Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    forgive me if I am wrong but the last time the oil spiked in price it was the beginning of the recession.
    You're not. Oil pricing spiking was the catalyst of the recession.

    I take a very practical position on our oil consumption: The government must do its best to incentivize the diversification of our fuel sources for transportation, because we cannot survive another 50 years when we burn oil for 99% of our transportation needs. Its going to have to be a mix of electric cars, plug in hybrids (like the Volt), and LNG. The U.S. is too vulnerable to swings in oil prices. There needs to be options, and unfortunately we have seen that the market won't protect the consumer in this regard. There will not be a gradual upward adjustment in prices. it can be violent, quick, and cause massive economic damage. As much as I hate government hand-outs, this is one area where we need to step it up. Its critical to our national security.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmond, OK
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarZin View Post
    You're not. Oil pricing spiking was the catalyst of the recession.

    I take a very practical position on our oil consumption: The government must do its best to incentivize the diversification of our fuel sources for transportation, because we cannot survive another 50 years when we burn oil for 99% of our transportation needs. Its going to have to be a mix of electric cars, plug in hybrids (like the Volt), and LNG.
    Veering a little off the subject of prices, I had to call this one out. I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but since you brought up the above, here is my response...

    What is the above based on? Why wouldn't we be able to survive another 50 years using oil? Why does it HAVE to be some alternative source like electric, hybrid, or LNG?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarZin View Post
    You're not. Oil pricing spiking was the catalyst of the recession.

    I take a very practical position on our oil consumption: The government must do its best to incentivize the diversification of our fuel sources for transportation, because we cannot survive another 50 years when we burn oil for 99% of our transportation needs. Its going to have to be a mix of electric cars, plug in hybrids (like the Volt), and LNG. The U.S. is too vulnerable to swings in oil prices. There needs to be options, and unfortunately we have seen that the market won't protect the consumer in this regard. There will not be a gradual upward adjustment in prices. it can be violent, quick, and cause massive economic damage. As much as I hate government hand-outs, this is one area where we need to step it up. Its critical to our national security.
    I agree, its amazing to me we actually keep supplying the world with enough oil considering how many millions of barrells they export daily. Its not an infinite resource and someday we will run out. And if this happens when we have no other energy alternatives in place it will be catastrophic and cause massive problems throughout the world.

    We need water, the sun and oil to survive. Remove one of these and it everything would come to an end.
    White/Charcoal, 2011 VLX
    2008 Supra 22SSV

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    What is the above based on?
    Lots and lots of hard data from many many sources. You can take your pick between the IEA or EIA or nongovermental agencies. Conventional crude (the stuff easy to get) peaked a few years ago. Crude is getting harder to find, and its costing a lot more to extract. If you believe the EIA, we have a few decades to prepare for an undulating plateau, where crude production will peak, and production willnot be able to increase. Other govermental agencies are forecasting a plateau sooner than later (a decade or so off). If you believe the peak oilers (I think they have been severely discredited over the past couple of years), then we have already reached peak production, and production of non conventional crude will not be able to keep up from the decline in production in the giant oil fields.

    So, sooner than later, everyone agrees that production of oil will peak. The big questions are 1) When 2) How quickly will the decline be and 3) How will the world respond.

    We experienced a little snippet of this in 2008. The only reason we were saved from even higher prices is that the world wide recession significantly reduced the demand for oil. It basically gave us some breathing room. In points of 2008, the world was consuming more oil than it could produce. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens to prices when a relatively inelastic good becomes more scarse. Part of my theory would basically be a continual cycle of world recessions that start and end with oil production/demand being unbalanced.

    Why does it HAVE to be some alternative source like electric, hybrid, or LNG?
    What other choices are there? Electric cars will use fuel from power plants that we source most of the fuels locally. Plug-in Hybrids would allow people to mostly avoid gas by giving them electric range, then extended gas range when they need it. LNG is already proven to work really in vehicles, and the U.S. is sitting on vast reserves.

    Put it another way... The U.S. produces about 5.2 Million Barrels a day of oil,and consumes about 19 Million. We rely on Canada (mostly) to make up the difference. We are not going to drill our way out of independence. I ABSOLUTELY think we should drill all over the U.S., but this will only help to prolong ultimate fate.

    We need to go ahead and diverify before it is too late.
    Last edited by CarZin; 03-09-2011 at 07:44 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmond, OK
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    You can also find all kinds of data from sources saying there is more oil than we know what to do with and/ or sources that hold potential for huge supplies that haven't been tapped and/ or explored. There are just as many saying that as there are saying we're in danger of running out, from what I've seen and read.

    I can see the argument for LNG. Electrics and plug in hybrids, or standard hybrids don't seem practical.

    Similarly, shifting to energy supplies for the home, solar, wind and in many cases water don't prove to be very practical either.

    Ultimately, punishing fossil fuel usage doesn't seem to hold water from what I've seen. The reasons behind trying to shift off them seem to be based on false premise. Whether it be the climate change argument or the limited resource argument, there still appears to be disagreement and the same amount of "experts" arguing both sides.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Unfortunately most of the sources that state there is enough oil to meet growing energy needs at the same cost level aren't very credible. I fear politicians know far less than they should, and this issue is far too politicized. My concerns are strictly economical. Has nothing to do with the environment. I think it is foolish we shun the use of coal.

    But you miss my point. I actually do not want to see oil users being punished. What I want is for the government to subsidize alternatives, by which they essentially progress alternatives past the early adopter period (the expensive period) so there are viable alternatives for the masses. I made no reference to solar or wind. I'm not as concerned about base power production. We are sufficiently diversified. Our domestic power generation issues are political.

    What people don't understand is that there is HUGE risk at hoping future production quotas can be met.

    Electric hybrids are very practical. Pure electric cars currently are not. The cost of electric hybrids will come down quickly in the next 5 years to make them available to people who can afford a prius.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmond, OK
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Yeah, I'm not a big fan of subsidizing. Let technology stand on its own. If a technology has the potential to be a real solution, it will be invested in by the private sector and it will grow. Government subsidizing doesn't usually result well and costs us all money we never get back.

    If you think that isn't true, explain to me how well ethanol is working for us.

    It's interesting to me that the sources stating oil isn't as limited as some think don't seem credible to you. Do you know what the sources are?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    "If you think that isn't true, explain to me how well ethanol is working for us."

    Pointing out one failed subsidy doesnt make an argument that all subsidies are bad. Ethanol was a stupid idea that was pushed on the political weight of congressmen that wanted to fatten the pockets of their farmers. You didnt see many true energy people thinking this was a good idea. The $7500 government credit for electric cars is going to have the same effect that the government credit for Hybrids had for cars like the Prius. It is mainly because of that credit that allowed the hybrid technology to grow and get established. Yes, Diesel can get as good of mileage as a lot of hybrids, but since diesel is a byproduct of gas production, there wont be enough diesel to go around to provide everyone with a TDI. Again, diverisification is the key.

    I want to see a mix of gas/hybrid, plug in hybrid, LNG, and pure electric on the road.


    "If a technology has the potential to be a real solution, it will be invested in by the private sector and it will grow. "

    Well, the problem is that there is tremendous risk for anyone to go against oil. It isnt a typical market. In fact, you are betting on a market that is manipulated by foreign powers for political and monetary means. It is not a free market. Car companies dont want to risk developing a new technology if they arent positive there will be buyers. That means tha we dont get new technology until there is a crisis. In other words, it will be too late.

    "It's interesting to me that the sources stating oil isn't as limited as some think don't seem credible to you. Do you know what the sources are? "

    Please show me your sources. If you want, I'll be happy to give links to our own Department of Energy's oil forecast, and a few others.
    Last edited by CarZin; 03-09-2011 at 11:03 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmond, OK
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarZin View Post
    "If you think that isn't true, explain to me how well ethanol is working for us."

    Pointing out one failed subsidy doesnt make an argument that all subsidies are bad. Ethanol was a stupid idea that was pushed on the political weight of congressmen that wanted to fatten the pockets of their farmers.
    Most of the push for us to get off oil and go to alternatives is being pushed by congressmen that want to fatten the pockets of their lobbyists, as well. One failure doesn't mean all ideas are failures, I agree. But, when it is politicians pushing the idea, it becomes very questionable based on the track record.

    Quote Originally Posted by CarZin View Post
    "If a technology has the potential to be a real solution, it will be invested in by the private sector and it will grow. "

    Well, the problem is that there is tremendous risk for anyone to go against oil. It isnt a typical market. In fact, you are betting on a market that is manipulated by foreign powers for political and monetary means. It is not a free market. Car companies dont want to risk developing a new technology if they arent positive there will be buyers. That means tha we dont get new technology until there is a crisis. In other words, it will be too late.
    Risk is part of any business and any investment. Which do you prefer...

    The government decides to take the risk and gamble with tax money (your money) and fails. We all pay and get nothing in return..."oh well" says the politician that voted to take the risk.

    or...

    A private investor decides to take the risk and gambles their money, then fails. They are the only one that pays and they realize that investing in more likely successful options would be the better way to go for the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by CarZin View Post
    "It's interesting to me that the sources stating oil isn't as limited as some think don't seem credible to you. Do you know what the sources are? "

    Please show me your sources. If you want, I'll be happy to give links to our own Department of Energy's oil forecast, and a few others.
    Look into what various energy companies are saying. They are the sources that are contradicting the "we're running out" crowd from what I've read.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    "But, when it is politicians pushing the idea, it becomes very questionable based on the track record."

    Trust me. Most politicians havent even woken up to the problem. As much as I want us to drill more, this doesnt solve the problem. It just puts it off. And that is the solution the majority speak of. I think that the energy subsidy for electric cars was luck... the politicians wanted to prop the car companies and jobs, and it just so happened to progress the goal of diversification. I dont think it was done intelligently. It it, however, rare when the real needs coincide with political needs.

    "The government decides to take the risk and gamble with tax money (your money) and fails. We all pay and get nothing in return..."oh well" says the politician that voted to take the risk."

    I dont think you are looking at this from the right way. If there is an energy crisis, and there will be, the only losers will be us. You should consider diversification a HEDGE against the possibility of a crisis. It is our insurance policy. Most people on here wont drive a boat or have a house or car without an insurance policy. Right now, the U.S. has no insurance policy against an oil crisis.

    I am not stating we wont be able to meet demands for the next 30 years. I am saying it is worth protecting against the possibility, even if it means national debt.

    "Look into what various energy companies are saying. They are the sources that are contradicting the "we're running out" crowd from what I've read. "

    Now, I dont know about you, but I think we've learned that listening to company executives isnt the first place we go for the truth. Just look at the last couple of years. But, if you want to go there, Shell's CEO in 2008 has publically stated that peak oil is a real threat, and there are many reasons oil companies around the world may not be able to keep up with growth. He isnt alone.

    Again, if I were summarize all my thoughts in one sentence:
    The threat to the U.S. economy is far too great for us not to hedge in every possible way to protect us again above ground (political) and below ground (geological) supply issues for oil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •