Science and Technology news... :: View topic - American Slice of Petroleum Pie In 15 Years

Eeyore · Guest

Bret Cahill wrote:

[quote]"Hubbert himself put the peak of global oil extraction between 1993
and 2000.

Ooooooh! Off by a half dozen years! In that case it ain>t a problem.

This reminds me of Eeyore>s correction to the 30%/ year increase in
fuel costs over the next 20 years. Instead of jumping off a 7,000
foot cliff ($800/gallon) Eeyore reassured everyone the cliff wasn>t a
foot over 700'.

Hey, it>s an order of magnitude better!
[/quote]
Corrected for inflation, the price of petrol in the UK had been flat for
about nine years.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/fuel-inflation-1997-2007-rvs.gif
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/05/22/you_think_fuel_prices_are_bad_historically_theyre_not_and_weve_graphed_it.html

Whar>s really hurting the USA is the fall in the dollar.

Graham

Eeyore · Guest

Spaceman wrote:

[quote]Eeyore wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

I am the one asking for physical measurements.

'Cos you can>t calculate them numbnuts.

That is correct,
I can>t do the very complex stuff,
[/quote]
It>s NOT complex.

You>re just too lazy to learn some simple basics.

Graham

Spaceman · Guest

Eeyore wrote:
[quote]It>s NOT complex.
[/quote]
Oh ya,
I forgot you are the super brain and know how to do
everything there is.
my bad.
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Eeyore · Guest

Andy Energy wrote:

[quote]On Jun 27, 7:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
While the price of a barrel of oil becomes
140 $
(and you aint seen nothing yet
oil producers 'dont have a God .....' )
so
its more than time for fusion !!

What ever happened to using less?
[/quote]
Apparently it>s not the 'American way'.

[quote]This is something we can do right
now. We have the technology, products and manpower to reduce our
energy consumption by 80% or more but do we have the will?

We could do this in the next decade if we as a society set it as a
goal. Energy management is something we can do verses fusion which
we only think we can do but do not know when. It is like hydrogen
that we’ve been promised in the next decade, this was about 30 years
ago and we are still far from being practical.

Doing with less is not doing without. The homes we retrofit save
40-60% of their heating and cooling bill and the occupants are more
comfortable than they have ever been in the house. In new
construction getting 70-80% reduction is easy and with some off the
shelf products we can get the other 20-30%. And if our manufactures
would make the electrical consuming devices more efficient (this is
something we already know how to do) the 20-30% would be real easy.
[/quote]
You could start by trashing plasma TVs. Gross energy hogs.

[quote]So let’s see, do we put our effort into something we already know how
to do or into something that someone thinks will work? And no I’m not
saying we should not explore fusion just not until we get the low
hanging fruit of energy reduction.

KISS (keep it simple stupid)
[/quote]
I totally agree.

Graham

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]But just remember that Lord Kelvin - surely no "hack" - pronounced
with great authority in 1895, "Heavier than air flying machines are
impossible."
[/quote]
Fluid dynamics has fooled the brightest.

Many blamed Newton>s falty lift equation -- which actually applies at
supersonic high altitude motion -- for delaying flight.

Do you _really_ think the fact that Newton was wrong bodes well for
the rest of researchers and human survival?

Bret Cahill

Eeyore · Guest

Bret Cahill wrote:

[quote]The ONLY thing that can be done FAST is fuel efficiency. And it>s EASY !

Just saying "efficiency" does solve the problem, not in a country with
the great disparity of wealth of the U. S.

The rich don>t really need to change their lifestyles -- Al Gore will
hardly do the bare minimum to have any credible PR -- so all the
"efficiency" gains will come from the poor who will freeze in the
winter and get run over by SUVs trying to cycle to work, assuming they
don>t become homeless first, a bad assumption.

The only market oriented civilized way to encourage efficiency is to
tax fuel and rebate the money on a per head basis.
[/quote]
Since you guys don>t like taxes why not RATION fuel ? That>ll get them out of
their SUVs fast and get Detroit making cars that do 40mpg again.

Graham

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]Drilling is just postponing the inevitable :
[/quote]
It>s not even doing that now.

That>s the best if somewhat ghoulish argument for drilling for oil
now:

Drilling will have no effect whatsoever on postponing any "new
equilibrium" [sustainable] population.

It>s heartbreaking to watch the denial and confusion.

Bret Cahill

Guest · Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: 140 $ per barrel !!

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Andy Energy wrote:

On Jun 27, 7:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
While the price of a barrel of oil becomes
140 $
(and you aint seen nothing yet
oil producers 'dont have a God .....' )
so
its more than time for fusion !!

What ever happened to using less?

Apparently it>s not the 'American way'.
[/quote]
Nor apparently anyone else>s way.

At one time the US was such a large fraction of the oil market the
US could significantly influence prices.

Those days are long gone.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Les Cargill · Guest

Eeyore wrote:
[quote]
Bret Cahill wrote:

The ONLY thing that can be done FAST is fuel efficiency. And it>s EASY !
Just saying "efficiency" does solve the problem, not in a country with
the great disparity of wealth of the U. S.

The rich don>t really need to change their lifestyles -- Al Gore will
hardly do the bare minimum to have any credible PR -- so all the
"efficiency" gains will come from the poor who will freeze in the
winter and get run over by SUVs trying to cycle to work, assuming they
don>t become homeless first, a bad assumption.

The only market oriented civilized way to encourage efficiency is to
tax fuel and rebate the money on a per head basis.

Since you guys don>t like taxes why not RATION fuel ?
[/quote]
It>s a lot of trouble and it creates a black market
incentive.

[quote]That>ll get them out of
their SUVs fast and get Detroit making cars that do 40mpg again.

[/quote]
So would $10 per gallon.

[quote]Graham

[/quote]
--
Les Cargill

jmh · Guest

On 2008-06-25, DB <abc@some.net> wrote:
[quote]Fred Weiss wrote:

(We>ve also of course been "running out" of petroleum about every
10-20 years for the last 100 years).

If you say this often enough, does it become truth?

Well before we "run out", we will have developed viable and real
alternatives (probably something no one has heard of or is even
imagining today)...

Right. Your thermodynamic ignorance is showing...
[/quote]
Since I don>t think there was any claim of a
closed system here I don>t think thermodynamics
applies.

BTW, I saw a show a month or so ago about a
French (I think) company that was making compressed
air powered cars and small trucks. One of the versions
of the vehicle included a gas powered compressor to
recharge the tanks once the pressure dropped below
a set level. Don>t know what size the gas tank was
but it was describes as "small". Even if that>s a
12 gallon tank when it>s getting 700 miles to the
tank that>s pretty good. About twice what a normal
tank will provide.

The show talked about Mexico City having a large
order in for the company>s vehicles (both for fuel
economy and reduced polution in the city) and a couple
of other similar dense populations with huge polution
problems.

Food for thuoght about innovation and the current
gas crisis.

jmh

[quote]
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/[/quote]

DB · Guest

Fred Weiss wrote:
[quote]
You know, it is not as if these "peak oil" characters haven>t cried
wolf before.
[/quote]
What does this posturing have to do with crunching numbers?

[quote]"Peak oil: a catastrophist cult" - Vaclav Smil
[/quote]
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/pdf_pubs/WorldWatch.pdf

The guy is a hack. Where are his numbers?

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26504
"Here, he uses the most oft-repeated argument by a segment of the
anti-Peak Oil establishment to convince readers that Peak Oil is not an
issue we have to worry about – namely, previous forecasts for the date
of Peak have been wrong, therefore, Peak will never happen, or at least
not any time soon. I would like to nominate this as the most absurd
argument (in a long list) for Peak Oil being an issue we need not
concern ourselves with."

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/27/9544/28473

[quote]Of course if it were the case that oil production was falling, we can
thank the enviroNazis for that. It is not an inherent limitation - and
certainly not when new technology for extraction and production is
factored in.
[/quote]
Yea sure Fred, always some bogyman to blame, so therefor...
[quote]
As for Brat>s Babble about China and India, there is historical
precedent for this kind of nonsense and from someone no less than the
distinguished 19th Cent economist William Stanley Jevons, who in 1865
predicted the depletion of coal.
[/quote]
You keep doing that. Claiming some guy was wrong. Of course it carries
the implicit 'you are right'. Yet every time I present the math you go
silent. You are a hack.

How about playing your stupid game with Yergin?

http://www.gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=7087
"There will be a large, unprecedented buildup of oil supply in the next
few years. Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual
production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day — from 85 million
barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day"

Oops.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487

More oops.

jmh · Guest

On 2008-06-25, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]
Just can>t get off that Republican high horse, can you. For you "labor"
is forever the labor of others.
[/quote]
Surely you are not suggesting that we either
eliminate the ability to save and invest or
give our savings to those of our choice in the
next generation. I also suspect you are not
suggesting that we live autarkic lives where
we do not engage in production and exchange.

Your hyperbola suggests a wealthy are
mere parasites doing nothing productive
at all. I have no doubt that some behave
as that but suspect for the most part
they actually do perform productive labor
within socity and that labor does feed
back into the social output.

jmh

Eeyore · Guest

Spaceman wrote:

[quote]Eeyore wrote:
It>s NOT complex.

Oh ya,
I forgot you are the super brain and know how to do
everything there is.
my bad.
LOL
[/quote]
You snipped the bit about being too lazy to educate yourself.

Graham

Les Cargill · Guest

jtnospam@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 7:39 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
jtnos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:d5394c2c-d42d-426f-bc62-e3cac0ed018a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 10:12 pm, "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:

jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
The prosperity since WWII isn>t a birthright,
it has specific causes & can be lost by making
foolish public policy decisions. An aging
population can>t ride bicycles around, and bad
weather limits young healthy people. We>re now
living thru the consequences of >30 years of
bad public policy decisions. More bad decisions
risk turning our economy & comfortable life
into a train wreck. - Jitney
Why should the young soldiers have to
fight & die, so we can be fat, dumb & happy
for some more years? 65-75 years of life
aren>t enough? Gotta have 85-90?
What>ll the world be like with the projected
9 billion? Is it fair that future generations
have to live in more crowded conditions and
fight over food, fuel, clean air, clean water
and everything else?
.
.
--
France rejected the Jimmy Carter-Jane Fonda irrational resistance to
nuclear power, 80% of their electricity is nuclear generated, they
don>t have to send soldiers to the Middle East. That was an example of
a good public policy decision on their part. Our ban on it was
foolish, and we are paying a terrible price in blood and treasure. I
agree that we are too fat, dumb, and happiness should not be tied to
external prosperity but one>s inner soul. But having had parents that
grew up thru the Great Depression, I can tell you that this is one
ordeal that would break the back and spirit of the Mr. Rogers
Neighborhood educated generation in a way that would collapse our
system of freedom, democracy, and probably lead to a terrible
dictatorship. Do we want to follow the path of Latin America and
Africa, failed states that swing between banana republics and military
dictatorships? Our currency is already becoming like the peso, which
is a big part of the current price of oil.
Snip....

You talk funny for a republican. Why do you think our currency is becoming
like the peso? And that, of course, is what leads to the high price of oil
and other commodities.

Could it be that we haven>t paid for waging war by giving unprecedented tax
breaks at a time of war and national need, but making up the shortfall by
excessive borrowing?

The very things you crab about are a direct result of the poor fiscal
policies of the Bush administration.

It looks like you may get to experience what your parent grew up through,
another DEPRESSION. Like last time it will be republican policies that cause
it. Stay tuned.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree that the administration of Bush has been a disaster. He and
his Democrat-lite Republicans in Congress spent public money, for war
and non-war purposes, like drunken sailors. He mortgaged our country>s
future to the Chinese.
[/quote]
Setting the wayback machine to 2003, we hear the economic hate-word
"deflation" whispered...

[quote]He left the Mexican border open to alien and
drug smuggling to satisfy big business desire for endless supplies of
cheap labor,
[/quote]

Nothing>s changed there since the '20s, and you>re parroting Hearst
Yellow Peril journalism from about then. Isn>t it kind of shocking
how effective that was?

[quote]and possibly set the stage for a European style socialist
North American Union.
[/quote]
HA!

[quote]He betrayed his Oath of office to faithfully
execute the laws. I believe he was a wolf in sheep>s clothing to the
faith community, and his family values campaign did not include
policies that would ensure that families could support themselves.
[/quote]
Most of the problems you decry are due to people jiggering the economy
in favor of being as close to full employment as we can be.

The Depression looms in our collective rear-view mirror.

[quote]I
am a reluctant Republican, but I am far from being a mindless
partisan. I am essentially a pro-labor conservative, which is about as
odd as a pro-life Democrat, but we do exist.
[/quote]
Nothing odd about it - I>d call you an old-school labor Democrat.
Socially conservative, economically liberal. The sort they drew on
for the character of Archie Bunker - a workin' man.

Please note I am not calling you Archie, he>s just of that ilk. Dan
Connor from "Roseanne", too. Just common examples, nothing more.

[quote]The Democratic party of
Roosevelt and Truman is a dinosaur, and for that matter the two party
system has been so corrupted by big money that it no longer serves the
public good.
[/quote]

It>s been corrupted by Utopianisms. Most have been highly
successful. Roosevelt/Truman were of the "labor" utopia,
Reagan/et al were an electorally designed mashup of "sky>s
the limit" economics, "values" politics and a kinder gentler
jingoism.

Both got a lot of what they wanted, up to certain limits. But
the "corruption by big money" isn>t necessarily as evil as
you think, nor is it unnecessary. Unless we erect a "chinese
wall" between gummint and bidness, it>s gonna happen.

[quote]I hate the Enron and Countrywide style corruption that
Bush tolerated,
[/quote]
Bush had little to do with it, other than with Fed policy.
The neo-Keynsian money pump caused both.

[quote]but Clinton harmed our oil markets far more during his
tenure by ignoring the antitrust laws and allowing the merger of the
then too few seven oil companies into three, re-assembling
Rockefeller>s Standard Oil on the installment plan.
[/quote]
No, I think that>s just regression to the mean. The market *wanted*
SO to exist. Sherman Act style antitrust is simply incorrect.

[quote]With all that being said, the enviromentalist view that man does not
have any place on this planet, that wants to depopulate rural America
to pre-Columbian times, is an absolute affront to the dignity of Man,
and the cause of extraordinary present and future suffering.
[/quote]
I think the Utopian/Druid view we see too much of is an artifact of
the medium. Most environmentalists are much more moderate, although
the radicals control the engines of information in environmentalism.

[quote]After the
last century of atheist socialist ideology that had no respect for the
dignity of man, the left, discredited from the evils of Stalinism and
the fall of the Soviet Union has replaced it with an ideology that
does not distinguish between man and animal
[/quote]
Well, the ....mechanical differences between man and animal are
vanishing. I have a dog that tries to talk to me. Koko the
gorilla could communicate well. In Chomsky>s linguistics lecture-
papers, he can>t really account for language in evolutionary terms,
nor symbol-managing in ...computational terms. We don>t know enough
to explain it. Birds can get ideas across to humans.... African
Greys can solve puzzles... ravens can pick locks...

Then again, Chomsky>s a pretty shade of his own, highly ... rigorous
pink. Maybe he just stopped looking, but I>m unaware of anybody
who has taken it further. It>s pretty clear that, say , Stephen Jay
Gould had his science biased by Communism. he stopped looking.

They both have magnificent "skyhooks".

He>d at least be a place to start to find out why we are where we are.
I suspect the subject is very painful, and we won>t see much progress.
Tom Wolfe>s "Charlotte Simmons" has this as a though-experiment - maybe
science at that level just hurts too much. I can>t say any more without
spoiling it. If you want it spoiled, ask and I>ll spoil it.

--
Les Cargill

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]But, hey, this isn>t rocket science. You tell me. Why were Jevons and
Malthus proven wrong?

Frankly, I don>t care about who was wrong about what. Today>s numbers
are what count. You will never understand that.
[/quote]
Fred has said several times not to worry because there are unlimited
oil reserves everywhere.

Sometimes his boilerplate is internally contradictory, however, and
he>ll cite the "running out of whale oil analogy."

After they ran out of whale oil, no problema, 'cause they discovered
petroleum oil.

Get it? The past is always a guide to the future so the same thing
will happen now.

A Rockefeller is waiting in the shadows to help.

Fred>s a complete wacko.

Bret Cahill


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 52, 53, 54 Next
Page 3 of 54