And the profits grow

[FireIceTalon]

Depends on how you count Americans. I don't consider the 20 million plus illegals here to be Americans. Still, 2,3 billion to <strike>300</strike> 270 million is closer to your ratio. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole was being used to bludgeon an idiot. ;)

Occhi

Seems this thread is invaded by a legion of supreme right-winged nut huggers turning this into a "lets-bend over- for the-oil-companies- and take it in the (insert expletive in here)-fest"

Carry on.

[Kevin]

Seems this thread is invaded by a legion of supreme right-winged nut huggers turning this into a "lets-suck-the-oil-companies-insert expletive in here-fest"

Carry on.

LOL. You really think so? No, I figure most of us are pretty anti-oil. The thing you don't see is that we can think for ourselves and we are way more anti-ignorant. I haven't seen anyone really defending the oil companies. I think I've come the closest to doing so, and I'm by no means in favor of many of their policies, but the uniformed statements you made couldn't be left alone. Again, anti-ignorance not pro-oil though the battle seems to be hopeless.

[Tal]

Seems this thread is invaded by a legion of supreme right-winged nut huggers turning this into a "lets-bend over- for the-oil-companies- and take it in the (insert expletive in here)-fest"

Carry on.

You've proven you're ignorant, not too quick on thinking or debating and now you're adding reading comprehension to your list of faults. I don't think you're long for this forum but if you do manage to ride it out I suggest you lurk more before posting again.

[FireIceTalon]

You've proven you're ignorant, not too quick on thinking or debating and now you're adding reading comprehension to your list of faults. I don't think you're long for this forum but if you do manage to ride it out I suggest you lurk more before posting again.

I usually post in the Diablo forum, in case you havent noticed. Rarely come in this section. But there is really nothing to debate or think about here.

At the end of the day, we are paying high gas prices not because the oil companies HAVE to charge us that, but because they CAN. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. The sooner you realize that, the better off you will be. Im not ignorant. I just dont feed into all the lies and BS propaganda that Fox News or whatever other media network that you get your so-called info from like you do. But if you want to live with the wool pulled over your eyes, have at it. I really couldnt care less honestly.

Cheers.

[Colonel_here]

I would not say that the current price of oil is due to the demand and supply but rather due to over excessive speculative attacks. From my experience in trading future options on oil I found that a very small things can cause the ups and downs in the price, so with markets being very volatile the ups and downs become bigger and people's paranoia tends to decrease the downs in price of oil and rather to push it up. However currently oil is overvalued and now is going down as all the speculators realized that it was overvalued and will not go any higher so they started to dump it. I predict the price of oil by the end of the year to be between $100 and $90 per barrel.
To provide some basis for my argument of over speculation on oil this year I would like to remind that at the top price this year we hit over $140 a barrel. Below are the historical prices of oil:

[Tal]

I usually post in the Diablo forum, in case you havent noticed. Rarely come in this section. But there is really nothing to debate or think about here.

At the end of the day, we are paying high gas prices not because the oil companies HAVE to charge us that, but because they CAN. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. The sooner you realize that, the better off you will be. Im not ignorant. I just dont feed into all the lies and BS propaganda that Fox News or whatever other media network that you get your so-called info from like you do. But if you want to live with the wool pulled over your eyes, have at it. I really couldnt care less honestly.

Cheers.

*sigh* You assume because I challenged you to prove your point, to post some facts, that I'm pro-oil.

I'd loan you a quarter to buy a clue to start with but I'm fresh out (bought gas today).

Since I seem to be having trouble getting through to you...put up or shut up. Post some facts to prove your allegations or kindly go back to the Diablo forum.

[kandrathe]

Seems this thread is invaded by a legion of supreme right-winged nut huggers turning this into a "lets-bend over- for the-oil-companies- and take it in the (insert expletive in here)-fest"

Carry on.

Bahahahaha! That IS funny! Trust me. If they are right-wing, then I'm fricking Adolf Hitler!

No. What they are is smart. Let me edjumacate you a bit.

You might try reading this link on the theory of "Peak Oil".

You see, M. King Hubbert theorized in 1956 that a time would come when the ability of a nation's capacity to supply oil is surpassed by the nation's demand for oil. This happened in the US in the 70's, and coupled with the OPEC oil embargo resulted in oil prices going skyward, and the economy dropping like a rock.

What we are living through now is a time where perhaps the worlds ability to supply oil is now surpassed by demand, so we will see the prices go up to where those who are willing will pay. Before now, as demand rose so too could production. Now, supply is fixed to a maximum amount, so when demand increases all that can move is the price.

Also, here is a link to a BP site that discusses world oil demand. You will see that while the US demand for oil remains high (per capita), it is flat and now descending. This trend will continue as we will now be forced to utilize better technology (which we have) to make our energy consumption very efficient.

The problem is not oil companies. The problem is not some consumers burning gas senselessly. Consider that the "average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per US gallon, plus 18.4 cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per US gallon". And, the government does nothing to produce or enhance the product.

Here is a primer on gas prices at the pump. Another issue we might discuss are the 20 odd summer fuel blends that are mandated to be used in various cities and region of the US requiring different refineries to make different products resulting in a variety of fluctuations in local supply and demand. Couple that with having to spend a week or two in the spring and fall to refit the refinery for the next season's fuel types.

So, please don't start out by calling people right wing oil company butt kissers. Do your homework and know a little bit about the topic before you spout off. These are smart people who are used to intelligent debates.

Based on the trends in the spot market for gasoline, the trend line is centered on $3.20 a gallon. Unless some other factors intervene, the price will fluctuate around that level and continue to rise with the difference between global supply(dropping slightly) and demand (growing robustly). The price has been for some reason artificially held low for the past two years.

[Jester]

Seems this thread is invaded by a legion of supreme right-winged nut huggers turning this into a "lets-bend over- for the-oil-companies- and take it in the (insert expletive in here)-fest"

Carry on.

A better description of me could not possibly be wrought at the hellforge itself. Congratulations, sir, you certainly have my number as an extreme-right-wing-oil-company-loving-crazy.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Though I really do wonder what the market would be like if the US had done like Brazil and mandated all the infrastructure for ethanol back when Brazil did. Not saying the energy market in Brazil is an ideal case, but I've often wondered about that.

The US will follow when the economics (price/gallon) make any fuel cheaper than oil to produce. Currently, without government tax credits, no bio-fuel is cheaper now. In fact, sometimes I wonder if the tax credits will only confuse the issue and we will end up building the wrong energy infrastructure.

[eppie]

I would not say that the current price of oil is due to the demand and supply but rather due to over excessive speculative attacks.

I wanted to post such a list as you did, thanks, only my conclusions are different.

@Firicetalon: if there is a conspiracy than it is the about the fact that oil prices have been kept low on purpose. Prices of oil most of the time didn't even get corrected for inflation....so while everybody new oil supplies were finite we actually started paying less and less for it.
Now finally there is sort of a free market going one and we have to pay more........actually when there was a real free market prices would be even higher.
I think you should start worrying about alternatives instead of worrying that you spend more on filling your car.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The US will follow when the economics (price/gallon) make any fuel cheaper than oil to produce.

Slight correction: since the energy density of different fuels is different, a better measure would be price/mile.

Currently, without government tax credits, no bio-fuel is cheaper now. In fact, sometimes I wonder if the tax credits will only confuse the issue and we will end up building the wrong energy infrastructure.

Oh, now. Where's your faith? Can the government back the wrong technology? :P

Kidding aside, I already see some problems. Like supporting corn as the raw material instead of using the native grasses. The farmers like it, because they can get the fuel makers bidding against the hog risers. The USDA likes it because it understands corn.

Yeah, I fear you are right. The correct thing will e done in inverse proportion to governmental mandates, incentives and restrictions. After all, progress and congress *are* opposites.

--Pete

[Kevin]

The US will follow when the economics (price/gallon) make any fuel cheaper than oil to produce. Currently, without government tax credits, no bio-fuel is cheaper now. In fact, sometimes I wonder if the tax credits will only confuse the issue and we will end up building the wrong energy infrastructure.

Right I'm aware of that. The situation was the same in the late 70's early 80's in Brazil as well. Bio fuels were not cheaper than oil based fuels for them either, but the infrastructure was mandated to be put into place and every gas station in the country had the alcohol, gasoline, diesel and there was one other choice I can't recall right now as options by I think it was 1985. The government worked with the auto manufacturers as well to help get vehicles that could use it. With the majority using flex fuel vehicles they could choose which fuel to use, which for a consumer would be whichever was cheaper. I can't find all the data again but by the early 90's the alcohol (what the ethanol at the pump is called) was usually cheaper.

I'm convinced that had the government not stepped in in the 70's that things for them would look more like the US. Even though the sugar cane to fuel process is cheaper than the corn process, it didn't make the fuel cheaper at first, because oil was cheap for a nice long time. As mentioned I think this was a situation where government involvement predicted the future correctly and things got better for citizens. I'm a firm believer in letting the market take care of itself most of the time, but that can still end up costing more in the long run. You consider what Brazil spent to get it all up and running and compare it to all that would have been spent staying with the status quo and what is being paid now, and it appears that it totals to less.

The US just keeps the view too short sometimes I think, which has pros and cons. You can prevent bubbles on the market by pushing and regulating for a longer view if you predict right, but you can make worse bubbles if you predict wrong. It's just interesting to see an example of guessing right and doing the gamble successfully.

It'd take A LOT more for the US to be remotely energy independent than Brazil. I just like to speculate how much closer we would be if we had pushed like Brazil and I'm interested to see how that all works out in China and India who are trying to do more than the US market forces are doing.


Oh and as to when it will be cheaper. It's already getting there, that is why fuel companies are looking at the studies for using steam from nuclear plants for the ethanol creation process and considering building plants. But without the fueling station infrastructure already in place there are higher barriers to entry than just production. Right now ethanol fuel could be 1/4 the price of gasoline in the US and someone could be producing enough to supply all the fuel needs in US and still not be able to sell it because the fuel stations aren't set up to handle it (no storage tanks) and the vehicles aren't set up to burn it. In order for private industry alone to get a push like this going they have to do more than just make the fuel. They need to get stations set up to sell it, they need to get the auto manufacturers to get vehicles out there that can burn pure ethanol (there are very few in the US still).

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles face similar issues, that's why you can only lease them in certain parts of the country right now, because refueling can only be done at certain places.

You can draw parallels to the HD TV stuff too. Sets have been available for what 20 years now (I think that's how long Japan has been producing what we think of HD sets). Cable and satellite services have been able to deliver the content for quite some time as well, but never did because market saturation wasn't high enough. Without some of the government mandates we still might not have any of it really going still. Now quality of TV is a pretty frivolous issue to be sure, but there are some parallels.

So I wonder. Admittedly I need to read more on the Brazil case, It was first introduced to me in one of my economy classes in 95 and I did some looking at it then, but kind of let it slip from my mind till a year or so ago when I saw I think it was Modern Marvels episode on Nat Geo talking about bio fuels. And of course the current situation makes it more relevant as well.

My personal position? I haven't even been inside a car in nearly two years, I haven't driven one in 3. There are lots of reasons for this, many having to do with my medical condition, but I still regularly go to the store and get 2-3 weeks of groceries in one go. I just have a cooler attached to a 2 wheeled hand truck for fridge/freeze stuff and I can tie the bags on the 2-wheeler itself so I can easily walk to the store. Treesh can walk to work in 15 minutes or so from where we live, etc. So had some of this not been forced on me, the gas prices probably would have driven me to do it anyway. I know 2 years ago when I started doing this, I got funny looks, now I get lots of comments about what a clever way it is to save on gas costs and I saw someone else with a set-up like mine the other day.

[eppie]

My personal position? I haven't even been inside a car in nearly two years, I haven't driven one in 3. There are lots of reasons for this, many having to do with my medical condition, but I still regularly go to the store and get 2-3 weeks of groceries in one go. I just have a cooler attached to a 2 wheeled hand truck for fridge/freeze stuff and I can tie the bags on the 2-wheeler itself so I can easily walk to the store. Treesh can walk to work in 15 minutes or so from where we live, etc. So had some of this not been forced on me, the gas prices probably would have driven me to do it anyway. I know 2 years ago when I started doing this, I got funny looks, now I get lots of comments about what a clever way it is to save on gas costs and I saw someone else with a set-up like mine the other day.

Cool stuff. One question if I may, Treesh the lurker is your wife? Never knew that.

Anyway, you cannot compare countries so easily. Right Brazil has done a good thing, but let's not forget hat Brazil is destroying forest at a rate of a few times an area like the Netherlands per year....and these things are all connected.

The corn or sugar cane to fuel routes. The biggest innovation now is to make fuel out of organic waste. Many groups around the world are working on it and there will be some great advances in the near future. This way if you would use corn you could use the whole plant, but generally you would be able to use even wood.


The energy problem being a global problem is not completely true...some countries will have more problems. The most important factor will be space.....if you have space you can grow things and convert them in fuel. For a country like Holland things will become difficult.....and still a lot of skeptics are complaining about increasing solar and wind energy....even though we have very little oil, and no uranium. When things are getting bad, we should not expect other countries to give us their fuel....they want to get paid for it....and a lot as well.

edited typing and spelling errors

[Chesspiece_face]

So I wonder. Admittedly I need to read more on the Brazil case, It was first introduced to me in one of my economy classes in 95 and I did some looking at it then, but kind of let it slip from my mind till a year or so ago when I saw I think it was Modern Marvels episode on Nat Geo talking about bio fuels. And of course the current situation makes it more relevant as well.

Would things look different had america taken more of an approach like brazil? maybe a little, but not drastically. We are essentially on the tail end of an "exponential" S-curve in our present gasoline based fuel paradigm, bio fuels are just an extension of this paradigm. The Law of Accelerating Returns dictates that as one paradigm fizzles out a new one will rise to take it's place. Solar is the likeliest next paradigm, as exponential models predict the technology advancing to the point that it can sustain all of our energy needs around 20 years from now. Lets hope we can last that long.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Solar is the likeliest next paradigm, as exponential models predict the technology advancing to the point that it can sustain all of our energy needs around 20 years from now.

I've been hearing of technologies that would mature "20 years from now" for about 50 years. Most of them are still 20 years out today. While we do need long term research to keep the innovation pipeline running, we also need to use technologies that actually work *now*. Solar is good, but not ready for prime time.

The problem with the "20 years from now" scenario is that it typically involves a bunch of breakthroughs in the technology and the underlying science. Breakthroughs are notoriously difficult to generate on schedule;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

... Solar is good, but not ready for prime time.

The issue is that direct solar power produces about 2-4hp for the surface area of a vehicle using solar cells that are 30% efficient. If we made huge breakthroughs in solar cells and increased efficiency to 60%, we would still only get between 5hp and 10hp in perfect sunny conditions. Solar power is too dilute for vehicle power. Vehicles will need to accelerate reasonably quickly and go up steep hills so 5 hp or so will not usually be sufficient. That leads back to battery storage and the additional weight. The future of vehicle propulsion must be focused on energy storage density. Part of the process will need to be a shift of thinking from 500hp vehicles down to ones sufficient for transport. As you know, bio-fuels are really just another way of storing solar power, and photo synthesis is not a very efficient process. So, the trade off would be between using huge amounts of land for solar cell farms to capture electricity, or huge amounts of land being used to grow crops to be processed into bio-fuels. Which bio-fuel is better then, Bio-diesel or Ethanol? My feeling is that Bio-diesel seems to be currently the better more efficient way to make fuel. I think eventually to replace petro-fuels we will need to rely on a combination of technologies, including hydro, solar, nuclear, and some bio-fuels.

[kandrathe]

extreme-right-wing-oil-company-loving-crazy.

Would you put that in your sig? Pretty please?

Or maybe... "Standing member of the legion of supreme right-winged nut huggers turning the world into a lets-bend over- for the-oil-companies- and take it in the expletive-fest."

[Chesspiece_face]

The issue is that direct solar power produces about 2-4hp for the surface area of a vehicle using solar cells that are 30% efficient. If we made huge breakthroughs in solar cells and increased efficiency to 60%, we would still only get between 5hp and 10hp in perfect sunny conditions. Solar power is too dilute for vehicle power. Vehicles will need to accelerate reasonably quickly and go up steep hills so 5 hp or so will not usually be sufficient. That leads back to battery storage and the additional weight. The future of vehicle propulsion must be focused on energy storage density. Part of the process will need to be a shift of thinking from 500hp vehicles down to ones sufficient for transport. As you know, bio-fuels are really just another way of storing solar power, and photo synthesis is not a very efficient process. So, the trade off would be between using huge amounts of land for solar cell farms to capture electricity, or huge amounts of land being used to grow crops to be processed into bio-fuels. Which bio-fuel is better then, Bio-diesel or Ethanol? My feeling is that Bio-diesel seems to be currently the better more efficient way to make fuel. I think eventually to replace petro-fuels we will need to rely on a combination of technologies, including hydro, solar, nuclear, and some bio-fuels.

The reason photosynthesis isn't efficient is because 90% of the energy being stored is in turn used to maintain the survivability of the organism doing the storing. Non biological photosynthesis, as technologies advance, will circumvent this limitation. The "huge breakthroughs" you speak of still assumes a linear technology advancement path when technologies advance on exponential curves (or more accurately multiple exponential curves). The question isn't "even if we can increase the efficiency *this much*" it's a question of how accurately we can predict where we are on the technology curve for solar power (or hydrogen fuel cells, etc. etc. etc.). The efficiency is going to get better, I'm confident in making that prediction. Thinking about technology in a linear fashion tends to lead to two falacies: we overestimate tech advancements in the short term, and we vastly underestimate tech advances in the long term.

[eppie]

The reason photosynthesis isn't efficient is because 90% of the energy being stored is in turn used to maintain the survivability of the organism doing the storing. Non biological photosynthesis, as technologies advance, will circumvent this limitation. The "huge breakthroughs" you speak of still assumes a linear technology advancement path when technologies advance on exponential curves (or more accurately multiple exponential curves). The question isn't "even if we can increase the efficiency *this much*" it's a question of how accurately we can predict where we are on the technology curve for solar power (or hydrogen fuel cells, etc. etc. etc.). The efficiency is going to get better, I'm confident in making that prediction. Thinking about technology in a linear fashion tends to lead to two falacies: we overestimate tech advancements in the short term, and we vastly underestimate tech advances in the long term.

Good example is the transistor size (and PC memory). There is a road map and for 20 years this is followed even though there were and are many obstacles. I share your ideas on the future of solar. Harvesting 20 % of all the light on a certain area is anyway a big number. Organic solar cells have been made in labs going up to 13 % energy conversion. Once we have cheap reliable organic cells we can put them every where (cars, houses, windows) without bothering us..... this should give us a considerable part of our energy needs.

[Chesspiece_face]

Good example is the transistor size (and PC memory).

It's not only a good example of how technology advances exponentially but also how we underestimate long term tech advancements. Moore's Law is based on the amount of transisters we can fit within a certain 2 dimensional space. Because of this, about ten years from now Moore's Law will become meaningless. Following the advancements set by Moore's Law, by about 2020 the distance between transisters on a chip will be measured in atoms. At this point the paradigm that Moore's Law describes won't be efficient to advance and we will move on to 3 dimensional chip design paradigms.