PDA

View Full Version : About Gas Prices.



Pages : [1] 2

WarWolfe_1
04-21-2006, 04:39 PM
I wanted to repost this to make sure folks saw it. PASSS IT ALONG!!!!! I can not stress that enough. Something has to change, drive less, buy a car that requries less fuel, Do what ever it takes. We fund terrorizim every time we buy fuel. We can make a change but it has to start here and now!

Something I got today........THIS IS NOT POLITICAL!!!! Please don't make this a flame war, just pass it on to others.

Something to think about if nothing else.
A man eats two eggs each morning for breakfast. When he goes to the grocery store he pays 60 cents a dozen. Since a dozen eggs won't last a week he normally buys two dozens at a time.

One day while buying eggs he notices that the price has risen to 72 cents. The next time he buys groceries, eggs are .76 cents a dozen. When asked to explain the price of eggs the store owner says, "the price has gone up and I have to raise my price accordingly".

This store buys 100 dozen eggs a day. I checked around for a better price and all the distributors have raised their prices. The distributors have begun to buy from the huge egg farms. The small egg farms have been driven out of business.

The huge egg farms sells 100,000 dozen eggs a day to distributors. With no competition, they can set the price as they see fit. The distributors then have to raise their prices to the grocery stores. And on and on and on. As the man kept buying eggs the price kept going up. He saw the big egg trucks delivering 100 dozen eggs each day. Nothing changed there.

He checked out the huge egg farms and found they were selling 100,000 dozen eggs to the distributors daily. Nothing had changed but the price of eggs.

Then week before Thanksgiving the price of eggs shot up to $1.00 a dozen. Again he asked the grocery owner why and was told, "cakes and baking for the holiday". The huge egg farmers know there will be a lot of baking going on and more eggs will be used. Hence, the price of eggs goes up. Expect the same thing at Christmas and other times when family cooking, baking, etc. happen.

This pattern continues until the price of eggs is 2.00 a dozen. The man says,"there must be something we can do about the price of eggs".

He starts talking to all the people in his town and they decide to stop buying eggs. This didn't work because everyone needed eggs. Finally, the man suggested only buying what you need.

He ate 2 eggs a day. On the way home from work he would stop at the grocery and buy two eggs. Everyone in town started buying 2 or 3 eggs a day.

The grocery store owner began complaining that he had too many eggs in his cooler. He told the distributor that he didn't need any eggs. Maybe wouldn't need any all week.

The distributor had eggs piling up at his warehouse. He told the huge egg farms that he didn't have any room for eggs would not need any for at least two weeks.

At the egg farm, the chickens just kept on laying eggs.

To relieve the pressure, the huge egg farm told the distributor that they could buy the eggs at a lower price. The distributor said, " I don't have the room for the %$&^*&% eggs even if they were free".

The distributor told the grocery store owner that he would lower the price of the eggs if the store would start buying again. The grocery store owner said, "I don't have room for more eggs. The customers are only buy 2 or 3 eggs at a time". "Now if you were to drop the price of eggs back down to the original price, the customers would start buying by the dozen again".

The distributors sent that proposal to the huge egg farmers. They liked the price they were getting for their eggs but, them chickens just kept on laying.

Finally, the egg farmers lowered the price of their eggs. But only a few cents. The customers still bought 2 or 3 eggs at a time. They said, "when the price of eggs gets down to where it was before, we will start buying by the dozen."

Slowly the price of eggs started dropping. The distributors had to slash their prices to make room for the eggs coming from the egg farmers. The egg farmers cut their prices because the distributors wouldn't buy at a higher price than they were selling eggs for.

Anyway, they had full warehouses and wouldn't need eggs for quite a while.

And them chickens kept on laying.

Eventually, the egg farmers cut their prices because they were throwing away eggs they couldn't sell. The distributors started buying again because the eggs were priced to where the stores could afford to sell them at the lower price.

And the customers starting buying by the dozen again.

Now, transpose this analogy to the gasoline industry.

What if everyone only bought $10.00 worth of gas each time they pulled to the pump. The dealers tanks would stay semi full all the time. The dealers wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the huge tank farms. The tank farms wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the refining plants. And the refining plants wouldn't have room for the oil being off loaded from the huge tankers coming from the Middle East.

Just $10.00 each time you buy gas. Don't fill it up. You may have to stop for gas twice a week but, the price should come down.

Think about it.

As an added note...When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full. The way prices are jumping around, you can buy gas for $2.65 a gallon and then the next morning it can be $2.15. If you have your tank full of $2.65 gas you don't have room for the $2.15 gas. You might not understand the economics of only buying two eggs at a time but, you can't buy cheaper gas if your tank is full of the high priced stuff.

Also, don't buy anything else at the gas station, don't give them any more of your hard earned money than what you spend on gas, until the prices come down..

slipBall
04-21-2006, 04:54 PM
Supply and demand, it work's every time. With the recent energy demand's from Asian nation's, demand, will outpace supply, unfortulently

pourshot
04-21-2006, 04:56 PM
If I could buy fuel for $2.60 a gallon I would not be complaining, it's around $1.40 ltr here at the momment.

timraven
04-21-2006, 04:56 PM
This is a good idea, if everyone was going to do this then the petrol prices may come down. Do it!!!

Megile_
04-21-2006, 04:59 PM
If I was the egg supplier, I'd start selling it ONLY in cartons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Besides, If I was a fuel supplier, and customers were only buying $10 of fuel.. i'd sure as hell make them feel like they were only buying $10 of fuel, and supply them barely enough to get off the forecourt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-21-2006, 05:13 PM
lol


Just $10.00 each time you buy gas. Don't fill it up. You may have to stop for gas twice a week but, the price should come down.

Think about it.
Okay. We thought about it and you still buy the same 20$ every week.

Actually you buy more gas (20.25$) because you have to stop off the road and start again one extra time each week from the gas station ~~ remember you are not buying anything but gas right so you can't say you are stopping at the pump "anyways." So, the price goes up according to this theory.

Glad you told us to think about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
04-21-2006, 05:31 PM
Buy a Honda instead.

FoolTrottel
04-21-2006, 05:36 PM
When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Now, at EUR 1.40 for one liter, $10.00 worth would buy me.... about 5.7 liters ... that leaves my tank a little under 1/10th full!

We should not buy gas by the $$, we should stop being so d@rn mobile!

There's a joke on this you know:
One guy ask another what he thinks about them high gas prices... the other guy answers: 'Well, I do not know, I don't think so, haven't noticed, I still just put $10.00 worth of gas into the thing...'

A while ago, ppl over here called out to boycot the petrol companies... by massively not buying gas on a specifice date... reasoning this would hurt them... they wouldn't sell any gas that day .... lol.... might be true.... but, each and every one of them ppl that would encourage and support this would make sure he'd got enough gas loaded before said date to last him through that day! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

And yeah, what Luthor said...

Oh, and comparing US prices to Europes prices on gas: This is POLITICAL!

Have Fun!

carguy_
04-21-2006, 05:42 PM
Yeah....****ing great.Almost half full tank for 10$.You don`t know what cheap means!

Maybe the era of smoking 7liter pickups has come to an end?Buy a friggin 2liter car instead.


Other than that,very well written story and I enjoyed the read.


And them chickens are still laying those eggs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
04-21-2006, 05:45 PM
Do the words ANWAR and 'offshore drilling' ring a bell?

Are you aware that your congress passed laws requiring many parts of the country to use a different mix of gasoline for different times of the year, or that the 'environmentalists' and NIMBYs have caused dozens of refineries and oil fields in the US to close and practically ended the use of nuclear power or coal for producing electricity in the last thirty years? Did you know that something like 45% of your gasoline costs are taxes and government fees? Toss in the cost of government regulation and petty bureaucratic interference, and government accounts for two thirds the cost of your gallon of fuel...

On top of that, there are a lot more people buying cars in China, and they are competing with you for the fuel supplies (and their government has no compunctions about using whatever powers they have to persuade an oil company to give them first dibs...).

And you wonder why the cost of a commodity that everyone uses has gone up?

cheers

horseback

carguy_
04-21-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
.... lol.... might be true.... but, each and every one of them ppl that would encourage and support this would make sure he'd got enough gas loaded before said date to last him through that day! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif


LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LStarosta
04-21-2006, 05:56 PM
It's a good feeling to know that when the earth's gasoline supply runs out, I'll finally be able to run in the middle of the frickin road without worrying about getting hit by a car.

Badsight.
04-21-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
don't give them any more of your hard earned money than what you spend on gas, until the prices come down.. they are not going to come down

peak oil is being reached right now for some feilds

no large feilds have been found since the 70's

what is discovered each year has been lower than what we suck out of the ground for a couple of decades now

oil reserves that are economical are said to be running out as early as 2015 - but our useage rate increases with every year

what , did you think it was going to last forever ?!?!

Zeus-cat
04-21-2006, 06:32 PM
Unless you actually reduce the amount of fuel you purchase, you do nothing to the oil companies profits. Buying gas twice at $10 a stop instead of once at $20 means you walk by those donuts at the checkout counter twice as often. You may actually be helping their profits and hurting your waistline.

Boycotting a particular gas station on a particular day also doesn't work. You are simply shiifting demand from one place to another on a temporary basis. No long term effect here.

Gas is a commodity. Its price rises and falls based on worldwide market pressures and the price charged by the people who control the supply of the commodity (Russia, the Middle East, Venezeula, etc - mostly people who don't like the US and Europe). Getting a million people to not use a commodity for one day, when that commodity is used by a billion people worldwide does nothing.

The experts are saying that the price of oil will continue to rise for the next few months. Don't get used to what you are paying now, the price is going up.

carguy_
04-21-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
oil reserves that are economical are said to be running out as early as 2015 - but our useage rate increases with every year

what , did you think it was going to last forever ?!?!

Quit scaring ppl.You heard your info I heard mine that a certain counrty starting with letter "I" has gazilionssomething litres of it - enough to last for next 70years.

MOH_MADMAN
04-21-2006, 06:37 PM
and the farmer spent an extra $1.80 a week in gas to go get his two eggs a day...

MAD

Airmail109
04-21-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
It's a good feeling to know that when the earth's gasoline supply runs out, I'll finally be able to run in the middle of the frickin road without worrying about getting hit by a car.

Im with you on that, Ill finally be able to cycle on the road without getting run over. Anyhoo a geologist who works in the oil industry but hates it with a vengance I know, reckons there is enough oil left to last 100 years at CURRENT consumption. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

NonWonderDog
04-21-2006, 07:12 PM
You know, though, that today's increase in oil prices has led to a 5-10 cent increase in TODAY'S prices at the pump!

The oil the oil companies will have to pay $75 a gallon for won't be processed and delivered as gasoline to gas stations for THREE WEEKS!

What the hell? Why do we pay extra for things that haven't happened yet? Why is every little increase in oil prices caused by nervous investors passed on immediately, when it takes weeks for price decreases to be passed on? Why are oil company profits so far ahead of the previous RECORD PROFITS?

Something's wrong here. I don't even care that European prices have always been higher -- most of Europe has public transport. Most of America doesn't.

Charos
04-21-2006, 07:24 PM
At the egg farm, the chickens just kept on laying eggs.


Sooooo the Egg Farm culled off the excess chickens to ensure the prices remained inflated and made MORE profit from a new revenue stream of supplying KFC.

The man had to suppliment his restricted daily diet of two eggs by buying KFC for dinner.

The distributor was happy as his cool room was able to accomodate the alternate produce.

The grocery store owner wasnt very happy as he wasnt selling many eggs - he went out of business but still buys eggs and KFC.

So now we have another customer buying our produce and one less small grocery store to worry about.

Now we can focus on the huge food chains and bump the price of eggs and chicken up as all the small grocery stores are out of business.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

RAF92_Moser
04-21-2006, 07:25 PM
We will run out of oil. Experts predict this at 2035. But right now, the pressure is not on supply, but keeping production up with the demand. They simply are not pumping enough. Whether they say they are working there tails to pump the gas as fast as they can, or they are just laying low to let oil prices rise, just depends on their honesty.

I don't know about you...I saw E-85 for about two dollars a gallon just down the road not long ago.

Zeus-cat
04-21-2006, 09:26 PM
NonWonderDog said
"You know, though, that today's increase in oil prices has led to a 5-10 cent increase in TODAY'S prices at the pump!"

But what about the days where they announce the price of a barrel of oil has gone up, but the price at the pump goes DOWN?

NonWonderDog
04-21-2006, 09:39 PM
Gas prices don't seem to be based on anything, but every time international oil prices are in the news, gas prices adjust accordingly. If there's a price change but no news story, gas prices are completely random. The price of gasoline seems to be tied more to sensationalism than economics.

Jumoschwanz
04-21-2006, 09:47 PM
The high price of oil has made it economical to produce oil from coal and shale and clay. There is enough oil from these sources to last until doomsday.

Top scientists in the world, including those at NASA directed by the BUSH administration to research global warming confirm there is only ten years at present green-house gas production until the atmosphere of earth tips toward the point of no-return and runaway. This fact was edited out of reports to the public by a White House/BUSH appointee who was and is, a top oil company executive.
You, the people of the world, will not stop using fossil fuels until they destroy your environment and you all die, you are too stupid to do anything else.

Jumoschwanz

Gold_Monkey
04-21-2006, 09:59 PM
The high price of oil has made it economical to produce oil from coal and shale and clay. There is enough oil from these sources to last until doomsday.

[Quote]You, the people of the world, will not stop using fossil fuels until they destroy your environment and you all die, you are too stupid to do anything else

Yeah burn coal that will help the enviroment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Charos
04-21-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
There is enough oil from these sources to last until doomsday.
Jumoschwanz

Yes the consumption of the former will expedite the latter.

Human stupidity has no upper limit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

nearmiss
04-21-2006, 10:40 PM
Don't think that'll work

Oil is just in the ground doing nothing, therefore it doesn't have to be fed.

The Chinese are continually clamouring for more oil and gasoline, along with just about everyone else in the world.

If the US didn't have it's foot in the door first in most cases US probably wouldn't get the oil it does.

The Chinese they say are putting down their bicycles and buying cars. Now there is some cheap transportation we might look into.
Heck, we Americans are buying everything else from them...why not their friggin old bicycles.

It would solve alot of other issues in US as well. Obesity would become a thing of the past and we wouldn't need anymore freeways. We could have 40 lanes for bicyles each direction on the Santa Monica Freeway.

Go ahead and laugh... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

gkll
04-21-2006, 11:18 PM
Hey Badsight Im with you. Hang on to your shorts.... fuel prices are only going up, just relentlessly up. Could be that the economies take a bit of a dive sometime soon as well, since they are based on continuous growth and are hence leveraged to the nines.... and the growth expectation comes from the past, when we could pump that ol' oil just as we wanted.

Ive studied this for a couple of years now. There are only a few unknowns... and Carguy Iraq is one of them. However best estimates are a modest amount of oil at best in Iraq, could be wrong though.... the unknowns are all concentrated in a few OPEC countries, and the Saudis despite best efforts (apparently) have failed to raise production after promises to do so.... the largest field in the world now has a 'water cut' approaching 40%..... watering out.

Tarsands etc? Study up Jumo, I work alongside the oilsands here in Alberta Canada, I've studied it and two things are worth pointing out. First there is a limit on production <rate>. Balls to the wall (where Alberta is right now) we may get production up to 5 million barrels a day in 20 years, <if> we also build a nuclear power plant or two to power the process, leading to point two; the energy in to energy out is barely positive. You put a barrel of oil worth of energy in to get just 1.2 barrels out, barely energy positive. So you can discount both the yearly production as well as the total 'reserves' substantial as they are. And the environmental cost of a 400,000 hectare (1,000,000 acre) strip mine... well don't talk to me about it, haggling over reclamation protocols is half my job these days with the forest service up here... BIG hole.... I agree Jumo fully with your other main point though, we may well fry before we get around to making the <entire> hole.

However I do realize people will not believe if they don't want to.... however speaking for myself I must say that Y2K (for eg) had me rolling in the aisles... I am not an easy person to convince, nor do I scare easy. I am getting worried now, though....

Type "peak oil" into google and start reading. Spend an hour a week. Read everything, from the science (substantial)to the apocalyptics to the pollyannas... keep reading and thinking and you'll be where I am now, wondering about a few countries, with everything else pretty much known. It could be we carry on luxuriously popping bon bons in our mouths, while magical little windmills pop up everywhere, but I now subscribe to a rather grimmer picture. Open your minds gentlemen, the future is about to come knocking......

Badsight.
04-21-2006, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
It could be we carry on luxuriously popping bon bons in our mouths, while magical little windmills pop up everywhere, but I now subscribe to a rather grimmer picture. Open your minds gentlemen, the future is about to come knocking...... exactly , its not something our grandkids are going to have to deal with , its just around the corner FOR US

Aaron_GT
04-22-2006, 12:23 AM
Are you aware that your congress passed laws requiring many parts of the country to use a different mix of gasoline for different times of the year, or that the 'environmentalists' and NIMBYs have caused dozens of refineries and oil fields in the US to close and practically ended the use of nuclear power or coal for producing electricity in the last thirty years? Did you know that something like 45% of your gasoline costs are taxes and government fees? Toss in the cost of government regulation and petty bureaucratic interference, and government accounts for two thirds the cost of your gallon of fuel...

The majority of the USA's electricity production is from coal.

I am an environmentalist of sorts but I am in favour (and always have been) of expanding nuclear power and it saddens me that it wasn't expanded 30 years ago. France seems to be one of the countries that actually woke up to this possibility and put in a lot of generating capacity using nuclear and renewables, although the UK still has a greater GDP per barrel of oil used, but France depends more on agriculture which is more oil intensive, unless they go back to steam tractors.

This having been said energy efficiency is also very important, e.g. decent home insulation, awnings for shade, different window glass technologies, and vehicle fuel efficiency. The US vehicle fleet is about half as efficient as that of Europe or Japan where fuel prices are deliberately inflated via taxes. If the US vehicle fleet was as fuel efficient as the one in Japan then given refining efficiencies it would cut global demand for oil by 10%. Better efficiency still from Europe and Japan would be good too. China seems to be expending some effort into making efficient cars indigenously, although given the potential volume of cars it is a concern.

Not that this would save us from peak oil, but it would give a bit more time to develop alternatives as well as the US being less dependent on unstable regions of the world for oil.

I also think microgeneration of energy has its place too - for example small windmills attached to houses and solar water heating (PV panels still aren't that great).


There are only a few unknowns... and Carguy Iraq is one of them.

The other is the Arctic oceans, and possibly some parts of Africa. Alaska, though, is anticipated to have relatively little oil so shouldn't be counted on to save the day.

willyvic
04-22-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
...You, the people of the world, will not stop using fossil fuels until they destroy your environment and you all die, you are too stupid to do anything else.

Jumoschwanz


I knew it! So, what planet ARE you from?

WV.

fordfan25
04-22-2006, 12:54 AM
i wounder if the threat of ever close "alternative" fuil cars such as electric is also driveing up cost. what agravates me is all these people who dont have any real use for SUV,trucks ect driveing them just because its the IN thing. makes people who need them for every day use and work such as farmers,contractors ect ect pay more. the price on trucks them selves has gone up like crazy. the auto makers are over complacating them and catering to the soccer moms ect.

when i went car shoping i would have loved another truck but didnt realy NEED a truck right now so i bought my current car a montecarlo. its is a rather large car but i did NEED alot of trunk space for my dads wheel chair as well as other things and heck I get 36mpg as it is. i wopuld have loved a honda civic but it was to small for my NEEDS. my mothers boss just paid 37K for a dodge crew cabe 4X4 monstrasaty and has about as much need of it as a fish does a glass of water. some people how ever do need big motors and big trucks and this **** is makeing it harder on them. the indapendent 18wheeler truckers are realy feeling it badly. the bigger frate companys can pass on the cost more so than the little guys.

Lodovik
04-22-2006, 02:58 AM
A nice story about eggs, supply and demand. I'll be loaning that soon, ok?

Unfortunately, unlike eggs, oil is a finite supply. Doesn't matter if there's a yet undiscovered megafield somewhere. If it doesn't end during this generations lifetime, it'll still be someone else's problem in the future.

So here's another parable:

There's this guy, see, moving out from his parents place to start his own life. As he's the only child and their parents are very proud of their son and want to help him along, they give him a going away present:
A $/"100 000. All that money is meant for him to spent in whatever way he sees fit, no strings.
Now, there are quite a few possibilities what the youngster could do. 100K is a lot of money, but not that much in the long run, after all.
He could put it in a bank to gain interest and keep it for a rainy day.
He could invest it in stocks that maybe some day bring in a lot more money. He could spend it on educating himself to gain a better employment. He could even ignore it completely and give it away as he joins a religious order of some sort. He could spend it frugally for everyday needs when times are rough, dwindling it slowly, but surely.
Or he could do the obvious: Fly to Las Vegas and blow it all in a few days of drunken haze of booze, strippers, dice and fast cars with a couple of friends in the same situation.
Remember that when the money is gone, it's gone. It's all the guys parents could give him in this life. There is no more, there's not going to be more. It took years and years for that guys parents to make that money.

Now the point is, we, all of us, are that youngster. We have been given the 100 grand, ie. oil. One of the greates natural resources in the world. Usable for plastics, medicines, all manner of nifty and usefull things. You can even burn it, for chrissakes, if you get cold. Unfortunately once it's gone it's gone, so better think hard on what to do with it.

In my opinion, we have chosen to blow it in Vegas. And as we keep rolling the dice, the casino keepers have noticed that we've got cash to spend. So they are coddling us with free drinks and rooms with views of the pool to make us stay and spend it all.
The youngster is lucky, as he can still salvage the situation by keeping what little he still has and get out with the next bus. Go back to a nice quiet life at home and work. His friends are allready in a serious dept to some shady characters and can't just leave.
Personally, I think that he should take that bus out. Maybe give some money to his friends and get them out with him too. Otherwise, there's going to be no more short holidays to Vegas. And what's worse, neither will there be any quiet days at home anymore. For anyone.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 03:29 AM
Im 50 years old, and ever since i can remember, its been one doomsday scenrio after another.

many of these so called "end of civilisation as we know it" castrophes had big time scientists predicting them.

and guess what, not one ever happened.

after the y2k farce, im suprised anybody will beleive anything so called experts have to say, when it comes to predicting doomsday.

they couldn't even accuratly predict the actions only a short time in the future of a man made system. and im supposed to beleive they know what their talking about when it comes to predicting the much more complex natural world decades into the future?

Badsight.
04-22-2006, 03:39 AM
Y2K was an unkowen factor with computer language

oil reserves are a knowen commodity as is daily pumping , sales , comsuption rates

but by all means , there are thousands sticking their heads in the sands over this issue in every country so dont feel alone in this regard

currently , the whole economic system of developed countrys is built on & run by oil . the whole lot stops without oil

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 03:47 AM
and oil reserves are a known factor? they can only guess at the planets oil reserves.

it doesn't really matter, as oil runs out somthing new will be developed. frankly i think oil will be phased out because of pollution, not lack of supply.

Slechtvalk
04-22-2006, 03:47 AM
50 years is nothing and your personal feeling about this global problem doesn't prove or says anything.

They can't predict or be sure what will happen, to complex but we should try to use less fuel (oil&energy) and should be less depended (addicted) and use many more alternatives.

Car can run 50 km on 1 litre fuel if they really try.

This car only uses 2,7 l/100 km!

http://www.loremo.com/daten_en.php

I think this car will be sold allot in my country since fuel is expensive. So expensive is good in a way that people buy cars that use less fuel, otherwise they just don't care or even consider.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Slechtvalk:
50 years is nothing and your personal feeling about this global problem doesn't prove or says anything.

They can't predict or be sure what will happen, to complex but we should try to less fuel oil&energy and less depended (addicted) and use many more alternatives.

Car can run 50 km on 1 litre fuel if they really try.

This car only uses 2,7 l/100 km!

http://www.loremo.com/daten_en.php

I think this car will be sold allot in my country since fuel is expensive. So expensive is good in a way that people buy cars that use less fuel, otherwise they just don't care or even consider.

these alternatives you speak of will naturally come about due to market forces as oil gets more expensive. theres no need for everyone to be chicken little.

Badsight.
04-22-2006, 03:53 AM
cars are not made to last , or be cheap to fix , or be economical

they are made to make money

oil feilds are a knowen factor , & no new large feilds have been discovered since the 70's . not for a lack of trying however

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
cars are not made to last , or be cheap to fix , or be economical

they are made to make money

oil feilds are a knowen factor , & no new large feilds have been discovered since the 70's . not for a lack of trying however


you know when i was in grade school in the 1960s i actually had a text book that stated the world was going to run out of oil by the year 2000.

they used the same arguement as you have to, about "known reserves" not going to last.

Slechtvalk
04-22-2006, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
these alternatives you speak of will naturally come about due to market forces as oil gets more expensive. theres no need for everyone to be chicken little.

For Oil/fuel that is true perhaps in 10 years or so but ''unhealthy'' energy/waste in general maybe not.

But we should be infront of this problem and not behind it.

So when there is not enough fuel soon then we suddenly should pull at all sails to change course? Why not pull sooner so you can avoid a crash.

russ.nl
04-22-2006, 04:03 AM
Don't forget that you Americans are spoiled consurning fuel. You guys find it normal that a car would run 15 miles to the galon.

Problem is there is to mutsh power in oil. All great ideas for alternetiv power supplys are bought buy oil componese. And put in a draw. Lets first make as mutsh money on oil as we can.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Slechtvalk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
these alternatives you speak of will naturally come about due to market forces as oil gets more expensive. theres no need for everyone to be chicken little.

For Oil/fuel that is true perhaps in 10 years or so but ''unhealthy'' energy/waste in general maybe not.

But we should be infront of this problem and not behind it.

So when there is not enough fuel soon then we suddenly should pull at all sails to change course? Why not pull sooner so you can avoid a crash. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as oil supply decreases and prices rise, there will be more than enough incentive to come up with alteratives. your seeing it starting to happen right now, there will be nothing sudden about it.

as i said im more concerned with the pollution aspects of oil use, than i am about running out of it.

slipBall
04-22-2006, 04:16 AM
The future is in Hydrogen, a non poluting clean fuel, made from simple tap water. Every home would have a simple converter in the garage producing fuel. You could buy one today, the technology already exist. I'm not sure why this is taking so long to be promoted, and advanced by the goverment's of the world. I think they have to start building some nucular powered hydrogen converter plant's NOW. Why nucular, because you need electricity to seperate the hydrogen from water. It's estimated that the world would have to double it's produced electricity, to support a hydrogen based economy, I say start doing it now. Start building the infrastructure that will be needed

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 05:00 AM
oh maybe i should mention that my original post wasn't just refering to a oil crisis.

global warming is actually the lastest doomsday crisis that gives me the biggest laugh.

well its off to bed for me,after my last remark i expect this thread to probaly be locked by the time i get up.

Lodovik
04-22-2006, 05:15 AM
There are a lot of viable alternatives, and I for one don't believe for a moment that the world's going to end.
The world and world economy especially, however will be in for some big changes and those changes are going to affect everyone of us. There are good odds for there being some nasty wars over oil resources before it all runs dry. As a matter of fact, there allready are oil wars, but hey, we never had any difficulty for finding reasons to fight over the past 2 500 000 million years, right?
The real problems are going to arise from global depression, bushfire wars etc. Though temporary problems from a historical perspective, they are going to happen sooner rather than later. Unfortunately for me, it seems that they'll end up happening when I'm an old enough of a geezer, that I'm unable to protect myself from any Temporary Annoyances(TM).
The way I see it, there's only two alternatives:

1) start cutting on the consumption Right Now,
which I really don't see happening.

2) Go the whole hog and burn the oil now. I mean it. Better that the troubles come when I'm still
somewhat spry and healthy and still able to face them.

Actually, what I'll do next is leave the comp on to leech some more electricity. Lights and other stuff too. I'm going to drive down to the gas station and buy a canisterfull of high octane. Then I'm going to pour it into an old oil barrel in the backyard and light it all up. While it burns I'll dance around it, laughing maniacally (the neighbours won't care, I've told you before).

And I urge You do the same. Burn The Oil. You know it makes sense. You know you want to.
Burn it. BURN IT ALL.

Slechtvalk
04-22-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Lodovik:
There are a lot of viable alternatives, and I for one don't believe for a moment that the world's going to end.
The world and world economy especially, however will be in for some big changes and those changes are going to affect everyone of us. There are good odds for there being some nasty wars over oil resources before it all runs dry. As a matter of fact, there allready are oil wars, but hey, we never had any difficulty for finding reasons to fight over the past 2 500 000 million years, right?
The real problems are going to arise from global depression, bushfire wars etc. Though temporary problems from a historical perspective, they are going to happen sooner rather than later. Unfortunately for me, it seems that they'll end up happening when I'm an old enough of a geezer, that I'm unable to protect myself from any Temporary Annoyances(TM).
The way I see it, there's only two alternatives:

1) start cutting on the consumption Right Now,
which I really don't see happening.

2) Go the whole hog and burn the oil now. I mean it. Better that the troubles come when I'm still
somewhat spry and healthy and still able to face them.

Actually, what I'll do next is leave the comp on to leech some more electricity. Lights and other stuff too. I'm going to drive down to the gas station and buy a canisterfull of high octane. Then I'm going to pour it into an old oil barrel in the backyard and light it all up. While it burns I'll dance around it, laughing maniacally (the neighbours won't care, I've told you before).

And I urge You do the same. Burn The Oil. You know it makes sense. You know you want to.
Burn it. BURN IT ALL.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

WTE_Ibis
04-22-2006, 06:56 AM
If oil keeps going up get ready for hyper- inflation. The price of every commodity will rise and keep rising and as people struggle economically pressure for wage hikes will be unstoppable.
Meanwhile a billion chinese and a similar number of indians will be wanting to buy cars.
Think I'll buy shares in a company that makes masks as we'll all be wearing them as we pedal to work.

Friendly_flyer
04-22-2006, 07:09 AM
Von-Rat has a point: The World is not going to end.

Economic growth is possibly going to end. A few people (particularly in the US, having a very huge economy with a big foreign deficit) are going to have some rough times. Very poor countries will be screwed over again as the battle for resources intensify. Shrewd dictators will make millions while their people starve (like always). All this has happened before, and the world didn't end then either.

Oil isn't going away overnight. It will trickle out, prices going up and up until oil is so expensive virtually no-one uses it for mass consumption any more. By then, someone smart will have started producing bio-fuel (I think Swedish and Californian require a certain gasoline/bio-fuel mix already). Oil industry is going down, the seabirds will once more live relatively safely but the forest animals will have to bear the problems of the new fuel production.

In the end, the World will stagger on, and when LStarosta runs in the street, he'll be run over by cars that just smalls differently from present days cars.

ImpStarDuece
04-22-2006, 07:41 AM
Consider this as well, there are MUCH better things you can do with petrochemicals than simply burning them to produce combustion.

The vast majority of plastics in the world are formed from petrochemicals. While they form a relatively small percentage of the worlds oil consumption (estimates are somewhere between 3 and 9%), they are a continually increasing percentage of consumption.

Deedsundone
04-22-2006, 07:47 AM
Why not just change to a bowl of cereal for breakfast?

WWSensei
04-22-2006, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Y2K was an unkowen factor with computer language

oil reserves are a knowen commodity as is daily pumping , sales , comsuption rates

but by all means , there are thousands sticking their heads in the sands over this issue in every country so dont feel alone in this regard

currently , the whole economic system of developed countrys is built on & run by oil . the whole lot stops without oil

Bull. Y2K issues were completly a known factor--at least by we in the industry. It was far more known and understood than any other potential problem. That's why nothing happened--because it was a completly known and understood problem and lots of people spent lots of time making sure nothing went wrong.

The Press and Media didn't know or understand Y2K and completely, 100% made up the entire hype because sensationalism sells. I know I gave at least 3 interviews describing how Y2K wasn't going to be a problem and my words were actually edited to say something totally different--even crediting me with quotes I never said. I find most journalists to be incredibly ignorant, stupid and bald face liars. Nothing you read in the papers or see on TV is objective. It's all a propaganda campaign on whatever issue the so called "professional reporter" has an agenda about.

Run out of oil? I've been hearing we only 6 months of oil left for nearly 40 years now. I remember being in school and hearing how we were supposed to be in an ice age by 1990, 20 billion people by 1986, out of oil by 1983, the rain forest gone 20 years ago, global warming cooking us alive by 10 years ago and in my opinion it's all bunk made up by people hoping to get donations and/or government grants of money to supposedly study a non-problem.

Either that or a hero complex where they first have to make up a problem and then supposedly save us from it. Y2K was never a problem--they just made it into one because it was convenient. The same sort of computer problem exists today only the new date is 2043 and you know what? It won't be a problem then either. (Brownie points if you know why 2043 is a problem year for computers.)

Global warming scientist is being censored by the American government? Considering he (Professor Mann) has published four books on his so called "hockey-stick", done a talk show circuit or two every year whenever he ready to publish another doomsday book, gets a press conference at the drop of hat and can appear with his story on the BBC, New York Times or LA Times any time he wants I have a hard time believeing he's censored. Want to see censorship? Try getting a interview in the press with the scientists that have proven Mann's global warming studies are a bunch of bunk...

When you hold 4 press conferences in a week complaining you are being censored it sort of lacks credability.

stathem
04-22-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
The future is in Hydrogen, a non poluting clean fuel, made from simple tap water. Every home would have a simple converter in the garage producing fuel. You could buy one today, the technology already exist. I'm not sure why this is taking so long to be promoted, and advanced by the goverment's of the world. I think they have to start building some nucular powered hydrogen converter plant's NOW. Why nucular, because you need electricity to seperate the hydrogen from water. It's estimated that the world would have to double it's produced electricity, to support a hydrogen based economy, I say start doing it now. Start building the infrastructure that will be needed

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

However, currently the only way of producing Hydrgon on an economically equal footing with Hydrocarbons is to crack it from...hydrocarbons.

Price from "well to wheel" to produce it by electrolysis (the sensible option, since it solves the distribution problem) is exorbantant compared with hydrocarbons. Plus with the way today's electricity is produced it's doesn't have a better carbon footprint.

So yes, the only way to do it is to produce electricity by nuclear power, but the cost/benefit analysis of using fisson powerelants doesn't stack either (too costly to build/run c.f. what they produce.)

Other alternative energy forms, (eg wind and waves) are also too expensive, unless there is a major breakthrough in say, Solar energy.

The only way this will be permanantly sorted out is when the Tokamaks come on line - but that will be 40-50 years, minimum. That is where the investment and effort (and that means the whole world working togther) should be.

In the final analysis, it's all down to economics. It's all possible right now (well apart from the fusion), IF we're prepared to pay more. Which, of coarse, if the price of oil spirals once were past teh peak of supply and demand, we may be. So long as the world isn't destroyed in a resource-driven major war.

All of the above is fact, what follows is my speculation.

The hydrogen economy will not be put into force until the current oil companies have nailed down the profits from it's implementation for themselves. On account of them being the ones running the world anyway.

stathem
04-22-2006, 08:33 AM
By the way, for all the people who don't want to give up their big fast oil burning car, consider this...an electric motor gives maximum torque at zero revs. Torque is what makes your heart beat faster when you nail teh throttle.

EiZ0N
04-22-2006, 09:30 AM
People won't know what they've got until it's gone.

People need to stop posing about in their 4x4s and trucks, it's ludicrous.

There's alot of resentment towards the US when it comes to this, and rightly so I think.

Europeans drive more efficient cars to keep their costs down. It's really not very difficult, it's time the US wakes up and sees this as a real looming problem. Just because people have been wrong with giving times of when we run out in the past, doesn't mean we have an unlimited supply. We will run out, and we NEED oil for all sorts of things other than driving our cars. What happens to air transport when we run out of fuel? I'm not sure the hydrogren fuel technology will be able to power aircraft...

People must stop burying their heads in the sand. And stop complaining about $3 per gallon prices, stop diving a 4L car.

Chuck_Older
04-22-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by RAF92_Moser:
We will run out of oil. Experts predict this at 2035. But right now, the pressure is not on supply, but keeping production up with the demand. They simply are not pumping enough. Whether they say they are working there tails to pump the gas as fast as they can, or they are just laying low to let oil prices rise, just depends on their honesty.


I don't know about you...I saw E-85 for about two dollars a gallon just down the road not long ago.


They've been predicting that for years and they keep on bumping up the 'drop dead date' by twenty years

In fact, what they don't let on is that the estimates they had twenty years ago were 'accurate' but they seem to have been wrong

the long and the short of it is that they know as much about when we'll run out as they do about how much we really have- which actually isn't all that much knowledge. There is, according to experts with as much credentials as the oil company experts, as much evidence to say we will run out in 20 years, as there is to say we won't run out for 200 years

All that is, to say: they have evidence based on trends but they don't know much for sure, although they count on you beleiving that they do

Thee's even growing evidence that the term "fossil fuel" is completely erroneous

The oil market sells on speculation, and the same people that set the prices are more or less the ones that speculate on prices. now every year they get record profits, right? So logically, if you speculate on prices and control the prices, why would you bet on NOT having another record year?

The classic 'supply and demand' doesn't really fit in with this scenario, as that classic situation seems to not have much of an effect on oil prices in the real world

Boycotting an oil company at the pumps is always the Big Idea. It'll never work. For one thing, they won't get wind of enough prolonged losses to really see a difference, and for another, oil doesn't get turned into just gasoline. Every plastic product, including many types of wearables, can contain oils

Shortsighted, moral high-grounders that make the government (in the USA) nervous to really deal with the problem are as much to blame as anyone else, and in fact, it makes me SICK that so many folks fell for the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">RED HERRING</span> of the evil automobile as the Judas that sold us out, when it was really big wasteful and knowledgeable industries that did it. They give cars, particularly old (including CLASSIC cars that are usually maintained better than almost ANY brand new car) cars the double whammy: gas guzzler and polluter. My own classic car gets 11 mpg city, 14 highway. I must use super unleaded gas (10,25:1 CR, I shudder to think what alcochol additives will do to it), and the car ws made in Nov, 1969

Now less than 1% (much less than 1%) of the cars on the road in the US (Where does he get that number from? He's been in the old car hobby since 1989, that's where) are older than 20 years, and in the case of a car like mine (which has an engine so clean you could eat off of it, open the hood of the car in your own driveway right now and take a look. My engine looks like the latrine in Full metal Jacket) many cars would have had to be made to replace it- call that 8 cars. Does my car get 8X worse mileage than a new car? No. I don't think even a hybrid gets 88 mpg city. Does it make 8x the pollutants? Impossible...but lets say it did.

What's that compared to the MILLIONS of unregulated lawnmowers, chainsaws, snowblowers, tractors, etc etc that don't need emissions inspection and are BRAND NEW??

Cars got blamed for an energy 'crisis' before, too. And the argument doesn't hold water, And that's not even mentioning what it costs in oil related producst and pollution to just build a new car- from minign the ore to driving the car carrier to the dealership, but oh no, I'm supposed to swallow this hooey that it's old cars being inefficient, when they really want my MIND to be inefficient.

What's my point? As usual, Big Businesses who look concerned and helpful are the ones with the pull, and sh*t rolls downhill. I don't think there's an energy crisis at all. I think it's artificial- just like the one in 1973 was. I think that a lot of execs in a lot of businesses get to do their same-old dame-old irresponsible business, and the little guy- like me, with a hobby, and like you, with kids to feed so the car gets you to work- pay the cost- again. Oil companies are gleefully giving us the short end- and why not? theya re in busines to make a buck. But it seems to me that they have too much of a monopoly and too more clout and too much pull

There's alternative energy out there. the US navy seems to have little trouble with nuclear power. I know a guy who used to be a Nuke. His rad badge showed more radiation when he was on break out on deck, than when he was monitoring the core

major_setback
04-22-2006, 10:32 AM
I misread the title of this thread. I have a serious question. If you Americans call petrol 'gas' then what do you call gas?
My mother's house is heated by gas and she has a gas oven/stove (it doesn't run on petrolium).
I'm just curious, do you call gas 'gas' too?

(She worries about gas prices too).

ploughman
04-22-2006, 10:38 AM
The thing I don't get is...Oil is now $74 a barrel. Even adjusting for inflation and so on, that's an historically expensive barrel of oil. In the 1980s or early 90s oil at that cost would've spun the global economy into meltdown but now, even with prices high for sustained periods, most economies are motoring along just fine. It's like the whole way the global economy works changed in the last 15 years and I didn't notice.

I don't get it. I may have to start reading some more books.

Nice idea on the eggs, it's hard to buck a market though and I don't run a motor but I do love a good omelette.

heywooood
04-22-2006, 10:39 AM
sorry Chuck - but just thinking about all the spent nuclear fuel we already cant deal with makes my badge glow....just what we all need is more radioactive waste. tons more. every year. produced worldwide.

if every building - every home - every rooftop in the US - had a 5 foot square solar panel on it connected to a converter and the grid...we would not need to use oil or coal or nuclear energy for the generation of electricity at all.

and once installed would require only minimal cost for maintanance that could be done without any special tools or training at all.

it would put people to work in the mfg. and istallation of the equipment for years and would show immediate results with dramatic reduction in our dependance on foreign oil - to the point that we would need zero imports within 5 years of implementation.

FPSOLKOR
04-22-2006, 10:45 AM
What if everyone only bought $10.00 worth of gas each time they pulled to the pump. The dealers tanks would stay semi full all the time. The dealers wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the huge tank farms. The tank farms wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the refining plants. And the refining plants wouldn't have room for the oil being off loaded from the huge tankers coming from the Middle East.

Just $10.00 each time you buy gas. Don't fill it up. You may have to stop for gas twice a week but, the price should come down.

Think about it.

As an added note...When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full. The way prices are jumping around, you can buy gas for $2.65 a gallon and then the next morning it can be $2.15. If you have your tank full of $2.65 gas you don't have room for the $2.15 gas. You might not understand the economics of only buying two eggs at a time but, you can't buy cheaper gas if your tank is full of the high priced stuff.

..
Ok, next time i'm gonna fly somewhere i'll tell this to the airline carrier. That is, they are going to have to refuel in mid-atlantic. Besides, just imagine, how much fuel does jet enjine consume... and how much fuel other industries consume. You will eventually pay the same price the other way.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
Y2K was an unkowen factor with computer language

oil reserves are a knowen commodity as is daily pumping , sales , comsuption rates

but by all means , there are thousands sticking their heads in the sands over this issue in every country so dont feel alone in this regard

currently , the whole economic system of developed countrys is built on & run by oil . the whole lot stops without oil

Bull. Y2K issues were completly a known factor--at least by we in the industry. It was far more known and understood than any other potential problem. That's why nothing happened--because it was a completly known and understood problem and lots of people spent lots of time making sure nothing went wrong.

The Press and Media didn't know or understand Y2K and completely, 100% made up the entire hype because sensationalism sells. I know I gave at least 3 interviews describing how Y2K wasn't going to be a problem and my words were actually edited to say something totally different--even crediting me with quotes I never said. I find most journalists to be incredibly ignorant, stupid and bald face liars. Nothing you read in the papers or see on TV is objective. It's all a propaganda campaign on whatever issue the so called "professional reporter" has an agenda about.

Run out of oil? I've been hearing we only 6 months of oil left for nearly 40 years now. I remember being in school and hearing how we were supposed to be in an ice age by 1990, 20 billion people by 1986, out of oil by 1983, the rain forest gone 20 years ago, global warming cooking us alive by 10 years ago and in my opinion it's all bunk made up by people hoping to get donations and/or government grants of money to supposedly study a non-problem.

Either that or a hero complex where they first have to make up a problem and then supposedly save us from it. Y2K was never a problem--they just made it into one because it was convenient. The same sort of computer problem exists today only the new date is 2043 and you know what? It won't be a problem then either. (Brownie points if you know why 2043 is a problem year for computers.)

Global warming scientist is being censored by the American government? Considering he (Professor Mann) has published four books on his so called "hockey-stick", done a talk show circuit or two every year whenever he ready to publish another doomsday book, gets a press conference at the drop of hat and can appear with his story on the BBC, New York Times or LA Times any time he wants I have a hard time believeing he's censored. Want to see censorship? Try getting a interview in the press with the scientists that have proven Mann's global warming studies are a bunch of bunk...

When you hold 4 press conferences in a week complaining you are being censored it sort of lacks credability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GREAT POST sensei.

btw have you read STATE OF FEAR by micheal crithton.



i think there should be a study done on the human psyche and its attraction to doomsday stories. decade after decade its always "the end is near". and theres always plenty of people falling for it. the only thing that ever changes is the cause of the end of the world.

FPSOLKOR
04-22-2006, 10:54 AM
And I urge You do the same. Burn The Oil. You know it makes sense. You know you want to.
Burn it. BURN IT ALL.
I'd suggest bying an Il-2, load it with bombs and go at sea tanker-hunting. The fire is going to be a lot mo buatiful, there would be a lot of people dancing maniacaly around it... and finally, i would get a chance to find out, would modern missile fragments penetrate Il-2 armor?

horseback
04-22-2006, 10:58 AM
misread the title of this thread. I have a serious question. If you Americans call petrol 'gas' then what do you call gas?
My mother's house is heated by gas and she has a gas oven/stove (it doesn't run on petrolium).
I'm just curious, do you call gas 'gas' too?

(She worries about gas prices too). The same way we know the difference between Know and No, principal and principle, etc: context.

We shorten from the base word 'gasoline' rather than from the ungainly 'petrolium' (trust me, it just sounds weird to American ears).

And we call 'gas' gas; sometimes to clarify, we say 'natural gas'.

Chuck was spot on, by the way. The USN has had a near perfect record with nuclear power, and we ought to consider letting the Navy build and run our nuclear power plants, so that military discipline can ensure their security, safety and reliability. In over thirty years of being in and/or working with the Navy, I have yet to meet a Nuke or a submariner I would consider stupid or irresponsible.

cheers

horseback

gkll
04-22-2006, 10:58 AM
Boy we got some real long posts in here from people who don't know what they're talking about. Some of you need to read some more. 3 years ago I was as blissfully misinformed as you. I popped on the net to confirm my happy belief that oil was abiotic and there was an unlimited supply... after about a year I realized that the origin was irrelevant and still is... and that the supply was very very tight and going to get tighter....

And the 'invisible hand' of the marketplace will solve all our ills... don't make me laugh. The high priests of the market gods will warm their hands at the flames of our economies... but when I am an old man it will be obvious that only govts could (have?)organize(d) a response, and the 'science' of the oil growth based economic systesm will have been laid bare, with <the> critical fault being the failure to predict the problem. Sure at a detail level the 'free' market system has a <vital role>, but it doesn't have a brain you see... it can't think and reason.....

And you global warming skeptics, well as a forester I have worked on a task group looking at climate scenarios for my neck of the woods. 9 separate climate models, run under 3 different sets of assumptions for each, for a total of 27 runs, expressed in timeslices of 2020/2050/2080. Best case is distinctly different and has whole biozones moving hundreds of miles. And please note the climate models work quite well, just that the rate might be a bit off with some of the negative feedback kicking in they didn't think of, like melting the permafrost in Siberia and the loss of sea ice, so the predicted rate has been a little under the observed. Could it flip and start cooling again? Possible but highly unlikely, we have the ratchet moving and in the short term (1000 years or so) it is a one way ratchet it appears....

I am despite all of the above fairly hopeful, but not about the next 25 years, those will be rough.

My post date is pretty old so is that of some of you dissenters... I suggest we take up this conversation in about 3 years...... I think the big picture will be coming into focus a little better.....

<and he nips in before the lock...>

airdale1960
04-22-2006, 11:02 AM
"The Lord tells me he can get me out off this mess, but pretty sure you are flocked.
"HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA" Steven-"Braveheart"

slipBall
04-22-2006, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
sorry Chuck - but just thinking about all the spent nuclear fuel we already cant deal with makes my badge glow....just what we all need is more radioactive waste. tons more. every year. produced worldwide.

if every building - every home - every rooftop in the US - had a 5 foot square solar panel on it connected to a converter and the grid...we would not need to use oil or coal or nuclear energy for the generation of electricity at all.

and once installed would require only minimal cost for maintanance that could be done without any special tools or training at all.

it would put people to work in the mfg. and istallation of the equipment for years and would show immediate results with dramatic reduction in our dependance on foreign oil - to the point that we would need zero imports within 5 years of implementation.

Sound's like a logical solution, I suppose storage batteries would be needed for nite time,
how much electricity could a 5x5 panel produce,

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 11:16 AM
lets see the predicted date of oil running out is 2015 i beleive. thats when the world ends right. 9 years from now you guys are going to look a little foolish when the world doesn't end, whether or not were still using oil. ive seen and heard it all before for decades now.

im going to save this thread and burn it to dvd. ill throw it in my closet, and have a good laugh in 9 years.

the predictions in the past for global warming have been wrong, and everytime they say oh but now our models are better. 10 years from now when the current predictions are proven wrong, they'll say the same thing. and people will believe them then to.

Cossack13
04-22-2006, 11:21 AM
Rather ignores the concept of more and more people from other towns buying the eggs at higher and higher prices, doesn't it?

Pity that Economics isn't required reading in High School.

Targ
04-22-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
Y2K was an unkowen factor with computer language

oil reserves are a knowen commodity as is daily pumping , sales , comsuption rates

but by all means , there are thousands sticking their heads in the sands over this issue in every country so dont feel alone in this regard

currently , the whole economic system of developed countrys is built on & run by oil . the whole lot stops without oil

Bull. Y2K issues were completly a known factor--at least by we in the industry. It was far more known and understood than any other potential problem. That's why nothing happened--because it was a completly known and understood problem and lots of people spent lots of time making sure nothing went wrong.

The Press and Media didn't know or understand Y2K and completely, 100% made up the entire hype because sensationalism sells. I know I gave at least 3 interviews describing how Y2K wasn't going to be a problem and my words were actually edited to say something totally different--even crediting me with quotes I never said. I find most journalists to be incredibly ignorant, stupid and bald face liars. Nothing you read in the papers or see on TV is objective. It's all a propaganda campaign on whatever issue the so called "professional reporter" has an agenda about.

Run out of oil? I've been hearing we only 6 months of oil left for nearly 40 years now. I remember being in school and hearing how we were supposed to be in an ice age by 1990, 20 billion people by 1986, out of oil by 1983, the rain forest gone 20 years ago, global warming cooking us alive by 10 years ago and in my opinion it's all bunk made up by people hoping to get donations and/or government grants of money to supposedly study a non-problem.

Either that or a hero complex where they first have to make up a problem and then supposedly save us from it. Y2K was never a problem--they just made it into one because it was convenient. The same sort of computer problem exists today only the new date is 2043 and you know what? It won't be a problem then either. (Brownie points if you know why 2043 is a problem year for computers.)

Global warming scientist is being censored by the American government? Considering he (Professor Mann) has published four books on his so called "hockey-stick", done a talk show circuit or two every year whenever he ready to publish another doomsday book, gets a press conference at the drop of hat and can appear with his story on the BBC, New York Times or LA Times any time he wants I have a hard time believeing he's censored. Want to see censorship? Try getting a interview in the press with the scientists that have proven Mann's global warming studies are a bunch of bunk...

When you hold 4 press conferences in a week complaining you are being censored it sort of lacks credability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GREAT POST sensei.

btw have you read STATE OF FEAR by micheal crithton.



i think there should be a study done on the human psyche and its attraction to doomsday stories. decade after decade its always "the end is near". and theres always plenty of people falling for it. the only thing that ever changes is the cause of the end of the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true, see by now the earth should have 30 billion people on it and no food, vaste wastelands...
PT Barnum was right,lol.
The end is near has been a chant by doom sayers since the beginning of time and that is a known fact.
I live in Alaska and I LOVE the fact that oil is $74.00 a barrel and hope it passes $100.00 a barrel!
I predict in 4.5 billion years the sun will run out of fuel and the end of earth will be certain, mark my words...
For a donation of $200.00 YOU can help prevent this! PM me for my paypal information

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 11:41 AM
So true, see by now the earth should have 30 billion people on it
__________________________________________________



yep i remember the over population scare back in the 60s and early seventies.

the experts back then ignored the even then well known fact that birth rates drop when countrys industrlise.

for crying out loud i read a book written in 1929 that observed that fact. but that incovient fact was ignored by the over population fear mongers.

gkll
04-22-2006, 11:44 AM
Hey Aaron_GT (sic?) I agree I simplified a lot... trying to get the big picture across in soundbites when the reality is quite subtle with more unknowns than I presented. However a quick look at what is needed... we need to start finding another couple of North seas and soon... not that it can't happen, just that the discovery trends are down and have been for several decades. So sure it could happen, but it is somewhat unlikely. I agree with all of the 'things to do' and in fact am doing them to the best of my resources. Geothermal is a great one, especially for Canucks like me looking at a natural gas problem looming up for North America.... especially since those ol' tarsands may suck up the MacKenzie delta gas before it ever gets to my furnace.....

And I predict it will be positively irritating how well some countries weather this... have a look at the Swedes. They have instituted a national discussion about how to get from here (current oil usage) to 25% in (30?) years. The reason is held to be global warming, but the interesting part is where the predicted declines in oil production match the 'goal', that is that may be all the Swedes <can> have... makes me think the unstated driver is as much oil supply as it is global warming. Us North Americans are going to look like a bunch of morons in 20 years....

slipBall
04-22-2006, 11:52 AM
(Brownie points if you know why 2043 is a problem year for computers.)



That's the year when pe 2 will be released, can I have my brownie points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gkll
04-22-2006, 11:55 AM
Get your facts right Von baby. As basic as a prediction as "oils gonna run out in 2015" well it is obvious you have read all your gonna.... 2015 is a 'peak oil' prediction date not a 'run out by' date.... the point at which we have consumed roughly half the oil.... and that 2000 date you read as a youngun... that was probably a peak prediction date from Marion Hubbert, a great american geologist, not a 'run out by' date.

I was, honestly, a sunny optimist. My whole life... And have always been a bigtime skeptic of anything and everything, my own beliefs as well as others... Did I get mentally ill in my middle 40's and suddenly change course? I don't <think> so... ha ha

9 years is a good timeframe Von, I'll take the bet.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Get your facts right Von baby. As basic as a prediction as "oils gonna run out in 2015" well it is obvious you have read all your gonna.... 2015 is a 'peak oil' prediction date not a 'run out by' date.... the point at which we have consumed roughly half the oil.... and that 2000 date you read as a youngun... that was probably a peak prediction date from Marion Hubbert, a great american geologist, not a 'run out by' date.

I was, honestly, a sunny optimist. My whole life... And have always been a bigtime skeptic of anything and everything, my own beliefs as well as others... Did I get mentally ill in my middle 40's and suddenly change course? I don't <think> so... ha ha

9 years is a good timeframe Von, I'll take the bet.



i was quoting one of your fellow beleivers on the 2015 run out date. i myself have stopped reading or beleiving these predictions about 20 years ago.

my beef isn't with the fact that oil is going to run out, of course it eventually will. my problem is with the "end of civilsation" predictions that go with it.


quote:

they are not going to come down

peak oil is being reached right now for some feilds

no large feilds have been found since the 70's

what is discovered each year has been lower than what we suck out of the ground for a couple of decades now

oil reserves that are economical are said to be running out as early as 2015 - but our useage rate increases with every year

what , did you think it was going to last forever ?!?!

Andrew OConnor
04-22-2006, 12:14 PM
burning coal and willow might actually SLOW the effects of Global warming, by releasing tiny, tiny particales into the atmosphere. The same theory is being iused to ty to divert hurricanes, abait not verry well.
By releasing these tiny particals of soot and ask into the atmosphere, they will remain there, suspended by upper winds in atmoshere. Thus, and this is scientific fact, water will build up around these particals, and when these little bits of soot are drawn further up, out of the clouds and up to the very high altitudes, the water freezes, thus creating truillions of tiny tiny reflections, diverting many of the photons back at the sun, dampening down the effects of human made global warming. I belive a similar system, was used by the Soviets in Weapon Experiments, using poly balls.
This goes off at a total tangent to the rest of this thread, but I though, since we were on the topic, what the heck. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
NB, and with coal set to last us another 150 years, and new means of combustion methods, and willow trees in planttions, we will probbably have breathing room to build nuclear reactors and hydrogen power stations. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
04-22-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
sorry Chuck - but just thinking about all the spent nuclear fuel we already cant deal with makes my badge glow....just what we all need is more radioactive waste. tons more. every year. produced worldwide.

if every building - every home - every rooftop in the US - had a 5 foot square solar panel on it connected to a converter and the grid...we would not need to use oil or coal or nuclear energy for the generation of electricity at all.

and once installed would require only minimal cost for maintanance that could be done without any special tools or training at all.

it would put people to work in the mfg. and istallation of the equipment for years and would show immediate results with dramatic reduction in our dependance on foreign oil - to the point that we would need zero imports within 5 years of implementation.

Sound's like a logical solution, I suppose storage batteries would be needed for nite time,
how much electricity could a 5x5 panel produce, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


During winter solstice some battery storage, and some behavioral modification WRT production schedules and lifestyle adjustments...do we need to operate electro-mechanical mfg equipment and home appliances 24hrs a day? A better refridgerator and new l.e.d. lighting (1 watt diodes as opposed to 60watt bulbs make a HUGE difference) will help and its about time -

But the amount of sunlight in just the southwestern region of this country (ie: Ariz. New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Texas and California)would do most of the 'heavy lifting' collectionwise and less than half of the usage

... lol the lightbulb, an archaic device...and the 'new' low energy fluorescent bulbs, hahaha

people looking at cars as a platform for alternative fuels but ignore buildings - stationary and far more oil dependant - are missing the point. Homes and busnesses use way more oil than buicks and chevy's ...and fordfans..

Slechtvalk
04-22-2006, 12:24 PM
Well the USA will get soon bankrupt with this great guy bush in office(they almost at critical 70%, $8.4 Trillion in dept!) from living way beyond their means.

So when they do they will use much much less fuel and again problem solved.

heywooood
04-22-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Slechtvalk:
Well the USA will get soon bankrupt with this great guy bush in office(they almost at critical 70%, $8.4 Trillion in dept!) from living way beyond their means.

So when they do they will use much much less fuel and again problem solved.

oh -heres some gasoline.

thanks *****.

slipBall
04-22-2006, 12:27 PM
I'm not taking a crack at you Andrew, but Global warming is a natural occurance, it happened many time's in the past, followed up by globel cooling in each cycle. The idea that man affect's this outcome is insane. If you added up all the man made affect's on warming, since the stone age. It would not equal one volcanic eruption, everything move's in cycle's, including this earth's weather

shotdownski
04-22-2006, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
lets see the predicted date of oil running out is 2015 i beleive. thats when the world ends right. 9 years from now you guys are going to look a little foolish when the world doesn't end, whether or not were still using oil. ive seen and heard it all before for decades now.

im going to save this thread and burn it to dvd. ill throw it in my closet, and have a good laugh in 9 years.

the predictions in the past for global warming have been wrong, and everytime they say oh but now our models are better. 10 years from now when the current predictions are proven wrong, they'll say the same thing. and people will believe them then to.

Rat,

No one is predicting that "oil will run out", what they're predicting is that cheap oil will run out...the operative word being "cheap".

Lets look at the history of oil production. When the giant and super giant oil fields were first exploited the oil was easy to get (think Spindletop with the oil just spewing out of the ground). As these fields get older and more depleted, it becomes more difficult to extract the oil. Imagine trying to wring the water from a saturated sponge. At first easy, but then you have to work harder and harder to squeeze the water out. You can never get it all, but you have to squeeze awfully hard to get a few drops. Same with underground oil deposits. Those giant oil fields in Texas, Lousiana, and Oklahoma (the ones that contributed so much to the winning of WW II) peaked out in the 1960s or '70s. Since then the amount of oil that's been extracted from those fields has steadily declined.

But you say, new technology will allow the oil companies to squeeze more oil out of these declining fields. Well yes, to a point. But these new technologies aren't free, they cost energy. It takes energy to pressurize an underground deposit. It takes energy to make steam to heat an underground deposit. It takes energy to pump against gravity from deeper and deeper wells. Eventually you reach a point where it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than the energy embodied in the oil itself...a net energy loss! This also applies to oil shale, tar sands, and other crappy petroleum deposits...it takes massive amounts of energy to convert these things into something usuable.

And no, there are not more major oil discoveries to be made. Oil only occurs in particular geological formations and geologists have scoured the globe for a century cataloging them. Believe you me, the oil companies have a pretty good idea of what's left out there. You might note that the major oil companies are branching out into alternatives like solar.

So basically it's taking more and more effort (and time) to extract oil. Soon, very soon (some experts think that we're already there), we reach a point were extraction cannot keep up with demand..."peak oil". This is when oil prices go through the roof and our society is forced to adjust. It could be very ugly if we're not prepared (which we're not).

As for the global warming models you're right, they have been off in the past. They've way underestimated the rate at which climate change is occuring.

heywooood
04-22-2006, 12:44 PM
exactly, shotdownski...already it is cheaper to develop/use alternatives and the best is solar - it is clean and renewable as long as ol' Sol shines down on us.

gasoline is going to be over $5.00 a gallon here by June/July...the oil companies have to maximize profits during those long warm days...we cant have their execs. starving to death or accepting less than 100 million dollar pensions upon retirement.

What will they live on?

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 12:46 PM
Man we in the UK are nearly at 1 a litre. Thats around $1.70 a litre of petrol. About $8 dollars a gallon.

Think yourselves lucky in the US.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 12:46 PM
You might note that the major oil companies are branching out into alternatives like solar.


as i said in my other posts, alternate sources of energy will be develped as oil prices itself out of reach.


i wish i saved a pro global warming story from a newspaper i read last week. that stated how the old global warming models were wrong, but they got it right now. ten years from now we'll be reading the same thing.


also on global warming,,, ive yet to see a satisfactory explaination as to why hundreds of years ago the vikings raised crops and livestock in greenland, but now its much to cold to do so there. how can this be if the earth is getting hotter.

gkll
04-22-2006, 12:52 PM
Not locked yet? Amazing..

Hey Chuck, I have a 1969 Cadillac with a 472, and a 71 340 dart swinger... I am a piston head of the highest order and have been for years... used to race stockcars love big V8s etc etc... doesn't mean a thing. Not relevant now.

I notice we are about even steven on opinions here... however I do note a strong tendency for the Pollyannas to counter argue by trotting out the fringe peak oiler postions, the 'head for the hills' group who <are> looking forward to and making the most dire predictions. Please note that that is not the position of most of the people arguing the 'peak oil' argument.... most of us are saying a rough stretch, starting soon, not the 'end of the world'. The world is subtle and the outcomes are not known, this is a probabilities thing. And yes the climate predictions were wrong... they are under the actual rate of warming. And does it matter if we are to blame? Not really, there is a sound correlation between C02 and other gases and climate, it doesn't have to be proven <causal> before you apply the precautionary principle and start easing off....

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 12:57 PM
the worlds been though rough streahes before, im not losing any sleep over it.

anyway as far as gb goes,,,that still doesn;'t explain greenland and the vikings.

also the rates of warming they say we're getting are affected by the urban heat island effect, which they naturally downplay.

doesn't the precautionary principle, strictly applied, preclude the precautionary principal.

Slechtvalk
04-22-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You might note that the major oil companies are branching out into alternatives like solar.


as i said in my other posts, alternate sources of energy will be develped as oil prices itself out of reach.


i wish i saved a pro global warming story from a newspaper i read last week. that stated how the old global warming models were wrong, but they got it right now. ten years from now we'll be reading the same thing.


also on global warming,,, ive yet to see a satisfactory explaination as to why hundreds of years ago the vikings raised crops and livestock in greenland, but now its much to cold to do so there. how can this be if the earth is getting hotter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They where more advanced, they could grow crops and livestock even in a cold climate! No really this Q is irrelevant and I don't know anything about this particaler matter.

We can't prove anything in a matter. We can for the most part only observe and take notice. Just as predicting the weather, we still suck at that. Ok for tomorrow we know it mostly but the day after it's already 50% harder.

In the 70 and eighties we where entering a cooler period, maybe we still should be in a cooling period but since what we did it has gone the other way.

You know, we just know so little, we only can be wise and smart with what we got and I don't think we are that smart or wise today.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 01:05 PM
the questions hardly irrelvelent. they say the worlds getting hotter. the historical record says differant.

and saying maybe this, or maybe that, is just guessing. hardly good enough reason to panic over.

Slechtvalk
04-22-2006, 01:11 PM
Yea, I mean you can trow lots of things in a river you know, it will wash away.

It's just guesswork how much trash you need for dead fish arriving on the surface. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's not about panicking but change our addiction to this oil already and not wait.

slipBall
04-22-2006, 01:11 PM
heywooood

people looking at cars as a platform for alternative fuels but ignore buildings - stationary and far more oil dependant - are missing the point. Homes and busnesses use way more oil than buicks and chevy's ...and fordfans..

I plan to research what is available right now. I would love to install pannel's, and a Hydrogen boiler for heating. Not sure what's out there, or cost, but I will find out

stathem
04-22-2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
exactly, shotdownski...already it is cheaper to develop/use alternatives and the best is solar - it is clean and renewable as long as ol' Sol shines down on us.

gasoline is going to be over $5.00 a gallon here by June/July...the oil companies have to maximize profits during those long warm days...we cant have their execs. starving to death or accepting less than 100 million dollar pensions upon retirement.

What will they live on?

You might want to consider that current solar energy technology is based on semiconductors and so is in direct competiton with the computer industry for silicon and germanium resources.

In a nutshell it can't currently compete economically with fossil fuels.

Viper2005_
04-22-2006, 01:37 PM
As has been mentioned, petrol is considerably more expensive in the UK than it is in the USA.

Yet people still drive SUVs.

This means that petrol must still be pretty cheap.

If it was expensive, people would take efficiency seriously, and the SUVs would vanish.

A quick google reveals some people who do take fuel economy seriously

http://www.gassavers.org/forum/

anasteksi
04-22-2006, 01:39 PM
you've quite cheap gas.. Here Finland it costs something around 1,38"/l..

Aaron_GT
04-22-2006, 01:40 PM
sorry Chuck - but just thinking about all the spent nuclear fuel we already cant deal with makes my badge glow....just what we all need is more radioactive waste. tons more. every year. produced worldwide.

Reprocessing in fast breeders and then vitrification of the most dangerous waste can deal with a lot of these issues. To be honest the fact that heavy metals are toxic is as much of a problem as the radioactivity.



if every building - every home - every rooftop in the US - had a 5 foot square solar panel on it connected to a converter and the grid...we would not need to use oil or coal or nuclear energy for the generation of electricity at all.


PV cells with currently available technology might not be scalable to this level. Germany is promoting a limited form of this scheme with government subsidy as a way of creating a strong PV cell industry for future export (Germany is the world's largest exporter in $ terms). Current PV cell technology is still quite polluting. My favoured technologies would be 1. Energy efficiency, 2. Solar water heating (more efficient than PV is you need hot water, but it can also be used to generate electricity at lower efficiency) and 3. Small domestic windmills (e.g. www.windsave.com) (http://www.windsave.com)).

lets see the predicted date of oil running out is 2015 i beleive

Von Rat, that is not what is predicted. What is suggested is that there will be a peak in production - i.e. production won't increase although demand from industrialising economies will continue to increase, suggesting a higher price based on supply and demand. Even if production increases if it doesn't keep pace with demand then prices will rise. The point of peak production is variously estimated at being already past (2005) to 2035.

An economy can expand (in general) and use less oil, though. Japan uses less oil now than 30 years ago, despite its economy expanding over that period (ok the late 90s/early 00s weren't kind to the Japanese economy, but overall there was expansion over 30 years).

What does appear to be the case if the last 5 years is anything to go by is that inflation is much less sensitive to oil price than it used to be. It has essentially tripled in that time but inflation has remained moderate. Whether it could triple again and inflation remain at around 3% worldwide I don't know. The World Bank and IMF, though, suggested about a year ago that oil would remain roughly in the $60 bracket for the next 50 years. Goldman Sachs predicts a spike over $100 per barrel should things get messy with Iran, though.

Aaron_GT
04-22-2006, 01:52 PM
ave a look at the Swedes. They have instituted a national discussion about how to get from here (current oil usage) to 25% in (30?) years. The reason is held to be global warming, but the interesting part is where the predicted declines in oil production match the 'goal', that is that may be all the Swedes <can> have... makes me think the unstated driver is as much oil supply as it is global warming.

Another country to look at in terms of energy efficiency is Denmark. Good building codes, and there's an island which is doing an experiment intending to be energy self sufficient by 2010 (e.g. using canola oil for vehicle fuel).


As has been mentioned, petrol is considerably more expensive in the UK than it is in the USA.

Yet people still drive SUVs.

This means that petrol must still be pretty cheap.

It is more that there has also been a huge property boom too and that some people are flush with cash.


Homes and busnesses use way more oil than buicks and chevy's

I don't rememember the figures for consumption but I do recall that US domestic power generation accounts for a little under one sixth of the US's CO2 emissions, and about the same for offices and commercial buildings. Most of the electricty generation is from coal, although heating is sometimes by fuel oil, gas, etc. Ditto cooking. A US building code (voluntary, I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head) suggests energy efficiency measures which add about 2% to the capital cost of an office building but provide energy savings of around 30%, paying back the additional capital cost in typically around 3 years .

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 02:05 PM
ill repeat this as serveral people must have missed it.

i was quoting one of your fellow beleivers on the 2015 run out date. i myself have stopped reading or beleiving these predictions about 20 years ago.

my beef isn't with the fact that oil is going to run out, of course it eventually will. my problem is with the "end of civilsation" predictions that go with it.

crazyivan1970
04-22-2006, 02:05 PM
$3.05 as of this morning for super in NJ. Oh well.

RBroz2
04-22-2006, 04:13 PM
You fellows are mostly right ... if "market forces" were allowed to operate. But .. in the case of "gas" prices you have a situation where the oil industry has cornered the market on an essential item and can set the prices as they wish ... they know we cannot get along very well without what they have. The only solutions are for governments to break up the monopoly and allow "market forces" again gain control. Currently this is not very likely in the good old U.S of A, considering the investments the oil industry has in our WhiteHouse, our Congress and Judiciary. But ... there is a little ray of hope on the horizon ... the upcoming elections in November of this year ... I hope all voters will remember the current oil gouge and those representatives that have allowed it to go on and vote accordingly.

gkll
04-22-2006, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:

doesn't the precautionary principle, strictly applied, preclude the precautionary principal.

Hey there - sorry I was rude earlier, bit over the top. Don't get what you mean by the above.... the economic risk you mean?

Believe me I have become a real student of this warming thing, it could be rough. A dissection of the claim that the predictions have all been wrong was interesting. Actually the base predictions (made around the turn of the (19th to 20th) century that is) have turned out pretty much spot on. And the warming is more than predicted, not less. Could it be a 'blip', part of the natural range of variation? Yes. But it is not likely. Probability is, that it is real, and is here now.

ytareh
04-22-2006, 05:14 PM
2 Points ....Did any of you guys see Syriana with George Clooney and Matt Damon recently.....this issue is a lot more political/financial and less environmental-It seems to me the environmental lobby is in serious decline .
I honeymooned in Boston/Cape Cod this summer and drove a hire car which was what we in Europe would call a Ford Focus.I almost had to beg the girl at the rental kiosk to let us have such a "stripped to the bone" car(It had aircon for God sakes!!!)(It was a 2.4 or 2.6 litre engined car running on 85/87 octane with an auto transmission .It was undoubtedly (a lot?)slower ,less fuel efficient and handled worse than a 1.4 litre european equivalent Ford Focus running on 95 octane.....

LStarosta
04-22-2006, 05:24 PM
http://www.shoemall.com/assets/product_images/612396L.jpg

100cal/mile

WarWolfe_1
04-22-2006, 05:28 PM
I wanted to repost this to make sure folks saw it. PASSS IT ALONG!!!!! I can not stress that enough. Something has to change, drive less, buy a car that requries less fuel, Do what ever it takes. We fund terrorizim every time we buy fuel. We can make a change but it has to start here and now!


Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I wanted to repost this to make sure folks saw it. PASSS IT ALONG!!!!! I can not stress that enough. Something has to change, drive less, buy a car that requries less fuel, Do what ever it takes. We fund terrorizim every time we buy fuel. We can make a change but it has to start here and now!

Something I got today........THIS IS NOT POLITICAL!!!! Please don't make this a flame war, just pass it on to others.

Something to think about if nothing else.
A man eats two eggs each morning for breakfast. When he goes to the grocery store he pays 60 cents a dozen. Since a dozen eggs won't last a week he normally buys two dozens at a time.

One day while buying eggs he notices that the price has risen to 72 cents. The next time he buys groceries, eggs are .76 cents a dozen. When asked to explain the price of eggs the store owner says, "the price has gone up and I have to raise my price accordingly".

This store buys 100 dozen eggs a day. I checked around for a better price and all the distributors have raised their prices. The distributors have begun to buy from the huge egg farms. The small egg farms have been driven out of business.

The huge egg farms sells 100,000 dozen eggs a day to distributors. With no competition, they can set the price as they see fit. The distributors then have to raise their prices to the grocery stores. And on and on and on. As the man kept buying eggs the price kept going up. He saw the big egg trucks delivering 100 dozen eggs each day. Nothing changed there.

He checked out the huge egg farms and found they were selling 100,000 dozen eggs to the distributors daily. Nothing had changed but the price of eggs.

Then week before Thanksgiving the price of eggs shot up to $1.00 a dozen. Again he asked the grocery owner why and was told, "cakes and baking for the holiday". The huge egg farmers know there will be a lot of baking going on and more eggs will be used. Hence, the price of eggs goes up. Expect the same thing at Christmas and other times when family cooking, baking, etc. happen.

This pattern continues until the price of eggs is 2.00 a dozen. The man says,"there must be something we can do about the price of eggs".

He starts talking to all the people in his town and they decide to stop buying eggs. This didn't work because everyone needed eggs. Finally, the man suggested only buying what you need.

He ate 2 eggs a day. On the way home from work he would stop at the grocery and buy two eggs. Everyone in town started buying 2 or 3 eggs a day.

The grocery store owner began complaining that he had too many eggs in his cooler. He told the distributor that he didn't need any eggs. Maybe wouldn't need any all week.

The distributor had eggs piling up at his warehouse. He told the huge egg farms that he didn't have any room for eggs would not need any for at least two weeks.

At the egg farm, the chickens just kept on laying eggs.

To relieve the pressure, the huge egg farm told the distributor that they could buy the eggs at a lower price. The distributor said, " I don't have the room for the %$&^*&% eggs even if they were free".

The distributor told the grocery store owner that he would lower the price of the eggs if the store would start buying again. The grocery store owner said, "I don't have room for more eggs. The customers are only buy 2 or 3 eggs at a time". "Now if you were to drop the price of eggs back down to the original price, the customers would start buying by the dozen again".

The distributors sent that proposal to the huge egg farmers. They liked the price they were getting for their eggs but, them chickens just kept on laying.

Finally, the egg farmers lowered the price of their eggs. But only a few cents. The customers still bought 2 or 3 eggs at a time. They said, "when the price of eggs gets down to where it was before, we will start buying by the dozen."

Slowly the price of eggs started dropping. The distributors had to slash their prices to make room for the eggs coming from the egg farmers. The egg farmers cut their prices because the distributors wouldn't buy at a higher price than they were selling eggs for.

Anyway, they had full warehouses and wouldn't need eggs for quite a while.

And them chickens kept on laying.

Eventually, the egg farmers cut their prices because they were throwing away eggs they couldn't sell. The distributors started buying again because the eggs were priced to where the stores could afford to sell them at the lower price.

And the customers starting buying by the dozen again.

Now, transpose this analogy to the gasoline industry.

What if everyone only bought $10.00 worth of gas each time they pulled to the pump. The dealers tanks would stay semi full all the time. The dealers wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the huge tank farms. The tank farms wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the refining plants. And the refining plants wouldn't have room for the oil being off loaded from the huge tankers coming from the Middle East.

Just $10.00 each time you buy gas. Don't fill it up. You may have to stop for gas twice a week but, the price should come down.

Think about it.

As an added note...When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full. The way prices are jumping around, you can buy gas for $2.65 a gallon and then the next morning it can be $2.15. If you have your tank full of $2.65 gas you don't have room for the $2.15 gas. You might not understand the economics of only buying two eggs at a time but, you can't buy cheaper gas if your tank is full of the high priced stuff.

Also, don't buy anything else at the gas station, don't give them any more of your hard earned money than what you spend on gas, until the prices come down..

BaldieJr
04-22-2006, 05:36 PM
I'm prepared to pay $10 / gal for regular gas.

Targ
04-22-2006, 05:45 PM
Like I said, paypal me $250.00 US and I shall fix all of your problems.
The sun has less fuel than the last time I mentioned this and it is not going to get any better...
Trust me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
04-22-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the historical record says differant. actually the "historical records" of global tempurates have the past 100 years gaing more heat faster than any other time in history - its not just a "natural variation" . there is no evidence to show it has ever happened before

i did not state that oil will run out by 2015 - thats when economic feilds are expected to start finishing , already peak oil is being reached on smaller feilds & peak oil is expected globally on all feilds in the next 2 years

so far tar sands are not economic but even at current useage rates thay wont last past 2060 . useage rates go up quaterly

developed nations economy's are built on , operated & run by oil . not just money value being tied to it but also its use

SkyChimp
04-22-2006, 07:27 PM
Actually, the United States has been quite clever (probably unintentionally) conserving its own oil, or "oil." The US is a net importer of oil despite the fact that it holds arguably the largest oil reserves in the world - by some estimates as large, or larger, that the combined proven conventional reserves of all other countries combined. Experts agree that the US has huge "unproven" deposits of conventional oil. In addition, it has some 1.5 trillion barrels in oil shale that has yet to be tapped due to the high cost of recovery. As oil prices rise, demand increases on our government to "do something," even to the extent of loosening environmental controls so that oil exploration can begin again in earnest, so that known oil reserves can be tapped - including shale, and so that companies can increase their refining capacities. I think we'll have to endure a few more dollars per gallon before anything serious happenes, but it will eventually.

mortoma
04-22-2006, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
People won't know what they've got until it's gone.

People need to stop posing about in their 4x4s and trucks, it's ludicrous.

There's alot of resentment towards the US when it comes to this, and rightly so I think.

Europeans drive more efficient cars to keep their costs down. It's really not very difficult, it's time the US wakes up and sees this as a real looming problem. Just because people have been wrong with giving times of when we run out in the past, doesn't mean we have an unlimited supply. We will run out, and we NEED oil for all sorts of things other than driving our cars. What happens to air transport when we run out of fuel? I'm not sure the hydrogren fuel technology will be able to power aircraft...

People must stop burying their heads in the sand. And stop complaining about $3 per gallon prices, stop diving a 4L car. I drive a tiny Honda civic that gets 45 MPG on the highway and I am complaining about $3 per gallon as much as the people who drive guzzlers!! After all $2 per gallon is still cheaper for us who drive fuel efficient cars than $3 per gallon!! Use youre logic. Am I supposed not care if the price went up to $5 per gallon, just because my car gets better than average fuel economy?? It's all relative. I would rather the price stay low too, just like everybody. I have less money to spend on other things when gas prices go through the roof, just the same as everybody else.

So your logic is faulty in that sense. Even if my car got 200 MPG, I'd still be unhappy about high gas prices and have less money to spend on other stuff than otherwise.

BoCfuss
04-22-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the historical record says differant. actually the "historical records" of global tempurates have the past 100 years gaing more heat faster than any other time in history - its not just a "natural variation" . there is no evidence to show it has ever happened before

i did not state that oil will run out by 2015 - thats when economic feilds are expected to start finishing , already peak oil is being reached on smaller feilds & peak oil is expected globally on all feilds in the next 2 years

so far tar sands are not economic but even at current useage rates thay wont last past 2060 . useage rates go up quaterly

developed nations economy's are built on , operated & run by oil . not just money value being tied to it but also its use </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not convinced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opin...6/04/09/ixworld.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html)

panzerd18
04-22-2006, 09:40 PM
I'm going to buy a nuclear powered car which will teach the big oil men a lesson!

steve_v
04-22-2006, 09:45 PM
heres where I fill up


http://home.earthlink.net/~viner45/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/coldbeer.jpg

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 10:33 PM
i still haven't seen anybody explain the vikings and greenland. if the worlds getting hotter how come today greenlands to cold to raise crops or livestock like the vikings did hundreds of years ago. this is in the historical record.

also did you know the sahara desert is shrinking, and it has been since the 1980s. you would think that if the worlds getting hotter a desert as big as the sahara would grow.

also even pro global warmers admit the us is cooler now than it was in the 1930s.

as i stated before,,, last week in a pro global warming story in the newspaper, pro global warmers admitted their old models were wrong, but their new models are now correct. yeah right.

finally for experts who say that the tempeture in the last 100 years has risen. they are cherry picking the data, and are minimizing or not taking into account at all the urban heat island effect.

panther3485
04-22-2006, 10:58 PM
Are all arid deserts around the World shrinking?

Panther3485

partic_3
04-22-2006, 11:24 PM
Sorry, couldn't read the whole thread but wanted to make the point that the oil price leap at the moment is inflation, not the lack of supply. The world has had negative interest rates for too long and therefore massive money supply increase and now we are all going to have to endure the mess. Is it peak copper and gold and corn and soy beans as well? Nup, it's economy destroying inflation. Bye bye US dollar. And heaven knows how many currencies...

fordfan25
04-22-2006, 11:31 PM
maby we should get raaaid to rig up some kinda plasma physics reactor that can creat free energy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Von_Rat
04-23-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Are all arid deserts around the World shrinking?

Panther3485

good question, i dunno. maybe someone here does.

since the sahara is one of the largest, if not the largest, i think its significant that its shrinking.

Aaron_GT
04-23-2006, 12:43 AM
I'm not convinced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opin...6/04/09/ixworld.html
[/quote]

This weekend is cooler than last weekend. Therefore I can claim that summer will not arrive, right?

In any case the premise of the Telegraph article is wrong given that monitoring indicates that globally 2005 was hotter than 1998.

Aaron_GT
04-23-2006, 12:52 AM
also did you know the sahara desert is shrinking, and it has been since the 1980s. you would think that if the worlds getting hotter a desert as big as the sahara would grow.

This is one of the things predicted by current climate models, that is a change in rainfall patterns towards the immediate southern Sarahan belt but away from the tip of Africa. The southern Sahara is experiencing increased rainfall but the Kalahari is expanding as rainfall has dropped by as much as 10% from the 20th century average in that region.


i still haven't seen anybody explain the vikings and greenland. if the worlds getting hotter how come today greenlands to cold to raise crops or livestock like the vikings did hundreds of years ago. this is in the historical record.

Actually it is possible to grow crops in Greenland today. From 900-1200 there was a natural variation towards higher temperatures before temperatures went down below the average up to about 1850. The Viking technology was unable to support life in this colder period. From 1850-1940 global temperature increased back to the average. From 1940-80 there was again a small cooling. There has been rapid warming from 1980 onwards that is beyond what is suggested by the fossil record based on the accepted interpretation of this. About one third of this warming is accounted for by sun forcing (increased warming by the Sun). The remainder could be due to natural variations but many models suggest that greenhouse gas forcings explain the changes better. It's still a subject of debate, of course, as science is a debate.

What is comes down to, though, is whether it is economically worth doing something about the emissions, even if the case is only 90% proven, or not. If you are tackling the issue from an energy efficiency perspective, though, the effects of tackling the potential problem could actually be beneficial for the economy. An example is energy efficient office building design. There is an additional 2% capital cost which repays itself via 30% energy savings within 3 years. After that the building is cheaper to run and this would be of a competitive benefit to a company in that building as costs would be lower. Also some of the ideas used (e.g. greater use of natural light) seem to boost productivity.

Going back to a horse-drawn society would be a mistake, but there are a whole range of approaches that can be looked at which are of benefit to the economy and boost efficiency and don't lead to a reduction in living standards. And some of these are happening already - the energy efficiency of fridges and freezers has improved greatly without wrecking the economy or making people poorer. It's a case of applying the same logic to fuel efficiency in cars, improved insulation and other technologies in houses, etc. As energy costs rise then there will be more of a stimulus to some of these things.

Von_Rat
04-23-2006, 01:35 AM
can you grow the same crops in greenland today as the vikings did, using viking techniques. the studys ive read on greenland say no. the bottom line is its still colder in greenland than it was back then.


as for the sahara,,
you say current climate models right.

the sahara has been shrinking since the 80s, predicting it shrinking, with models made after the fact, isn't very convincing.

the so called rapid warming since 1980 is also open to debate, the sources ive read say that experts who claim this are under estimating or ignoring the urban heat island effect.


i totally agree with your last paragraph.

Andrew OConnor
04-23-2006, 03:21 AM
SlipBall - yeah, I agree that we are only to balme for a few percent of Global Warming, probbably less than that, and that when we enter another cooling cycle, we will only have effected it by less than a degree, but this cooling thing - his does not actually efect the atmosphere directly as a result of reflecting radient heat, rather photons, and eventuality that had never, (I belive) happened beforehand. The atmosphere dynamics will change, it is coined global cooling as a nifty opposite to warming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This cooling my halt the warming, but, without aid of the natural cycles, it will not actually cool the planet. as opposed to natural cycles, this is startling, as it shows just how finley balanced the globe is.

slipBall
04-23-2006, 03:38 AM
The earth is in a warm up cycle, but it started 12,000 year's ago. During those year's there have been tiny spike's up in temperature,(Viking's growing crop's in Greenland) and spike's down in temperature (George Washington fighting ice in the Delaware River). It's normal and all part of a natural cycle. Tiny insignificant man can't slow it, or stop it, or prevent the inevitable cool down that is to follow. Instead of worrying about a warm up, (because we have been in one since the last time a glacier was in Central Park) I would worry about the coming glacier's that will strip the land clean, right down to bed rock, and wipe all of our beloved computer's away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Orheim
04-23-2006, 03:48 AM
There is quite a difference to shove you head down in the sand (well why not im Sahara then) and mutter a tantra, "there is no grrenhouse effect, there is no greenhouse effect, I can polute as much as I want, I can polute as much as I want... uhhhhu hahha ahummmmmmm *here you might turn your eyes around showing only the whites*


.. and to actually be concerned... In my book I cant BELIEVE how ANYONE do not realize the risk and repercussions of how we trear our planet....

The exact nature of a greenhouse climate change is highly uncertain. Anyone who tells you that Russia will be better off with a global warming, or that the Midwest will dry up, or that there will be more rain in the Sahara, is going well beyond what scientists know. Just which places on the planet will be hotter, colder, wetter, or drier is still a matter of controversy. (The scoffers like to "disprove" the greenhouse effect by showing that a single place -- like the continental USA -- has cooled lately. Those data, derived from just a small percentage of the earth's surface, are irrelevant to the global picture.)

slipBall
04-23-2006, 03:54 AM
You are ignoring billion's of years of earth history. We must look at the big picture

F19_Orheim
04-23-2006, 04:03 AM
well we agree to disagree, for me you look at a very small picture, your immediate need of gas, disregarding the effects.

slipBall
04-23-2006, 04:10 AM
I'm all for moving to a hydrogen fuel economy, the sooner, the better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

gkll
04-23-2006, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Actually, the United States has been quite clever (probably unintentionally) conserving its own oil, or "oil." The US is a net importer of oil despite the fact that it holds arguably the largest oil reserves in the world - by some estimates as large, or larger, that the combined proven conventional reserves of all other countries combined. Experts agree that the US has huge "unproven" deposits of conventional oil. In addition, it has some 1.5 trillion barrels in oil shale that has yet to be tapped due to the high cost of recovery. As oil prices rise, demand increases on our government to "do something," even to the extent of loosening environmental controls so that oil exploration can begin again in earnest, so that known oil reserves can be tapped - including shale, and so that companies can increase their refining capacities. I think we'll have to endure a few more dollars per gallon before anything serious happenes, but it will eventually.

The US lower 48 has been in decline on conventional oil production since the early 70's. It is never going back up to these levels, ever. Future discoveries <are> assumed in the supply models, opinions differ on rates of new discovery, but in the US there will never be another west texas, those are all found. Just facts guy. Or rather probabilities... there could be a Saudi Arabia worth of oil found unexpectedly, just the probability is exceedingly low. The great Prudhoe bay field of the 80's is also over the top, and was not enough to get production back up to that of the early 70's.

The oil shale has some promise, but like the oilsands up here in Canada, it will be difficult to do more than long steady production at a modest rate, and furthermore it is even closer to the margin on 'energy in' to get 'energy out', it is barely positive, barely. Some say it is negative... and that energy has to come from somewhere. Recall that there is plenty of oil left in the West Texas field, however we <will> stop pumping when it takes more than a barrel of oil in to get a barrel out... you can leverage this if your <other> source of e is somehow 'free' but fusion is not here yet.

Hey, long run things could work out pretty nice... just the next couple 3 decades are not looking so good for the north american style of living, we will be forced to cut fuel use, there will be no choice. As I said elsewhere I am a real piston head with a big ol badass caddy and a stockcar parked in the barn... it was hard for me to realize this may not be the future, at all.

airdale1960
04-23-2006, 05:48 AM
The US has an obesity problem, let's kill two birds with one stone. Bicycles, ride bicycles! And if you live further, move in closer. Burns fat, and protects the environment. Get the rail system back in shape for transport. Big Oil will be forced to find an alternative to the internal combustion engine, it has been around for 100's of years in basically the same state, Pistons, shaft, gears and wheels. Aircraft also, just the thrust to weight ratio has changed, and the way the thrust is generated, but, it is still props/fins and fuel.

ploughman
04-23-2006, 06:06 AM
I don't own a car at the moment and haven't had one since 2000. I live in the middle of a town near a city near a really big city and I get by no worries. It's a bit of a drag sometimes, you can't just leap in the motor and go to the coast when the mood descends upon you and picking up bulky items takes real planning and you'd be amazed at how unimpressed railway personnel are by people showing up with arm chairs to board their trains.

Not having a car and relying on public transport does limit your options a little but then everything's a trade off. I weigh 2 stone less now than I did when I had a car even with quitting smoking. On the other hand, not having a car isn't going to save me from expensive oil in the long run as virtually everything about the way we live, from mechanised agriculture to last minute delivery systems to plastics and chemicals and so on rely on oil.

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 06:29 AM
WarWolfe_1:
When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full.


Wow, do you drive a solar powered car? i thought yankees had 6 litre gas guzzling engines.

in UK $10=5, which is less than 5 litres of petrol. that gets me around 15 miles round trip in the car if im lucky.

also, petrol station dont accept card payments for 5 because of transaction charge of about 1, so you would have to pay with cash and and visit petrol station every time you go out.

i usually buy third of a tank at 20 - $40.

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I'm prepared to pay $10 / gal for regular gas.

That is about the same as UK price.

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
$3.05 as of this morning for super in NJ. Oh well.

wow buy as much as they have!, if they havent run out, i bet theyres queues for miles.

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
I'm not taking a crack at you Andrew, but Global warming is a natural occurance, it happened many time's in the past, followed up by globel cooling in each cycle. The idea that man affect's this outcome is insane. If you added up all the man made affect's on warming, since the stone age. It would not equal one volcanic eruption, everything move's in cycle's, including this earth's weather

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
the prediction that i go along with which was on horizon tv documentary was that some scientists believe the savannas on the edge of the amazon basin, biggest in the world will entually become so dry they catch fire. Currently there hasnt been rain in so many years they beleive a tiny spark could set off the biggest fire in mankinds history right there. The carbon sink for the planet (amazon jungle as it adjoins the plains) will burn and the release of carbon will be huge, this will make the seas boil, ice melt, amazon provides something like 20% of world oxygen and of course this will be lost, etc..... etc... apparently, the scientists had discovered layers in the earths crust which show that we are due an ice age in the next 50-80 years. its just an earth cycle, greenhouse gases they say have just shortened it a few more years, nothing major.

wish i could find something on the net about this now, it was a really cool documentary.

slipBall
04-23-2006, 07:29 AM
shrike_UK

the prediction that i go along with which was on horizon tv documentary was that some scientists believe the savannas on the edge of the amazon basin, biggest in the world will entually become so dry they catch fire

Over time there have been many huge event's (Yellowstone Park blowing up for example) Man's role in introducing contaminants's to the environment pale's in comparison to mother nature awesome ability to saturate this planet with toxen's, in one catastrophic event

Taylortony
04-23-2006, 07:42 AM
It'll all come right in the end...... we might be not here but the planet will heal itself again..........

I for one am a great believer in LandFill...... you might ask why, but at this moment in time I firmly believe we do not have the resources or technology available to process plastics etc but by shoving them in a dirty big hole they will like oil today become a source for future generations to extract and reuse when the technology has caught up...

As for all this cr*p you hear in the news about pollution free electric cars etc........... that is the biggest bullsh*t I have ever heard, you are still burning something somewhere to produce the "clean" electricity to run your wind up car..................


As for petrol prices, here in the UK it is one of the most expensive, me, I fill the tank once a month and that does me for a month ( Toyota MR2) mind you i dont do many miles, work is only about 2 miles from home......... I chose it that way so I get a lie in in the morns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do feel a lot of the "Experts" in here on climantology are no doubt basing their premise on having seen both Ice Age 1 and 2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Taylortony
04-23-2006, 08:06 AM
JOKE EMAILED TO ME

I went into the 7-11 gas station today and
asked for five dollars worth of gas.
The clerk farted and gave me a receipt.

Aaron_GT
04-23-2006, 09:17 AM
that is the biggest bullsh*t I have ever heard, you are still burning something somewhere to produce the "clean" electricity to run your wind up car


Some people do things like putting PV cells on their roofs, or windmills, and charge up electric cars from that. The elevtricity could also be derived from wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, or tidal. It is still not oil-free, though, as there will still be oil involved in the processes to make the car, the PV cells, windmill, etc. But if the overall oil consumption, over the lifetime of the car and the systems used to power it is less than an efficient petroleum based propulsion system it's a win. It's all about doing an analysis of all the inputs involved. The same goes for canola oil 'diesel' - it can be done, but you have to take into account any fossil fuel inputs into the growing, the effect that you'd have devoting the required land to canola production, and so on.

One interesting factoid (culled from Natural Capitalism, which is a good read) is that cars are actually about 1 or 2% efficient in that the essential requirement for a car for most journeys (apart from transporting stuff from Ikea to your house) is moving people from point A to B. But most of the energy used is in thermal inefficiencies in the engine and in moving the CAR from point A to point B. Cars are rather inefficient from a total systems point of view. Hence a German company is producing a two seater car (looks a bit like an Audi TT) that is lightweight and uses a very efficient diesel that can apparently manage 190 mpg (UK gallons - probably about 150 miles per US gallon). Whether electric cars from a total system point of view could match this I don't know. This car isn't due to be available for another couple of years, though, and I can't remember the name of the manufacturer either.

nearmiss
04-23-2006, 12:39 PM
The internal combustion engine is archaic. Politics and greedy special interests have kept the internal combustion engine "DOG" alive way past it's time.

Politicians are going to keep the Internal combustion engine until the absolute end. They'll push for any kind of fuel that will keep this dog alive.

The rotating engine in aircraft is now and always has been more reliable and efficient than the inline internal combustion engine.

I don't have a solution, but it's going to take some hard measures to depose the special interest groups hanging onto the internal combustion engine and Oil as fuel.

It's doubtful if anything is going to happen in America. The politicians pay little or no attention to their voters anymore. They get elected and do whatever they want to do. Heck, they create laws in America they don't even plan to enforce, i.e. the immigration laws.

Most world governments are run by dark ages political mentality. The world is too fast and sophisticated for a bunch of political BS artists typical for 200 years ago. The politicians promises and BS just aren't getting it done. It's going to take new thinking and action to make governments time sensitive in our fast paced world.

Indentity theft is raging in America and the politicians haven't a clue of what to do. The cops are too busy doing what they like best...chasing the guys they get to rough up or otherwise hassle. Intelligent cops sitting behind keyboards could solve more abusive and expensive crimes right now than all the head bangers on the streets.

I was filling the tank of my SUV and I had to tell my wife to turn off the motor... it was gaining on me.

JG5_UnKle
04-23-2006, 01:11 PM
There are plenty of great things to do with oil other than burn it.

Once the world works that out then we'll be on to a winner.

Looks like Peak Oil is on the way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

nearmiss
04-23-2006, 01:41 PM
It is interesting to me that oil prices are lower in US than most other developed countries almost half less.

When gas prices reach $6.00 per gallon in the US we'll begin to see more intelligence automobile usage. Everyone will be raising heck about gas prices and the news media will pump the fool out of it for ratings. I dread the thought of all that whining and complaining. It's tough enough reading the patch whining on these boards. LOL

We have HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes on our freeways in America, which are dedicated for only motorcycles and vehicles with 2 or more passengers. The cops strictly enfore the usage with expensive tickets. When I drive the freeways it always interests me to see how many vehicles only have one person in them. I could care less about the HOV vs single passenger vehicles arguments. I think it is kind of a shame there is so much waste. By waste I mean all those six+ passenger vehicles with one person in them.

Years ago the Messershmitt company developed a kind of Tri-wheel automobile that allowed for two passengers. One in front and one behind. This vehicle was very gas conservative, but failed as a sellable vehicle.

I wouldn't have driven one because any accident with a standard sized American car at that time would have probably been your death.

They say with the current demand vs supply we'll be in a dire enegy crisis by 2009. I guess I should be grateful I can make a living from banging on the keyboard and doing business over a broad band connection.

Aimosika
04-23-2006, 02:03 PM
Well just filled my tank and the price was $1.678 a liter. Here in Finland.

fordfan25
04-23-2006, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Shrike_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
WarWolfe_1:
When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full.


Wow, do you drive a solar powered car? i thought yankees had 6 litre gas guzzling engines.

in UK $10=5, which is less than 5 litres of petrol. that gets me around 15 miles round trip in the car if im lucky.

also, petrol station dont accept card payments for 5 because of transaction charge of about 1, so you would have to pay with cash and and visit petrol station every time you go out.

i usually buy third of a tank at 20 - $40. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> "i thought yankees had 6 litre gas guzzling engines." thats because like many you have no idea what your talking about in that area
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WWSensei
04-23-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the historical record says differant. actually the "historical records" of global tempurates have the past 100 years gaing more heat faster than any other time in history - its not just a "natural variation" . there is no evidence to show it has ever happened before

i did not state that oil will run out by 2015 - thats when economic feilds are expected to start finishing , already peak oil is being reached on smaller feilds & peak oil is expected globally on all feilds in the next 2 years

so far tar sands are not economic but even at current useage rates thay wont last past 2060 . useage rates go up quaterly

developed nations economy's are built on , operated & run by oil . not just money value being tied to it but also its use </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight. Every "global warming" computer model and the so called "historical records" of increasing temperature is based on the infamous Mann study and his supposed "hockey stick" of increasing temperatures in the last 150 years.

It's been waived as the indisputable bible of global warming alarmists for several years now.

Only, it was discovered that Mann and his partner conveniently tossed out data that didn't completely adhere to their hypothesis. It was primarily based on the assumption of tree ring growth thickness to global temperature.

In a counter paper several scientists took completely random data and applied the same statistical analysis Mann used.

Guess what they got? A Hockey stick. On completely random and unrelated data sets. The infamous "temperatures are rising since man became industrialized" trend is a result of the statistical method used and not of the actual data.

In other words, the very core of most if not all of the computer models and global warming predications is based on the work of a scientist who simply discarded data that didn't fit his pre-determined solution. Mann set out to find global warming proof and by god come hell or high water (and maybe toss out anything that didn't agree) and he got it!

Climate experts still can't accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now but we are suppose to completely trash economies (and doing far more harm to civilization in the process) because they think they can model it accurately 50 years out?

Bull.

The modern environmental movement has been co-opted by political activists with an agenda. The founder of Greenpeace even quit over the political bent of the movement.

nearmiss
04-23-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the historical record says differant. actually the "historical records" of global tempurates have the past 100 years gaing more heat faster than any other time in history - its not just a "natural variation" . there is no evidence to show it has ever happened before

i did not state that oil will run out by 2015 - thats when economic feilds are expected to start finishing , already peak oil is being reached on smaller feilds & peak oil is expected globally on all feilds in the next 2 years

so far tar sands are not economic but even at current useage rates thay wont last past 2060 . useage rates go up quaterly

developed nations economy's are built on , operated & run by oil . not just money value being tied to it but also its use </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight. Every "global warming" computer model and the so called "historical records" of increasing temperature is based on the infamous Mann study and his supposed "hockey stick" of increasing temperatures in the last 150 years.

It's been waived as the indisputable bible of global warming alarmists for several years now.

Only, it was discovered that Mann and his partner conveniently tossed out data that didn't completely adhere to their hypothesis. It was primarily based on the assumption of tree ring growth thickness to global temperature.

In a counter paper several scientists took completely random data and applied the same statistical analysis Mann used.

Guess what they got? A Hockey stick. On completely random and unrelated data sets. The infamous "temperatures are rising since man became industrialized" trend is a result of the statistical method used and not of the actual data.

In other words, the very core of most if not all of the computer models and global warming predications is based on the work of a scientist who simply discarded data that didn't fit his pre-determined solution. Mann set out to find global warming proof and by god come hell or high water (and maybe toss out anything that didn't agree) and he got it!

Climate experts still can't accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now but we are suppose to completely trash economies (and doing far more harm to civilization in the process) because they think they can model it accurately 50 years out?

Bull.

The modern environmental movement has been co-opted by political activists with an agenda. The founder of Greenpeace even quit over the political bent of the movement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Scientists and Academics have to keep the money pipeline flowing or their work and all their ideas just "kaput".

Inevitably, they end up creating additional nonsense from nonsense to continue their work.

Copperhead310th
04-23-2006, 04:57 PM
here's part of the problem this month with the gas prices.

http://cagle.com/news/GasGoingUp/images2/mackay.jpg

ImpStarDuece
04-23-2006, 06:04 PM
And what if some ofthe non-OPEC oil producing nations of the world (Russia, Iran, Venezuala, Chad, Malaysia, Ecuador) decide that they no longer want the US $ to be the basic currency of oil exchange, but switch to the Euro? Not likely, but between US sabre rattling about Iran and South American dissasifaction with power imbalances in trade, its becoming more and more possible.

World demand for oil doesn't change, world supply of oil doesn't change. However, the price of gasoline for the US relative to the rest of the world undergoes a farily sharp rebalance as companies have to purchase Euros instead of US dollars in order to purchase 60% of the worlds oil and the foreign currency market undergoes a sudden shift. This would have an indirect effect of making oil more expensive for the US to purchase.

Remember that US gasoline prices are among the lowest of any nation in the world.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4020/cndnoilprices7om.gif

slipBall
04-23-2006, 06:11 PM
Most of those higher pump price's because of different national fuel taxes. The U.S. dos'nt have high federal fuel taxes, local taxes, well that's another story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif so if you look at the graft, 5 of the 8 nation's' pay less for fuel, than the U.S. But their taxes are insane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Why do you let your goverment's impose such high taxes, that's just amazing taxes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Taylortony
04-23-2006, 06:12 PM
Iran is not the problem.............

Let me tell you a story, its a sort of Pelican Brief scenario, there is a well documented theory, which was backed up by a TV documentary in the UK as to why this is the case...

In the days of old when oil was mainly produced in the USA it was sold in Dollars...

Now along comes the Saudis having discovered oil and the USA not wanting to loose it's market share asks the Saudi Royal family if they will sell their oil in Dollars... the House of Saud agrees to this on the understanding that the US will support and defend their country, as the Sauds are the major producer OPEC falls inline behind them...

Now as all oil is bought and sold in the Dollar the natural place for Saudi to keep this money is in American bank, this they do and up to 80% of all oil revenues of the Country are banked at I believe it was the First National Bank.... this money is then used to provide cheap loans to the US population and prop up the economy...


Now it is a win, win, situation for the US... If the USA requires more Oil all they have to do is print Oil Dollars to purchase the Oil and this they do, hence the cheap price of gas in the US , this money also flows back into the US bank account of Saudi and again is used to drive the US Economy along.............

Things are now going sweetly, Say Mr America goes out and buys himself a nice little Japanese car in the USA, the money partially for the cheap loan comes from this Dollar pot and is paid to say Honda in Japan, Japan then uses these Dollars to purchase their oil supplies and that Money is then of course returned to the American Bank... Additionally any fuel requirement of the US Government or Military etc can simply be purchased by the expediancy of printing paper money to pay for it, therefore the pot gets bigger and the economy grows......

Now this is where it all starts to go awry, The American economy is now so tightly entwined with the Oil Dollar they have to protect this at all costs as this upwardly spiralling situation is so interdependant that if the oil dollar collapses the economy and the countries growth would falter and crash like never before as well...

Ok now we come to Little Old Saddam........ not a nice chap and of that we all agree, But when the Oil embargo starts to bite along comes a middle man who tells Saddam, hey look, you can only produce and sell 35,000,000 barrels of oil as things stand of which 25,000,000 are being purchased by the USA. Now if you start to sell this oil in Euro's with the exchange rate as it stands, you will instantly earn an extra 17% profit on every barrel you sell................ Hmmmm Good idea, ok so Iraq starts sell oil in Euro's.........

Good news for Iraq, not that the people saw it, Bad news for the USA, they can't print Euro's only Dollars and have no means of generating the funds to purchase the oil without the economy collapsing...
so what to do, well we know, they invade, because of all the nasty weapons that Saddam has or at least was supposed to have and oust Saddam.... What you may ask is the first thing they do after the successful taking of Iraq... well they change Iraq's policy of selling their Oil in Euros back to Dollars even though it means the country has lost 17% of their oil revenues instantly...............

Ok back to Iran, Iran having watched the success of Iraqs policy of selling Oil in Euros sees the advantages and instead of selling their Oil in Dollars on the US stock exchange decide to set up their own exchange and sell in Euros.............. Saud looks on with interest and expresses an interest to Iran to also trade some of their Oil supplies in Euros on the Iranian market............. That is why the US is now turning her might towards Iran, not because of any other reason, but to protect the Oil Dollar for without it the USA will be short of fuel without the means to pay for it, the economy will collapse into megga recession and the military budget that is supported by the Oil Dollar will collapse and the military forces of the US globally will virtually cease in a way that the USSR did........


Now before all you jump down my throat and especially all the Americans shouting I am pro this pro that anti this and anti that, I am just trying to put accross what the programme was putting forward as a reason for the second invasion of Iraq and the escallation of tension with Iran............. and you have to admit it is a pretty powerful and convincing theory backed with a lot of solid facts....... well I thought it was.


I do sometimes wish for the coldwar back.... At least then the USA could not simply walk into other peoples countries without risking a nuclear war over it......... Like it or not the USSR was a damn good stabilising force..... and that was not a bad thing...

slipBall
04-23-2006, 06:40 PM
If we were taxed that way here, there would be another Revolution http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

slipBall
04-23-2006, 06:42 PM
Some country's cost are almost 2/3 tax, crazy!

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
JOKE EMAILED TO ME

I went into the 7-11 gas station today and
asked for five dollars worth of gas.
The clerk farted and gave me a receipt.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p1ngu666
04-23-2006, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
If we were taxed that way here, there would be another Revolution http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the high taxes are to make us europeans use less fuel, hopefully..

many would revolt if someone other than winner of the election ended up leading the country http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

africa has suddenly become more important, politicaly, some places in africa have alot of oil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the problem is the world is based on something which is pretty much finate, new oil is being made, but really slowly...

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
Iran is not the problem.............

Let me tell you a story, its a sort of Pelican Brief scenario,...... ..


nice post, i can see the stance now too. very interesting. think i'll look into this further http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Particularily the bit about exchanges, as im an ex banker.

found something related already...
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=9752

btw a 'bourse' is an exchange, like the old Deutsche Termin Bourse (DTB) pre-Euro.

and this link shows the new IOB being built, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm

"Numerous economists have expressed optimism about Iran€s ambitions, saying that the impact of the Iran oil bourse on the American dollar€"and U.S. economy could be worse than Iran launching a €œdirect nuclear attack.€ -Al Jazeera

sorry i have to laugh, the thought of americans buying petrol for $2 a litre. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

oh and bloomberg are saying this...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/markets/currencies.html
which kinda falls in line

Takata_
04-23-2006, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Why do you let your goverment's impose such high taxes, that's just amazing taxes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Because we are used to it. They are supposed to use such taxes to do things for us too. Then, peoples try to save on their own energy consumption (no crazy engined stuff around here).
S~
Takata.

nearmiss
04-23-2006, 07:39 PM
taylortony

There all kinds of speculations about any hot topics, especially international topics. There are all kinds of logical arguments promoted.

I've heard radio broadcasters in America indicating the reason American politicians aren't enforcing immigration laws is for secret reasons.

One popular broadcaster insists the political agenda is to assimilate Mexico and South America into the US. This would give America a huge reservoir of cheap labor and all those countries are very rich in natural resources.

Making those countries part of America would make the US a viable entity in the so-called world economy for another 200 years.

The United States of the Americas one guy put it.

I can believe that guy or another, because there is a broadcast right behind him with a similarly strange viewpoint.

What you indicated in your post was interesting. It just seems the more logical and understandable things seem to be, they rarely are.

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by nearmiss:
taylortony

I've heard radio broadcasters in America indicating the reason American politicians aren't enforcing immigration laws is for secret reasons.

One popular broadcaster insists the political agenda is to assimilate Mexico and South America into the US. This would give America a huge reservoir of cheap labor and all those countries are very rich in natural resources.

Making those countries part of America would make the US a viable entity in the so-called world economy for another 200 years.

The United States of the Americas one guy put it.


or maybe not??....

"One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush's 'axis of evil'.

A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered to the OPEC heads of state the report of the 'International Seminar on the Future of Energy', a conference called by Chavez earlier that year to examine the future supplies of both fossil and renewable energies. One of the two key recommendations of the report was that 'OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers'5, i.e. OPEC should avoid using both the dollar and the euro for many transactions.
"
source...
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

mexico will only join US if US clears Latin American Debt. Mexico needs a reason to join US. US will have to weigh the price of clearing Latin American Debt verses the gain in natural resources.

I hope OPEC say they want to use GBP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

partic_10
04-23-2006, 08:13 PM
Regarding Taylortony's post, re-arrange the letters "nail the on head hit that the".
The only thing you need to know about the bizarre behaviour of the world economy is that inflation is 7%-10% all around the "West". The 2-odd percent figure is a deliberate falsehood designed to let the current credit-expansion based false boom go on for a little bit longer. Inevitably the end result is going to be the worst economic "correction" any of us have ever seen, unless there are people here who were alive in the '30s.

Shrike_UK
04-23-2006, 08:27 PM
i think i need to check the expiry of my discount rate mortgage before the rates go through the roof. might be worth getting a remortgage at the nearest hint of trouble.

ImpStarDuece
04-23-2006, 08:28 PM
Hardly.

Most inflation rates for developed nations (OECD and the like), viewed through purchasing power parity and the consumer price index, hover between 1% and 4%. Inflation for developing nations generally higher, usually on the order of 3-7%.

International inflation rates, and particularly those of developend nations, are generally lower than the historic norm at the moment. If you consider the fact that during the boom period in the mid 1980, OECD inflation was at 4-6%, then current upwards trends are not much to be worried about. There was even a sustained period in the late 1970s and early 1980s where international inflation was above 10%, and it stayed above 6% from 1973 all the way through to 1982.

The 'inflation boom' that had some economists so worried a few years ago hasn't materialsied. Inflation has increased certainly, but effective monetary plicy instruments have generally kept it in check. Its simply part of the natural cycle that capitalist economies go through.

A.K.Davis
04-23-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Do the words ANWAR and 'offshore drilling' ring a bell?

Are you aware that your congress passed laws requiring many parts of the country to use a different mix of gasoline for different times of the year, or that the 'environmentalists' and NIMBYs have caused dozens of refineries and oil fields in the US to close and practically ended the use of nuclear power or coal for producing electricity in the last thirty years? Did you know that something like 45% of your gasoline costs are taxes and government fees? Toss in the cost of government regulation and petty bureaucratic interference, and government accounts for two thirds the cost of your gallon of fuel...

On top of that, there are a lot more people buying cars in China, and they are competing with you for the fuel supplies (and their government has no compunctions about using whatever powers they have to persuade an oil company to give them first dibs...).

And you wonder why the cost of a commodity that everyone uses has gone up?

cheers

horseback

Hi. I work in an oil company. Well, sort of. Anyways, this post is chock full of steaming BS.

In fact, I don't even have to read the thread to know it's already up to your necks. Hope you brought a big spoon.

Please continue.

Dew-Claw
04-23-2006, 10:21 PM
Think about it.

As an added note...When I buy $10.00 worth of gas,that leaves my tank a little under half full. The way prices are jumping around, you can buy gas for $2.65 a gallon and then the next morning it can be $2.15. If you have your tank full of $2.65 gas you don't have room for the $2.15 gas. You might not understand the economics of only buying two eggs at a time but, you can't buy cheaper gas if your tank is full of the high priced stuff.

Also, don't buy anything else at the gas station, don't give them any more of your hard earned money than what you spend on gas, until the prices come down..

Eggs are perishable and go rotten after a couple of weeks.
oil today is oil in 100 million years.
I'd just sit on my supply untill everyone said ok, I need it, I'll pay your price.
easy if I own all the oil, and you NEED it.

partic_10
04-24-2006, 01:18 AM
ImpStarDuece, you are quoting the official line there. Are you aware that if you measure inflation the way it was done in the Eighties the US is currently running at about 7.7% inflation? The current housing boom and commodities boom, including oil, are both symptoms of inflation. Price increases are a symptom of inflation, not inflation itself. Inflation is an excessive increase in money supply, generally brought about by a lack of interest rate and lending regulation discipline. The scary thing is, the last time inflation rose its ugly head Volcker could raise interest rates until it was mopped up. Poor Bernanke doesn't have that option because the highly indebted US consumer and government will choke on even a 1% rise. But if he doesn't raise interest rates the "twin deficits" will cause foreign capital, $2 billion a day of which is required to support the US current account deficit, will go eslewhere. The truth is that the world economy is in big trouble and the oil price, not to mention gold and silver, are symptoms of this, not causes.

Friendly_flyer
04-24-2006, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Some country's cost are almost 2/3 tax, crazy!

Nah, we get free health care, kindergardens and a decent public transport system. In a country (like US) we would have to pay for those our selves. All in all the money is going out of our pockets in bout cases, it's just a question of who is the middle man.

Von_Rat
04-24-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
Iran is not the problem.............

Let me tell you a story, its a sort of Pelican Brief scenario, there is a well documented theory, which was backed up by a TV documentary in the UK as to why this is the case...

In the days of old when oil was mainly produced in the USA it was sold in Dollars...

Now along comes the Saudis having discovered oil and the USA not wanting to loose it's market share asks the Saudi Royal family if they will sell their oil in Dollars... the House of Saud agrees to this on the understanding that the US will support and defend their country, as the Sauds are the major producer OPEC falls inline behind them...

Now as all oil is bought and sold in the Dollar the natural place for Saudi to keep this money is in American bank, this they do and up to 80% of all oil revenues of the Country are banked at I believe it was the First National Bank.... this money is then used to provide cheap loans to the US population and prop up the economy...


Now it is a win, win, situation for the US... If the USA requires more Oil all they have to do is print Oil Dollars to purchase the Oil and this they do, hence the cheap price of gas in the US , this money also flows back into the US bank account of Saudi and again is used to drive the US Economy along.............

Things are now going sweetly, Say Mr America goes out and buys himself a nice little Japanese car in the USA, the money partially for the cheap loan comes from this Dollar pot and is paid to say Honda in Japan, Japan then uses these Dollars to purchase their oil supplies and that Money is then of course returned to the American Bank... Additionally any fuel requirement of the US Government or Military etc can simply be purchased by the expediancy of printing paper money to pay for it, therefore the pot gets bigger and the economy grows......

Now this is where it all starts to go awry, The American economy is now so tightly entwined with the Oil Dollar they have to protect this at all costs as this upwardly spiralling situation is so interdependant that if the oil dollar collapses the economy and the countries growth would falter and crash like never before as well...

Ok now we come to Little Old Saddam........ not a nice chap and of that we all agree, But when the Oil embargo starts to bite along comes a middle man who tells Saddam, hey look, you can only produce and sell 35,000,000 barrels of oil as things stand of which 25,000,000 are being purchased by the USA. Now if you start to sell this oil in Euro's with the exchange rate as it stands, you will instantly earn an extra 17% profit on every barrel you sell................ Hmmmm Good idea, ok so Iraq starts sell oil in Euro's.........

Good news for Iraq, not that the people saw it, Bad news for the USA, they can't print Euro's only Dollars and have no means of generating the funds to purchase the oil without the economy collapsing...
so what to do, well we know, they invade, because of all the nasty weapons that Saddam has or at least was supposed to have and oust Saddam.... What you may ask is the first thing they do after the successful taking of Iraq... well they change Iraq's policy of selling their Oil in Euros back to Dollars even though it means the country has lost 17% of their oil revenues instantly...............

Ok back to Iran, Iran having watched the success of Iraqs policy of selling Oil in Euros sees the advantages and instead of selling their Oil in Dollars on the US stock exchange decide to set up their own exchange and sell in Euros.............. Saud looks on with interest and expresses an interest to Iran to also trade some of their Oil supplies in Euros on the Iranian market............. That is why the US is now turning her might towards Iran, not because of any other reason, but to protect the Oil Dollar for without it the USA will be short of fuel without the means to pay for it, the economy will collapse into megga recession and the military budget that is supported by the Oil Dollar will collapse and the military forces of the US globally will virtually cease in a way that the USSR did........


Now before all you jump down my throat and especially all the Americans shouting I am pro this pro that anti this and anti that, I am just trying to put accross what the programme was putting forward as a reason for the second invasion of Iraq and the escallation of tension with Iran............. and you have to admit it is a pretty powerful and convincing theory backed with a lot of solid facts....... well I thought it was.


I do sometimes wish for the coldwar back.... At least then the USA could not simply walk into other peoples countries without risking a nuclear war over it......... Like it or not the USSR was a damn good stabilising force..... and that was not a bad thing...


its in nobodys interest to see the US ecomony collaspe. not europes and not opecs. its not even in irans interest, but who knows if their leaders care.


btw it seems to me that the old ussr did quite a bit of "simply walking into other peoples countrys". i might be biased but i think most countrys if they had to chose who to be occupied by, would chose the us over the ussr. lol. the germans at the end of ww2 made it very clear who they prefered. not that i support occupying anybody, just making a point.

i guess nobody remembers the us not wanting to get involed in the balkans, but many european countrys stated they wouldn't do anything without the us doing something. even though it was in their backyard and they were crying somthing hadf to be done about ethic cleansing etc.

rhawandas another one. the us didnt intervene there,i.e. not wanting to "simply walk into other peoples country". and now theres nothing but critisium for the us not intervening.

i for one im tired of it, im rapidly turning into a neo isolationist. let other countrys kill each other as much as they want. just leave us out of it, and don't come crying for help when the next hitler or stalin shows up.

some will say the us only intervenes for oil, not lives. well i say they gotta sell their oil, they can't eat it. we should just buy our oil from whatever murderous thug is running the show and forget about it. other countrys seem to have no problem doing this.

pettera
04-24-2006, 02:17 AM
The simple reason for the high crude oil price is twofold: China and India. These two megacountries have a dramatic economical growth that will hopefully remain for maybe 50 years. The oil supply of the world is unable to meet the new demands. There is very little to do about that except look for other energy sources. Gas, coal and nuclear power are unfortunately the cheapest alternatives.

US and Canada have chosen to have oil prices at the level of most underdeveloped countries. This has made Hummer an ordinary car in the US whereas it is considered a car for weirdoes in Western Europe. This is a political choice that gives cheap private transportation but also brings US and Canada to the top of energy consumption per capita - by far.

The rise in crude oilprice has minor effect on private lives in Western Europe since we are used to high oil price and have adapted to it. I guess most US and Canadian citizens will have to adapt to smaller cars and less air condition in the future.

Did you know that the largest oilfield in the world is in Canada? It is the tar sands of Athabasca and is becoming economical viable with the high oilprices.

By the way do you know who are the three largest oil exporters on the planet? Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway. (Norway used to be second, before Russia has put its act together the last 10 years).

Aaron_GT
04-24-2006, 02:33 AM
Posted Sun April 23 2006 17:04
And what if some ofthe non-OPEC oil producing nations of the world (Russia, Iran, Venezuala, Chad, Malaysia, Ecuador) decide that they no longer want the US $ to be the basic currency of oil exchange, but switch to the Euro?


This shift to Euros is already happening. The Euro is currently being seen as less vulnerable to devaluation as European national debts are lower. Whilst the US economy has strong growth it is still seen as somewhat vulnerable. Apparently for the same reasons drug barons are also turning to the Euro.


Why do you let your goverment's impose such high taxes, that's just amazing taxes

The taxes were mostly applied after the oil shock of 1973 as a way of discouraging oil use such that in the future the economy would be less dependent on oil and less vulnerable to changes in its price, plus it allows the governments to (in theory) hold down price rises by cutting the tax. The governments are somewhat addicted to the revenue now, but the principle does hold - per unit GDP the US is the most oil dependent nation of the G8, and UK the least. Also the car fleets of the countries with higher taxes are on average much more efficient in the USA. Basically the car market here responded to the markets being rigged by the governments via taxes, but this isn't without long term benefits.


i guess nobody remembers the us not wanting to get involed in the balkans, but many european countrys stated they wouldn't do anything without the us doing something.

Quite a few European nations were there, pretty much from the beginning. There were big contingents from France, UK, The Netherlands, and Ukraine, and probably others.

huggy87
04-24-2006, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
Iran is not the problem.............

Let me tell you a story, its a sort of Pelican Brief scenario, there is a well documented theory, which was backed up by a TV documentary in the UK as to why this is the case...

In the days of old when oil was mainly produced in the USA it was sold in Dollars...

Now along comes the Saudis having discovered oil and the USA not wanting to loose it's market share asks the Saudi Royal family if they will sell their oil in Dollars... the House of Saud agrees to this on the understanding that the US will support and defend their country, as the Sauds are the major producer OPEC falls inline behind them...

Now as all oil is bought and sold in the Dollar the natural place for Saudi to keep this money is in American bank, this they do and up to 80% of all oil revenues of the Country are banked at I believe it was the First National Bank.... this money is then used to provide cheap loans to the US population and prop up the economy...


Now it is a win, win, situation for the US... If the USA requires more Oil all they have to do is print Oil Dollars to purchase the Oil and this they do, hence the cheap price of gas in the US , this money also flows back into the US bank account of Saudi and again is used to drive the US Economy along.............

Things are now going sweetly, Say Mr America goes out and buys himself a nice little Japanese car in the USA, the money partially for the cheap loan comes from this Dollar pot and is paid to say Honda in Japan, Japan then uses these Dollars to purchase their oil supplies and that Money is then of course returned to the American Bank... Additionally any fuel requirement of the US Government or Military etc can simply be purchased by the expediancy of printing paper money to pay for it, therefore the pot gets bigger and the economy grows......

Now this is where it all starts to go awry, The American economy is now so tightly entwined with the Oil Dollar they have to protect this at all costs as this upwardly spiralling situation is so interdependant that if the oil dollar collapses the economy and the countries growth would falter and crash like never before as well...

Ok now we come to Little Old Saddam........ not a nice chap and of that we all agree, But when the Oil embargo starts to bite along comes a middle man who tells Saddam, hey look, you can only produce and sell 35,000,000 barrels of oil as things stand of which 25,000,000 are being purchased by the USA. Now if you start to sell this oil in Euro's with the exchange rate as it stands, you will instantly earn an extra 17% profit on every barrel you sell................ Hmmmm Good idea, ok so Iraq starts sell oil in Euro's.........

Good news for Iraq, not that the people saw it, Bad news for the USA, they can't print Euro's only Dollars and have no means of generating the funds to purchase the oil without the economy collapsing...
so what to do, well we know, they invade, because of all the nasty weapons that Saddam has or at least was supposed to have and oust Saddam.... What you may ask is the first thing they do after the successful taking of Iraq... well they change Iraq's policy of selling their Oil in Euros back to Dollars even though it means the country has lost 17% of their oil revenues instantly...............

Ok back to Iran, Iran having watched the success of Iraqs policy of selling Oil in Euros sees the advantages and instead of selling their Oil in Dollars on the US stock exchange decide to set up their own exchange and sell in Euros.............. Saud looks on with interest and expresses an interest to Iran to also trade some of their Oil supplies in Euros on the Iranian market............. That is why the US is now turning her might towards Iran, not because of any other reason, but to protect the Oil Dollar for without it the USA will be short of fuel without the means to pay for it, the economy will collapse into megga recession and the military budget that is supported by the Oil Dollar will collapse and the military forces of the US globally will virtually cease in a way that the USSR did........


Now before all you jump down my throat and especially all the Americans shouting I am pro this pro that anti this and anti that, I am just trying to put accross what the programme was putting forward as a reason for the second invasion of Iraq and the escallation of tension with Iran............. and you have to admit it is a pretty powerful and convincing theory backed with a lot of solid facts....... well I thought it was.


I do sometimes wish for the coldwar back.... At least then the USA could not simply walk into other peoples countries without risking a nuclear war over it......... Like it or not the USSR was a damn good stabilising force..... and that was not a bad thing...

You've been watching too much Micheal Moore. My government is not smart enough to be so nefarious. BTW, regarding your last comment, didn't you Brits go marching in shoulder to shoulder with us. My first mission into Iraq was escorting british aircraft. If you really want to criticize marching into other nations maybe you should start with your own.

Von_Rat
04-24-2006, 02:42 AM
Quite a few European nations were there, pretty much from the beginning. There were big contingents from France, UK, The Netherlands, and Ukraine, and probably others


yes very true. but my point was the us didnt want to get involved, the europeans pressured us to. and it took them quite awhile before we finally agreed. meanwhile the killing went on.

why did they wait for the us. as you said they had big contigents from the beginning, when there finally was intervention. why didnt they just handle it, so the us wouldn't have to "simply walk into other peoples country" as another poster put it.

slipBall
04-24-2006, 03:56 AM
quote:
Why do you let your goverment's impose such high taxes, that's just amazing taxes

Aaron_GT

The taxes were mostly applied after the oil shock of 1973 as a way of discouraging oil use such that in the future the economy would be less dependent on oil and less vulnerable to changes in its price, plus it allows the governments to (in theory) hold down price rises by cutting the tax. The governments are somewhat addicted to the revenue now, but the principle does hold - per unit GDP the US is the most oil dependent nation of the G8, and UK the least. Also the car fleets of the countries with higher taxes are on average much more efficient in the USA. Basically the car market here responded to the markets being rigged by the governments via taxes, but this isn't without long term benefits.

You Europeans seem to be comfortable with the high fuel taxes. So, who am I to judge. Just a bit of a shock for me, I had no idea that they were that high

pettera
04-24-2006, 05:31 AM
You Europeans seem to be comfortable with the high fuel taxes. So, who am I to judge. Just a bit of a shock for me, I had no idea that they were that high

In Norway, which has a fairly high tax on gasoline, the gasoline consumption is on average 3% of the living costs. It is a big political issue here as well but in reality it doesn't really matter compared to changes in interest on your loans, change of work, the cost of a new car etc.

So a high or low price is always relative to something. Seen from Europe, US and Canadian oil prices are ridiculously low and it seems odd to complain about the rise the last years. But, of course if you are used to very low prices then it is hard to adjust to a new reality in a short time.

Taylortony
04-24-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:


You've been watching too much Micheal Moore. My government is not smart enough to be so nefarious. BTW, regarding your last comment, didn't you Brits go marching in shoulder to shoulder with us. My first mission into Iraq was escorting british aircraft. If you really want to criticize marching into other nations maybe you should start with your own.

Yes we did and as pointed out earlier so did the USSR and I for one agree with you, that was not the point I was trying to get across, the one I was making was at this present time their is not a major opposing power that could in all honesty turn round and say no you cannot do that, when the Soviet Union was at its strength you had to think twice about whose country you decided to holiday in, the same was true for the Soviets, if they decided to walk into a major oil producing state for what ever reason we would have been at defcon 2........ works both ways, there was an uneasy truce.........

Von_Rat
04-24-2006, 06:12 AM
id rather not go back to a cold war. i don't think anybody really enjoyed having the fate of the entire world hanging in the balance everytime usa and ussr got peeved at each other.

as much as alot people dislike whats going on now, the present situation has to be preferable to having most of the peoples in this world lives depending on whether some old men in washington or moscow lost their cool.

DoubleTap2005A
04-24-2006, 08:15 AM
Yes we did and as pointed out earlier so did the USSR and I for one agree with you, that was not the point I was trying to get across, the one I was making was at this present time their is not a major opposing power that could in all honesty turn round and say no you cannot do that, when the Soviet Union was at its strength you had to think twice about whose country you decided to holiday in, the same was true for the Soviets, if they decided to walk into a major oil producing state for what ever reason we would have been at defcon 2........ works both ways, there was an uneasy truce.........

Well, I feel the need to point out that the price we paid for that was the perpetual threat of a third world war with nukes and hundreds of millions of people living in a police state.

I am continually amazed at people who make harsh judgements on US policy, while seeming to accept the nature of truly authoritarian, expansionist regimes as a matter of course. The line of reasoning here seems to be, "Yes, the Soviet Union may have been a oppressive, expansionist police state with the deaths of 10's of millions on its hands, but at least they kept those dangerous Americans from attacking third-world dictators."

I think criticizing US policy is just dandy, I do some of it myself from time to time. I just think that fair criticism needs perspective and basic fairness.


Getting back to original topic, let's look at some comparisons:

1 Gallon (128 ounces) of Gas US Average = $2.78
1 Gallon of Milk = $2.89
96 Ounces of Orange Juice = $2.99
1 Vente (16oz) Chai Latter = $4.12
1 Gallon of Brand Name Soda = $2.00-2.58

*I used the average price for gas, and sale prices (when appropriate) for the other items. Also added tax for those items which have them.

Now, the first item on the list has to be pulled miles below the ground and/or the ocean hundreds or thousands of miles away, transported to a tanker, shipped to a refinery, refined into gas, transported to a gas station over hundreds of miles away.

Milk is pulled from a cow above ground, pasteurized, packaged and shipped a hundred miles, maybe.

Oranges are removed from a tree, again from above ground, squeezed, packaged and ship perhaps several hundred miles.

Chai...Well, not sure where Chai comes from, but dammit, it's $4.12 for freakin' 16ozs for Cripes Sake!

Soda is water from the general supply, sugar imported from the Caribbean or South America, and chemicals. It is usually bottled within a few hundred miles of its sale, if not closer.

All of the above (except the gas) taste really good, and at least two have some substantial nutritional value.

The gas powers my Jeep which gets me to work (okay, the train station); to my home; to my family and friends; to a vacation; to the store to buy the milk; OJ,;soda; to the hospital, etc.

Again, just a matter of perspective...

p1ngu666
04-24-2006, 08:37 AM
oil is still pretty cheap in that comparison http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

btw, the average meal in the west, say a sunday lunch, will have on average traveled around the world once http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


I am continually amazed at people who make harsh judgements on US policy, while seeming to accept the nature of truly authoritarian, expansionist regimes as a matter of course. The line of reasoning here seems to be, "Yes, the United states of america may have been a oppressive, expansionist police state with the deaths of 10's of millions on its hands, but damn, they made good tv.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its all a matter of your point of view. its like vietnam and afganistan, who cares really if there communist or not, econimicaly there tiny.

and we have fewer rights than back in the cold war, and atleast then i could respect the leaders. cmon, whats bush compaired to kennidy? blair is pretty damn dodgy too.

oh, and certain oil companies are RAKING in the profits, its the odd way there setup. the company that sells u the oil direct makes very little, normaly. but the company that produces that oil for the distributer, well there raking it in.

Friendly_flyer
04-24-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
All of the above (except the gas) taste really good, and at least two have some substantial nutritional value.

Great post!

Von_Rat
04-24-2006, 09:36 AM
I am continually amazed at people who make harsh judgements on US policy, while seeming to accept the nature of truly authoritarian, expansionist regimes as a matter of course. The line of reasoning here seems to be, "Yes, the Soviet Union may have been a oppressive, expansionist police state with the deaths of 10's of millions on its hands, but at least they kept those dangerous Americans from attacking third-world dictators."


GREAT POST

p1ngu666
04-24-2006, 09:43 AM
nice post count von_rat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
04-24-2006, 09:45 AM
LOL I NOTICED THAT TO....


doooh,,,, now i ruined it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Snow_Wolf_
04-24-2006, 09:48 AM
so how many poeple here still got a 5.7L Hemi .......looking forward to that new 6.1L

WOLFMondo
04-24-2006, 09:57 AM
Bite the bullet. Buy a 1.5ltr hatch back and ditch the SUV's.


Originally posted by pettera:
The simple reason for the high crude oil price is twofold: China and India.

The reason for high oil prices is the middle east and the problems there. Its got nothing to do with India or China, steel and coal prices yes. Just watch the price of crude right now as Iran is having issues with the security council. Look at oil prices during the lead up and the actual Iraq war and the previous Gulf war. Oil prices are tied to the middle eastern states. In times of peace there stable, in times of war they are unstable.

DoubleTap2005A
04-24-2006, 10:18 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its all a matter of your point of view. its like vietnam and afganistan, who cares really if there communist or not, econimicaly there tiny.

Well, for one, I think the people who actually live there care. From our perpective, it does not matter very much, at least in the short run, but for those who have to live under a communist government, its quite oppressive. Downright inhuman, actually, when you total it all up.

Just a thought...

dbuff
04-24-2006, 10:39 AM
egg to oil analogy - very nice except oil is not a perishable commodity. i am sure in 111 pages someone has pointed that out.

BSS_Goat
04-24-2006, 10:42 AM
A gallon of bourbon cost $46.00. Gas prices, Smas prices pffft...

DoubleTap2005A
04-24-2006, 10:47 AM
One other thing about the gas prices thing, which has probably already been explained better by someone else here, but in any event...

The fluctuation of prices IS the self-regulation of consumption, which helps ease issues of supply.

Anything which is cheap tends to be consumed more, and anything which is in ample supply tends to be cheap. However, when demand rises and supply cannot keep up, prices rise. This does two things:

One, it automatically curtails the consumption as consumers will self-regulate their use; ie, with gas at $3.10 a gallon, people will voluntarily drive less, conserve more, find more efficient methods of energy use, etc.

Two, it makes alternative sources and methods for energy more viable, leading people to utilize them. As someone else here mentioned, there are large reserves of oil in Canada which are mixed in with sand/shale. At lower prices, it was not economically viable to collect that oil, but rising prices make it viable, this increasing supply.

So, when demand decreases (too pricey) and supply increases (there's oil in them there hills!) the price will tend to then drop back down.

In the meantime, the rise in prices will have extended the lifespan of reserves by decreasing the rate of consumption.

I have no problem with investigating a legitimate case of price gouging, but again, lets be rational. If worldwide demand for oil is rising, then obviously oil companies will see their profits rise as well.

One more thing; the US organization that has profited most from gas consumption was not an oil company but a the US government via taxes. I would ask citizens of other nations to look into how much money their governments make on oil sales as well.

The next time a politician starts talking about "price gouging" at the pump, ask him whether he's willing to repeal some of those taxes to lower the price and ease the pain...

slipBall
04-24-2006, 11:41 AM
DoubleTap2005A
One, it automatically curtails the consumption as consumers will self-regulate their use; ie, with gas at $3.10 a gallon, people will voluntarily drive less, conserve more, find more efficient methods of energy use, etc

that's true, price's would normally lower, but because of the increasing demand in Asia, any conservation meathod's used here, would be offset by that increase in Asia. Price's will fluxuate, but the trend will be onward's and upward's

DoubleTap2005A

I have no problem with investigating a legitimate case of price gouging, but again, lets be rational. If worldwide demand for oil is rising, then obviously oil companies will see their profits rise as well

Again true, you are on a role DoubleTap2005A, price's are determined by tradeing oil future's, done by average Joe Blows. When a barrel was cheap, big oil lost money per barrel

DoubleTap2005A

The next time a politician starts talking about "price gouging" at the pump, ask him whether he's willing to repeal some of those taxes to lower the price and ease the pain...

And while your at it, ask him to get rid of the regional blend's, cut the red tape on new refinery construction, allow oil exploration, right here in America. Begin now, building the infrastructure that will be needed for a switch over to a hydrogen based economy

p1ngu666
04-24-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its all a matter of your point of view. its like vietnam and afganistan, who cares really if there communist or not, econimicaly there tiny.

Well, for one, I think the people who actually live there care. From our perpective, it does not matter very much, at least in the short run, but for those who have to live under a communist government, its quite oppressive. Downright inhuman, actually, when you total it all up.

Just a thought... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well there was the french being oppressive, and there was one or two others before nam too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

commies arent always nice, but then capatilsm is pretty bad aswell.
I personaly dont want to travel to america, because i *could* be arrested, and never heard of again. or end up wearing orange in cuba.

afganistan has traditionaly been rather complex, but the "offical" government holds most of the major towns, but out in the mountains, its the rebals..

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 11:51 AM
Most economists don't understand basic physics. Oil is not just another interchangable commodity. It is, in effect, millions and millions of years worth of highly condensed solar energy. There is no other substance that contains such a tremendous amount of chemical energy packed into an easily collectable, easily transportable, easily utilized substance.

Converting other substances such as biomass, oil shale, tar sands, etc into a liquid fuel requires a significant input of energy (heat, pressure, mechanical agriculture, fertilizer, etc, etc, etc). At each stage of the process, energy is lost...2nd law of thermodynamics.

Worst case scenerio is that it becomes economically viable to "make" oil but at a net energy loss. Eg. the energy input required to grow, transport, and distill crops into ethanol may be more than that in the ethanol.


"The next time a politician starts talking about "price gouging" at the pump, ask him whether he's willing to repeal some of those taxes to lower the price and ease the pain..."

Apples and oranges. Taxes fund public programs and projects that benefit all. Oil profits fund certain royal families, totalitarian leaders, oil company executives, and large shareholders.

slipBall
04-24-2006, 11:57 AM
p1ngu666

I personaly dont want to travel to america, because i *could* be arrested, and never heard of again. or end up wearing orange in cuba.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Before you are arrested, I plan on having a blanket party for you, so please come to America

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 12:04 PM
"And while your at it, ask him to get rid of the regional blend's, cut the red tape on new refinery construction, allow oil exploration, right here in America. Begin now, building the infrastructure that will be needed for a switch over to a hydrogen based economy"

If the oil companies really, really wanted new refineries, they'd get them, one way or another. Contrary to popular myth, the all-powerful environmental lobby is not stopping the poor downtrodden oil companies from building refineries. The oil companies have no desire to invest in new refinery capacity (very expensive with a long payback time) when they know that petroleum supplies are limited and declining.

America's already been explored. The giant fields are known and largely tapped out. All of the oil we could extract from Alaska and the continental shelves is literally a drop in the bucket compared to our demand.

Hydrogen-based economy? Where do we get the hydrogen?

slipBall
04-24-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by shotdownski:
"And while your at it, ask him to get rid of the regional blend's, cut the red tape on new refinery construction, allow oil exploration, right here in America. Begin now, building the infrastructure that will be needed for a switch over to a hydrogen based economy"

If the oil companies really, really wanted new refineries, they'd get them, one way or another. Contrary to popular myth, the all-powerful environmental lobby is not stopping the poor downtrodden oil companies from building refineries. The oil companies have no desire to invest in new refinery capacity (very expensive with a long payback time) when they know that petroleum supplies are limited and declining.

America's already been explored. The giant fields are known and largely tapped out. All of the oil we could extract from Alaska and the continental shelves is literally a drop in the bucket compared to our demand.

Hydrogen-based economy? Where do we get the hydrogen?


Where do we get the hydrogen? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shotdownski:
"And while your at it, ask him to get rid of the regional blend's, cut the red tape on new refinery construction, allow oil exploration, right here in America. Begin now, building the infrastructure that will be needed for a switch over to a hydrogen based economy"

If the oil companies really, really wanted new refineries, they'd get them, one way or another. Contrary to popular myth, the all-powerful environmental lobby is not stopping the poor downtrodden oil companies from building refineries. The oil companies have no desire to invest in new refinery capacity (very expensive with a long payback time) when they know that petroleum supplies are limited and declining.

America's already been explored. The giant fields are known and largely tapped out. All of the oil we could extract from Alaska and the continental shelves is literally a drop in the bucket compared to our demand.

Hydrogen-based economy? Where do we get the hydrogen?


Where do we get the hydrogen? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hydrogen ain't free, you gotta "make" it. It takes energy to make H2, where do you propose we get the energy?

Taylortony
04-24-2006, 01:00 PM
Hey don't knock the Cold War, it kept me in a job for 15 years all be it ready to launch the jets to drop buckets of instant sunshine on people......


Nothing like the feel of a fresh Suntan in the morning for that all day, all night glow in the dark look http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lucius_Esox
04-24-2006, 01:51 PM
Wonder how much nrg has been expended in this thread with all this hot gas..

It's freaky to think that a country like China wants to swap it's pushbikes for cars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Hmm, soaring cardio vascular illness rates, lovely exhaust fumes from all those extra vehicles,, yes that seems like a very sensible idea....... Or about as much of one as the h/sh*t in this thread trying to protect the usage of fossile fuel/oil to the enth degree.

I can't believe how dumb the view that just because they have been saying the world will end for years and it hasn't,,, so it's all ok then, is...

Probably similar to what most smokers say as well,, just before they are told they have the big C.

Hasn't something about sloth, avarice/greed been written somewhere else before...

Oh, I forgot he modern term for avarice/greed,, enterprise! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ploughman
04-24-2006, 01:55 PM
Where do we get the energy to make hydrogen?

I was watching a show on Iceland the other day. Those cunning Icelanders aren't just chasing elves you know, they're drilling bore holes down 3-5 km to harvest geo-thermal steam at 400-500 degrees Centigrade. This is more energy than Iceland knows what to do with so they intend to export it...in the form of hydrogen. They see themselves a future the 'Kuwait' of the hydrogen economy.

Now, thinking about it, there are lots of hot spots all over the planet.

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Where do we get the energy to make hydrogen?

I was watching a show on Iceland the other day. Those cunning Icelanders aren't just chasing elves you know, they're drilling bore holes down 3-5 km to harvest geo-thermal steam at 400-500 degrees Centigrade. This is more energy than Iceland knows what to do with so they intend to export it...in the form of hydrogen. They see themselves a future the 'Kuwait' of the hydrogen economy.

Now, thinking about it, there are lots of hot spots all over the planet.

I understand Iceland intends to be the first carbon-free country, but I believe their situation re: geothermal resources is pretty unique. There are still a few technical problems to overcome before H is ready for primetime, IMHO, notably its low energy density (compared to gasoline) and the difficulties in storing and transporting this particulary nimble little atom.

iroseland
04-24-2006, 02:22 PM
hmm , hydrogen.

Good stuff if we can come up with a way to make it for. really really cheep. Till then we are stuck sucking oil. With gas prices going up so far so fast, there is now some good reason to get hydrogen off the ground as it will also be sold at a healthy profit. Just need a cheep non-oil use shifting way to make it. Actually reminds me of a conversation I had with a freind. He was all geeked up on who electric cars are 0 emissions and you can plug them into a wall. I pointed out that the power plant the electricty was comming from was likely not 0 emissions. I am all for getting off of oil, I am all for doing it soon. I am also all for modern Nuke plants here and now, not later. In the mean time I am looking to go to diesel. Apparently if 40% of the cars in the us were diesel, we would be able to stop importing. Of course we would still be paying big fat taxes and subsidies to the oil companys.

Thanks to the distance of my daily commute I spend alot of money on gas despite the fact that I drive a VW Golf.

Great timing too, back at my last job when fuel was cheep I was close enough to ride my bike to work, so I did.

Now I make much better money but am the gas prices are burning a hole in my bank account.


grrrrrrr....

BSS_AIJO

ploughman
04-24-2006, 02:39 PM
So, how about fusion anytime soon? Bit hard to make plastic and all that other stuff crude oil gives us out of bottled sunshine though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

slipBall
04-24-2006, 02:49 PM
shotdownski

Hydrogen ain't free, you gotta "make" it. It takes energy to make H2, where do you propose we get the energy?

It's just a matter of time building all the infrastructure. You could compare it to the first combustion engine's, first car's, it took time to get a fuel station on every crossroad, as we have it today. Same with hydrogen, 20, 30 year's from now all hydrogen, (if they act now) everywhere in the world. Clean, non polluting, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
shotdownski, check this link out, it look's like Iceland is moving ahead of the rest of the world, and may be the first nation that is useing it's brain's



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2208013.stm

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
So, how about fusion anytime soon? Bit hard to make plastic and all that other stuff crude oil gives us out of bottled sunshine though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

The sad thing about the whole situation is that in just over a century we have extracted and burned most of the planet's "easy" oil...probably the single most valuable (in terms of energy content and flexability) resource that mankind has ever known. And we've frittered it away mostly by driving about aimlessly in oversized vehicles at breakneck speeds.

Future generations will look back in disqust at our shortsidedness and stupidity.

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
shotdownski
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hydrogen ain't free, you gotta "make" it. It takes energy to make H2, where do you propose we get the energy?

It's just a matter of time building all the infrastructure. You could compare it to the first combustion engine's, first car's, it took time to get a fuel station on every crossroad, as we have it today. Same with hydrogen, 20, 30 year's from now all hydrogen, (if they act now) everywhere in the world. Clean, non polluting, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
shotdownski, check this link out, it look's like Iceland is moving ahead of the rest of the world, and may be the first nation that is useing it's brain's

Hope you're right about the transition to H. I still think we've underestimated the uniqueness of petroleum and that, gallon for gallon, it is almost the perfect energy "source" (the sun was/is our ultimate energy source).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2208013.stm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RCAF_Irish_403
04-24-2006, 03:12 PM
ride a bike instead

slipBall
04-24-2006, 03:14 PM
The biggest hurdle I see, is building new power plant's. The world would have to double the amount that we have now. Some would have to be nucular, other's could be hydro, solar, wind. It is possible, I wish they would build a working model, say take a small city of half million people, and convert to all hydrogen use. It would be a working model for other's to follow

Aaron_GT
04-24-2006, 03:24 PM
Converting other substances such as biomass, oil shale, tar sands, etc into a liquid fuel requires a significant input of energy (heat, pressure, mechanical agriculture, fertilizer, etc, etc, etc).

One of the reasons canola looks promising is because it does not need to be fermented and refined. Granted you need to press and filter the oil and only a small part of the plant produces the oil, but the waste can be recycled in various forms, and most ethanol prodution (until suitable enzymes are created to allow whole-plant processing) also only uses a small part of the plant.

The other beauty of canola is that you can deliver it via tanker or pipeline to gas stations, potentially.

I do wonder, though, if we might see steam power make a comeback too, as well as electric powered and biofuel systems. (And maybe hydrogen too, although I think hydrogen's less viable).

Aaron_GT
04-24-2006, 03:26 PM
The biggest hurdle I see, is building new power plant's. The world would have to double the amount that we have now. Some would have to be nucular, other's could be hydro, solar, wind. It is possible


Clean coal is also viable. The USA has plenty of coal.

slipBall
04-24-2006, 03:30 PM
Yes, yes, clean coal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif also hold's great promise to produce hydrogen fuel

slipBall
04-24-2006, 03:42 PM
shotdownski

I still think we've underestimated the uniqueness of petroleum and that, gallon for gallon, it is almost the perfect energy "source" (the sun was/is our ultimate energy source).


I agree with you, I think we will still use oil With the reduction of demand on it, it should be more available, and more stable in price

slipBall
04-24-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by iroseland:
hmm , hydrogen.

Good stuff if we can come up with a way to make it for. really really cheep. Till then we are stuck sucking oil. With gas prices going up so far so fast, there is now some good reason to get hydrogen off the ground as it will also be sold at a healthy profit. Just need a cheep non-oil use shifting way to make it. Actually reminds me of a conversation I had with a freind. He was all geeked up on who electric cars are 0 emissions and you can plug them into a wall. I pointed out that the power plant the electricty was comming from was likely not 0 emissions. I am all for getting off of oil, I am all for doing it soon. I am also all for modern Nuke plants here and now, not later. In the mean time I am looking to go to diesel. Apparently if 40% of the cars in the us were diesel, we would be able to stop importing. Of course we would still be paying big fat taxes and subsidies to the oil companys.

Thanks to the distance of my daily commute I spend alot of money on gas despite the fact that I drive a VW Golf.

Great timing too, back at my last job when fuel was cheep I was close enough to ride my bike to work, so I did.

Now I make much better money but am the gas prices are burning a hole in my bank account.


grrrrrrr....

BSS_AIJO


Someday, there will be a machine in your garage, solar powered, making hydrogen fuel for your car, free, except for your investment. You could buy one today, it is available, and people are using them. Untill then, diesel is a good choice. I have been using diesel vehicle's since 1983, back then it was .30 a gallon

NonWonderDog
04-24-2006, 04:28 PM
You'd need a LOT of solar energy to extract enough hydrogen through electrolysis to fuel your car. Electrolysis is far from an efficient process. It takes far more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from the water than you will ever get from burning the hydrogen. Then you'd have to collect and pressurize the hydrogen, using even more energy.

It seems like it would be simpler just to put the solar panels on the car. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

MLudner
04-24-2006, 04:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

50 to 70% of every dollar you spend on fuel goes to your government in taxes. Just as with tobacco, your government makes more money from it than the eeeeeeevvvviiiiiiiiiilllllllllll big oil corporations do.

Free your minds: release your bigotry, your hatred, your jealousy and your greed and you will see the light, until then you will wallow in the darkness of your own making. You will wander in that darkness, blind and lost, until your sanity is gone and the darkness consumes you. Like the Romans before you; you will be the author of your own destruction in that darkness.
But, of course; you won't.

For at least one of you this advice will do no good. You need help and until you get it no medicine in the world will do you good. You are "crazy-fruitloops from the leftward land of silliness."

NonWonderDog
04-24-2006, 04:32 PM
Uh... where?

Certainly not in the US. Gas taxes here are between 25-50 cents per gallon, depending on the state. Gas tax money is used ONLY to maintain roads, and often its the only money states HAVE to maintain roads.

US gasoline taxes are absolutely not the problem.

In Europe, where they do have high fuel taxes, governments seem to be slightly more sane about spending money on useful services. 50% or so of US tax money goes to defense contractors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

ColoradoBBQ
04-24-2006, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
You'd need a LOT of solar energy to extract enough hydrogen through electrolysis to fuel your car. Electrolysis is far from an efficient process. It takes far more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from the water than you will ever get from burning the hydrogen. Then you'd have to collect and pressurize the hydrogen, using even more energy.

It seems like it would be simpler just to put the solar panels on the car. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

You could but the conversion rate of solar power panels are pitifully low, 20% is the most efficieant so far, to be used in general transportation.

MLudner
04-24-2006, 04:42 PM
You don't see all of them. Not all the taxes are directly laid on the consumer. But, any tax they put on ANY business, big, small, or in between, you pay as well.

MLudner
04-24-2006, 04:48 PM
Actually, there are a lot of promising alternative energy sources out there. Magnetics and vacuum to name just two. The problem is that they're still in their infancy and are impractical at this time for common usage.

As technology advances oil will be replaced by better means of propulsion.

slipBall
04-24-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
You'd need a LOT of solar energy to extract enough hydrogen through electrolysis to fuel your car. Electrolysis is far from an efficient process. It takes far more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from the water than you will ever get from burning the hydrogen. Then you'd have to collect and pressurize the hydrogen, using even more energy.

It seems like it would be simpler just to put the solar panels on the car. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


That all may be true, but we are just at the dawn of hydrogen. It will be our children's fuel

p1ngu666
04-24-2006, 05:02 PM
the income from corporate taxes in america have shrunk *alot* over the years.

the fewer changes u haveto do to something the better. so be better to have solar panel cars, than using the electricity to process another fuel.

also some alternative fuels actully have a energy loss.

personaly, i feel the best course of action would be to build huge wind turbine farms out at sea (as no one likes the things). may aswell have them covered in solar panels too.

tidal power is also very tempting. after all las vagas is powered similery via the hover damn. tons of water turning turbines.

looking into reopening the coal mines in the UK and other places, where viable. plus effiency in all things. street lights are pretty bad for example.

power is still fairly cheap tho i think...
our electric bill is around 38pounds a month. so for just over a pound, we have a cooker, microwave, fride freezer, tv, 2-3 pcs on a fair amount of the time, light plus all sorts of other things.

oil should be saved for things of cultral importance. like spitfires, old cars and boats etc that where important

shotdownski
04-24-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
You'd need a LOT of solar energy to extract enough hydrogen through electrolysis to fuel your car. Electrolysis is far from an efficient process. It takes far more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from the water than you will ever get from burning the hydrogen. Then you'd have to collect and pressurize the hydrogen, using even more energy.

It seems like it would be simpler just to put the solar panels on the car. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

You could but the conversion rate of solar power panels are pitifully low, 20% is the most efficieant so far, to be used in general transportation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The amount of solar energy that strikes the surface of the Earth each day is staggering. Unfortunetly, it's diffuse, not condensed by millions and millions of years plant biomass, pressure, and temperature. That's why we'll never drive direct solar-powered cars. I just can't stress enough how unique petroleum is. The amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline is unreal. Imagine pushing a 2,000 lb auto. Now imagine pushing that car for twenty miles. Now imagine pushing that car for twenty miles at 65 mph...up hill. That's the energy in a gallon of gas (and remember that a car is something like 10 percent efficient at converting the chemical energy in gas into motion!).

Hydrogen is not really an energy "source", more of an energy storage medium, like a battery. In fact, with current technology, it makes much more sense to use photovoltaic panels to charge batteries to power an electric car instead of using PV to generate electricy to produce and compress hydrogen to power a car via a fuel cell or direct combustion. Remember our friend the 2nd Law of thermodynamics..."in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

NonWonderDog
04-24-2006, 10:29 PM
Is an electrolysis machine feeding a pressurized hydrogen fuel cell really cheaper and more efficient than a damn battery? New technology might make the machinery cheaper or the hydrogen engine cheaper, but it won't make electrolysis more efficient.

The energy waste doesn't really matter if you're using solar for the energy, but it would still take at least a week to accumulate enough hydrogen to fuel your car. This is obviously only feasable on a personal scale.

Currently, the only feasible method for high-yield hydrogen production is to break down hydrocarbons... which gets us right back to square one. A "hydrogen economy" is still a long far-off dream, and it's not because we don't want to build the infrastructure.


I really thought the yearly solar car races (GO BLUE!!) meant something, though. I thought my universities crushing victory over everyone else in the US national solar car challenge STOOD for something, dammit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ATLAS_DEATH
04-24-2006, 10:46 PM
The hippies in Ca said the wind powered genrators were evil... killing the birds.. so they shut them all down except for... like... 2... everything is evil to some people.... just kill them off and we'd have lots of energy.

Friendly_flyer
04-25-2006, 12:10 AM
Sooner or later, we€ll have to change our energy source. So far the alternatives are electricity, hydrogen and bio-generated hydrocarbons. In the case of the two first, they are, as Shutdownski pointed out, more of an energy transfer medium. My guess is that it€s going to be bio-fuel that takes over. The reason is very simple: 100 years worth of energy infrastructure can handle ethanol more or less as it is. Electricity is runner up, because there is an infrastructure for it, though it is less developed than the gasoline network (it€s absent in a number of 3rd world countries). Hydrogen will require a totally new distribution system, a new, complicated and expensive system that will exclude all but the largest of companies from the market.

Hydrogen may be a viable alternative in Iceland and a few other places, but for the world at large, bio-fuel is the easiest alternative. Knowing humanity€s preference for the easy way out, bio-fuel (possibly in the form of bio-diesel) is the most likely alternative.

Nimits
04-25-2006, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Uh... where?

Certainly not in the US. Gas taxes here are between 25-50 cents per gallon, depending on the state. Gas tax money is used ONLY to maintain roads, and often its the only money states HAVE to maintain roads.

US gasoline taxes are absolutely not the problem.

In Europe, where they do have high fuel taxes, governments seem to be slightly more sane about spending money on useful services. 50% or so of US tax money goes to defense contractors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Its actually only about 20% that is spent on the Department of Defense, etc, and it is arguably much too low at that. 50%-60% or so of the Federal budget is spent on Medicare, Social Security, and other examples so called "welfare" programs.

As for oil, according to a 2005 RAND Corporation study, the US has enough oil reserves, including those in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, the California coast, and the American Midwest, to supply a large percentage of this country's needs for the next 400 years, a reserve triple the size of that in Saudi Arabia. The current catch is, various evironmental and political pressures prevent any serious attempt to recover and process those reserves, but they are there if we need them. Considering that the present increase in oil prices has made alternative (and expensive) methods of recovering and producing oil and alternate fuels potentially profitable, and the large number of known but mostly untapped reserves (and possibly other at present unkown reserves), the world is in now real danger of actually running out of fuel. Like the past media scares of Y2K (all of our computers appear to still be running) and Global Warming (the earth has actually seen a slight cooling trend in the last five years or so), there is much more sound than substance to oil shortage doomsday scenarios.

If you truly want to worry about something, worry about the ongoing desire of various Islamic sects to Islamicize or destroy various western nations and their allies; that is a much more immediate and real threat. As for myself, I'm much more worried that Ubi won't ever get around to releasing Pe-2 than I am that the world will run out of gas in 50, 100, or 200 years.

Aero_Shodanjo
04-25-2006, 02:17 AM
Sooner or later, we€ll have to change our energy source. So far the alternatives are electricity, hydrogen and bio-generated hydrocarbons.

Or stop drinking alcohol and use it to fuel the cars instead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stathem
04-25-2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
So, how about fusion anytime soon? Bit hard to make plastic and all that other stuff crude oil gives us out of bottled sunshine though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

30-40 years

ITER (http://www.iter.org/index.htm)

The only challenges left are engineering ones.

stathem
04-25-2006, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Uh... where?

Certainly not in the US. Gas taxes here are between 25-50 cents per gallon, depending on the state. Gas tax money is used ONLY to maintain roads, and often its the only money states HAVE to maintain roads.

US gasoline taxes are absolutely not the problem.

In Europe, where they do have high fuel taxes, governments seem to be slightly more sane about spending money on useful services. 50% or so of US tax money goes to defense contractors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

And if even 10% of that budget were to be pumped into:

Fusion research + development.

Nano-PV research.

Organo-metallic confinement of Hydrogen.

Membrane and stack development.

Then the job would be sorted in no time.

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 02:54 AM
Global Warming (the earth has actually seen a slight cooling trend in the last five years or so)

First results indicate that 2005 was the hottest year on record, beating 1998.

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 03:01 AM
Bit hard to make plastic and all that other stuff crude oil gives us out of bottled sunshine though.

You can make plastics from vegetable oil. It can also be done using products from coal. There is also quite a bit of research going on into how to bioengineer plants to make it easier to do this. Crude oil is still an immensely useful feedstock, though, and it well suited to producing plastics. Using plant-derived products will be more difficult as you have to devote land to growing the feedstocks and the processing will not be so easy.

What I think we will see is plastics being replaced for some classes of use. For example reusable glass bottles with deposits on them will make a comeback and replace plastic containers for milk, coca-cola, etc. Products at the supermarket will come wrapped in greased paper rather than 15 layers of plastic. Paper bags at the supermarket will return. Your mobile phone casing in 20 years might be made of wood or metal rather than plastic (and might be more durable too - you might be able to get the inside of your phone upgraded and keep the same outer casing). Things like this are possible.

Personally I wouldn't mind a wooden casing for my PC (such things exist) as it might make it quieter more than anything else.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Uh... where?

Certainly not in the US. Gas taxes here are between 25-50 cents per gallon, depending on the state. Gas tax money is used ONLY to maintain roads, and often its the only money states HAVE to maintain roads.

US gasoline taxes are absolutely not the problem.

In Europe, where they do have high fuel taxes, governments seem to be slightly more sane about spending money on useful services. 50% or so of US tax money goes to defense contractors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

And if even 10% of that budget were to be pumped into:

Fusion research + development.

Nano-PV research.

Organo-metallic confinement of Hydrogen.

Membrane and stack development.

Then the job would be sorted in no time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, this is where the alternative fuel people tend to lose most everyone else. The concept is great, but there seems at times to be little practicality.

With all due respect, the job would not be sorted out in no time.

First, spending that 10% (and we would first have to argue about how much that would be) does not guarantee you the viability of any of those technologies, let alone all of them, and certainly not in the short term.

Assuming they are viable, it would take years to get them to work, years more to perfect them for general use, and then years more for them to actually enter widespread use, and then years more for poorer nations to even afford them. This still means that we have at least 100 years more of oil production needed in order to keep the world economy going.

All of this does not take into account the political difficulties in getting these technologies into use, and I ain't talking about the oil companies. There are many technophobes out there who are about worried nano-technology, for instance, who are sure to fight its use on all sorts of doomsday predictions. From environmental extremists (who seem to run the show) to various Luddites, that technology is sure to run into organized static from pretty powerful groups and from politicians who will be eager to cave to them.

Same thing with fusion reactors, I'll bet. You can't tell me that there aren't some risks associated with a fusion reactor, and that these won't be exploited for political purposes.

So, tell me, what company or organization will/should spend billions and billions of dollars trying to develop energy-saving technologies which may never be allowed to be utilized?

Look, I do not dismiss the research, discovery and use of alternative energy sources. Humans are ingenious, and given enough time, I think we can come up with almost anything. Again, though, we need to be rational about what is viable and reasonable, both now, and in the future.

For now, we need to acknowledge that oil is currently the most efficient fuel available in large amounts.

With that in mind, we certainly need to find ways to do more with less with it, but also to acknowledge that its use brings a whole of good things to our lives and come to peace with that. If you think oil is synonymous with evil, get over it or stop driving your prius, turn off your lights and heat and throw out everything you own which contains plastic. Start with the PC you are typing on.

We need to embrace nuclear power, folks. Sorry, but even the gent who founded Greenpeace has come to that conclusion. Spend some the money you want to use for developing nano and fusion technology, and build nuclear plants with extra safety measures. Still worried about the safety? Well, if we are supposedly trying to thwart global catastrophe coming from climate change (Cooling? Warming? What day is it?), the chance of a little fallout seems like a decent exchange, no?

Wrest the environmental movement away from the fanatics and pseudo-marxists. Environmentalism should be focused on ways of protecting the environment, not thwarting capitalism. For those that that think capitalism IS the problem, check out the environmental record of the Soviet Union.

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 04:59 AM
The former USSR's record is terrible but it shouldn't be used as a bench mark or excuse for the US and China to pollute like they do. Capitalism doesn't help though, by its very nature its exploitive of the environment however you look at it. China ain't communist any more anyway, its more capitalist than the US. Just in China you can't vote for your despot. In the US you can.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Global Warming (the earth has actually seen a slight cooling trend in the last five years or so)

First results indicate that 2005 was the hottest year on record, beating 1998. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2005 was very hot. But my office is next to the beach so its not all bad.

I don't get people denying global warming. Even the US government who've been denying it for years despite the best scientific evidence saying otherwise are no succumbing to it. Seems like in the US saying there is a problem gets you labelled a liberal.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Global Warming (the earth has actually seen a slight cooling trend in the last five years or so)

First results indicate that 2005 was the hottest year on record, beating 1998. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2005 was very hot. But my office is next to the beach so its not all bad.

I don't get people denying global warming. Even the US government who've been denying it for years despite the best scientific evidence saying otherwise are no succumbing to it. Seems like in the US saying there is a problem gets you labelled a liberal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you get it? First of all, have you not noticed that the term "Climate Change" has been working its way into the lexicon, instead of "Global Warming"? Why is that?

Well, because the planet does not seem to be playing along with the global doom prophets. Just 30 years before, Global Cooling was the disaster coming to destroy us, but then the temperature started to rise, so it changed to "Global Warming". Then, as someone else pointed out, 2005 aside, the planet actually seemed to be cooling in the last few years. So now, its "Climate Change" to cover all the bases.

I am not trying to be snarky, but please lets acknowledge a few points:

The planet is 5 BILLION years old.

Trying to ascertain a long term trend by examining temperatures from a 10, 30, or even 100 year sample (.00000002 of that time frame or less) seems to be, well, ludicrous. I take that back. No 'seems'. It is ludicrous.

When you look over a longer term, you discover that the climate has changed drastically a number of times during that time, long before there were human beings, SUV's, and the United States. If climate change is real, why are we so arrogant to think that we are so mighty as to be the cause?

Many of those who do believe that "Climate Change" is real also acknowledge that even if we do something to cut emissions, we will have a neglible affect on it, so what's all the hub-bub, bub?

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 05:26 AM
Just in China you can't vote for your despot. In the US you can.

Oh, please... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 05:42 AM
Why don't you get it? First of all, have you not noticed that the term "Climate Change" has been working its way into the lexicon, instead of "Global Warming"? Why is that?

Climate change is now the preferred term as it brings to the attention of those that live in temperate zones that it just about temperature increases. Some places may suffer colder temperatures, some may be subject to drastic changes in rainfall patterns.


Just 30 years before, Global Cooling was the disaster coming to destroy us,

That's a myth.


Then, as someone else pointed out, 2005 aside, the planet actually seemed to be cooling in the last few years. So now, its "Climate Change" to cover all the bases.

When you have outlying events you sometimes expect subsequent events to be less than this. This does not mean that the trend is not increasing. As an analogy look at Olympic records - the time for the 1500m has declined over time, but the Olympic record is not broken every Olympics but this does not mean there is not a trend. Complaining that climatologists are using insufficiently long ranged data and then arguing against a warming trend just by looking at data since 1998 is pretty silly.

Undoubtedly there is uncertainty in predictions, but there are a lot of scientists who are concerned that there is a problem, not least because they want to live comfortably and see their children grow up. If they discovered that there wasn't a problem with adverse climate change most would be pretty happy.


If climate change is real, why are we so arrogant to think that we are so mighty as to be the cause?

Actually the null hypothesis is that there is no influence. But if there is evidence that human activity is a cause it is naieve to not presume that human activity can change climate. Making presumptions in either direction (except as part of a null hypothesis) is unscientific.

carguy_
04-25-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
In Europe, where they do have high fuel taxes, governments seem to be slightly more sane about spending money on useful services. 50% or so of US tax money goes to defense contractors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Actually in Poland(country in Central Europe) fuel tax money is used by the government on all things that are either election promises or projects entirely unrelated to transport which otherwise couldn`t be made because of lack of money.Examples?
Money from fuel tax go to:
*Polish citizen growing babies(yah they`re growing them now) - 280$ per a nely born.

That`s right,go to Poland,impregnate a Polish woman and collect like 140$ 9 months later.

*roads mainteinance - all roads in Poland are worse than in Bosnia,Russia or former Yugoslavia.We had a special "road tax" that was erased and added to fuel tax strictly for road maintainance.In return goverment gives citizens roads of quality WORSE than this which Germans built before WWI and we get like 50km of new highways.

Oh and the A4 highway - the one built by nazis - is one of the best highways in Poland.Who`s money is this highway repaired for?EU,mainly Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fuel taxes are also spent on medicine,old people,government raises.


So in a nutshell fuel taxes are money that are used for things unrelated to trasport maintainance,new energy sources research.

Now hear this.
You pay something like 2$/gallon(not Diesel),right?
I pay around 1.08Euro/liter.
Plus average income of your citizen is 4 times the income of my citizen.

Maybe this gives you Yanks some idea why Europeans are somewhat surprised by you complaining.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 06:19 AM
Climate change is now the preferred term as it brings to the attention of those that live in temperate zones that it just about temperature increases. Some places may suffer colder temperatures, some may be subject to drastic changes in rainfall patterns.

I think you meant to say "brings to the attention of those that live in temperate zones that it IS NOT just about temperature increases", otherwise it seems contradictory.


Just 30 years before, Global Cooling was the disaster coming to destroy us,


That's a myth.

No, actually, its not. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

That's just a starting point, but for something to be a "myth" it needs to be untrue. As you will see, it was actually very real concern for some.


Then, as someone else pointed out, 2005 aside, the planet actually seemed to be cooling in the last few years. So now, its "Climate Change" to cover all the bases.


When you have outlying events you sometimes expect subsequent events to be less than this. This does not mean that the trend is not increasing. As an analogy look at Olympic records - the time for the 1500m has declined over time, but the Olympic record is not broken every Olympics but this does not mean there is not a trend. Complaining that climatologists are using insufficiently long ranged data and then arguing against a warming trend just by looking at data since 1998 is pretty silly.

Right. Looking at a 7 year trend on a 5 billion year old planet is silly. Looking at a 30 year trend on a planet, however, is more than sufficient to base a whole crisis on.

Okay, to use your own analogy, lets say I am looking at Olympic records for, say, the 100 meter dash. I look at the result from the last two summer games, and I note that the average times were actually longer in the last Olympics than in the previous one? Can I then claim a long-term trend that the runners are getting slower, AND claim they will continue to get slower?


Undoubtedly there is uncertainty in predictions, but there are a lot of scientists who are concerned that there is a problem,

And there are many scientists who are not.


not least because they want to live comfortably and see their children grow up.

And the unconcerned scientists also want to live comfortably and have have grown children.


who If they discovered that there wasn't a problem with adverse climate change most would be pretty happy.

Really? And where would all that grant and donation money come from? You don't think there is the slightest possibility that those scientists and environmental groups who have made Climate Change their focus (and a mjor source of their funding/reputation) would have a vested interest in keeping it alive? I mean, those children growing up are going to need to go to college, and living comfortably usually involves buying a home, paying rent, food, etc.

I know, I know, they're scientists and activists. They couldn't possibly be influenced by such mundane factors.


If climate change is real, why are we so arrogant to think that we are so mighty as to be the cause?



Actually the null hypothesis is that there is no influence. But if there is evidence that human activity is a cause it is naieve to not presume that human activity can change climate. Making presumptions in either direction (except as part of a null hypothesis) is unscientific.

Okay, I realize I am getting a little snarky and I realize why, now. Doublespeak irks me, maybe because so much of it undergirds things like climate change theory.

So, it is both naive to "NOT presume that human activity can change climate", but it is also unscientific to presume either way.

Oh, wait, its a "null hypothesis", so thus the apparent contradiction is resolved.

Of course, this also ignores my whole point that the planet has gone through climate changes, large and small, many times before there were human beings, let alone industrialization of any sort. Thus, it seems odd that further changes in the climate can be attributed to human activity so readily, rather than something more cyclical and natural.

stathem
04-25-2006, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:

Okay, this is where the alternative fuel people tend to lose most everyone else. The concept is great, but there seems at times to be little practicality.

With all due respect, the job would not be sorted out in no time.

First, spending that 10% (and we would first have to argue about how much that would be) does not guarantee you the viability of any of those technologies, let alone all of them, and certainly not in the short term.

Assuming they are viable, it would take years to get them to work, years more to perfect them for general use, and then years more for them to actually enter widespread use, and then years more for poorer nations to even afford them. This still means that we have at least 100 years more of oil production needed in order to keep the world economy going.

All of this does not take into account the political difficulties in getting these technologies into use, and I ain't talking about the oil companies. There are many technophobes out there who are about worried nano-technology, for instance, who are sure to fight its use on all sorts of doomsday predictions. From environmental extremists (who seem to run the show) to various Luddites, that technology is sure to run into organized static from pretty powerful groups and from politicians who will be eager to cave to them.

Same thing with fusion reactors, I'll bet. You can't tell me that there aren't some risks associated with a fusion reactor, and that these won't be exploited for political purposes.

So, tell me, what company or organization will/should spend billions and billions of dollars trying to develop energy-saving technologies which may never be allowed to be utilized?

Look, I do not dismiss the research, discovery and use of alternative energy sources. Humans are ingenious, and given enough time, I think we can come up with almost anything. Again, though, we need to be rational about what is viable and reasonable, both now, and in the future.

For now, we need to acknowledge that oil is currently the most efficient fuel available in large amounts.

With that in mind, we certainly need to find ways to do more with less with it, but also to acknowledge that its use brings a whole of good things to our lives and come to peace with that. If you think oil is synonymous with evil, get over it or stop driving your prius, turn off your lights and heat and throw out everything you own which contains plastic. Start with the PC you are typing on.

We need to embrace nuclear power, folks. Sorry, but even the gent who founded Greenpeace has come to that conclusion. Spend some the money you want to use for developing nano and fusion technology, and build nuclear plants with extra safety measures. Still worried about the safety? Well, if we are supposedly trying to thwart global catastrophe coming from climate change (Cooling? Warming? What day is it?), the chance of a little fallout seems like a decent exchange, no?

Wrest the environmental movement away from the fanatics and pseudo-marxists. Environmentalism should be focused on ways of protecting the environment, not thwarting capitalism. For those that that think capitalism IS the problem, check out the environmental record of the Soviet Union.

All the things I mentioned are viable. You want me to give you a list of the maybes? Like I said in the post above, they're now just engineering challenges. And with enough money and effort humans can solve engineering challenges in remarkably short time spans.

There are a lot of very bright people working in the defence reearch industry. A very high proportion of the best blue sky research (and flight sims) at the moment is coming from Russia, from trained scientists, used to thinking outside the box, who now have no jobs in defence anymore.

In the 2003 State of the Union (not the last one) Bush put a figure of $1.2 billion (US billion) on the US budget for fuel cell research - about half the cost of one B-2.

If you look back at my post on page 3 you'll see I'm fully aware of the economics surrounding this issue. I should be, I work in battery R+D developing cycling regimes for mild and micro hybrids.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 06:47 AM
If you look back at my post on page 3 you'll see I'm fully aware of the economics surrounding this issue. I should be, I work in battery R+D developing cycling regimes for mild and micro hybrids.

Okay, and my basic point was that while I agreed with you in principal on many points, including the need for alternative energy sources and the eventual viability of same, I found your assertion that it would be sorted out in no time to be unreasonable. If I misread what you wrote, let me know, and I will apologize.

My point was that putting out unrealistic expectations was counter-productive. Do you, as someone who works on these kinds of technologies, really believe that developing, perfecting and implementing all all the technologies you mentioned is really that close? If they are that close, why doesn't some company/companies invest the money privately and make itself bigger than Microsoft overnight? How about my point that your desire to develop a certain technology may have roadblocks put in the way which are not technological, but political?

I also understand, as I stated, that human beings are damned creative and view their capabilities as being nearly limitless, GIVEN enough time and resources. The question is, how much time, how many resources? At some point, there has to be a trade-off between the cost and the benefit.

Again, I am not dissing the concepts in general, but merely questioning the ease, massive funding or not, that they will replace our growing energy needs within the next 50-100 years.

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Global Warming (the earth has actually seen a slight cooling trend in the last five years or so)

First results indicate that 2005 was the hottest year on record, beating 1998. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2005 was very hot. But my office is next to the beach so its not all bad.

I don't get people denying global warming. Even the US government who've been denying it for years despite the best scientific evidence saying otherwise are no succumbing to it. Seems like in the US saying there is a problem gets you labelled a liberal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you get it? First of all, have you not noticed that the term "Climate Change" has been working its way into the lexicon, instead of "Global Warming"? Why is that?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climate change is a politcally correct term for politicians. Nothing more. Means the same thing.

Theres not much point arguing with you since your not going to accept scientific fact that all the **** we've pumped into the atmosphere is causing serious problems the world over. Live in your sphere of ignorance.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 07:14 AM
Theres not much point arguing with you since your not going to accept scientific fact that all the **** we've pumped into the atmosphere is causing serious problems the world over. Live in your sphere of ignorance.

Coming from a guy who does not know what the word "despot" means, the accusation of "ignorance" smacks of delicious irony. Thanks for playing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 07:19 AM
That's just a starting point, but for something to be a "myth" it needs to be untrue. As you will see, it was actually very real concern for some.


The trend that was noted was that there was a trend towards cooling from 1940-70 attributed to particulate and sulphur dioxide pollution. Concern about global warming (which it is on average), however, predates this. You even get early references to global warming in popular culture, such as in the film Soylent Green, released in, what, 1972?

However a mythology has developed around the noting of global cooling to the point where some people think that there was a scientific consensus regarding a long term cooling trend or even an imminent ice age. This was not the case.


Right. Looking at a 7 year trend on a 5 billion year old planet is silly. Looking at a 30 year trend on a planet, however, is more than sufficient to base a whole crisis on

The research is based on direct climate records going back longer than this, and indirect records going back tens of thousands of years.


And there are many scientists who are not

The scientific consensus is that there is a problem - i.e. whilst the absolute numbers of scientists who feel there is no problem are large, but proportionately small. Of course the majority may be wrong (and this has happened in science before) and personally I would love to wake up tomorrow to find out that global climate change is not going to be a threat. I would say nothing could make me happier, but I can think of things, like finding out a long lost uncle I never knew I had had left me a Spitfire in his will would be even better :-)


Really? And where would all that grant and donation money come from?

Just because global warming might be found to be not the case does not mean that all climate research would end and they would be without a job. They are undoubtedly concerned about their jobs, but there are different types of concern and I have yet to meet someone working in the area who would invent a threat just to get funding. I am sure there are a few out there who might, but it would be, in my experience, untypical. Given that the climate could change (even if naturally) and that planning for such an eventuality would be required climatologists should have no problem with employment.


but it is also unscientific to presume either way

Preconceptions, except for the purposes of a hypothesis which is to be tested, is unscientific. Unless you can show (or fail to show, depending on the hypothesis) that humans don't have an effect then you can't presume that they don't. Ditto for the reverse case.


Of course, this also ignores my whole point that the planet has gone through climate changes, large and small, many times before there were human beings, let alone industrialization of any sort.

Oh, it has, and huge ones too. It doesn't mean that you can argue a priori that given that there have been past entirely natural variations that it is not possible for humans to be an influence now. It might be that human influence is not significant.


Thus, it seems odd that further changes in the climate can be attributed to human activity so readily, rather than something more cyclical and natural.

Current models suggest that around one third of the variation in temperature is entirely due to these natural cycles.

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 07:34 AM
Coming from a guy who does not know what the word "despot" means,


I think WOLFMondo's previous comment on that was intended to be somewhat humorous.

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Theres not much point arguing with you since your not going to accept scientific fact that all the **** we've pumped into the atmosphere is causing serious problems the world over. Live in your sphere of ignorance.

Coming from a guy who does not know what the word "despot" means, the accusation of "ignorance" smacks of delicious irony. Thanks for playing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know exactly what it means, i think you need to get a sense of humour.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 07:49 AM
However a mythology has developed around the noting of global cooling to the point where some people think that there was a scientific consensus regarding a long term cooling trend or even an imminent ice age. This was not the case.

I never said there was a consensus, so I don't know how you justify the "myth" statement. There was alot of overheated (pun intended) rhetoric back then claiming that Global Cooling was going to destroy the planet, both from scientists and the media. Sound familiar?

See, I, and many others, see a repeat of history here. There is alot of scary rhetoric and many dire predictions about what is happening to the climate and numerous claims that humans are causing it.

Despite what some claim, there is NOT a consensus on global warming or climate change today, particularly on whether human beings are the cause. However, the meme has become "Global Warming is Real" and anyone who denies it HAS to be ignorant and ignoring the facts. Well, sorry, but many of the "facts" are distorted, as I pointed out.

Could Climate Change/Global Warming be real? Sure. Could we be responsible? I guess. But in answer to both I would have to say I have my serious doubts, and I have a rational basis for those doubts. While I understand there is some evidence pointing to Climate Change being real, I see alot of questionable reasoning and ambiguous facts being used to support it.

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 07:56 AM
There was alot of overheated (pun intended) rhetoric back then claiming that Global Cooling was going to destroy the planet, both from scientists and the media. Sound familiar?

I remember it, but it turns out it was media hysteria rather than something backed up by scientific opinion. There is a myth that it was backed up by widespread scientific opinion, which is what I was pointing out. What I have seen, though, is people playing on memories of the media hysteria not backed up by scientific consensus being used to tar the current concerns about climate change with the same brush. The difference now is that there IS scientific consensus. Of course the consensus could be wrong and we may have a paradigm shift tomorrow.


Despite what some claim, there is NOT a consensus on global warming or climate change today, particularly on whether human beings are the cause.

What makes you say this? Climatologists seem to be mostly convinced that it is real which looks a lot like a consensus of experts on this to me. Michael Crichton might doubt it exists, but he's not a scientist, and has also repeated the mythological version of global cooling hysteria.


I see alot of questionable reasoning and ambiguous facts being used to support it.

There is always uncertainty in science, and mistakes in modelling. In general, though, a lot of the models from various groups are in general agreement that there has been a level of warming which, given current models, cannot be explained by natural variation alone. (And even if it was all natural variation it would still be worth studying as we'd still have to cope with its effects). There is variation in the long term predictions of the effects as the climate system has many feedback mechanisms (positive and negative) and it isn't clear quite how these will behave 100 years from now. Plus the further you project a potentially chaotic system the more uncertain the conclusions become.

Given that there may well be a problem and we may not know the extent of the problem or the extent to which we may or may not be responsible until it is too late than a sensible precautionary principle that doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater would seem to be to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in a way that doesn't wreck the economy in the process. Energy efficiency is probably a good start as after the initial capital investment it is a benefit to the economy. Given that oil prices are increasing too it might be a good time to look at this anyway.

Breeze147
04-25-2006, 08:03 AM
That guy is eating too many eggs. He should cut back to 2 a week. His cholesterol must be through the roof.

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 08:06 AM
I know exactly what it means, i think you need to get a sense of humour.

I actually have a great sense of humor, Wolf. I just think you need to get a book on debating skills.

I think you surrendered the ability to call on people's sense of humor when you call them ignorant instead of engaging their argument. Just a thought...

Alright, I can sense this is getting nasty, so rather than have what seems to have mostly been a civil conversation devolve, I am splashing out...Later.

Breeze147
04-25-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I know exactly what it means, i think you need to get a sense of humour.

I actually have a great sense of humor, Wolf. I just think you need to get a book on debating skills.

I think you surrendered the ability to call on people's sense of humor when you call them ignorant instead of engaging their argument. Just a thought...

Alright, I can sense this is getting nasty, so rather than have what seems to have mostly been a civil conversation devolve, I am splashing out...Later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Last Word Getter... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

DoubleTap2005A
04-25-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I know exactly what it means, i think you need to get a sense of humour.

I actually have a great sense of humor, Wolf. I just think you need to get a book on debating skills.

I think you surrendered the ability to call on people's sense of humor when you call them ignorant instead of engaging their argument. Just a thought...

Alright, I can sense this is getting nasty, so rather than have what seems to have mostly been a civil conversation devolve, I am splashing out...Later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Last Word Getter... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I AM NOT!! Oh, wait a second...Did it again...Damn!

shotdownski
04-25-2006, 08:21 AM
Is global warming real...

Most of the major oil companies, with the exception of ExxonMobil, now agree that there is a link between human activities and global warming. I emphasize...they agree not only that global warming is occurring, but that human activity is causing (or greatly accelerating it).

Insurance companies make their living by assessing risks and they are increasingly concerned about by extreme weather events and sea level rise caused by global warming.

Even the Pentagon (not abunch of whiney eco-nuts) are concerned and published a study on the effects of global warming. From the executive summary of that report:

"There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur
during the 21st century."

Read the report at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/pre...ate-change-scena.pdf (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/an-abrupt-climate-change-scena.pdf)

ploughman
04-25-2006, 08:22 AM
Doubletap, I thought you were leaving? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All in all this threads managed to keep it together pretty well (not applying to be a mod or anything, just saying) despite the temptation to 'digress.' It's been an education.

stathem
04-25-2006, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you look back at my post on page 3 you'll see I'm fully aware of the economics surrounding this issue. I should be, I work in battery R+D developing cycling regimes for mild and micro hybrids.

Okay, and my basic point was that while I agreed with you in principal on many points, including the need for alternative energy sources and the eventual viability of same, I found your assertion that it would be sorted out in no time to be unreasonable. If I misread what you wrote, let me know, and I will apologize.

My point was that putting out unrealistic expectations was counter-productive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it depends what you call unrealistic and unreasonable. I'm thinking about the long term. If with enough effort we could halve the time of getting a working, self-sustaining Tokamak up, that would be a result. The periods 1939-1945 and 1962-1969 show what can be acheived in terms of tecnological advancement. The ITER wasted about 4 years arguing about where it was going to be built. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
Do you, as someone who works on these kinds of technologies, really believe that developing, perfecting and implementing all all the technologies you mentioned is really that close?

Yep, absolutely. It's a question of political willpower and consumer acceptance. For my part, the period between now and the widespread introduction of working fuel cells will safeguard my industry and job. My career is in the gap - the period when we eak out the remaining supplies.


Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
If they are that close, why doesn't some company/companies invest the money privately and make itself bigger than Microsoft overnight?

They are, but they have major challenges. The projects I'm talking about are defence scale projects - and they're looking to introduce something which is only as good, and maybe more expensive, than current oil-based systems. Nobody can introduce a fuel cell car to the market on a small scale, because they aren't cheaper and better, and the infrastructure is not there. Putting it in place is a national or international job. Additionally you are up against global corporation interests - if something shows promise it will be very quickly assimilated by the oil or auto corporations. I HAVE seen this myself in my own corporation, a promising company with a novel battery system bought up and made to disappear. It happens. Pure capitalism can solve this, but only after the fact, when the prices go wild.


Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
How about my point that your desire to develop a certain technology may have roadblocks put in the way which are not technological, but political?

Tell me about it. Between the nimbys, luddites and corporate self interest, they would see us plunged into major global conflict over this. Which is why education, and this thread, is so important



Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:

I also understand, as I stated, that human beings are damned creative and view their capabilities as being nearly limitless, GIVEN enough time and resources. The question is, how much time, how many resources? At some point, there has to be a trade-off between the cost and the benefit.

Again, I am not dissing the concepts in general, but merely questioning the ease, massive funding or not, that they will replace our growing energy needs within the next 50-100 years.

Look, when I said 10% of the budget, it was partly tonuge-in-cheek, for effect. I know that this ain't gonna happen. But consider, and I think that Bush - or least his advisors, are starting to realise this, even if you ignore the climate change issue, ending or massively reducing the US dependence on oil could be some of the best defence spending you could ever do. Surely it's got to be better then sending your sons and daughters to die in a foreign desert?

slipBall
04-25-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by shotdownski:
Is global warming real...

Most of the major oil companies, with the exception of ExxonMobil, now agree that there is a link between human activities and global warming. I emphasize...they agree not only that global warming is occurring, but that human activity is causing (or greatly accelerating it).

Insurance companies make their living by assessing risks and they are increasingly concerned about by extreme weather events and sea level rise caused by global warming.

Even the Pentagon (not abunch of whiney eco-nuts) are concerned and published a study on the effects of global warming. From the executive summary of that report:

"There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur
during the 21st century."

Read the report at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/pre...ate-change-scena.pdf (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/an-abrupt-climate-change-scena.pdf)


SlipBall (quote)
The earth is in a warm up cycle, but it started 12,000 year's ago. During those year's there have been tiny spike's up in temperature,(Viking's growing crop's in Greenland) and spike's down in temperature (George Washington fighting ice in the Delaware River). It's normal and all part of a natural cycle. Tiny insignificant man can't slow it, or stop it, or prevent the inevitable cool down that is to follow. Instead of worrying about a warm up, (because we have been in one since the last time a glacier was in Central Park) I would worry about the coming glacier's that will strip the land clean, right down to bed rock, and wipe all of our beloved computer's away

shotdownski, I share your concern, but,
The main reason that we (man) are here today disgusing all of this, is because of the warm up that started 12000 year's ago, and still is continuing(never stopped) Which allowed man to survive, develope, and over populate this planet. It will continue to warm till the cool down cycle begin's. Look at a pie chart of earth history. See that little line,(about the size of a c--t hair), that's man's time here. Our temperature records only date back 150 year's, so what's normal temperature then. We must look at the big picture of earth climatic history, which is documented, and accepted. Warm up's, cool down's, are normal, not caused by man, or preventable by man.
We do pollute, and might add slightly to speeding the warm up, but we could never, prevent the warm up from continuing, because it's a natural cycle

Von_Rat
04-25-2006, 09:57 AM
i think both the oil companies.. other than exxon{bless their little price gouging hearts} and the goverment are bowing to public relations pressure, rather than any so called facts. it happened before with y2k.

slipBall
04-25-2006, 10:09 AM
We hate big oil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

sunflower1
04-25-2006, 10:29 AM
Isn't anyone suspecting the usual "man behind the curtain" when the prices of commodites begins to take off??

aircargoo
04-25-2006, 10:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif....when the gas stations themselfs cant get gas....thats when we are going to REALLY notice this problem. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BSS_Goat
04-25-2006, 11:14 AM
Chicken little.