# Why gas prices are so high



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

Someone asked why gas prices are so high. The answer is basically that the world is starting to run out of oil. It will take 50-150 years to fully run out of oil, but the start is now and the hurt will probably be in 20-50 years. 

Oil has been really cheap until 1-2 years ago. If you adjust for inflation, it's been about as cheap as it ever was. Oil is 3x cheaper than bottled water at the store. 

But, we are now at the end of cheap oil. Oil prices will probably go up to $200 a barrell in 5-10 years, which will probably mean $7 a gallon or so. Then we will wonder why we wasted so much oil 5-10 years ago with our SUV's and other habits. The government should have the foresight to even out price between the past and the future and to start conversion away from oil by taxing cheap oil in the past. The future shock won't be fun. But, this isn't the first time government didn't have foresight. 

In 50 years we'll have all these cool 4 lane freeways that will be mostly empty. There will be all these expensive rural homes (Castle Pines, etc.) that noone wants. Then our kids will say "what were they thinking?" Why didn't we use the gas more wisely rather than blow it so quickly? 

There really isn't an alternative to oil for mobile transport. Ethanol and bio diesel will dent the shortage by 5-10%, but they can't replace the volume we are using. The thing that will keep us from running out of oil entirely in 50 years is the massive heavy oil deposits in Venzuala and the tar sands in Canada, but it will be expensive, say $500+ a barrel. 

The reason we are running out of oil is that the Mideast can't keep up oil production. It's a secret that's starting to come out. All these massive reserves the Mideast claimed are exaggerated.


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

> There really isn't an alternative to oil for mobile transport.


No? How about the velomobile? Need to travel farther? Try an electric vehicle (likely fuel cell). Now you say, "where's the electricity/hydrogen going to come from?" Likely it will be nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and tidal generation plants. Not one or the other, but all the "alternative" technologies we have, working together to meet our needs. Oil's heyday has come and gone; now it's time we let it go and move on.

As for a more immediate answer to "why are gas prices so high," we need to look at the "state of the world." A barrel of oil costs nearly $70 now. This has to do with several factors: production has been reduced in the Gulf of Mexico by last years hurricane season, political unrest in Nigeria (a major oil exporter), uneasiness over Iran, and a shift in winter to summer fuel mixes. On top of the fuel mix shift, refiners are eliminating the use of MTBE (the additive in summer mixes). They are replacing MTBE with ethonol which is more expensive and more of it (volumetricly) needs to be added to gasoline to have the same effect as MTBE. And finally, what basil said: we are running out. Oil, like everything else, is a supply and demand problem. We are moving into a prolonged period of high demand and weakening supply. With that comes higher prices. It turns out, also, that the oil companies want one last huge profit margin. They have been turning-in the highest profit gains ever lately.

So what's the solution? First, conserve. Don't drive so much. Drive a more fuel efficient vehicle. Use mass transit. Carpool. Ride your bike. Die (mostly kidding, for "moral" reasons). Do what you can to "be a part of the solution, not the problem." Live in a smaller home, closer to where you need to be every day. The list goes on and on, but most importantly, support the companies and poloticians that are honestly trying to make a difference.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Seems like a good place to point out that after the fiscal quarter when prices spiked to over $3/gallon Exxon-Mobile reported record profits not just for them, but for any incorporated entity in history.

Sure there's a more organic problem. But the immediate high price of gas is due mostly to corporate greed. 

"Yeah, capitalism." --Austin Powers

Doc Brown's Delorian ran on banana peels...I don't understand why my honda can't.


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

A velomobile??? Is that a bike? 

I think we are on the same page, but I'm not sure about this:


> Try an electric vehicle (likely fuel cell). Now you say, "where's the electricity/hydrogen going to come from?" Likely it will be nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and tidal generation plants. Not one or the other, but all the "alternative" technologies we have, working together to meet our needs.


Except for nuclear, the others can't practically produce enough electricity to replace the energy we use with oil. Don't kid yourself. Nuclear may, but that will be expensive. Also, making hydrogen from electricity is very inefficient. I think you waste 3x the energy you produce. Battery powered cars cost $40K, are small and slow, and go only 150 miles at best. 

I don't see a cost effective substitute for oil. Our lives will change, as you point out. 

I like the volunteer spirit, but that will amount to 10% of the population doing the right thing. Life is hard when you aren't in school. People hate it, but getting people/society to change their habits requires strong action by the government.


----------



## lagoonia (Oct 21, 2004)

Thought this was a good article. Its not big oil's fault. $4.00 + per gallon will be the best thing to ever happen to efficiency and alternative technologies. 

It would be interesting to know how much the average kayaker/skier/outdoor enthusiast drives compared to the average person and what type of car they own. I bet its significantly higher and I don't see alot of hybrid shuttle rigs. I am not trying to knock us as a group (I contribute as bad as anyone), but I just think its interesting that most of us would like to consider ourselves as greener than the average individual. 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/12/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes


----------



## mescalimick (Oct 15, 2003)

Fidel Castro is gonna drill for oil 45 miles of the coast of Lousianna. We can just buy it from him.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

mescalimick said:


> Fidel Castro is gonna drill for oil 45 miles of the coast of Lousianna. We can just buy it from him.


Sweet.


----------



## danvill (Mar 11, 2006)

basil said:


> Someone asked why gas prices are so high. The answer is basically that the world is starting to run out of oil. It will take 50-150 years to fully run out of oil, but the start is now and the hurt will probably be in 20-50 years.
> There are an estimated one trillion barrels locked up in the lagest energy reserve on the planet do you know where that is they pumped 1500 barrels two months ago
> 
> Oil has been really cheap until 1-2 years ago. If you adjust for inflation, it's been about as cheap as it ever was. Oil is 3x cheaper than bottled water at the store.
> ...


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

*Here's something you can do...*

This thread is pretty far off topic, but nonetheless one that is worthwhile.

It's temping to get caught up in thoughts of radical change in our oil situation--$7/gal gas, empty road, universal usage of renewable energy, etc--but these changes will probably take longer than we expect. As gas prices go up, and as high prices begin to seem the norm rather than the exception, alternatives to buying high price gas will become more attractive. Some will drive less; high shipping costs will make products cost more so that people ultimately buy and ship less; etc. And people will once again pay attention to fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, auto makers are slow to react to people's interests. Demand for hybrid cars is outpacing supply. Some American automakers are dragging their feet on hybrids. Their excuse is that they are working towards hydrogen cars...just wait until 2020 or so. No wonder they're losing market share.

Diatribe aside, I think hybrids and plug-in hybrids are one of the more significant ways we can cut our gas use. Plug-in hybrids have all of the advantages of standard hybrids--greater efficiency and longer range than an all-electric car--with one more: you can charge their batteries off of the electric grid at night. They can then run entirely on electricity for the first 20 to 40 miles you travel before any gas is consumed. This means that for most of your around-town trips, you'd use mostly electricity to power your car.

The surprising thing is, with current electric rates, the cost of the electricity equates to about $0.75/gallon. And even if you're utility burns coal to generate electricity, CO2 emissions (the global warming gas) is cut by 40%. Some other emission (NOx and SO2) go up a little. But here's the best part. Most utility's allow you to choose to pay a bit extra to get all of your energy from wind power. If you do this, you're car's emissions on electric power would be zero, and you'd still be saving on your "gas" bill (your effective cost per gallon would be about $1.15). Another benefit is that replacing gas with electricity means we send less money out of the country for oil. Most of our electric fuels come from North America, and wind turbine manafacturers tend to be in the US and Europe.

Unfortunately, you can't rush out and buy a plug-in hybrid. Although the technology works, it's a little expensive. With mass production, the additional cost of a plug is estimated at less than $10,000. Car companies are reluctant to offer this, since the gas cost savings don't pay for the added cost within the typical life of a car. But as gas prices rise, this will become cost effective. And maybe we'd be better off putting some federal funding towards this effort, which can reduce our dependance on foreign oil, rather than funding a military presence in the Middle East in an attempt to keep foreign oil flowing.

For more information, and to sign a list to tell car manufacturers you are interested in buying a plug-in hybrid, check out www.pluginhybrids.org.


----------



## tk (Apr 8, 2005)

lagoonia said:


> It would be interesting to know how much the average kayaker/skier/outdoor enthusiast drives compared to the average person and what type of car they own. I bet its significantly higher and I don't see alot of hybrid shuttle rigs. I am not trying to knock us as a group (I contribute as bad as anyone), but I just think its interesting that most of us would like to consider ourselves as greener than the average individual.


Very true lagoonia. I ran across this recently after a day of skiing in Silverton. Some guy drove his work truck (From Williams i think) there to ski and everyone was giving him grief that he worked for a oil & gas company. Then a quick look around the parking lot and I saw no hybrid vehicles or even a vehicle which got over 25 mpg, so in one way we are part of the problem. I know personally I live where i ride my bike to work and most all of my basic every day needs. But where I'm far from green is driving to go kayak or ski. Not because I don't have fun runs close by, but because Escalante, Vallecito, run X, or Y is flowing or something like that. I'm sure most of us are like that 

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a former Saudi oil minister, was quoted saying The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil The Economics of supply and global demand will breed new inovation, such as this.

http://cellounge.com/jaminusa/2006/toyota-prius-to-top-110-mpg/


----------



## offline (Apr 13, 2006)

Just curious, but what kind of gas mileage do you think a Prius would get with 4 creekers strapped to the roof?


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

basil said:


> Except for nuclear, the others can't practically produce enough electricity to replace the energy we use with oil. Don't kid yourself. Nuclear may, but that will be expensive. Also, making hydrogen from electricity is very inefficient. I think you waste 3x the energy you produce.


I'm not so sure that these sources of energy can't produce the amount of energy it would take to get us off oil--I haven't seen those numbers. But there are other concerns. Cost is a problem for solar. Currently, it is about the most expensive source of energy there is. The wholesale price of solar is about five times that of wind, and nearly six times the cost of electricity from coal. There might be enough wind energy to displace all gasoline use, but it's not clear how much wind the electric grid can handle...maybe 20 or 30% of the grid's capacity. Nuclear power could do it, and probably at a cost close to our current electric rates, but it's a matter of debate whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

I completely agree with your point on hydrogen. I think hydrogen will find a niche, but it won't be in hydrogen stations on every corner to fuel our cars. The losses are just too great.

I don't think any one source of energy is going to solve all of our energy problems. I wouldn't trust anyone who claims their pet technology will do it all. We just need to start taking steps in the right direction. And we need a government that isn't in the pocket of the oil industry.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Can you not use solar-generated DC current for hydro-fission? We have an awful lot of sun in the western us, and an awful lot of otherwise barren land. I think that hydrogen will be as strong a contender as fuel cells once the refridgeration techniques are perfected for vehicle use.

As far as SUVs and whatnot - I think the point is being missed. As far as I am concened, the question is not do you drive an SUV or big truck, but do you make reasonable use of the qualities of that vehicle which cause it to consume more gas than an ordinary vehicle? In other words, are you pulling a trailer, roaming over your 300 acre farmland, driving on jeep trails or the like? If you are, then you've got a good reason to own that vehicle which morally justifies the higher fuel consumption. If you are using your Excursion to commute from Highlands Ranch to the Tech Center and that's about it, I think that is irresponsible and immoral. 

Between the snowy roads in the mountains and certain shuttle roads, most boaters are totally justified to own an SUV or 4x4. If you don't ski and you never need to drive jeep trails for shuttles or other backcountry travel, then a normal car is a more sound choice. I just don't accept the blanket indictment of all SUV and 4x4 owners. (For the record, I do not own an SUV, I sold it for a wagon - before gas prcies spiked.)


----------



## tim dice (Jul 6, 2004)

*there is no shortage of oil*

Gas prices are high because of market manipulation, not a shortage of oil. The US invaded Irag TO KEEP THE OIL OFF THE MARKET--thus allowing the administration's buddies to reap giant profits by price gouging and keeping the supply low. This allowed them to open the Artic Wildlife Refuge to drilling---the same type of ploy that was used to ram the Alaskan Pipeline through--then it was the "Arab Oil Embargo" Who are the Arabs? Exxon, Shell, etc. it is all a smoke screen to enrich the oil companies and allow their cronies to rule.


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

Caspian said:


> Can you not use solar-generated DC current for hydro-fission? We have an awful lot of sun in the western us, and an awful lot of otherwise barren land. I think that hydrogen will be as strong a contender as fuel cells once the refridgeration techniques are perfected for vehicle use.


Yes, but the solar is already expensive relative to the amount of energy it produces. Add the cost of the hydrolyzer, and it's even more expensive. The hydrolyzer converts only about 80 or 90% of the solar energy into hydrogen, and even the most efficient fuel cell available is only about 50% efficient. (Simply burning hydrogen in an engine is even less efficient.) So you get less than half the energy you started with, and the cost per unit energy delivered is over twice the cost of the solar electricity (which was expensive to begin with). Using hydrogen generated in this manner would probably be more than twice as expensive than today's gas prices. If these economics worked, or looked like they'd work in the near future, it would make sense to figure out better ways to store the hydrogen.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

*Re: there is no shortage of oil*



tim dice said:


> Who are the Arabs? Exxon, Shell, etc.


Tim - are are suggesting that the oil companies are controlling the leadership of the oil-rich Arab states?


Paul - you seem well-versed in the ins and outs of these alternative energy sources, which I am not, so I defer to your technical points -- but what of the fact that these are renewable sources that require much less maintenance than a coal plant or oil refinery? Would that not more than make up for the fact that the initial cost is heavy - esp. when oil starts hitting $100/bbl?


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

> Between the snowy roads in the mountains and certain shuttle roads, most boaters are totally justified to own an SUV or 4x4.


I agree somewhat, but mostly disagree. Living in both Snowmass and Denver, there has never been a day that I could not get to the ski hill (I drive a Honda Civic). The majority of shuttle roads in Colorado are negotiable with my civic also. Of course, some creative driving is neccessary once in awhile. The times I wish I had high clearance or four-wheel drive are very far and few between.



> A velomobile??? Is that a bike?


Not exactly a bike, but it is human powered. A velomobile is more or less a human powered, single occupant car. They typically have three wheels (two up front, rear wheel driven), are fully (or at least mostly) enclosed, have all the lights a car has including blinkers, and occasionally have an electric motor assist. Check 'em out here: http://www.velomobiling.net/



> I like the volunteer spirit, but that will amount to 10% of the population doing the right thing. Life is hard when you aren't in school. People hate it, but getting people/society to change their habits requires strong action by the government.


Life is even harder when you are self-supporting and in school. I have an 80 hour work week. It's a good thing I have the GI Bill and a loving, supportive wife. I agree with you that people are hard to change, but when there is no alternative (no gas to fuel their cars) people will have no choice but to change. We don't neccessarily need "strong action by the govenment." Remember, usually the biggest change any country sees is when the people go against their government (read: revolution). (Not that revolution will solve our problems, it was just an example of how we do not NEED government help. Of course, government involvement can be very benificial.)


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

Caspian said:


> I think that hydrogen will be as strong a contender as fuel cells once the refridgeration techniques are perfected for vehicle use.


To calrify: our current fuel cell technology uses the energy released from the chemical reaction of hydrogen combining with oxygen (making water). Most of the time when people speak of cars running on hydrogen, this is what they mean. Of course, we can also stick with combustion and burn the hydrogen like we do gasoline. BMW has (or had?) a vehicle that does just that. Other companies are considering that route as well.

Electrolysis (using electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen gas) is not the only method used to produce hydrogen. Currently it is reformed out of natural gas. This still uses a fossil fuel that is of limited supply. Another option being worked on is direct extraction of hydrogen form water using a solar device. There are others working on designing bacteria that "exhale" hydorgen (much like how plant life "exhales" oxygen).

A hydrogen economy is not dead in the water just because electrolysis is inefficiant. There are other ways that may work out better.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

earthNRG - I'm not saying that it isn't possible to go rough places if you know how to drive off-road. But when someone is actually using the transfer case regularly and not just toting it around the city, I think its ownership is justified. You are correct that most shuttle roads are navigable by a Civic. But I think it is somewhat amiss to point the finger too much at the boating community when most boaters use the size and functionality of their 4x4s and boaters tend to possess a generally greater stewadship for the land and its resources.

Not that we are perfect, but the real problem lies with the SUVs that are not given serious mountain use - there are millions of these and most are in states where there are not mountains or heavy snowfall, and they get limited to the same roads as a Corvette.


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

First of all, there is no shortage of oil. If you beleive that, you are following the Bush propaganda waaay too closely, and not checking any actual facts. The estimations you (Basil) provided may be accurate on the current reserves (although I have not researched to verify your claim), but new reserves are found every day. There is so much oil on this planet that is yet to be discovered, there is no way anyone can possibly predict when we will "run out". The statement about the reserves in the Middle East being used up, and that being the primary reason for high gas prices, is absolutely absurd! We import far more oil from Canada than we do the Mid East, and as others have stated, it is very apparant that the oil companies have been price gouging the US consumer, hence the record profits. They blamed the war in Irag, they blamed the hurricanes, but I never went to a gas station and saw a sign reading "Out of gas due to our refinary being 10' underwater in Louisianna."

There is no shortage of oil. There won't be a shortage of oil for thousands if not millions of years. It is estimated that the largest oil reserves in the world haven't even been touched yet (Siberia), due to a lack of resources in Russia. Not to mention the fact that we can litterally make our own oil from biomass at a viable efficiancy of up to 560% (produces 85% more energy (oil) than it consumes to make), if we were to ever run out (Thermal Depolymerization).

All that aside, I don't agree with using up our fossil fuels. I firmly beleive that nuclear power is the best option we have available in the sense that it is the cheapest source of power we can currently produce, the waste (although not environmentally friendly) is containable, which is not something you can say about burning fossil fuels. The problem is that the mass society beleives it to be a horrible and dangerous source of energy. Technology has greatly improved over the past two decades regarding safe Nuclear waste storage. Not to mention the amount of waste is FAR less than the waste emitted from fossil fuels. To compare, producing electricity to power Denver for a day from a nuclear site, would create about as much waste as the tip of a ball point pin, which can be stored safely and disposed of. The same energy produced by burning coal or oil, emits TONS of waste into the air, which we breath, it gets mixed in with rain, so we drink it, we eat it, we kayak on it.

I also beleive we will be seeing a lot more Geothermal power plants popping up all over the world. However, I don't know much about the technologies surrounding Geothermal power, other than it uses heat from the earth (deep within the earth) to heat up and steam water, which rises to the plant. (p.s. buy stock on Ormat Technologies, ORA, it's performing great, and you can be proud to support a clean energy source).

As far as Hydrogen is concerned...yes, it's a great fuel source that emits only water for exhaust. However, it is very inneficient to seperate hydrogen from water, and hydrogen doesn't exist naturally on it's own. The electricity it consumes in the process of seperating Hydrogen will polute the air more than a car consuming gas. Unless, of course, you use nuclear or geothermal energy to seperate the hydrogen, but it is still ineficient, and not a viable fuel source for cars (by the way, Fuel Cells and Hydrogen powered cars are the same. Fuel cells work off Hydrogen). Until technology increases to the point where we have a more efficient way to seperate hydrogen, don't expect to be driving a car with a fuel cell.

Electric cars? This is about the worst option out there. Where do you think the electricity comes from? Not to mention the added heavy metal polution from the batteries.

Solar? To build a solar infrastructure large enough to sustain cities would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions per city. If everyone in Denver had the income of Bill Gates, we could afford the taxes and I'd be all for it, but with my income, I say stick with coal, build a nuke plant, or a geothermal plant.

Clint


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

Agreed. The boating community does have a greater use of large vehicles than does the commuter in their Hummer. At some point I'd like to have a beater high clearance vehicle for those odd days when I need to pull a trailer or get to a rough put-in. On the days I don't NEED the oversized fuel guzzler I'll stick to my civic.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Probably the ideal setup for minimizing consumption.

***

There may be lots of oil, but any reputable geologist will tell you that the amount that is cost-effective to extract is only enough to last 30-150 years more at current rates of consumption. None of them are going to say that there are hundreds, let alone thousands of years worth of oil left that is actually practical to extract and use.


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

*Re: there is no shortage of oil*



Caspian said:


> ...but what of the fact that these are renewable sources that require much less maintenance than a coal plant or oil refinery? Would that not more than make up for the fact that the initial cost is heavy - esp. when oil starts hitting $100/bbl?


The price comparisons I mention are levelized prices--meaning they include all costs of producing the electricity including paying off the equipment, paying for fuel, and paying for maintenance. I can only assume gasoline prices include the cost of maintenance on the oil refineries. And if they don't, someone's not doing their job.

I don't know what oil price it will take to make solar+hydrogen competitive. I just think there are other options that will make sense before solar+hydrogen. Even wind+hydrogen would make more sense. Solar will have to come down in price by 50% or more to really compete with other renewable options. Until then, it needs pretty hefty subsidies, or people that just like to do it because they think it's neat.



earthNRG said:


> Electrolysis (using electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen gas) is not the only method used to produce hydrogen. Currently it is reformed out of natural gas. This still uses a fossil fuel that is of limited supply. Another option being worked on is direct extraction of hydrogen form water using a solar device. There are others working on designing bacteria that "exhale" hydorgen (much like how plant life "exhales" oxygen).
> 
> A hydrogen economy is not dead in the water just because electrolysis is inefficiant. There are other ways that may work out better.


Yes, there are other ways to make hydrogen. I think we can rule out getting it from natural gas in the long term, since we're already seeing a natural gas shortage and it doesn't much reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Making it with biological processes is interesting, but will it work, when, and at what cost? 

Electrolysis is not really that inefficient...80 or 90% is pretty darn good as far as energy processes go. But the losses don't end there. You also have to think about the efficiency of transporting the hydrogen (about 90%) and the fuel cell (50% in theory). The net efficiency of this is 38%. Not only are there losses, but there is a lot more equipment (some of it not yet available, or available only at very high prices): electrolyzer, hydrogen delivery infrastructure, and fuel cells.

Assuming you're starting with renewable electricity, why go through the added complication and losses of converting to hydrogen at all? The electric grid can get it to you at better than 90% efficiency. You can then charge a battery in your plug-in hybrid, which has an efficiency of about 64% considering losses in charging batteries and the efficiency of the electric motor. The net efficiency is 58%, and it can be done with technology and infrastructure that already exists.

I have my own cynical theory about why the notion of a hydrogen-powered cars continues to thrive:

1. It sound good, in a sound bite: "Hydrogen-powered car emits nothing but water!" But, you have to look past the headline to understand it either takes fossil fuels to produce that hydrogen (i.e., diminishing supply and resulting in emissions) or high-priced renewable energy.

2. Industry is behind it: "There's infrastructure to be built and new technologies to be developed. Who cares if this makes any sense? Bring on the government initiatives and funding!"

3. The Bush administration can use it as a stalling tactic: "We don't have to push car makers to improve fuel efficiency, and we can keep using oil, because we're working on the technology for hydrogen-powered cars. There's a bright future ahead!" Meanwhile, we do nothing, and if this doesn't work, Bush will be long gone before we figure it out.

Rather than focusing so much effort on hydrogen, why not start pushing up auto efficiency now, which will have an immediate effect, and pushing for plug-in hydrids, which are much closer to being a reality than fuel-cell cars?


----------



## tim dice (Jul 6, 2004)

*who are the arabs*

you bet I am...at least working very closely with them to control and maipulate prices along with other world leaders. Why did we invade Iraq AFTER Saddam was contained and BEFORE he could start selling his oil again....because his vast oil reserves were going to flood the market, and with him in power in Iraq the country was stable and the oil would have flowed....keeping prices and profits low. The Saudis are running out of oil, not the world, and King George owes them big time...why he doesn't push the Saudi-9/11 connection and keeps trying to make it sound like it was Saddam...it was Saudi money, Saudi citizens that did the attack.

The price of oil started climbing with the invasion and hasn't stopped. The oil companies want the prices high not only for vast profit, but also to bulldoze enviromental concerns about refineries, shipping, drilling in sensitive areas, and any other obstacle that might hamper the profits.


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

IkayakNboard,

Is this a troll? There are so many inaccuracies in you're writing I won't even attempt to address them all. But I'll take the bait.

Caspian's already noted that there aren't thousands of years of oil in the ground. We're finding oil at a slower rate than we're using it. US production peaked in the early 70s and has been diminishing ever since. Middle East oil will production will also peak someday; some have said it already has.

I don't think Bush is promoting the idea that we're running out of oil. He and his business partners wouldn't want to create too much of a panic that would make us strongly consider alternatives.

Finally, as I mentioned in a previous post, you can opt for your electricity to be provided by wind power and use that to charge a plug-in hybrid car. You don't have to use the standard fossil-fuel-generated electricity your utility provides.


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

I used to have some similar views as IkayakNboard. But data has a nasty habit of changing your mind. 

Check out:
http://www.oilcrisis.com/sa/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://www.energybulletin.net/12336.html
http://www.aspo-usa.org/proceedings/powerpoint/


If you want to see an alternative view point, check out 
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/
but this is laughably wrong.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

dudes, you are totally overlooking the flux capacitor. it doesn't just power a car...it powers a frickin time machine. that's where we need to focus.


----------



## tim dice (Jul 6, 2004)

*plenty of oil*

There is plenty of oil, and as a previous poster stated we have the technology to make oil of almost any organic matter...thermal depolymerzation...a plant is already up and running converting turkey waste at a turkey procesing plant into oil. It is all just a big marketing scam.

And for all of you I'm greener than others...we are all just spoiled children burning up oil for our silly little pleasures. Hyppocrites all! I love my one ton diesel 4x4 van and so does everyone else who jumps in it for a gas guzzling ride to a river. The only complaint is when it is time to pay, and it is still cheap really. If you want to preach then get out of your plastic boat, your synthetic clothes, your car, quit buying food at the store, turn off the power, etc. 

Why is it better to drive a suv to a river than to work? Is hauling a kayak 'greener' than hauling your kids to school?


----------



## tim dice (Jul 6, 2004)

*why is gas so high?*

The simple answer: Why is gas so high? BECAUSE WE ALL STILL BUY IT!


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

Paul said:


> Finally, as I mentioned in a previous post, you can opt for your electricity to be provided by wind power and use that to charge a plug-in hybrid car. You don't have to use the standard fossil-fuel-generated electricity your utility provides.


This is not a viable option. We do not have the infrastructure to provide wind energy to the entire population. If everyone in the Denver metro area called Xcel tomorrow and said they wanted all their electricity from Wind, there is no way they would be able to comply. Also, batteries are evil and I don't think they should be used to power a car. Did you know that our current use of batteries (all batteries), although taking up less than .05% of the space at your local landfill, is accountable for 65% of the lead seeping into the soil? 75% of the Cadmium? Overall, battery disposal makes up almost 80% of the heavy metal toxins found at municipal waste sites, which leaks into our environment.

The bigger the battery, the more likely it is to explode. Whole house batteries that people who are "off the grid" use explode very frequently, and cause so much more environmental damage than the "grid" they are so against.

As far as us running out of oil in 30 - 150 years...BULL$#!+. We will NEVER run out of oil....as I mentioned, we can even make it from biomass (virtually any organic material, such as animal byproduct). Saying we are going to run out of oil is about as ignorant as saying Antarctica is melting and getting warmer, when the fact is the continent is getting colder.


----------



## WAVER (Jul 21, 2005)

Great thread...but nobody has mentioned the oil shale reserves (over one trillion barrels in the US alone) that they'll start cracking once the price hits $200 a barrel.


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

They're already getting into that. Tons of companies have been setting up shop in the Grand Junction area for the oil shale.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

And if they did use that as the ONLY source, are you going to pay $8 per gallon, or are you going to find alternative ways to travel? Most folks will opt for the latter, and since they will, the demand will not support use of that resource (unless there is some leap in technology between now and then). Yeah, there's lots of oil. There's also billions in gold in Wisconsin. But the reason no one goes for the gold in WI is because the ore isn't rich enough and the cost would exceed the price the market would bear. The same is true for oil - there's a lot, but the stuff that is cheap to extract is limited. Therefore, the market will eventually force the use of alternative energies. What we need to push for is getting those alternatives effective and affordable before the easy-and-cheap-to-extract oil runs out, whether that takes 30 years or 150. 

I agree biomass sounds promising, but as far as widespread use, I don't know --- will that be cost effective vis-a-vis other alternatives? It will all come down to cost for the consumer...


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

Thermal depolymerization could potentially solve the (debatable) oil shortage issue. However, the consumption of the manufactured oil would have the same polution impacts that we currently have today. This is why I feel Nuclear and Geothermal are better options.

But, something completely new could pop up tomorrow making everything else obsolite. I once heard that a single bolt of lightning could power Denver for a month, if someone could just store that electricity. Maybe that will be the next breakthrough, who knows. In the meantime, I'll use what we have, and I won't feel bad doing so.

The good news is, the rate at which technology increases, increases by 25% every year. We have learned more about the world in the past 20 years, than all years prior. For every statistic and source, there is a contradicting statistic and source. For every study, there is a contradicting study saying something completely different. Deciding which is accurate is often a matter of opinion. Maybe we'll solve the problems we have created when our understanding of the earth and our technology increases. Or perhaps the pursuit of such IS the problem. Does it really matter though? The water is starting to flow down the hills. 

"This just in, a study shows that breathing could be hazzardous to your health and it may kill you...however, a new study shows that not breathing may kill you faster."


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

IkayakNboard said:


> If everyone in the Denver metro area called Xcel tomorrow and said they wanted all their electricity from Wind, there is no way they would be able to comply.


No, we can't just flip a switch and get all of our power from wind, but I think it's highly unlikely we'll all be calling Xcel tomorrow. Not everyone wants to pay more. But if there is demand, they will work to meet it. They've added and continue to add more wind plants to meet customer demand and Amendment 37's requirements. Yes, we will someday reach a limit to the amount of energy wind can provide, but we're nowhere near the limit now.



IkayakNboard said:


> Also, batteries are evil and I don't think they should be used to power a car. Did you know that our current use of batteries (all batteries), although taking up less than .05% of the space at your local landfill, is accountable for 65% of the lead seeping into the soil? 75% of the Cadmium? Overall, battery disposal makes up almost 80% of the heavy metal toxins found at municipal waste sites, which leaks into our environment.


Batteries shouldn't be put in the landfill any more since they can be recycled. I think that batteries are covered under the Universal Waste law. This would mean that businesses are required to recycle them, while private citizens can (but don't have to) landfill them. I'm pretty sure that electric car batteries would be recycled by most reputable auto shops.



IkayakNboard said:


> The bigger the battery, the more likely it is to explode. Whole house batteries that people who are "off the grid" use explode very frequently, and cause so much more environmental damage than the "grid" they are so against.


I didn't know that likelihood of explosion was proportional to size of a battery, but I'll take your word for it. I guess that would be the fault of the charge controller. I doubt this happens all that frequently, and I'm sure cars can be designed to protect people from the explosion.

So, I still think plug-in hybrids (cars that can run on either electricity or gas from whatever the source) have a lot of promise, and very few drawbacks.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

"Check out the big brain on Brad", nice debate, I am enjoying it. The only part I understood though was the flux capacitor, good thinking BSOE.


----------



## offline (Apr 13, 2006)

*Thanks for the info!*

Wow!!! You guys are geeks. :wink: 

Lots of good info not sure what to think of all of it but here are a couple of articles that caught my interest when it comes to the oil supply discussion and how much we pay. 

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/14225609.htm

and

http://www.mauritiustimes.com/140406padya.htm

Have a good weekend! And hopefully we can put our 4x4's and v-8's to good use and get some paddling done.


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

I'm sure they would design batteries to protect people from explosion. But think about how many car accidents there are every day. If the batter cracked during an accident, the chemicals would leak into the soil and pollute our water supply. I, for one, don't like the idea of lead and murcury in my food/water. Sure, they can be recycled, and yes, business are required to recycle them. But how many people do you think really take the Duracel out of their Colgate SpinBrush and drive it down to the local battery collection site? And the issue with battery size relating to increased chance of explosion is due to the fact that batteries create hydrogen gas, which is very volatile, and the larger the battery, the more gas it produces...therefore increasing the chance of an explosion if there is any sort of spark. Given the nature of electricity, and the fact that it often generates a spark, large batteries are known for explosions, especially towards the end of the charging cycle. The reason for this, is when the battery is almost full, the sulfuric acid and water electrolyte will begin to break down into hydrogen and oxygena very explosive combination. Sending lead and sulphuric acid everywhere.


----------



## Paul (Oct 11, 2003)

I guess we shouldn't put batteries in our cars any more. Push starting would be a great alternative. Or a solar-powered starter. Wait, that wouldn't work at night. I know, we could seed clouds to start a thunderstorm, which would produce lighting which would strike a lightning rod on our car that leads to the batteriless starter. I think we'd need the flux capacitor in series with the lightning rod to absorb some of the energy so that the lightning wouldn't vaporize the car. Call the patent office!


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

The batteries in our cars now are designed much differently than the batteries of an electric car, or the batteries needed to have a solar/wind/hydro powered house (off the grid). But I do like your lightning idea! I still cast my vote for nuclear energy, and I feel with more research, it could be as safe as your lightning idea.

By the way, the total fission of one kilogramme of Uranium can provide the same energy as that released by burning three million kilogrammes of coal! In principle one can produce energy also from nuclear fusion: When two atoms combine to form a bigger atom, the final product has less mass than the sum of original masses and again the difference is converted to energy. However, although this is a cleaner resource than fission, and though the main ingredient, deuterium, is plentiful in sea-water, fusion is far from a reality now because of various technological hurdles. Back to my prior post...with increased technology, we may be able to overcome these hurdles...or we may destroy the earth by developing increased technology. 

I'm not opposed to any research on alternative fuel sources. I think by exploring sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, we may be better positioned in the near future to have a source that is actually clean, abundant, and efficient. Now, I have to leave to get ready for my RiverDance performance tonight. Hope to see you all there.


----------



## lagoonia (Oct 21, 2004)

Hey paul you don't by chance work at Platte River do you?


----------



## thedude1683 (May 1, 2005)

We have cheaper gas prices than anywhere else in the Western world because we get a percentage of our oil from domestic production... others dont have that luxury. 

An energy shortage cannot be attributed to cars because they use 1/3 less gas than cars did in the 1970's. Our refrigerators use 1/3 less energy today too. Maybe the energy crisis is related to the millions of cell phones, computers, ipods, blackberries, palm pilots that have to be charged!

Food for your mind.


----------



## mike a (Dec 16, 2003)

You can charge alot of Ipods w a gallon of gas, but it still only gets me 15 miles, and I drive around 25k per yr.

Gas isn't going anywhere soon. I'm suprised that no one has mentioned the technology that exists which converts coal into oil. South Africa has been using this process as their primary source for oil for a long time (since an international embargo existed, they had no other way to get fuel). I understand that plants are already being designed and considered. Planning is already underway; they say that it will still be a good 10 yrs though before we start pumping this product into our vehicles. I've heard that MT alone has enough accessible coal to provide the US w fuel for many yrs. Supposedly the process costs around $60/barrel. 

I'm guessing that we will be pumping gas for a long time to come.


----------



## routter (Mar 10, 2004)

Way to go Ikayaknboard - too oftens dissenters to the greenies views here post once and never rebut. 

Just a coupla poins briefly. I keep seeing the $200 p/b figure being used as what's neccessary to support new forms of oil extraction. This, however, is not the case. Take, for example, the sand oil reserves of Alberta. Here alone, the estimates put us in the 175 billion barrel range. These reserves can be supported w/ a $60 p/b price (give or take). Granted that's not $30 p/b, but, these types of sand reserves are guetimated to be in the hundreds of billons-of-barrels range in North America alone. Effectively utilizing these would give us time enough to allow technology to advance to the point where the "next type" of deposit can be cost effectively extracted.

Secondly- oil prices and profits have nothing, i repeat, NOTHING to do with either the oil industry or current administration's so-called greed. Oil price is a function of supply and demand as we all must agree. The world, today, has a much broader consumer base for crude than at any time in it's history. 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con

..and many of these nations, such as China and India will be growing their consumption at a rate far greater than the U.S. Combine that with the fact that we just recently surpassed the 50% import ratio vs. domestically produced crude and we pay prices which are more closely tied to the the global-market's. More demand + same supply = higher prices. 

Now, let's also make note, for the record, that the average profit per dollar of gas sold by a U.S. company in or most recent "eggregiously profitable" quarter was $.10- ten cents. Whereas the average federal and state tax per dollar of gas is $.25- twenty five cent. For all of you English majors out there that's TWO-AND-A-HALF times the profit margin for the big bad oil companies, and all they do is find it, drill it, transport it and refine it. 

I am not a big-oil lobbyist. I do belive the answer will one day be combustible hydrogen (never underestimate a consumer base's desire for technological familiarity) but until we find a way to produce this without putting in more energy than the net product we're stuck with oil. And therein lies my basic belief that it's not so bad. We are the most comfortable, advanced and pruductive generation in the world's history because of what some many of you pretend to hate.


----------



## Seadog (Jan 12, 2004)

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2006/bw20060329_074307.htm?campaign_id=search

here's an article that attributes the rise in gas prices to higher cost of ethanol and reduced use of MTBE. i too am a geek.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

The simple solution:

we need to get all the mad scientists available, lock them in bathrooms with stuff to fix over there heads...eventually one will fall, hit his head on some porcelain and come up with the flux capacitor. Problem solved.

so enough about oil...how about that water?

wait...how much oil do you have to burn to come up with 1.21 gigawats?


----------



## kartch (Apr 17, 2006)

I'm also glad there were some dissenters here. I agree that huge SUV's with soccer moms driving their perfect 2 kids around make me crazy but there is a way to fix this. Whether there is a shortage or not, the rising gas prices are an excellent way to use capitalisitc economics for a means to an end. I love capatalism (with controls) because it made our country what it is today and it can fix this problem.
As prices go up, by governement taxes or what not, the demand will decrease as people will realize that it just isn't worth it to take the excursion on the commute. When this happens the demand for Excursions will also go down and car manufacturers and designers will lose money if they don't adapt to the changing market. The reason why the percentage of cars made are SUV's is because that's what the public demands and thus allows Ford/Chevy whatnot to make money.
Think about this. If the price of gas went up, I prefer by taxation so that the funds could be spent on alternative energy research, high enough that people stopped wanting to drive huge SUV's then the car company's would start producing what the people wanted. Again, that's how they make the most money. The market is amoral and blind. People that want to make the most money must follow the market or someone else who does follow it will put them out of business. 
We vote by our purchases and obviously we have voted to drive huge cars because that is what is made. I will admit that this site is probably not voting the same but again, look at the car you drive and see if it matches what you want the market to produce. 
No one will be forced to drive a more energy efficient vehicle when that vehicle becomes as cost effective as the current automobiles just like no one had to force people to start driving cars instead of using horse and buggy.


----------



## Tom R Chamberlain (Mar 13, 2005)

Wow! I had no idea any of you boater scums had brains. Great Thread! 

I have a feeling that, as always, economics will eventually rule. Our choices of energy sources and consumption will be controlled by supply, demand - money. Conservation can do a lot. But we won't conserve until we have to monetarily. People can be wonderful individuals and even great in small groups, but as a whole we do act pretty much exactly like bacteria. 

For those of you comitted to conservation and limiting your energy usage there is a great article entiled "The Energizer" you should read on page 52 in Discover magazine (February 2006 issue). There are many things you can do to limit your individual dependance on fossil fuels and coorporate control, but they come at a price. They require a significant change of lifestyle and a lower standard of living.

See ya on the river. I'll be in the Red X-Terra w/ the rocket box or the Silver Dodge 4X4 V-8 Truck with the cab-over camper. Someone's got to deal with the last gallon of gas. It may as well be our kids instead of our grand kids.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

X-terra? Holy shit, dude, you're extreme. I'll be glad you're at the takeout when I need you to bust out that big first aid kit...so big it needs a recession in the back door that you can see from the outside.

And that big (useless) rack...makes me hard. Red, though? Yellow's WAY sweeter.

Those waterproof seats, too...make it so easy to clean up that spilled latte.

If only I was so easily marketed to...I could be the proud owner of a gas-guzzling gen-X piece of shit.[/i]


----------



## newby0616 (Jun 16, 2005)

You're *such *an asshole sometimes, BSOE..... :evil: 








Then again, ya've prolly already figured out that's the reason most of us around here luv ya'!  
LOL


----------



## bill (Oct 13, 2003)

everyone is leaving out the most important part of the problem. world population. there is no way eveyone on the planet can live like the avarage american. a year or so ago national geographic they pointed out we would need 10 more earths for just the people in china to live like us. also china was increasing their oil consumption 10% a month every month thats a lot of oil. there is a group working on hydrogen called the phoenix project. they have a web site and were interviewed on talk of the nation. i think their plan could work it is low teck.


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

Tom R Chamberlain said:


> There are many things you can do to limit your individual dependance on fossil fuels and coorporate control, but they come at a price. They require a significant change of lifestyle and a lower standard of living.


That really depends on how you define "standard of living." Personally, my conservation efforts have granted me a GREATER standard of living, as defined by life satisfaction.


----------

