Brovane
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 6,377
- 2,579
- 136
If you want a good site on Crude Oil and all sorts of statistics check out this site - http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
You can see how the US uses all of its crude oil imports and all sorts of fun data like in 2007 the US imported 3,656,170,000 barrels of Oil and 1,968,765,000 of that oil came from OPEC. So over half of US imports come from OPEC countries.
All sorts of fun stats like the US used 179,005,000 barrels of oil in 2007 for Asphalt and road oil usage.
You can see how the US uses all of its crude oil imports and all sorts of fun data like in 2007 the US imported 3,656,170,000 barrels of Oil and 1,968,765,000 of that oil came from OPEC. So over half of US imports come from OPEC countries.
All sorts of fun stats like the US used 179,005,000 barrels of oil in 2007 for Asphalt and road oil usage.
It will be, i've got a number of running bets with friends that it will be, if it isn't, i'll be down a couple grand.
That way you'll limit your losses to just the Bets.WOW. So much freakin fail, you are simply dumb.
http://static.howstuffworks.co...l-refining-diagram.gif
You only get so much material to use for plastics out of a barrel of oil. Not using the oil for fuel doesn't suddenly free up oil for plastics and synthetics.
I hope soon enough the gas prices will get high enough that the greenies will say "screw it, I want cheap gas, you guys can drill Alaska".
also, this company:
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/
was featured in PopSci recently.
They say they've got a way to develop gasoline from sugar using some enzyme (which uses CO2 in the process). They're not publicly traded so I doubt they're lying for funding. They've got plenty of that AFAICT.
Take that greenies, science solves all. Get your nasty government out of my economy.
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/
was featured in PopSci recently.
They say they've got a way to develop gasoline from sugar using some enzyme (which uses CO2 in the process). They're not publicly traded so I doubt they're lying for funding. They've got plenty of that AFAICT.
Take that greenies, science solves all. Get your nasty government out of my economy.
What you know about solar power was true 20 years ago. Times have changed.
Solar power does NOT require photovoltaic cells for generation. This is but one option. A more efficient (cost-effective) method is to essentially use mirrors to boil water, which runs a turbine. No rare materials are required (unless you consider mirrors to be particularly rare). Allow the steam chamber to be a nanotube coated surfaces (environmentally friendly) for maximum efficiency.
Solar power does NOT require batteries for supplying energy at night. In the regions most ripe for solar power, cloudy days are rare, so there's an automatic plus. These regions also happen to be home to some of the largest abandoned mine shafts in the world. Using molten salt (ie filling the unused shafts) as an energy storage medium is a well-understood cost-effective process.
HVDC transmission lines are an effective, nearly lossless (less lossy than standard AC lines) method for transferring the power from place to place, and the AC converters are actually a lot cheaper than you'd think.
I suggest you actually read up on modern solar power. Newscientist and Scientific American each did a series of very informative articles regarding the latest advancements in the last 5-10 years. In 50 years the US could be running on over 90% solar power for its electricity if we start laying down the infrastructure and investment NOW. The initial cost is high, but over a long time it will be cheaper to run on solar power than coal (which has been seeing a price spike in recent years).
Today, solar is just slightly more expensive per kW/hr than nuclear, which is only slightly more expensive than coal (factors of two). Coal is going up in price. Nuclear is a PR nightmare despite being safe and cost-effective, but its price is pretty much Solar is going DOWN in price every year as more research is conducted.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Plastics don't necessarily have to be made from petroleum, though. As with gas cars, up until recently oil was cheap, so nobody bothered researching alternatives. Now that oil prices are on the rise and there is more of a push for greener products, though, I think a lot of money is being dumped into bioplastics research. With oil prices increasing and more focus on bioplastics research, it's only a matter of time until they are more cost effective than their petroleum-derived equivalents.
WOW, you are simply a retard. The fuels you showed in your diagram can all be used for OTHER PURPOSES. Gasoline does NOT need to be burned in our cars. It can be used to create derivative products, just like the rest of the items on your diagram. Congratulations, you're a moron.
Also, by using the word "greenie" you've revealed yourself as a douchenozzle.
Edit: Furthermore, less gasoline consumption = less demand for oil = LOWER PRICES PER BARREL = lower prices for all products derived from oil
You == FAIL
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
One of my favorite things head wrt the gas issue was at a warehouse I worked at during a few summers:
"What the government should do is just set the price of gas back to $1/gallon - force everyone to sell it at that price."
He was the shift manager and not exceptionally bright, so it probably would have been unwise to tell him that that's been done before, and that it was called "communism."
The sooner we find some alternative to oil, the better. It's a finite resource, and no amount of complaining or propaganda is going to change that.
"What the government should do is just set the price of gas back to $1/gallon - force everyone to sell it at that price."
He was the shift manager and not exceptionally bright, so it probably would have been unwise to tell him that that's been done before, and that it was called "communism."
The sooner we find some alternative to oil, the better. It's a finite resource, and no amount of complaining or propaganda is going to change that.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Before we develop and deplete our own reserves, we need to first purchase as much as we can from the Middle East. Why? Much of OPEC is potentially hostile to Western interests and ideology.
1. Buy as much of their oil as possible, while retaining our own reserves.
2. Make sure OPEC countries do not spend their profits on sustainable infrastructure where possible.
3. When OPEC countries run out of oil, US still has reserves and is sitting pretty.
4. Potentially hostile culture loses main source of income, and thus becomes ineffective on the world stage.
Long-term geopolitical thinking.
1. Buy as much of their oil as possible, while retaining our own reserves.
2. Make sure OPEC countries do not spend their profits on sustainable infrastructure where possible.
3. When OPEC countries run out of oil, US still has reserves and is sitting pretty.
4. Potentially hostile culture loses main source of income, and thus becomes ineffective on the world stage.
Long-term geopolitical thinking.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Then we'll have other countries attacking us for our oil, perhaps WWIII (oil countries vs. non-oil countries). Great idea!
The way I look at it, humanity is going to be pretty screwed if we don't ween ourselves off crude. Turning it into an "our oil, their oil" thing is just silly IMO.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
I'm just saying a few countries hoarding all the world's oil cannot lead to anything good. We'll be sitting pretty... until China decides to send over a few hundred million soldiers to take over our pumps and refineries.
I'll concede it's a pretty far-fetched scenario, but you never know. Wars are waged all the time over valuable resources (be it land, precious metals, diamonds, etc.).
I'll concede it's a pretty far-fetched scenario, but you never know. Wars are waged all the time over valuable resources (be it land, precious metals, diamonds, etc.).
Captante
Lifer
- Oct 20, 2003
- 30,353
- 10,876
- 136
All the people who make their money from oil have been dragging their feet & discouraging developement of alternative energy sources since the first oil crisis back in 1974.
The fact that we still rely on oil as a primary energy source 35 years later is just pathetic.
Well at least one guy who made billions from oil is investing elsewhere.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/19/pickens.qa/index.html
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Meanwhile, Brazil started investing heavily into commercializing ethanol, and can now boast an EROEI of 8:1 on their ethanol production. One could argue that sugarcane is a higher-yield carbohydrate source than anything we can grow here in the states, but if we had started investing into research decades ago, who knows where we'd be by now. I'd imagine we would have already figured out cellulosic biofuels, and could be turning non-food crops (switchgrass, for example) and waste plant material (grass clippings, corn stalks, expired vegetables, etc.) into ethanol or other biofuels.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
Would you want oil wells pumping outside your bedroom window 24/7? What kind of quality of life does that give? You don't care so long as you can fill up your SUV that gets 15mpg for under $50?
Everyone blames environmentalists but really we should blame ourselves for the decades we've been doing nothing but handwringing and burying our heads in the sand somehow telling ourselves that it is our right to be wasteful.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
Are treehuggers really to blame for our lack of participation when it comes to drilling for oil in areas like Alaska, Antarctica, and various other places? How does this all work out economically? Is it too expensive to drill the oil in most of these locations?
I do blame treehuggers when it comes to Nuclear power though. I would like to see us use Nuclear energy a lot more. I'm not green enough to care about the waste considering our current methods to dispose of it. Those methods are good enough for me.
I do blame treehuggers when it comes to Nuclear power though. I would like to see us use Nuclear energy a lot more. I'm not green enough to care about the waste considering our current methods to dispose of it. Those methods are good enough for me.
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