New Abiotic Oil research

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Only asking a simple question that I guess you don't want to answer.


How many ways does "the equivalent in avoided costs" need to be said? It's surely not a popular thought, but I don't think most people have the ability to think beyond their own existence bubble.

Quote:
Using your logic, water pumped from wells or lakes should be charged the same price as water that is desalinated. Do you agree?


How so? I'll welcome your logic train on it ..it surely isn't mine. We'll be using the same water just about forever. Try doing that with a gallon of gas after you've burned it up.
 
No, just add the defense budget and foreign aid cost, as well as road maintenance cost into the fuel price to reflect the ACTUAL cost of our fuel and driving.

FAIR as you say, like use tax. [/quote]

What???!! How about stopping foriegn aid all together and using our own oil so we don't have to defend poor investment ideas on the part of those that want to go "Global".

Road maintinence is the whole reason for the ridiculously high gas taxes we pay. They just don't spend the majority of it on the roads. That's why the "highway bills".
 
And people will be more likely to live closer to work and back to the city, downtown will be redeveloped and suburb will become slum (the opposite of today), and a whole lot more public transit as a result.

The big city and "downtown" turn into slums for obvious reasons. The suburbs were developed so those that can escape have the opportunity to do so.

Forcing people to live like rabbits in hutches stacked on top of eachother is inhumane and criminal when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

They should be giving people tax breaks to move away from the big cities not force them to be enslaved and controlled with mass transit by living inside of one.

California did a study a long, long time ago where they took rats and forced them to live in VERY close proximity with pother rats.

The rats that had more room did fine. The rats that were living similar to how people live in LA or Chicago, for example started killing each other.

I rest my case. Look at where all the crime is not to mention the pollution.
 
No more political argument like immigrants and people breeding out of control...

UHUH. Of course, you're right. More people using a reasource like oil doesn't have anything at all to do with the oil market, right?

The mention of artificially increasing our population has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with how fast a particular resource will run out as well as the level of pollution being generated which is the precise excuse they are using to prevent this country from being self susataining with our own natural resources.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the "oil market". You made it political because you don't want to accept the facts and the reality of the situation.

But that's fine. It's obvious from your posts why you don't want to bring that into the equation so I won't mention it again.
 
Who says that tractor trailers exist in the future? Most that are here don't need to be here. Rail is much more energy efficient.

It is obvious that you know nothing about how the transportation industry works and since I work in it I'll give you a little info. Before I do i might add that those that think like you have cost me personally and millions of other their jobs and if they still do have them, a huge chunk of their pay.

I just spent the month of December running mail for a contractor that hauls the US mail. While unloading one morning I noticed that some of the carts said "only for use on rail" or something to that extent.

I asked why they were using them in truck tansport and I was told that truck is cheaper than rail so they weren't using rail anymore. I guess that's one area where you are a little out of touch.

My response to your saying that rail can deliver the goods is so outlandish that I am almost at a loss for words. There is NO WAY rail will ever replace the tractor trailer.

You have no idea the places I have had to deliver freight around this country. It will never happen unless this country evolves into a dictatorship where everyone is forced to live like animals corraled in a big city completely controlled by the powers to be.

Even then they will need trucks to deliver the slop to the slaves.
 
Quote:
It is obvious that you know nothing about how the transportation industry works and since I work in it I'll give you a little info. Before I do i might add that those that think like you have cost me personally and millions of other their jobs and if they still do have them, a huge chunk of their pay.


I'm sorry, but I do. OTR is pathetically inefficient in terms of energy. There is no trumping that 100% bona fide fact. Now when you throw in time factors ..and JIT ..then rail is a loser in $$$. We like to race here. It's important when $$$ ..and how fast you can shovel them into the economic fire, are how one measures efficiency.

Quote:
I asked why they were using them in truck tansport and I was told that truck is cheaper than rail so they weren't using rail anymore. I guess that's one area where you are a little out of touch.


Notice the term was "cheaper" ..not more energy efficient. When there's less of it to go around at 10X the price, I think that "cheaper" will fall to the one that uses less energy ..since wages and time won't have the leverage that they have now in terms of making money.

The figures may have changed a bit, but rail was 20:1 more energy efficient than OTR and 200:1 more efficient than air freight.

Quote:
My response to your saying that rail can deliver the goods is so outlandish that I am almost at a loss for words. There is NO WAY rail will ever replace the tractor trailer.


Rail was destroyed by the Federal Highway Network. A defense project. Rail was too vulnerable to being taken out and we had no other way to deploy resources rapidly. 1 mile in 5 is straight to facilitate use as an landing strip. There's a reason that they're rated 80klbs. Tanks and whatnot aren't light. Do you think they had the future of trucking in mind when they built them to those spec's in the 50's???

Trucks should be distributing cargo from rail hubs. The transferable containers are perfect for this. Sensible sized trucks for urban service...etc..etc.

As much as I love the romance one can wrap into the trucking industry, it's not the most efficient way to move cartage from one place to another in terms of energy.
 
Energy efficiency is a moot point since we have plenty of it. The size of the trucks is sensible. I can tell you this. Fruit and vegetables are necessary to be healthy.

Since you live in PA say goodbye to you're produce if you ever get your way. I hauled produce for 10 years out to the east coast and it the vast majority of it comes from out west and Mexico.

I've got a friend of mine who hauls nothing but produce from Washigton state. They put it on a plane and send it overseas. Say goodbye to the majority of your apples and various other forms of produce if you get rid of the trucks.

I may also add that there is no "romance" left in the trucking industry. There is no money to be made and all I care about is getting as far away from it as I possibly can.

In addition to this nonsense about oil shortages there are other problems that have all but bankrupted the transportation industry.

You can live in the world you made for yourself thinking about all these pie-in-the-sky alternative energy sources but the bottom line is that without coal, oil natural gas and/or nukes our economy will fail. And it is failing. You have only seen the beginning.

The day will come when what you support will bite you right in the backside. Right now it's just happening to other people.

Your entire argument is based on there being a lack of energy supply here in the US and that just isn't the case.
 
Rail was destroyed by the Federal Highway Network. A defense project. Rail was too vulnerable to being taken out and we had no other way to deploy resources rapidly. 1 mile in 5 is straight to facilitate use as an landing strip. There's a reason that they're rated 80klbs. Tanks and whatnot aren't light. Do you think they had the future of trucking in mind when they built them to those spec's in the 50's???

Rail is a joke when it comes to delivering the goods we all need. Have you ever even seen where all the crops are grown in this country. You can't get rail to them. They are scattered all over the country. You also can't pick and choose where YOU want any certain vegetable to grow. The climate and the soil does that. Not us.

The only way your pipe dream would ever become reality is in a Stalinist type dictatorship where the people are housed where the government wants them and every landowner in the country had his land confiscated by the government. in other words, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING. That's called Communism.

Furthermore, the reason trucks are rated at 80,000 lbs is because the government doesn't spend the money to build good roads. They WANT to keep the roads in disrepair so the various stateworkers have job security.

For someone who says he knows how the transportation industry works you sure are "out of the loop" on the way it really does work.

The interstae system WAS a defense project and it also happens to be the reason why New York City gets a constant supply of fresh produce. Without it they wouldn't ever see a strawberry that's even close to what you see every day on the west coast.

As far as "efficiency" is concerned. Time is money. Unless your the poor guy driving the truck.
 
OTR is pathetically inefficient in terms of energy.

Who cares? There is no energy shortage in the US. Only the contrived energy shortage that is artificially created.
 
Quote:
Fruit and vegetables are necessary to be healthy.


Sure. How did people stay healthy before stuff grown in California was able to be trucked in temp controlled refer's to the east coast? Same for all other forms of produce and goods??? There was such a thing as "out of season".

Quote:
Since you live in PA say goodbye to you're produce if you ever get your way.


Who says that "I'm getting MY way"?? We're discussing energy efficiency. Not fruits and veggies.

Quote:
Say goodbye to the majority of your apples and various other forms of produce if you get rid of the trucks.


Not all all. You may say good bye to fresh veggies and fruits if you stop using trucks to move things in the fastest way to move them. Again, you're into shoveling money into the economic machinery as fast as you can to scrape the drippings from the process. So is everyone else. None of that means an energy efficient model at all. It just has to produce a profit.

Is there really any reason to produce an identical oil filter in China and cart it literally around the world FROM AN ENERGY STANDPOINT? Nope. Now from economic standpoint, sure ..up until the cost of transporting it trumps the other costs , you can produce a $0.25 oil filter ..cart it around the globe ...unload it at the port of entry ...load it on a truck to a distribution center ..load it up on another truck and take it to another point ..and sell it...all cheaper than just producing it domestically.

None of that has anything to do with energy efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
How many ways does "the equivalent in avoided costs" need to be said?

So oil prices should be higher?



What would your common sense conclusion be with the aforementioned criteria?? (we can keep the straw man alive as long as you like, pal
grin2.gif
)
 
Sure. How did people stay healthy before stuff grown in California was able to be trucked in temp controlled refer's to the east coast?

They didn't. Notice how the life expectancy has risen over the last 100 years since the industrial age? It's obvious your fixated on energy efficiency at the cost of our way of life.

You're obviously too far gone to have a discussion with.
 
Quote:
They didn't.


I beg your pardon? The human life expectancy has only made big leaps due to the elimination of many infectious diseases. We have managed some medical breakthroughs that can elongate your normal life expectancy if you've got some treatable characteristic.

Quote:
It's obvious your fixated on energy efficiency at the cost of our way of life.


This is a discussion about energy ..and I suggest that when you've got more and more people using it ..that those new consumers will put an end to "our way of life" faster than anything else.

I'm unsure why you're taking a hostile disposition here. I've merely shown you where you were mistaken between making money and being energy efficient.

I'd love to live just like I do now ..and would want it for all of my descendants. I think that we both know that this is not a likely outcome with 9 Billion people on the planet (2050 projection). So the end to "our way of life" is not a matter of IF ..but WHEN ..at least in terms of "cheap" energy. There will be way too many competing for it even if current levels were maintained.

Now if you merely want to say that you aren't going to change your way of thinking about it ..fine ..that's your privilege.

Good day
55.gif
 
My opinion on the rapid growth of the population reducing our resources was mentioned in this thread and another. It was labeled as "political" by another member.

The growing population is a huge contributing factor and artificially populating this country to the tune of about 100 million over the last thirty or 40 years is the biggest problem we have.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem the powers to be have any intention of not filling up of this country with overflow from around the world which is causing huge problems from a soveriegnty standpoint in addition to the use of our natural resources.

My entire argument is based on the fact that we have no energy shortage in this country and that if we continue to allow other countries to send us their mistakes based on irresponsible behavior then we WILL have a shortage far sooner that we would have.

Unfortunately, I believe "population control" is on the way and none of us are going to like it. But that subject is for a forum far away from this one.
 
I beg your pardon? The human life expectancy has only made big leaps due to the elimination of many infectious diseases. We have managed some medical breakthroughs that can elongate your normal life expectancy if you've got some treatable characteristic.

This is true but the food pyramid we have been told to follow has been proven to be almost upside down and fruits and vegatables have been proven to be the answer for not ever getting many diseases in the first place. We need trucks to distribute the produce. There is no other way to do it.

Keep in mind also that although many people have the land to grow their own food there have been attempts to regulate that and if anything like that comes to pass trucks will be even more important.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Flying lettuce to Paris isn't improving anyone's health.


Probably not. But that isn't the only place it gets flown and lettuce isn't exactly considered the superfood of the produce world anyway. Why do you think they load that stuff up on anything and everything. I'm sure it probably has phytochemicals that they haven't discovered yet but for now it's just filler. Iceburg lettuce that is.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
How many ways does "the equivalent in avoided costs" need to be said?

So oil prices should be higher?


When you look at every other nation on earth that oil isn't produced or subsidized, the real cost of "fuel" is indeed higher.

"Oil" price is bid in the commodity market, but "fuel" is not.
 
Trvlr500,

What I wasn't happy about your "overpopulation" and "illegal" arguments is that I personally believe that you were pulling in blames or anger from other area of your life into the "fuel" part of your argument, which I do not see justified. Thanks for not bringing it up again.


Now regarding to why I think running out of oil is NOT a problem. I am not promoting the idea of FORCING people to live in the city. When the price go so high, eventually the housing price and living cost dynamics will change, and people will move at their own free will. Just look at it this way: homes in suburbs with new developments are better, cost more, and people want to live there and commute to work, work happens around population centers and the downtown sits empty to rot with a lot of existing infrastructure (like government, financial institutes, schools, parks, highways, roads, public transits).

Then if/when oil price goes up (say, $300/barrel due to whatever reason, like USD drop, China/India increase consumption, WW3 in the middle east, cheap oil well run dry and you have to extract oil at a cost of $200/barrel), the cost to drive the same commute goes up from $10 to $30 for a small car per day, or $20 to $60 for an SUV per day. How many people will "consider" small cars now? How many real estate developers/politicians will redevelop run down neighborhood in downtown? how many people would buy homes close to downtown? How many people will move to the suburb because they are unemployed and houses are cheap, and turn the suburb into the new slum?

No one is forcing you to do anything, if you have money, your life remains the same. However if you are like most people who don't want to spend too much on fuel, well, you will feel like changing on your own. Sure, you can't fit in a small car, maybe you'll buy a large car or a small SUV, but that's your choice at that time because you know best, but most people will be picking something that uses less fuel.

Oh, will higher density turn a city into a slum automatically? Not always. It is the people's quality that turn a place into slum. When better people move into a city because it is more convenient, it actually improves the city and drives the low income people that usually correlated to a slum out of a city.

Stockton, CA are getting all the semi-rejects from the San Francisco Bay Area because it is much cheaper to live there, and when the fuel price goes way up, the property prices in Stockton crash and people who can afford to move back into the Bay Area to reduce commuting cost, making Stockton a crime town rival Oakland and Richmond, CA.

East San Jose and East Palo Alto used to be a crime ridden down town that gets drive by shooting all the time, and as the redevelopment happens with higher income residents moving in, it transform into something that is much safer than before, at least you don't get shot in drive by shooting.

Now regarding to foreign aid. Sure you can stop all of them all together and I would love to support that if possible. However do you think we will get the cheap oil from Nigeria and Saudi if all those "bribe" were stopped? How much do you think people will be paying for oil if there are no "stability" in oil producing regions and everyone is fighting for oil with infrastructure being bombed all the time? Where do you think we will get our $30-70/barrel oil then? My point is, regardless of right or wrong, the "effect" of these foreign aids is that we in the US get a hefty discount on our "fuel" or "oil" by stabilizing the price with "foreign aid" and they are paid primarily because of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MolaKule
Another Approach to Potentially Increasing Fusion Efficiency
Replies
2
Views
132
Al
A
Massive Rogue Telecom Threat Uncovered by the Secret Service in NYC
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
2K
Owen Lucas
L
Toyota 2GR-FE oil grades in Australia 5W-30 to 20W-50
Replies
12
Views
1K
live_to_hunt
C
Help me decide on oil for 2009 Mustang GT
Replies
11
Views
470
Patman
B
New 2009 Subaru Forrester
Replies
19
Views
507
mt23
Back
Top Bottom