The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Ok, so what are you guys doing about the high gas prices? Have you made any adjustments in your lifestyle?
Next year I plan on buying a high end motor scooter for commuting to work, short rides to around town and the city. I also plan on buying a somewhat more fuel efficient car than my old ass '97 Mustang GT.
I'm going to the Air Force, moving to Germany, grabbing whatever hybrid/electric I can find and never looking back.
All they have to do is explain that nuclear is safer because it does not require us to do business with countries with factions of citizens that like to lodge airplanes in our buildings.
I'm going to the Air Force, moving to Germany, grabbing whatever hybrid/electric I can find and never looking back.
All they have to do is explain that nuclear is safer because it does not require us to do business with countries with factions of citizens that like to lodge airplanes in our buildings.
So every country? Well that's not going to work.
(Assuming "lodge planes in to buildings" is a metaphor for terrorism)
Ok, so what are you guys doing about the high gas prices? Have you made any adjustments in your lifestyle?
Next year I plan on buying a high end motor scooter for commuting to work, short rides to around town and the city. I also plan on buying a somewhat more fuel efficient car than my old ass '97 Mustang GT.
Public transport in Perth is generally pretty good (they're really pushing to extend the light electric passenger rail network). I generally use public transport these days, and when I purchase an apartment later this year it will be near a train line.
I'm not sure if I will replace my car as it gets okay mileage and I don't use it a lot anyway .
Not economical now. Thirty years ago, people would have thought you were insane if you told them you could get oil at and around the edge of the West African continental shelf. Now deep water directional drilling is almost routine.
... and oil is $120 a barrel and rising. Do you see the link?
When you are going to more and more extreme lengths to get it, the price goes up. It will then reach a point where you start searching for alternatives.
Um, no, I don't see the link. The reason I don't see the link is because I know that exploration, development, and production costs are cheaper now per barrel than they have ever been. There's no real cost of producing reason that oil should be anywhere near $120 a barrel, much less the $200 that some dipshit alarmist was sputtering about yesterday. The guy who was raving about that has no clear understanding of the oil or energy business.
Ok, so what are you guys doing about the high gas prices? Have you made any adjustments in your lifestyle?
Barely driving my Mustangs except on weekends to keep them "alive"... I won't ever give up my restored 1968 GT Fastback (looks like the car from Bullitt), but I'm going to sell the '06. I otherwise just drive my Accord to and from work and pretty much everywhere now. It's a V6, but it gets good gas milage. I maintain my cars pretty well and have cold air filters on them all to get the best milage I can get. I also shop/walk to more local places rather than ranging out. But, can't do that for everything... no good sushi or pho within walking distance.
I'm not sure how viable this idea is but I'll go for it. It seems that the biggest issue that all of these replacements face is that they have to meet the hunger of a massive fleet of personally owned vehicles. Where people are allowed to drive their vehicles whenever and where ever they want. So what I'm thinking is that instead of trying to replace all of the personally owned vehicles of every person who lives in a major city, wouldn't it be wiser to invest further into our national deficit by building mass transit options such as buses, light rail, more transcontinental railroads, and the shipping industry from which we get all of the commodities for Wal-Mart and Target. The problem seems much more manageable if we go that route.
You're right, NIMBYism is going to be the thing to beat with nuclear (though the "greenies" often attack wind power for the same reason, which is hilarious). A lot of the fear people have about nuclear is absolutely ridiculous, but getting people to see that they're scared for nothing is easier said than done.
It doesn't matter that Chernobyl was built by the Soviet Union in a time when they couldn't figure out how to use their farming equipment, much less a nuclear reactor. Or when the country was corrupt beyond belief, and was looking for any possible way to cut corners on anything. None of that matters, because you see, nuclear.
I'd love to use Three Mile Island as an example of why nuclear is so safe. Yes it was an accident, yes terrible things could have happened, but they didn't, and I feel that the way it was brought under control was a testament to how safe nuclear power is. Or, we could just point out that there are hundreds of nuclear reactors across the world, including on land and in ships and submarines, that have had zero issues...
The disposal part is tougher. I mean, I'm a big fan of the Yucca Mountain project, but the recent news about scientists falsifying data about runoff makes that harder to justify (even though runoff shouldn't be a problem in the first place, since it's.. you know.. in the desert). -shrug- France is doing a great job with nuclear, with something like 80% of their power coming from nuke plants. Hell, here in Vermont, 30% of our power comes from Vermont Yankee.
The other issue, which you note, is that nuclear is fine for electricity generation but does nothing to solve a liquid fuel problem. I think electric cars are ultimately the way to go, but there are still technical hurdles to overcome (http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6551284.html) and, again, time is needed for it to scale up commercially.
This article I notice gives no mention of the awesomely badass Tesla Motors and their Roadster. Booooo.
Ok, so what are you guys doing about the high gas prices? Have you made any adjustments in your lifestyle?
I'm driving my car less, since it gets around 30 mpg, and driving my wife's more, because it's closer to 40 mpg. And fuck buying a hybrid. Give me an electric car in a few years. :P
Ok, so what are you guys doing about the high gas prices? Have you made any adjustments in your lifestyle?
Next year I plan on buying a high end motor scooter for commuting to work, short rides to around town and the city. I also plan on buying a somewhat more fuel efficient car than my old ass '97 Mustang GT.
Funny story, I never gave a shit about gas prices because I drove a 2000 Honda Civic, which gets some comical amount of MPG, and then I bought a performance car, got rid of the civic, and pay 60$/week in gas to get to work.
I filled up the tank and /facepalmed into the gas pump
I'm just learning to drive and you guys are making me worried
By the time I pass I wont be able to afford petrol and be shoved back on the bus
I definitely wouldn't consider buying a car.
But buses take so long. I figure in the time I save in using a car I could plant some trees or kill some pilots to save the world. Or I could just play another 2.5 hours of video games a day.
Not economical now. Thirty years ago, people would have thought you were insane if you told them you could get oil at and around the edge of the West African continental shelf. Now deep water directional drilling is almost routine.
... and oil is $120 a barrel and rising. Do you see the link?
When you are going to more and more extreme lengths to get it, the price goes up. It will then reach a point where you start searching for alternatives.
Um, no, I don't see the link. The reason I don't see the link is because I know that exploration, development, and production costs are cheaper now per barrel than they have ever been. There's no real cost of producing reason that oil should be anywhere near $120 a barrel, much less the $200 that some dipshit alarmist was sputtering about yesterday. The guy who was raving about that has no clear understanding of the oil or energy business.
If you're talking about light sweet crude coming from existing wells, then I agree.
Unfortunately, most of the oil majors are locked out of developing those sorts of fields by national oil companies and so are turning to unconventional sources, which are more expensive than your conventional oil well (particularly shale oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics). Deep water drilling rigs are also hugely expensive to operate.
If much higher prices for oil are supposed to be spurring lots of extra production, it ain't happening. Why? The 'easy' oil accessible by western oil companies is more or less maxed out or in decline, and those national oil companies and governments have realised maxing out their production is not in their long term interest.
Add in rising demand which is bidding the price of oil up, a declining US dollar, and hey, you've got $120 oil.
It's what happens when supply (by which I mean production rates not reserves) is tight and demand is rising.
Not economical now. Thirty years ago, people would have thought you were insane if you told them you could get oil at and around the edge of the West African continental shelf. Now deep water directional drilling is almost routine.
... and oil is $120 a barrel and rising. Do you see the link?
When you are going to more and more extreme lengths to get it, the price goes up. It will then reach a point where you start searching for alternatives.
Um, no, I don't see the link. The reason I don't see the link is because I know that exploration, development, and production costs are cheaper now per barrel than they have ever been. There's no real cost of producing reason that oil should be anywhere near $120 a barrel, much less the $200 that some dipshit alarmist was sputtering about yesterday. The guy who was raving about that has no clear understanding of the oil or energy business.
If you're talking about light sweet crude coming from existing wells, then I agree.
Actually, not just talking about light sweet crude.
Unfortunately, most of the oil majors are locked out of developing those sorts of fields by national oil companies and so are turning to unconventional sources, which are more expensive than your conventional oil well (particularly shale oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics). Deep water drilling rigs are also hugely expensive to operate.
Expenses for developing and producing shale and getting at deep water resources are also shrinking as the technology matures (though, as your article points out, shale has its limitations as to how far it will go), especially with deep water. The technical challenge of drilling has become near-routine for deep water (though the North Sea is always dicey, but that's mostly because of weather). The current issue for deep water is the problem of getting raw crude to shore... 'course, that's why FPSOs are built. Angola looks strange now when you're flying in at dusk. It's hard to tell where the shoreline is until you're landed because of all the lights at sea. A few years ago, there was nothing to see out there.
If much higher prices for oil are supposed to be spurring lots of extra production, it ain't happening. Why? The 'easy' oil accessible by western oil companies is more or less maxed out or in decline, and those national oil companies and governments have realised maxing out their production is not in their long term interest.
The refineries have enough crude. They aren't running empty or close to it by any stretch, and are trucking along. If anything, the capacity issues we face in the near term are more along the lines of not having enough refining capacity rather than producing capacity.
1. Oil Shale. Look it up on wikipedia, the USA in #1 in the world when it comes to it.
2. If worse came to absolute worse, nuke plants can crack water for Hydrogen cars. We'd just need to build an assload of them
3. Proven oil reserves go up every year. The *problem* is that the easy to drill oil is running dry so we have to tap more difficult to reach sources. I think PA and some midwestern state recently had big finds, for instance, but wasn't worth developing until oil prices got so high.
Also, yeah, in defense of oil corps, a lot of that profit that everyone wants to tax the hell out of is honestly needed to fund these expensive developments and explorations that don't always pan out.
Economically, we're already seeing the beginnings of the death of the SUV and Hummer. Expect to see more electric cars (40-50 mpg) and some of your newer disel engines that can apparently get comperable MPG.
I think the market will force some of the inherant waste we've got to be handled better; forcing people to buy better cars, appliances, ect.
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
1. Oil Shale. Look it up on wikipedia, the USA in #1 in the world when it comes to it.
2. If worse came to absolute worse, nuke plants can crack water for Hydrogen cars. We'd just need to build an assload of them
3. Proven oil reserves go up every year. The *problem* is that the easy to drill oil is running dry so we have to tap more difficult to reach sources. I think PA and some midwestern state recently had big finds, for instance, but wasn't worth developing until oil prices got so high.
Also, yeah, in defense of oil corps, a lot of that profit that everyone wants to tax the hell out of is honestly needed to fund these expensive developments and explorations that don't always pan out.
Economically, we're already seeing the beginnings of the death of the SUV and Hummer. Expect to see more electric cars (40-50 mpg) and some of your newer disel engines that can apparently get comperable MPG.
I think the market will force some of the inherant waste we've got to be handled better; forcing people to buy better cars, appliances, ect.
The only problem with hydrogen right now is the infrastructure. Sure we can use nuke plants to do the electrolysis for us, but there are 12,000 Exxon/Mobil stations across the country. That's just them, and doesn't include Irving, Shell, Sunoco, Texaco, and any other company you can think of. Replacing those with hydrogen fillups is going to take decades, particularly the further from population centers you go. That's why I think electric cars are going to be the more likely possibility - nothing like filling up at home.
If much higher prices for oil are supposed to be spurring lots of extra production, it ain't happening. Why? The 'easy' oil accessible by western oil companies is more or less maxed out or in decline, and those national oil companies and governments have realised maxing out their production is not in their long term interest.
The refineries have enough crude. They aren't running empty or close to it by any stretch, and are trucking along. If anything, the capacity issues we face in the near term are more along the lines of not having enough refining capacity rather than producing capacity.
As indicated in the graph I posted earlier, *actual* production (not 'capacity') has been flat for several years now despite record prices. Demand is growing.
New production from unconventional sources is going to grow more slowly because the flow rate from shale and tar sucks. The North Sea, US and Mexico (and possibly now Russia) continue to decline. Most oil producing nations are flat out, others crippled by civil unrest (Nigeria), are using oil profits to fund social programs rather than invest in infrastucture (Venezuala) or have decided to put an artificial cap on production (Saudi Arabia) to save their reserves for the future.
Whatever new production you bring online has to first overcome existing declines before you get a net addition to global supply. This is getting harder and harder (running faster just to stay in place) because of the above factors.
Currently we pump 85 mbd (including condensates) and the IEA talks about demand reaching 120 mbd by 2030. We are not going to be able to achieve anything like that - it would required adding multiple Ghawar-size fields of production rate to get to that point, and when was the last time we found oil fields that size and production rate? Decades ago. Geologists regard Ghawar as a freak.
The IEA a couple of years ago were serene optimists, now their economics chief Fatih Birol thinks we have serious problems. As he says, if you do the math, the numbers ain't pretty.
Yeah I have started taking the metro (train) a couple times a week now instead of driving everyday. I would love to bike into work, but it just doesn't seem feasible (12 miles, heavy heavy traffic, clothes would be sweaty/trashed by the time I got there).
I have been making sure I shut off the AC each day before I leave for work.
I got a bike to ride around town ('74 perguot race bike), just need to oil up the chain.
1. Oil Shale. Look it up on wikipedia, the USA in #1 in the world when it comes to it.
The problem with oil shale is that it is not economical to extract, and, more importantly, does not actually yield a positive return on energy.
In fact scientists are doubtful that there will ever be a process for extracting useful petroleum products from Oil Shale that yields a positive energy return.
Edit:
Eh, I must have read some BS thing about oil shale previously cause most sources I checked just now show that it does have a positive EROEI. So, fuck my post above :P
1. Oil Shale. Look it up on wikipedia, the USA in #1 in the world when it comes to it.
The problem with oil shale is that it is not economical to extract, and, more importantly, does not actually yield a positive return on energy.
In fact scientists are doubtful that there will ever be a process for extracting useful petroleum products from Oil Shale that yields a positive energy return.
Edit:
Eh, I must have read some BS thing about oil shale previously cause most sources I checked just now show that it does have a positive EROEI. So, fuck my post above :P
You're not far wrong - oil shale has a pretty poor EROI. According to wiki, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics) Shell's research showed 3 or 4 to 1 which is low by most standards. It's also contrained by water demand.
1. Oil Shale. Look it up on wikipedia, the USA in #1 in the world when it comes to it.
The problem with oil shale is that it is not economical to extract, and, more importantly, does not actually yield a positive return on energy.
In fact scientists are doubtful that there will ever be a process for extracting useful petroleum products from Oil Shale that yields a positive energy return.
Edit:
Eh, I must have read some BS thing about oil shale previously cause most sources I checked just now show that it does have a positive EROEI. So, fuck my post above :P
You're not far wrong - oil shale has a pretty poor EROI. According to wiki, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics) Shell's research showed 3 or 4 to 1 which is low by most standards. It's also contrained by water demand.
Yeah in my readings of it, it is actually very very water intensive. And not just in a "severely polluting" way, In order to transform the Kerogen into useful petroleum products, water is actually consumed in the chemical reaction.
So while the process does yield a positive energy return (albeit a very low one) its far from an ideal solution.
Posts
Next year I plan on buying a high end motor scooter for commuting to work, short rides to around town and the city. I also plan on buying a somewhat more fuel efficient car than my old ass '97 Mustang GT.
All they have to do is explain that nuclear is safer because it does not require us to do business with countries with factions of citizens that like to lodge airplanes in our buildings.
So every country? Well that's not going to work.
(Assuming "lodge planes in to buildings" is a metaphor for terrorism)
Public transport in Perth is generally pretty good (they're really pushing to extend the light electric passenger rail network). I generally use public transport these days, and when I purchase an apartment later this year it will be near a train line.
I'm not sure if I will replace my car as it gets okay mileage and I don't use it a lot anyway .
Barely driving my Mustangs except on weekends to keep them "alive"... I won't ever give up my restored 1968 GT Fastback (looks like the car from Bullitt), but I'm going to sell the '06. I otherwise just drive my Accord to and from work and pretty much everywhere now. It's a V6, but it gets good gas milage. I maintain my cars pretty well and have cold air filters on them all to get the best milage I can get. I also shop/walk to more local places rather than ranging out. But, can't do that for everything... no good sushi or pho within walking distance.
By the time I pass I wont be able to afford petrol and be shoved back on the bus
I definitely wouldn't consider buying a car.
Well, the Hiddenburg was a poorly designed ship. I'm sure if we were forced to use hydrogen for zeppelins, we could make it safe.
Also, we're not running out of helium. We just can't easily access the largest source of helium (high up in the atmosphere).
You're right, NIMBYism is going to be the thing to beat with nuclear (though the "greenies" often attack wind power for the same reason, which is hilarious). A lot of the fear people have about nuclear is absolutely ridiculous, but getting people to see that they're scared for nothing is easier said than done.
It doesn't matter that Chernobyl was built by the Soviet Union in a time when they couldn't figure out how to use their farming equipment, much less a nuclear reactor. Or when the country was corrupt beyond belief, and was looking for any possible way to cut corners on anything. None of that matters, because you see, nuclear.
I'd love to use Three Mile Island as an example of why nuclear is so safe. Yes it was an accident, yes terrible things could have happened, but they didn't, and I feel that the way it was brought under control was a testament to how safe nuclear power is. Or, we could just point out that there are hundreds of nuclear reactors across the world, including on land and in ships and submarines, that have had zero issues...
The disposal part is tougher. I mean, I'm a big fan of the Yucca Mountain project, but the recent news about scientists falsifying data about runoff makes that harder to justify (even though runoff shouldn't be a problem in the first place, since it's.. you know.. in the desert). -shrug- France is doing a great job with nuclear, with something like 80% of their power coming from nuke plants. Hell, here in Vermont, 30% of our power comes from Vermont Yankee.
This article I notice gives no mention of the awesomely badass Tesla Motors and their Roadster. Booooo.
I'm driving my car less, since it gets around 30 mpg, and driving my wife's more, because it's closer to 40 mpg. And fuck buying a hybrid. Give me an electric car in a few years. :P
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
Funny story, I never gave a shit about gas prices because I drove a 2000 Honda Civic, which gets some comical amount of MPG, and then I bought a performance car, got rid of the civic, and pay 60$/week in gas to get to work.
I filled up the tank and /facepalmed into the gas pump
But buses take so long. I figure in the time I save in using a car I could plant some trees or kill some pilots to save the world. Or I could just play another 2.5 hours of video games a day.
If you're talking about light sweet crude coming from existing wells, then I agree.
Unfortunately, most of the oil majors are locked out of developing those sorts of fields by national oil companies and so are turning to unconventional sources, which are more expensive than your conventional oil well (particularly shale oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics). Deep water drilling rigs are also hugely expensive to operate.
Furthermore, I again direct your attention to this link: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3875
If much higher prices for oil are supposed to be spurring lots of extra production, it ain't happening. Why? The 'easy' oil accessible by western oil companies is more or less maxed out or in decline, and those national oil companies and governments have realised maxing out their production is not in their long term interest.
Add in rising demand which is bidding the price of oil up, a declining US dollar, and hey, you've got $120 oil.
It's what happens when supply (by which I mean production rates not reserves) is tight and demand is rising.
Expenses for developing and producing shale and getting at deep water resources are also shrinking as the technology matures (though, as your article points out, shale has its limitations as to how far it will go), especially with deep water. The technical challenge of drilling has become near-routine for deep water (though the North Sea is always dicey, but that's mostly because of weather). The current issue for deep water is the problem of getting raw crude to shore... 'course, that's why FPSOs are built. Angola looks strange now when you're flying in at dusk. It's hard to tell where the shoreline is until you're landed because of all the lights at sea. A few years ago, there was nothing to see out there.
The refineries have enough crude. They aren't running empty or close to it by any stretch, and are trucking along. If anything, the capacity issues we face in the near term are more along the lines of not having enough refining capacity rather than producing capacity.
Why?
1. Oil Shale. Look it up on wikipedia, the USA in #1 in the world when it comes to it.
2. If worse came to absolute worse, nuke plants can crack water for Hydrogen cars. We'd just need to build an assload of them
3. Proven oil reserves go up every year. The *problem* is that the easy to drill oil is running dry so we have to tap more difficult to reach sources. I think PA and some midwestern state recently had big finds, for instance, but wasn't worth developing until oil prices got so high.
Also, yeah, in defense of oil corps, a lot of that profit that everyone wants to tax the hell out of is honestly needed to fund these expensive developments and explorations that don't always pan out.
Economically, we're already seeing the beginnings of the death of the SUV and Hummer. Expect to see more electric cars (40-50 mpg) and some of your newer disel engines that can apparently get comperable MPG.
I think the market will force some of the inherant waste we've got to be handled better; forcing people to buy better cars, appliances, ect.
Margaret Thatcher
The only problem with hydrogen right now is the infrastructure. Sure we can use nuke plants to do the electrolysis for us, but there are 12,000 Exxon/Mobil stations across the country. That's just them, and doesn't include Irving, Shell, Sunoco, Texaco, and any other company you can think of. Replacing those with hydrogen fillups is going to take decades, particularly the further from population centers you go. That's why I think electric cars are going to be the more likely possibility - nothing like filling up at home.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
No, supply is an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Production
As indicated in the graph I posted earlier, *actual* production (not 'capacity') has been flat for several years now despite record prices. Demand is growing.
This is an indication of the number of countries where production has already peaked and is declining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Peak_oil_for_individual_nations
New production from unconventional sources is going to grow more slowly because the flow rate from shale and tar sucks. The North Sea, US and Mexico (and possibly now Russia) continue to decline. Most oil producing nations are flat out, others crippled by civil unrest (Nigeria), are using oil profits to fund social programs rather than invest in infrastucture (Venezuala) or have decided to put an artificial cap on production (Saudi Arabia) to save their reserves for the future.
Whatever new production you bring online has to first overcome existing declines before you get a net addition to global supply. This is getting harder and harder (running faster just to stay in place) because of the above factors.
Currently we pump 85 mbd (including condensates) and the IEA talks about demand reaching 120 mbd by 2030. We are not going to be able to achieve anything like that - it would required adding multiple Ghawar-size fields of production rate to get to that point, and when was the last time we found oil fields that size and production rate? Decades ago. Geologists regard Ghawar as a freak.
The IEA a couple of years ago were serene optimists, now their economics chief Fatih Birol thinks we have serious problems. As he says, if you do the math, the numbers ain't pretty.
I have been making sure I shut off the AC each day before I leave for work.
I got a bike to ride around town ('74 perguot race bike), just need to oil up the chain.
The problem with oil shale is that it is not economical to extract, and, more importantly, does not actually yield a positive return on energy.
In fact scientists are doubtful that there will ever be a process for extracting useful petroleum products from Oil Shale that yields a positive energy return.
Edit:
Eh, I must have read some BS thing about oil shale previously cause most sources I checked just now show that it does have a positive EROEI. So, fuck my post above :P
My stepgrandmother at the time tricked him into changing his will (Alzheimer's) and rerouted all of the land to her.
I guess going to the middle of nowhere and growing food to sustain my own life isn't a possibility now.
You should have decked her.
Or had your sister do it if you happen to be a guy.
You're not far wrong - oil shale has a pretty poor EROI. According to wiki, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics) Shell's research showed 3 or 4 to 1 which is low by most standards. It's also contrained by water demand.
There was some excitement recently about the 'hundreds of billions' of oil in the Bakken shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation#Oil_production_estimates) but the amount recoverable is something like 1%... and even that comes out very slowly.
Yeah in my readings of it, it is actually very very water intensive. And not just in a "severely polluting" way, In order to transform the Kerogen into useful petroleum products, water is actually consumed in the chemical reaction.
So while the process does yield a positive energy return (albeit a very low one) its far from an ideal solution.