Fuel Prices... [Archive]

zenith-nadir

25th April 2006, 10:51 AM

But most of the people in the areas you cited in the opening post do.People own cars and trucks in Europe just like they own cars and trucks in the US. They have to pay for gas to operate those vehicles. IMO this mass transit aside is not really relevant,.. especially in a commerical context where you can't ship TVs, textiles, foodstuffs and furniture on streetcars or subways.

The United States is almost unique in the amount of driving required per capita, and therefore it is almost unique in the degree to which fuel prices for personal vehicles directly impacts personal spending.It's a given that Americans travel further each day than folks in many other countries. It's the choice of personal vehicle that impacts personal spending. Look at the Ford Escape 18mpg, Ford F150 Pickup 14mpg, BMW X5 15mpg, Buick Rendezvous 18mpg, Cadillac Escalade 15mpg, Chevrolet Tahoe 15mpg, Dodge Durango 14mpg, GMC Envoy 14mpg, Jeep Grand Cherokee 14mpg...how many of those do you see every day going to work? ;)

pipelineaudio

25th April 2006, 10:55 AM

To be fair, while a lot of those gas guzzlers are just gas guzzlers out of stupidity, a lot of US gas guzzlers are that way because of EPA laws which not only hurt gas mileage, but hurt the environment

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 10:58 AM

There are other factors.

How far does the average Sweede drive to work? 30 - 50 miles for me depending on what day it is, thats one way. Thats not at all unsusal for a American.

What percentage of Sweedes have access to public transportation? I have no other option but to drive to work.

Gas prices in other countries are completely unrelated to the level of hardship it causes here.

Seems like poor planing on your part.

Twilek

25th April 2006, 11:08 AM

I could take the rail/bus combo to work (for lack of a metro going to our side of the island...grrrr), but it would take nearly 2 hours to get to work rather than the 30-45 minutes it takes now. Who has that kind of time? I really wish they'd build a metro, but it doesn't seem to be on the horizon at the moment.

(Of course, if a lot of other people could do that combo, it would only take me 15 minutes to get there. Meh.)

ETA: Gas here in Montreal is about $1.17/liter at the moment. Paid $52.00CDN to fill the tank on the Hyundai last night. I'd love to get one of those little Smart Cars...maybe someday when the price goes down.

roger

25th April 2006, 11:11 AM

Seems like poor planing on your part."your" - do you mean anti_hypeman, or the US?

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 11:39 AM

"your" - do you mean anti_hypeman, or the US?

Anti_Hyperman of course.

drkitten

25th April 2006, 11:46 AM

People own cars and trucks in Europe just like they own cars and trucks in the US.

But typically use them substantially less, because they have effective mass-transit.

They have to pay for gas to operate those vehicles.

But because they operate them less, they pay less in total.

It's a given that Americans travel further each day than folks in many other countries.

Well, I'm glad that you acknowledge this. This, in turn, means that fuel prices have a greater impact on Americans.....

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 11:52 AM

But typically use them substantially less, because they have effective mass-transit.

But because they operate them less, they pay less in total.

Well, I'm glad that you acknowledge this. This, in turn, means that fuel prices have a greater impact on Americans.....

Alternatevely one could find a job closer to home or a home closer to the job.

drkitten

25th April 2006, 12:23 PM

Alternatevely one could find a job closer to home or a home closer to the job.

One could. If fuel prices continue to rise, one probably will. But there's 50+ years of infrastructure development in the United States to support a suburb culture with long commutes that didn't happen in Europe. Undoing those 50+ years of development will require a substantial investment of time, energy, resources, etc. -- a "major impact" on US society.

One way of thinking about it. If gas prices world-wide tripled, what percentage of Europeans would have to move from their current homes? What percentage of Americans would? I strongly suspect that fewer Europeans would be forced to move, and I attribute that almost directly to the well-established public transit system.

roger

25th April 2006, 12:35 PM

Alternatevely one could find a job closer to home or a home closer to the job.Were it so easy.

How exactly does a dockworker, say, move closer to his job when his wages don't allow him to buy a home near his job? And how does he find a job doing dockwork not near the ocean?

ETA: and then of course there is the whole issue of his spouse and where she works, and where the kids go to school, etc. Upshot is that here in the states we are often constrained to these long commutes. No planning will alleviate this.

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 12:43 PM

Were it so easy.

How exactly does a dockworker, say, move closer to his job when his wages don't allow him to buy a home near his job? And how does he find a job doing dockwork not near the ocean?

And the alternative would be...? Life is full of crapy choice like that.

ETA: and then of course there is the whole issue of his spouse and where she works, and where the kids go to school, etc. Upshot is that here in the states we are often constrained to these long commutes. No planning will alleviate this.
Exactly, people need to take all this into consideration when they get a job and a house.

Sure I make it sound easy when I say it, and perhaps it's not fair. However, if people don't think about consequences of their own actions and decisions, who the heck should?

aerocontrols

25th April 2006, 12:52 PM

Were it so easy.

How exactly does a dockworker, say, move closer to his job when his wages don't allow him to buy a home near his job? And how does he find a job doing dockwork not near the ocean?

Along those lines, I used to frame houses. Sometimes the subcontractor I worked for would get a job on the east side of town, sometimes on the west side of town. Some of the many places we worked are shown on this map:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9423/commute4hr.jpg

Moving 'closer' to work wasn't a reasonable goal. I lived close to school, instead. At least it didn't jump around every few weeks.

kittynh

25th April 2006, 12:52 PM

hhmmmm, actually it seems to be a big yawn here.

I drive cars that get good gas mileage. But no one else is really complaining.

I've lived in Europe. I could take the tram, the bus and the subway if I wanted to go anywhere. I'm sure the fuel taxes helped pay for all that. (It was quite cheap, but they had to have a whole police force that just checked to make sure people were paying their fares. Outwitting them in Brussels is a city sport). I'm sure those police were getting paid something (they even have their own uniforms....).

Hey, I love any high speed train. And I love public transportation. But to do that outlay in the US would be overwhelming. totally. I don't think people get how BIG the US is. And how rural many people live. I know I know, there are rural places in Europe. Nope, not US rural. OK Yugoslavia, and even that isn't rural like Oaklahoma or Nebraska.

Honestly though, a little biodiesel and some smaller cars and everything would be fine. Heck, buy your hummer, you just aren't allowed to complain about gas prices. Drive a mini cooper and you are allowed to.

My neighbors just bought a big new Chevy Suburban thingy. Got a great price. Me, it would just be a planter. How will they even afford to drive it to town? (no bus or other service here thanks).

kittynh

25th April 2006, 12:58 PM

It should be noted that when I was in London and they were bombing the subway, I was informed that it was really terror against the poor and some tourists. REAL people took a car or car service to work. They did NOT ride the subway.

I rememeber looking around the bus and the trams in Brussels and noticing it was students, minorities, and me.

So public transportation helps the group most hurt by high gas prices. For those that are middle class and above in Brussels at least, the CAR is the only way to go. And they live in the burbs.

My friend worked in Milan for 2 years. He was informed he had to STOP riding the bus and drive the company car they gave him. It looked bad, his taking the bus.

In Brussels most people got a company car, and a gas allowance. Most executive types (and I'm talking lower executive). This is a way around the supposedlly high taxes in Belgium. Not taxed are you company car, you gas allowance, and a food allowance. People where Pool Boy worked received around $40 a day in food vouchers they used at the food store, or could go out and eat with. And people wonder why Brussels has so many restaurants. All that would be taxed here.

The middle class everywhere drives the car.

BPSCG

25th April 2006, 01:04 PM

zenith-nadir

25th April 2006, 01:14 PM

Why do people have to move? They don't have to move, they just have to use less fuel to get between point "A" & "B". I remember the fuel/oil crisis in the 70s. Automobiles in America became smaller and more fuel effecient and then in the 90s they ballooned again into what we see today which is mommies driving Hummers, Escalades and Expeditions.

By increasing fuel economy you decrease gasoline consumption...hence you pay less at the pump, therefore less impact on personal spending. Hopefully people will move toward more fuel efficient vehicles.

Sales of full-size SUVs dropped 28% in March from the same month the year before, from 145,918 units to 105,745.

April 4, 2006 (http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/greenwheels,view.spy?artid=59409&pg=1)

brodski

25th April 2006, 01:18 PM

It should be noted that when I was in London and they were bombing the subway, I was informed that it was really terror against the poor and some tourists. REAL people took a car or car service to work. They did NOT ride the subway.

Whoever told you that was ill informed, yes the very wealthy will use cars, but I can assure you that both the Square Mile and places like Canary Wharf are very well served by public transport, and people from almost all socio-economic groups use them. there is absolutely no stigma attached to using the trains in London, although busses do have a certain amount of stigma attached.
however i would add that the effective and relatively cheep public transport system available in London, is not replicated in many other places in the UK, where car use is pretty much the only practical way of getting around.

Manny

25th April 2006, 01:26 PM

Moving 'closer' to work wasn't a reasonable goal. I lived close to school, instead. At least it didn't jump around every few weeks.There are two important things about your example.

First, it's not typical. Most people have a fixed workplace and can sometimes make the choice to live closer to their place of employ (in fact, dockworkers was exactly the wrong counterexample to that -- dockworkers make hella cash in the US and cities with halfway decent docks also generally have at least pretty decent affordable housing stock).

Second, it's becoming more typical as time passes. We're shifting from a manufacturing economy to a service one more quickly than Europe, so an increasing part of the workforce is in your situation -- they themselves are the "asset" of their employer, not a steel mill or assembly plant and they are expected to go to the customer, not the other way around. So that complicates the argument above. Mitigating that of course is telecommuting, but that's growing fairly slowly because bosses like to see the asses their paying either in a seat at the office or at a customer site, not in pajamas in the den. One possible positive outcome of higher gas prices may be an increasing number of people telling their bosses that something has to give -- either the company has to cough up a raise or it has to allow more telecommuting.

Crossbow

25th April 2006, 01:27 PM

Remember all those folks who were saying a year or two ago, "They should add fifty cents a gallon to the gas tax. That would make people start thinking about saving gas"?

I'll bet they're happy now, right?

Er, I doubt it since that extra money is going to Exxon, Shell, BP, and the other petro companies. I am sure that they will report record, or at least near record, profits again this quater.

If the gas tax was raised and the extra money was being used to develop a good public transportation system, then I expect that they would be happy about that.

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 01:35 PM

roger

25th April 2006, 01:44 PM

Anti_Hypeman

25th April 2006, 01:45 PM

The poor people that are really affected by gas prices buy 10+ year old used cars and have little impact on the developement of new cars. High gas prices wont force the middle class into escorts.

roger

25th April 2006, 01:51 PM

First, it's not typical. Most people have a fixed workplace and can sometimes make the choice to live closer to their place of employ (in fact, dockworkers was exactly the wrong counterexample to that -- dockworkers make hella cash in the US and cities with halfway decent docks also generally have at least pretty decent affordable housing stock). Well, I made that example, I'm not a dockworker, perhaps it was a terrible choice. But you take the point, yes? Here in the DC area, for example, we have retail locations with high end stores in affluent neighborhoods. It's not really possible to live in these affluent neighborhoods based on the salarys being paid for these positions.

This is why I asked Grammatron if he meant anti_hypeman or the government wasn't planning properly. A side effect of unconstrained growth like this is that workers can't afford to live in the neighborhoods where they work. Now, I'm not arguing that is a bad thing, as you'd have to weigh costs of government planning, restrictions of trade, etc., to decide the net costs. But I can't imagine someone working retail in locations like Bethesda, Georgetown, Old Town, etc (local upper crust mixed retail/mansion home areas) and being able to afford buying a home there as well.

Bottom line, most of the people I know in this area, and ones with pretty good jobs (I write software, you do the math) end up commuting quite a bit in order to be able to afford to buy a house. The ones who don't generally bought before the real estate boom.

Manny

25th April 2006, 01:59 PM

This is why I asked Grammatron if he meant anti_hypeman or the government wasn't planning properly. A side effect of unconstrained growth like this is that workers can't afford to live in the neighborhoods where they work. Now, I'm not arguing that is a bad thing, as you'd have to weigh costs of government planning, restrictions of trade, etc., to decide the net costs.Also without arguing whether it's good or bad, that outcome has definitely occurred. But it is not from unconstrained growth; it is from constrained growth. Municipalities limit land use with minimum plot sizes, place restrictions on townhomes, enforce strict segregation of residential from commercial from industrial uses, etc. all to keep it nice for the kind of town they want to be and unaffordable for the kinds of people who clean their houses and operate their cash registers. In many parts of the country if you wanted to build affordable housing which backs up to the regional mall you literally couldn't do it by law -- that space is restricted by law to other commercial developments or there is an open-space buffer with 3 or 5-to-an-acre maximum density housing on the other side.

headscratcher4

25th April 2006, 01:59 PM

As an interesting aside to this discussion, the president today proposed tapping the strategic petroleum reserve...funny how it was a horrible idea when Al Gore (you recall, the guy who won more votes back in 2000) proposed a similar idea for dealing with high fuel prices.

Well, one man's pander is, well, two man's pander.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/21/se.03.html

roger

25th April 2006, 02:05 PM

In many parts of the country if you wanted to build affordable housing which backs up to the regional mall you literally couldn't do it by law -- that space is restricted by law to other commercial developments or there is an open-space buffer with 3 or 5-to-an-acre maximum density housing on the other side.Good point.

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 02:05 PM

Manny

25th April 2006, 02:09 PM

Do you have a link to that? All I heard is Bush stopped adding to the reserve nothing about opening it up.headscratcher4 is obviously a Congressman -- a lack of increase and a decrease are the same thing to him.

Nyarlathotep

25th April 2006, 02:12 PM

I remember the good old days, when gas was only $2.00 a gallon.

**sigh**

roger

25th April 2006, 02:17 PM

All I know is that my oil and energy stocks have been going through the roof. Yay gas hikes!

headscratcher4

25th April 2006, 02:20 PM

Ok, it is possible I've overstated...won't be the first or last time, certainly, quick to type not always quick to explore. Anyway, the president proposed, according to the Washington Post:

"To help increase the supplies of fuel available to consumers, Bush said he was directing the Department of Energy to "stop making deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve" until this fall, leaving a bit more crude oil on the market."

Gore proposed directly tapping the reserve. There is a difference, of course, as Bush is suggesting holding off making new deposits in the reserve. But, it seems to me, that if the reserve is for national emergencies, than any oil that is supposed to go into the reserve over a period of time (from now until fall) would mean that the reserve planning would be 4-5 months off where it was expected to be. It also seems to me that in a national emergency it would hurt.

I only raise the point because of Bush's castigation of Gore lo' these many years ago. I actually thought Gore's idea than was not very smart, and I don't think that Bush's is either. However, given his policies, the spike in Oil prices is pretty understandable, as is his lateness to the table in trying to find solutions.

Rmember Dick Cheney? Conservation is quaint? A reflection of personal preference and ethics, but not an energy policy. They would no from "not an energy policy..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/25/AR2006042500366.html
may need to register to enter...

Rob Lister

25th April 2006, 02:36 PM

I thought this 3 y/o post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=20863&page=2&highlight=strategic+petroleum+reserve) was significant.

By the way.....if anyone wanted to know why, at a time when gas prices in the US are looking like a major election issue, the US is filling up its strategic petroleum reserve by diverting incoming oil away from the petrol refineries, they now have their answer. If the US believe the dollar will fall further and the dollar oil price will continue to rise then it is very important to the US to fill up the SPR to its maximum capacity now, rather than leaving it later, because it will cost them even more to fill it later. If the US believed the dollar oil price was going to fall significantly in the future, then it would make no sense to cause US gas prices to rise by filling the SPR now. Therefore the US must believe that the dollar is going to continue to fall and the dollar price of oil is going to continue to rise.

His predicted rational was wrong but he nailed it otherwise.

Manny

25th April 2006, 02:41 PM

The SPR is 20% larger than it was in 2000 -- the Bush administration has been growing it pretty much nonstop from the day he got into office until its peak at 700 MM barrels last August. Since then there was been a 2% drawdown in the form of loans to refiners and retailers to counteract the effects of Katrina and Rita (which is the kind of thing it was designed for), followed by gradual calls on the loans since about the middle of January. By contrast, the Gore election effort involved a 5% drawdown of a smaller reserve. That was a mix of loans and outright sales.

With the reserve in such good shape it absolutely makes sense to slow the recall of those loans, at least during the gas switchover season, as a tiny mitigant to the (bad) policy the administration and the Congress made last fall on MTBE.

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 03:14 PM

I only raise the point because of Bush's castigation of Gore lo' these many years ago. I actually thought Gore's idea than was not very smart, and I don't think that Bush's is either. However, given his policies, the spike in Oil prices is pretty understandable, as is his lateness to the table in trying to find solutions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4942846.stm
The price of oil fell by over $1, after US President George W Bush announced plans to help counter rising oil prices at the Renewable Fuels Association.

That said, I doubt Bush is to blame at all. If you want to blame anyone is people how use more and more gas. Suply, Demand and all.

Luke T.

25th April 2006, 03:21 PM

When I got my civilian job after retiring from the Navy, I bought a house ten minutes from where I was hired to work. Moved all the way across the country. But I guess I should have anticipated I would be laid off two years later, and that my new home state would have the highest unemployment rate in the country by then and that I would actually end up having to take a job an hour from where I bought my house.

And I should have anticipated that the housing market would go completely haywire and that I would not be able to afford to move closer to my latest job.

And I wish I had the several thousand dollars extra that a hybrid costs.

It is clearly all my fault.

Rob Lister

25th April 2006, 03:21 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4942846.stm

That said, I doubt Bush is to blame at all. If you want to blame anyone is people how use more and more gas. Suply, Demand and all.

I think bush is to blame, along with congress.

We can't drill any new holes anywhere near or even in the us without jumping through hundreds of hoops (but even cuba seems to have no difficulty in doing so in the south atlantic).

The mixture requirements vary from state to state

The government (state mostly) is taking a far bigger slice of the profits (per gallon) than the oil companies

Nuclear power sanity could vastly reduce heating oil/natural gas requirements to free up resources for other energy uses

Refinaries remain at or near max capacity

yada.

eta:

Plus!

They're wasting money on Hydrogen/wind/solar technology

They're all ignoring heavy investment battery technolgy (which actually might work)

Okay, I'm done ranting.

Luke T.

25th April 2006, 03:24 PM

Bush wants to build more refineries. But this is obviously a plot by Halliburton to just make more money.

Don't get me wrong. When I hear a guy from Exxon just retired with a $400 million package with megabuck annual benefits to go with it, I move oil executives to the top of my List of People to Gut Punch.

Tmy

25th April 2006, 04:04 PM

Gas prices seems to be jumping pretty high considering there is a lack of a big event (ex Hurricane wiping out refineries) to account for such a price spike.

Tmy

25th April 2006, 04:07 PM

I think bush is to blame, along with congress.

We can't drill any new holes anywhere near or even in the us without jumping through hundreds of hoops (but even cuba seems to have no difficulty in doing so in the south atlantic).

The mixture requirements vary from state to state

The government (state mostly) is taking a far bigger slice of the profits (per gallon) than the oil companies

Nuclear power sanity could vastly reduce heating oil/natural gas requirements to free up resources for other energy uses

Refinaries remain at or near max capacity

yada.
.

This has been the situation for a while. The above is nothing new. Why have the last couple years been so different? The price of gas has basically doubled.

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th April 2006, 04:19 PM

Boo Hoo Hoo...now we have to pay $3.50 a gallon...the sky is falling...the sky is falling...SOS! save our SUVs Mr. Bush! ;)

Meanwhile in Holland it's $6.48 USD a gallon, $5.80 USD in Sweden, $5.79 USD in Britain, $4.24 USD in Japan...(cite (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)). $3.50/Gal is getting off easy!

{edited to add}

(heres a cool link gasbuddy.com (http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx) )

A couple of thoughts and questions:
* Assuming that the nations in question have all negotiated similar oil import contracts and such, where is the extra cost in countries outside the US being added? Taxes? For what purpose? Would US consumers find the additional tax for equivalent purposes acceptable? Would it be practical?

* An increase in gas prices from USD$3 to USD$3.50 over the last six months or so is a 17% increase. This is regardless of the fuel economy of your vehicle; you are paying 17% more. Taxi prices have gone up because of this. Metro prices (if a valid option for a person) I believe are about the same, but if they are now a better cost alternative it is either an increase in cost of time, or still an increase in cost of $.

* Should people that have made uneducated, or luxury, decisions receive tons of simpathy? Problebly not, but many people have made decisions of necessity or practicallity and are still feeling the pinch.

ETA: There are other economic repurcussions of this increase:
* consumable goods prices are increasing (grocery items and the like)
* manufacturing costs are increasing
* luxury/entertainment/recreation spending is shifting and/or decreasing

I think your oversimplification of the issue does a disservice to a number of people.

WildCat

25th April 2006, 04:20 PM

Gas prices seems to be jumping pretty high considering there is a lack of a big event (ex Hurricane wiping out refineries) to account for such a price spike.
There is a big event. Refineries have to switch over from winter fuel blends and heating oil to summer fuel blends (and there are dozens of different fuel blends required by EPA rules for all the different states and regions within those states), China and India are greedily buying up oil that by all rights should go only to Americans, Nigerian rebels have put that countries oil exports in doubt, and Iran keeps making crazy comments about wiping out Israel while they actively pursue their nuclear program.

But I'm sure all that has nothing at all to do w/ anything... Enron!!!

BPSCG

25th April 2006, 05:37 PM

Er, I doubt it since that extra money is going to Exxon, Shell, BP, and the other petro companies. I am sure that they will report record, or at least near record, profits again this quater.

If the gas tax was raised and the extra money was being used to develop a good public transportation system, then I expect that they would be happy about that.Yes, we all know that the government is a better guardian of your money than those Evil corporations.
Liberals think any company that has its own interests at heart is Evil, because corporations all have their own interests at heart, and all corporations are Evil except for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The corporations that build your houses, clothe your nakedness, feed your child, build your car, and cure your sickness, are all doing this to make money. Liberals think making money is wrong. Liberals think that taking money in the form of taxes is the best way to provide for our social needs. That's how the Department of Housing and Urban Development (not a developer and a home builder) can build that tract of new townhouses on the vacant lot down the street. That's how the Department of Agriculture (not ConAgra) can run the thousands of Official US Government farms that provide your cheap food. That's how the Department of Transportation (not Honda) is providing better, safer cars for you every year.

No, profits are Evil, and those who make them are Evil unless they render unto Caesar all those profits. The best always comes from those who forswear profits. Hence, public housing is better than private - that's why you have chosen public housing instead of private, right? The most famous symbol of transportation built by a non-profit entity is the Yugo. A public school is where you want to send your kids for the best education, and a public hospital is just the place you want to be when you get sick - just like a public restroom is the place to be when your bowels call. And the world's most famous symbol of public agriculture was once known as the Soviet Union.

I feel better now. :)

Look, just because public transportation is there doesn't mean people are going to use it. Until recently, I took the DC metrorail to work because 1) the station is close to my house, 2) door to desk was about 45 minutes, and 3) rail was safe, clean, comfortable, and reliable.

My office relocated a few weeks ago. There's a metrorail station across the road from my office, but if I were to take the train now, it would take about 1:15 door to desk. So I started driving my car (a rice rocket which gets 32 mpg highway, thank you very much), because I can go door to desk in 35 minutes. Yeah, gas is $3.00 a gallon, but it takes me less than half the time to get to work than it would if I were to take the train. Time is money, and at my age, time is also very, very precious.

People forget that this country isn't Europe. It is a vast country, with a widely-scattered population. People live much more closely together in Europe, making public transportation a much more viable option than in the U.S. Germany, for example, is a little over half the size of Texas - but with about four times the population.

BPSCG

25th April 2006, 05:40 PM

Okay, I'm done ranting.You forgot the rant function.

luchog

25th April 2006, 06:01 PM

Also without arguing whether it's good or bad, that outcome has definitely occurred. But it is not from unconstrained growth; it is from constrained growth. Municipalities limit land use with minimum plot sizes, place restrictions on townhomes, enforce strict segregation of residential from commercial from industrial uses, etc. all to keep it nice for the kind of town they want to be and unaffordable for the kinds of people who clean their houses and operate their cash registers. In many parts of the country if you wanted to build affordable housing which backs up to the regional mall you literally couldn't do it by law -- that space is restricted by law to other commercial developments or there is an open-space buffer with 3 or 5-to-an-acre maximum density housing on the other side.
In my city, in the last 5 years, two small clusters of medium- and high-density low-income housing in the city proper, close to downtown on major bus lines, were bulldozed to build middle-class medium-density housing and condominiums. There was a significant amount of rezoning, and now it's impossible to build low-income housing in most of the city. There is one single apartment building being built in one of the more highly-accessible parts of town, but I'm willing to bet that it, since it's near the community college, it ends up being student/shared housing rather than true low-income. The signage and other info doesn't even state unequivocally that it's low-income; merely that it's "targetted" at a "lower-income" demographic.

Magyar

25th April 2006, 06:16 PM

I think a major issue that is getting lost is that the govt has a place in developing infrastructure. Remember that it was govt that built the freeways the railroad etc (yea I know through private industry)

And govt could do something about oil prices as well or at least it's effects.
GPM standards are being held down because the big 2 don't want to invest in it so they pay off congress and doesn't get done. They could make those SUVs get twice the mileage they do with tech that exist RIGHT now. IT would cost $600-$800 to implement but this wouldn't be profit so they don't do it!

Also, there is RIGHT NOW a Mercedes 300z(maybe Z, I forgot and I don't have the link in on this PC, that cost -/+ $1000 the same as the US 300 version available in Canada that gets 60 MPG. Guess what - Mercedes is not allowed to sell it in the US and It is ILLEGAL to import it into the US! I wonder WHO got that little gem passed!

So while the doing the rant about how liberal consider corps evil. Here is a perfect example where the free market in fact doesn't work and corps are "evil" because they ARE actively taking away options (want to call them rights) of individuals to make choices purely to gain more profit for themselves and to PREVENT competition and they use their
-free market, personal choice, no govt in our lives republican shills in congress, the senate and the white house to do it.

BPSCG

25th April 2006, 06:31 PM

And govt could do something about oil prices as well or at least it's effects. GPM standards are being held down because the big 2 don't want to invest in it so they pay off congress and doesn't get done. They could make those SUVs get twice the mileage they do with tech that exist RIGHT now. IT would cost $600-$800 to implement but this wouldn't be profit so they don't do it! Uhm, any evidence? And Toyota and Honda and Nissan are all just sitting on their hands while GM and Ford bribe the government? Why aren't they making SUV's that would get twice the mileage, and put GM and Ford completely out of business?

You think maybe the possibility exists that CAFE requirements just don't work?

Also, there is RIGHT NOW a Mercedes 300z(maybe Z, I forgot and I don't have the link in on this PC, I'm not surprised; I tried googling it and came up with zilch. Mercedes made a famous model 300 gull-wing car in the 1950s, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. Nissan makes a 300 ZX. If that's what you're talking about, please give a link to a site that shows the Canadian version gets 60 mpg.

that cost -/+ $1000 the same as the US 300 version available in Canada that gets 60 MPG. Guess what - Mercedes is not allowed to sell it in the US and It is ILLEGAL to import it into the US! I wonder WHO got that little gem passed! Cite?

So while the doing the rant about how liberal consider corps evil. Here is a perfect example where the free market in fact doesn't work and corps are "evil" because they ARE actively taking away options (want to call them rights) of individuals to make choices purely to gain more profit for themselves and to PREVENT competition and they use their
-free market, personal choice, no govt in our lives republican shills in congress, the senate and the white house to do it.You forgot to use the rant function.
And you also forgot to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up a single claim you made.

Rob Lister

25th April 2006, 06:53 PM

I suspect intentional anti-sockpuppet.

Possibly yours, possibly mine. not sure.

BPSCG

25th April 2006, 07:03 PM

I suspect intentional anti-sockpuppet.

Possibly yours, possibly mine. not sure.I'm pretty sure not mine.

Rob Lister

25th April 2006, 07:08 PM

nor mine. If I didn't do it, it must have been you.

BPSCG

25th April 2006, 07:15 PM

Busted! :mad:

Rob Lister

25th April 2006, 07:23 PM

Hey, take heart. I accidently farted in the elevator up to work. It wasn't pretty. When the doors opened, the cute little blond from HR was waiting to go down. I just said my usual how-do and walked briskly away.

It happens to us all.

pipelineaudio

25th April 2006, 07:28 PM

[QUOTE]I They could make those SUVs get twice the mileage they do with tech that exist RIGHT now. IT would cost $600-$800 to implement but this wouldn't be profit so they don't do it!

I would like to see how you believe they would do this. I have a few ideas how I could if not double, at least substantially up the MPG without losing much power for around that, but it would have to be at the assembly level, not the aftermarket

The truth is these things are big, heavy, hunks of absolute crap, and modifying the existing designs into anything sensible would take some doing

Also, there is RIGHT NOW a Mercedes 300z(maybe Z, I forgot and I don't have the link in on this PC, that cost -/+ $1000 the same as the US 300 version available in Canada that gets 60 MPG.

I highly doubt this. Mercedes reason d' etre is to make REALLY heavy hunks of doggy doo and convince suckers who have no self esteem whatsoever that buying this POS car will up their status in life. 60 mpg from a car that easily weighs as much as any THREE 1965-1973 "gas guzzling" american musclecars would be a feat of engineering

Bob Klase

25th April 2006, 08:09 PM

Gas prices in other countries is an indication of how low American fuel prices really are.

I agree totally.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price1.htm

Price per gallon of gas:

Venezuela: $0.12
Nigeria: $0.38
Egypt: $0.65
Kuwait: $0.78
Saudi Arabia: $0.91

Guess American fuel prices aren't so low after all, are they?

a_unique_person

25th April 2006, 08:31 PM

Seems like poor planing on your part.

Blaming the victim. Bush has made no annoucements that people should be planning, (which is what you have to do with such long term aspects of your life as work), to factor in higher fuel costs in their lives. That is, Bush should have been passing laws to ensure greater energy efficiency in buildings, penalising high fuel consumption cars, etc, years ago. And the Dems for that matter, but they would be too timid to do such things while the Republicans would attack them for doing so. Public transport should be improved. There are many practical things that can be done besides starting wars and making vague statements about hydrogen.

Grammatron

25th April 2006, 09:12 PM

Blaming the victim.

Victim of their own decisions. Only one person to blame for that.

Bush has made no annoucements that people should be planning, (which is what you have to do with such long term aspects of your life as work), to factor in higher fuel costs in their lives.

Well I know I look to Bush when I want to plan my life...:rolleyes:

That is, Bush should have been passing laws to ensure greater energy efficiency in buildings, penalising high fuel consumption cars, etc, years ago. And the Dems for that matter, but they would be too timid to do such things while the Republicans would attack them for doing so. Public transport should be improved. There are many practical things that can be done besides starting wars and making vague statements about hydrogen.

You should be happy about high gass prices, less people using gasoline, less GW. What's the problem here?

a_unique_person

25th April 2006, 10:02 PM

I am talking about shoving the inevitable oil price rise under the carpet, and not warning people that it was going to happen. The government can't force people to change their ways, it can at least advise them that the good times can't last, and to consider that when making some major life choices.

WildCat

25th April 2006, 10:41 PM

In other news, a recent poll shows that 99% of all Americans think other people should take public transportation to work and drive more fuel efficient cars.

Regnad Kcin

25th April 2006, 11:15 PM

...And govt could do something about oil prices as well or at least it's effects.
GPM standards are being held down because the big 2 don't want to invest in it so they pay off congress and doesn't get done. They could make those SUVs get twice the mileage they do with tech that exist RIGHT now. IT would cost $600-$800 to implement but this wouldn't be profit so they don't do it!How 'bout RIGHT NOW you prove this?

Also, there is RIGHT NOW a Mercedes 300z(maybe Z, I forgot and I don't have the link in on this PC, that cost -/+ $1000 the same as the US 300 version available in Canada that gets 60 MPG. Guess what - Mercedes is not allowed to sell it in the US and It is ILLEGAL to import it into the US! I wonder WHO got that little gem passed! Here is the list of Mercedes-Benz cars for sale RIGHT NOW ( http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/index.cfm?id=306), according to Mercedes-Benz Canada. Not a 300 among 'em.

jimtron

26th April 2006, 01:10 AM

Perhaps this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/) is what Magyar was referring to?

Polaris

26th April 2006, 03:03 AM

All I know is that my oil and energy stocks have been going through the roof. Yay gas hikes!

I seem to always manage to miss the boat on these things. I was dead broke before google.com went public, and now the high gas prices and my low income are eating into my discretionary funds - which I'd love to be able to use right now to buy petro-stocks.

Anti_Hypeman

26th April 2006, 07:05 AM

I predict this will put more people on government assistance than reganomics. When driving to work cost a days pay whats the point in working?

Mark

26th April 2006, 08:57 AM

I think bush is to blame, along with congress.

We can't drill any new holes anywhere near or even in the us without jumping through hundreds of hoops (but even cuba seems to have no difficulty in doing so in the south atlantic).

The mixture requirements vary from state to state

The government (state mostly) is taking a far bigger slice of the profits (per gallon) than the oil companies

Nuclear power sanity could vastly reduce heating oil/natural gas requirements to free up resources for other energy uses

Refinaries remain at or near max capacity

yada.

eta:

Plus!

They're wasting money on Hydrogen/wind/solar technology

They're all ignoring heavy investment battery technolgy (which actually might work)

Okay, I'm done ranting.

Brazil has become energy independent by using ethanol. The technology already exists, and we could be turning toward it now. And there is NO reason to drill in the ANWR.

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th April 2006, 09:41 AM

How far does $20 of gas get you?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2790

Regnad Kcin

26th April 2006, 10:27 AM

Perhaps this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/) is what Magyar was referring to?Fair enough. Smart is a division of Daimler-Chrylser, though I don't know how he would've got "300Z" out of any of their models. I'll check to see if Smart is available in Canada.

In any event, the reason they have not been legal for sale in the U.S. is because they were not engineered to comply with various Federal requirements, such as those for crashworthiness. Too, setting up a dealer network is costly. They could be placed in MB dealerships, but stocking parts and training service personnel ain't cheap.

There has been effort for a number of years, it should be said, to bring Smart to the U.S. by way of private entrepreneurs retrofitting them for compliance and offering them for sale. This has been done in the past for many non-U.S. cars, such as those from Citroen, Lotus, and even Mercedes. And voila, a quick google reveals you can purchase a Smart today (http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartcar.asp).

So even if the Smart microcar (I've driven one, and the term certainly applies) is what Maygar was referring to, he/she is mistaken to suggest that there's anything nefarious keeping them from consumers in this country.

BPSCG

26th April 2006, 10:30 AM

Brazil has become energy independent by using ethanol. Cite?
And there is NO reason to drill in the ANWR.Why not? Isn't there any oil there? :confused:

Jimbo07

26th April 2006, 10:44 AM

Cite?

here:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817

Why not? Isn't there any oil there? :confused:

There may be reason to drill, but is it a good or even sufficient reason? I don't know.

BPSCG

26th April 2006, 10:53 AM

here:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817Interesting. One more reason U.S. sugar producing and pricing policies are idiotic. Article cites several favorable conditions Brazil has - lots of land, areas with lots of rain, and lots of cheap labor.

U.S. has all that, too (thank FSM for Mexicans...).

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Somehow I don't think it has a prayer of happening here. Too bad - it wouldn't hurt for the oil industry to have a little competition.

There may be reason to drill, but is it a good or even sufficient reason? I don't know.'Sokay, I wasn't asking you. Just 'cuz you answer one of my questions to Mark doesn't mean you have to answer all of them... ;)

Solitaire

27th April 2006, 01:22 AM

Remember all those folks who were saying a year or two ago, "They should add fifty cents a gallon to the gas tax. That would make people start thinking about saving gas"?

I'll bet they're happy now, right?
I'm not sure.
They're now calling for a return to rationing.
I can handle that, but they also want the return of polyester leisure suits, big ugly gold medallions, and disco, which I cannot handle. :(

P.S. Why not a windfall profits tax on rising house prices instead?

BPSCG

27th April 2006, 05:42 AM

P.S. Why not a windfall profits tax on rising house prices instead?Because homeowners vote, and ExxonMobil doesn't. Gotta make sure you don't gore the wrong ox.

Or as the old congressmen's ditty goes:
"Don't tax you,
Don't tax me,
Tax that guy
Behind the tree."

Hardenbergh

27th April 2006, 06:14 AM

The last time I filled up my gas tank, it cost $38 and it wasn't dead empty either. I still had a couple gallons left in my tank.

Mainers driven to guzzle less

By KEVIN WACK, Portland Press Herald Writer

John Prejean, 37, used to ride his fuel-efficient Suzuki motorcycle only when temperatures rose into the 50s. These days, with the sharp spike in the price of gas, he's riding in colder weather.

"Before it was recreational, and now it's a commuter vehicle," Prejean said Wednesday. "It's truly gone from a toy to a tool."

A gallon of regular gasoline in Maine now costs 72 cents more than it did a year ago and 45 cents more than it did just a month ago, according to AAA Northern New England. Nationally, some estimates put the price at $3.50 or even $4 per gallon this summer.

"People are really starting to look at gasoline as part of the budget, which they really never did before," Casey said.

Around 3 p.m. Wednesday, John Kennie of Gorham stopped to fill his Chevrolet truck at the Stop and Shoppe gas station on Portland's Riverside Street. He said he always stops fueling at $30 because - even if he has to get gas more frequently - it feels better.

Kennie said he also has taken real steps to curtail his gas consumption. He used to drive to his camp in Kennebec County every week, but he's had to cut back.

"Now we're likely to go once a month," Kennie said. "It just costs too much to drive that hour and a half."

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060427gas.shtml

hammegk

27th April 2006, 06:50 AM

And, for something different....

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/04/26/195264.html

BPSCG

27th April 2006, 07:16 AM

And, for something different....

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/04/26/195264.htmlHah! Someone puts a face to "all those people" I was talking about here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1599221#post1599221).

Luke T.

27th April 2006, 07:38 AM

Cite?

Been all over the news lately.

A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

BPSCG

27th April 2006, 07:58 AM

Well, it looks like there's one country (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/drilling.htm) that isn't opposed to drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

But what about all those nasty oil rigs (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/12/132638.shtml) out there? For God's sake, won't someone think of the environment?

Okay, even if the oil rigs are actually a good thing, one U.S. senator is against them (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050211-023134-8272r.htm), even in foreign waters.

Grammatron

27th April 2006, 01:08 PM

Fair enough. Smart is a division of Daimler-Chrylser, though I don't know how he would've got "300Z" out of any of their models. I'll check to see if Smart is available in Canada.

In any event, the reason they have not been legal for sale in the U.S. is because they were not engineered to comply with various Federal requirements, such as those for crashworthiness. Too, setting up a dealer network is costly. They could be placed in MB dealerships, but stocking parts and training service personnel ain't cheap.

There has been effort for a number of years, it should be said, to bring Smart to the U.S. by way of private entrepreneurs retrofitting them for compliance and offering them for sale. This has been done in the past for many non-U.S. cars, such as those from Citroen, Lotus, and even Mercedes. And voila, a quick google reveals you can purchase a Smart today (http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartcar.asp).

So even if the Smart microcar (I've driven one, and the term certainly applies) is what Maygar was referring to, he/she is mistaken to suggest that there's anything nefarious keeping them from consumers in this country.

A bit more about Smart brand.
Despite a 16% rise in Mercedes-Benz car sales, the division saw an operating loss of 678m euros due to the costs of revamping its loss-making Smart brand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4951900.stm

Regnad Kcin

27th April 2006, 01:19 PM

Yes. Daimler-Chrysler chief Dieter Zetsche has lately not been bullish on the long-term prospects for Smart. Perhaps the current rapid rise in fuel prices will help to invigorate the division.

shecky

27th April 2006, 10:44 PM

so, is there any evidence that oil use is down lately as a result of prices? I had to do some driving around L.A. today, and it seems just as congested as ever. I suppose if I was oil boss, I'd raise prices, too.

The Don

28th April 2006, 05:02 AM

I suppose if I was oil boss, I'd raise prices, too.
Crude oil is a commodity and is traded as such. As a result it's quite difficult to control prices (I am lead to believe that OPEC would like a stable price of $30-$40 a barrel). The market is driven by supply and demand in the long term but it seems sentiment and fears in the short term.

The oil companies are making a load of money from their exploration arms (who benefit from high crude prices) but are not making significantly more on their refining and retail operations. A lot of this is due to the poor publicity they would get if this were the case.

Demand for oil is somewhat elastic but at the moment it is sentiment which is driving up prices. Even if demand were to reduce, the fears over Nigeria, Venuzuela and Iran would remain.

pipelineaudio

28th April 2006, 02:09 PM

Methanol on NPR science friday right now

Crossbow

3rd May 2006, 08:38 AM

Yes, we all know that the government is a better guardian of your money than those Evil corporations.
Liberals think any company that has its own interests at heart is Evil, because corporations all have their own interests at heart, and all corporations are Evil except for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The corporations that build your houses, clothe your nakedness, feed your child, build your car, and cure your sickness, are all doing this to make money. Liberals think making money is wrong. Liberals think that taking money in the form of taxes is the best way to provide for our social needs. That's how the Department of Housing and Urban Development (not a developer and a home builder) can build that tract of new townhouses on the vacant lot down the street. That's how the Department of Agriculture (not ConAgra) can run the thousands of Official US Government farms that provide your cheap food. That's how the Department of Transportation (not Honda) is providing better, safer cars for you every year.

No, profits are Evil, and those who make them are Evil unless they render unto Caesar all those profits. The best always comes from those who forswear profits. Hence, public housing is better than private - that's why you have chosen public housing instead of private, right? The most famous symbol of transportation built by a non-profit entity is the Yugo. A public school is where you want to send your kids for the best education, and a public hospital is just the place you want to be when you get sick - just like a public restroom is the place to be when your bowels call. And the world's most famous symbol of public agriculture was once known as the Soviet Union.

I feel better now. :)

Look, just because public transportation is there doesn't mean people are going to use it. Until recently, I took the DC metrorail to work because 1) the station is close to my house, 2) door to desk was about 45 minutes, and 3) rail was safe, clean, comfortable, and reliable.

My office relocated a few weeks ago. There's a metrorail station across the road from my office, but if I were to take the train now, it would take about 1:15 door to desk. So I started driving my car (a rice rocket which gets 32 mpg highway, thank you very much), because I can go door to desk in 35 minutes. Yeah, gas is $3.00 a gallon, but it takes me less than half the time to get to work than it would if I were to take the train. Time is money, and at my age, time is also very, very precious.

People forget that this country isn't Europe. It is a vast country, with a widely-scattered population. People live much more closely together in Europe, making public transportation a much more viable option than in the U.S. Germany, for example, is a little over half the size of Texas - but with about four times the population.

Well then, I guess you must have more faith than I do that the extra money suddenly flooding into the oil companies will be better managed by the private sector than would the public sector.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20060425/cm_ucwb/gasgouge

GAS GOUGE?

The gas problem was nicely framed in the past fortnight by two news items. The first was the report that Lee Raymond received $400 million in his retirement package as chairman of ExxonMobil. The second was the published sketch of the projected backboard for airline passengers willing to travel more or less standing up, helping out the airlines' need for extra revenues to pay for -- Lee Raymond's gas.

...

While it is true that the large and diverse population of the USA is indeed a problem for getting public transportation to work on a large scale, there are numerous other factors at work could help the situation, but many of these issues have not been addressed in any serious way.

Raising CAFÉ Standards for one,
not properly taxing SUVs for another,
encouraging the conservation of fuels,
and so on.

Arkan_Wolfshade

3rd May 2006, 09:03 AM

NPR had a good interview on this a couple of days ago. I can not recall the gentleman they were interviewing, but he made a compelling argument that the incentives provided by the gov't, during the time when crude oil prices were ~$10/barrel did not have provisions to stop once the prices rebounded.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 09:08 AM

Cite?

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Along with new offshore oil discoveries, that's a big reason Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=5029

Why not? Isn't there any oil there? :confused:
Most estimates says there is only 6 months to 2 years of oil there. And drilling there would have little or no imoact on prices. We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.

pipelineaudio

3rd May 2006, 09:18 AM

I say we bust all the moonshiners out of jail, and repeal all moonshine laws, with the provision that they sell us the juice cheap

Its alcohol time!

Moonshiners who are also hobbyist drag racers have been making their own go sauce in small quantities since time began. How about we step up production?

I can run alcohol right now, and many other cars can or could be modified to do so, many times easily. The problem is getting it. Before it seemed to be prohibitively expensive, but right now with crap 91 octane arizona blend running about 3.40 a gallon and AV gas running near 3.80 a gallon, Im just buying avgas...pathetic

Mark

3rd May 2006, 09:30 AM

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 10:10 AM

Most estimates says there is only 6 months to 2 years of oil there. In fact, the best estimates run from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/summary.html)of oil and natural gas liquids are technically recoverable from the ANWR. Those estimates vary largely based on the prevailing world market price for oil; the mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Of course, as the price of oil goes up, the incentive to drill for the harder-to-reach oil goes up, too, so the best estimates are probably much closer to the 16 billion barrels than the 5.7 billion.

How much oil is that?

Currently, the U.S. imports about 542 million barrels of oil a year from Saudi Arabia. The recoverable oil in the ANWR, therefore, represents anywhere from ten to thirty years' worth of imported Saudi oil. You conclude the ANWR oil isn't worth going after. But imagine the outcry if Saudi Arabia were to announce it was going to cut off all oil sales to the U.S. for a decade or three.

And drilling there would have little or no imoact on prices. Really? What do you suppose would happen to oil prices if Saudi Arabia announced today that they were going to cut their production by 542 million barrels a year for the next thirty years? Would you be pleased?

We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.Destruction of what?

Mark

3rd May 2006, 10:31 AM

In fact, the best estimates run from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/summary.html)of oil and natural gas liquids are technically recoverable from the ANWR. Those estimates vary largely based on the prevailing world market price for oil; the mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Of course, as the price of oil goes up, the incentive to drill for the harder-to-reach oil goes up, too, so the best estimates are probably much closer to the 16 billion barrels than the 5.7 billion.

How much oil is that?

Currently, the U.S. imports about 542 million barrels of oil a year from Saudi Arabia. The recoverable oil in the ANWR, therefore, represents anywhere from ten to thirty years' worth of imported Saudi oil. You conclude the ANWR oil isn't worth going after. But imagine the outcry if Saudi Arabia were to announce it was going to cut off all oil sales to the U.S. for a decade or three.

Really? What do you suppose would happen to oil prices if Saudi Arabia announced today that they were going to cut their production by 542 million barrels a year for the next thirty years? Would you be pleased?
Prices would go up. If they increased production by that amount it would have little or no effect on lowering prices. Are you pleased? Your faith in the oil industry is enviable (at least in terms of sleeping at night) but misplaced. Their profits have skyrocketed...you may be pleased by that, but it has nothing to do with shortages.

Destruction of what?
The fact that you have to ask indicates you wouldn't understand if I answered. What area would you object to drilling in? The Grand Canyon? Yosemite? Yellowstone? Since the drilling (according to you) is totally benign, why object to drilling anywhere?

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 10:36 AM

Prices would go up. If they increased production by that amount it would have little or no effect on lowering prices. So decreasing production would cause prices to rise, but increasing it would not cause them to fall.

That makes sense... :crazy:

The fact that you have to ask indicates you wouldn't understand if I answered. What area would you object to drilling in? The Grand Canyon? Yosemite? Yellowstone? Since the drilling (according to you) is totally benign, why object to drilling anywhere?Please show me where I said the drilling is totally benign.

And again, tell me what would be destroyed in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 10:40 AM

So decreasing production would cause prices to rise, but increasing it would not cause them to fall.

That makes sense... :crazy:

Supply and demand only work when there is competition. Not to mention the fact that the commodity (oil) can't be completely vital to the very existence if civilization. No competition + vital = prices rising uncontrollably.

Please show me where I said the drilling is totally benign.

And again, tell me what would be destroyed in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

Fair enough...I took it as implied, but accept your correction. So please tell me if you would object to drilling in Yosemite. And if so, why?

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 10:47 AM

Supply and demand only work when there is competition. So why would prices rise as production fell?
Fair enough...I took it as implied, but accept your correction. So please tell me if you would object to drilling in Yosemite. And if so, why?Nonononono... I asked you, twice, what destruction there would be if drilling were allowed in the ANWR. Let's get that actual possibility out of the way, and I'll be happy to answer your Yosemite hypothetical in the fullness of time.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:06 AM

So why would prices rise as production fell?
Nonononono... I asked you, twice, what destruction there would be if drilling were allowed in the ANWR. Let's get that actual possibility out of the way, and I'll be happy to answer your Yosemite hypothetical in the fullness of time.

The same reason as now; they can.

Basic Socratic method, Beeps: I ask again...do you object to drilling in Yosemite? The answer to your question is right there.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 11:13 AM

I am against drilling in ANWR simply because I want to save it as a resource for the future. No, its not very much oil by today's consumption standards, but it could be very significant in a crunch. Until that crunch comes, lets burn theirs and save ours. Also, that will give us time to develop more environmentally friendly technology.

And speaking of environment, it is true that drilling in the ANWR is not going to cause much of a disturbance. Drilling for oil is a relatively benign activity in almost any environment. The problem comes when you need to transport and refine the oil. Practically every oil-related disaster you've ever heard of had to do with transfer and refining, whether it be a tanker running aground, a pipeline rupturing or a refinery exploding. By contrast, hurricanes knocked down hundreds of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, but the oil spill was relatively minor compared to, say, the Valdez.

In ANWR, the obvious solution is a pipeline. But building pipelines across permafrost areas is an engineering nightmare. Just the pressure of the construction will cause the permafrost to deform (ice is a plastic substance) leading to potential breaks in the pipe. Also, quite often pipelines must be heated to keep the oil from caking on the sides, hastening permafrost "heaving". And of course, pipelines are a barrier to natural migration patterns. This being said, it is still not a catastrophe for nature and the Trans Alaska pipeline has functioned for many years without many serious incidents, at least, without incidents that have been reported.

But ANWR is almost nothing in the big picture. Why don't we just call it a "long-term strategic petroleum reserve" and leave it there until we really need it.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:14 AM

Supply and demand only work when there is competition. Not to mention the fact that the commodity (oil) can't be completely vital to the very existence if civilization. No competition + vital = prices rising uncontrollably.

This is patently untrue. Oil is an elastic demand. Not a very elastic demand, but elastic nonetheless. If it wasn't, the price would never, ever go down under any circumstances. Yet it has, does, and will continue to do so in reaction to favorable market conditions.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:17 AM

This is patently untrue. Oil is an elastic demand. Not a very elastic demand, but elastic nonetheless. If it wasn't, the price would never, ever go down under any circumstances. Yet it has, does, and will continue to do so in reaction to favorable market conditions.

"Patently untrue?"

Hardly. Althougn I will grant that there are certainly many, many influences. Nevertheless, the price is overwhelmingly free of the constraints of supply and emand. For now...Brazil gives one hope.

Just as satellite brought competition to the pay TV market, so will alternative fuels and oil.

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 11:18 AM

The same reason as now; they can.So this is three times I've asked you what destruction would occur in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

You choose to evade, so I will answer.

There will be no destruction whatsoever if drilling is allowed in the ANWR.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:20 AM

So this is three times I've asked you what destruction would occur in the ANWR if drilling were allowed there.

You choose to evade, so I will answer.

There will be no destruction whatsoever if drilling is allowed in the ANWR.

So...I assume then that you would not object to drilling in Yosemite.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:22 AM

"Patently untrue?"

Hardly. Althougn I will grant that there are certainly many, many influences. Nevertheless, the price is overwhelmingly free of the constraints of supply and emand. For now...Brazil gives one hope.

Just as satellite brought competition to the pay TV market, so will alternative fuels and oil.

Mark, you don't get it. Your claim that there is no competition and therefore no substantial effects from supply and demand on oil prices is exactly what I said: patently untrue.

The "many, many influences" you so generously concede include the very things you just said don't exist - like variable demand - giving you what we call a "market price." You know, something set by something called "the market" and not by "a cabal of evil republicans hell bent on raping the caribou."

Didn't you ever take economics?

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 11:24 AM

But ANWR is almost nothing in the big picture. Why don't we just call it a "long-term strategic petroleum reserve" and leave it there until we really need it.Deleted most of what was the most compelling argument I've seen for not drilling there. It's similar to what my father used to say: "Let's use up everyone else's oil. Then we can start using our own."

But I get the feeling that there are those who would not want to drill there if you could produce ten million gallons per day of light sweet by jabbing a straw into the ground and having the output magically teleport itself to a NJ oil refinery. They'd find some objection; look how hard they work at finding specious ones even now.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:26 AM

So...I assume then that you would not object to drilling in Yosemite.

I wouldn't mind. Apart from the minimal disruption it would likely cause, I feel that oil (for present) is a necessity, while national parks are a luxury.

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 11:28 AM

So...I assume then that you would not object to drilling in Yosemite.Certainly not if there would be no environmental impact.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 11:30 AM

... while national parks are a luxury.

So are big, stupid, urban-driven, single passenger SUVs.

:mad:

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 11:31 AM

So are big, stupid, urban-driven, single passenger SUVs.:mad:We'll drill them, too.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 11:32 AM

Deleted most of what was the most compelling argument I've seen for not drilling there. It's similar to what my father used to say: "Let's use up everyone else's oil. Then we can start using our own."
Well, I work for an oil company producing domestic oil and gas, but even if it cost me my job, I would still agree with this strategy. However, we would have to be able to access some oil quickly in the event of a cut-off.

But I get the feeling that there are those who would not want to drill there if you could produce ten million gallons per day of light sweet by jabbing a straw into the ground and having the output magically teleport itself to a NJ oil refinery. They'd find some objection; look how hard they work at finding specious ones even now.
I doubt that this would be the case. Liberals, like conservatives, are up in arms about the price of gasoline. If availability started severely impacting our lifestyle, I think you would see a lot of people shift their positions. Humans have a strong sense of pragmatism. But while oil is cheap (and believe me, it is still cheap compared to what its gonna be) it is easy to be an environmentalist. Serious environmentalists, among which I count myself, know that there will come a time when we have to make some hard choices. My hope is that we plan for them wisely.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:33 AM

So are big, stupid, urban-driven, single passenger SUVs.

:mad:

No argument here. But my taxes aren't going toward my neighbor's SUV payments, either.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:35 AM

Certainly not if there would be no environmental impact.

Well, there's your answer, Jocko and Beeps. You are willing to see anything disrupted in order to fill our oil addiction. I am not. Especially when even countries like Brazil have shown it is not neccessary. Given that simple fact, I have to wonder why you are so anxious to maintain the status quo. Surely there are better ways.

And, to answer your question, I do consider dotting pristine national treasures with oil derricks to be destruction.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 11:37 AM

Well, I work for an oil company producing domestic oil and gas,

... Serious environmentalists, among which I count myself, know that there will come a time when we have to make some hard choices.

You wouldn't happen to work in the Environment dept. at said company, would you? ;)

ETA: Mark, Brazil's ethanol is produced from sugarcane. Until you see the American and Canadian Prairies growing sugarcane in bulk, don't count on a purely alcohol fuelled economy...

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:38 AM

Mark, you don't get it. Your claim that there is no competition and therefore no substantial effects from supply and demand on oil prices is exactly what I said: patently untrue.

The "many, many influences" you so generously concede include the very things you just said don't exist - like variable demand - giving you what we call a "market price." You know, something set by something called "the market" and not by "a cabal of evil republicans hell bent on raping the caribou."

Didn't you ever take economics?

I did take economics, and competition is central to supply and demand working. Did you flunk the course?

Your comment: "a cabal of evil republicans hell bent on raping the caribou." Is a lie. I never said or implied anything of the kind. As a matter of fact I have said many, many times that both major parties are in the pockets of oil lobbyists. Does lying make you feel better or something?

hammegk

3rd May 2006, 11:40 AM

So...I assume then that you would not object to drilling in Yosemite.
With today's drilling technology & expertise, it could be done and most would never realize it.

Either you are one of the most ill-informed and stupid people who I've seen post anywhere, or you are a consummate troll. Which, I wonder.

>>plonk<<

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:40 AM

Well, there's your answer, Jocko and Beeps. You are willing to see anything disrupted in order to fill our oil addiction. I am not. Especially when even countries like Brazil have shown it is not neccessary. Given that simple fact, I have to wonder why you are so anxious to maintain the status quo. Surely there are better ways.

A gross misrepresentation of what has just been said to you.

And before you start complaining about the conspiracy to maintain the status quo, perhaps you could start explaining why we should believe that the future is already here, viz-a-vis Brazil/ethanol/hydrogen/sorcery/whatever?

And, to answer your question, I do consider dotting pristine national treasures with oil derricks to be destruction.

But not the visitors centers, utility poles, plumbing, roads, paths, etc? Am I right?

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:44 AM

A gross misrepresentation of what has just been said to you.

And before you start complaining about the conspiracy to maintain the status quo, perhaps you could start explaining why we should believe that the future is already here, viz-a-vis Brazil/ethanol/hydrogen/sorcery/whatever?

What conspiracy? Are you even capable of telling the truth?

But not the visitors centers, utility poles, plumbing, roads, paths, etc? Am I right?

Actually, I have been a great supporter of removing much (not all) of the development from the Yosemite Valley. I am sure you disagree with me on that. I also support restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley, which I am sure you also disagree with.

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 11:44 AM

Personally, I think the current high crude prices are wonderful. They not only help to bring home the point that dependency on one fuel source, a severely limited-in-time one at that, is a bad idea and at the same time it makes all other alternative fuel sources much more competetive.

Let's hope that it lasts long enough for the deployment of alternative energy infrastructures to get sufficiently established and yet lasts short enough to not cripple economies who aren't self-sufficient.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:45 AM

I did take economics, and competition is central to supply and demand working. Did you flunk the course?

No, Mark, I aced it. Both semesters.

Now, how about logical reasoning? Like, you know, establishing that there is no competition before just assuming I'll take you at your word? Your premise is faulty, so your conclusion is faulty. I can point out a couple of ways competition enters the equation, but first, I'm curious how you'll explain that there isn't.

And there are other issues in play BESIDES competition, such as inventory costs. Remember those, Mr. Friedman?

Your comment: "a cabal of evil republicans hell bent on raping the caribou." Is a lie. I never said or implied anything of the kind. As a matter of fact I have said many, many times that both major parties are in the pockets of oil lobbyists. Does lying make you feel better or something?

No, but cracking a joke at your expense does. Tell me, Mark, how deep will I have to drill into your skull before I hit humor? :rolleyes:

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:45 AM

With today's drilling technology & expertise, it could be done and most would never realize it.

Either you are one of the most ill-informed and stupid people who I've seen post anywhere, or you are a consummate troll. Which, I wonder.

>>plonk<<

Golly gosh wollickers you sure told me off. And not a single fact in your post. I am humbled in the presence of greatness.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 11:46 AM

Actually, I have been a great supporter of removing much (not all) of the development from the Yosemite Valley. I am sure you disagree with me on that. I also support restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley, which I am sure you also disagree with.

I have no opinion on either. Why must you ascribe opinions to everyone around you?

So what infrastructure WOULD you keep in Yosemite? Let's try to keep it on topic for once, shall we?

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 11:49 AM

You wouldn't happen to work in the Environment dept. at said company, would you? ;).
LOL. No, I'm an exploration geologist. That's a real science, as opposed to environmental science. :p

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:52 AM

No, Mark, I aced it. Both semesters.

Now, how about logical reasoning? Like, you know, establishing that there is no competition before just assuming I'll take you at your word? Your premise is faulty, so your conclusion is faulty. I can point out a couple of ways competition enters the equation, but first, I'm curious how you'll explain that there isn't.

And there are other issues in play BESIDES competition, such as inventory costs. Remember those, Mr. Friedman?

No, but cracking a joke at your expense does. Tell me, Mark, how deep will I have to drill into your skull before I hit humor? :rolleyes:

That was a joke? OK. Ha ha. I might have got it if you hadn't misquoted me so often in the past. Maybe if I drill in your skull deep enough I will hit personal responsibility. ;)

Now, as far as competition...no conpsiracy is needed (nor did I imply one); I have been present in many board meetings at major corporations (not oil) where they discuss the pricing of their competitors and set their own price accordingly. All perfectly llegal. With the small number of oil producers in this country, such strategy meetings are not hard to picture at all. As I said, I know for a fact they do things that way in other businessess. Why not oil?

Still, once we see alternatives pick up (which will happen sooner or later) you will see competition return and prices will fall.

As an example, I point you to the railroad industry in the 19th century.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 11:53 AM

I have no opinion on either. Why must you ascribe opinions to everyone around you?

So what infrastructure WOULD you keep in Yosemite? Let's try to keep it on topic for once, shall we?

It's more what I would eliminate: pizza restaurants, auto repair, those sorts of things.

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 11:56 AM

But I get the feeling that there are those who would not want to drill there if you could produce ten million gallons per day of light sweet by jabbing a straw into the ground and having the output magically teleport itself to a NJ oil refinery. They'd find some objection; look how hard they work at finding specious ones even now.

I doubt that this would be the case.Well, there's your answer, Jocko and Beeps. You are willing to see anything disrupted in order to fill our oil addiction...

And, to answer your question, I do consider dotting pristine national treasures with oil derricks to be destruction.

Actually, I have been a great supporter of removing much (not all) of the development from the Yosemite Valley. Okay, Tricky, do you still doubt?

Mark

3rd May 2006, 12:00 PM

Okay, Tricky, do you still doubt?

So you favor oil drilling, pizza restaurants, auto repair and whatever else in the Yosemite valley. Got it.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 12:03 PM

That was a joke? OK. Ha ha. I might have got it if you hadn't misquoted me so often in the past. Maybe if I drill in your skull deep enough I will hit personal responsibility. ;)

Now, as far as competition...no conpsiracy is needed (nor did I imply one); I have been present in many board meetings at major corporations (not oil) where they discuss the pricing of their competitors and set their own price accordingly. All perfectly llegal. With the small number of oil producers in this country, such strategy meetings are not hard to picture at all. As I said, I know for a fact they do things that way in other businessess. Why not oil?

Now you're scaring me. You don't realize that you just described how the market determines a price? Seriously?

Yes, a company looks at the competition (yes, the same thing you just told me doesn't have any impact w/oil). When you look at all of the competition, you're pricing the market. Not only is it legal, it's the foundation of the free goddamned market theory!

So your company prices a little lower if it wants to gain market share, dump inventory, or whatever; it prices a little higher if it wants to gain a bigger margin. That's capitalism, baby, and it's been going on a long time.

Still, once we see alternatives pick up (which will happen sooner or later) you will see competition return and prices will fall.

No, you're talking about the inevitable decline of the oil market, not competition within the market. Big difference, as any buggy whip manufacturer will tell you.

As an example, I point you to the railroad industry in the 19th century.

Which was run by about a THOUSAND DIFFERENT COMPANIES. So how can you claim there was no competition?

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 12:04 PM

It's more what I would eliminate: pizza restaurants, auto repair, those sorts of things.

No thanks, I want to know what you think should stay.

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 12:05 PM

Enough with the petty bickering.

Doesn't anyone embrace the current high oil prices as a wonderful oppertunity to introduce the alternative energy forms which are so necessary?

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 12:09 PM

Enough with the petty bickering.

Doesn't anyone embrace the current high oil prices as a wonderful oppertunity to introduce the alternative energy forms which are so necessary?

At the risk of blowing Mark's mind, I think there are several benefits to higher oil prices, and this is one of them. I've always said I'd be the first one to buy a hydrogen fuel cell car once it's economically viable. That means oil gets (and stays) too expensive, or hydrogen (or whatever) gets cheap enough.

What we have here is favorable conditions for both to occur. But a hamstrung economy is much less likely to produce the kind of technology that will carry us past the oil epoch, which is why I insist that it's an economically viable decision.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 12:11 PM

Enough with the petty bickering.

Doesn't anyone embrace the current high oil prices as a wonderful opportunity to introduce the alternative energy forms which are so necessary?
Right now there really aren't alternative fuels in place to replace fossil fuels. However, I do see it as a wonderful opportunity for us to start seriously practicing conservation. For example I joined a carpool last month. It's a pain in the butt to have to rely on others and to lose the flexibility of driving myself, but we're going to have to sacrifice somewhere, and that seems minor compared to being without fuel.

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 12:46 PM

At the risk of blowing Mark's mind, I think there are several benefits to higher oil prices, and this is one of them. I've always said I'd be the first one to buy a hydrogen fuel cell car once it's economically viable. That means oil gets (and stays) too expensive, or hydrogen (or whatever) gets cheap enough.

What we have here is favorable conditions for both to occur. But a hamstrung economy is much less likely to produce the kind of technology that will carry us past the oil epoch, which is why I insist that it's an economically viable decision.
Finally! A response based on the merits of the argument. :)

I don't quite understand your reference to Hydrogen fueled cars as some sort of alternative fuel source, as Hydrogen fuel cells are not sources of power, but just batteries. Powerful batteries, but batteries nevertheless.

What is important is that the high oil prices make alternative energy sources extremely viable.

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 12:49 PM

Right now there really aren't alternative fuels in place to replace fossil fuels. However, I do see it as a wonderful opportunity for us to start seriously practicing conservation. For example I joined a carpool last month. It's a pain in the butt to have to rely on others and to lose the flexibility of driving myself, but we're going to have to sacrifice somewhere, and that seems minor compared to being without fuel.
If you see it as an oppertunity to practice conservation, that's great!

However, the oppertunity is much, much greater than that. The high crude price means that a load of other energy producing forms suddenly become very viable. And, as we all should know, oil will not last forever, perhaps not even 50 or 100 years. So we need to have alternatives ready and waiting when we run out of the easy fuel source.

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 01:05 PM

What is important is that the high oil prices make alternative energy sources extremely viable.

I would rather that more of the market pressure came from cheaper alternatives and less from inflated oil prices, but that's life in a free market. ;)

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 01:05 PM

I don't quite understand your reference to Hydrogen fueled cars as some sort of alternative fuel source, as Hydrogen fuel cells are not sources of power, but just batteries. Powerful batteries, but batteries nevertheless.
LOL. Well, if it comes down to it, petroleum is just a solar battery. It transferred solar energy to chemical compounds which are (much) later burned to release that energy.

This is not just a useless nitpicking. It may be possible to release hydrogen from some pre-existing compounds via catalyzed reactions which do not require putting equal amounts of energy into creating the hydrogen. This may be especially practical with some of the heavier hydrocarbon compounds which are not suitable for refining. My company is running test projects of this right now. (Yes, the oil companies are the driving force behind alternative energy). We also are big investors in wind power, being a major partner of Green Mountain Energy, a local energy provider which has windmill farms in and around the panhandle of Texas.

I buy my electricity from Green Mountain Energy and in the past, it has been just a tad more expensive than from other providers, a price I gladly pay for being "green". It would be nice if I now got a break on the price because of the greater competitiveness of wind power, but I'm fairly sure that the way things work (companies generate energy and put it into the power grid, which everyone uses) the cost of wind power will also rise as fuel prices rise.

What is important is that the high oil prices make alternative energy sources extremely viable.
That is very important, but it is a long-term plan which will require major changes to our infrastructure. We're gonna have to wean ourselves off oil. It can't be cold turkey.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 01:38 PM

LOL. No, I'm an exploration geologist. That's a real science, as opposed to environmental science. :p

You'll get no argument from me!

In the environmental area we have: biologists, agrologists, chemical engineers, geological engineers, environmental engineers, geologists, geophysics tech folks, etc. Me, I'm an engineering physics student intern.

If there is an academic 'environmental science' program it's probably ad-hoc, eclectic and lacking depth in any one subject.

:D

ETA: that last line was brought to you by the department of redundancy department

Mark

3rd May 2006, 01:45 PM

No thanks, I want to know what you think should stay.

OK, but first let me know if you have been there--and how recently---so I know how much I have to update you on specifics.

Btw, you utterly failed to "blow my mind" with your other post. Not even close.

Mark

3rd May 2006, 01:47 PM

Now you're scaring me. You don't realize that you just described how the market determines a price? Seriously?

Yes, a company looks at the competition (yes, the same thing you just told me doesn't have any impact w/oil). When you look at all of the competition, you're pricing the market. Not only is it legal, it's the foundation of the free goddamned market theory!

So your company prices a little lower if it wants to gain market share, dump inventory, or whatever; it prices a little higher if it wants to gain a bigger margin. That's capitalism, baby, and it's been going on a long time.

No, you're talking about the inevitable decline of the oil market, not competition within the market. Big difference, as any buggy whip manufacturer will tell you.

Which was run by about a THOUSAND DIFFERENT COMPANIES. So how can you claim there was no competition?

I disagree with your conclusions, but wanted to note that your "buggy whip" line was very clever.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 01:55 PM

You'll get no argument from me!

In the environmental area we have: biologists, agrologists, chemical engineers, geological engineers, environmental engineers, geologists, geophysics tech folks, etc. Me, I'm an engineering physics student intern.

If there is an academic 'environmental science' program it's probably ad-hoc, eclectic and lacking depth in any one subject.

:D
Actually, that was a joke. My first degree was in environmental biology, and believe me, between the organic chemistry and the microbiology, it was every bit as difficult as my subsequent degrees. The problem was, at the time I got out of school, nobody was hiring biologists for anything except medical work, so I couldn't find a job. So I sold my soul and went to work for an oil company, got a geology degree and have been happily making rationalizations ever since. One thing about my experience is that it really helps you see both sides of the issues.

Oh, and I work with engineers too, and they are dumb as posts. :D

ETA: that last line was brought to you by the department of redundancy department
Firesign fan?

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 02:00 PM

LOL. Well, if it comes down to it, petroleum is just a solar battery. It transferred solar energy to chemical compounds which are (much) later burned to release that energy.
Sure, but the "solar battery" is fully charged. No such Hydrogen battery, TMK.
This is not just a useless nitpicking. It may be possible to release hydrogen from some pre-existing compounds via catalyzed reactions which do not require putting equal amounts of energy into creating the hydrogen. This may be especially practical with some of the heavier hydrocarbon compounds which are not suitable for refining. My company is running test projects of this right now. (Yes, the oil companies are the driving force behind alternative energy). We also are big investors in wind power, being a major partner of Green Mountain Energy, a local energy provider which has windmill farms in and around the panhandle of Texas.
Sounds great! That's the very first news I've had that the great Hydrogen Revolution may be more than a PR stunt. Could you provide a link?
I buy my electricity from Green Mountain Energy and in the past, it has been just a tad more expensive than from other providers, a price I gladly pay for being "green". It would be nice if I now got a break on the price because of the greater competitiveness of wind power, but I'm fairly sure that the way things work (companies generate energy and put it into the power grid, which everyone uses) the cost of wind power will also rise as fuel prices rise.
Only if the market can sustain it. I don't see a direct cost link between wind power and the price of crude.
That is very important, but it is a long-term plan which will require major changes to our infrastructure. We're gonna have to wean ourselves off oil. It can't be cold turkey.
Yes, that's what I said. My point was that now would be a good time to institute said infrastructural changes as the energy source is viable now.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 02:04 PM

Oh, and I work with engineers too, and they are dumb as posts. :D

In E.P. we have to take a lot of both natural science classes and 'engineering science' classes. Guess which ones are harder? ;)

I almost envy civil engineers. They're in demand, yet most of their science ends after 2nd year! :D

ducks as all the civils start throwing things

Firesign fan?

Does the fact that I had to Google it make me one? :D

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 02:06 PM

OK, but first let me know if you have been there--and how recently---so I know how much I have to update you on specifics.

I have not been there, and I don't see how that matters. If you HAVE, then you should have no problem telling me, right?

Come on, Mark.... quit stalling. What infrastructure should be in Yosemite?

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 02:08 PM

I disagree with your conclusions, but wanted to note that your "buggy whip" line was very clever.

That's it? You "disagree"? I point out in detail how you have utterly misapprehended how the free market works, and you "disagree"?

Boy, color me underwhelmed.

pipelineaudio

3rd May 2006, 03:10 PM

I think, when Tricky mentioned some hard choices, there's one that really would work that noone wants to admit and thats population control

The right to infest the world with your spawn is not spelled out in the constitution.

If noone had any babies for five years it sure as hell wouldnt hurt the environment. It sure wouldnt cause an increase in fuel demand. It wouldnt cause MORE of these damn apartment houses to be built all over what nature we have left

Methanol and birth control, my solution

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 03:15 PM

hammegk

3rd May 2006, 03:41 PM

Methanol and birth control, my solution
Methanol as birth control would have greater chances of success.

pipelineaudio

3rd May 2006, 04:22 PM

Cool, but not a practical solution.

In fact, not even a viable solution.

Humans need ever more energy per capita.

Forever? Or just up to a certain point?

pipelineaudio

3rd May 2006, 04:23 PM

Methanol as birth control would have greater chances of success.

The cynic in me says that its hard to keep the girls away with a methanol powered hotrod

DanishDynamite

3rd May 2006, 04:26 PM

Forever? Or just up to a certain point?
Forever or until we die out, whichever comes first.

CapelDodger

3rd May 2006, 04:54 PM

(Yes, the oil companies are the driving force behind alternative energy). We also are big investors in wind power, being a major partner of Green Mountain Energy, a local energy provider which has windmill farms in and around the panhandle of Texas.
The more forward-thinking oil companies have recognised that they're in the energy business.

That is very important, but it is a long-term plan which will require major changes to our infrastructure. We're gonna have to wean ourselves off oil. It can't be cold turkey.
A plan implies planners and executors, which means overriding the free market. That implies a serious swerve in the direction politics has taken over the last few decades. Hold onto your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Cheap transport has radically changed societies and economies in the past - ox-carts, the horse, canals, railways, internal-combustion. The problem with car-based societies is that they're not sustainable. Gasoline and diesel have unique properties, such as energy-to-weight ratios and relative ease of handling. But they depend on a resource which was finite in the short- to medium-term.

Hydrogen strikes me as a massive distraction. The aim there is to maintain the car-culture, which would not have arisen if it had been originally based on hydrogen. Batteries show more promise if that's the aim.

CapelDodger

3rd May 2006, 05:00 PM

Methanol and birth control, my solution
Ethanol as birth-control, that's the brewer's solution.

I've heard it said that alcohol is not the solution, and I agree. Alcohol is a solvent. A solution also requires a solute, which is the tricky bit. :)

Mark

3rd May 2006, 07:19 PM

I have not been there, and I don't see how that matters. If you HAVE, then you should have no problem telling me, right?

Come on, Mark.... quit stalling. What infrastructure should be in Yosemite?

I am not stalling. Keep in mind that I realize you will disagree with me...and I have zero interest in trying to convince you otherwise. OK?

The reason I wanted to know if you had been there was so I would know how much I have to describe conditions there. Traffic in the Summer is horrendous...it's like visiting LA in the pines; it is often bumper to bumper. The smog is awful and is causing severe damage to the trees. As of now there are over 1 thousand buildings there, and 30 miles of roadway. That is insane for such a small area. Here is what I would like to see:

A) Eliminate the restaurants, car repair shops, and other utterly superflous businesses. I am fine with keeping the visitor center, chapel, and things of that nature. Also the Ahwahnee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge. But a grocery/supply store should be adequate. If someone wants to go to a restaurant, go somewhere else. Fresno leaps to mind. Gas your car outside the park; it's not that difficult, I promise.

B) One extreme suggestion has been to eliminate cars in the Valley altogether, and restrict entrance via shuttles. I personally think this is extreme, but can see where it may become necessary at some point.

C) But it is possible that entrance to the Valley may have to be limited via a sort of lottery/waiting list system. This is already the case with camping there. This saddens me, especially since it will make it virtually impossible for me to go there since I cannot plan that far ahead (job issues). But I don't really see how it can be avoided. As wilderness areas continue to disappear, there will be increased pressure on the ones we still have.

Happy now? I am not interested in your arguments against any of this. You already said you wouldn't object to oil drilling there, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about your opinion on this subject.

pipelineaudio

3rd May 2006, 07:39 PM

Im with mark, I think

If I gotta chose between the environment or MORE people, Ill go with the environment thank you

Jocko

3rd May 2006, 07:45 PM

I am not stalling. Keep in mind that I realize you will disagree with me...and I have zero interest in trying to convince you otherwise. OK?

The reason I wanted to know if you had been there was so I would know how much I have to describe conditions there. Traffic in the Summer is horrendous...it's like visiting LA in the pines; it is often bumper to bumper. The smog is awful and is causing severe damage to the trees. As of now there are over 1 thousand buildings there, and 30 miles of roadway. That is insane for such a small area. Here is what I would like to see:

A) Eliminate the restaurants, car repair shops, and other utterly superflous businesses. I am fine with keeping the visitor center, chapel, and things of that nature. Also the Ahwahnee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge. But a grocery/supply store should be adequate. If someone wants to go to a restaurant, go somewhere else. Fresno leaps to mind. Gas your car outside the park; it's not that difficult, I promise.

B) One extreme suggestion has been to eliminate cars in the Valley altogether, and restrict entrance via shuttles. I personally think this is extreme, but can see where it may become necessary at some point.

C) But it is possible that entrance to the Valley may have to be limited via a sort of lottery/waiting list system. This is already the case with camping there. This saddens me, especially since it will make it virtually impossible for me to go there since I cannot plan that far ahead (job issues). But I don't really see how it can be avoided. As wilderness areas continue to disappear, there will be increased pressure on the ones we still have.

Happy now? I am not interested in your arguments against any of this. You already said you wouldn't object to oil drilling there, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about your opinion on this subject.

Good God. All the answers except the very simple one I asked for.

What infrastructure would you keep in Yosemite, Mark? There's a couple of hints buried in there, but I'm looking for a simple list. Please answer this very simple question and quit wasting cycles trying to divine my meaning. It's puerile.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 08:29 PM

I think, when Tricky mentioned some hard choices, there's one that really would work that noone wants to admit and thats population control.
I once started a thread positing that overpopulation was the chief cause of most of humanity's problems. I still hold that opinion, but it might sideline this topic. If you wish to start a new one though, I'll participate. However, I'm not into forced population control. Something will eventually take care of the problem for us if we don't do so ourselves.

The more forward-thinking oil companies have recognised that they're in the energy business.
You are correct, sir. Realistically, they're the best people to handle changes in our energy structure, both from a know-how and an available capital point of view.

A plan implies planners and executors, which means overriding the free market. That implies a serious swerve in the direction politics has taken over the last few decades. Hold onto your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Yes indeedy, it is going to be a very bumpy ride. I don't think of it so much as overriding the free market as I do having the foresight and capital to plan for things that, in the short term, are going to look like a hole in the ground that you toss your money into. It took us quite a few years and quite a few bucks to build the network of pipelines and gas stations that we have now, plus providing secure storage of what is a very volatile and dangerous compound. Even if the technology for alternate fuels were available today, it would take a long time for it to be implemented.

Cheap transport has radically changed societies and economies in the past - ox-carts, the horse, canals, railways, internal-combustion. The problem with car-based societies is that they're not sustainable. Gasoline and diesel have unique properties, such as energy-to-weight ratios and relative ease of handling. But they depend on a resource which was finite in the short- to medium-term. I don't know for sure that car-based societies are not sustainable. It depends on lots of factors, including, as Pipeline points out, population. If we had a killer pandemic or a worldwide famine, we might find that we had enough fuel for quite some time.

Hydrogen strikes me as a massive distraction. The aim there is to maintain the car-culture, which would not have arisen if it had been originally based on hydrogen. Batteries show more promise if that's the aim.
At present, it is. One problem with hydrogen is that it takes so dang much of it to do anything because it contains so few BTUs per unit. (As a side note, most people don't know that more than half of the passengers on the Hindenburg survived because the hydrogen fire was not that hot, and because it is lighter than air and immediately rose after escaping.) Batteries hold hope, but not if you have to use some other source of energy to charge them.

pipelineaudio

3rd May 2006, 11:51 PM

Having at least SOME of this offloaded to alcohol couldnt hurt

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 06:17 AM

I am not stalling. Not stalling??? Stalling is all you ever do. Stalling is what you do best.

If you were a car, you'd be a 1982 Yugo with a pound of sugar in the gas tank.

If you were a plane, you'd be a Cessna trying to do an 80 degree climb.

If you were on 60 Minutes, you'd be Lesley Stahl.

I asked you at least three times what destruction drilling in the ANWR would cause, and all you would answer was, "What about Yosemite?"

Jocko has asked you three times what infrastructure you would keep in Yosemite, and you answer, "Look! A kitty cat!"

I've dug tree stumps out of the ground with less work than digging a straight answer out of you.

The last time I saw a place with more stalls, there were horses in it.

Mark

4th May 2006, 07:45 AM

Not stalling??? Stalling is all you ever do. Stalling is what you do best.

If you were a car, you'd be a 1982 Yugo with a pound of sugar in the gas tank.

If you were a plane, you'd be a Cessna trying to do an 80 degree climb.

If you were on 60 Minutes, you'd be Lesley Stahl.

I asked you at least three times what destruction drilling in the ANWR would cause, and all you would answer was, "What about Yosemite?"

Jocko has asked you three times what infrastructure you would keep in Yosemite, and you answer, "Look! A kitty cat!"

I've dug tree stumps out of the ground with less work than digging a straight answer out of you.

The last time I saw a place with more stalls, there were horses in it.

Pardon me for not following the script you and Jocko want me to follow. If you only want me to answer your questions (while not answering mine) the way you want me to, why not just answer them yourselves?
:rolleyes:

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 07:59 AM

Pardon me for not following the script you and Jocko want me to follow. Sorry, but you set the agenda when you claimed: Most estimates says there is only 6 months to 2 years of oil there. And drilling there would have little or no imoact on prices. We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.I dismantled the first sentence in that claim (I notice you haven't revisited it), and I asked you to be more specific on what ANWR destruction you were talking about in the third. At which point, you decided to try to lead me down your little Yosemite rathole, as if Yosemite has anything at all to do with fuel prices.

Why don't you just admit that you in fact have no earthly idea what damage, if any, would be caused by drilling in the ANWR?

Mark

4th May 2006, 08:03 AM

Sorry, but you set the agenda when you claimed: I dismantled the first sentence in that claim (I notice you haven't revisited it), and I asked you to be more specific on what ANWR destruction you were talking about in the third. At which point, you decided to try to lead me down your little Yosemite rathole, as if Yosemite has anything at all to do with fuel prices.

Why don't you just admit that you in fact have no earthly idea what damage, if any, would be caused by drilling in the ANWR?

Asked and answered, counselor. Again, I realize you wanted a particular answer from me so you could refute it. Sorry to disappoint you.

And your estimates for how much oil is in ANWR is heavily disputed, so presenting it as established fact is disengenuous at best. What a surprise.

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 08:13 AM

Asked and answered, counselor. Where???
And your estimates for how much oil is in ANWR is heavily disputed, I gave you links to my figures. Where are yours?

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 09:18 AM

WildCat

4th May 2006, 09:25 AM

Having at least SOME of this offloaded to alcohol couldnt hurt
It hurts if it requires more than a gallon of fuel to make a gallon of ethanol, which is currently the case. Actually, since a gallon of ethanol does not produce the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, it's even worse.

I've said it here before, but ethanol is a farm policy masquerading as an energy policy, and its use actually makes us more dependent on foreign sources of oil.

pipelineaudio

4th May 2006, 09:34 AM

how much gasoline do you end up using if you do it how the moonshiners do? At least they dont have to pay for delivery to themselves

Tricky

4th May 2006, 09:43 AM

Okay, it appears Mark has decided to bail on this thread; he's given up not answering my questions in this thread in favor of not answering Manny's in a thread of his own.

So, in answer to Mark's claim that, "We need long term solutions, not short term destruction [of the ANWR]," I offer this graphical representation of the ANWR.

Each pixel represents about 280 acres of the approximately twenty million acres in the ANWR.

The area in red represents the approximately 17.5 million acres of the ANWR - an area about the size of Maryland, Vermont, and New Hampshire, combined - that are permanently closed to any development.

The area in black - about 1.5 million acres - represents that part of the ANWR that is available to development.

The area in green - you'll have to look closely; it's at the bottom right of the black area - represents the roughly 2000 acres that would be needed for all the oil drilling proposed there. That 2000 acres is about the size of Washington Dulles International airport.
While I agree that drilling in ANWR is not particularly disturbing to the environment, I think your diagram is quite misleading, BP. While it is true that the actual drilling platforms are quite small, there must be roads to the platforms. Plus, the unfamiliar noises and smells given off by the platforms and along the roads travel for a very long way. And in the unlikely event that there was a major accident, such as a blowout, the damage could be quite widespread.

It hurts if it requires more than a gallon of fuel to make a gallon of ethanol, which is currently the case. Actually, since a gallon of ethanol does not produce the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, it's even worse.

I've said it here before, but ethanol is a farm policy masquerading as an energy policy, and its use actually makes us more dependent on foreign sources of oil.
You are correct, Wildcat. Ethenol is a boondoggle. Plus there is a lot of controversy as to whether ethanol may damage engines (http://www.collegesonline.tased.edu.au/Energy/Ethanol/EthanolCaseStudy.htm). It is nothing more than another farm subsidy.

BTW, "wildcat" is a term for an exploration well drilled in areas with not much previous drilling. Posting in this topic is particularly appropriate for you, Mr. Cat.;)

WildCat

4th May 2006, 09:45 AM

how much gasoline do you end up using if you do it how the moonshiners do? At least they dont have to pay for delivery to themselves
Remember, moonshiners have to cut a lot of wood to fire the stills. You can also use propane, natural gas, or other fossil fuels but I'm sure you can see the problem w/ all of these fuels.

pipelineaudio

4th May 2006, 09:48 AM

You are correct, Wildcat. Ethenol is a boondoggle. Plus there is a lot of controversy as to whether ethanol may damage engines (http://www.collegesonline.tased.edu.au/Energy/Ethanol/EthanolCaseStudy.htm). It is nothing more than another farm subsidy.
.;)

I would say theres no controversy, alcohol CERTAINLY will not protect your motor as well as dino-gas, but then, think how much worse UNleaded gas is for your car than leaded and we still use it

Anyways, isnt there more than just one way to make methanol or ethanol?

WildCat

4th May 2006, 09:48 AM

BTW, "wildcat" is a term for an exploration well drilled in areas with not much previous drilling. Posting in this topic is particularly appropriate for you, Mr. Cat.;)
It can also be used for any unconventional approach to a problem, which is why I picked it as a user name. For example, some now popular rifle cartridges (such as the .22/250) were originally "wildcat" cartridges, basically combining different bullets and casings to make a unique one.

WildCat

4th May 2006, 09:53 AM

Anyways, isnt there more than just one way to make methanol or ethanol?
It all has to be distilled, which requires energy. And the crop it comes from requires plowing, sowing, harvesting, transporting, etc. All of which use large amounts of fuel.

Not to mention that if land is planted for fuel, it is then unavailable for food production.

Bottom line, if you gave a farmer 1000 gallons of fuel to grow a crop to be used for ethanol, and that fuel also had to be used for transporting the crop to the distillery and the finished fuel back to the farmer, he would end up w/ less than 1000 gallons for the next crop.

pipelineaudio

4th May 2006, 09:59 AM

Not to mention that if land is planted for fuel, it is then unavailable for food production.
.

I dont understand this, I thought that for some racing blends it was the stalks themselves left over after harvest that were used.

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 10:04 AM

While I agree that drilling in ANWR is not particularly disturbing to the environment, I think your diagram is quite misleading, BP. While it is true that the actual drilling platforms are quite small, there must be roads to the platforms. Plus, the unfamiliar noises and smells given off by the platforms and along the roads travel for a very long way. Maybe, but if this slideshow (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/slideshows/anwr/pages/Caribou1_jpg.htm) isn't misleading, the caribou seem to get over their shock and awe quickly enough...

And in the unlikely event that there was a major accident, such as a blowout, the damage could be quite widespread.Okay, here you're getting into cost vs. benefit analysis. Tell us the likelihood of a major accident (with 1 being certainty and 0 being impossibility), and we can multiply that by the cost of that accident, and determine the expected cost.

In any case, you drill for the oil where the oil is. It would be great if it were in the middle of the Mojave Desert, (though I'm sure the ecological Luddites would be up in arms over the destruction of the pristine natural treasure of the Mojave...), but that ain't where the oil is. You remember the reason Willie Sutton famously gave for robbing banks.

You are correct, Wildcat.Wildcat, BP... too many oil references going on here...

pipelineaudio

4th May 2006, 10:32 AM

It would be great if it were in the middle of the Mojave Desert, (though I'm sure the ecological Luddites would be up in arms over the destruction of the pristine natural treasure of the Mojave...), ...

Hey now, just because I cant set the clock on my VCR doesnt mean Im a luddite

WildCat

4th May 2006, 10:37 AM

Hey now, just because I cant set the clock on my VCR doesnt mean Im a luddite
No, the fact that you still have a VCR makes you one. ;)

Nyarlathotep

4th May 2006, 10:43 AM

No, the fact that you still have a VCR makes you one. ;)

Hey! I own a VCR.

(of course, it and my DVD player both are part of my TV)

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 10:48 AM

Hey now, just because I cant set the clock on my VCR doesnt mean Im a ludditeNo, but not knowing how to use the apostrophe key on your keyboard does.

(This belongs in the Humor section: Top Ten Reasons pipelineaudio is a Luddite...)

pipelineaudio

4th May 2006, 12:07 PM

Its funny, in an audio forum I frequent we are divided into Luddite ( open reel tape/ analog recording) and unmentionable

I record to computers 99% of the time now, but still, my car is 1973, my mics are mostly 60's and 70's, lots of the front end gear is ancient and/or has tubes in it, yet I am comfortable on the cutting edge when it comes to using a PC for editing.

I feel like a caveman tracking mammoths with a GPS

Tricky

4th May 2006, 01:01 PM

Maybe, but if this slideshow (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/slideshows/anwr/pages/Caribou1_jpg.htm) isn't misleading, the caribou seem to get over their shock and awe quickly enough...
Yep the caribou are doing nicely. Of course, there are other forms of life there besides caribou. Birds in particular are very sensitive to noise pollution.

Okay, here you're getting into cost vs. benefit analysis. Tell us the likelihood of a major accident (with 1 being certainty and 0 being impossibility), and we can multiply that by the cost of that accident, and determine the expected cost.
All I'm pointing out is that there is an environmental footprint and a fairly significant one. Plants and animals that live in extreme environments are particularly sensitive to small changes in those environments. This is not to say it can't be done with minimal impact, but it must be done carefully.

Another thing that can't be ignored is the actions of some radical environmentalists or other terrorists. The greatest oil spill from the Alaska pipeline occurred when it was shot with a high-powered rifle. When people become fanatical about a thing, logic seems to desert them.

In any case, you drill for the oil where the oil is. It would be great if it were in the middle of the Mohave Desert, (though I'm sure the ecological Luddites would be up in arms over the destruction of the pristine natural treasure of the Mojave...), but that ain't where the oil is. You remember the reason Willie Sutton famously gave for robbing banks.
Yep. 'Cause that's where the oil is. But just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do it. We will drill ANWR eventually. I don't believe that this is the time to do it.

luchog

4th May 2006, 03:25 PM

This is not just a useless nitpicking. It may be possible to release hydrogen from some pre-existing compounds via catalyzed reactions which do not require putting equal amounts of energy into creating the hydrogen. This may be especially practical with some of the heavier hydrocarbon compounds which are not suitable for refining. My company is running test projects of this right now. (Yes, the oil companies are the driving force behind alternative energy). We also are big investors in wind power, being a major partner of Green Mountain Energy, a local energy provider which has windmill farms in and around the panhandle of Texas.
It is currently possible to crack hydrogen from bio-fuels, most notably bio-diesel. Small-scale recombiners are already on the market. Unfortunately, i'm not familar with the actual energy ecomony involved; so I can't say whether it's a net-gain or net-loss tech.

Aside from the energy economy issue, I don't think hydrogen is a viable long-term solution simply because of the logistics issues. Unless there is a significant improvement in the storage and transfer technology; it's never going to be anything more than a niche product And that's not including the extensive re-tooling and replacement required. However, I do know that it's adding an extra step in the utilization process, with the energy losses that that entails; and thus reducing overall efficiency.

TDP and bio-fuels, combined with nuclear, are a far more viable option, at least in the near term, for electricity generation and vehicle fuel; and bio-fuels require little to no re-tooling or replacement, so no major infrastructure changes are needed.

Hydrogen's only advantage over bio-fuels is pollution; and looking at cradle-to-grave production and utilization even that's a very minor advantage. Although hydrogen itself is non-polluting, refining it creates pollution regardless of the process used; and bio-fuels created very little pollution in themselves. Certainly nowhere near the level created by fossil fuels.

I don't think there is any one magic bullet that is going to solve energy needs once fossil fuels are no longer viable. A truly long-term solution is going to require a combination of options which will vary by region. I think we're going to see a good deal more localization and "in house" production of fuels and power.

luchog

4th May 2006, 03:43 PM

Ethanol as birth-control, that's the brewer's solution.

I've heard it said that alcohol is not the solution, and I agree. Alcohol is a solvent. A solution also requires a solute, which is the tricky bit. :)
"Alcohol is not the solution. Alcohol is merely a solvent. Beer is the solution."
http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/pictures/drunk.gif

Tmy

4th May 2006, 04:29 PM

WildCat

4th May 2006, 04:34 PM

How much is gas in Saudi Arabia? Venezula? Im sure its not as much as we are paying. Why cant we have cheap gas? WE produce alot of oil. Its not like we are some island nation without our own resources.
Tmy, those countries export oil. We import oil.

Do you really need more information than that?

Tmy

4th May 2006, 04:38 PM

Tmy, those countries export oil. We import oil.

Do you really need more information than that?

SO! we also export oil too. Im not saying oil should be free in the US. But I was enjoyong haveing a fairly stable cost. I WANT THAT BACK! Is the US even using more oil than we have inthe past???

Nyarlathotep

4th May 2006, 05:28 PM

SO! we also export oil too. Im not saying oil should be free in the US. But I was enjoyong haveing a fairly stable cost. I WANT THAT BACK! Is the US even using more oil than we have inthe past???

And I want a motorcycle. Neither of us is getting what we want.

Mark

4th May 2006, 06:24 PM

Okay, it appears Mark has decided to bail on this thread; he's given up not answering my questions in this thread in favor of not answering Manny's in a thread of his own.

Beeps, Beeps. I told you on that other thread that I had to go to work (I got back 5 minutes ago). I keep answering questions and you keep saying I didn't because you don't like the answers.

Is lying pathological with you? Or do I just bring out your worst?

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 07:18 PM

Beeps, Beeps. I told you on that other thread that I had to go to work (I got back 5 minutes ago). I keep answering questions and you keep saying I didn't because you don't like the answers.Well, there's a difference between saying you keep answering questions and actually answering them.

You claim some unspecified "destruction" will occur if we drill the ANWR. The post you just responded to (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1617507#post1617507) showed that the area of "destruction," even if it were total (say we paved over the whole thing with concrete three feet thick), would in fact be a miniscule portion, leaving the vast majority of the ANWR in its "pristine" state.

I also showed in another post that wildlife that is able to survive some of the harshest climates on earth somehow manage to survive oil drilling just fine; in fact, they appear to thrive (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/slideshows/anwr/pages/Caribou1_jpg.htm).

So, let's assume I was reading too hastily and glossed over your answer, and that you did indeed answer my query about the extent of the "destruction" drilling in the ANWR would cause. Please provide a link to that response, so I may read it and digest it.

Rob Lister

4th May 2006, 07:21 PM

Please provide a link to that response, so I may read it and digest it.

I too would like to learn from the sage Mark.

Tricky

4th May 2006, 09:38 PM

It is currently possible to crack hydrogen from bio-fuels, most notably bio-diesel. Small-scale recombiners are already on the market. Unfortunately, i'm not familar with the actual energy ecomony involved; so I can't say whether it's a net-gain or net-loss tech.
All I can say is that my company (an international major) is investing in it. When they showed us the PR slides on it, I asked just that question, and the speaker said he was pretty sure it was a net-gain, but he hadn't personally done the numbers. And while it is true that we are in the business to make money, it is also true that good PR can make money if we can convince the public we are forward-looking. And really, I think we are. Even if it turns out to be a bust, it must be investigated, even if it proves marginal or non-commercial.

Aside from the energy economy issue, I don't think hydrogen is a viable long-term solution simply because of the logistics issues. Unless there is a significant improvement in the storage and transfer technology; it's never going to be anything more than a niche product And that's not including the extensive re-tooling and replacement required. However, I do know that it's adding an extra step in the utilization process, with the energy losses that that entails; and thus reducing overall efficiency.
I mostly agree, although the transfer technology shouldn't be so difficult. It's a gas, so it can go in pipes like natural gas does now. Maybe they can even use the same pipes. (Just a wild thought, not based on any research.) But it is a problem because of the very low BTU content, on the other hand, it is much safer than natural gas for the very same reason.

TDP and bio-fuels, combined with nuclear, are a far more viable option, at least in the near term, for electricity generation and vehicle fuel; and bio-fuels require little to no re-tooling or replacement, so no major infrastructure changes are needed.
Perhaps. But if that is the case, you would think energy companies would be smothering them with cash, and I don't see that. Of course, nobody wants to touch nuclear because of bad PR.

Hydrogen's only advantage over bio-fuels is pollution; and looking at cradle-to-grave production and utilization even that's a very minor advantage. Although hydrogen itself is non-polluting, refining it creates pollution regardless of the process used; and bio-fuels created very little pollution in themselves. Certainly nowhere near the level created by fossil fuels.The problem I see with bio-fuels is the availability of raw materials to extract it. Though it might seem we have mountains of garbage to use, most of it is not suitable for bio fuels. Still, I think cooking oil recycling plants should be on every corner. They could hook up a direct collection line to Taco Bell.

But as I say, if we could find a way of producing hydrogen without inputting more energy than it yields, it does have transportation and safety advantages. But one problem with hydrogen is that is is the smallest of all molecules. It is hard as hell to engineer high-pressure containment vessels and lines that don't leak like sieves.

I don't think there is any one magic bullet that is going to solve energy needs once fossil fuels are no longer viable. A truly long-term solution is going to require a combination of options which will vary by region. I think we're going to see a good deal more localization and "in house" production of fuels and power.
I am in total agreement.

Jimbo07

5th May 2006, 09:16 AM

But as I say, if we could find a way of producing hydrogen without inputting more energy than it yields, it does have transportation and safety advantages.

I think somebody mentioned (some time ago) something about the usability of fuels. Compressed H2 is most likely energy inefficient. Even if we couldn't "find a way of producing" certain fuels "without inputting more energy than it yields" we might be turning lots of hard-to-use energy into a small amount of convenient energy. In the future, that may be a plus.

I am in total agreement.

Regarding no magic bullet? I'm also in total agreement...

The_Serpent

5th May 2006, 12:47 PM

Rob Lister

5th May 2006, 01:11 PM

The_Serpent

5th May 2006, 01:29 PM

I'm very skeptical of your claim. I think you may have miscalculated either the cost or the energy output of the solar panels.

Feel free to be skeptical of my 'claim', sheesh you'd think I just said I was going to power my home from goddam ectoplasm. Go look up prices for yourself then, I'm not about to do it for you, especially after you imply I don't know how to do math. GE makes them, as well as BP solar and quite a few others now. Output is not steady and varies a lot dependant on time of year and sun exposure, etc.. but that's why it's good to have an on-grid system that draws power when you need it and pumps power back to the utility when you don't.

ETA: Does it annoy anyone else when someone quotes an entire post to insert a one sentence response at the end?

WildCat

5th May 2006, 03:05 PM

A loan for 25K would have me paying 250-300 per month for 5 years, which is slightly higher than my current electric bill BUT after those 5 years.. my energy is free!!
Depends on the life expectancy of the solar panels, and whether or not they get less efficient over time.

Jocko

5th May 2006, 03:06 PM

Depends on the life expectancy of the solar panels, and whether or not they get less efficient over time.

And how prone his area is to hailstorms. Think it sucks when your power lines go down? That's nothing compared to finding 20 grand worth of pulverized silicon in your gutters.

BPSCG

5th May 2006, 03:43 PM

ETA: Does it annoy anyone else when someone quotes an entire post to insert a one sentence response at the end?No. You're the only one. :D

Welcome to the forum!

Deus Ex Machina

5th May 2006, 03:48 PM

This has been a very interesting thread for me. Especially with Tricky's comments. Much of his information I have also been slowly Prying from my Father who is a manager for a company that makes large Turbines for the oil industry. I would be interested what you think about the 'peak oil' by word I have been hearing bandied about lately: i.e. have we reached it? if not when? What truly interests me though, is how little discussion there is of Solar and wind power. These are not trivial technologies IMO.

The so called oil peak is not quite the "drop off the cliff" moment that may have been bandied about. As concern over future oil supplies grows then the price goes up which increases the viability of more marginal fields thus increasing the supply. If there is a small measure of success in switching to non-carbon energy (solar, wind, hydro, even nuclear) then that "peak" goes even further into the distance.

Just to give you an idea, Exxon's current reserves (73 billion barrels) would allow it to pump oil at the current rate for 49 years. (figures from last weeks Economist Magazine) - hardly an impending disaster.

The current round of oil prices have nothing to do with current world demand they are driven mainly by risk concern about Iran and Nigeria and somewhat by Venezuela.

ANWR should be developed the current opposition to it is uninformed twaddle that is not based on preserving wilderness or the overabundant Caribou but instead is based (IMHO) on opposition to industrial society in general.

I personally recently priced a solar system for the home I am building here in Pennsylvania. To purchase and install a system that will slightly exceed my current yearly electrical power needs in the home I am renting now is around 20-25K US dollars depending on exactly what I have and who I have do it. My current rental home has Electric heat and all electric appliances and my electric bill averaged over the whole yearly cycle is approxmiately 200 US dollars per month. A loan for 25K would have me paying 250-300 per month for 5 years, which is slightly higher than my current electric bill BUT after those 5 years.. my energy is free!!

If you figure in the amortization costs for your equipment there will be a cost but it will be way lower than your electricity grid supplied electricity. You will also benefit from the dropping prices for Solar equipment so your replacement costs are likely to be much lower than your initial ones.

Here in Colorado I believe it should be mandatory (by code) for all new buildings to incoporate solar heating and energy - we have 300 sunny days a year here it is nuts that we do not take advantage of it.

Add to this the fact that my appliances are 10yr old energy hungry appliances and newer models have dramatically increased in efficiency and you start to understand why I am starting to feel this is the only way for me to go. I wish it were more common: given economies of scale for larger size solar cells and batteries and we could have some seriously cheap energy independence.

I totally agree with you

Now if only I could buy a relatively good sized (civic/cavalier) commuter electric car with at least a 40 mile range and I could be living entirely free except for parts, which thankfully there are fewer parts to break down in such a vehicle. I have been considering doing my own lead acid electric conversion of a used car recently, again if only the larger li-ion batts were a bit cheaper.

Not sure about your point here

Rob Lister

6th May 2006, 07:05 AM

Feel free to be skeptical of my 'claim', sheesh you'd think I just said I was going to power my home from goddam ectoplasm. Go look up prices for yourself then, I'm not about to do it for you, especially after you imply I don't know how to do math. GE makes them, as well as BP solar and quite a few others now. Output is not steady and varies a lot dependant on time of year and sun exposure, etc.. but that's why it's good to have an on-grid system that draws power when you need it and pumps power back to the utility when you don't.

ETA: Does it annoy anyone else when someone quotes an entire post to insert a one sentence response at the end?

I was being generous. I actually think your claim is complete and utter bunk. I estimate you'll 37 panels (at $700 ea) just to break even on the best of days and only for about four hours a day (unless you intend on buying some sort of pointing mechinism). If you want to break even over an entire 24 hour period you'll need 6 times that number.

Now we're up to about $150,000.

Factor in rainy days, snowing days, cloudy days, the occasional hail storm and you can probably double that number again, depending on where you live.

This excludes the cost of the DC/AC converter/phase matcher you'll need to sell the excess back to power company.

This also excludes the useful life of the cells (est. 10-15 years avg)

Just sayin, maybe you should buy a windmill instead. :/

The_Serpent

8th May 2006, 09:25 AM

Snipped the snark I estimate you'll 37 panels (at $700 ea) just to break even on the best of days and only for about four hours a day (unless you intend on buying some sort of pointing mechinism). If you want to break even over an entire 24 hour period you'll need 6 times that number.

What size panel? Made by whom? Whats the peak output of the cell?

try this link on for size. ://256.com/solar/

These people had a 16K grant to help them bring a 36K cost down to a more manageable 19K, but their power needs are also 40% greater than mine. They also paid 3,000 for install which I won't need as I am an experienced electrical engineer. I will also likely do all the wiring inside the house for on-grid myself as well.

far cry from 150,000 bucks.

Oh and actually, I was planning on building a windmill turbine also, mostly as a for-fun type of project, but we do get a lot of wind in my part of PA so it might contribute significantly to our power as well (actually there are commercial power generating windmills on a ridge I can see from my office building).

BPSCG

8th May 2006, 09:28 AM

Still waiting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1618942#post1618942), Mark.

Jocko

8th May 2006, 09:33 AM

Snipped the snark

What size panel? Made by whom? Whats the peak output of the cell?

try this link on for size. ://256.com/solar/

These people had a 16K grant to help them bring a 36K cost down to a more manageable 19K, but their power needs are also 40% greater than mine. They also paid 3,000 for install which I won't need as I am an experienced electrical engineer. I will also likely do all the wiring inside the house for on-grid myself as well.

far cry from 150,000 bucks.

Oh and actually, I was planning on building a windmill turbine also, mostly as a for-fun type of project, but we do get a lot of wind in my part of PA so it might contribute significantly to our power as well (actually there are commercial power generating windmills on a ridge I can see from my office building).

If it's such a great deal, why a grant instead of a loan? Surely it could be repaid with excess electricity? Generally people don't give you free money so you can save more money... at least in my experience.

The_Serpent

8th May 2006, 09:54 AM

If it's such a great deal, why a grant instead of a loan? Surely it could be repaid with excess electricity? Generally people don't give you free money so you can save more money... at least in my experience.

Are you telling me you'd refuse a grant if offered? I sure as heck wouldn't Apprently MIT was offering one for Solar house projects and the people above (who live in MASS), gratefully accepted. I don't know if they took a loan out for the rest of it. I am figuring I'll see if I can get it included in the cost of building my home and just bump up my home loan from 130 to 155 or 160..etc. We'll see, I am in the early stages of planning here as my house project is likely a good 3 yrs away from breaking ground.

Mark

8th May 2006, 10:03 AM

Still waiting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1618942#post1618942), Mark.

I answered you, Beeps. The fact that you do not like the answer doesn't mean squat. I realize that to you if someone doesn't follow your script, that means they didn't answer...but the fact is you are a liar and I did answer. I just didn't give the answer that would allow you to parrot something in response.

Although it is true that you never answered mine...

But that is typcial and I didn't expect it.

BPSCG

8th May 2006, 10:10 AM

I answered you, Beeps. I acknowledged that possibility, Mark, when I wrote: So, let's assume I was reading too hastily and glossed over your answer, and that you did indeed answer my query about the extent of the "destruction" drilling in the ANWR would cause. Please provide a link to that response, so I may read it and digest it.The fact that you do not like the answer... Mark, the problem is not that I don't like your answer. It's that I can't find your answer. So this is the third time I'm asking you to link to your own answer. Is that so terribly difficult?

BPSCG

8th May 2006, 10:10 AM

Jocko

8th May 2006, 10:11 AM

Are you telling me you'd refuse a grant if offered?

Nope, just skeptical of free money for something that's supposed to save you money.

I sure as heck wouldn't Apprently MIT was offering one for Solar house projects and the people above (who live in MASS), gratefully accepted. I don't know if they took a loan out for the rest of it. I am figuring I'll see if I can get it included in the cost of building my home and just bump up my home loan from 130 to 155 or 160..etc. We'll see, I am in the early stages of planning here as my house project is likely a good 3 yrs away from breaking ground.

I wish you best of luck. I look forward to the day when these technologies are economically viable. Hopefully you'll demonstrate that the time has come.

Jocko

8th May 2006, 10:12 AM

I answered you, Beeps. The fact that you do not like the answer doesn't mean squat. I realize that to you if someone doesn't follow your script, that means they didn't answer...but the fact is you are a liar and I did answer. I just didn't give the answer that would allow you to parrot something in response.

Although it is true that you never answered mine...

But that is typcial and I didn't expect it.

I'm still waiting to hear what infrastructure you would allow in Yosemite. Since you brought it up and all, I figured you may want to explore the issue? Or is this another called bluff I'm looking at?

Jimbo07

8th May 2006, 10:24 AM

We'll see, I am in the early stages of planning here as my house project is likely a good 3 yrs away from breaking ground.

Serp...

Back in Oct. 2004, one of our introductory electronics labs was on solar panels. We were largely fooling around with P=IV, V=IR stuff and measurements relative to the angle of the sun, etc. A sidebar was an inspection of a house that our lab instructor had built. It was designed to be totally off the grid. It had 8 200w panels, 12 batteries, a small wind tower and a single 4 kw inverter. (I'd have to dig out my old lab book to find specs/websites/etc.) Price tag: $30-40k Cdn. (To be fair, she and her partner designed other energy efficiencies into the home). At the time, it was experimental. She also heads up our instrumentation lab next year. I intend to ask how the system has 'wintered' over the last year or two. At the time, she mentioned that she was considering scrapping the wind tower in favour of more solar.

In short: although I don't have the info at my fingertips to verify it for others, your statements smack more of the truth to me than others'. The only difference is the payoff. She estimated 20 yrs, and I think you've estimated 5 (unless you hadn't fully amortized equipment).

Mark

8th May 2006, 10:53 AM

I acknowledged that possibility, Mark, when I wrote: Mark, the problem is not that I don't like your answer. It's that I can't find your answer. So this is the third time I'm asking you to link to your own answer. Is that so terribly difficult?

See my comments on this thread re. Yosemite.

The_Serpent

8th May 2006, 11:20 AM

In short: although I don't have the info at my fingertips to verify it for others, your statements smack more of the truth to me than others'. The only difference is the payoff. She estimated 20 yrs, and I think you've estimated 5 (unless you hadn't fully amortized equipment).

The package estimate of between 20 and 25K American for my home did include most of the equipment except for the stuff I would be purchasing to do the internal wiring. I also specifically excluded the labor costs as that is where GE and BPsolar and the other possible providers I looked at seem to want to screw me.. They make it sound so complicated to install the system on purpose, when it really is not, especially when one is an engineer. That saves me a significant amount and brings down my time to payoff ( I estimate around 7-9 years actually when everything is included, but it's not like I'll be having a party that day).

It should also be noted that even though electric prices per kilowatt hour are twice as high here in PA as they were in NY State, it still cost me half as much to heat my place as the guy in the cube next to me here at work (he has gas) for the same sized home. I expect electric prices to continue an upward climb as with other energy prices (as demand with grow as others switch) so the value of independence can only grow with time.

Jocko

8th May 2006, 11:26 AM

See my comments on this thread re. Yosemite.

You mean all the stuff that you said shouldn't be there, where I asked you what should be there? That part? I could add to that list:

• DisneYosemite Resort
• World's largest "Brunswick Zone" (300 lanes, no waiting!)
• Relocated nuclear waste from Yucca Mountain
• The lastest Trump Tower
• Dollywood West

So you see, I have a decent grasp of what doesn't belong there. Just want to know what you think does belong there.

BPSCG

8th May 2006, 11:43 AM

See my comments on this thread re. Yosemite.I never asked you about Yosemite. You originally claimed we should not drill in the ANWR, and summed up with:
We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.
To which I replied Destruction of what?
Your "comments re. Yosemite" do not answer that question, unless you're trying to claim that drilling in the ANWR will cause destruction in Yosemite.

If that's not what you're claiming, then you have still not answered my question: What will be destroyed if we drill in the ANWR?

Rob Lister

8th May 2006, 03:56 PM

Snipped the snark

What size panel? Made by whom? Whats the peak output of the cell?

try this link on for size. ://256.com/solar/

These people had a 16K grant to help them bring a 36K cost down to a more manageable 19K, but their power needs are also 40% greater than mine. They also paid 3,000 for install which I won't need as I am an experienced electrical engineer. I will also likely do all the wiring inside the house for on-grid myself as well.

far cry from 150,000 bucks.

Oh and actually, I was planning on building a windmill turbine also, mostly as a for-fun type of project, but we do get a lot of wind in my part of PA so it might contribute significantly to our power as well (actually there are commercial power generating windmills on a ridge I can see from my office building).

I used the general electric 100w model priced at $700

Let's approach this a different way...

Current Power cost (national average) = $0.075 kWh

Amount = $30,000
Term=5 years
Interest =6.25%
Total=$35,008
Life cycle=5481 days (15 yrs)
Daily cost = $6.39
Avg max output 3.7 kw
(very) Liberal daily total = 14.81 kWh
Cost per kWh=$0.43

To recap...

Current Power cost = $0.075 kWh
Solar Power cost = $0.43

So solar is only going to cost you 5 times as much...assuming 5481 very sunny days (and no hail storms)

Mark

9th May 2006, 01:16 AM

I never asked you about Yosemite. You originally claimed we should not drill in the ANWR, and summed up with:

To which I replied
Your "comments re. Yosemite" do not answer that question, unless you're trying to claim that drilling in the ANWR will cause destruction in Yosemite.

If that's not what you're claiming, then you have still not answered my question: What will be destroyed if we drill in the ANWR?

OK, I'll try one more time (and this is the last time I will try) to explain it to you. Peppering a pristine, unspoiled wilderness area with oil derricks and pipelines for no better reason than a small, short term oil supply is destruction all by itself, as far as I am concerned. I do not expect you to agree (nor do I care).

God, I hate having to repeat myself over and over again.

Mark

9th May 2006, 01:17 AM

You mean all the stuff that you said shouldn't be there, where I asked you what should be there? That part? I could add to that list:

• DisneYosemite Resort
• World's largest "Brunswick Zone" (300 lanes, no waiting!)
• Relocated nuclear waste from Yucca Mountain
• The lastest Trump Tower
• Dollywood West

So you see, I have a decent grasp of what doesn't belong there. Just want to know what you think does belong there.

I answered that, too.

BPSCG

9th May 2006, 06:13 AM

OK, I'll try one more time (and this is the last time I will try) to explain it to you. Since you haven't explained it yet, it's a little disingenuous of you to say you're going to "try one more time."
Peppering a pristine, unspoiled wilderness area with oil derricks and pipelines for no better reason than a small, short term oil supply is destruction all by itself, as far as I am concerned. Wow. I didn't think it was possible to get so much wrong in such a short sentence.

"Peppering" the wilderness: You make it sound like there will be oil derricks and pipelines scattered throughout the 19 million acres of the ANWR. In fact, they will be concentrated in a tiny (I'll explain later how tiny in concrete terms that even you, I hope, will understand) area of about 2000 acres - a little over three square miles.
"Pristine, unspoiled": For starts, it isn't pristine and unspoiled. People have lived there for centuries (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/photography/anwr/graphics/anwr5.jpg). And the ones who live there favor the drilling (http://www.anwr.org/people/nageak.html); they understand what you don't; it will not destroy the ANWR.
"Short term oil supply": I previously showed you that the estimates are that there is enough economically recoverable oil there to replace all the oil that we get from Saudi Arabia for ten years (low-range estimate) to thirty years (high-range estimate). If you think ten to thirty years' worth of Saudi oil is "short term," what do you consider to be long term?You earlier suggested ("Peppering a pristine, unspoiled wilderness...") that the "destruction" of the ANWR would be widespread. As I demonstrated for you a few pages back, the actual area of development would be tiny. You either ignored that graphic or simply didn't understand its significance, so let me try to explain it to you another way:

The proposed 2000 acres of development amounts to about one ten-thousandth of the entire ANWR. Let's see what one ten-thousandth means:

One ten-thousandth of a mile is a little over six inches.
One ten-thousandth of the weight of your 3000 pound car is about 4.8 ounces - about the weight of the owner's manual in the glove box.
One ten-thousandth of the population of the entire United States is a disappointing turnout at a Saturday afternoon baseball game - about 29,000 people.
You could walk one ten-thousandth of the distance from the east coast of the U.S. to the west coast in about five minutes.
If you have a full head of hair, you probably find one-ten thousandth of that hair in your brush each morning - about ten hairs.
Reading this sentence takes about one ten-thousandth of an eight-hour workday.Don't brush your hair in the morning; you're causing all kinds of destruction.
God, I hate having to repeat myself over and over again.Yeah, well if you'd actually answered the question asked of you, instead of trying to go off onto some nonsensical sideshow about drilling in Yosemite National Park...

Mark

9th May 2006, 07:49 AM

Since you haven't explained it yet, it's a little disingenuous of you to say you're going to "try one more time."
Wow. I didn't think it was possible to get so much wrong in such a short sentence.

"Peppering" the wilderness: You make it sound like there will be oil derricks and pipelines scattered throughout the 19 million acres of the ANWR. In fact, they will be concentrated in a tiny (I'll explain later how tiny in concrete terms that even you, I hope, will understand) area of about 2000 acres - a little over three square miles.
"Pristine, unspoiled": For starts, it isn't pristine and unspoiled. People have lived there for centuries (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/photography/anwr/graphics/anwr5.jpg). And the ones who live there favor the drilling (http://www.anwr.org/people/nageak.html); they understand what you don't; it will not destroy the ANWR.
"Short term oil supply": I previously showed you that the estimates are that there is enough economically recoverable oil there to replace all the oil that we get from Saudi Arabia for ten years (low-range estimate) to thirty years (high-range estimate). If you think ten to thirty years' worth of Saudi oil is "short term," what do you consider to be long term?You earlier suggested ("Peppering a pristine, unspoiled wilderness...") that the "destruction" of the ANWR would be widespread. As I demonstrated for you a few pages back, the actual area of development would be tiny. You either ignored that graphic or simply didn't understand its significance, so let me try to explain it to you another way:

The proposed 2000 acres of development amounts to about one ten-thousandth of the entire ANWR. Let's see what one ten-thousandth means:

One ten-thousandth of a mile is a little over six inches.
One ten-thousandth of the weight of your 3000 pound car is about 4.8 ounces - about the weight of the owner's manual in the glove box.
One ten-thousandth of the population of the entire United States is a disappointing turnout at a Saturday afternoon baseball game - about 29,000 people.
You could walk one ten-thousandth of the distance from the east coast of the U.S. to the west coast in about five minutes.
If you have a full head of hair, you probably find one-ten thousandth of that hair in your brush each morning - about ten hairs.
Reading this sentence takes about one ten-thousandth of an eight-hour workday.Don't brush your hair in the morning; you're causing all kinds of destruction.
Yeah, well if you'd actually answered the question asked of you, instead of trying to go off onto some nonsensical sideshow about drilling in Yosemite National Park...

:rolleyes: