High Price of Gas Discussion(s)

robeiae · Jun 3, 2008

icerose said:
But this is the problem.

Say there is a real gas shortage and most people like you don't believe there is one. Where then, will these alternatives appear from?

The same question could be asked everytime there is a shortage of anything, perceived or otherwise.

I'm not talking about panic, I'm not talking about hasty decisions, but I am talking about innovation that needs to happen right now. Even if there is enough gas to last us a while, the price is going to continue going up and up and up. World consumption is going up. It doesn't matter if we cut our consumption by half, China and India will gladly gobble up what we don't go for.

What's left then? War for oil? I don't want war, I don't want riots, I don't want panic. I want sensible solutions for a very real problem. Neutral sources have proven we have a problem, now we may find a solution, we may find massive oil fields that haven't been discovered yet, but what if we don't? Relying on blind luck seems a bit hazardous to me.

People ARE working for solutions. Those solutions will happen as they become economically viable. That's all.

icerose · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist either. But one of the things I heard is that the EV-1 requires a totally unique and revolutionary battery, and that the patent on the battery was bought by a major oil company (the accusation I heard was that the culprit was suposedly Exxon-Mobil) and then they refused to allow the manufacture of the battery. They bought back all the existing cars from what few people actually owened any, shreded them, destroyed all the batteries, and now will not allow that battery to be manufactured. TOTAL conspiracy theory, the makings of urban legends, and very intriging. I'd like to learn if it's just silly nonsense.

Thank for the link!

I know this has happened in other situations, not sure about the EV-1 but it wouldn't surprise me.

Anyway, a man built a carburetor system that would work with existing engines, he was able to crank out 60mpg on the great big tanker trucks, he received death threats and such from oil companies and eventually sold the patent.

Another man built a solar panel out of plywood and copper wire that was able to conduct electricity to his entire house and GM bought the patent. I haven't seen any super cheap and efficient and strong solar panels hit the market, have you?

DWSTXS · Jun 3, 2008

icerose said:
I know this has happened in other situations, not sure about the EV-1 but it wouldn't surprise me.

Anyway, a man built a carborator system that would work with existing engines, he was able to crank out 60mpg on the great big tanker trucks, he recieved death threats and such from oil companies and eventually sold the patent.

Another man built a solar panel out of plywood and copper wire that was able to conduct electricity to his entire house and GM bought the patent. I haven't seen any super cheap and efficient and strong solar panels hit the market, have you?

I was told that one had to go through all sorts of applications and licenses and fees and stringent qualifications to put solar panels on a house. I know that the homeowners association where I lived in the past would NOT allow them.
Some cities do not allow them.

here's a link:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50627

Plot Device · Jun 3, 2008

Okay. I almost never do this, but unfortunately in this case I have to.

I stopped reading HERE:

robeiae said:
I'm saying that you are taking current conditions and projecting them into the future, AS IF THEY ARE STATIC. They are not.

The idea that a change in an economic sector will lead to unemployment is nothing knew. And it's somewhat of a truism. But it doesn't lead to PERMANENT unemployment. Again, the economy--in every sector--changes. We cannot absolutely predict those changes and the consequences thereof. People who insist that they can are simply wrong.

And the reason I stopped there is I am talking about the economy of Mexico, NOT the USA.

I am convinced that you are either mistakenly talking about the economy of the USA, or else that you have no idea how bad the Mexican economy has chronicaly proven to be for over 50 years now, and how much of a beautiful godsend that the Cantarell Oil Field has been to their economy, and how horrible it will be when that field gets depleted.

To draw an analogy, it was horrible for the US economy back in the 1970's and 1980's when Detroit was staggering toward the edge of bankruptcy. And I believe Mexico will likewise suffer. Back in the 1970's, the auto industry was so key to the overal health of the Amercian economy that it used to be said: "When Detroit coughs, America catches cold." I suspect we can probably apply the same principle to Mexico: "When Cantarell coughs, Mexico catches cold."

I am astounded that anyone could speak hopefully of the prospects of the future of the Mexican economy, considering how many of their citizens every single year are literally willing to risk death in an attempt to flee from their nation and try for a new life here in the USA. So once again, either you are mistakenly taling about the US economy, or you just don't grasp how bad off Mexicans have it.

As for the rest of your post, sorry, I didn't even bother.

robeiae said:
You want to argue that an oil-based transportation sector is at an end. Good enough. Forgetting whether you are right or wrong about this for the moment, you want to then proceed with an analysis of current conditions and anticipate future ones by positing a "what-if" with regard to that change.

It doesn't work that way. A simple example: once upon a time, there were no computer or mechanical phone systems. Every call had to be routed through operators, at every level. Every message had to be written down by human hands. And every message had to be delivered or picked up by human agency. These things changed. How many man-hours were used doing these things, prior to such change? How many jobs disappeared, after the change? But that doesn't represent a permanent change in labor distribution. It doesn't mean that there is no some percentage of the labor force out of work, for ever and always. Yet, you seem to think that is the way it works.

A change in the transportation sector--whatever the cause--will certainly affect many, IN THE MOMENT. But it is wrong-headed to 1) predict the exact extent of such, 2) assume the effect is permanent, and 3) assume what the immediate consequences will be, barring any evidence of such.

You are engaging in wild speculation on a number of levels.

I get that you are researching "peak oil," that you may very well understand many things about this topic. But you should be careful when you use such understanding to derive opinions on the consequences. I can say the same thing to many global-warming alarmist, scientist and lay-man alike, who suppose they know the consequences for the economy.

Economics is not--imo--a science. Not yet, anyway. It is, however, a very difficult field. To suppose one can have predicative power--long and short term--within it is, frankly, nonsensical.

robeiae · Jun 3, 2008

kuwisdelu said:
But what you're missing is that all of your examples have happened in fields in which there is--and always has been--fast development. The sectors of the economy you're talking about are constantly changing. But our sources of energy has long been fairly static relative to everything else.

No, you're wrong. It's a time frame issue, really. It depends on where you start and where you end. Look at your next statement:

We've always had power from water, from wind, from burning natural fuels. Recently we've gotten power from solar panels and nuclear power, but those sources of energy have not yet moved out of a few niche circles. Almost everything--for the last hundred years and more--has been fueled by fossil fuels, with the mistaken notion that we will always have enough of it.

Change in one hundred years. Global change. In a huge wave. THAT is not even close to being static.

What you are doing is holding onto a time frame for oil consumption and wrongly applying it to other changes. Try this: means of long distance communication--over land--from 1400 to 1600 c.e. Or this: means of construction from 1000 to 800 b.c.e.

There is no reason to suppose--given historical reality--that fossil fuels are beyond vital, as they exist now. And even then, the artificial production of fossil fuels remains a possibility. The future is unclear...

Too many people still believe that, and that's why I think we'll be lucky to come up with an alternative in time. I'm not saying we won't, not saying it's impossible. I hope we do. But that will be the lucky outcome.

Necessity and invention and all that.

robeiae · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
Okay. I almost never do this, but unfortunately in this case I have to.

I stopped reading HERE:

And the reason I stopped there is I am talking about the economy of Mexico, NOT the USA.

I am convinced that you are either mistakenly talking about the economy of the USA, or else that you have no idea how bad the Mexican economy has chronicaly proven to be for over 50 years now, and how much of a beautiful godsend that the Cantarell Oil Field has been to their economy, and how horrible it will be when that field gets depleted.

You are utterly and completely wrong.

To draw an analogy, it was horrible for the US economy back in the 1970's and 1980's when Detroit was staggering toward the edge of bankruptcy. And I believe Mexico will likewise suffer. Back in the 1970's, the auto industry was so key to the overal health of the Amercian economy that it used to be said: "When Detroit coughs, America catches cold." I suspect we can probably apply the same principle to Mexico: "When Cantarell coughs, Mexico catches cold."

An awful analogy--like most analogies.

I am astounded that anyone could speak hopefully of the prospects of the future of the Mexican economy, considering how many of their citizens every single year are literally willing to risk death in an attempt to flee from their nation and try for a new life here in the USA. So once again, either you are mistakenly taling about the US economy, or you just don't grasp how bad off Mexicans have it.

You don't grasp what I am saying, quite clearly. I wasn't trumpeting anything. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your thinking. It doesn't matter--with regard to what I was saying--how good or bad the Mexican economy is, was, or will be.

You are drawing conclusions re the consequences of "peak oil" that you can't support. At all.

As for the rest of your post, sorry, I didn't even bother.

Because you don't understand what I am saying? Look, you want to opine on peak oil and what it is, knock yourself out. But if you think your knowledge on that topic translates into knowledge about general economics, you're wrong. And imo, you look foolish. Perhaps you might realize that you don't know enough of the subject matter to make such prognostications. Perhaps you might want to learn why that is. Or not.

Plot Device · Jun 3, 2008

robeiae said:
People ARE working for solutions. Those solutions will happen as they become economically viable. That's all.

But the point is:

CHEAP oil is now at an end. And with no CHEAP alternatives in sight capable of CHEAPLY shoudlering the same amount of CHEAP horse-power that CHEAP oil has provided for the past 90 years, we will lose a grip on the curent structure of our INEXPENSIVE industrialized society and teeter into irreversible economic depression.

Plot Device · Jun 3, 2008

icerose said:
I know this has happened in other situations, not sure about the EV-1 but it wouldn't surprise me.

Anyway, a man built a carburetor system that would work with existing engines, he was able to crank out 60mpg on the great big tanker trucks, he received death threats and such from oil companies and eventually sold the patent.

Another man built a solar panel out of plywood and copper wire that was able to conduct electricity to his entire house and GM bought the patent. I haven't seen any super cheap and efficient and strong solar panels hit the market, have you?

Oh God. Thanks but I really really want proof of this.

Anyone got a link????

Plot Device · Jun 3, 2008

DWSTXS said:
I was told that one had to go through all sorts of applications and licenses and fees and stringent qualifications to put solar panels on a house. I know that the homeowners association where I lived in the past would NOT allow them.
Some cities do not allow them.

here's a link:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50627

Wow.

The federal government in Israel makes it MANDATORY for ALL Israeli houses to have solar panels to heat each household's hot water.

How silly for anyone to make them illegal!

icerose · Jun 3, 2008

DWSTXS said:
I was told that one had to go through all sorts of applications and licenses and fees and stringent qualifications to put solar panels on a house. I know that the homeowners association where I lived in the past would NOT allow them.
Some cities do not allow them.

here's a link:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50627

We're pretty lucky around here. As long as a structure,addition, whatever isn't more than 10'x10' they don't care. If I did put solar panels on my house, whenever I actually get a house, it would have to pass safety code. But other than that they really don't care.

Shadow_Ferret · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
CHEAP oil is now at an end.

I think it's the beginning of cheap oil. As we all begin to make the hard decision to move away from fossil fuels, as we start to share commutes, move to more environmentally friendly fuels, everything I've outlined in my posts, then the law of supply and demand will ensure that oil prices will start to come down again.

But we'll have moved away from that, so you'll see the CEO's of Exxon and BP standing on the corner with signs, "Please buy our gas. Cheap!"

One of our alderman is proposing that the city grant each homeowner a $20,000 loan to upgrade their homes with solar panels.

Plot Device · Jun 3, 2008

robeiae said:
You are utterly and completely wrong.

An awful analogy--like most analogies.

You don't grasp what I am saying, quite clearly. I wasn't trumpeting anything. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your thinking. It doesn't matter--with regard to what I was saying--how good or bad the Mexican economy is, was, or will be.

You are drawing conclusions re the consequences of "peak oil" that you can't support. At all.

Because you don't understand what I am saying? Look, you want to opine on peak oil and what it is, knock yourself out. But if you think your knowledge on that topic translates into knowledge about general economics, you're wrong. And imo, you look foolish. Perhaps you might realize that you don't know enough of the subject matter to make such prognostications. Perhaps you might want to learn why that is. Or not.

I am refusing to engage you because you are changig the subject, and I will not fall for it. Sorry.

Here's my complaint against your posting:

The subject I spoke of was the potential (as cited by oil industry watchers) for a drastic increase in illegal immigration of Mexicans into the USA if the Cantarell Field runs dry in Mexico. I also added to that the fact that GM (according to a news item posted by icerose) is now closing down an entire pant in Mexico (thus cutting off the inward flow of money from a outside revenue stream).

But you brought uttery non-relevent issues of economic theory, and not one of your second-year economics student statements made any reference at all to the realities in Mexico's economy nor to the realities of Mexicans crossing our border every year (due to personal aspirations for having a better life). You're makig geenralizations that sound like you have education o economics in general, but do NOT show you know anythig moreabout Mexico's economy that I or anyoe else here. You're talking a lot of flowery collegiate level stuff and yet NOT linkig it to the subject at hand. That might impress and intimidate some people, but it keeps on having no bearing on Mexico or illegal immigration. And I am neither impressed nor intimidated.

Sorry. Either bring the conversation back around to the subject at hand (which is illegal aliens), or I will politely refrain from responding to your posts.

icerose · Jun 3, 2008

On a side note I have a deep-seated dislike for HOA's. My brother had just moved into a neighborhood, his wife was about due and they hadn't had a chance to paint the house yet. They hadn't even gotten all of their stuff in before the HOA was pounding on their door demanding the house be painted.

His wife went into pre-mature labor before they could finish unpacking, nearly died in the hospital, and had to stay in for two weeks. When they got back, their house was painted to the HOA's chosen color, they didn't even get a choice, and a bill was tacked onto their door to the tune of 2500 dollars for the professional painter. It was absolutely unbelievable. Needless to say, they moved as soon as they could.

My aunt moved into a gated community in Arizona and the realitor had forgotten to have them sign the HOA agreement, so they moved in, not even knowing there was an HOA there, when they came knocking on the door with the contract and a list of demands.

My aunt refused to sign it and when the HOA threw a fit, they started doing all kinds of creative things just to piss them off. For over a month, they had fiesta stripes down their house. Once the HOA finally left them alone, it took about two years of these kinds of stunts to get them to realize they were only making things worse, then she painted her house the way she had always wanted it, which wasn't in line per-say with the HOA desires, but wasn't a total opposite like the others had been.

This sounds like something I would do in that situation.

Plot Device · Jun 3, 2008

Shadow_Ferret said:
I think it's the beginning of cheap oil. As we all begin to make the hard decision to move away from fossil fuels, as we start to share commutes, move to more environmentally friendly fuels, everything I've outlined in my posts, then the law of supply and demand will ensure that oil prices will start to come down again.

But we'll have moved away from that, so you'll see the CEO's of Exxon and BP standing on the corner with signs, "Please buy our gas. Cheap!"

One of our alderman is proposing that the city grant each homeowner a $20,000 loan to upgrade their homes with solar panels.

Okay, letme try THIS angle:

Here's the flaw to everyone saying "supply and demand will take care of it and the price will come down".

Instead of my saying: "This is the end of cheap oil" why don't I simply say "This is the end of light sweet crude, and all we've got left is heavy sour, tar sands, and shale oil."

That's essentially the same as saying: "This is the end of Tin. All we've got left now is Silver, Gold, and Platinum."

NOW do you see the problem?????

For someone to say "Let them use shale oil" is as silly as saying "Let them eat cake."

icerose · Jun 3, 2008

Shadow_Ferret said:
I think it's the beginning of cheap oil. As we all begin to make the hard decision to move away from fossil fuels, as we start to share commutes, move to more environmentally friendly fuels, everything I've outlined in my posts, then the law of supply and demand will ensure that oil prices will start to come down again.

But we'll have moved away from that, so you'll see the CEO's of Exxon and BP standing on the corner with signs, "Please buy our gas. Cheap!"

One of our alderman is proposing that the city grant each homeowner a $20,000 loan to upgrade their homes with solar panels.

I disagree. We "only" use 25% of the world's supply. As the supply drops, and the WORLD demand increases in places such as China and India, they'll be begging us to not ask for so much because they don't have it to give. We are not alone on this planet. We are not the only ones using oil, yes we use a lot of it, but not all of it, and a far cry from most of it. If Exxon can't sell oil to us, they'll gladly sell it to the chinese or whoever can buy it.

Oh, and Exxon only provides us with about 9% of our oil. It'll be a long time before they have their hat out and are begging on the streets.

Shadow_Ferret · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
NOW do you see the problem?????

I see the problem. I've seen it all along.

You're a glass is half-empty sort of girl.

I'm a glass is half full sort of guy.

icerose said:
I disagree. We "only" use 25% of the world's supply.

I meant "We" in the global sense, not "We" as just the U.S. and A. This is a global problem. China isn't getting cheap oil now either.

icerose · Jun 3, 2008

Shadow_Ferret said:
I see the problem. I've seen it all along.

You're a glass is half-empty sort of girl.

I'm a glass is half full sort of guy.

I meant "We" in the global sense, not "We" as just the U.S. and A. This is a global problem. China isn't getting cheap oil now either.

Okay "We" in a global sense are demanding more oil, not less, and it's expected to skyrocket.

Shadow_Ferret · Jun 3, 2008

icerose said:
Okay "We" in a global sense are demanding more oil, not less, and it's expected to skyrocket.

Sure, if things continue as they are.

You don't think people are already making changes? Already planning policy? Already tweeking inventions?

Tirjasdyn · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
Sorry. Either bring the conversation back around to the subject at hand (which is illegal aliens), or I will politely refrain from responding to your posts.

The subject is actually gas.

And who cares that gm is closing a plant? Is Volkswagon...THE car of mexico?

Tirjasdyn · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
Okay, letme try THIS angle:

Here's the flaw to everyone saying "supply and demand will take care of it and the price will come down".

Instead of my saying: "This is the end of cheap oil" why don't I simply say "This is the end of light sweet crude, and all we've got left is heavy sour, tar sands, and shale oil."

That's essentially the same as saying: "This is the end of Tin. All we've got left now is Silver, Gold, and Platinum."

NOW do you see the problem?????

For someone to say "Let them use shale oil" is as silly as saying "Let them eat cake."

Pet peeve time:

You can't mine TIN. I'd be more specific but no I don't want to.

Shadow_Ferret · Jun 3, 2008

Tirjasdyn said:
Pet peeve time:

You can't mine TIN. I'd be more specific but no I don't want to.

"It is estimated that, at current consumption rates, the Earth will run out of tin in 40 years."--wikipedia

Just something else for ya'll to worry about.

DWSTXS · Jun 3, 2008

Shadow_Ferret said:
"It is estimated that, at current consumption rates, the Earth will run out of tin in 40 years."--wikipedia

Just something else for ya'll to worry about.

I'm sure that the people who don't believe that there is a oil problem would disagree with that and counter with: 'We'll never run out of tin...'
LOL

Shadow_Ferret · Jun 3, 2008

DWSTXS said:
I'm sure that the people who don't believe that there is a oil problem would disagree with that and counter with: 'We'll never run out of tin...'
LOL

Probably, but I don't know anyone who thinks oil will last forever though.

robeiae · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
I am refusing to engage you because you are changig the subject, and I will not fall for it. Sorry.

No I'm not. You just don't like disagreement

Here's my complaint against your posting:

The subject I spoke of was the potential (as cited by oil industry watchers) for a drastic increase in illegal immigration of Mexicans into the USA if the Cantarell Field runs dry in Mexico. I also added to that the fact that GM (according to a news item posted by icerose) is now closing down an entire pant in Mexico (thus cutting off the inward flow of money from a outside revenue stream).

1) That's speculation.
2) The relevant portion of your post: "The loss of their collective personal income will have a serous reverberation in the Mexican economy, causing other Mexican people to lose their own jobs, etc.

If we add to this the loss of all those jobs at the GM plant in Mexico, then we are looking at a soon-coming situation of hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Mexicans possibly trying to cross the broder into the US in the next two to three years."

Why will it have a "serious reverberation"? Why are we looking at a "soon-coming situation" like this? Again, you're assuming you can know these things. It's not that simple. That was the gist of my point. But because you don't want to think that your speculations may be built on shaky ground, you run.

But you brought uttery non-relevent issues of economic theory, and not one of your second-year economics student statements made any reference at all to the realities in Mexico's economy nor to the realities of Mexicans crossing our border every year (due to personal aspirations for having a better life).

See, now you're going into something else, entirely. The border issues are real. But you think you have the acumen to posit what affect the end of cheap oil will have on those issues. So far, you haven't made the case. I doubt you can. I doubt anyone can. It's speculation, and poorly informed speculation, at that.

And if you are gonna predict the effects on the economy at large of peak oil, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim economic theory is irrelevant.

You're makig geenralizations that sound like you have education o economics in general, but do NOT show you know anythig moreabout Mexico's economy that I or anyoe else here.

Again, the specifics of Mexico's economy are inconsequential to what I am saying to you.

You're talking a lot of flowery collegiate level stuff and yet NOT linkig it to the subject at hand. That might impress and intimidate some people, but it keeps on having no bearing on Mexico or illegal immigration. And I am neither impressed nor intimidated.

Posting bit after bit of info on peak oil doesn't mean you know jack about economics. This part of your post pretty much makes that clear. So keep thinking you're in the know on this, that you're ahead of the curve. I know that makes people feel good. It's human nature.

But my posts were designed to demonstrate why some aspects of your conclusions are invalid, at best. You don't want to consider the possibility that you're wrong, yet you have no problem making that judgement about others.

Sorry. Either bring the conversation back around to the subject at hand (which is illegal aliens), or I will politely refrain from responding to your posts.

You've already been less than polite. And really, I don't care. Do what you want. Just try to come to grips with the fact that predicting the future and holding onto those predictions as if they were absolutes is not gonna get you anywhere. You'll join Malthus and his ilk, eventually.

rugcat · Jun 3, 2008

Plot Device said:
You're talking a lot of flowery collegiate level stuff and yet NOT linkig it to the subject at hand.

I knew there was a reason I disagree with Rob so often. I never finished college, and I resent anyone who did as a snobby elitist.

Besides, I'm sure Rob spent his entire college career demonstrating to his professors why they were wrong. About everything.

Of course, he might have had a point there.

High Price of Gas Discussion(s)

Touch and go

Lost in School Work

Mr Mojo Risin...

A woman said to write like a man.

Touch and go

Touch and go

A woman said to write like a man.

A woman said to write like a man.

A woman said to write like a man.

Lost in School Work

Court Jester

A woman said to write like a man.

Lost in School Work

A woman said to write like a man.

Lost in School Work

Court Jester

Lost in School Work

Court Jester

Outline Maven

Outline Maven

Court Jester

Mr Mojo Risin...

Court Jester

Touch and go

Lost in the Fog