the minute gas went over $4/gallon, I switched from using mid-grade to premium

cost more, but I'm definitely seeing a mileage increase

i probably should have used premium all along since that's what i'm supposed to use for my car...but whatever

gas is gas and i'm going to pay for it no matter what, might as well get the most out of it

6/9/2008 4:11:35 PM

i worked with a guy that was also a gas station manager and he said never to buy midgrade

6/9/2008 4:12:53 PM

^Care to Elaborate?

6/9/2008 4:13:43 PM

^ I personally never thought 2 octane should be $.10 more, when 6 octane is $.20 more.

6/9/2008 4:19:08 PM

I'd have to do an actual study of what i get at $/gallon / mpg for each octane... but my gut says it's worth the extra couple bucks to get premium every time. (On a relatively new car that is)

6/9/2008 4:23:02 PM

^he said midgrade is just .5regular + .5premium....said it was a total rip off

6/9/2008 4:23:53 PM

The higher energy density of premium compared to regular is tiny, no where near the 5% increase in price.

6/9/2008 4:27:55 PM

Quote :

"Nuclear powered cargo ships? Coal is cheap, so building nuclear power plants to compete is not obvious. But, a single nuclear cargo ship would save many tons of liquid fuel every day."

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0029549300002855

Mitsubishi knows exactly how to build this right now. They even have plans ready, should it become attractive.

Problem is, who in their right mind would build a ship not knowing where they could dock?? No one. If a politician ever felt like doing their job, maybe they could establish agreements for ports allowable to commercial nuclear powered ships. In case, you know, we wanted to stop penalizing clean energy over fossil fuels.

But nah. Oil companies say it's cool like things are. I'm sure it'll all wind up alright.

6/9/2008 4:59:49 PM

the other problem is there's currently only like 2 US shipyards that are certified to build vessels and deal with the nuclear powerplant at the same time

we'd have to outsource to asia (korea and japan? i think is the other one have some of the most advanced shipyards in the world)

6/9/2008 8:09:52 PM

I believe the uranium on military vessels and bombs are military grade and enriched towards 100% of potential. The stuff we use in civilian nuclear plants is only enriched like 10%.

Im not sure if they use the lower grade stuff on other vessels though.

6/9/2008 8:31:40 PM

right and right.

Korea hasn't been a leader forever, but now, mainly with Dosan industries they're on the same level as Japan. Japan has some of the top heavy industries in the world. Oh, but another possible strong newcomer is, you guessed it, China.

A lot of ours are actually... military connected.

But those navy reactors are so bomb-grade material they're not funny. Obviously 100% is practically impossible, but they're over 90%, and the exact number will be classified. Seriously, if you had their fuel (unburnt), just a few people with no particular skill could make a cumbersome gun-type kiloton weapon.

Any commercial navy rector would be ~20%, because it still needs to be potent, but less than 20% is just how we roll in the commercial world.

I bet if they expanded to other types of ships they would back off the percentage. But the rationale is that nearly pure U-235 isn't a proliferation risk because well... the whole god damn ship can blow up the world.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:21 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2008 9:20:30 PM

Another idea is coal gasification. The United States has more coal than any other country, 35% of easily recoverable coal. Lets use what we have in our own borders, dammit. (Oh, and nuclear too).

6/9/2008 10:58:44 PM

Quote :

" did we amend the consititution when i wasnt looking?"

I was wondering the same.

6/10/2008 12:56:43 AM

Quote :

"Korea hasn't been a leader forever, but now, mainly with Dosan industries they're on the same level as Japan. "

not to devolve the thread, but korea is one of, if not the, leading nations in international shipbuilding, and especially in cost efficient shipbuilding. they're the standard by which almost all other yards are measured to currently.

6/10/2008 11:34:17 AM

What kind of protocols could be put in place to secure the enriched nuclear material?

I'm not opposing it, I'm genuinely curious what you guys think could be done to make this a more attractive solution, given that it is fairly dangerous in some circumstances.

6/10/2008 2:33:32 PM

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : /]

6/10/2008 4:03:20 PM

Quote :

"I'ma vote for Obama so he will lower gas prices"

6/10/2008 4:08:32 PM

I'ma vote for McCain, he's gonna have a gas tax holiday for two months. That will positively affect me in a significant way.

6/10/2008 4:10:05 PM

Quote :

"I'ma vote for Obama so he will lower gas prices"

i'd say give him 2 weeks

no. 1 week. he'll have the economy fixed and gas will be back to $2 a gallon

6/10/2008 4:13:10 PM

Quote :

"What kind of protocols could be put in place to secure the enriched nuclear material? I'm not opposing it, I'm genuinely curious what you guys think could be done to make this a more attractive solution, given that it is fairly dangerous in some circumstances."

It would help if you specified a little more. You're talking about potential future commercial nuclear powered ships, right? So we're interested in the safety of say 19% enriched Uranium, at least for first generation type ships.

Operational safety can be demonstrated, see the link to the paper on it - we have plenty of operating experience with exactly this type of reactor and modern safety analysis can prove beyond a doubt safety for a wide margin of operability.

The debate, I'm sure, would shift mostly to those turrists. Of course, the location of the ship at all time would have to be reported for security concerns. It may sound funny, but pirates would be a problematic contingency. Refueling would be a big discussion too, but I think it would be fairly easy, since you can do that anywhere in the world NIMBY would be easier to hide from.

6/10/2008 5:25:39 PM

You actually pretty much just answered the question I was trying to ask. Thanks.

6/10/2008 6:04:06 PM

Why do ppl in Nevada and NY state not use much gas?

6/10/2008 6:25:10 PM

^My guess for the northeast is that its an older developed part of the country, with things closer together and not as spread out, i.e. suburbia.

6/10/2008 11:27:50 PM

^^ Plus they're richer, so gas price increases don't affect them as much on a percentage of their income as, say, Alabamans.

(Can't speak for Nevada as outside of Vegas it's sparsely populated, I guess they're rich or something.)

In the case of the cities across the country that are on the very low-end of the range, they also have a high degree of mass transportation use among their population, so a gas increase for the bus or train or whatever gets spread across many people.

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 9:07 AM. Reason : /]

6/11/2008 9:05:48 AM

I see where this is coming from now. It would be useful to see a map of straight gas use per person. As it is, northern Virgina looks like low use

That's not true, the DC area has either the longest or second longest commute time in the nation, the fact that they make so much money only makes the oil market less flexible there. The truth is, people in Alabama, even if they drive much less, are the ones who will cut use, so government workers in DC can keep their use constant, because they simply don't have the money to pay for it.

6/11/2008 10:43:33 AM