[NinerSevenTango]

Two questions.
How high does the price of oil need to go to make it all worth it?
How is politicians capitalizing on alternate energy any different than what they do now with oil?
Most of the problems you complain about are because of oil...Higher food prices have nothing to do with alternate energy,it has to do with the cost to grow, harvest, and transport.If alternate energy has such a low impact,then why is it the main reason for food price increase?
Most of the problems you mention are pre alternate energy.
Thats what i'm talking about...standing on the tracks .


By the way...people also don't want oil rigs and refineries in their neighborhoods,but they probably don't have that many where you live,so they don't need to worry about it.

Perhaps you glossed over the part where I said that currency debasement is causing a run on commodities, and it is hitting food harder yet because of the ethanol policy. Food prices were already on the rise before the banking crisis hit.

It looks like you're just digging in your heels. Even the globalists who promote this stuff acknowledge the starvation that is resulting from their pet policies. Naturally, the solution is more government control and intervention, since phase one of their plan is well underway, and the aim is always to consolidate control. What they don't want is for people to wake up and see that their policies starve people.

Here it is, from their own mouth:

http://tinyurl.com/3c6dlt

--97T--

Googling 'ethanol hunger' brings up a lot of hits from conservative sites. Still, it only took a few seconds to find the paper with the CFR admitting it.

[Geof]

....

How high does the price of oil need to go to make it all worth it?

In the final analysis price is irrelevant; if your alternate sources cannot supply the amount of energy needed.

[Mazaholic]

Perhaps you glossed over the part where I said that currency debasement is causing a run on commodities, and it is hitting food harder yet because of the ethanol policy. Food prices were already on the rise before the banking crisis hit.

It looks like you're just digging in your heels. Even the globalists who promote this stuff acknowledge the starvation that is resulting from their pet policies. Naturally, the solution is more government control and intervention, since phase one of their plan is well underway, and the aim is always to consolidate control. What they don't want is for people to wake up and see that their policies starve people.

Here it is, from their own mouth:

http://tinyurl.com/3c6dlt

--97T--

Googling 'ethanol hunger' brings up a lot of hits from conservative sites. Still, it only took a few seconds to find the paper with the CFR admitting it.

And the price of oil drives it all.
So do we let ourselves be at the mercy of OPEC?
What it doesn't tell you is that engineers are also developing other sources of ethenol...switch grass,cane,using the entire corn plant as a source.
Kinda makes the electric car and air car look that much more promising.
No one said it's going to be easy,any solution won't be easy,it never has been.
But we can't just pick apart every idea and say.."thats too hard' life itself is hard..if it's easy for you,then it's probably hard on the people that make it easy for you.
Sorry,but thats life.

[Mazaholic]

In the final analysis price is irrelevant; if your alternate sources cannot supply the amount of energy needed.

So nuclear energy is a good idea.
We would have plenty of nuclear power plants if not for three mile island.
I don't see why nuclear power isn't compairable to oil or coal fired.
Atleast that would take generated power out of the equation.

[Geof]

..What it doesn't tell you is that engineers are also developing other sources of ethenol...switch grass,cane,using the entire corn plant as a source.......Sorry,but thats life.

Even if you used the entire plant, which is impossible, grown on the entire arable area of North America, you cannot get enough ethanol, or biodiesel, to replace the amount of fossil fuels currently consumed. And then you have no food crops.

[Geof]

So nuclear energy is a good idea.
We would have plenty of nuclear power plants if not for three mile island.
I don't see why nuclear power isn't compairable to oil or coal fired.
Atleast that would take generated power out of the equation.

You are really being stubborn.

Look at the numbers in the thing I quoted from the Paris Energy group or whatever it was. Or look up the numbers yourself; about 20% of the electricity supply in North America comes from nuclear, about 20% from hydro, wind, solar, and the rest from fossil fuels, oil, coal, gas.

To substitute nuclear for the fossil fuel means that three times as many new nuclear installations have to be built as already exist. Found out how many already exist and multiply by three then tell me how they are going to be built, by whom and out of what, and over how long.

And that only subsitutes for fossil fuel used for electricity generation, now you have to more or less double the electricity generating capacity to have enough electrical energy to charge up your air cars or battery cars. This means you need to build something like ten times as many new nuclear plants as already exist.

It is not going to happen.

[jhowelb]

Subtract eco-nazies from the power picture and there is no oil shortage. With out them we'd have nuke power in surplus!

The whole question is POLITICAL!

[Mazaholic]

You are really being stubborn.

Look at the numbers in the thing I quoted from the Paris Energy group or whatever it was. Or look up the numbers yourself; about 20% of the electricity supply in North America comes from nuclear, about 20% from hydro, wind, solar, and the rest from fossil fuels, oil, coal, gas.

To substitute nuclear for the fossil fuel means that three times as many new nuclear installations have to be built as already exist. Found out how many already exist and multiply by three then tell me how they are going to be built, by whom and out of what, and over how long.

And that only subsitutes for fossil fuel used for electricity generation, now you have to more or less double the electricity generating capacity to have enough electrical energy to charge up your air cars or battery cars. This means you need to build something like ten times as many new nuclear plants as already exist.

It is not going to happen.

Geof..
I am far from being stubborn,i just see it different.
Someone built those coal and oil fired plants,they didn't just come with the land,we built them.
Why build more?
Just build nuclear,sooner or later the old oil and coal fired will need replaced.
We can build all the coal and oil fired plants we need?,but,for some reason we loose the ability when it comes to nuclear?

[Geof]

Geof..
I am far from being stubborn,i just see it different.
Someone built those coal and oil fired plants,they didn't just come with the land,we built them.
Why build more?
Just build nuclear,sooner or later the old oil and coal fired will need replaced.
We can build all the coal and oil fired plants we need?,but,for some reason we loose the ability when it comes to nuclear?

You are correct, the fossil fuel plants were built, still are being built in the case of methane powered gas turbine units, but they were built over the past almost-a-hundred- years, or so.

Remember a few posts back I said I was talking about substituting for fossil fuels now, on a time frame comparable to the zealots pronouncements on global warming. Building now to supply the air and battery cars, that is not possible.

Certainly over the next hundred or two hundred years more of all types will be built, but I will be astounded if any new nuclear plant...just one...is finished in the next ten years.

[Mazaholic]

You are correct, the fossil fuel plants were built, still are being built in the case of methane powered gas turbine units, but they were built over the past almost-a-hundred- years, or so.

Remember a few posts back I said I was talking about substituting for fossil fuels now, on a time frame comparable to the zealots pronouncements on global warming. Building now to supply the air and battery cars, that is not possible.

Certainly over the next hundred or two hundred years more of all types will be built, but I will be astounded if any new nuclear plant...just one...is finished in the next ten years.

I agree, it won't happen today or tomorrow,it's a matter of decades.
But it needs to happen.
If for nothing else,just to get out from under the grip of a very troubled area of the world.
Saudi is not the sole supplier of oil,but they are in control as far as price.


By the way
http://www.nrgenergy.com./news-cente...newscenter.htm
Texas can't wait for the rest of you slackers.

[KIMFAB]

Here is something for you air drive people. http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/...nvironment.php
Look at the size of the tanks. This is for 7 miles at 18 mph. But it's a start.

[dufas]

I know that I am probably putting whats left of my head in someone's sights, but...A big part of what is driving the immediate rush into what may be a pie in the sky alternative fuel alternative is todays price for fuel.

In 1955, the average gallon of gasoline sold for $0 .28. The average hourly wage was $ 1.79.
A gallon of fuel cost 15.6 percent of an hour's work.

In 2008, the average gallon of gasoline sold for $3.80. The average hourly wage is $21.00
A gallon of fuel cost 18 percent of an hour's work.

That is a 2.4 percent increase from 1955 to today.
Technically, fuel prices are not much higher today than it was in the 1950s. We have had a long run of cheap fuel in between these years.


Complaints run rampant about the profits that the oil companies make.

Companies work on a percentage of profit.

If you sold a wiget for a dollar and was working on a 5% profit after all expenses, you would make $0.05 for every wiget sold. If your expenses drove the price up including your 5% profit margin to $4.00 a wiget, you would now get $0.20 for every wiget sold. So the oil companies will naturally make more profit if they continue to work on the same percentage of profit.

This works the same in reverse. When you get a 10% raise in wages, everything you touch should go up 10% plus expenses related to paying you that extra 10%, but instead, the company you work for usually absorbs the additional costs as a loss which in turn, lowers profits and decreases dividends paid to share holders, many of which have shares in their 401Ks, IRAs and other retirement investment tools. Eventually, prices do rise which again spurs demand for more raises in pay. It becomes a vicious cycle.

One more thing.
The liberals and enviros for years wanted to tax gasoline to make it so expensive people would decrease their driving. Now these same people are screaming about the high price of gas.
I guess for some people the exploitation of man by the State is fine, not so with the extra costs are caused by man.

[fizzissist]

Even if you used the entire plant, which is impossible, grown on the entire arable area of North America, you cannot get enough ethanol, or biodiesel, to replace the amount of fossil fuels currently consumed. And then you have no food crops.

Geof,
Here's a little blurb from the WSJ that blows a hole in the ethanol/biofuel benefits bubble....

"...To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell's David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can't compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption....
......A February report in the journal Science found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years . . . Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121011613215972205.html

[Geof]

.....The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption....

This is the part I focus on, because it makes costs, carbon efficiency, etc, all irrelevant.

One third of the corn crop produces 3% of petroleum consumed.

Therefore ALL THE CORN CROP produces 9% of petroleum consumed.

So can any off these pollyanna, 'we can find solutions', technology will be our saviour', types tell me where the other 91% comes from.

And that is just for oil products, what about coal?


Al this reminds me of a discussion I had on a budget request years ago with a university admin type. He said my total was too high. So we went through line by line and he even increased some of my line items because he thought I had underestimated. Then we added everything up, and, of course, the total was higher.

So he rejected my request because the total was too high.

Please people; find the numbers and do the math. Use both fingers and toes if you have to, and when the answer does not agree with your preconceived notions try to get it into your skull that the numbers are right...you are wrong.

[dynosor]

How high does the price of oil need to go to make it all worth it?

Increasing the cost of oil does not make alternatives "worth it", ever:

Consider you are trying to buy a 2000 sq ft house on a standard lot; and two homes fit your requirements. One cost $5 million and the other $3 million. Does the fact that one home costs $5M make the $3M home "worth it"? My money says it does not.

If homes or energy cost too much then the average person is going to see a drop in their standard of living. Entities that can somehow produce homes or energy at a little less than the inflated price have a business opportunity. However, unless homes and energy are available at fair market value the rest of us are screwed. Get it?

[dynosor]

And the price of oil drives it all.
So do we let ourselves be at the mercy of OPEC?

There is an alternative to imported oil: Drill new wells on US territory - plenty of oil there.

[Mazaholic]

Increasing the cost of oil does not make alternatives "worth it", ever:

Consider you are trying to buy a 2000 sq ft house on a standard lot; and two homes fit your requirements. One cost $5 million and the other $3 million. Does the fact that one home costs $5M make the $3M home "worth it"? My money says it does not.

If homes or energy cost too much then the average person is going to see a drop in their standard of living. Entities that can somehow produce homes or energy at a little less than the inflated price have a business opportunity. However, unless homes and energy are available at fair market value the rest of us are screwed. Get it?

So what your saying is..If i were in the bussiness of making electricity,it cost me 5 cents per Kwh with oil fired and 3 cents per Kwh with nuclear,My best bet is to stay with the oil fired because nuclear just looks like a better deal?

[Mazaholic]

There is an alternative to imported oil: Drill new wells on US territory - plenty of oil there.

you ever wonder why we don't?
I know..it's all a governement conspiracy to make money off the oil we don't use..or something like that.

I can tell you why we don't in the states,two reasons,federal reserve,and,it cost too much.
Most of the oil in Texas,Oklahoma,Kansas,is thick crude.
The easy stuff is gone,to get whats left takes steam and high powered pumps or pressure,it almost takes as much energy to extract it as it makes.
Import is cheaper.

As far as Alaska...I guess you have to discuss that with the tree huggers.

[Mazaholic]

since were throwing links around.
Can anyone find one that supports the claims of centuries of oil left?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/s...2-bb320676825b
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/28/business/oil.php
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3248484.ece
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05...y-184-000-bpd/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../INF7RM3OC.DTL

[dynosor]

So what your saying is..If i were in the bussiness of making electricity,it cost me 5 cents per Kwh with oil fired and 3 cents per Kwh with nuclear,My best bet is to stay with the oil fired because nuclear just looks like a better deal?

No. I'm saying we are screwed if electricity cost $5 per kWh from oil and $3 per kWh for the alternative. On the other hand, any alternative that can supply power at less than 10C per kWh should be embraced, as long as this is the real price, not dependant on subsidies.

Nuclear power is the most likely supply at less than rip-off prices. Cheaper than $50 per barrel oil? Not sure about that. The threshold for oil from coal is around $50 per barrel. Plenty of coal out there.

Now if only you can convince the enviro-weenies to allow more nuclear power stations to be built... They are more afraid of CO2-free nuclear power than CO2 rich power.

EDIT: If you wait long enough then $5 per kWh will be cheap because of inflation. My statements about afforability at a given dollar value ignores inflation over the next 100 years. I am talking about the next 10 years or at least in my lifetime.