Register to reply

$139 a barrel

by Ivan Seeking
Tags: $139, barrel
Share this thread:
seycyrus
#19
Jun6-08, 03:00 PM
P: 184
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
We are approaching peak oil, but no one knows precisely where the line may lie. For now, we are pumping more crude than ever before, so peak oil is not the issue.
What data sets from which oil fields are you using?

Most people say we either are AT or PAST peak. The peak hit about six years ago, which would coincide with the evil emperors arrival!
Ivan Seeking
#20
Jun6-08, 03:03 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
After spending a lifetime working to be a part of the energy solution, I will say that IMO, you have the Republicans to thank for his. Democrats have been pushing for alternatives since the 60s. And for doing so, they were scorned and ridiculed by the right-wing. The biggest offenders of all are the neo-cons, who turned scorn to hate.

The attacks on Al Gore are perfect examples. Even winning a Nobel prize only drew contempt from the neo-cons.

Maybe people will finally stop listening to these idiots. Vote for Obama.
Ivan Seeking
#21
Jun6-08, 03:09 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by seycyrus View Post
Yeah, we really should have switched to solar power 40 years ago!
Solar power wasn't viable 40 years ago. It is barely a viable option today.

What's really too bad is that we haven't managed to bring a SINGLE nuclear power reactor online in 40 years! Thanks libs!
We still don't have viable electric cars. Nor do we have an electric infrastructure that could support a nation of electric vehicle. That wouldn't solve the problem.
AhmedEzz
#22
Jun6-08, 03:09 PM
P: 111
This is precisely why Mccain should not be voted for. I think if Obama wins the elections, he can talk with and have better relations with whole world, which is ruined by the current administration. Us Egyptians never really had so much trouble in our relations with the US as much as we had during the Bush years.

sorry wrong section
Evo
#23
Jun6-08, 03:10 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,426
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
After spending a lifetime working to be a part of the energy solution, I will say that IMO, you have the Republicans to thank for his. Democrats have been pushing for alternatives since the 60s. And for doing so, they were scorned and ridiculed by the right-wing. The biggest offenders of all are the neo-cons, who turned scorn to hate.

The attacks on Al Gore are perfect examples. Even winning a Nobel prize only drew contempt from the neo-cons.

Maybe people will finally stop listening to these idiots. Vote for Obama.
Ivan, it was the Democrats that opposed nuclear power in the 70's. And they're still opposed to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/wa...=1&oref=slogin
Ivan Seeking
#24
Jun6-08, 03:10 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
But the "libs" have been pushing for higher fuel efficiency all along.
seycyrus
#25
Jun6-08, 03:11 PM
P: 184
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
After spending a lifetime working to be a part of the energy solution, I will say that IMO, you have the Republicans to thank for his. Democrats have been pushing for alternatives since the 60s.
Show me the nuclear power legislation that they proposed.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
And for doing so, they were scorned and ridiculed by the right-wing. The biggest offenders of all are the neo-cons, who turned scorn to hate.
Uh yeah...

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
The attacks on Al Gore are perfect examples. Even winning a Nobel prize only drew contempt from the neo-cons.
Oh, let's turn this into another GW debate. but but but...how can there be a debate? Haven't we been told time and time again that the entire scientific community is in entire agreement on this issue? *scoff*

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Maybe people will finally stop listening to these idiots. Vote for Obama.
Oh yeah, Obama's "We need to look for energy alternatives plan" is SOOOO much betterthat McCain's "we need to look for energy alternatives" plan.
Ivan Seeking
#26
Jun6-08, 03:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Ivan, it was the Democrats that opposed nuclear power in the 70's. And they're still opposed to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/wa...=1&oref=slogin
I addressed that point. Nuclear power wouldn't solve the problem. What's more, there are still plenty of viable objections to nuclear power, just as we thinkers have argued for more fuel efficient vehicles all along.
seycyrus
#27
Jun6-08, 03:14 PM
P: 184
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Solar power wasn't viable 40 years ago. It is barely a viable option today.
That was my sarcastic point.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
We still don't have viable electric cars. Nor do we have an electric infrastructure that could support a nation of electric vehicle. That wouldn't solve the problem.
So, since we are not capable of perfection, let us not build a SINGLE nuclear power reactor!
Chi Meson
#28
Jun6-08, 03:16 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Chi Meson's Avatar
P: 1,772
Quote Quote by seycyrus View Post
What data sets from which oil fields are you using?

Most people say we either are AT or PAST peak. The peak hit about six years ago, which would coincide with the evil emperors arrival!
The most vociferous "peak-oilists" have said the peak has past already. James H. Kunstler, for example, professes the belief that the Saudis are outright lying about the quantity of reserves they have. Rumors are leaking out of that country that a lot of salt water is coming out of the wells (salt water is pumped in to get the oil to rise out; when the water starts coming out, you know the well is nearly finished).

The analysts for the oil companies are professing the "plateau" that will last for 30 or 40 years. THe rosiest prediction (I'm searching for the link) stated that we wouldn't even hit the plateau for another 20 years.

Edit: Here's the link to CERA, the oil company's friend in DC
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1....aspx?CID=8444
The article is two years old. Compare it to some of the more updated articles here
http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/plateau
Truth, as always, lies in the middle. Regardless, the prices are never going to fall. As I keep telling everyone, stop blaming the "other guy."

Stop blaming liberals, stop blaming conservatives, stop blaming oil companies, stop blaming environmentalists, stop blaming Hummer drivers, stop blaming Bush (...no, keep blaming him, the twat!) and learn how to live with the "new economy."
seycyrus
#29
Jun6-08, 03:16 PM
P: 184
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
I addressed that point. Nuclear power wouldn't solve the problem. What's more, there are still plenty of viable objections to nuclear power, just as we thinkers have argued for more fuel efficient vehicles all along.
Nuclear power wouldn't solve ALL of the problem, just like more fuel efficient vehicles wouldn't solve ALL of the problem.

Nuclear power would certainly reduce our dependence.

Those *viable* objections simply do not cut the mustard in explaining why we have not built *ONE* power reactor in 40 years!
DT_tokamak
#30
Jun6-08, 03:18 PM
P: 3
Well, I don't really see any good short term solutions. But ITER is a promising step.
Chi Meson
#31
Jun6-08, 04:04 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Chi Meson's Avatar
P: 1,772
Quote Quote by seycyrus View Post
Those *viable* objections simply do not cut the mustard in explaining why we have not built *ONE* power reactor in 40 years!
Of course you meant to say 20 years, right? It's only been forty years since the first plant went on line.
seycyrus
#32
Jun6-08, 04:13 PM
P: 184
Quote Quote by Chi Meson View Post
Of course you meant to say 20 years, right? It's only been forty years since the first plant went on line.
If you've got some dates, please give them. I don't mean to sound hostile, but I'm not at my home computer, and I don't have my references. of course, 40 years is not the correct number.

Edit: It might be correct acutally. the first plant went online in '57. 50 years ago.

I'm talking about plans being drawn up and ground broken for a new plant, not finishing up construction that was started earlier.
Ivan Seeking
#33
Jun6-08, 04:15 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by Chi Meson View Post
Stop blaming liberals, stop blaming conservatives, stop blaming oil companies, stop blaming environmentalists, stop blaming Hummer drivers, stop blaming Bush (...no, keep blaming him, the twat!) and learn how to live with the "new economy."
Blame is not the point. We have an election coming up, and it is time for everyone to recognize that the Republicans have always been the problem. Enough is enough. The crisis that we have worked so hard to avoid for forty years may finally be upon us.

As for the other comments made: I'm not a liberal nor a Democrat. I consider myself more Libertarian than anything, and I am an Independent. I don't like Obama because he is liberal, I like him because he is the right man for the time, and he is extremely smart, if not brilliant. We need someone as smart as him in times like these.
Astronuc
#34
Jun6-08, 04:23 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,808
Quote Quote by DT_tokamak View Post
Well, I don't really see any good short term solutions. But ITER is a promising step.
The building of ITER won't get underway until next year, and it was take several years to get it up a running, and then it may or may not prove feasibility of fusion for electrical energy. Tokamak assembly starts 2012, and first plasma is anticipated in late 2016. http://www.iter.org/a/n1/downloads/c...n_schedule.pdf

It takes about 5-6 years to construct a nuclear plant - if all goes well.

To be fair to the anti-nuke and skeptics, the nuclear industry got sloppy in the 70's and 80's, and the accident at TMI-2 didn't help instill confidence in the industry, nor the fire at Browns Ferry in which a work lit insulation on fire with a candle while trying to look for air leaks. The fire burned the cables to the reactor control systems.


Most of the natural gas fired plants built since 2000 lose money with gas much above $3/MBTU. They were budgeted on low cost natural gas.


As for oil supply, the non-OPEC nations are holding back. They don't have to produce more, but instead they can sit back and watch the price of oil increase.

Then there are the speculators on the commidities exchange who keep bidding up the price, based on speculation that oil may not be available, e.g. if a hurricane hits the Gulf of Mexico again.

The oil companies don't have to compete for customers, so they can pass on the cost to consumers, and their production divisions can rake in the money.
Benzoate
#35
Jun6-08, 04:24 PM
P: 569
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Right now the price of gas is driven partly by a limited refining capacity. The price of crude is driven in part by the weak dollar. In the 70's we experienced severe supply shortages. So at this point it seems to be a different situation. But increasing demand from India, and in particular from China, is also a significant factor.

Noteworthy: For about 15 years the price of crude hovered around $20 a barrel. It hit a low of $10 a barrel just before Bush began his run for office in 2000. It has pretty much skyrocketed ever since. Since Bush showed up on the scene, the average price of crude has risen by about 600%
While I agree with you that gas has rise dramatically over the past 8 years since Bush has been in office, the price of gas hasn't only risen up in the United States. It is extremely worst in other parts of the world as well. The average price of gas in the past 8 years has when from 3.00 per gallon , to 9 dollars . I find that kind of ironic because you think the price of gas in Europe would be extremely low compared to the price of gas in the United States. The reason is because there is not a high demand for cars in Europe vs. the number of cars in Europe since most people do not drive in that part of the world. When their is a high supply of cars vs. a low demand for cars , you think the price of gas would go down. Go figure
Chi Meson
#36
Jun6-08, 04:29 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Chi Meson's Avatar
P: 1,772
Quote Quote by seycyrus View Post
If you've got some dates, please give them. I don't mean to sound hostile, but I'm not at my home computer, and I don't have my references. of course, 40 years is not the correct number.

Edit: It might be correct acutally. the first plant went online in '57. 50 years ago.

I'm talking about plans being drawn up and ground broken for a new plant, not finishing up construction that was started earlier.
No you are not correct, and yes you are sounding hostile. I did misspeak, before: the first plant went online in the late fifties, but the oldest plant currently working went online in 1969. So ALL of the currently operating plants have been built in the last forty years. The five newest plants were built in the 90's, with the most recent online in 1996.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...arpowerplants/

Currently there are designs in the works to build new plants (with bipartisan support). The delay has to do with the very delicate processing required for recycling spent fuel. As most people know only 20--25% of the energy is taken from the fuel during the first fission process. Our current waste WILL BE tomorrow's fuel. But the processing looks a lot like production of nuclear weapons. The new designs are part of a multinational cooperative effort to assure that reprocessing is for fuel only.

This is interesting; even Greenpeace's co-founder Patrick Moore has come around on nuclear energy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401209.html


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Pascal's barrel General Physics 2
Oil hits $100 a barrel. Current Events 5
Pascal's barrel Classical Physics 2
Supergun's Barrel Introductory Physics Homework 5