HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The price of gasoline: Do...

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:52 PM

 

The price of gasoline: Do we try and explain this to Americans or let them find out the hard way?

Americans don't want to hear the real reasons behind our gasoline price problem. Do we tell them this or do we simply let them go off the cliff and come over to say "I told you so" afterwards? I just don't know.

The fact is, though, cost of gasoline is going up no matter what we do. I'm going to intentionally ignore the Iran issue and other temporary things and discuss the long-term chronic issues.

Economic Reasons
Speculators are driving the price ahead of the demand curve, but the fact is we've gone past the point of peak oil... or at least, peak light sweet crude. What's left out there is extremely expensive to get at, which means prices are going to go up. Plus (primarily thanks to America giving away its jobs to them), gasoline demand is skyrocketing in China and India; lower gasoline usage in America means nothing because it's being greatly offset by faster-rising demand in Asia. Plus Mexico and other countries are becoming rich, too, and their demand for gasoline is all going up. Global demand for gasoline is going up; and production is not. When demand outstrips production you have price increases - and, looming in the future, you have shortages and outages.

What's that side bit I said about outsourcing American jobs? Well, that's contributing directly to the devaluation of the US dollar, too. The downward pressure on the dollar is causing the price of gasoline to go up. The Government's need to take care of the millions of Americans put out of work by globalism, is also driving up our debt and driving down the value of the dollar. This drives up the prices of imports - including oil.

Oh and did I forget to mention that when we do put people out of work they have to get out and drive to apply for jobs all day? That burns a hell of a lot of gasoline when you multiply it by the number of unemployed we have in America now.

Domestic refineries are closing because they can't charge over-inflated prices to Americans. This cuts down on the supply of gasoline because oil has to be refined into gasoline. This is also driving up the price.

Cultural Reasons
America is afflicted with the problem of urban sprawl. This means, basically, that many people are sub-urban residents - meaning they live 5 or 10 miles or more from their jobs or the places where they shop. This means long daily commutes that burn gasoline. Add to this the fact that most Americans drive cars to get where they want to go, and you can see the multiplicative effect this has on the demand for and use of gasoline.

Most Americans don't want to hear about the idea of being forced to move closer to shorten their commutes; and for good reason, actually. Doing so typically means paying a very steep price not only just to move one's belongings, but also to pay much higher rents or mortgages because residential zones closer to job hubs and shopping areas cost a hell of a lot more to rent or buy. This will typically more than eat up any gasoline money savings that one might realize by avoiding the urban sprawl lifestyle. Ironically, forcing everyone to de-sprawl will drive up the demand for urban real estate and thus the already astronomical prices in those areas. It will also lead to overcrowding; anyone who has lived in New York ([url=http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html]population: 17 million[/url) or Tokyo (population: 33 million) can attest to the horrors of overcrowding and the price of real estate in such a situation. And those are the modernized overcrowded cities; in some parts of America it could look more like the uber polluted city of Shenzhen, China (population: 8 million), crime-ridden Mexico City (population: 17 million), or slum-filled Mumbai (population: 14 million). America needs to slake its hunger for gasoline to avoid being crammed into cities like that.

The stress of a long suburban or rural commute would simply be replaced by the stress of walking amidst a crushing mass of people. Living in such places is indeed enough to inspire one to entertain a few... Malthusian thoughts. This, again, is why so many people choose the lifestyle of urban sprawl. This is another way that we keep up our enormous demand for gasoline.

Yes, America could pack people into cities similar to New York, with a relatively okay mass transit system and high speed rail between major population hubs. But we completely lack the will to do this. See the constant opposition to high speed rail, and the dismantling of the public bus transit systems (for example: the Red Car). So, again, this is another way that our gasoline-hungry culture is reinforced.

Worse yet, there is more than just a political or cultural problem with cramming people into smaller areas: natural disasters. As we saw in 2011, a single Tohoku earthquake and the resulting tsunami in overcrowded Japan killed 15 thousand people in a single catastrophic incident. We have major fault lines in California, the New Madrid thrust fault in the midwest, and probably some unseen ones on the East Coast. Major earthquakes waiting to happen, with devastating consequences for large cities with even the best-built high-rise buildings. Again, another point in favor of urban sprawl - never keep your populace all in one place. But again, this drives up the demand for gasoline. And its prices, too.

This turned out to be a long section but these facts can't be ignored; our culture is a MAJOR part of what drives America's thirst for gasoline, and why the cost of gasoline will only go up. I've only scratched the SURFACE of this issue; I haven't even gotten into the non gasoline-related damage done by urban sprawl to our ecosystem.

Environmental Reasons
The cost of gasoline is more than what you pay at the pump. It also involves the cost we pay in the form of pollution and global warming.

As we speak, we are seeing freakish weather patterns all over the world. This is being caused by a rise in temperatures not seen before the dawn of the industrial age; and it is directly in line with the effects that scientists predicted would happen with the discharge of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Gases which are caused by burning coal and gasoline and other hydrocarbons.

These freakish weather patterns have resulted in droughts and mass fires in Russia which recently damaged their wheat harvest; a hard freeze in California and Florida's 2011-2012 winter season that has damaged their orange harvest (among other crops), which will mean a shortage in oranges and orange juice; and a devastating drought in Texas in 2011 that led to massive statewide fires and also the culling of many herds of cattle, which will result in higher meat prices soon (if not already). Hydrocarbon-induced global warming is the prime suspect behind these problems.

How is this relevant to the rest of the article? Simple. You are paying hidden costs for gasoline in the form of higher food prices, caused by global warming-induced weather damage to crop yields. If gasoline remained cheap, we would burn even more of it, poisoning our atmosphere even faster, and over the same period of time we would be even worse off, with even more dramatic crop damage, and sooner than later, famines and food shortages. All because of our thirst for gasoline.

So What Can We do?
Well, we liberals know what we can do!

We can encourage more bicycling, carpooling and van-pooling.
We can bump up funding for public transportation.
We can switch to electric cars or fund further research into hydrogen fuel cell technology. We can build high-speed rail systems.
We can de-suburbanize the populace, moving them from a million small cities into, let's say, a tenth as many mid-sized cities (bigger than Podunk but considerably smaller than New York).
We can localize food production to shorten the transportation times and fuel cost for food.
We can fight to bring jobs back to America and then encourage telecommuting-style work for tech workers and other types of jobs, by the strategic application of tax breaks or subsidies.

But that would take getting past the GOP, and worse yet, America's addiction to its own gasoline-addicted lifestyle.

We're going to have to try to explain this to America, or hope that enough of the civilized world is left when all this is sorted out, to say "we told you so".

94 replies, 14924 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply The price of gasoline: Do we try and explain this to Americans or let them find out the hard way? (Original post)
Zalatix Feb 2012 OP
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #1
FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #2
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #4
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #20
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #24
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #29
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #34
Zalatix Feb 2012 #41
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #56
CAPHAVOC Feb 2012 #17
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #25
Zalatix Feb 2012 #40
truedelphi Feb 2012 #87
Zalatix Feb 2012 #90
truedelphi Feb 2012 #93
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #60
TalkingDog Feb 2012 #35
taterguy Feb 2012 #74
tkmorris Feb 2012 #79
taterguy Feb 2012 #80
Zalatix Feb 2012 #37
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #53
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #58
rfranklin Feb 2012 #59
DCBob Feb 2012 #3
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #6
DCBob Feb 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #10
DCBob Feb 2012 #12
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #16
DCBob Feb 2012 #19
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #28
DCBob Feb 2012 #30
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #32
customerserviceguy Feb 2012 #57
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #55
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #31
Zalatix Feb 2012 #52
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #22
NickB79 Feb 2012 #70
DCBob Feb 2012 #73
NickB79 Feb 2012 #76
DCBob Feb 2012 #82
Zalatix Feb 2012 #43
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #44
Zalatix Feb 2012 #47
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #49
GoCubsGo Feb 2012 #11
bhikkhu Feb 2012 #48
DCBob Feb 2012 #50
rustydog Feb 2012 #5
former9thward Feb 2012 #61
Fumesucker Feb 2012 #7
BlueCaliDem Feb 2012 #9
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #33
bhikkhu Feb 2012 #45
Mikeystyle Feb 2012 #13
DefenseLawyer Feb 2012 #14
Initech Feb 2012 #18
bhikkhu Feb 2012 #27
DefenseLawyer Feb 2012 #38
bhikkhu Feb 2012 #42
DefenseLawyer Feb 2012 #67
bhikkhu Feb 2012 #68
NickB79 Feb 2012 #71
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #15
Zalatix Feb 2012 #39
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #54
Zalatix Feb 2012 #62
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #65
Zalatix Feb 2012 #66
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #69
Zalatix Feb 2012 #72
truedelphi Feb 2012 #21
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2012 #36
truedelphi Feb 2012 #81
NickB79 Feb 2012 #83
truedelphi Feb 2012 #89
Spider Jerusalem Feb 2012 #92
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #46
Zalatix Feb 2012 #51
truedelphi Feb 2012 #23
tech_smythe Feb 2012 #26
SammyWinstonJack Feb 2012 #75
Hotler Feb 2012 #63
Zalatix Feb 2012 #64
HopeHoops Feb 2012 #77
Romulox Feb 2012 #78
truedelphi Feb 2012 #86
varelse Feb 2012 #84
wildbilln864 Feb 2012 #85
TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #91
wildbilln864 Mar 2012 #94
Taverner Feb 2012 #88

Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:07 PM

1. These anti-car rants get tiresome

 

yes, I want to see MORE public transit, more bio-fuels, more hybrids, and more electrics with MORE infrastructure put into renewable energies.

but these rants like the OP are pretty blatant and boring.

Come live in the mid west and grow up.
Farm != urban sprawl.

While I really want to see the metro's modernized, there are some simple realities my (former) fellow urbanites just don't get... that this is a REALLY FUKING BIG COUNTRY

it's nice that you think the food made in this country can be concentrated. that's a really quaint idea. wrong as all get up, but quaint. an apartment garden won't feed one person for a month let alone reasonably subsidize their diet.

but i'll stop now because it's really pointless trying to educate you on reality.
enjoy your ivory tower. maybe one day you'll come back to earth and we can continue making progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:09 PM

2. Really, maybe you should ask for your refund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:13 PM

4. Funny, so you think peak oil is fantasy

 

by ivory tower, urbanite residing crazy people?

There are many things that could be done, EVEN IN RURAL areas when it comes to energy consumption.

As to cars... well if we don't change our ways and CHANGE our technology base, the SUPPLY will force it.

Your rant actually sounds like the buggy owners who said that new fangled horseless buggy would NEVER become dominant.

By the way these days it is more economically feasible to TAKE transit when I go downtown to cover stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:55 PM

20. you clearly didn't even bother to read my reply

 

which, sadly, proves the point the bastards on the right make about the left "elitists"
that we are so consumed in ourselves, that we miss the point completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:06 PM

24. Yes I read it

 

the point you made, which is valid, is that the situation is different in rural america.

No, a light rail system does not apply in out of the way areas of the country, but a wind farm, solar, and even alternate fuel means to run tractors do.

So do a few other things, that should be considered. These include, an ancient solution to those who need to stock up on supplies, the travelling salesman. It was a solution for the old west, which I might argue had a few more challenges to communications than even the worst of modern day, well except Appalachia.

But I will say it again... either we change, or peak oil will force the changes. As a country we'd better find a way to be proactive about it... or the rank truth is that we may even see a continental EMPIRE fail due to the challenges brought by this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:15 PM

29. we shouldnt wait for peak oil...

 

we should change because it's correct.

I oppose the OP because the way it's laid out... we'll never get consensus.

it was just another anti-car screed that left no room for reality.

I know peak oil is a reality... more specifically I understand why using oil is bad. you're putting carbon back into the air that hasn't been there for MILLIONS of years. that the rotation of the earth is different now, and that we can no longer afford to have so much carbon in the air.

this is no longer a garden planet, so even if we burn all the oil there's no way to deal with it.

the OP was still a screed i'm sick of hearing. bitch bitch bitch, with no real solutions.

it wasn't thought out, it was a screed, mental diarrhea, venting and pointless.
however... it started a discussion.. which in it self is never a bad thing, so I may reconsider my opinion on the op after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:32 PM

34. It applies to urban areas

 

where it does apply.

I live in an urban area that has a few problems from implementation POV.

If I need to go downtown I can take light rail. I live near the station... (and it makes sense to take light rail I wonder why many of my neighbors don't. It runs five bucks to get a day pass... or whatever cost to drive downtown plus average of 12 dollars for parking for six hours)...

But if I did not live along the line or near it, then it would make less sense. It all has to do with the crazy way public transit routes are designed. Therefore it takes three times as long to go from point A to point B if I take the bus... for this you can blame car dealerships, no serious you can.

These are the kinds of issues in urban areas we need to deal with.

In rural areas we need to start dealing with things like supplies and the monthly run to the store. My sister in law has that issue... she lives in a small town in Maui and they do indeed the once a month run. They FINALLY have bus service, but taking the bus would make little sense if you are buying for a month. It was finally brought in due to the cost of gas... by the way.

So they take the truck, which takes me to the next rant. Many urbanites buy the F-150 for the cool factor, not real need. While people in the country side NEED that F-150 for that supply run and farm work and all that. I would like to see that F-150 have a more efficient engine than even the new efficient engines they put in them this year. (The improvement gas wise was 20%)... my guess is that Natural Gas would make sense in these SHORT TERM... but I'd rather have them be able to take whatever fuel source we have. Some come flex fuel, others don't. Oh and hybrid electric makes zero sense at this weight class.

And yes, some sort of public might make sense in slightly denser areas that do not have it they should.

As to suburbs, urban areas need to encourage more mixed living spaces, and denser spaces... which goes against the grain. But there is another reason for that... a lot of prime land has been paved over. This is land we may need to return to agriculture.

As to the OP... as I said, it was written from the city resident point of view... and from that POV some of it makes sense. Large cities should have efficient and widely available public transportation and people should be encouraged to use it. The country has OTHER challenges, but we need a national energy policy. We really do not have one. And that policy must include development of green technologies, without really ruining rural areas. Locally we are having that issue (go ahead ask most of San Diego if they know of the problems Jacumba is having with industrial green energy production, I am willing to bet most do not)... but that does bring me to my other rant... centralized vs decentralized energy production. This is one thing we seriously need to consider. I am on the decentralized with some centralized. It makes sense, unless you are San Diego Gas and Electric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

41. I posted REAL solutions at the end.. did you not read that far?

 

Are you claiming that electric cars are not real solutions? Or better mass transit, as is used in Japan and Europe? Or hydrogen fuel cells? These are all solutions. I posted them. Did you read???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:12 PM

56. Once things change, once more people hear the message in the OP and recognize

its truth, the sooner people will stop posting it.

You seem to know farming. Others know the energy industry. Others understand our environmental problems.

Everyone has something to offer to the conversation. It is true that farming requires lots of energy and large spaces and that getting food from the farms to the urban marketplace is a high priority for using what energy we still have left.

But to me that insight confirms the message in the OP.

I live in Los Angeles. The urban sprawl which is virtually continuous from Santa Monica clear out to Riverside County with green patches and very little agriculture in between is quite impractical.

There is a big difference between driving an empty truck from the docks in LA clear up to your home in Lancaster and back every day (a trek which people I have known were making) and using gasoline to get your agricultural products back and forth to market.

The agricultural use, as long as it is as efficient as feasible, should have priority in my view.

But peak oil is an inescapable reality that is now complicated by increased demand and a lower exchange rate for the dollar. The OP is absolutely correct about that. There isn't much argument.

Where you and the OP agree is that we have set our priorities very carefully right now.

This is such an important issue that I am really pleased that we are discussing it and getting various different points of view on it. Thanks to everyone for posting on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:51 PM

17. I like my jeep. I do not want to live in a Tree and Eat Grass. End of story.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CAPHAVOC (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:10 PM

25. Alas this is not about you living in a tree and eating grass

 

but what happens when there is no gas to power that jeep? It is light enough a horse team might be able to pull it. Triple so if you pull the engine out. Then ONE horse might be enough.

But it is about being proactive about this new reality, so you can keep your jeep (with a new power plant) and live in an energy efficient house, and continue to live the way you mostly do. But as a society there are some changes that will be necessitated. Mother and invention and necessity comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CAPHAVOC (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:42 PM

40. In my OP I described SOLUTIONS. They did not include eating grass or living in a tree.

 

They included alternative fuels and electric cars.

Did you read that part? It was at the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:58 PM

87. As long as the national budget for this nation spends 49 cents out

Of every dollar on the military industrial complex, and all that that entails, the public is screwn.

Totally.

The money to see to it that we switch away from fossil fuels is now being spent on building the weapons of war.

The political methods and means that should ensure that reason triumphs over greed and stupidity is now a totally broken system.

We have the oil billionares and the people who oversee the military and the energy operations in charge of everything. Otherwise how can one explain Mr Obama's insistence on "loaning" some fifty eight billions of dollars to the nuclear power plant people. Has no one told him about Fukushima?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 02:10 AM

90. 49 cents? Cite, please?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #90)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:22 PM

93. Notmypriorities.org is a good place to start.

When you realize that roads and other facilities used by the military are always taken care of before anything in more rural, non-militarized places, and this of course includes communication as well as roads, it is possible to include more than the actual monies going to the Pentagon.

Plus a long long time ago, in the very early 1980's, the American public was "told" that something close to 26 billions of dollars was going to black op. This was a huge sum of money back at that point in time. So if a similar amount is being used for black op stuff, proportional to today's overall governmental spending, it could be that 60 cents out of every dollar is being spent on the military.

Like Janet Reno was so fond of saying to every other question asked her, "We will never ever know."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CAPHAVOC (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:20 PM

60. Jeep-lovers can keep their jeeps, but they will probably have to pay a lot more for gas.

It's not what anyone wants. It's just reality.

I would love to live in a tree, but alas!!!

Eating grass? Well, I eat a lot of vegetables so I guess I come fairly close to it.

I eat beef maybe once every week or two. You are quite welcome to eat the rest of the beef that is produced for my benefit. I won't.

And I say, "Vive la difference" with regard to diet and taste in cars, but reality will bite us all one of these days.

There is only so much oil that can be retrieved without damaging the earth so much that humans cannot survive on it. And as our country has turned to a "service economy," we can afford less and less of it.

In my experience, we always fear the future. When it comes, we cope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:36 PM

35. Exactly how many "anti-car" screeds have you had the opportunity to read here?

I've been hanging around since 2000 and I can count the number on both my left feet.

Just askin'....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 08:41 AM

74. You must have never seen some of my earlier posts

Back in the day I'd post an anti-car screed about once a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taterguy (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:01 PM

79. LOL yes you did

What are you riding these days Taterguy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:15 PM

80. Trek commuter bike

Unless it's raining or I just don't feel like it in which case I'd rather not say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

37. And when we run out of oil or your farmland dries up due to drought, then what?

 

Got an answer for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:01 PM

53. you really don't like to read replies do you

 

city folks...

when you learn reading comprehension i'll be here.

until then, feel free to go back on your car-hating screed and live in your ivory tower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:16 PM

58. Well do tell me this one

 

When, not if, when gas is so expensive it is out of your reach... how are you going to go about getting water to your crops?

(Free hint, there are ways to do it, some are ANCIENT, but right now a gas engine is the most efficient means of doing that... we call that an engine driving a pump)

NO, this is not about hating cars. but WHAT ARE WE going to use to power those cars, and those pumps I may add.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:16 PM

59. Comments like that tend to make you sound like an angry troll...

 

And many of the phrases you use don't help dispel the impression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:11 PM

3. Those measures, although important, wont have much impact on current prices.

Speculation on the Iran "crisis" is what driving up the price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:14 PM

6. Short term yes... but peak oil is real

 

the whole Keystone discussion and fracking are about peak oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:16 PM

8. No doubt peak oil is real. Its just a matter of time.

I think we are already seeing effects. The only thing keeping things from spiraling out of control are increased production from fracking, North Dakota, Canadian oil sands, etc. But once those are played out it will get ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

10. Why we need to invest in the techology to replace oil

 

as is a lot of the price has little to do with Iran and all to do with speculators and peak oil.

And when we develop, oh for example solar, in my view we should look at distributive models of production (solar on every roof, goes onto the grid, and all can access it) rather than centralized, industrial sized farms, or perhaps a hybrid.

But we are not even seeing the discussion starting on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:31 PM

12. There is a relatively simple answer to this.. natural gas.

We have enormous reserves of this resource and internal combustion engines can be easily/cheaply converted to run on CNG. There would be the issue of distribution but thats just a matter of retrofitting gas stations to handle CNG. Its not a long term solution as it is also a fossil fuel but it is a good short term option to give us time to develop real alterntives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:47 PM

16. I love the idea of CNG as a replacement for gasoline but

 

it would absolutely REQUIRE an idiot-proof transfer system in order to get it into automobiles.

I don't think we have one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:52 PM

19. Im not sure what you mean "idiot proof transfer system".. is it a safety thing?

I suspect we can deal with that. There are already millions of cars/buses/trucks running on CNG worldwide. They must be dealing with that issue somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:12 PM

28. I don't think it's feasible to allow every Tom, Dick, or Harriet to fuel their own car with CNG.

 

There are some really, incredibly, awe-inspiring people out there with absolutely no common sense.

If the nozzle at the gas pump falls out and becomes stuck in the open position, it's not that big a problem to pick it up and turn it off. It's also not that big a problem to clean up the spill.

If a CNG nozzle falls out and is stuck open you've instantly got a rapidly growing cloud of NG and a freezing nozzle that is impossible to touch with bare hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:16 PM

30. Maybe we need to bring back the job of service attendant.

I would be ok with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:18 PM

32. I could get behind that idea

 

like they have in Oregon.
you aren't allowed to fuel your own car, and gas is the same price as in california.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:14 PM

57. In NJ

you aren't allowed to fuel your own car, and the prices are 35-40 cents cheaper per gallon than NY, mainly because of taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:03 PM

55. So would I actually. At a decent wage of course. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

31. if you read RIGHT BELOW you'll see a reliable system has been in place for decades

 

your point is moot.

do you have a real reason why you are against LPG as a energy source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:40 PM

52. But every Tom, Dick and Harriet pumps gasoline.

 

And that stuff can light off quite an eventful barbecue if handled incorrectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:59 PM

22. In The Netherlands it's normal to have LPG conversions

 

propane for the rest.

LPG is pennies cheap per liter. less mileage but 59c/l vs 1-2e/l more than compensates for a 15% loss in mileage. and it burns cleaner

AND they've been doing it for 20 years!

still no reports of pseudo atomic explosions all along the express way (that's what happens when a full 20l tank of propane explodes BTW)

so the system is there. completely plausible and safe. burns MUCH cleaner, of course, and it can be created w/o digging - farms do this in a few places.

it's far from a complete solution. but it's better than ground oil at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 03:31 AM

70. Natural gas is only a solution if you ignore climate change

Most of the remaining natural gas in the ground is only accessible via fracking, and now several studies are finding that fracked gas may be just as bad for global warming as burning coal, simply due to the fact that so much methane leaks from the fields and transport lines as it's produced and shipped: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0213/Fracking-study-sends-alert-about-leakage-of-potent-greenhouse-gas

Human civilization can survive Peak Oil. What we can't survive is 4 degrees C or more of warming over the next century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:24 AM

73. I think we have the technology to deal with "leaks".

The advantages of natural gas far outweighs the risks. There could be regulations to require monitoring and keep the leaks to a minimum. There are always ways to deal with things like this if there is incentive to do it. Clearly we have the incentive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 02:23 PM

76. The question is, does the technology make fracking too expensive to continue?

Theoretically, we also have the technology and incentive to implement carbon capture and storage on coal-fired plants. The problem is that it's simply too expensive for the market to bear.

Also, a lot of the methane leakage is simply a side-effect of fracking, and may be impossible to rectify. You inject massive amounts of fluid into the ground, crack the rock formations holding the gas, and then expect the gas to stay put?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

82. As the price of oil goes up and up that question will be answered.

We may have no other choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

43. Nadine, you hit it right on the head. We need more food AND energy decentralization.

 

It's funny, how we criticize the Soviet Union style of Government-centralized economy, but somehow it's okay when it's privately centralized.

Redundancy is in fact inefficient. However it is also fault-tolerant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #43)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:58 PM

44. Not only that, it is VERY CAPITALIST.

 

Yes, I am using Adam Smith for this statement. I think if anybody would know, it would be him. He abhorred monopolies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

47. And we can't wait for the "invisible hand" to handle this.

 

The invisible hand in this case is famine as a result of one of these big centralized farms getting hit by a drought... or by Monsato's terminator crap.

Many whole species have been wiped out by that invisible hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:17 PM

49. That is the other thing

 

the hand is mentioned ONCE in the whole book, with three pages of caveats. The caveats is what our silly wabbits believe is what the hand meant.

No, it is not...

I am sure Smith is doing summersaults, starting with the first one... MONOPOLIES ARE BAD... BREAK THEM UP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:29 PM

11. Yep, and many people only think in the short-term.

Usually it's the ones who bitch the loudest about the price of gas. It has been my experience at least some of them can be educated. The more you point out thinks like the speculation and the fact that gasoline is our greatest export right now, the more they tend to want to get away from petroleum altogether. At least, that has been my experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:12 PM

48. Measures are more intended to render the current prices irrelevant, rather than reduce them

...such as in my case, where I do my commuting and most errands by bicycle. The direct cost of fuel increases to our household is hardly noticeable - an extra $10 or so a month. Indirect costs are the shopping bill, where fuel drives inflation, and a measure to reduce that would be more local and regional production of foods.

In practice, I take more care at the grocery store, buy more fresh foods, and cook more, so the food bill hasn't been affected too much. Things that have less shipping costs tend to be cheaper, so simple price-shopping tends to encourage local production in many cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:24 PM

50. Good point.

Unfortunately many wont or cant do the things you are doing to reduce your fuel costs. I dont drive much so the prices dont really affect me much either. But I know most people have to drive long distances to get to work and deliver kids to school. Their fuel costs are huge and their is not much most of them can do about it short of carpooling which isnt always an option for many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:13 PM

5. I don't know why you bothered with a reasoned, intelligent post..."Drill baby Drill"

is what the answer is, right?
It doesn't matter that our oil goes onto the world market. An American Icebreaker opened a passage for a RUSSIAN oil tanker to bring foreign fuel to a stranded Alaskan town this winter....Alaska, Alaskan oil reserves Drill baby Palin! we have oil everywhere and it goes on the world market and does not bring down our oil prices...Drill baby drill that is the answer!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:27 PM

61. It was not foreign fuel.

The fuel was coming from another port in Alaska. The Russian ship was just doing the delivery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:15 PM

7. "You cannot teach a man anything.."

"You can only help him find what is within himself." - Galileo Galilei

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

9. We are using less gasoline than we have

thanks to hybrids and FlexFuel automobiles. Result? Oil refineries are exportng 117 MILLION gallons of diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline per day, and undoubtedly at record profits!

Fuel exports, worth an estimated $88 billion in 2011, have surged for two reasons:
Crude oil, the raw material from which gasoline and other refined products are made, is a lot more expensive. Oil prices averaged $95 a barrel in 2011, while gasoline averaged $3.52 a gallon a record. A decade ago oil averaged $26 a barrel, while gasoline averaged $1.44 a gallon.

The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier.

There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.

Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says.

Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1


It's clear driving less or buying fuel efficient automobiles has given oil refineries the excuse they'd been looking for to go ahead and export for bigger profits while jacking up the prices here at home. The fact that gasoline prices are almost unaffordable in countries where they have excellent public trans and trains (the Netherlands, for one) should've been the tip-off that would happen here, too.

But we're not ready for those prices. We're far from being able to toss our cars aside. We don't have the excellent public transportation like Holland, London, Germany, and France. Not yet. But we're already suffering higher gasoline prices now. I guess we've cut our noses to spite our faces on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:20 PM

33. perhaps we should make exporting of american fuel illegal

 

I could TOTALLY get behind that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech_smythe (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:04 PM

45. That might get tricky, as much "American fuel" comes from foreign oil imports

...banning exports of fuel might seem like an amusing move to countries which freely export oil to us, easily responded to in kind by raising an oil export tariff. Which would make fuel more expensive here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:36 PM

13. You left out a few VERY important facts

Domestic oil production is at an 8-year high, but we don't have enough to fulfill our needs or impact the global price of oil.

U.S. EXPORTS of gasoline fuel is at an ALL TIME HIGH, which drives up the price of gas here at home because foreigners are willing to pay more for it. We get oil from Mexico, but Mexico gets 60 percent of its gasoline from us.

Republican saber rattling over Iran is the cause of all this speculation in the oil markets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:38 PM

14. The price of oil is set by speculators.

 

It has little at all to do with actual supply and demand, as the people selling it on the commodity market are not the suppliers and the people buying it are not the end users. The criminals that are making untold billions from this scheme thank you endlessly for your support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:52 PM

18. Exactly - there's no such thing as supply and demand anymore.

Wall St has become a criminal enterprise anymore and under W's reign it became more evident than ever - and rampant speculators are to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:10 PM

27. It has much more to do with production costs

?w=600

...the "floor" price where oil is worthwhile to produce has gone way up. Speculation may add $10 or so to a barrel, but the recent past where $40 per barrel was long considered the norm is gone for good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

38. Oh well that clears that up.

 

I'm glad the IMF staff could set me straight. I assume the Iranians and the Saudis have all opened up their books to verify these magic numbers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:50 PM

42. Are you arguing that production costs haven't gone up to the levels shown?

Or that the cost of producing oil has nothing to do with the price that oil is sold for?

Attacking a source of information is a trivial move, unless you have some other source that contradicts the information given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 11:34 PM

67. I'm just a caveman

 

but if higher prices for crude oil were merely a reflection of higher production costs, wouldn't the profit made selling oil have remained the same as the price went up? Have profits remained constant during this time of higher oil prices caused by ever rising production costs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 12:30 AM

68. Profit is definitely a factor as well, and they've generally increased with prices

as a percentage of the total. No argument that profits are up along with price (supported by high demand and limited supply), and that speculation is a current factor...but as far as what can be done - you can limit speculation with regulations, and in theory cap profits with legislation, but you still have $100 per barrel oil because of the underlying cost of production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 03:36 AM

71. Almost all new oil coming online is either tarsands, shale, or offshore

As we deplete the existing fields, we only have the hard to get stuff left, which naturally costs more to extract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

15. I don't think you'll ever get Americans to live in hives.

 

I can promise you I'll never be forced to live on a second floor or above, and I'll never be forced to have someone living/stomping/partying/dancing on my ceiling.

Humans roam. I don't think it will ever be possible to get them to stay in one place.

The United States ranks somewhere around 170th in population density by country at 84 people per square mile. I would argue that many of those with higher density numbers have worse environmental conditions. For that reason, I'd hesitate to try and institute a policy where the government forced more people into a smaller space.

We were both involved in a thread concerning gas prices last night, and I'm going to repeat the question I asked Spider Jerusalem (never answered). Do you believe that increased cost for gasoline, diesel, and Jet A is a good thing in that increased cost might become a motivation for movement away from refined petroleum products as a means of fueling transportation? I would add to that the question of whether or not you think high prices are a good thing because of the possibility they'll force the de-urbanization you'd like to see?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:40 PM

39. I already addressed this point: I said in the OP that "hives" can in fact be disastrous.

 

All it takes is one natural disaster to kill millions when they're all in one place.

I did address this.

I also pointed out the solution: alternative fuels, like hydrogen fuel cells, or electric cars, which can drastically reduce the carbon footprint of urban sprawl AND nullify the cost of gasoline by making it unnecessary.

I did address this. Did you read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:02 PM

54. In your conclusion you state "We can de-suburbanize the populace, moving them..."

 

So while you may have addressed this in the body of your essay by stating that centralization comes with problems, you are still advocating concentrating the population in small areas. Unless, I read this sentence wrong:

"We can de-suburbanize the populace, moving them from a million small cities into, let's say, a tenth as many mid-sized cities (bigger than Podunk but considerably smaller than New York)." In regards to statements like this, I like to ask: What you mean WE, Kimosabe, and is there Constitutional authority for "us" to force people to live where we think they should live?

You also stated "If gasoline remained cheap, we would burn even more of it..." which I'm assuming for lack of an answer to my question, is a way of stating that high gas prices are a good thing because they'll lead to a necessary changing of habits. Do I read that correctly?

"We can switch to electric cars...". That's not going to work until "we" either figure out how to make them work without needing greenhouse gas emitting plants to charge them, or legislate the scrapping of all internal combustion engines, neither of which seems on a fast track to fruition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

62. Urban sprawl is bad, overcrowding is bad. The term of the day is 'happy medium'.

 

Europe uses taxes, funding strategies and incentives to avoid urban sprawl. We have urban sprawl because we let the oil companies run wild. We also have the CONSTITUTIONAL power to declare lands off-limits, like Federal lands. We also have ZONING laws.

High gasoline prices may or may not be a good thing. What they are, regardless, is 1) inevitable and unstoppable; and 2) a natural incentive to look to other forms of energy. Gasoline prices absolutely will force a change of habits - we will either adapt or plunge into a dark ages when there's none left. Or we'll go extinct because of global warming. Really, those are your choices. Pick 'em. Cheap gasoline is gone. It's dead. In fact, here's one that'll blow a few minds: cheap gasoline never really existed in the first place.

We can use solar, nuclear or geothermal energy to power electric cars. None of these do as much damage to our environment as coal-fired power plants. It's not a FAST solution, but if this is the journey of a thousand miles then we'd better start stepping NOW while we still have an inhabitable Earth for us to do so.

I think our problem here is that you do not understand that this is a do or die situation for human civilization, or even our species. We can make these changes or future visitors to Earth can pick over our ruins and ask themselves why we didn't. We don't have an option #3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #62)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:53 PM

65. Thank you for a very well reasoned response. Gotta respect that. Tip o' my hat to ya.

 

However, places like Winslow AZ, McDermitt NV, and Jordan Valley, OR aren't on federal land. Nor I might add are tens of thousands of similar small towns and cities. So where would you ("we" find the constitutional authority to move their residents to population centers? Man, talk about starting a hot civil war...

Also, zoning laws are local things that likely were hammered out generations ago. How do you change a zoning law that's been in place for that long to now prohibit private residences?

Oh, give me a home where the Buffalo roam
Where the Deer and the Antelope play;
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word,
And the sky is not cloudy all day.

That was FDR's favorite song.

Lastly, I don't really care a whit what Europeans do. Most of Europe's countries are in for a world of hurt mainly due to their funding strategies and incentives. So much so that I'm beginning to believe the Euro will be tossed on the ash heap of history sooner rather than later. I don't think you'll find even a handful of European countries with population densities less than 200/sq mi which means they are governed by a whole different set of realities than we are. Our density is less than 84/sq mi.

On the subject of gas prices, I think they would go down dramatically tomorrow if the practice of boutique blending for different geographical areas were stopped tonight. I'm willing to make a Gentleman's Bet with you that by the end of 2013 prices are back down in the $3 range or lower. If they are you buy my new star, if they aren't I'll buy yours. Deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:01 PM

66. Honestly, zoning law changes like that would be damned hard.

 

Hard to implement, and hard on the people who are affected. Not to mention, as you pointed out, hard to do, legally speaking. That's a LOT of eminent domain.

As for Europe, we're not in much of a better condition. We're just good at covering it up. Soon as the dollar loses its reserve status, we're good and hosed. Our unemployment is just as bad, our infrastructure is crumbling, our debt is growing at $1.5 T per year... as far as debt is concerned, Europe is at crush depth but we're face-down in the swimming pool. We will both drown, and it's because of the jobs we're both bleeding overseas and the banksters that we're determined to bail out. Both America and Europe are socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.

Ehh... I'd make that bet but I am inclined to agree with you! Problem is, we'll pay dearly for cheap gasoline in other ways...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 02:26 AM

69. I don't think Eminent Domain works here...

 

According to the Fifth Amendment, it's explicit that the land must be expropriated for "public use". No other reasons for expropriation are given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:09 AM

72. The illegal we do right now; the unconstitutional, takes a while.

 

I know some famous figure said that once. I can't remember who.

But yes, your point is quite correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:58 PM

21. Until the fact that forty five percent of all oil available goes to our military

Is somehow changed, I dont know what can be done.

Let's get the guys on the Naval and Aircraft carriers to bike the energy needed for the fuel consumption of thos ships!

And we could have wax bags, rather than plastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:37 PM

36. I have no idea where you got that figure, but you're totally wrong

 

the entire US military uses 360,000 barrels of oil a day. Which is less than 2% of total US consumption, and less than one-half of one percent of total global consumption.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Look-at-US-Military-Energy-Consumption.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:20 PM

81. Check out this website:

http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-military-energy-consumption-in-2008.html

You can arrive at the two p0ercent figure you quote only if you don't consider jet fuel to be oil. (it is derived from oil, so should be considered oil.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:06 PM

83. A bit of basic math can easily be used to unravel that graph

Your blogger states that 1138 trillion BTU of total energy was used by the Dept. of Defense in 2009, of which 76% is from oil-derived fuels and the majority of that being jet fuel (kerosene).

So, 76% of 1138 trillion BTU's is roughly 864 trillion BTU's. If we simplify things by just assuming it's all jet fuel (which would work in your favor) and one gallon of jet fuel has 128,000 BTU's per gallon, that works out to 6.75 billion gallons burned per year. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons, so that breaks down to 160 million barrels of fuel per year.

The US as a whole uses approximately 7 BILLION barrels of oil per year, so the percentage comes up at approximately 2.2% of total US oil consumption burned by the military.

Sorry, but you're wrong and the graph at the blog you linked to actually confirms you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:31 PM

89. I meant to post the following two links, and not the link I posted.

I also should point out that I meant to discuss the military industrial complex as a whole.

After all, if Boeing creates a jet fighter for the military, the military service that receives the plane is not going to list the power used to create the massive vehicle as being used by itself.

Here are two insightful links about the huge waste of energy that our military consumes:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/The-Elephant-in-the-Room--by-George-Washington-091221-894.html


and Off of DU at this URL:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x504538


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 04:09 AM

92. That website says the same thing

 

if anything it gives a slightly LOWER figure for US military oil comsumption of 350,000 barrels a day. The US as a whole uses 19 MILLION barrels a day. It's very simple mathematics; 360,000*50=18,000,000, which is less than 2% of US total oil consumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:06 PM

46. Nope, not only do they NOT take 45% percent of gas

 

but for STRATEGIC and TACTICAL reasons they are at the forefront of greening everything.

No, it is not because they'd like to hug a dolphin. This is actually the other reason why the USN is actually pretty environmentally conscious, while the cruise ship industry... don't get me started.

There are many things to be critical about, but my local Navy and Marine Corp bases and HOUSING is far greener than the civilian areas surrounding them. I am talking solar panels on every damn roof, for example... and the testing of biofuels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:39 PM

51. Just one of oodles of articles one can find on googling "military going green"

 

I got your back, with cites.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-04-11-military-going-green_N.htm

U.S. military's green projects to save $1.6 billion over time

By Brian Winter, USA TODAY

It's not just the troops' uniforms that are green: The U.S. military says its investments to conserve energy and water are beginning to pay off, with benefits for cost, national security and troop safety.

The Army has cut water usage at its permanent bases and other facilities around the world by 31% since 2004, according to Pentagon data. The amount of energy used per square foot at Army facilities declined 10.4% during that same period.

The data do not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where increased troop levels caused energy usage to rise, but the military has several green measures in place there.

For example, the military has spent more than $100 million on "spray foam" insulation for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting leakage of air conditioning by at least 50%, says Tad Davis, the Army's deputy assistant secretary for environmental issues. The energy savings usually recover the investment within 90 days, he says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:01 PM

23. Oh, and we need to ENCOURAGE rather than keeping outlawed, the use of HEMP

Hemp will be very good at replacing things like plastic bags. Some peopel I know say that you can even use it to build tires, car bumpers and other components of vehiicles on the roads today.

Even under Obama, ridiculous steps have been taken to hurt people who grow hemp.

Our government's policy makers are still protecting the nuclear and oil and gas industries. And the coal industry too.

No one will ever die in a hemp mine collapse. Nor will any radiation be released by farming the substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:10 PM

26. add to that, hemp can be grown TWICE in a season

 

among other things, it grows like mad about anywhere.
I'd buy an acre of land tomorrow and start a hemp (NON thc) farm if I could.
but the DEA has refused to permit even ONE farm to legally grow INDUSTRIAL hemp!
Even though it's been legal for like 10 years, and many states allow it, the final arbiter of who gets to grow INDUSTRIAL hemp is the DEA.

Hemp would be amazing for the textile industry in the US (IE return it).
As has been pointed out countless other places, hemp clothing lasts for decades, and sometimes centuries.

Hemp seed itself can be used in a variety of ways.

then there's the ecological impact of hemp plants. Hemp produced more 02 than any other plant on the planet! That is, C02 back into the earth!!

We could get control on global warming yet if every parcel of un-used land were required to grow industrial hemp for a number of years.

over-seeds could be crushed and used for oil, excess fibers used for cloth, and you have the seating and fuel for cars already.

of course.. that would take vision on the part of this president, and possibly congress... something we can pretty much give up on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:12 AM

75. +1000000000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

63. Lalalalalalalalala! I can't hear you. .......

most americans are idiots and can't handle the truth. There is a reason for Fox News; that is, to suck the brains out of the citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hotler (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 26, 2012, 08:41 PM

64. LOL, well said. Thanks for the chuckles!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 02:26 PM

77. "Do you want fries with your SUV?"

 

Most American's are too lazy and ignorant to care. I was born and raised here. I know first hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 02:27 PM

78. What about all the NONSTOP wars in the Middle East and Asia? They figure in there, somewhere... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:51 PM

86. Right, we have military bases all over the world.

Everywhere from the obvious, liek Afghanistan and the American embassy in Iraq, to the seven bases in Colombia, and the bases in Europe and Okinawa, and the Korean nation.

And each military base requires huge expenditures in terms of cutting down trees, paving roads, putting in airfields, and then there are all the vehicles -everything from the aircraft carriers, and the jet fighter planes to the Humvees.

And the cost of all the hospital supplies when wounded veterans are returned state side and require six months of operations and other medial care.

I am hearing that forty nine cents out of every single dolar the government spends is spent on the military industrial complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:35 PM

84. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 09:49 PM

85. Legalize marijuana!

 

And grow it everywhere! Hemp seed oil could replace diesel and make ethanol from the plant! And food! And paper! And anti-depressants!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #85)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 03:48 AM

91. Now...now. You know the objective

is to maintain a careful balance of big profits for the extraction, the highest cost possible that won't act as an impetus for serious conservation or alternatives while pushing the envelope enough to put steady pressure on the political system to grant new leases and allow ever risker techniques to get at the black gold.

Sensible stuff like that is beyond forbiden, it is a cardinal sin against our Official State Secular Religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 1, 2012, 09:46 PM

94. and jobs also! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:03 PM

88. The price is not going down any time soon

 

It's been high time to get off fossil fuels since 1972

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread