Hey I reserve the right to be cute anytime I please.:laugh4:Quote:
Lets not get cute because you and I know the point I am making,
But whaling was indeed a major industry. Dont just poo poo it.
Printable View
Hey I reserve the right to be cute anytime I please.:laugh4:Quote:
Lets not get cute because you and I know the point I am making,
But whaling was indeed a major industry. Dont just poo poo it.
The oil sector is a major industry, but let's be realistic
1) it doesn't employ *that* many people compared to its turnover, it's one of the most profitable industries compared to how much tehy pay in wages
2) they don't employ many 'low-skill' workers: most people wouldn't have too much trouble switching jobs
3) there's still a need for oil even if we don't need it for energy purposes anymore.
Odin, you're being very protectionistic about this, almost a socialist...
Gas stations (here in the US anyway) don't make much money at all on fuel sales. Their margins right now at cut to the bone. Most of their profits come from sales in the stores, which have a nice markup. I doubt that a fuel switch would harm them that much, aside from the added costs of installing new pumping and storage facilities.
I spit up my coffee, I havent been called a socialist in a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I got your point Doc, fair, it dosent employ that many people. What I hoped to do with my posting in the thread is illuminate the fact that Oil as a commodity is a major world economic driver.
Should the country who consumes the most of it decrease that consumption it would have global effect and depress the economy of many countries, which indirectly would depress the living standards of millions.
Im all for a green solution, I am also fairly nationalistic, and an isolationist, but I dont want already poor people to suffer more, for some not thought out policy. More so then ever we are connected, and to dismiss it, and not be responsible with the application of these theories is inhumane IMHO to the condition of those who depend on oil consumption for thier lives, as well as thier countries.
Now, maybe i am having a moment of weakness, that said I post the way I see it and thats how I feel about it, so rather then make something up that might support my persona, I'm laying this out there.
But dont go by me, as challenged in an earlier post, do the math, pick a nation and its oil revenues then subtract the % you want to eliminate and make up the difference.
As of yet, no one has done that. I suspect no one can, because oil, and its economic value isnt easily replaced, and a substitute has yet to be revealed.
Some statistics:
Barrells of Oil per day produced: 48.5 million
Price per barrell: $65 US
Total: 3.15 billion a day in oil exports.
So remove 10% due to decreased consumption, where does the new 315 million a day come from?
Thats just straight oil revenue, never mind the little industries around it, like the gas stations.
Depends how we acheived the 10% reduction. If our overall energy use is the same, then, tritely, by paying for whatever energy has displaced the energy we generated from oil.Quote:
So remove 10% due to decreased consumption, where does the new 315 million a day come from?
If we got more energy efficient then I take the point. I am pretty sure that, in time, if we are all sitting around with spare wedge in our pockets because we are buying less oil, that money will find its way back into circulation. The cynic in me says it will find its way back into circulation by oil prices going up 10%, but in time maybe we will all have more money to spend on, well, whatever it is we do spend our spare money on. Only more, and better.
But you asked me above if I agreed that the process could be a bumpy one and the answer is absolutely yes.
Common ground is hard to come by, so I'll take it on the "bumpy" road ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
That said 315 million a day into the global economy is a lot of widgets, and thats really the meat and potatos of it, no "widget" has emerged for the replacement yet.
I just dont see it happening soon, its nice to talk about it and push for change, but taken on a global impact scale the ends have yet to justify the means.
This is faulty thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Oil in itself is not wealth. What we do with teh oil to satisfy our needs is wealth, if the standard of living (well, as a rough measure, think the total 'wealth' of the world) across the globe remains the same with or without pumping up oil then no wealth is created by pumping up oil. The only thing that will happen is a redistribution of the wealth. Considering oil is a limited resource and the oil market behaves mostly like an oligopoly (I hope it's the same word in English) this is not a bad thing. The oil industry makes sure certain people get very rich, venezuela might arguably use its resources for good, but then there's also sheiks and the Sultans who don't really believe in spreading the wealth. i'm not even going into big business and the oil lobby here.
But if you care that much about the wealth of terrorist loving Saudi Arabia, freedom hating Russia or socialst Norway then that's your opinion.
Cellulose Biofuels This is the technology we need to keep developing. In another article that I cannot find, it surmised that if we used all the corn we grow in the US to produce ethanol we would meet just %10 of our current fuel needs. Not very practical let alone efficient. However, developing use of the non-edible parts would be Food plus fuel instead of either or.
For, perhaps, the first time in history, I agree with Gawain. :inquisitive:
I'm obviously dreaming. :2thumbsup:
Corn ethanol has been a complete disaster from the get-go. Forget about all these tin-foil hat oil cabals- we've got a real conspiracy right here. Corn ethanol is a terrible choice for an alternative fuel. It gets worse mileage, is incredibly inefficient to produce, and drives up food prices across the boards. It's just a big fat handout to the US agricultural lobby- plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
I totally agree here, Don. If the technology for 90mpg cars exists, the reason they're not on the road is simply because people don't want them. It's only now with gas prices over $3/gallon that people are beginning to consider more fuel efficient vehicles. If prices ever drop down close to $2/gal again, people will be clamoring for their gas guzzling SUVs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
However, I cannot agree here. Gasoline will not be easily replaced. I've heard the leaded fuel comparison before, but removing lead as an octane booster and replacing it with another chemical is nowhere on the same magnitude of replacing the gasoline itself. What it's going to take is advances in technology and high gasoline prices until we get to the point where the cost of adopting a new technology is cheaper than continuing to use gasoline. We're not there yet- I doubt we're even close.Quote:
I disagree with this. Gasoline could easily be replaced by other vehicle fuel commodities at service stations. They switched over from leaded to unleaded gasoline in the 70s. It wouldn't be all that hard to switch over to electricity, or whatever other fuel medium keeps vehicles going in the coming technological generation. EA had the gist of it, show a way to make money doing it and industry will arise, almost overnight, to serve that market segment. That's the thing about us capitalistas... we grow like weeds, in more ways than one.
Who killed the electric car? I did (we all did), they sucked and no one wanted one. :wink:
So then whats all this nonsense we are running out of gas. And when we do switch to another source just who do you think will provide it? You guessed it the same people who supply it now. Why should they switch when theres still plenty of cheap gas around and they can fool the public into believing were running out and charge more anytime they like by controlling the output.
We aren't running out of gas, and probably never will. All-time high demand, tight refinery capacity, and uncertainty in global oil markets all contribute to high prices. Add to that complex regulations and hefty taxes- See figure 2 here to see how much your state is gouging you on a gallon of gas. My state is already in the top 10, and Gov Rendell, in is boundless wisdom, would like to increase it another 12.5 cents/gallon. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Your only confirming what Ive been saying. Its a cabal. Their all in on it including the government. My point is they probably have a better or cheaper source but as you say they have too much invested in oil to stop now. They will wait until its more profitable to switch. But the thing is that it could be provided to us cheaper now but then they wouldnt make these huge profits. Its an artificial shortage that they maintain. They try to make just enough.Quote:
We aren't running out of gas, and probably never will. All-time high demand, tight refinery capacity, and uncertainty in global oil markets all contribute to high prices. Add to that complex regulations and hefty taxes- See figure 2 here to see how much your state is gouging you on a gallon of gas. My state is already in the top 10, and Gov Rendell, in is boundless wisdom, would like to increase it another 12.5 cents/gallon.
I never said that. What I said is that there is no cheaper alternative. If there was a panacea out there, some government/corporate Illuminati group wouldn't be able to keep it under wraps. As a free-market type, you should well know that someone, somewhere along the line would exploit a cheaper alternative to screw over all their competitors and get an early jump on the new alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The fact is, cheaper, effective alternatives don't exist. Ethanol is a joke, hybrids are still expensive and arguably more environmentally damaging than current cars and fuel cells are still in the development stage. Personally, I like diesel- if it's feasible to do so, my next car will be a diesel- but it's hardly a new technology and it's certainly not being stifled by some elitist cabal.
I dont think your getting my point. Lets say for instance that manure could be used as fuel. It would be real cheap to make. Lets also assume they oil companies and car companies know how to do it. As you and other have eluded to they have too much invested in oil technology to change while theres still plenty left. Thats why its not profitable not because it would be more expensive to produce. I say burn up the damn oil as fast as we can. Lets run a sale on it and move on.:laugh4:Quote:
never said that. What I said is that there is no cheaper alternative. If there was a panacea out there, some government/corporate Illuminati group wouldn't be able to keep it under wraps.
Necessity is the mother of invention
Right, the problem isn't the amount of oil left- it's sucking it out of the ground and refining it quick enough to meet demand. Arbitrarily lowering prices would only lead to shortages though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Edit: Now, if you're talking about drilling offshore or in ANWR- I say let's go for it. :yes:
I find this to be rather insulting, but your entitled to your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
the sale of oil is income, which can create wealth.Quote:
Oil in itself is not wealth.
Maybe this is true, but like it or not Oil revenue supports a large part of the world economy and secondary spending from the revenue derived is hard to valuate.Quote:
The oil industry makes sure certain people get very rich, venezuela might arguably use its resources for good, but then there's also sheiks and the Sultans who don't really believe in spreading the wealth. i'm not even going into big business and the oil lobby here.
This part i find very insulting, hence my particpation with you on this subject is terminated.Quote:
But if you care that much about the wealth of terrorist loving Saudi Arabia, freedom hating Russia or socialst Norway then that's your opinion.
it wasn't meant as an insult :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
But the money has to come from somewhere else. Again, if oil can be subsituted by another product at the same cost than no wealth is created or lost (except possibly due to transfer effects).Quote:
the sale of oil is income, which can create wealth.
Again: someone has to pay for the oil. Just because we aren't pumping up oil doesn't mean we're losing money. People will just spend an equal amount of money on the substitue product (if it has the same price per use). If there is a subsitute than no moeny will be gained or lost to society.Quote:
Maybe this is true, but like it or not Oil revenue supports a large part of the world economy and secondary spending from the revenue derived is hard to valuate.
I really got to work on bringing my sense of humour across better :embarassed:Quote:
This part i find very insulting, hence my particpation with you on this subject is terminated.