Record profits and soaring gas prices, I dont get it - Page 12

Deathwing · 05-06-2008, 07:14 AM

Yes, but if that system which puts the constraint on water actually works, you can use that new power source to clean more water.

Eomer · 05-07-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hachima

Kinda funny that this gets posted as a negative for oil production, when in fact growing corn kills off even more wildlife, on purpose. Just look at the 20+ ways to kill and control birds that try to eat corn at Controlling Wildlife Damage to Corn for example.

This was in response to my mentioning a recent duck kill in tailings ponds up in Northern Alberta. I've been doing a bit of reading this morning, and I want to add something to my previous response: currently the dam system holding in all this incredibly toxic and polluted tailings is the second largest in the world, second only to the Three Gorges. All to hold in 600 million cubic meters of waste that no one has any idea what to do with. And again, this is from a couple decades of production at that on average was maybe 500,000 bpd over that time period. Within a couple years production will be 3,000,000 bpd. The scale of these developments I don't think most people can possibly fathom.

Also, I had wanted to post a link to a story I had read awhile back, but couldn't find it at the time. I was able to this morning. There's one paragraph in particular that really puts things in perspective, and it confirmed my pessimism about what's going to happen over the next century:

http://www.seminole-electric.com/new...ot_warming.htm

Quote:

Late last year, the Paris-based International Energy Agency compiled a list, which it presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, outlining what's required in order to meet emissions reductions of 50 per cent by 2050. The list, described by the Los Angeles Times, included: 30 new nuclear power plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, two hydroelectric dams the size of China's massive Three Gorges project, and 42 coal or natural gas plants using carbon-capture technology to store CO2 emissions underground. But that's not all. It concluded that all of that would have to be built and up and running by 2013--and the process repeated every year until 2030.

In short, we're fucked.

Arbitrary · 05-07-2008, 11:41 AM

We could use people in the biomass power plants. You know, as fuel.

Less people less demand.

Ancalagon · 05-07-2008, 11:46 AM

Late response, and this may have been covered already. Virtually all sellers of oil denominate in dollars. If the dollar depreciates, as it has against many major currencies, oil prices have to increase if companies are to maintain their real rates of return. This is obviously reflected at the pump. Those profits you see are less dramatic than they first appear once you adjust for the currency fluctuations that have taken place.

Soriak · 05-07-2008, 03:37 PM

NBC's nightly news (interesting podcast, btw) reported that subway use has gone up by 4% in DC, 7% in New York, 9% in Boston and 28% in Seattle. (I think that's since last year) And a car dealer reported people were trading in their SUVs. (would be nice to see some national data on that instead of an anecdote)

Working as intended. Let's see what those numbers look like at $150/bbl or $200/bbl.

Eomer · 05-07-2008, 04:03 PM

Those numbers sound great, but I think they also don't really give a true representation of what's going on. For example, let's take the one with the "biggest" jump, Seattle. Let's play with made up numbers: assume that 15% of the Seattle population was using the subway before. With the 28% increase, that's now up to 19%. That's not a hell of a lot, really. It's definitely a nice start.

The other thing is, I think Seattle's numbers can't possibly only be caused by fuel costs. Did a new line just open in the past year or something?

However, along those lines, I was reading that SUV and truck sales in the US are down something like 20-30%, while everyone's stampeding over to "crossover" utility vehicles. I guess that's a start, too. Of course hybrid sales are going absolutely stupid, but that can largely be attributed to the fact that new models are being made available all the time. But it's great that there's a demand for them.

Tea on tuesday · 05-07-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaio

Unfortunately the numbers sound massively fishy. But even if the numbers pan out to be half as good it's still twice as good as corn.

edit: Numbers revised... Also I'm not sure how capturing sunlight in 1/10 of new mexico can power most of the u.s. no matter the process.

Algae does have potential and pretty much any way you slice it should be capable of vastly out performing other sources including cellulosic sources...in theory.

In practice no one has been able to actually make usable oil from an algae farm in anything approaching feasibility, and by nowhere approaching feasibility I mean single digit liters and often far less than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer

Quote:

42 coal or natural gas plants using carbon-capture technology to store CO2 emissions underground.

My impression is the carbon sequestration doesn't yet scale well, and isn't expected to for another couple of decades, but I'm not positive.

Someone can read through this and tell me if I'm wrong.

AladainAF · 05-07-2008, 05:09 PM

The fact people are trading in SUVs and taking subways and shit more often is the exact reason why price-caps and price controls should never ever happen.

Eomer · 05-07-2008, 05:10 PM

Hey man, take it up with the IEA, they're the ones who came up with those numbers. I know that Alberta/Canada are going to be investing heavily in sequestration because of the massive amount of CO2 coming from the oil sands, but yeah, it's a ways away still.

Tolanin · 05-07-2008, 05:13 PM

well the projections for food production i have seen even with global warming are between like -10 percent and +5ish percent (because of something called carbon fertilization).. so thats sorta absorbable.. problem is we cant absorb a stagnation or drop in production for a hundred years while at the same time absorbing pop increases of like 3 billion over that period.

we need better subways and the states need to get off their asses and make that shit happen. the boston subway has been falling apart for 50 years now.

ashatumar · 05-07-2008, 05:42 PM

Honda FCX Clarity - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle - Official Web Site

Discuss.

Borzak · 05-07-2008, 07:43 PM

I just bought a new truck last week. Gets about 13mpg on the highway at the speed limit of 85mph here.

I'd have to pay more for gasoline than I do for food/housing/insurance and all other associated products before I would even fathom getting on public transportation. Then if it got that bad I just wouldn't go anywhere.

Soriak · 05-07-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borzak

I just bought a new truck last week. Gets about 13mpg on the highway at the speed limit of 85mph here.

I'd have to pay more for gasoline than I do for food/housing/insurance and all other associated products before I would even fathom getting on public transportation. Then if it got that bad I just wouldn't go anywhere.

And as your experience shows, you're free to do that. You can continue to drive your truck when gas is $6/gallon (by the end of the year?), $8/gallon and beyond - nobody's going to force you into a bus. People drive SUVs in Europe too and gas is about $9/gallon already.

Eomer · 05-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Soriak, being that you're all up on the economist shizzay, I read an article that said that currently consumers actually are NOT heavily burdened with energy costs, as compared to historical prices. The proportion of their income that they spend on energy is comparable to what it has been in the past. The exception is the 90's, when energy was stupid cheap. Do you have anything or can you find anything to back that up? I thought it was pretty interesting, anyway.

rinthea · 05-07-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer

Soriak, being that you're all up on the economist shizzay, I read an article that said that currently consumers actually are NOT heavily burdened with energy costs, as compared to historical prices. The proportion of their income that they spend on energy is comparable to what it has been in the past. The exception is the 90's, when energy was stupid cheap. Do you have anything or can you find anything to back that up? I thought it was pretty interesting, anyway.

thats bullshit, got a source?

food and energy in real terms are high worldwide

05-06-2008, 07:14 AM	#166 (permalink)
Deathwing Sisko is the new Picard Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,591 +0 Internets	Yes, but if that system which puts the constraint on water actually works, you can use that new power source to clean more water. __________________ Baalzamon, For The Lose, Llane Balthemal, For The Lose, Llane Trolloc, Just The Tip, BDF(retired)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

05-07-2008, 11:46 AM	#169 (permalink)
Ancalagon Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 568	Late response, and this may have been covered already. Virtually all sellers of oil denominate in dollars. If the dollar depreciates, as it has against many major currencies, oil prices have to increase if companies are to maintain their real rates of return. This is obviously reflected at the pump. Those profits you see are less dramatic than they first appear once you adjust for the currency fluctuations that have taken place.

05-07-2008, 03:37 PM	#170 (permalink)
Soriak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Switzerland Posts: 4,686 +29 Internets	NBC's nightly news (interesting podcast, btw) reported that subway use has gone up by 4% in DC, 7% in New York, 9% in Boston and 28% in Seattle. (I think that's since last year) And a car dealer reported people were trading in their SUVs. (would be nice to see some national data on that instead of an anecdote) Working as intended. Let's see what those numbers look like at $150/bbl or $200/bbl.

05-07-2008, 04:03 PM	#171 (permalink)
Eomer You mean I can change this? Neat! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,746 +27 Internets	Those numbers sound great, but I think they also don't really give a true representation of what's going on. For example, let's take the one with the "biggest" jump, Seattle. Let's play with made up numbers: assume that 15% of the Seattle population was using the subway before. With the 28% increase, that's now up to 19%. That's not a hell of a lot, really. It's definitely a nice start. The other thing is, I think Seattle's numbers can't possibly only be caused by fuel costs. Did a new line just open in the past year or something? However, along those lines, I was reading that SUV and truck sales in the US are down something like 20-30%, while everyone's stampeding over to "crossover" utility vehicles. I guess that's a start, too. Of course hybrid sales are going absolutely stupid, but that can largely be attributed to the fact that new models are being made available all the time. But it's great that there's a demand for them.

05-07-2008, 05:09 PM	#173 (permalink)
AladainAF Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,954	The fact people are trading in SUVs and taking subways and shit more often is the exact reason why price-caps and price controls should never ever happen.

05-07-2008, 05:10 PM	#174 (permalink)
Eomer You mean I can change this? Neat! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,746 +27 Internets	Hey man, take it up with the IEA, they're the ones who came up with those numbers. I know that Alberta/Canada are going to be investing heavily in sequestration because of the massive amount of CO2 coming from the oil sands, but yeah, it's a ways away still.

05-07-2008, 05:13 PM	#175 (permalink)
Tolanin h8 Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,867 -17 Internets	well the projections for food production i have seen even with global warming are between like -10 percent and +5ish percent (because of something called carbon fertilization).. so thats sorta absorbable.. problem is we cant absorb a stagnation or drop in production for a hundred years while at the same time absorbing pop increases of like 3 billion over that period. we need better subways and the states need to get off their asses and make that shit happen. the boston subway has been falling apart for 50 years now.

05-07-2008, 05:42 PM	#176 (permalink)
ashatumar R gis er d Us r Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 629 -1 Internets	Honda FCX Clarity - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle - Official Web Site Discuss.

05-07-2008, 07:43 PM	#177 (permalink)
Borzak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 671 -1 Internets	I just bought a new truck last week. Gets about 13mpg on the highway at the speed limit of 85mph here. I'd have to pay more for gasoline than I do for food/housing/insurance and all other associated products before I would even fathom getting on public transportation. Then if it got that bad I just wouldn't go anywhere.

05-07-2008, 08:32 PM	#179 (permalink)
Eomer You mean I can change this? Neat! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,746 +27 Internets	Soriak, being that you're all up on the economist shizzay, I read an article that said that currently consumers actually are NOT heavily burdened with energy costs, as compared to historical prices. The proportion of their income that they spend on energy is comparable to what it has been in the past. The exception is the 90's, when energy was stupid cheap. Do you have anything or can you find anything to back that up? I thought it was pretty interesting, anyway.