LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
And assuming that is a bad thing... In Ireland the price of (converted to US gallons at $2.15 to the Punt) was about $4.25 in '80 - '81 and the folks, me among them seemed to get along ok... the price here was about $1.25 a gallon.
But, I do get the point. I guess we're spoiled in many ways versus other places.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I responded to this post but it got lost and I couldn't get back on... so I'll redoit.
My bill is still about $250 per month and I have a medical discount to keep the place warm that saves about $60 a month. A couple years back for the same period it was $125, $115, $130 so its doubled in any event. The Engineering Company that I work for is heavy into the power generation field.. co generation and all.. so we should consider using used cigarette butts as fuel and all that litter strewn about on the highway or maybe solar, hydro, nuke, and hydrogen fuel... could drink the water afterward.
Originally posted by: Purgatory-Z
Originally posted by: cpumaster
how much does it cost to send something to the sun? Isn't it cheaper to just send them to India or Pakistan? I heard they are actually looking to buy some spend fuel rod to be "processed" there and we could make some money
of course we might risked turning the world into a sun afterward, but hey for cheaper electric bill it's worth it right?
It costs approx. $20,000 per 1 pound to put it into orbit. Getting to the sun would incur a slightly higher cost. The risk of disaster if a shuttle full of this material was intercepted by a missle or had an accident during take off, combined with the cost, makes "sending the used fuel rods" to the sun an impractical idea.
Actually it's closer to $5000 a pound for a rocket launch, but it's still ridiculous expensive. We need a giant rail gun to shoot our trash into space.
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: Purgatory-Z
Originally posted by: cpumaster
how much does it cost to send something to the sun? Isn't it cheaper to just send them to India or Pakistan? I heard they are actually looking to buy some spend fuel rod to be "processed" there and we could make some money
of course we might risked turning the world into a sun afterward, but hey for cheaper electric bill it's worth it right?
It costs approx. $20,000 per 1 pound to put it into orbit. Getting to the sun would incur a slightly higher cost. The risk of disaster if a shuttle full of this material was intercepted by a missle or had an accident during take off, combined with the cost, makes "sending the used fuel rods" to the sun an impractical idea.
Actually it's closer to $5000 a pound for a rocket launch, but it's still ridiculous expensive. We need a giant rail gun to shoot our trash into space.
Space elevator right? I think they talk about it on howstuffworks
I read a good article today in the L.A. Times on the loss of the artifacts and the stuff in the museum. I mean we had complete security at many different oil wells and sites, even the Ministry of Oil, but 5 soldiers and a tank at the museum wasn't at the top of the list of priorities. The article went into the loss of the art and the culture of much of Iraq's past history, something that could have brough the country together, but was lost. This goes to show of the "priorities" of the administration oil was at the top of the list.
Found the article: http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-et-christopher18apr18.story
Found the article: http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-et-christopher18apr18.story
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote
It costs approx. $20,000 per 1 pound to put it into orbit. Getting to the sun would incur a slightly higher cost. The risk of disaster if a shuttle full of this material was intercepted by a missle or had an accident during take off, combined with the cost, makes "sending the used fuel rods" to the sun an impractical idea.[/quote]
Actually it's closer to $5000 a pound for a rocket launch, but it's still ridiculous expensive. We need a giant rail gun to shoot our trash into space.[/quote]
Well shooting it into space may be an option but, to allow it to ride down the mid ocean trench is cheap and doable. Lower it 38000 feet to ... say off the Marianna's and in a secure housing and in a years it be part of the core.
It costs approx. $20,000 per 1 pound to put it into orbit. Getting to the sun would incur a slightly higher cost. The risk of disaster if a shuttle full of this material was intercepted by a missle or had an accident during take off, combined with the cost, makes "sending the used fuel rods" to the sun an impractical idea.[/quote]
Actually it's closer to $5000 a pound for a rocket launch, but it's still ridiculous expensive. We need a giant rail gun to shoot our trash into space.[/quote]
Well shooting it into space may be an option but, to allow it to ride down the mid ocean trench is cheap and doable. Lower it 38000 feet to ... say off the Marianna's and in a secure housing and in a years it be part of the core.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Yep, Europe has much higher gasoline prices than the US when comparing price directly and they get along fine. But their economies have adjusted to that price and it's already taken into account in everything they produce. But it doesn't matter if the base cost is US or European, if it quadruples overnight we're screwed. The European economy couldn't survive an immediate jump to $15/gal or more any more than we could support $5/gal.
Basically what I'm saying is that the exact dollar figure is unimportant. It's the cost as a percentage of raw materials that would have the damaging economic effect.
apoppin
Lifer
Actually it's closer to $5000 a pound for a rocket launch, but it's still ridiculous expensive. We need a giant rail gun to shoot our trash into space.[/quote]
Well shooting it into space may be an option but, to allow it to ride down the mid ocean trench is cheap and doable. Lower it 38000 feet to ... say off the Marianna's and in a secure housing and in a years it be part of the core.[/quote]Technology will eventually take care of it . . . I imagine a working fusion reactor will not only replace the primitive current reactors (after all we're really just using atomic energy to "boil water") but will be able to disassemble the radioactive isotopes into harmless sub particles.
It what we do for the next few hundred years that is so critical.
I think if gas cost $5 a gallon, we'd have alternative fuels already.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Ok... lets stick with the US for awhile.
What would the affect be if the price of oil from OPEC went up to $60 a barrel. First, it would not last long at that price. The economic dynamics would titalate the world to produce to meet the demand... The possibility, in my mind, is very low even if the entire mid east area became .... unusable. Russia has oil, We have oil all over the place, South America the North sea etc. Investment in drilling to meet the demand would jump all over the world. In the short term there would be impact... inflated cost would trickle down in 12 to 18 months and you'd have about the same disposable income as today. Ok. there is the short term issue... it would cause a reduction in investment, savings and purchases but not materially. The poor folks would take the brunt, as usual. I do see the variety of products using petro to go haywire but consider the options available for each item that rockets up... brings in the elasticity of demand.. I gotta take a breath now.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Continuing..
The supply side of the equation would cause alternative intestment big time. You'd see all sorts of alternative fuel autos, the anti nuke folks would be tar and feather candidates... etc etc.. I'd like to see it happen in a controlled way, of course but eventually we will either run out of oil or the price will climb so high that added investment (supply siders) will give the ROI needed to equalize and get back to a more inelastic reality.. (at some price even inelastic stuff becomes elastic when alternatives are presented)
Now... this is what we pay the big bucks to the government to preclude.. if they fail in this... adieu!
The supply side of the equation would cause alternative intestment big time. You'd see all sorts of alternative fuel autos, the anti nuke folks would be tar and feather candidates... etc etc.. I'd like to see it happen in a controlled way, of course but eventually we will either run out of oil or the price will climb so high that added investment (supply siders) will give the ROI needed to equalize and get back to a more inelastic reality.. (at some price even inelastic stuff becomes elastic when alternatives are presented)
Now... this is what we pay the big bucks to the government to preclude.. if they fail in this... adieu!
Naturally we could have declared war on the terror of energylessness instead of Iraq and embarked on a massive government led effort to solarize the US.
Emos
Golden Member
- Oct 27, 2000
- 1,989
- 0
- 0
Technology will eventually take care of it . . . I imagine a working fusion reactor will not only replace the primitive current reactors (after all we're really just using atomic energy to "boil water") but will be able to disassemble the radioactive isotopes into harmless sub particles.[/quote]
Actually there's a new process in the works that can transform ANY kind of carbon based waste into oil, natural gas, water, carbon and mineral solids. If it works as well as this article hopes it could meet most of our current energy needs.
Thermal deploymerization plants being considered.
Here's a thought . . . make it more expensive and everybody will use less. Sux for capitalism but it will do wonders for conservation.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
As usual rossgr hits the nail on the head with simple deduction, "war for oil" and "war for dollars threads", duh, it's an obvious consideration. Why should the free world allow a pugnatious Dictator like Saddam or anyone else control such a large natural resource we all need and use the proceeds to harrass us and our friends if we can put a stop to it? We should'nt and we did'nt and usually don't. You can believe if want, it's about freedom, WMD, or saddams hegemony in the ME but like all things follow the money trails. There are plenty of Saddams in Africa which we have no financial intrest to do anything about and several in Asia we can't do anything about.
Oh man who wants to sign up for the Columbia International Affairs Online?
In the absence of oil reserves we would NOT have invaded and attempted(ing) to occupy it. Iraq was a choice target b/c the costs of invasion could be defrayed once the occupation was in full force. Furthermore, the country could then serve as a launchpad for operations throughout the region without having to kowtow to a resident oligarchy (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen) or rare republic (Turkey).
In the absence of oil reserves we would NOT have invaded and attempted(ing) to occupy it. Iraq was a choice target b/c the costs of invasion could be defrayed once the occupation was in full force. Furthermore, the country could then serve as a launchpad for operations throughout the region without having to kowtow to a resident oligarchy (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen) or rare republic (Turkey).
9/11 was a wake up call for the USA. All the terrorists were from Saudi-Arabia. I bet that Bush was a bit shocked to find out that these wackos were from the USA's most "loyal" arab ally. The SA royal family are as much dictators as Saddam. I don't see the Bush administration bringing democracy and liberty to SA. The USA had a distrust for SA for years and 9/11 together with WMD is the perfect excuse to install a new puppet regime in the region. The latest news is now that the US is talking about a (semi)permanent military presence in Iraq. This contradicts what the Bush administration has been saying for the last couple of months ("we're out of there the minute that a Iraqi govt. is installed, we have no intentions to stay in Iraq").
the influence of the euro in the region.
Saddam became a hero in the arab world because he used the euro for the limited Iraqi oil export. He made a killing (estimates are in the billions) because of the fluctuations between the dollar and the euro. Suddenly the other OPEC countries are also considering using the euro for the oil export. A lot of Americas economic strenght is based on the fact that a lot of the world trade (and in particular the oil trade) is in dollars. A switch to the euro would be devastating for the USA. The first thing that the Bush administration did when Saddam was gone is the start of the dollarisation of Iraq. When the Iraqis resume the oil export, I'm very curious to see if the Iraqis will have the possibility to use the euro (my guess is that the USA will prevent this at any cost and will leave the new Iraq govt no choice to use the dollar).
Bush is executing the middle-east policy of wackos like Wolfowitz (sp) and perle (sp). These warmongers don't give a sh*t about the UN or any other international body. Their policy is based on the military supremacy of the US and they have no problems using tactics like "preemptive strike" and "nation building (read: install a pro-USA puppet regime)" to have it their way.
Everyone thinking that the USA is in Iraq for "democracy" or even the WMD needs a new brain. This is all about geopolitics and influence in the strategically most important region in the world.
lower oil prices were not a reason for the war, but certainly a great added benefit that they of course knew would happen because of it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter