|
Originally Posted by fosters
(Post 324860)
Corporations don't pay tax....
You are absolutely correct. I think Neal Boortz was just illustrating the amount of tax money that is handed over to the imperial Federal Governement by 'Big Oil'. However, all of those 'obsene' profits that pay the salaries of everyone in the company and stock holders is taxable income/capital gains...... It is also important to point out that Exxon paid (collected) more taxes to the Federal Government than did the bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S. For those of you in southern Florida (Rio Linda) and can't even figure out how a paper voting ballot works, wager earners are those people who actually have jobs and pay income tax. LIFENTHEFASTLANE.....or however you spell it. :) The question about "How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand? " is classic!!! LMAO! |
well said, jungle
I nominate the below post for Post of the Week. Completely spot-on, and debunks all the whiny behavior coming out of pilots over whom to blame for the high price of oil.
Originally Posted by jungle
(Post 323309)
Oil companies, speculators, Saudis, special interest groups and the government. Can you think of anyone else to blame for a free market in which the demand has increased with supply remaining steady?
None of the entities you mentioned control oil prices. Demand and supply do. The oil companies are about mid-pack in the corporate world in terms of profit margin. The US government confiscates two to three times what the the oil companies do on every gallon of fuel sold. Tax the corporations more,you say? The consumer will pay those taxes with every gallon of gas sold. |
Jungle is correct for the following reasons:
1) He is correct factually regarding this issue 2) He takes excellent pictures 3) I am a little afraid of him An excellent book for any interested in this topic is "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin - excellent book about the history and evolution of the oil business. The ones I am ****ed at are the greedy Dairy Farmers. They get $4 per Gallon! FOUR DOLLARS per GALLON! for a product that: 1) Goes bad after a couple days (oil doesn't) 2) Is not difficult to locate - find a cow (as opposed to geographers finding a location, electronic logging, core samples, an exploratory well, and then...MAYBE...you find oil). 3) Is not a depleting commodity (cows and bulls can create more milk producers) 4) Is not dangerous to transport (Valdez, tanker trucks,etc...) 5) Milk does not explode and kill people when pastuerized (see this weeks refinery explosion). 6) A gallon of Milk can not make my 4,500lb, 400hp V8 car go a mile. A gallon of gas can make it go 15! 7) Milk does not have to be dispensed with expensive pumps and extreme measurement tolerances that include pay options - it just requires a plastic or glass jug and a fridge. The Dairy Farmers are absolutely SCREWING US and you think the oil companies are bad. |
I am done arguing about oil prices.
The fact is our enemies have our nation and our economy by the balls because we use oil. If we keep using gasoline to power automobiles, our enemies will keep having our economy by the balls. Airlines will never have a profit margin greater than 5%. First year major FO's will still be making poverty wages. Our economy will never reach its full potential. And people like jungle, cpoonfinal, and stinsonjr will still try to justify that oil is the best fuel for America. I cannot wait for the day that our nation is free from oil (or atleast down 80% from todays usage level) so our economy can prosper to its fullest potential. Until then, I hope the price of oil keeps going up and up and up. Where she'll stop... nobody knows. $200/$300/$400 a barrel... Go baby go. |
Originally Posted by aerospacepilot
(Post 325665)
I am done arguing about oil prices.
The fact is our enemies have our nation and our economy by the balls because we use oil. If we keep using gasoline to power automobiles, our enemies will keep having our economy by the balls. Airlines will never have a profit margin greater than 5%. First year major FO's will still be making poverty wages. Our economy will never reach its full potential. And people like jungle, cpoonfinal, and stinsonjr will still try to justify that oil is the best fuel for America. I cannot wait for the day that our nation is free from oil (or atleast down 80% from todays usage level) so our economy can prosper to its fullest potential. Until then, I hope the price of oil keeps going up and up and up. Where she'll stop... nobody knows. $200/$300/$400 a barrel... Go baby go. Gold should be going up along with it. Buy Gold... |
Originally Posted by fosters
(Post 324860)
Corporations don't pay tax - they just pass it on to the consumer, especially in the oil/gas industry. If Exxon didn't have to pay tax our gas prices would be less. If the government didn't tax gas our gas prices would be less.
Point being even though Exxon pays lots of taxes, consumers effectively pay the tax (in this case we pay 41% more for fuel than if Exxon didn't have to pay tax). I run my own small business like this too - I figure out how much I need to make per hour to pay my salary and my taxes. That's my hourly cost. If I didn't pay taxes I could reduce my hourly cost by XX%. |
Originally Posted by MEMA300
(Post 325724)
If you or the oil companies did not have to pay taxes, you would not lower your prices.
|
Allow drilling in Anwar...'nuff said.
And when we get to the point that the US is not dependent on oil, we won't be dependent on pilots or 1980's technology either. |
Originally Posted by aerospacepilot
(Post 325665)
I am done arguing about oil prices.
The fact is our enemies have our nation and our economy by the balls because we use oil. If we keep using gasoline to power automobiles, our enemies will keep having our economy by the balls. Airlines will never have a profit margin greater than 5%. First year major FO's will still be making poverty wages. Our economy will never reach its full potential. And people like jungle, cpoonfinal, and stinsonjr will still try to justify that oil is the best fuel for America. I cannot wait for the day that our nation is free from oil (or atleast down 80% from todays usage level) so our economy can prosper to its fullest potential. Until then, I hope the price of oil keeps going up and up and up. Where she'll stop... nobody knows. $200/$300/$400 a barrel... Go baby go. With your strong conviction, why not open a commodities trading account and make millions. The brokers will be happy to take your bets, even though they may be way "out of the money". Next thing you know you'll have your own GV and super models hanging all over you on your yacht. With some of your money you could even found the company that produces the first practical electric car. Just be aware that when everyone is sure of the market's direction it frequently marks the juncture of a sharp reversal. Good luck and please send pics so we can share the joy of your success.:) |
Originally Posted by aerospacepilot
(Post 325665)
I am done arguing about oil prices.
The fact is our enemies have our nation and our economy by the balls because we use oil. If we keep using gasoline to power automobiles, our enemies will keep having our economy by the balls. Airlines will never have a profit margin greater than 5%. First year major FO's will still be making poverty wages. Our economy will never reach its full potential. And people like jungle, cpoonfinal, and stinsonjr will still try to justify that oil is the best fuel for America. I cannot wait for the day that our nation is free from oil (or atleast down 80% from todays usage level) so our economy can prosper to its fullest potential. Until then, I hope the price of oil keeps going up and up and up. Where she'll stop... nobody knows. $200/$300/$400 a barrel... Go baby go. |
Get used to it.... This is the United Coporarte States of America... Or if you like . . . The United Tax you till you die States of America... We need term limits now! Just buy yourself some lube.... Some good post on this one!
The sun is out! So am I.... |
Hi!
If we want our economy to be very strong/the dollar to be strong again, we need to fix our balance of trade situation (we import WAY more dollars of stuff than we export). The reason is Oil. If we didn't import ANY oil, our balance of trade would be positive, and the dollar/our economy would soar. cliff YIP |
Originally Posted by CPOonfinal
(Post 325771)
I have to disagree with you. If you and I both sell the same product and our overhead is reduced, you may choose to keep your prices the same but I'll lower mine just below yours. I'll take your business until you choose to lower your prices to match mine or just below mine. This novel idea is called capitalism/free market. Works every single time.
But your an expert at everything I am sure. |
MEMA,
I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but thank you for the vote of confidence. I encourage you to read Senator John Linder's Fair Tax book. I'm confident that you'll gain a significantly different view on business and taxes. What kind of business do you run? Just curious, is your business model working out for you? When other sectors of the market incur significant tax increases, such as sales tax on hotels, cigarette's, rental cars, etc... the consumer bears the entire brunt of the addition tax burden. I'm not sure the airlines are paying any taxes that they aren't passing onto/collecting from the customer. |
Originally Posted by JetPiedmont
(Post 325691)
Well, it doubled last year, no reason why it shouldn't double this year, and again in 2009. That gets us to $400/bbl by the beginning of 2010. That ought to put crack crude for turbine fuel refinement close to $500/bbl.
Gold should be going up along with it. Buy Gold... I'm not a expert on the oil industry but I do have a thorough acquaintance of foreign trade and world economics. Barring a nuclear war, we will not be seeing $300/bbl, $400/bbl or $500/bbl anytime soon and certainly not before 2010. Oil will go down and so will gold in the next few years. The sky is not falling. EAHINC |
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
(Post 324849)
I guess you think our management (based on what I'm reading here), has every right to make the millions they do (they earned it right, so you have no reason to complain?). I don't buy coke to get me to work, nor to move hundreds of people across the skies. Concerning oil being the most valuable? I don't think so. I think water is. I can live without oil, not without water. I also happen to own Exxon stock, but I still don't think what's happening is right. Their ex-CEO just walked away with a pension that's equivalent to probably every pilot at CAL put together. Oils price spike in the past few years is out of line with its demand. BTW, why are WE paying for increased demand in China? Shouldn't THEY be paying more for it? It's like the housing market. Look what's happening now. Oh, the prices were fine until the bottom fell out. Mark my words.............the oil companies are going to think all is well till the bottom falls out. I won't be shedding any tears for the event either. They're sitting back all fat and happy now, but pretty soon something will come along and knock the wind out of their sails. (Even the Saudis are saying the price is out of line), but it's the SPECULATORS that are causing the price spikes every day, NOT the demand. Oh, and speaking of profit sharing, had oil not been the price it was, don't you think you'd have been getting a much nicer check? Just wondering......:confused:
EAHINC |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 326047)
Hi!
If we didn't import ANY oil, our balance of trade would be positive, and the dollar/our economy would soar. cliff YIP Done. Now that millions are starving and freezing what will you replace it with? |
Originally Posted by EAHINC
(Post 326364)
You can't be serious?
I'm not a expert on the oil industry but I do have a thorough acquaintance of foreign trade and world economics. Barring a nuclear war, we will not be seeing $300/bbl, $400/bbl or $500/bbl anytime soon and certainly not before 2010. Oil will go down and so will gold in the next few years. The sky is not falling. EAHINC |
Originally Posted by MEMA300
(Post 325724)
If you or the oil companies did not have to pay taxes, you would not lower your prices. The market has already shown it can pay what you are charging. Your profits would just go up. Prices rarely lower, even when costs decrease(except airline tickets). Have items that used to be more expensively made in the u.s. and are now made cheaply in china decreased in price to the consumer? I think not.
I said if I did not pay taxes, my hourly rate would be less. I didn't say anything about lowering my rates if I magically started not having to pay taxes. That being said, the point of my post was that WE as consumers effectively pay the tax on corporations. It's built into their prices. I also disagree with you about lowering costs, "prices never lower" are you kidding? A "desktop" computer in the 60's was in the millions of dollars, now it's $600. Technology that came out 5 years ago goes for pennies on the dollar on eBay. Gas prices have gone up and down over the course of time. Some things don't go down because they are indexed with inflation. Some things like cars cost much more today than they were in the 50's but have made huge leaps in safety and features such as Airbags, ABS, GPS navigation etc, you can't compare the two. Rest assured if taxes went away those items would go down. Taxes are also effective at stopping corporations from pursuing certain investments. Canada is a prime example, they are taxing the #### out of oil up the profits after taxes just don't make it worth it. |
You know I've been reading most of this thread and seen a lot of opinions on the subject. I think there needs to be a middle ground. Stop bashing Bush/Cheney ( not saying I support them) and stop bashing the greenies.
The facts are indisputable. Oil is more expensive than ten years ago. There is more demand for energy. Unfortunately simply getting off oil tomorrow is not possible. Probably not even in the next twenty years. Altenatives will not supply all the power overnight. Unfortunatley that point is used too often as an argument to give up completely on alternative energy and stick our heads in the sand. We need to work to reduce our consumption. I.E. hybrid cars (I just bought one and am saving a lot of money), more efficient light bulbs, more efficient building practices, better mileage from vehicles, and perhaps, taxing high mpg vehicles that are just not practical. Europeans have been driving vehicels for decades which get 30-50 mpg. You just don't see a lot of hummers or SUVs over there. Truth is if we were paying as much for gas as they are you would not see a lot of them over here either. There is an instant reduction in demand. Unfortunately the American consumer is not ready to accept a smaller vehicle even though it would, for the most part, suit their needs. I believe if we increase effieciency in the way we use fossil fuels, at the same time as we develop alternatives to eventually replace it, we will see oil phased out. But, it is going to take a very long time to do it. |
Originally Posted by 402DRVR
(Post 326530)
You know I've been reading most of this thread and seen a lot of opinions on the subject. I think there needs to be a middle ground. Stop bashing Bush/Cheney ( not saying I support them) and stop bashing the greenies.
The facts are indisputable. Oil is more expensive than ten years ago. There is more demand for energy. Unfortunately simply getting off oil tomorrow is not possible. Probably not even in the next twenty years. Altenatives will not supply all the power overnight. Unfortunatley that point is used too often as an argument to give up completely on alternative energy and stick our heads in the sand. We need to work to reduce our consumption. I.E. hybrid cars (I just bought one and am saving a lot of money), more efficient light bulbs, more efficient building practices, better mileage from vehicles, and perhaps, taxing high mpg vehicles that are just not practical. Europeans have been driving vehicels for decades which get 30-50 mpg. You just don't see a lot of hummers or SUVs over there. Truth is if we were paying as much for gas as they are you would not see a lot of them over here either. There is an instant reduction in demand. Unfortunately the American consumer is not ready to accept a smaller vehicle even though it would, for the most part, suit their needs. I believe if we increase effieciency in the way we use fossil fuels, at the same time as we develop alternatives to eventually replace it, we will see oil phased out. But, it is going to take a very long time to do it. We also have old/small roads in most urban areas and this contributed to a steady growth of small cars. not big SUVs. Small cars were developed for these tight parking and small streets. I believe most Europeans would love to have an SUV, however they won't acknowledge it in public. Unfortunately, the expensive and mandated environmental policy that has taken hold in the last twenty years in Europe was only really possible because we always had access to a viable public train and bus system. European culture is totally different than North America. We also have hundred of thousands of Bicyles with riders riding to work everyday in the rain. I don't understand why people envy this lifestyle. Yes, Europe looks very tempting to an increasing gullible American public. I can guarantee you Europe is very inconvient and expensive for personal living. Its hard to really get ahead. Please don't look at us as a role model on most economic, social and environmental policy unless you like socialism. Energy efficiency, not conservation is what should be the goal. Oil industry is like most industries with a cyclical flow of peaks and valley. The sky is not falling but I think the price of oil and gold will. EAHINC |
Originally Posted by EAHINC
(Post 326591)
I'm European, Norwegian actually, yes we have been driving vehicles for decades at 30-40 mpg. These vehicles are mostly diesel powered. I think its safe to mention on approximately 50% of the autos in Europe are diesel powered.
We also have old/small roads in most urban areas and this contributed to a steady growth of small cars. not big SUVs. Small cars were developed for these tight parking and small streets. I believe most Europeans would love to have an SUV, however they won't acknowledge it in public. Unfortunately, the expensive and mandated environmental policy that has taken hold in the last twenty years in Europe was only really possible because we always had access to a viable public train and bus system. European culture is totally different than North America. We also have hundred of thousands of Bicyles with riders riding to work everyday in the rain. I don't understand why people envy this lifestyle. Yes, Europe looks very tempting to an increasing gullible American public. I can guarantee you Europe is very inconvient and expensive for personal living. Its hard to really get ahead. Please don't look at us as a role model on most economic, social and environmental policy unless you like socialism. Energy efficiency, not conservation is what should be the goal. Oil industry is like most industries with a cyclical flow of peaks and valley. The sky is not falling but I think the price of oil and gold will. EAHINC Actually, I'm not a gullible American. I have lived in Europe and traveled there and have a large number of family members there. And you are right socialism seems to be taking hold over there. However, my point was not to become a socialist nation, it is that cars can be built to attain better gas mileage, despite the claims by Detroit that it will cause extreme economic hardship. As far as mass transit goes, sign me up. The amount of money I save bu utilizing mass transit is encouragement enough. For those who do not wish to use it that's just fine too. My point still stands though. I sit here thinking with absolutely no numbers to back me up other than a little bit of logic. If half of the people in the U.S. who were in an economic situation to do so, were to purchase a higher milleage vehicle, not even a hybrid or pure electric, the short term demand for gasoline could go down significantly. On top of that, with more of these vehicles being built the price will eventually come down as the technology becomes cheaper. Just look at the cost of a hybrid car here as compared to five years ago. Quite frankly I am confused by your last statement. How are efficiency and conservation different? If I efficiently use the gasoline I am putting into my car, does that not conserve said supply for further use? Or put another way, If I file for FL390 in order to run the engines efficiently, does that not conserve fuel for when the Washington center insists that I descend to 11000 ft. 300 miles from destination? |
In 10-15 years I have a feeling the U.S. population will decrease due to the baby boomers departing the pattern. Hopefully it will mean less consumption of oil thereby lowering the price. Besides, it's these people who are stopping us from building any new refineries and nuclear power plants. Peace, love, and flower power.....
Mass transit will never work in this country other than in the inner-city. Most towns/cities are just too spread out. I'm interested in the new Honda fuel cell. It appears to be promising. |
Even w/ the baby boomers departing the pattern, oil consumption is expected to skyrocket over the next 10-15 years...it has to as economic growth/development (GDP) is inextricably tied to oil consumption. Of course, none of these forecasts for increased oil consumption take into account the possibility of Peak Oil...the forecasts just assume that the oil will be there. That's the problem. Global oil production today is about 85 million bbl/day, it's expected to increase to roughly 115-120 million bbl/day within the next 15 yrs. or so. Today, oil production is flattening out despite increased demand, so I don't see how the world will be able to efficiently produce 30 plus million more bbl/day.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is at least 30 years away from becoming a viable business. It's a catch 22. Not enough producers of hydrogen vehicles/devices want to produce those devices because there is no infrastructure in place to efficiently move the hydrogen...companies that could put into place infrastructre to move the hydrogen are hesitant to do so because there is a lack of hydrogen-powered devices/vehicles in production. Again, most experts in hydrogen will tell you that we're at least 30 years away, maybe more, from hydrogen power becoming mainstream. The most disturbing statistic that I've heard is that if right now, every single American bought a hybrid vehicle and used that vehicle as their primary mode of transportation, in 5 years we would be consuming just as much oil as we do today. It's an enormous issue...the construction of your average vehicle consumes roughly 27 to 54 bbl of oil. Your average laptop consumes 11 times its weight in oil during production. Now multiply all of this by the world's exponentially increasing population that continues to be dependent upon oil, I just don't see how there can't be tough times ahead. The downside to all of this talk about alternative energy is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce alternative energy...that initial energy output comes from the fossil fuels. So, we really should have started our move toward alternative energy years ago. The longer we wait, the harder the fall. It's sort of like waiting until you're too close to that thunderstorm to start your deviation, not a whole lot you can do but prepare for a bumpy ride...The real issue w/ the baby boomers is that thery're intimately aware of all of this, but they know they'll be gone soon, so they're not concerned about fixing it. |
Originally Posted by CPOonfinal
(Post 326641)
In 10-15 years I have a feeling the U.S. population will decrease due to the baby boomers departing the pattern. Hopefully it will mean less consumption of oil thereby lowering the price. Besides, it's these people who are stopping us from building any new refineries and nuclear power plants. Peace, love, and flower power.....
Mass transit will never work in this country other than in the inner-city. Most towns/cities are just too spread out. I'm interested in the new Honda fuel cell. It appears to be promising. eg: Hydrogen? Nuclear? Electric? Solar? Water Cracker?:eek: |
Even w/ the baby boomers departing the pattern, oil consumption is expected to skyrocket over the next 10-15 years...it has to as economic growth/development (GDP) is inextricably tied to oil consumption. Of course, none of these forecasts for increased oil consumption take into account the possibility of Peak Oil...the forecasts just assume that the oil will be there. That's the problem. Global oil production today is about 85 million bbl/day, it's expected to increase to roughly 115-120 million bbl/day within the next 15 yrs. or so. Today, oil production is flattening out despite increased demand, so I don't see how the world will be able to efficiently produce 30 plus million more bbl/day.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is at least 30 years away from becoming a viable business. It's a catch 22. Not enough producers of hydrogen vehicles/devices want to produce those devices because there is no infrastructure in place to efficiently move the hydrogen...companies that could put into place infrastructre to move the hydrogen are hesitant to do so because there is a lack of hydrogen-powered devices/vehicles in production. Again, most experts in hydrogen will tell you that we're at least 30 years away, maybe more, from hydrogen power becoming mainstream. The downside to all of this talk about alternative energy is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce alternative energy...that initial energy output comes from the fossil fuels. So, we really should have started our move toward alternative energy years ago. The longer we wait, the harder the fall. It's sort of like waiting until you're too close to that thunderstorm to start your deviation, not a whole lot you can do but prepare for a bumpy ride...The real issue w/ the baby boomers is that thery're intimately aware of all of this, but they know they'll be gone soon, so they're not concerned about fixing it. |
Honda dot com
"A limited number of FCX Clarity vehicles will be available for lease only in the Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine areas in mid-2008. The lease amount will be around $600 per month for three years and it includes maintenance. As hydrogen-supply infrastructure expands, Honda will make more of these remarkable cars available to the public." hydrogencarsnow dot com "General Motors has announced that they are developing a home hydrogen fueling station for use with their line of Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles that they will begin rolling out in limited numbers in 2007. The General Motors hydrogen generator will be able to run on either solar energy or electricity." Oil demand will drop over the next 10-15 years. India's and China's market growth, IMO, is unsustainable. I believe we are going to see a remarkable turn around in vehicle production. We are going to see hydrogen fuel cell's become the majority of vehicles, not the minority over the next few years (10-15). We are on the verge of a global recession too. I don't know what will fuel aircraft in the future. I suspect oil. Demand for fuel products is close to peaking just as oil production has (apparently). As our gasoline burning cars are replaced with hydrogen cars (or something else) there will be enough oil to meet future demand with significant reduction in price. I don't subscribe to the 'doomsday' outlook that so many others do. Now that gas is around $3.20 here in PNS I've had gas siphoned out of my truck twice in the last week. How do I know you ask? The jkass' don't put the fuel cap back on tightly and I inevitably get a check engine light. Now that makes me angry enough to stay up and try to catch'em... |
402DRVR,
No Efficiency and Conservation are not the same. They cannot be used interchangeably. Efficiency- Means receiving the same results by the use of technology that requires less energy to perform the same service or function resulting in the same lifestyle. Conservation- Is often mandated from governments and "do gooders" that leads to going without something. This is an all time favorite code word of the socialist governments in Europe. EAHINC |
Originally Posted by JetPiedmont
(Post 326672)
Any ideas on how we'll be powering the civil and military aviation fleets after piston/turbine fuels, for reasons either economic, strategic, or supply driven, are no longer usable?
eg: Hydrogen? Nuclear? Electric? Solar? Water Cracker?:eek: BUTANOL...Dupont is currently in final development of the enzymes, and pilot plants are going up in conjunction with BP Amoco. Currently, we're stuck with ethanol, since we don't have any strains of microbes than can ferment corn into butanol without dying off too early in the process. Dupont is developing microbe strains that are more resistant to butanol...which packs a lot higher energy density than ethanol, has a freezing point much closer to conventional jet fuel, and can go through existing infrastructure without corroding it (unlike ethanol). Read last month's issue in PopSci...the cover story is on alt fuels for aviation, and a prototype hydrogen powered ramjet designed by the concorde folks. We can get hydrogen and butanol with current tech, and it's possible to run jets off of those fuels...in conjunction with continuous descent procedures, lighter and lighter materials, and better energy storage devices (some Chinese dudes are doing stuff with torric coil batteries that could potentially charge up off the grid (nuke, etc.) and power N1 fans like a mofo))...we might be ok for another 50-100 years. Of course, we could also do some pretty obvious things to save fuel like using tugs to get planes much further down the taxi line before starting engines, and shutting down the second you're clear of the hold short line and having tugs bring you in. And having computer assigned taxi clearances based on algorithms that compute the most efficient sequencing based on aircraft position and requested start time. |
There are lots of known oil reserves, and oil sands, that don't become economically viable to develop until oil is where it is now, so there is somewhat of a "release valve" there...i.e. BNP Paribas has a massive field (some say second only to Saudi Arabia) offshore Brazil, that is only now being developed (comes online 2009-10) because it's 30,000 feet underwater. It's a massive oilfield.
There will certainly be bumps along the road, but I firmly believe we'll make it...in addition, most people don't discuss the fact that the Saudis keep it a highly guarded secret how much oil they really have. As an interesting side note, Iraq has the longest sustainable oil reserves of all the middle eastern producers, since it's pretty much been offline for the last 15 years...it's become one of the most "untapped" reserves around. |
I will concede the point of definitions to Webster.
Duke, Your point on the production of hybrid cars actually using more oil only stands true if those hybrids are made in addition to conventional cars. If the same percentage of cars are replaced by hybrids then the same amount of oil is used to build them. Then when they are used the hybrids burn less fuel if used for comparatively similar driving. This is better efficiency, how is that bad? This is the same as buying new airplanes which are more efficient. New airplanes will be bought either way. So buying efficient airplanes certainly results in less consumption. And on your final point about the longer we wait the harder the fall. That is the real argument behind pursuing these technologies now as we develop more efficient ways to maintain the lifestyles we all hope to keep with both fossil fuels and alternative energies. |
Originally Posted by EAHINC
(Post 326591)
I'm European, Norwegian actually, yes we have been driving vehicles for decades at 30-40 mpg. These vehicles are mostly diesel powered. I think its safe to mention on approximately 50% of the autos in Europe are diesel powered.
We also have old/small roads in most urban areas and this contributed to a steady growth of small cars. not big SUVs. Small cars were developed for these tight parking and small streets. I believe most Europeans would love to have an SUV, however they won't acknowledge it in public. Unfortunately, the expensive and mandated environmental policy that has taken hold in the last twenty years in Europe was only really possible because we always had access to a viable public train and bus system. European culture is totally different than North America. We also have hundred of thousands of Bicyles with riders riding to work everyday in the rain. I don't understand why people envy this lifestyle. Yes, Europe looks very tempting to an increasing gullible American public. I can guarantee you Europe is very inconvient and expensive for personal living. Its hard to really get ahead. Please don't look at us as a role model on most economic, social and environmental policy unless you like socialism. Energy efficiency, not conservation is what should be the goal. Oil industry is like most industries with a cyclical flow of peaks and valley. The sky is not falling but I think the price of oil and gold will. EAHINC Thanks for posting, it is great to hear from the people who have been there. How we get to be a better place is just as important as technology. It does no good to end up with a government monopoly dictating the car you drive, your retirement , health care, and schooling. Without individual and financial freedom we may start to depend on the nanny state for all. And then this happens: Jan 2008 From the series: Victorious Socialism Is The Path To The Future: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biggest brain drain from UK in 50 years By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 21/02/2008 Britain is experiencing the worst "brain drain" of any country as highly qualified professionals settle abroad, an authoritative international study showed yesterday. Your view: How can we halt the brain drain? Record numbers of Britons are leaving - many of them doctors, teachers and engineers - in the biggest exodus for almost 50 years. Over a quarter of qualified professionals who have moved abroad had health or education qualifications There are now 3.247 million British-born people living abroad, of whom more than 1.1 million are highly-skilled university graduates, say the researchers. More than three quarters of these professionals have settled abroad for more than 10 years, according to the study by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). No other nation is losing so many qualified people, it points out. Britain has now lost more than one in 10 of its most skilled citizens, while overall only Mexico has had more people emigrate. The figures, based on official records from more than 220 countries, will alarm Gordon Brown as tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on educating graduates. The cost of training a junior doctor, for example, is £250,000. The most popular destinations are English-speaking countries such as Australia, America, Canada and New Zealand and holiday areas including France and Spain. Almost 60 per cent of those leaving take jobs, although hundreds of thousands of retired people live abroad. advertisementThe report is a statistical analysis which does not study the motivation for leaving Britain. However, high house prices and taxes and poor climate are frequently cited. A spokesman for the Paris-based OECD said last night: "British people have lots of opportunities to move and work abroad so very highly-skilled people are travelling around. It is seen by many British people as part of their personal development to have some experience abroad." Britain's exodus is far higher than any of the OECD's other 29 members. Germany has lost only 860,000 highly-skilled workers, America 410,000 and France 370,000. The OECD found that 27.3 per cent of those emigrating had health or education qualifications, 37.7 per cent had humanities or social science degrees and 28.5 per cent were scientists or engineers. Britain has a shortage of graduates in many of these fields and universities have long warned that some of the brightest hopes are being lost to higher salaries abroad. The report cited research suggesting that 62 per cent of the world's "star scientists" live in the US, primarily because of the efforts made by American research universities to attract them. Danny Sriskandarajah, a migration expert at the IPPR think-tank, said: "There is a long-term trend of British people lured abroad by a slightly better lifestyle. They are actively targeted by countries such as Australia and New Zealand." The emigration was leading to a rapid change in British society as large numbers of highly-skilled immigrants moved to this country to replace those leaving, he said. "Britain has been lucky - although it has lost substantial numbers of people, it has attracted more than a million skilled immigrants to replace them. If they stop coming then that would be a problem." Figures from the Office for National Statistics last year, suggested that 207,000 Britons - one every three minutes - left in 2006. The emigration rate is at its highest since just after the Second World War. The term brain drain was coined in the 1950s following the mass emigration of scientists and other experts to America. Tens of thousands of people also left the country to escape the industrial unrest and high taxes of the 1970s. Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "Ten years of Labour has re-created the brain drain. High taxes and Government interference are driving people away." The study found that foreign-born people make up 8.3 per cent of Britain's population. A House of Lords report into the economic impact of migration is due next month. Prof David Coleman, of St John's, Oxford, said the brain drain was "to do with quality of life, laws and bureaucracy, tax and all the rest of it". Prof Christian Dustmann, of University College London, said: "The costs of leaving a country are substantial. The rewards must be very high." ============================ |
Hi!
For the guys who've posted about electric/hybrid electric cars requiring LOTS of new electrical power, that is wrong, in the short term. Electrical power plants run generators, with produce "X" amount of energy. They run 24 hours a day, basically producing the same amount of energy all the time. We have enough plants to cover (normally) the max electrical energy use, which is normally about 1300-1700 local time. During the night, approx. 2300-0600 local, the electrical demand drops WAY off. During this time period, electric/hybrid electric cars could be plugged in, and draw the electrical energy that is being wasted. So, in the short term, we don't need more electricity. In the LONG term, if most cars ran off of electricity, then we WOULD need more electricity than is currently being generated. cliff LRD |
Originally Posted by jungle
(Post 326719)
Thanks for posting, it is great to hear from the people who have been there.
How we get to be a better place is just as important as technology. It does no good to end up with a government monopoly dictating the car you drive, your retirement , health care, and schooling. Without individual and financial freedom we may start to depend on the nanny state for all. And then this happens: Jan 2008 From the series: Victorious Socialism Is The Path To The Future: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biggest brain drain from UK in 50 years By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 21/02/2008 Britain is experiencing the worst "brain drain" of any country as highly qualified professionals settle abroad, an authoritative international study showed yesterday. Your view: How can we halt the brain drain? Record numbers of Britons are leaving - many of them doctors, teachers and engineers - in the biggest exodus for almost 50 years. Over a quarter of qualified professionals who have moved abroad had health or education qualifications There are now 3.247 million British-born people living abroad, of whom more than 1.1 million are highly-skilled university graduates, say the researchers. More than three quarters of these professionals have settled abroad for more than 10 years, according to the study by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). No other nation is losing so many qualified people, it points out. Britain has now lost more than one in 10 of its most skilled citizens, while overall only Mexico has had more people emigrate. The figures, based on official records from more than 220 countries, will alarm Gordon Brown as tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on educating graduates. The cost of training a junior doctor, for example, is £250,000. The most popular destinations are English-speaking countries such as Australia, America, Canada and New Zealand and holiday areas including France and Spain. Almost 60 per cent of those leaving take jobs, although hundreds of thousands of retired people live abroad. advertisementThe report is a statistical analysis which does not study the motivation for leaving Britain. However, high house prices and taxes and poor climate are frequently cited. A spokesman for the Paris-based OECD said last night: "British people have lots of opportunities to move and work abroad so very highly-skilled people are travelling around. It is seen by many British people as part of their personal development to have some experience abroad." Britain's exodus is far higher than any of the OECD's other 29 members. Germany has lost only 860,000 highly-skilled workers, America 410,000 and France 370,000. The OECD found that 27.3 per cent of those emigrating had health or education qualifications, 37.7 per cent had humanities or social science degrees and 28.5 per cent were scientists or engineers. Britain has a shortage of graduates in many of these fields and universities have long warned that some of the brightest hopes are being lost to higher salaries abroad. The report cited research suggesting that 62 per cent of the world's "star scientists" live in the US, primarily because of the efforts made by American research universities to attract them. Danny Sriskandarajah, a migration expert at the IPPR think-tank, said: "There is a long-term trend of British people lured abroad by a slightly better lifestyle. They are actively targeted by countries such as Australia and New Zealand." The emigration was leading to a rapid change in British society as large numbers of highly-skilled immigrants moved to this country to replace those leaving, he said. "Britain has been lucky - although it has lost substantial numbers of people, it has attracted more than a million skilled immigrants to replace them. If they stop coming then that would be a problem." Figures from the Office for National Statistics last year, suggested that 207,000 Britons - one every three minutes - left in 2006. The emigration rate is at its highest since just after the Second World War. The term brain drain was coined in the 1950s following the mass emigration of scientists and other experts to America. Tens of thousands of people also left the country to escape the industrial unrest and high taxes of the 1970s. Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "Ten years of Labour has re-created the brain drain. High taxes and Government interference are driving people away." The study found that foreign-born people make up 8.3 per cent of Britain's population. A House of Lords report into the economic impact of migration is due next month. Prof David Coleman, of St John's, Oxford, said the brain drain was "to do with quality of life, laws and bureaucracy, tax and all the rest of it". Prof Christian Dustmann, of University College London, said: "The costs of leaving a country are substantial. The rewards must be very high." ============================ The English are a mess from top to bottom, from Charles on down to the Pakistani shoe shiner. Nothing is right in that country and the same can be spoken for other nations across the channel. The deserve what they get. I was in Brighton, a seaside village for vacation last summer and was paying approximately $10/gallon for auto fuel of perhaps 80% are taxes and it gets worse from that point on. This is why private boat ownership and general aviation is almost exclusively for the super rich. From Fish & Chips to Burkas in less than a generation. I would be leaving also. If you would like good cardio work-out read the book "Londonistan". EAHINC |
I agree the net gain from hybrids is impressive, so re: hybrids alone, I stand corrected. However, the GDP needs to continue to grow (I think it's around 1.5-2% per year right now in the US) and that requires more oil. So my concern is that even w/ advancements in technology, such as hybrids, we will not be able to sustain our current growth. As we speak, China, by comparison, is roaring away @ about 11 to 10 % annual growth and is showing no signs of slowing...but they're arriving @ the party a bit late, so I do agree that their growth will inevitably slow, just not sure what their reaction will be when they have to face the music...
|
Originally Posted by The Duke
(Post 326855)
I agree the net gain from hybrids is impressive, so re: hybrids alone, I stand corrected. However, the GDP needs to continue to grow (I think it's around 1.5-2% per year right now in the US) and that requires more oil. So my concern is that even w/ advancements in technology, such as hybrids, we will not be able to sustain our current growth. As we speak, China, by comparison, is roaring away @ about 11 to 10 % annual growth and is showing no signs of slowing...but they're arriving @ the party a bit late, so I do agree that their growth will inevitably slow, just not sure what their reaction will be when they have to face the music...
It's a balance between the supply/demand curve and the level of economic activity. The supply side of the curve is deteriorating as extraction and refinement of oil has become more difficult. It is already overpowering the level of economic slowdown as part of the formula as the price moves UP in the face of recession. What does logic say will happen as the economy heats up again? I don't like this any more that the next guy, but the denial on these boards and in Washington is frightening. It's NOT going back down, ever. It can't! It's like the Terminator, it doesn't CARE. |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 326768)
Hi!
For the guys who've posted about electric/hybrid electric cars requiring LOTS of new electrical power, that is wrong, in the short term. Electrical power plants run generators, with produce "X" amount of energy. They run 24 hours a day, basically producing the same amount of energy all the time. We have enough plants to cover (normally) the max electrical energy use, which is normally about 1300-1700 local time. During the night, approx. 2300-0600 local, the electrical demand drops WAY off. During this time period, electric/hybrid electric cars could be plugged in, and draw the electrical energy that is being wasted. So, in the short term, we don't need more electricity. In the LONG term, if most cars ran off of electricity, then we WOULD need more electricity than is currently being generated. cliff LRD |
Originally Posted by The Duke
(Post 326855)
I agree the net gain from hybrids is impressive, so re: hybrids alone, I stand corrected. However, the GDP needs to continue to grow (I think it's around 1.5-2% per year right now in the US) and that requires more oil. So my concern is that even w/ advancements in technology, such as hybrids, we will not be able to sustain our current growth. As we speak, China, by comparison, is roaring away @ about 11 to 10 % annual growth and is showing no signs of slowing...but they're arriving @ the party a bit late, so I do agree that their growth will inevitably slow, just not sure what their reaction will be when they have to face the music...
Our GDP has almost doubled since 1979 with very little increase in oil consumption. It is easy to see that very great gains have been made in overall efficiency. The typical peak oil theorists are baffled by the apparent disconnect between GDP and oil use. It is not a linear function due to improvements in efficiency, but it is obvious that the price of oil has a very strong influence on the state of world economy. As always any projections made become less reliable the further they extend into the future-more so when the number of variables is increased. You may have missed it, but the Chinese are predicting a rather dramatic slowing of growth for the next couple of years. |
Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop
(Post 326878)
I'm not saying I have first hand knowledge of electrical generation power plants, however, it may be possible that plants, during off-peak hours, drop coal and gas fired turbine-generators offline....just a hunch.
You are correct. Plants produce as demand dictates. The grid really has no major storage capability. |
"Storing" electricity
Originally Posted by jungle
(Post 327118)
You are correct. Plants produce as demand dictates. The grid really has no major storage capability.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands