[HN Gopher] The hidden cost of gasoline ___________________________________________________________________ The hidden cost of gasoline Author : jseliger Score : 57 points Date : 2023-06-25 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (grist.org) (TXT) w3m dump (grist.org) | antiquark wrote: | Now do the hidden cost of renewables.... | grecy wrote: | A buddy works on offshore rigs around the world, and it got me | thinking. | | I wonder, for every one gallon of gasoline I pump into my | vehicle, how many were used to extract, refine, transport, store | and pump it. I'm assuming it's at least 10 to 1. Maybe even 100 | to 1 | | I bring this up because the company will fly him from anywhere in | the world to where they want him to work, chopper him out to the | rig, etc. etc. All of that gas consumed to get ONE worker onto | the rig. | userbinator wrote: | Oil companies need to make a profit. If it cost more to produce | than to sell, they wouldn't do it. | akiselev wrote: | That's called the "energy return on investment" [1] and it's a | critical factor in how profitable a fossil fuel source is. | | An easily acccessed oil field can easily have an EROI of 20-50, | so they spend a gallon worth of energy to extract 20-50 | gallons. Shale oil has a EROI as low as 1-1.5 and it's | sometimes only worth it when burning the accompanying natural | gas for free energy. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Eroei analysis usually doesn't go very far down the | production process. | | What you want is Well to Tank calculations, which suggest | that the process of making gasoline accounts for 15-20% of | the total GHG emissions, so add 25% onto the number you get | from burning the fuel in your car. | ars wrote: | It's easy enough to calculate: Check the cost of producing the | fuel, and then calculate how much fuel you can buy (in bulk) | for that much money. | | It won't be exact, but it'll be pretty close. And the number is | higher than you might expect! | throw0101a wrote: | > _I wonder, for every one gallon of gasoline I pump into my | vehicle, how many were used to extract, refine, transport, | store and pump it._ | | Well, almost 40% of all ship cargoes are fossil fuels (oil, | coal, methane gas): | | * | https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2022/01/12/almost-40-... | barelyauser wrote: | A car will make 10 MPG and tow thousands of pounds. You can tow | two pounds thousand of miles. And consider most of the route is | made by very efficient boat, pipeline. It will not get even | close to 1 to 10. Closer to 1 to 1. | fleetwood wrote: | It seems unlikely the ratio of (oil consumed by | production):(oil production) is greater than 1:1. If it was | greater than 1:1 - e.g. 10:1 - wouldn't the production company | simply sell the 10 barrels instead of using the 10 barrels to | produce and sell 1? | inertiatic wrote: | Not really. You need to drill to make any oil. So if you | drilled and spent 10 parts to make it happen (flying people | there, energy to drill etc.) and extracted 11 parts, you're | selling 1 of those and then using the next 10 to mine the | next 11 to get another 1 to sell. It would still make sense | economically as long as you were turning a profit overall (so | factoring the total cost into what you're actually selling), | although it would be a huge waste in absolute terms. | | I do doubt that would be a realistic estimate though. | jmclnx wrote: | I never understood the move of gas tanks from above ground to | underground. The few stations left with above ground tanks were | forced to bury them ages ago. | | To me, you can easily detect leaks if above ground and correct. | The local Gov can even hire someone to check above ground tanks. | Seems oil companies did the move to avoid inspections. | aeternum wrote: | Above ground seems more dangerous from an exposed tank point of | view. A car could run into it, debris from a wind storm or | natural disaster, foul play. These could be mitigated with some | kind of containment structure but then you require more land | area and investment. | xenomachina wrote: | s/Below/Above/ ? | aeternum wrote: | yes thanks, edited | rr808 wrote: | Does this happen? Here in NJ underground is now banned, finding | a buried tank on your property is an expensive nightmare. | [deleted] | tivert wrote: | > I never understood the move of gas tanks from above ground to | underground. The few stations left with above ground tanks were | forced to bury them ages ago. | | > To me, you can easily detect leaks if above ground and | correct. The local Gov can even hire someone to check above | ground tanks. Seems oil companies did the move to avoid | inspections. | | Above-ground tanks might be better for detecting leaks, but I'd | imagine they're much more vulnerable to catastrophic accidents | (e.g. a truck slamming into one and causing a giant fire). | wak90 wrote: | Do you not consider contaminating a city's water supply | catastrophic | ars wrote: | No, because that's not something that actually happens due | to underground storage. The leaks are local, and cause | minimal long term harm. They are not "contaminating a | city's water supply", that's simply not true. | atshane253 wrote: | Its absolutely true, one of my city's primary aquifers is | directly under ground. Future underground tanks will not | be permitted because they've been leaking into the | groundwater, especially if and when they're abandoned | because the business failed. | semicolon_storm wrote: | That's demonstrably false. Google the red hill fuel tanks | bluGill wrote: | Underground tanks are best thought of as indoor tanks these | days. They build an underground room, put the tanks in and then | inspect them visually, and the room collects any leaks. | | Not always of course, but that is a common way to do them. | landemva wrote: | I have been to many industrial sites, and oil/gas/diesel tanks | have been above ground. Some had bollards to block physical | bumps. Many had spill containment knee walls. | | There are probably regulations depending on type of tank and | contents to allow these private tanks. Above ground does make | identification of a leak more rapid. | 13of40 wrote: | Above ground tanks also have the benefit of being gravity | fed, so you can use them in rural areas without a power | supply or complex pumping equipment. | cameldrv wrote: | A small airport I used to fly out of switched to an aboveground | tank when the old underground one was found to have a leak. The | permitting and construction costs for an underground tank were | much higher with double walls and I believe sensors to detect | leaks. | | The rationale was exactly as you say -- with an aboveground | tank you can easily see fuel leaking out and fixing a leak is | also very easy by comparison. | ars wrote: | This isn't as big of an issue as they make it seem. Bacteria will | rapidly degrade the gasoline: | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03790... | | I'm not trying to say it's a good thing, but it's not the huge | disaster they are trying to imply. | Gigachad wrote: | If that was true, why do old petrol station lots sit vacant for | decades because they haven't been decontaminated yet? | bluGill wrote: | Lead isn't broken down, and that was common in gasoline. | | Not everything breaks down, most of what is in modern gas | breaks down, but not everything. | rgbrenner wrote: | That paper says you need to collect soil samples quickly so you | can classify the type of ignitable liquid that contaminated the | soil. | | It does NOT say the soil is nontoxic and safe; or that it does | not need to be cleaned up; or that it won't contaminate ground | water. Those degraded compounds are still toxic af. | ars wrote: | > Those degraded compounds are still toxic af. | | No they aren't. They degrade (eventually) to just water and | CO2. That was not the only paper on the topic, there are tons | more. I picked that one because it highlighted just how | quickly bacteria consume the gasoline. | | Gasoline and oil are natural products that will completely | and harmlessly biodegrade, they only cause trouble when | collected in bulk, but do not have long-term harmful effects | once they are diluted, because bacteria completely consume | them. | dzhiurgis wrote: | Yeah, the planet will be fine, it's just humans and entire | ecosystems that will be screwed. | ars wrote: | Nothing bad will happen from these leaks, gasoline is | very biodegradable. Humans will be unharmed and the | ecosystem will be unharmed. | scotty79 wrote: | Which bacteria eat benzene specifically? | philipkglass wrote: | Pseudoxanthomonas spadix BD-a59, for one: | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592918/ | | This is an interesting study. They identified the species | by culturing it from contaminated soil sampled at a South | Korean gas station. The study also mentions previously | identified bacteria that eat BTEX (benzene, toluene, | ethylbenzene, and xylene -- closely related hydrocarbons | having a single aromatic ring) and explains why there are | likely to be many as-yet-unknown species that also | consume BTEX. | | The short version: "Countless other BTEX-degrading | bacteria may be present in the soil or sediment but may | not compete well in aqueous slurries or perhaps cannot | grow in minimal medium; thus, this alternative pool of | BTEX-degrading populations is likely to be overlooked. | Our study reinforced this concept." | refibrillator wrote: | > The benzene content of typical gasoline is 0.76% by mass | (gasoline composition). A spill of 10 gallons of gasoline (only | 0.1% of the 10,000 gallon tank, a quantity undetectable by manual | gauging and inventory control) contains about 230 grams of | benzene. The EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for benzene is | 5 parts per billion (ppb), or 5 micrograms per liter, in drinking | water. The density of gasoline is about 0.8 g/mL, so the benzene | in a 10 gallon gasoline leak can contaminate about 46 million | liters, or 12 million gallons of water | | > In 1983, the EPA declared leaking tanks a serious threat to | groundwater, and Congress soon stepped in with new regulations. | One of the largest spills was in Brooklyn, where a 17 million- | gallon pool of oil gradually collected beneath a Mobil gas | station -- a larger spill than the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989 | | Yikes, never heard about that. Yet another negative externality | slipping through the cracks. Profits collected, responsibility | socialized. | [deleted] | kortilla wrote: | >Profits collected, responsibility socialized. | | This happens literally any time someone makes a mistake | somewhere that doesn't get caught. It's not some magic "gotcha" | that only applies to these types of industries and anecdotes | are not evidence that an industry depends on it. | | Here are other examples of people "privatizing the profits | while socializing the losses": | | - a bad teacher who doesn't lose their job for teaching | children incorrect things. | | - a cook that doesn't get fired when you get food poisoning. | | - a doctor that makes a negligent mistake and causes a | permanent injury or death without getting caught. | | The examples are endless and scale from individuals up through | corporations and governments across every industry and mode of | governance. | | I recommend you don't use the phrase if you don't want to look | dumb because it's a pretty strong indicator of a lack of | critical thinking skills. | SoftTalker wrote: | A carbon filter for your drinking water will deal with benzene | and other organic compounds | flashback2199 wrote: | The public should never be required to filter out pollution, | especially from basic necessities such as water. | dzhiurgis wrote: | Remember the outrage last year when some sunscreen was found to | have few PPM of benzene? | | The outrage from that FUD and people stopping use of sunscreen | altogether likely caused more damage than benzene itself. | NoZebra120vClip wrote: | Nah, sunscreens are way more harmful than sun exposure | itself. It's the sunscreen that will cause the cancer | eventually. | | Here's the chain of events: young patient gets bad sunburn, | sees doctor. Doctor sympathizes and warns patient of dire | consequences of not using sunblock 100% of the time. Patient | agrees and mostly uses sunblock for several decades, forgets | a few times and gets more sunburns. In fact, patient is way | more likely to be exposed to powerful sunlight because of the | invincibility conferred by sunblock. | | Patient gets cancer from substances in sunblock, and feels | terribly guilty for not using it because a few sunburns must | have given her skin cancer. | EatingWithForks wrote: | The chain of events doesn't form a causal relationship that | substances in sunblock cause cancer. It just expresses | someone might use sunblock more often after the advice from | a doctor. | NoZebra120vClip wrote: | Yes; very self-serving recommendation, isn't it? | EatingWithForks wrote: | No, In mean quite literally the described situation does | not have anything to do with whether or not sunblock | itself causes cancer. Like a whole paragraph of scenario | was provided and then out of nowhere "and then they get | cancer from chemicals in sunblock". Which chemicals, | specifically? What do we do about the fact that nearly | all women are recommended sunblock daily in nearly all | beauty regimens for decades and yet facial skin cancers | aren't gendered? | dzhiurgis wrote: | Replying to EatingWithForks | | > facial skin cancers aren't gendered? | | So that also means sunscreen doesn't work either? | tkanarsky wrote: | Is this claim substantiated? I've seen all sorts of | opinions ranging from "use European sunscreens containing | non-FDA-approved UVA filters" to "just rub lard on skin, | drink raw milk, and lift heavy weights". I feel like | chemical sunscreens have been ubiquitous enough for long | enough that any correlation in skin cancer rates would have | been long pointed out by now. | arrosenberg wrote: | No, they are an idiot. UV light causes various mutations | at the DNA level, which accumulate over time and can lead | to skin cancer. Skin cancers have some of the highest | number of mutations of any form of cancer. | Runepika wrote: | Sulfur and benzene are under a cap-and-trade federal compliance | program | | https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur-benze... | | Has been very successful in reducing sulfur in road fuel down to | <10ppm. Not sure if it's possible to even move gasoline over 3.8% | benzene today. | derbOac wrote: | So many economic analyses of social and environmental problems | are full of these "hidden cost" factors, and they're baked into | why so many things occur in the first place. "Capitalized profit, | socialized risk" is just one example but they all fall into a | broader category, of scenarios where enormous costs or | dependencies are just ignored or hidden. I might go so far as to | argue that large segments of societal economics are based on this | dynamic, and might be the achilles heel of modern capitalism. | TeMPOraL wrote: | I generally agree, though I'd like to add a similar caveat I | posted earlier on another thread[0]: _those are all relatively | recent problems_. Like, e.g. petroleum chemistry and chemical | industries only started in the earnest in the last 150 years. | Chemical leaks and ground water contamination became an issue | roughly half-way between then and today. We only have a decent | ability to detect such leaks and measure their health impact | for half as long still. | | It may be that the main reason we're discovering so many | externalities and bad second-order effects buried in everything | that makes for a modern life, is because it's only recently | that sciences and engineering progressed enough to allow | detecting and quantifying those issues. | | -- | | [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36472880 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-25 23:00 UTC)