Oil jumps above $100 on refinery outage

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

There's no need to say sorry if that's what you really think HLJ. If it is what you really think, I'd be curious to know why you think it.

Regardless, Ali, there's never an excuse for me to be unkind.

The reality seems to be (and you can find plenty of people who support, and others who reject, this idea) that we are at, or very near, the limit of oil production. If you do a search for "Peak Oil" you can find a lot of this information. This is no longer just a lunatic fringe idea.

This quote is from a Volvo web site "The consumption of energy is increasing all over the world. At the same time, the available resources are declining. "

ASPO probably has the most comprehensive site. I was at a conference recently where Colin Campbell, the founder of ASPO, gave a presentation.

Here's an article from Technology Review from 2005.

There are lots more out there (even on Wikipedia).

[Aliantha]

Fair enough HLJ, and I happen to agree with your point here. It's why I suggested that if governments are to do anything, it should be to invest in alternative fuels.

I just don't get where in my post I suggested anything about dwindling supplies. I was only addressing one facet of the whole debate and I thought that was fairly clear.

I find on message boards, if you write a whole diatribe people mostly either just ignore it, or they skim it and often miss important bits. Therefore, in general I prefer to discuss one point per post.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It's why I suggested that if governments are to do anything, it should be to invest in alternative fuels.

Then another posted the facts. There are no alternative fuels. Some of these myths (such as hydrogen) are not even fuels. That 'alternative fuel' myth is another problem created by governement and junk scientists.

Aliantha - again. All this was posted last time. Why do people have so much trouble with facts? Why, after facts are promoted, do some reiterate the myths from politicians? Only solution is doing more work from less energy. That is the only solution for pollution, global warming, energy shortages, etc. Out of ten liters of gasoline - how many acutally move the car? One to two. You did not know that? Alternative fuels are preached by the naive to the naive. Alternative fuels are preached by the same logic that prove Saddam had WMDs. Only solution is found in doing more work from less energy.

[Aliantha]

Right, so electric solar powered cells aren't worth considering?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Right, so electric solar powered cells aren't worth considering?

A rain drop does not fill a bucket.

[Aliantha]

yes well, we can trade all the proverbs you like, but if our civilization is to survive, alternative energy must be developed. Simply telling people to 'use less fossil fuels' is great, but it only prolongs the inevitable outcome because it's a non renewable resource.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

yes well, we can trade all the proverbs you like, but if our civilization is to survive, alternative energy must be developed. Simply telling people to 'use less fossil fuels' is great, but it only prolongs the inevitable outcome because it's a non renewable resource.

Show me the solar cells that will put BrainR's 60,000 pound truck up highway hills? Ideal numbers cannot even approach a solution. Show me the alternative energy source that can make airplanes fly. There is no theoretical technology that can store sufficient energy per pound. Nothing can happen pragmatically until it can first work theoretically. Even those many alternative fuels are actually reapplications of the same energy sources - coal, oil, etc. Just another example of doing more work from less energy.

Ethanol is alternative energy because it comes from corn and the sun? Bull. Massive amounts of petroleum are required to make and truck ethanol. Ethanol is the perfect example of alternative energy - that does not really exist.

Why is BrainR wasting 12 gallons every night to sleep? One way of not using that petroleum is to price it higher so that the same petroleum does more work. Then maybe one gallon does what is currently done by 12. Only with proper (higher) pricing do other (and trivial) energy sources become viable. Even your solar cell solution is not feasible until gasoline goes to $5 per gallon - or maybe higher. If we don't demand more work from the same energy, then those alternatives cannot happen. It's basic economics. Same was demonstrated in the 1970s.

You can speculate all you want. I put those speculations into perspective. A rain drop does not fill a bucket. Even a thunderstorm does not provide enough raindrops. Meanwhile, the problem involves barrels. And here we are discussing buckets. To save barrels, we first need proper energy prices (higher). Only then do we also get raindrops from alternative energy sources.

[Aliantha]

So what you're saying is, we should all use less oil (great idea) to make the supplies last longer (another great idea) till we can come up with a better means of creating energy (yet another great idea).

Shit tw, that sounds a lot like what I just said.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Shit tw, that sounds a lot like what I just said.

You forgot the perspective and therefore came to a different conclusion. Your alternative energy concepts are not viable without first addressing the bigger problem - doing more work with less energy.

George Jr said last year that he was increasing funding for all this R&D stuff. A world wide effort to create alternative energy was ITER. What did George Jr do last Dec? He entirely canceled money for that research. That black day was 15 Dec 2007 (if I remember correctly). We must secure our oil (not our future). So any idea of alternative energy from that research (by Americans) is destroyed by those who advocate more consumption. Destroyed by people who cannot value energy when oil is priced so low - when we don't try to do more with less energy - when it is more profitable to increase the weigh of automobiles which was also proposed in Washington early last year.

What makes the energy content of solar cells practical? First we must learn to move BrianR's truck with maybe 1/5th the energy. Of course it is remotely possible. Some fundamental theories even exist to approach that goal. But nothing is in research. Price of energy is too low. If the machine needs so much energy, then trivial energy from alternative fuels get unbudgeted as impractical (ie ITER).

Meanwhile, most every alternative energy source is really only an energy medium - uses existing energy technologies. Most every alternative energy source is not.

How much energy in sunlight? Near zero especially when our machines demand massively more energy. The only 'alternative fuels' that can provide that energy are really nothing more than conventional energy rehyped as 'alternative fuels'.

Until we learn how to do more with less, then alternatives only supply a drop in the bucket. We need machines that no longer need buckets and barrels. We need machines that can work with raindrops - not buckets of energy. Only then do alternatives have practical value. Only then are raindrops from so called 'alternatives' are viable. The solutions to excessive petroleum consumption in the short term only then makes alternative fuels viable in the long term.

Quantum physics research also necessary to accomplish these goals? Guess who has reduced R&D funding, again, in advanced physics research? Spending on things such as financial markets and military budgets is increasing. We must enrich the right people. We must save the world from Saddam Hussein and the evil Iranians. Even John Howard said so; so it must be true.

The real 'alternative fuels' have little value in a world where a machine consumes so much energy. In America, that is more than twice the energy compared to any other industrial nation. No wonder other nations are more interested in alternative fuels. Their machines consume less energy. Their machines do more work for the same energy. Therefore more alternative energy sources are explored. A completely different conclusion once we apply perspective - once we replace sweeping generalizations with perspective.

The irony: alternative fuels - the few that actually are alternative fuels - become practical only after our machines start doing more work with less energy.

[Aliantha]

Well John Howard is no longer in power, so it really doesn't matter what he said now.

[monster]

Hey TWonk
I didn't realize you were Brian's sock puppet. So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example? Please note, I am not passing judgement or complaining, just being nosy, so kindly do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my opinions on the price of gas. kthxbai.

[tw]

Originally Posted by monster

So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example?

The topic is energy. What you felt that I assumed that you assumed was your feelings on the opinion of gas prices ... funny how others do just that - personalize by reading what never existed. Ok. You were making humor. Or am I assuming that what you felt that I assume that your assumed was your feeling on .... never mind. It uses too much energy.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by monster

Hey TWonk
I didn't realize you were Brian's sock puppet. So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example? Please note, I am not passing judgement or complaining, just being nosy, so kindly do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my opinions on the price of gas. kthxbai.

I speak only for myself. As I mentioned earlier, I run my engine for several reasons, chiefly climate control. If I don't sleep well, I'll be tired the next day. Piloting such a large vehicle is challenging enough without adding fatigue to the equation. I don't care what diesel costs: I'm going to stay comfortable. The company pays for the fuel. And who pays the cost of fuel to the company? You do! In the form of higher freight rates and fuel reimbursements to the drivers. That all adds to the retail price of everything you buy or use.

TW: a few corrections. My name is Brian, not brain, although I understand the confusion. Happens all the time. Next, my truck weighs 80,000 lbs gross, not 60. Minor point but let's strive for accuracy here.

Monster, there are a few alternatives to running the main engine. First, there are APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) to supply all the power needs that the truck and I have. There is also shore power (think extension cord) for some rigs. Another option that I use when possible is IdleAire. This system allows me to shut down, save fuel, sleep better and even provides creature comforts. I like this option best as the "green" battery units that Kenworth has do not provide enough power and tend to die after seven or eight hours and our breaks are ten hours long. I have this information from drivers who have this option so no cite.

I do not wish to run my engine but there are no viable options at this time. I do monitor the trade rags for the latest developments in anti-idling technology so I can reduce my idling hours.

Brian

[tw]

Originally Posted by BrianR

I do not wish to run my engine but there are no viable options at this time. I do monitor the trade rags for the latest developments in anti-idling technology so I can reduce my idling hours.

That again demonstrates my point. Oil prices are so low that truck lots are full of idling diesels. We all waste energy, in part, because useful or efficient solutions are not available. We also know from history that many American companies develop and stifle innovation. Intentional conspiracy? No. Most often reason is management that either stifle innovation in the name of cost controls, or uses spread sheets rather than science as a decision tool.

As Sculley noted when he was stifling innovation at Apple, every time he had the computer industry figured out, the industry had already changed. He had no idea what innovation was. He was ‘top dog’ because he was an MBA - not an innovator. What does it take to drive out such problems? Recession, sometimes only bankruptcy, or public outcry about people stifling innovation. However, as demonstrated here, that is not happening. Therefore prices must increase to force innovation.

$3 per gallon gasoline is not expensive enough. Largest SUV sales actually increased. From the 1970s, it took $5 per gallon gas to force some companies (ie GM) to liberate their innovators.


BTW, at 80,000#, do constraints exist in certain mid-west states?

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by tw

BTW, at 80,000#, do constraints exist in certain mid-west states?

No. Not exactly. The national maximum gross weight is 80,000 lbs.

Some states regulate axle weight however.

The information is found in a table at the front of any decent trucker atlas.

Brian