spoken by a conservative Republican President 99 years ago, Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt. He had it figured out almost a century ago, why can't we?

cowcatcher - steal away! that is exactly the point.

railguy - I'm interested to hear your theories on how a modern diesel engine is more effecient than a hybrid.

Thanks for allowing me Seth.

Can I tell you why I agree with Railguy, although I am not sure that is exactly what he said. If memory serves correctly the same barrel of crude oil yeilds about 20% more diesel than gas. If you compare a 30 mile per gallon Ford Hybrid Escape to a 30 mile per gallon Liberty CRD the liberty is 20% more efficient. Same comparison could likely be made of a VW TDI and a Prius. Oh, and the Liberty can pull 5000 pounds in a pinch while the Hybrid Escape can only pull 10% of that.

_________________
Dave

'06 CRD Limited, Lt. Khaki, MOPAR Slush Mats/Skids, DrawTite Front Hitch, Mag Lite, Yakima Bars, Thule Bike Rack, Fumoto, ORM, 245/70 Revo 2

Wish list: Lift, Boulder Bars, Something Bigger in the Front and Back, More Lights

Diesels and gasoline hybrids achieve their efficiency in different ways. The gasoline hybrid is efficient because it recaptures energy from braking, and because it can "shave the peaks" of power demand, if you will, by using the battery-powered electric motor to assist the gasoline engine. Also, with a hybrid, the gasoline engine can shut off when it is least combustion-efficient--at idle. The diesel gets its efficiency by more efficient combustion of fuel--especially at idle--than a gasoline engine, and by its capability of burning fuel that contains more energy per gallon than gasoline. The reason I like the diesel-hybrid concept is that it combines both efficiency in combustion with efficiency in powertrain.

Now, for those of us who actually need a 4WD like the Liberty, having the diesel option with its efficiency is a plus. Certainly, a hybrid car (like a Toyota Prius or hybrid Honda Civic) is more efficient by far than a Liberty CRD, but they are built for different purposes. For many people, an Escape hybrid may be a viable SUV alternative for a CRD, so long as true trail use isn't part of the picture (which, for most SUV buyers these days, is true).

My dream concept for a futuristic 4WD would be a diesel-electric hybrid with an AC electric traction motor at each wheel. That would eliminate the need for drag-plagued drivetrain components, improve ground clearance, and eliminate considerable weight of the vehicle. I don't think that technology is that far off. The AC motor/microprocessor technology has been used successfully since the early 1990's in the larger scale application of railroad locomotives. Something like that may be the next generation of hybrid technology.

They had the Saudi oil minister on many times in the last few years as oil prices are going up. He said in the US the cost of fuel has little to do with our actual fuel costs because the big companies have bought up over 1500 smaller refineries since the last oil crisis and closed them all in the US to stifle competition in the marketplace.
He said that the profit margin was the highest of all nations in the US for oil refining, he said it was hugely more profitable in the US.

_________________
No one knows as much as all of us.

Hummmmmm sounds a little like an AC4400.

_________________
Dave

'06 CRD Limited, Lt. Khaki, MOPAR Slush Mats/Skids, DrawTite Front Hitch, Mag Lite, Yakima Bars, Thule Bike Rack, Fumoto, ORM, 245/70 Revo 2

Wish list: Lift, Boulder Bars, Something Bigger in the Front and Back, More Lights

Very true - Over half the natural gas our province produces goes to heat steam to help produce oil from the tar sands. Without oil above $20.00 bbl it becomes uneconomic to produce syncrude. BTW there are plenty of fossil remains in most core samples I've seen, being married to a geologist does have it's benefits.

_________________
2014 Ford Explorer Sport
I know, I know, but it does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds...

2006 Liberty CRD Limited
161,000KM and going to new home soon...

Speaking of electric motors at the wheels - I read an article about the new Dodge Rampage concept truck. I looks like the original design was to have two electric motors, one integrated into each rear wheel and hemi powered front wheel drive. That way it could have a trunk in the box, etc. like the ridgeline, but with AWD.

http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/dodge/rampage.html

_________________
2014 Ford Explorer Sport
I know, I know, but it does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds...

2006 Liberty CRD Limited
161,000KM and going to new home soon...

That's a awesome idea, one which I have drawn up a couple times. Although I substituted a pratt+whitney microturbine for the diesel, like the old Rosen Motors idea! LOL.

Your idea is far more practical, though.

The great thing if you take these "5 engine" designs to their logical conclusion is this: You can alter vehicle design radically.

You start with a passenger cabin and a fuel-burning motor for the electrical plant. Then you have four wheel/brake/electric engine/transmission units. You could place these wheel/engine units on long legs or "struts" that are adjustable for ride height. Make all four capable of limited turning so as to decrease turn radius and steering response.

Now have these legs/struts or whatever you want to call them also be adjustable in length to maintain tire track width when raised.

For a better visual, picture a spider with only 4 legs, wheels on the ends. It can "crouch and stretch", lowering and lengthening its "body" or passenger cabin to the road for high speeds or "stand up" for off-roading.

Actually making those connector "legs" jointed might be a little too far-fetched, but certainly they could be sturdier than modern-day suspensions... Hydraulics all the way.

Okay, I know I'm just crazy... but am I painting a picture here or just babbling? LOL.

_________________
Yours Truly,

Special Agent

My understanding is that this not too far off. Read somewhere GM's experimental prototype hybrid is set-up this way. Each wheel has it's own electric motor working independently for both propulsion and braking. All other systems are electric powered. Can use either a small gas or diesel engine to power a generator which fires and runs steady RPM (thus burns much cleaner) to charge the batteries.

This is such a simple concept, don't understand why it's not in use. I took a good look at the Prius and just didn't like the complexity. Apperared that the Civic hybrid is less complex and would work better for my long highway drives. Couldn't get my pencil sharp enough to get the math to work out for either one. In the end I opted for big & loaded and a lot less money, bought an Impala.

_________________
2005 Liberty Sport CRD, Lt Khaki, sunroof

Thankful to now be an EX-CRD owner.

If you do a lot of highway miles you are better off with the regular civic or small toyota. They have nearly the same highway mpg and cost thousands less and don't need very $$$$$ battery packs.

My beef with the Civic was was the high-reving whiney engine, background noise, and ride quality. It just wasn't my thing. With ear plugs and air-ride seat, then maybe.

_________________
2005 Liberty Sport CRD, Lt Khaki, sunroof

Thankful to now be an EX-CRD owner.

I have a friend that lives up in northwest Virginia, along I-81. A few years back he worked in GE's Electric Vehicle dept, before Neutron Jack got on his efficiency kick, and actually did some work for one of the OEM's on the PNGV program.

In case you don't know what PNGV is, it was a 10 year program between the govt and the OEM's to develop a full-size hybrid that could achieve 80 MPG. From what he told me, all 3 major OEM's did complete a prototype and submit them for testing. However, the project was killed off for two reasons.

First, Lonesome George canceled the project within weeks of taking office back in 2001. Second, because of the pending diesel emissions regs from the EPA, the emissions hardware that would have been necessary was judged as being too costly at the time to warrant putting them into production.

Yep, that's right, all 3 prototypes submitted were diesel-electric hybrids, all 3 OEM's came up with the same solution. The one my friend worked on used a Geo Metro as the testbed, had a 30 HP 3 cylinder diesel out of a Kubota tractor, and could achieve 80 MPG combined.

However, lest you think that but for another person winning that election and getting the EPA to back off on it's regs, we'd be able to drive around in diesel hybrids right now, there's also some evidence that the OEM's and the govt itself viewed this as just a PR/free govt money/research project and never had any intention of developing a production vehicle from this program.

In the mid-90's, Alan Cocconi, the man who developed the drivetrain for GM's EV-1 electric vehicle, tried to attend a PNGV conference between the OEM's and then-VP Al Gore. He drove his own scratch-built hybrid, a Honda converted to electric and towing a small generator behind it, all the way from CA to DC. He wanted to prove the point that the technology already existed to make a workable hybrid, and there was no reason they couldn't be building them already.

They all but slammed the door in his face. According to Mr Cocconi, the only thing they wanted to discuss was how much money they could get Congress to appropriate for the program in the next year's budget. He came away convinced that they had no intention of building a workable vehicle, and in the end it seems he was right.

And then once again, the Japanese caught them flat-footed by marketing their own hybrids, and our OEM's are again scrambling to play catch-up.

_________________
Mitchell Oates
'87 MB 300D Diamond Blue Metallic
'87 MB 300D - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Sport CRD Stone White
Provent CCV Filter/AT2525 Muffler
Stanadyne 30 u/Cat 2 u Fuel Filters
Fumoto Drain/Fleetguard LF3487 Oil filter
V6 Airbox/Amsoil EAA Air Filter
Suncoast TC/Shift Kit/Aux Cooler
Kennedy Lift Pump/Return Fuel Cooler

cowcatcher and railguy - thanks for the info...I had no idea you could actually distill more diesel out of each barrel of crude. Very interesting.

As to your dream of a hybrid diesel get ready. VW has (had?) a diesel hybrid in production in Europe. It's called the Lupo and it gets something like 75mpg. And for the big boys...Toyota says they'll have a diesel hybrid in the Tundra by 2009.

Trade restrictions my eye!