Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
curiousone,
You have to be kidding here..
The ideas you have arent new, in fact we discussed many of these very things when crude spiked in 2007-2008.
I think you are drastically underestimating how long it takes to go from ideas to execution of said ideas.
Who is going to pay for the thousands of LNG filling stations? You do know that the capacity needed for the equiv LNG is much higher than unleaded, right? That a "tank" full of LNG goes MUCH less distance than unleaded, right?
You also know that as we see manipulation in crude, we also saw the same manipulation in natural gas, and if we even SNIFF the idea of a nationwide conversion from unleaded to LNG that you will see a MASSIVE explosion in natural gas prices..you know that, right?
Even though we have what, several hundred years of reserves in natural gas, the speculators would rush in front of the little guy again and crush what we currently have as a massive divergence from natural gas prices to unleaded..you know that right?
Who is going to pay for the conversion process from unleaded to LNG? The length of time to recoup the cost of the conversion to the consumer would be lengthy and I would also imagine that if you were to roll out this "idea" right now, even with government backing and subsidy that it would be at least TWO years until we had any capacity built for fueling and we had even a small percentage of vehicles converted..
Ethanol is really not a viable, cost effective way to reduce the cost of fuel, we cannot handle the capacity necessary to use our beet supply to convert to ethanol without large inflationary results to other uses of sugar beets. The only real solution to the ethanol situation is to allow Brazil to import their goods, without a 100% tariff..now I agree in import taxes, but what we are doing is outright theft to the middle and lower class in return for profits to our corn producers..it is really bad news, but then again since we allow the free markets to pollute our political process, why am I not shocked?
10 years might be light on my estimates to how long it would take..I could be underestimating the impact by another ten years.
I think you need to take some courses in reading comprehension.
"I think you are drastically underestimating how long it takes to go from ideas to execution of said ideas."
No, I do consulting work for corporations on just such issues. I think you like to make up stories about how hard something is, when it is already being done and the time frames needed are nowhere near what you are saying.
"Who is going to pay for the thousands of LNG filling stations?"
The federal government can pay for them and place them along the interstates, the same way that Massachusetts owns filling stations along the Mass pike. Or, the federal government can give filling station owners subsidies to convert one pump to LNG, but as I said this would be targeted for large trucks traveling along the most frequently traveled routes, so you would not need thousands of stations, hundreds instead.
"You do
know that the capacity needed for the equiv LNG is much higher than
unleaded, right? That a "tank" full of LNG goes MUCH less distance than
unleaded, right?"
Yes, that is why I limited LNG to large trucks because they can increase their fuel capacity. This idea is already being used in many parts of the country. That is why your statement that it will take 10 years to do this is non-factual, we are already doing this, just on a smaller scale than I have in mind.
"You also know that as we see manipulation in crude, we also saw the same
manipulation in natural gas, and if we even SNIFF the idea of a
nationwide conversion from unleaded to LNG that you will see a MASSIVE
explosion in natural gas prices..you know that, right?"
Yes, which is why the federal government has to institute a comprehensive plan to get the US 1) off imported oil, and 2) off of private controlled manipulation of our energy markets. Other countries have done this. The federal governments in those countries do not grant leases for energy products, the government forms a joint venture with a private company and participates in the production of the product. This might not be exactly the right answer but this problem can be solved. I know, you will now make a post saying that it cannot be solved.
"Who is going to pay for the conversion process from unleaded to LNG? The
length of time to recoup the cost of the conversion to the consumer
would be lengthy and I would also imagine that if you were to roll out
this "idea" right now, even with government backing and subsidy that it
would be at least TWO years until we had any capacity built for fueling
and we had even a small percentage of vehicles converted.."
This is already being done. There can be a combination of federal and state tax credits. Obviously, you did not actually read my post, I did not say convert all autos to LNG, I said convert large trucks which mostly service the highest traveled routes.
"Ethanol is really not a viable, cost effective way to reduce the cost of
fuel, we cannot handle the capacity necessary to use our beet supply to
convert to ethanol without large inflationary results to other uses of
sugar beets. The only real solution to the ethanol situation is to allow
Brazil to import their goods, without a 100% tariff..now I agree in
import taxes, but what we are doing is outright theft to the middle and
lower class in return for profits to our corn producers..it is really
bad news, but then again since we allow the free markets to pollute our
political process, why am I not shocked?"
This is an out and out lie. Alcohol fuel is best made from sugar cane, not sugar beets. The US and the Caribbean can produce extremely large crops of sugar cane. The states where sugar beets are grown can easily increase their yield. So, you are saying that instead of the US and the Caribbean growing sugar cane and the US building easy to build sugar cane to alcohol fuel production plants, we just import everything from Brazil. Obviously you know nothing about how sugar cane is grown and how it is processed.
"10 years might be light on my estimates to how long it would take..I could be underestimating the impact by another ten years."
No, your made up number is totally off. And you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
....Are you trying to suggest the world's oil supplies are declining?
Hot Forum Topics
