Hoping for Good Gas News....

Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on investors, but we could sure use some good news....

Dear MoneyNews Reader, Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi is warning that oil price hikes and global oil demand could soon disappear.

In fact, he is also warning that oil prices could easily "plummet" in the near future.

As you may know, Financial Intelligence Report, a sister publication of NewsMax and MoneyNews, has already issued the same warning to our investors. We also have revealed how investors can profit from the coming oil price drop - find out more.

Our track record on oil is impressive. In April 2004, Financial Intelligence Report predicted that oil prices would skyrocket from $29 per barrel to over $60 within 12 months. That forecast was dead on.

Today we feel that oil prices will continue to dramatically fall in the next 12 months to as low as $40 a barrel!

And please take a moment to read about the Saudi oil minister's comments on oil reprinted below from the Associated Press.

Thank you. NewsMax and MoneyNews.Com _____

Oil Minister: Don't Bank on High Growth NewsMax.Com Wires

AMMAN, Jordan - Saudi Arabia's oil minister warned Arab producers Sunday not to expect continued growth in prices and demand for oil.

Ali al-Naimi said prices could plummet if an economic crisis drives industrialized nations to find other sources of energy, citing the

1980s - when oil prices dropped by 80 percent after such nations reduced their dependency on Oil and turned to alternative energy sources.

''Global economic growth may not continue at the same good momentum for years to come,'' al-Naimi said at the opening of a four-day conference of Arab energy ministers in Amman. ''We should be careful and not take expectations as indisputable, especially the continuation of big demand for oil and its prices remaining at the same level or increasing,'' he said.

Al-Naimi also cited the Asian economic crisis of 1997-1998, when oil prices fell by 50 percent, slowing Arab oil production.

''Some are even concerned about a looming economic problem because of the increased policies of economic protectionism, or what is known as economic nationalism,'' al-Naimi said, referring to Western countries' determination to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Sixty percent of the world's oil reserves lie in Arab countries, one third of global production comes from Arab sources and 40 percent of all oil business is conducted by Arabs, he said.

Global oil prices fell but finished last week roughly $2 a barrel higher, as traders' concerns about geopolitical threats and refinery snags outweighed evidence of rising supplies and forecasts calling for weakening global demand.

Crude futures dipped toward $72 a barrel Friday after the International Energy Agency reduced its 2006 world oil demand forecast. Earlier in the week, the U.S. Department of Energy said domestic gasoline supplies increased for the second straight week.

Still, oil prices are about 48 percent higher than a year ago, a reflection of the market's fear about real and possible output disruptions at a time when the world's supply cushion is perilously thin. Only Saudi Arabia has any spare production capacity, but it is less than 2 percent of the daily global demand of almost 85 million barrels and not the high quality crude that refiners prefer, analysts said.

U.S. Retail gasoline prices average roughly $2.89 a gallon, or about

70 cents more than last year.

Did you know that oil inventories are at record levels? There is more oil available for use then in the past 10 years! Find out the facts: Get a copy of our FREE special report Profiting From the Coming Oil Bust.

This email was sent to: I deleted the name This email was sent by: NewsMax.Com

4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114 Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA
Reply to
Spike
Loading thread data ...

Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll send it on.

Reply to
Zombywoof

Didn't we already have that with the steam engine? :0)

Actually, some years ago there were several tests underway, including the City of Reno (NV) for their mass transit bus system, which, by some means/additive allowed gas molecules to attach to water molecules, or vice versa, in order to reduce the amount of gas used. Apparently, they initially reported up to a 25% reduction in fuel consumption and no damage caused by the water. Whatever became of the test programs, I never heard.

Reply to
Spike

The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential. It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute. Here are a few links:

formatting link

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

How much energy does it take to produce the electricity to power the pump to fill the tank. My father, who is one of those electronic/electrical gurus who taught college courses in those areas, has some mathematically equation which indicated the rate of return for producing electricity to power motors is a negative number/or so close to it that it might as well be. He tried to explain it to me in simple terms but i guess i am more simple than that even....

Reply to
Spike

Most likely where water is used as medium. For instance, where the H2O is broken down to create hydrogen which in turn powers the car. Another would be steam power.

Reply to
Brent P

I read somewhere that it costs less than a dollar for the electricity to run the compressor to fill the tank. One of the articles I linked referenced $1.5 euros to fill a tank. Definitely more economical than gasoline. One of the things I find interesting about the air powered engines is they don't waste huge amounts of thermal energy like internal combustion engines. Most of the energy from burning gas in a car engine flies out the tail pipe as wasted heat. My guess is this is why they (air engines) are much more cost effective. Plus wind or solar power could run pumps at each users house to fill tanks up for use by individuals. I could get used to filling up my car at home.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Beyond the pollution that is created at the electric power plants you mean? One of my pet peeves is people touting the pollution free aspects of electricity!

Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US Based on real data from DOE

The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is generated with petroleum.

In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted.

The average fossil fuel-fired power plant was built in 1964, long before the Clean Air Act began requiring pollution controls.

Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements.

Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!

Reply to
My Names Nobody

While I am no chemist, the story said they convert H2O into HHO gas. He originally created the process for use in welding. It produces a super hot flame that will burn right through a rock, heat a brass ball up to glowing, yet the flame is cool to the touch. As it is being used on a sheet of metal you can wee the water droplets rolling down it. He then converted the technology into a car fuel.

I fully admit that I didn't understand the concepts behind the technology at all, but again I have the news clip if anyone wants it.

Reply to
Zombywoof

HHO? WTF? That would be a stupid way of writing H2O, the gas is water vapor.

It's MAGIC! What BS.

Reply to
Brent P

You dont need to be a Physicist or Rocket Scientist to smell the pile of steaming....

BULLSHIT-OMETER:

  1. "FOLLOW THE MONEY"

-

formatting link

  1. A flame you can touch, but melts rock

- Gimme a break!

  1. The method to crack the water molecule is long-known and often used, but the direct application is WAY inefficient... it's called 'electrolysis'

- H and O have a strong affinity for each other. You have to use a LOT of power to produce the cracked gasses in quantity, thus we have yet another 'perpetual motion' process.

  1. If it were practical, the FIRST marketed application would be home power generation. I'm saying, it someone could do it, you'd see them in Home Depot and Tractor Supply REAL QUICK

I'm still plumping for 'Cold-Fusion'

Related subjects:

"Compressed Air' powered vehicle. D-Cell powered shop impact wrench Magic Propellor Beanie - get above the crowds!

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

And you think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND efficient? The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle. Most of the rest is lost as wasted heat. Power plants are much more efficient than car engines. Also, electricity can be generated from multiple sources like nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, tides, geothermal etc. People living in the southwest USA could probably use their own person solar cells to run compressors at their homes. Others might use wind in their areas. The point I am making is that electricity is a versatile power source that can be created in numerous ways and with little investment capital in many circumstances. Having a central power generation facility allows for everyone to simultaneously, and quickly, benefit from advances in technology and improvements in plant efficiency.

BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric powered.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

First off, I never stated I "think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND efficient".

My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~

Specifically the "does not pollute" part, that is an absolute distortion of the facts.

Besides it appears you did not read what I posted before you replied, anyway. I stated: ~Electricity IS NOT CLEAN~ Your witty retort was to infer that I inferred something about internal combustion car engines cleanliness or efficiency...

I posted: ~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity.

51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is generated with petroleum. The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted.~ Your retort was: ~The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle.~

They both look pretty damn inefficient and dirty to me...

Reply to
My Names Nobody

Well without getting all uppity about it I work for an organization that uses garbage (Refuse Derived Fuel) to generate electricity thereby saving landfill space and taking the chance at polluting the water table.

The process is called WTE, Waste-to-Energy. We sure as hell are subject to the Clean Air Act and have emissions from our stacks cleaner the surrounding air.

We also pump the methane gas from the materials that are landfilled (not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP.

Reply to
Zombywoof

Well you forgot about WTE.

Waste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy through the combustion of municipal solid waste in specially designed power plants equipped with the most modern pollution control equipment to clean emissions.

Trash volume is reduced by 90% and the remaining residue is regularly tested and consistently meets strict EPA standards allowing reuse or disposal in landfills. There are 89 waste-to-energy plants operating in 27 states managing about 13 percent of America?s trash, or about

95,000 tons each day. Waste-to-energy generates about 2,500 megawatts of electricity to meet the power needs of nearly 2 million homes, and the facilities serve the trash disposal needs of more than 36 million people. The $10 billion waste-to-energy industry employs more than 6,000 American workers with annual wages in excess of $400 million.

Why is waste-to-energy clean?

America?s waste-to-energy facilities meet some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world and employ the most advanced emissions control equipment available. The EPA announced that America?s waste-to-energy plants produce ?dramatic decreases? in air emissions, and produce electricity ?with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.? The ?outstanding performance? of pollution control equipment used by the waste-to-energy industry has produced ?dramatic decreases? in emissions. EPA data demonstrate that dioxin emissions have decreased by more than 99% in the past ten years, and represent less than one-half of one percent of the national dioxin inventory. Mercury emissions have declined by more than 95% and now represent two percent of the national inventory of man-made mercury emissions. Additionally, EPA estimates that waste-to-energy technology annually avoids 33 million metric tons of carbondioxide, a greenhouse gas, that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

Communities served by these facilities recycle an average of 35% of their trash as compared with the national recycling rate of 30%. Waste-to-energy annually removes for recycling more than 700,000 tons of ferrous metals and more than 3 million tons of glass, metal, plastics, batteries, ash and yard waste at recycling centers located on site.

Why is waste-to-energy renewable?

For more than twenty years, waste-to-energy has been recognized as a source of renewable energy under existing law. Waste-to-energy is a ?clean, reliable, renewable source of energy,? according to the U.S. EPA. The Federal Power Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission?s regulations, and the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 all recognize waste-to-energy power as renewable biomass, as do fifteen states that have enacted electric restructuring laws. EPA estimates 75% of trash contains biomass on a Btu-output basis. Turning garbage into energy makes ?important contributions to the overall effort to achieve increased renewable energy use and the many associated positive environmental benefits,? wrote Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, David Garman.

What makes waste-to-energy reliable?

Waste-to-energy plants supply power 365-days-a-year, 24-hours a day. Facilities average greater than 90% availability of installed capacity. Waste-to-energy plants generally operate in or near an urban area, easing transmission to the customer. Waste-to-energy power is sold as ?base load? electricity. There is a constant need for trash disposal, and an equally constant, steady, and reliable energy generation. Waste-to-energy promotes energy diversity while helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal.

Reply to
Zombywoof

That is nice, but as I have already stated, more than 2/3 of the electricity generated in the U.S. is generated by burning DIRTY fossil fuels.

Reply to
My Names Nobody

What would you do in the winter time? Fill it with hot air? ;-)

Dave

Reply to
Hairy

Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" needs corrected. Actually electricity is clean and when generated using solar, tides, hydro, wind etc. it is extremely environmentally friendly.

Well it does cost a fraction of the cost. I just paid $52 this afternoon to fill up my SUV. How long do you think $52 worth of electricity will run an air compressor?

I don't have a monopoly on distorting the facts. You did a fine job of it yourself.

Well, isn't cost of operation (specifically, the price of gas) for a vehicle the root subject of this thread? It looks to me like you went off on a tangent and started a discussion on dirty electricity. I was discussing the cost of filling a tank with compressed air verses gasoline.

Well if you can't see the obvious cost and environmental benefit of compressed air powered vehicles over petroleum powered ones then I can't help you. Do the computations to determine the amount of electrical power needed to compress air into a 100-200 gallon tank to 3k-4k psi and I'm sure the bulb over your head will light up. I am willing to bet it would cost a great deal less than $52.

BTW, what do YOU think the best alternative is to burning fossil fuels?

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

There are multitudes of ways to produce electricity with little to no pollution. Even the power plants that burn coal and petroleum have scrubbers that leave the discharge air very clean.

I remember walking around a construction debris landfill for concrete, tree stumps and other organic material and hearing the methane exit from the vent pipes. The methane was exiting so fast it sounded like a jet engine and there were dozens of these pipes throughout the site. I remember thinking that it was a huge waste of energy.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Well that is where my wife steps in. ;)

Kate, I was just kidding!!!

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.