|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > September 2005 > Oil Prices
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-28, 10:21 am |
| Hi,
On the back of a perioed of unprecedent oil price increases.
How far more can the customer pay?.
RayH.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-08-28, 10:21 am |
| As much as they feel like charging. Or can get away with. You can make
your own fuel, and not be a hostage.
Biodiesel, WVO, Ethanol, Methane, and Electric are all options.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Ray Hogan wrote:
> Hi,
> On the back of a perioed of unprecedent oil price increases.
> How far more can the customer pay?.
> RayH.
>
>
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-28, 3:22 pm |
| What is the projected value of the Barrel of oil for this time next year?.
RayH.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:pciQe.2710$vu5.365@fe11.lga...[color=darkred]
> As much as they feel like charging. Or can get away with. You can make
> your own fuel, and not be a hostage.
>
> Biodiesel, WVO, Ethanol, Methane, and Electric are all options.
>
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
>
> Ray Hogan wrote:
| |
|
| Ray Hogan wrote:
> What is the projected value of the Barrel of oil for this time next
> year?. RayH.
Any guess would be pure speculation, projections about the price of
barrel of oil two days from now are the equivalent of vaporware. If we
build new refineries, the cost could come down, hurricane interrupts
Gulf oil well production, cost goes up, discover a room temp
superconductor and energy will practically be free! So who knows, and
more important to me, who cares unless you're going to just sit and
worry about it.
Herb
| |
|
|
I keep hearing around 100 dollars.....5 dollar gas....from investors...
next year....no given date....
hope helps...sno
Ray Hogan wrote:[color=darkred]
>
> What is the projected value of the Barrel of oil for this time next year?.
> RayH.
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:pciQe.2710$vu5.365@fe11.lga...
--
Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it
This tag line is generated by:
SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-28, 4:21 pm |
| Yes, any projection is just speculation, but there must be a point where
the producer and consumer have reached the optimium value. Some say this is
about $90 a barrel.
Regards.
RayH.
"Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
> Ray Hogan wrote:
>
>
> Any guess would be pure speculation, projections about the price of
> barrel of oil two days from now are the equivalent of vaporware. If we
> build new refineries, the cost could come down, hurricane interrupts
> Gulf oil well production, cost goes up, discover a room temp
> superconductor and energy will practically be free! So who knows, and
> more important to me, who cares unless you're going to just sit and
> worry about it.
>
> Herb
| |
| the seventh sign 2005-08-28, 5:21 pm |
| Ray Hogan wrote:
> Yes, any projection is just speculation, but there must be a point where
> the producer and consumer have reached the optimium value. Some say this is
> about $90 a barrel.
> Regards.
> RayH.
>
> "Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
>
>
You have already reached optimal value Hawaii is reintroducing price
caps. Once price caps happen then people will have a repeat of the
1970's because they have not learned yet to reduce their consumption.
what you should look at is the average paycheck per state and compare
that to the price of gas and if it is more than 1/2 of the hourly pay of
the average paycheck then you have reached optimal value and it is past
this for me!
80 dollars a barrel is coming and when it hits no economy in the world
will be able to sustain the price with out going to alternative fuels.
Delivery of good will go sky high so will the price you pay for the goods.
They need a replacement for the fuel and now! With the falsely low
prices we had due in part from clinton opening the oil reserves tap we
had no reason to introduce variable fuels vehicles, better fuel economy
or anything to help people offset the cost in their wallets.
That's why I do not want or need congress to do jack with fuel economy
vehicles they screw it up and cave to the rich oil companies.
TSS
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-28, 7:21 pm |
| Yes, increasing prices will force some reduction in consumption, but could
the target of the producers is the tax take of goverments and I suppose my
original question is at what price this starts to come ito focus.
RayH.
"the seventh sign" <die.now.spammers@internet.now> wrote in message
news:11h45cflr22j37f@corp.supernews.com...
> Ray Hogan wrote:
>
> You have already reached optimal value Hawaii is reintroducing price caps.
> Once price caps happen then people will have a repeat of the 1970's
> because they have not learned yet to reduce their consumption.
>
> what you should look at is the average paycheck per state and compare that
> to the price of gas and if it is more than 1/2 of the hourly pay of the
> average paycheck then you have reached optimal value and it is past this
> for me!
>
> 80 dollars a barrel is coming and when it hits no economy in the world
> will be able to sustain the price with out going to alternative fuels.
> Delivery of good will go sky high so will the price you pay for the goods.
> They need a replacement for the fuel and now! With the falsely low prices
> we had due in part from clinton opening the oil reserves tap we had no
> reason to introduce variable fuels vehicles, better fuel economy or
> anything to help people offset the cost in their wallets.
> That's why I do not want or need congress to do jack with fuel economy
> vehicles they screw it up and cave to the rich oil companies.
>
> TSS
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-08-28, 9:21 pm |
|
"Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
> Ray Hogan wrote:
>
>
> Any guess would be pure speculation, projections about the price of
> barrel of oil two days from now are the equivalent of vaporware. If we
> build new refineries, the cost could come down, hurricane interrupts
> Gulf oil well production, cost goes up, discover a room temp
> superconductor and energy will practically be free! So who knows, and
> more important to me, who cares unless you're going to just sit and
> worry about it.
>
> Herb
Plenty of people make their living getting paid to make such speculation,
and the consensus appears to be that we are approaching peak oil in the
world market. The US hit peak oil about 1970, when consumption finally
began to exceed supply. Prices skyrocketed, shortages occurred, and we
called it the "energy crisis." In subsequent years, the US found offshore
sources for oil, and for the next 35 years the escalating US demand was met
with oil from other producers around the world.
Now the world demand for oil is starting to approach the world level of
supply. This time there is no second option readily available for buying
more oil. The law of supply and demand dictates that prices go up when
demand exceeds supply. That's what's happening now, and prices will
continue to rise until either demand decreases and/or the supply increases.
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-29, 6:21 am |
| So we have reached a cricial stage in the oil endgame. A stage where in
European countries, governments collect a tax take in the mid sixties
percent and where every increase in producer price results in a greater
retunrs. Its like both producer and goverments versus the consumer.
So if we accept that supply is nearing its potential. Who is going to give
way against a background of the producer having only one option. Will
governments reduce their tax take or consumers reduce their consumption.
Regards.
RayH.
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:QErQe.199556$9A2.58910@edtnps89...
>
> "Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
>
> Plenty of people make their living getting paid to make such speculation,
> and the consensus appears to be that we are approaching peak oil in the
> world market. The US hit peak oil about 1970, when consumption finally
> began to exceed supply. Prices skyrocketed, shortages occurred, and we
> called it the "energy crisis." In subsequent years, the US found offshore
> sources for oil, and for the next 35 years the escalating US demand was
> met with oil from other producers around the world.
>
> Now the world demand for oil is starting to approach the world level of
> supply. This time there is no second option readily available for buying
> more oil. The law of supply and demand dictates that prices go up when
> demand exceeds supply. That's what's happening now, and prices will
> continue to rise until either demand decreases and/or the supply
> increases.
>
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-08-29, 10:21 am |
|
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:deuib4$ck6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> So we have reached a cricial stage in the oil endgame. A stage where in
> European countries, governments collect a tax take in the mid sixties
> percent and where every increase in producer price results in a greater
> retunrs. Its like both producer and goverments versus the consumer.
>
> So if we accept that supply is nearing its potential. Who is going to give
> way against a background of the producer having only one option. Will
> governments reduce their tax take or consumers reduce their consumption.
> Regards.
> RayH.
The type of remedy being asked for is often a greater subsidy for the
consumer. Such things cost vast amounts of money. Where do governments get
such money but from taxes. In this case, the cure would be the disease.
| |
| mike mcwilliams 2005-08-29, 1:21 pm |
|
>
>
> The type of remedy being asked for is often a greater subsidy for the
> consumer. Such things cost vast amounts of money. Where do governments get
> such money but from taxes. In this case, the cure would be the disease.
>
>
But what is being asked for is not a greater subsidy, just a reduction
in taxes which have helped push the price to inordinate heights.
In this case government interference on something people use like they
do bread and milk is cause for concern. I say recoup the revenues from
non-essential items such as alcohol, tobacco, and dare I say it,
legalized, taxable weed.
| |
| Hank McCall 2005-08-29, 4:21 pm |
| >
> Ray Hogan wrote:
>
>sno wrote:
> I keep hearing around 100 dollars.....5 dollar gas....from investors...
> next year....no given date....
>
> hope helps...sno
In the "short term" (which may stretch for 10 years) It is a complete
supply vs demand situation. Even the president's release of stored oil
can have only minimal effect. In a slightly longer term, the price
cannot exceed the price of alternate energy supplies. Greed by oil
producers makes us spend more on wind, solar, tidal power sources once
they seem economically attractive.
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-29, 6:21 pm |
| Hi,
Broke the $70 today or 2$ a Barrel and when you consider 500,000,000 barrels
pre year. Not a bad increase for no increase in costs and you guessed
correct. The costumer will once again carry this cost, but for how long
more.
Regards.
RayH.
"Hank McCall" <h.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8budnZ2dnZ1vqOrznZ2dnSvIjt6dnZ2dRVn-yJ2dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> In the "short term" (which may stretch for 10 years) It is a complete
> supply vs demand situation. Even the president's release of stored oil can
> have only minimal effect. In a slightly longer term, the price cannot
> exceed the price of alternate energy supplies. Greed by oil producers
> makes us spend more on wind, solar, tidal power sources once they seem
> economically attractive.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-08-30, 2:21 am |
|
"Hank McCall" <h.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8budnZ2dnZ1vqOrznZ2dnSvIjt6dnZ2dRVn-yJ2dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> In the "short term" (which may stretch for 10 years) It is a complete
> supply vs demand situation. Even the president's release of stored oil can
> have only minimal effect. In a slightly longer term, the price cannot
> exceed the price of alternate energy supplies. Greed by oil producers
> makes us spend more on wind, solar, tidal power sources once they seem
> economically attractive.
What's your alternative to this "greed?" Some things that have been tried
so far include: marxism, price controls, nationalization, subsidies and
regulation. What has worked better than simple supply-and-demand?
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-30, 6:21 am |
| Hi, I do not have an alternative. It just amazes me how the prices just keep
on rising and we the consumer keep on paying both the producer and the tax
revenue which is over twice the price increase.
Somewhere along this line society is going to have to realise that we are in
the oil endgame, but the question is. How and when will this be played out?.
Regards.
RayH.
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:OORQe.219050$HI.121223@edtnps84...
>
> "Hank McCall" <h.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8budnZ2dnZ1vqOrznZ2dnSvIjt6dnZ2dRVn-yJ2dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> What's your alternative to this "greed?" Some things that have been tried
> so far include: marxism, price controls, nationalization, subsidies and
> regulation. What has worked better than simple supply-and-demand?
>
| |
| Roger_Nickel 2005-08-30, 7:21 am |
| Ray Hogan wrote:
> So we have reached a cricial stage in the oil endgame. A stage where in
> European countries, governments collect a tax take in the mid sixties
> percent and where every increase in producer price results in a greater
> retunrs. Its like both producer and goverments versus the consumer.
>
> So if we accept that supply is nearing its potential. Who is going to give
> way against a background of the producer having only one option. Will
> governments reduce their tax take or consumers reduce their consumption.
> Regards.
> RayH.
>
Petrol in New Zealand is heavily taxed but apart from 12% VAT,this
is an excise tax levied per litre; a mixture of accident
compensation fund levy, road tax and a general taxation component.
Tax used to be 60% of the price of our fuel but that was when the
price was $0.85/Litre. Today I paid NZ$1.54/L
| |
| Roger_Nickel 2005-08-30, 7:21 am |
| Hank McCall wrote:
>
> In the "short term" (which may stretch for 10 years) It is a complete
> supply vs demand situation. Even the president's release of stored oil
> can have only minimal effect. In a slightly longer term, the price
> cannot exceed the price of alternate energy supplies. Greed by oil
> producers makes us spend more on wind, solar, tidal power sources once
> they seem economically attractive.
Aparently the cost of oil from coal by the Fischer trope process
is around US$40 a barrel but the equipment and the people to run
it don't just magically appear overnight. In the short term we're
stuck with liquid fueled transport because of the huge investment
in vehicles and infrastructure, and for aircraft there is no
alternative in sight.
| |
| Hank McCall 2005-08-30, 10:21 am |
| Roger,
You have said, in different words, exactly what I tried to convey. We
will realize at some point that we have to make massive investments in
some other energy source. That will happen when the oil price makes
those sources cheap enough to proceed. But, as you say, it will take
time for that to happen, I agree with you totally. My reference to
"greed" is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of Marxism at all.
The mechanism of demand causing more supply is an appropriate damper of
the oil profiteering.
Hank
Roger_Nickel wrote:
> Hank McCall wrote:
>
>
>
> Aparently the cost of oil from coal by the Fischer trope process is
> around US$40 a barrel but the equipment and the people to run it don't
> just magically appear overnight. In the short term we're stuck with
> liquid fueled transport because of the huge investment in vehicles and
> infrastructure, and for aircraft there is no alternative in sight.
| |
| CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert 2005-08-30, 3:21 pm |
| ank McCall wrote:
> Roger,
> You have said, in different words, exactly what I tried to convey.
> We will realize at some point that we have to make massive investments
> in some other energy source. That will happen when the oil price makes
> those sources cheap enough to proceed. But, as you say, it will take
> time for that to happen, I agree with you totally. My reference to
> "greed" is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of Marxism at all.
> The mechanism of demand causing more supply is an appropriate damper of
> the oil profiteering.
> Hank
>
Demand is not causing more supply. Already our gas producing facilities
are maxed out. We have oil reserves in US and are not having a supply
of oil issue. We have a supply of gas issue. They are making no moves
to create more refineries either.
Oil cant be asked to compete with itself. Im not too against the price
increases. It should drive the technologies we have needed for a long
time, and eventually grow new markets. However, unfortunately this
means the price of fuel in those markets will be _higher_ than the price
of fuel in general today, no less...
[color=darkred]
>
> Roger_Nickel wrote:
>
--
Respectfully,
CL Gilbert
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door() into
the sheepfold{}, but climbeth up some other *way, the same is a thief
and a robber."
GnuPG Key Fingerprint:
82A6 8893 C2A1 F64E A9AD 19AE 55B2 4CD7 80D2 0A2D
| |
| Hank McCall 2005-08-30, 3:21 pm |
| CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:
> ank McCall wrote:
>
>
> Demand is not causing more supply. Already our gas producing facilities
> are maxed out. We have oil reserves in US and are not having a supply
> of oil issue. We have a supply of gas issue. They are making no moves
> to create more refineries either.
>
> Oil cant be asked to compete with itself. Im not too against the price
> increases. It should drive the technologies we have needed for a long
> time, and eventually grow new markets. However, unfortunately this
> means the price of fuel in those markets will be _higher_ than the price
> of fuel in general today, no less...
>
Demand does increase supply!! For example there is oil shale in
abundance in the US but it is too costly now to mine it. It is entirely
possible that if a major effort were made in this area, a cheaper method
of extraction could be found and offer a lower priced alternative to
foreign oil. We need incentive like a ready market) to get investors to
risk big sums of money. Going back to my original post, if factories
and homes were to utilize alternate fuels (solar, wind, tidal,
geothermal etc.), the relatively small (despite all the hype) amount of
gasoline used by autos, trucks that need a readily available portable
energy supply would not be a problem.
Hank McCall
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-08-30, 8:21 pm |
|
"Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
> Ray Hogan wrote:
>
>
> Any guess would be pure speculation, projections about the price of
> barrel of oil two days from now are the equivalent of vaporware. If we
> build new refineries, the cost could come down, hurricane interrupts
> Gulf oil well production, cost goes up, discover a room temp
> superconductor and energy will practically be free! So who knows, and
> more important to me, who cares unless you're going to just sit and
> worry about it.
>
> Herb
I remember when oil was still about $120 about 4~5 years ago. People then
were still complaining, but the question was posed of why the US oil
companies were not drilling for oil to help ease the high price of gasoline.
The response was that the cost of gasoline was too low to consider the
exploration of more oil in the mainland US. There is still plenty.
Now here we are at almost $3 a gallon. Now there is no more excuses.
I did read about more "jobs that Americans will not do" about a month ago
that some Chinese workers are being imported to drill for oil in Colorado.
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-08-30, 8:21 pm |
|
"mike mcXXXXXXXX" <michael.mcXXXXXXXX@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:1125329569.559242@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca...
>
>
> But what is being asked for is not a greater subsidy, just a reduction in
> taxes which have helped push the price to inordinate heights.
> In this case government interference on something people use like they do
> bread and milk is cause for concern. I say recoup the revenues from
> non-essential items such as alcohol, tobacco, and dare I say it,
> legalized, taxable weed.
Get a farm and get tax free fuel
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-08-30, 11:21 pm |
|
"GeekBoy" <GeekBoy@Geeks.com> wrote in message
news:1125441958.67fa86fa029dd4232d60cf92a8728d0c@teranews...
>
> "Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
>
> I remember when oil was still about $120 about 4~5 years ago. People then
> were still complaining, but the question was posed of why the US oil
> companies were not drilling for oil to help ease the high price of
> gasoline.
That's rich. The whole purpose of oil cartels is to limit supply to boost
prices.
>
> The response was that the cost of gasoline was too low to consider the
> exploration of more oil in the mainland US. There is still plenty.
> Now here we are at almost $3 a gallon. Now there is no more excuses.
These are golden times for the oil industry. They are benefitting from both
peak prices and peak production. This gravy train will continue until
supplies dwindle to the point where a combination of high production costs
and low sales volume will kill the profit margin.
>
| |
| Bret Ludwig 2005-08-30, 11:21 pm |
| The problem with alternate fuels is that the high production cost
vis-a-vis crude oil means they would be unaffordable. What did the
German synthetic gasoline at Ploiesti cost a gallon?
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-08-31, 12:21 am |
|
"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125453332.945851.227070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The problem with alternate fuels is that the high production cost
> vis-a-vis crude oil means they would be unaffordable. What did the
> German synthetic gasoline at Ploiesti cost a gallon?
>
Reading the US tries at synthetic, it was about 3-4 times as much.
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2005-08-31, 1:21 pm |
| What's being ignored here, generally, is the efficiency of use of these
resources.
So long as we insist on driving our SUVs or Hummers without regard for
energy consumed, we will make things worse. (Until very recently, who
even looked at mileage figures posted on new car? Never mind, learn how
to operate it efficiently.)
Oil is not "produced", at least not at a meaningful rate. The faster
we extract it from the ground, the sooner the day of reckoning. Seems
simple enough- slow down now.
Big Oil would like to continue rapacious profiteering, dismiss impact
on climate, and divert concerns. As would "W" it seems. Lots of
citizens are taking this situation personally, in terms of altering
lifestyles; maybe we can get the gummint to follow?
J
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-08-31, 3:21 pm |
| Hi,
This is missing the point. Fossil fuels are not an finite source. We are in
the endgame.
Watch the power players.
RayH.
"GeekBoy" <GeekBoy@Geeks.com> wrote in message
news:1125441958.67fa86fa029dd4232d60cf92a8728d0c@teranews...
>
> "Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o2nQe.4282$__1.3036@trnddc07...
>
> I remember when oil was still about $120 about 4~5 years ago. People then
> were still complaining, but the question was posed of why the US oil
> companies were not drilling for oil to help ease the high price of
> gasoline.
>
> The response was that the cost of gasoline was too low to consider the
> exploration of more oil in the mainland US. There is still plenty.
> Now here we are at almost $3 a gallon. Now there is no more excuses.
>
> I did read about more "jobs that Americans will not do" about a month ago
> that some Chinese workers are being imported to drill for oil in Colorado.
>
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-08-31, 9:21 pm |
|
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:df4s39$cid$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Hi,
> This is missing the point. Fossil fuels are not an finite source. We are
> in the endgame.
> Watch the power players.
> RayH.
Yes finite, not end. That what was thought 40 years ago, then all of a
sudden new technology came out that made it easier to find oil then all of a
sudden there was more than anyone imagined.
Russia itself is sitting on humungous reserves that still are not tapped.
>
> "GeekBoy" <GeekBoy@Geeks.com> wrote in message
> news:1125441958.67fa86fa029dd4232d60cf92a8728d0c@teranews...
>
>
| |
| Bret Ludwig 2005-08-31, 11:21 pm |
|
barry@sme-online.com wrote:
> What's being ignored here, generally, is the efficiency of use of these
> resources.
>
> So long as we insist on driving our SUVs or Hummers without regard for
> energy consumed, we will make things worse. (Until very recently, who
> even looked at mileage figures posted on new car? Never mind, learn how
> to operate it efficiently.)
It is not being ignored: people simply will use oil casually until
they can no longer afford to, and the oil companies know they could go
to $4/gallon with little drop in sales. In the US, fuel is the cheapest
thing you can put in a car.
Also, consider that the delta in medical costs from a serious
vehicular collision (assuming you are killed outright in neither)
between being in a mini-car and an SUV could be easily more than you
will spend in a lifetime in automobile fuel.
Factor in also that the popularity of heavy SUVs is largely due to
Detroit not being able to offer the size of passenger car American
drivers prefer, thus transferring many buyers to trucks and SUVs. I had
a '74 Buick Electra 225 I bought at an estate sale in excellent
cosmetic condition but running poorly for $300 recently. I went in
under the hood and tore out every piece of smog plumbing, the carb, the
intake manifold, AIR pump and plumbing summarily, put on a aftermarket
aluminum intake and small Holley and chrome air cleaner, and a recurved
GM HEI distributor. No EGR, no AIR, no TCS, nada. Ran like a watch. Put
new U-joints in, painted driveshaft white, put in a front hoop (don't
like polevaulting). Changed trans fluid. Needed new idler arm, new
belts, brakes.
Sold it for $1900 to a guy for a daily driver. Gets about 13 mpg...and
at $3/gal. how long would he have to drive a Prius to break even?
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-02, 7:22 pm |
| Hi,
Yes, it is a finite source, but the truth of where we are in this time
timeframe is the issue and how this will be played out.
Regards.
RayH
10
"GeekBoy" <GeekBoy@Geeks.com> wrote in message
news:1125530212.83e4d0f2758b20f925b33662d7a5903e@teranews...
>
> "Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:df4s39$cid$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>
> Yes finite, not end. That what was thought 40 years ago, then all of a
> sudden new technology came out that made it easier to find oil then all of
> a sudden there was more than anyone imagined.
>
> Russia itself is sitting on humungous reserves that still are not tapped.
>
>
>
>
| |
| Mark & Mary Ann Weiss 2005-09-02, 7:22 pm |
|
"sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in message
news:1125252816.f8b3bc2e577cc686f1b983282cdb179d@teranews...[color=darkred]
>
> I keep hearing around 100 dollars.....5 dollar gas....from investors...
> next year....no given date....
>
> hope helps...sno
>
> Ray Hogan wrote:
I predicted $7/gallon in 2007, but it seems we have $6.42/gallon today in
Atlanta, GA and many stations out of gas, long lines stretching for a block
or more to the ones that still have gas, two-gallon limited for people in
Alabama and viscinity. This peak was forced upon us early because of the
hurricane damage to 20 oil rigs and the refinery capacity on-shore.
Once we get past $5, the poor will take to the streets in demonstrations,
police will have to guard every gas station, violence will start to erupt in
urban areas, and there will be a sharp increase in joblessness among the
working poor, as they can no longer afford transportation to work in areas
where there is no public transport.
We are in for interesting time. Katrina has bumped the timeline up a couple
of years in one weekend. Gas was $3.79 in NY this afternoon as I was driving
home. It was $2.95 when I left for work early in the morning.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-09-02, 7:22 pm |
|
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pwQRe.5489$_84.3266@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in message
> news:1125252816.f8b3bc2e577cc686f1b983282cdb179d@teranews...
>
> I predicted $7/gallon in 2007, but it seems we have $6.42/gallon today in
> Atlanta, GA and many stations out of gas, long lines stretching for a
> block
> or more to the ones that still have gas, two-gallon limited for people in
> Alabama and viscinity. This peak was forced upon us early because of the
> hurricane damage to 20 oil rigs and the refinery capacity on-shore.
> Once we get past $5, the poor will take to the streets in demonstrations,
> police will have to guard every gas station, violence will start to erupt
> in
> urban areas, and there will be a sharp increase in joblessness among the
> working poor, as they can no longer afford transportation to work in areas
> where there is no public transport.
> We are in for interesting time. Katrina has bumped the timeline up a
> couple
> of years in one weekend. Gas was $3.79 in NY this afternoon as I was
> driving
> home. It was $2.95 when I left for work early in the morning.
>
This is strange. I'm out in California the state know for high fuel prices
and paid $2.73 at Sam's club today and no waiting in line.
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
>
> VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
> Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
> Business sites at:
> www.dv-clips.com
> www.mwcomms.com
> www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
> -
>
>
>
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-02, 7:22 pm |
| Hi,
While the tradegy in US has a huge human implication, it should not be
justification for the world oil prices or is the system that finely
balanced.
Regards.
RayH
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pwQRe.5489$_84.3266@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "sno" <sno@opelc.com> wrote in message
> news:1125252816.f8b3bc2e577cc686f1b983282cdb179d@teranews...
>
> I predicted $7/gallon in 2007, but it seems we have $6.42/gallon today in
> Atlanta, GA and many stations out of gas, long lines stretching for a
> block
> or more to the ones that still have gas, two-gallon limited for people in
> Alabama and viscinity. This peak was forced upon us early because of the
> hurricane damage to 20 oil rigs and the refinery capacity on-shore.
> Once we get past $5, the poor will take to the streets in demonstrations,
> police will have to guard every gas station, violence will start to erupt
> in
> urban areas, and there will be a sharp increase in joblessness among the
> working poor, as they can no longer afford transportation to work in areas
> where there is no public transport.
> We are in for interesting time. Katrina has bumped the timeline up a
> couple
> of years in one weekend. Gas was $3.79 in NY this afternoon as I was
> driving
> home. It was $2.95 when I left for work early in the morning.
>
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
>
> VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
> Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
> Business sites at:
> www.dv-clips.com
> www.mwcomms.com
> www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
> -
>
>
>
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-02, 7:22 pm |
|
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:df945n$o9d$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Hi,
> While the tradegy in US has a huge human implication, it should not be
> justification for the world oil prices or is the system that finely
> balanced.
With a third of the US oil refining capacity temporarily offline due to
hurricane damage, in an already stressed oil market, the laws of
supply-and-demand are badly skewed towards demand. In the absence of any
government action to freeze prices or subsidize the consumer, it is a sin of
omission rather than profiteering in my opinion, that so many are suffering
from high prices.
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-02, 8:21 pm |
| Hi,
We in Ireland have today been advised that Petrol from tomorrow will be
?1.30. It was just over ?1 beginig of July and we did not have huricane.
But ours are not problems when we consider the Gulf Coast senario.
Regards.
RayH.
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:jjYRe.252894$on1.65097@clgrps13...
>
> "Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:df945n$o9d$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> With a third of the US oil refining capacity temporarily offline due to
> hurricane damage, in an already stressed oil market, the laws of
> supply-and-demand are badly skewed towards demand. In the absence of any
> government action to freeze prices or subsidize the consumer, it is a sin
> of omission rather than profiteering in my opinion, that so many are
> suffering from high prices.
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-02, 11:21 pm |
| Canada = $1.349 / litre tonight. = $6.12 per Imp gallon
or
$4.27 US per US gallon
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:dfajcc$70q$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Hi,
> We in Ireland have today been advised that Petrol from tomorrow will be
> ?1.30. It was just over ?1 beginig of July and we did not have huricane.
> But ours are not problems when we consider the Gulf Coast senario.
> Regards.
> RayH.
>
> "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:jjYRe.252894$on1.65097@clgrps13...
any[color=darkred]
sin[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-03, 12:21 pm |
| Hi,
Is this Caniadian Dollars, as the Canadian Dollar at ?0.676 Euro equals
$1.10 per Litre.
Regards.
RayH
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ibudneN_Ncd5Z4XeRVn-tQ@golden.net...
> Canada = $1.349 / litre tonight. = $6.12 per Imp gallon
>
> or
>
> $4.27 US per US gallon
>
>
> "Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:dfajcc$70q$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> any
> sin
>
>
| |
| Jim Baber 2005-09-03, 5:21 pm |
|
CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:
> Hank McCall wrote:
>
>
> Demand is not causing more supply. Already our gas producing
> facilities are maxed out. We have oil reserves in US and are not
> having a supply of oil issue. We have a supply of gas issue. They
> are making no moves to create more refineries either.
And anyone thinking about their own long term investments will
understand why they are NOT building new refineries that will become
obsolete in a relatively short time when the oil they are being built to
process is exhausted. The refineries we are using today in the US were
primarily built 65 years ago during World War II to supply the war
effort, not civilian demands. I admit there has been some construction
and modernization, but the petroleum industry, has so far avoided major
changes and construction. These pinch penny profit hungry policies have
had the effect of making the outdated facilities very susceptible to
catastrophic failures as evidenced several times in the last few years,
let alone when the problems are compounded by nature. Why were the New
Orleans refineries so susceptible to electric power failures, when they
could easily have been producing their own? Behind their own levies?
>
> Oil cant be asked to compete with itself. Im not too against the
> price increases. It should drive the technologies we have needed for
> a long time, and eventually grow new markets. However, unfortunately
> this means the price of fuel in those markets will be _higher_ than
> the price of fuel in general today, no less...
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-03, 8:21 pm |
| Canadian Dollars except where stated as US dollars.
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:dfcce9$ohn$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Hi,
> Is this Caniadian Dollars, as the Canadian Dollar at ?0.676 Euro equals
> $1.10 per Litre.
> Regards.
> RayH
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ibudneN_Ncd5Z4XeRVn-tQ@golden.net...
huricane.[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
|
| > > Demand is not causing more supply. Already our gas producing
>
> And anyone thinking about their own long term investments will
> understand why they are NOT building new refineries that will become
> obsolete in a relatively short time when the oil they are being built
> to process is exhausted. The refineries we are using today in the US
> were primarily built 65 years ago during World War II to supply the
> war effort, not civilian demands. I admit there has been some
> construction and modernization, but the petroleum industry, has so
> far avoided major changes and construction. These pinch penny profit
> hungry policies have had the effect of making the outdated facilities
> very susceptible to catastrophic failures as evidenced several times
> in the last few years, let alone when the problems are compounded by
> nature. Why were the New Orleans refineries so susceptible to
> electric power failures, when they could easily have been producing
> their own? Behind their own levies?
The doomsayer so sayeth! This is the same crap they've said about tin,
iron, molybdenum, and any number of other commodities. I especially
like the part where you said that we'll soon exhaust the supply of oil.
Wow, I guess Venezuela, Russia, OPEC, Alaska, Canada, and the Gulf of
Mexico, just to mention a few, failed to get the memo that all the oil
is soon to be gone. Predictions state that we've only used about 23%
of known oil resesrves since we started using oil in the early 1800's,
and that doesn't even include the oil in oil sand or oil shale fields
that right now aren't economically useful. It also seems that your
statement about refineries is wrong as well, we go through about 20
year cycles, where the price of gas peaks due to supply vs. demand,
then we build more refineries and the price drops again for about 20
years until we reach capacity again. As far as susceptible to danger,
is it economicaally feasible to build a levee around each plant and put
in generators to run the plant when a hurricane like Katrina comes
along every 35 years? I'd say that was why they were susceptible, a
reasoned decision that it wasn't worth the money to prepare for
something that had a low chance of happening, and cost less to recover
from than to prevent. Fact is, we haven't built refineries because of
government red tape and environmental nuts, I'm not talking about the
people who really want to protect the environment, I'm talking about
the people who want us to go back to living in caves, if they can't
figure out how to kill off the human race altogether. Look at Robert
Kennedy, flying around the country in a private jet to tell us not to
drive our cars. What an all over huge puckered bunghole, but he comes
by it honest, his Uncle Teddy is freaking out over a group that wants
to build a wind turbine off of Martha's Vineyard. NIMBY, that's why
there haven't been any refineries or power plants built in years. Just
my opinion.
Herb
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-05, 8:21 pm |
| But the propaganda and fear mongering makes it OK to have a war.
"Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yfCSe.2565$AB4.1784@trnddc03...
>
> The doomsayer so sayeth! This is the same crap they've said about tin,
> iron, molybdenum, and any number of other commodities. I especially
> like the part where you said that we'll soon exhaust the supply of oil.
> Wow, I guess Venezuela, Russia, OPEC, Alaska, Canada, and the Gulf of
> Mexico, just to mention a few, failed to get the memo that all the oil
> is soon to be gone. Predictions state that we've only used about 23%
> of known oil resesrves since we started using oil in the early 1800's,
> and that doesn't even include the oil in oil sand or oil shale fields
> that right now aren't economically useful. It also seems that your
> statement about refineries is wrong as well, we go through about 20
> year cycles, where the price of gas peaks due to supply vs. demand,
> then we build more refineries and the price drops again for about 20
> years until we reach capacity again. As far as susceptible to danger,
> is it economicaally feasible to build a levee around each plant and put
> in generators to run the plant when a hurricane like Katrina comes
> along every 35 years? I'd say that was why they were susceptible, a
> reasoned decision that it wasn't worth the money to prepare for
> something that had a low chance of happening, and cost less to recover
> from than to prevent. Fact is, we haven't built refineries because of
> government red tape and environmental nuts, I'm not talking about the
> people who really want to protect the environment, I'm talking about
> the people who want us to go back to living in caves, if they can't
> figure out how to kill off the human race altogether. Look at Robert
> Kennedy, flying around the country in a private jet to tell us not to
> drive our cars. What an all over huge puckered bunghole, but he comes
> by it honest, his Uncle Teddy is freaking out over a group that wants
> to build a wind turbine off of Martha's Vineyard. NIMBY, that's why
> there haven't been any refineries or power plants built in years. Just
> my opinion.
> Herb
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| Hi,
On the 28th of August last I placed this notice on this Newsgroup. Since
then we have had Hurricane Katorina and as of yet, a confirmed number of
lives and lost and all the consequences that go with such a tragedy.
However, to this question, there have been about forty replies and they have
ranged from. Why worry, through, we have heard all this scaremongering
before, what are my motives to the realisation that all fossil fuels are
not finite sources and therefore if we are using and not replacing, we will
run out someday.
When I asked this question, I had seen the $90 Barrel as a ceiling and
probaly about a year and a half away. But against what has happened. We as a
society seem to have put our needs for energy way beyond these figures.
Regards.
RayH.
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:desaav$li7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Hi,
> On the back of a perioed of unprecedent oil price increases.
> How far more can the customer pay?.
> RayH.
>
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-13, 9:21 pm |
|
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:dfk66k$8e0$1@reader01.news.esat.net...[color=darkred]
> Hi,
> On the 28th of August last I placed this notice on this Newsgroup. Since
> then we have had Hurricane Katorina and as of yet, a confirmed number of
> lives and lost and all the consequences that go with such a tragedy.
> However, to this question, there have been about forty replies and they
> have ranged from. Why worry, through, we have heard all this
> scaremongering before, what are my motives to the realisation that all
> fossil fuels are not finite sources and therefore if we are using and not
> replacing, we will run out someday.
> When I asked this question, I had seen the $90 Barrel as a ceiling and
> probaly about a year and a half away. But against what has happened. We as
> a society seem to have put our needs for energy way beyond these figures.
> Regards.
> RayH.
>
> "Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:desaav$li7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-13, 10:21 pm |
|
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:DSJVe.231320$9A2.7205@edtnps89...[color=darkred]
>
> "Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:dfk66k$8e0$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
When the US hit it's peak domestic oil around 1970, domestic demand had
finally eclipsed domestic supply. The talk about the energy crisis and
conservation was well-founded in those days, but a bit premature. Little
did everyone realize that offshore production and new discoveries would
satisfy demand for another 35 years.
Now that the world consumption of oil has begun to eclipse world supply,
there is no third option in sight. We are forced to follow the laws of
supply-and-demand, and pay the higher price as the supply runs low.
The major new player in the game, China, has no legacy of cheap oil like the
US, and does not expect lower prices to be the norm. Their thirst for
energy is growing at least as fast as their economic growth. If we are
forced to pay 3 and 4 times as much for energy, some radical lifestyle
changes will have to occur in North America.
Alternate energy has been discussed and developed for decades, but still
remains a long way off if we continue to compare it's costs to cheap oil.
Biofuels are costly to produce and require a good deal of energy. Solar
power is incredibly expensive for the amount produced, but has a very long
lifespan. Wind power is more cost-effective but the equipment has a shorter
operational lifespan. Both wind and solar power are at the mercy of weather
and are therefore less reliable. Nuclear power combines cost-effectiveness,
longevity, and reliability of output with fairly environmentally-clean
operation. Fear of the "N" word however, makes it's re-adoption more
difficult. Hydro power is clean and reliable, but is quite costly to build,
but tends to disrupt wildlife and raise the hackles of environmentalists.
Besides this, there isn't enough potential hydro power make much of a
difference to the massive energy requirements of the future.
Even if we manage to build a massive, cost-effective energy grid, many
vehicles will still require a fuel. Trucks, airplanes, construction
vehicles, tractors, ships and even personal vehicles can not perform
adequately on electric power alone. Biofuels require a good deal of energy
to produce, fertilize and process and no economies of scale can reduce it's
costs significantly.
The only fuel that seems to make sense for this purpose is hydrogen. It has
a high enough energy density to compare with petroleum and does not pollute
by releasing carbon into the atmosphere. At present, hydrogen is more
costly to produce to make it appear to be a feasible alternative to
petroleum. The only way hydrogen can make sense is for a massive supply of
cheap energy to exist, and for no cheap alternative fuel to exist in
sufficient supply. I believe that day will come, and the more we do now to
prepare, the less of a shock it will be when it becomes our only feasible
alternative.
| |
|
| JSP:
Biofuels require a good deal of energy to produce, fertilize and
process and no economies of scale can reduce it's costs significantly.
==========================================
A sweeping generalization. I would agree that anything that needs a
fire lit under it to distill it needs 'a good deal of energy to
produce', but a field of sunflowers doesnt take much energy to produce,
and neither does the oil from the seeds, and I believe there IS some
economy of scale to be gained in largescale oilseed production.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-14, 12:21 am |
| BobG wrote:
> JSP:
> Biofuels require a good deal of energy to produce, fertilize and
> process and no economies of scale can reduce it's costs significantly.
> ==========================================
> A sweeping generalization. I would agree that anything that needs a
> fire lit under it to distill it needs 'a good deal of energy to
> produce', but a field of sunflowers doesnt take much energy to produce,
> and neither does the oil from the seeds, and I believe there IS some
> economy of scale to be gained in largescale oilseed production.
>
We have folks here who desparately cling to the notion that crops need
gasoline instead of sunlight to grow ....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-14, 6:21 am |
| Yes, very well described and as you are aware the energy giants are busy
putting in place the necessary implements of controls for when we arrive at
this alternative, but I tend to view this issue from a slightly longer view.
If we take it that all energy is received from the sun and this planet has
been in reception of this for about 4.6 billion years and mans evolution has
been for just 2.5 million of this period. The Industrial Revolution is the
point in this evolution in which man has evolved to harvest this store.
It is estimated that this store should last for about 300 years, but as
energy cannot destroyed. Is the issue the rate of energy consumption or the
rate of human evolution?.
RayH.
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:wBKVe.231326$9A2.176587@edtnps89...
>
> "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:DSJVe.231320$9A2.7205@edtnps89...
>
> When the US hit it's peak domestic oil around 1970, domestic demand had
> finally eclipsed domestic supply. The talk about the energy crisis and
> conservation was well-founded in those days, but a bit premature. Little
> did everyone realize that offshore production and new discoveries would
> satisfy demand for another 35 years.
>
> Now that the world consumption of oil has begun to eclipse world supply,
> there is no third option in sight. We are forced to follow the laws of
> supply-and-demand, and pay the higher price as the supply runs low.
>
> The major new player in the game, China, has no legacy of cheap oil like
> the US, and does not expect lower prices to be the norm. Their thirst for
> energy is growing at least as fast as their economic growth. If we are
> forced to pay 3 and 4 times as much for energy, some radical lifestyle
> changes will have to occur in North America.
>
> Alternate energy has been discussed and developed for decades, but still
> remains a long way off if we continue to compare it's costs to cheap oil.
> Biofuels are costly to produce and require a good deal of energy. Solar
> power is incredibly expensive for the amount produced, but has a very long
> lifespan. Wind power is more cost-effective but the equipment has a
> shorter operational lifespan. Both wind and solar power are at the mercy
> of weather and are therefore less reliable. Nuclear power combines
> cost-effectiveness, longevity, and reliability of output with fairly
> environmentally-clean operation. Fear of the "N" word however, makes it's
> re-adoption more difficult. Hydro power is clean and reliable, but is
> quite costly to build, but tends to disrupt wildlife and raise the hackles
> of environmentalists. Besides this, there isn't enough potential hydro
> power make much of a difference to the massive energy requirements of the
> future.
>
> Even if we manage to build a massive, cost-effective energy grid, many
> vehicles will still require a fuel. Trucks, airplanes, construction
> vehicles, tractors, ships and even personal vehicles can not perform
> adequately on electric power alone. Biofuels require a good deal of
> energy to produce, fertilize and process and no economies of scale can
> reduce it's costs significantly.
>
> The only fuel that seems to make sense for this purpose is hydrogen. It
> has a high enough energy density to compare with petroleum and does not
> pollute by releasing carbon into the atmosphere. At present, hydrogen is
> more costly to produce to make it appear to be a feasible alternative to
> petroleum. The only way hydrogen can make sense is for a massive supply
> of cheap energy to exist, and for no cheap alternative fuel to exist in
> sufficient supply. I believe that day will come, and the more we do now
> to prepare, the less of a shock it will be when it becomes our only
> feasible alternative.
>
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-14, 7:21 am |
| Ray Hogan wrote:
> Yes, very well described and as you are aware the energy giants are busy
> putting in place the necessary implements of controls for when we arrive at
> this alternative, but I tend to view this issue from a slightly longer view.
> If we take it that all energy is received from the sun and this planet has
> been in reception of this for about 4.6 billion years and mans evolution has
> been for just 2.5 million of this period. The Industrial Revolution is the
> point in this evolution in which man has evolved to harvest this store.
> It is estimated that this store should last for about 300 years, but as
> energy cannot destroyed. Is the issue the rate of energy consumption or the
> rate of human evolution?.
....
This argues for conservation of energy. The less energy you use then the
less you need to obtain from any source, fossil fuels, solar or anything
else. From an evolutionary view, like yours, one might consider that a
lot of animals thrive using a lot less energy, even food, than humans so
clearly there is room for improvement.
What would a human being look like that was evolved to exist with less
energy needs? Well, smaller for starters. The smaller a creature is,
the less food it needs to survive, the less space it occupies, the less
it needs heating and cooling and all the rest. Such a person would be
thin as well and possibly covered in fur for those long winter nights.
With the progress in technology, it seems clear that a more evolved
form of human would have more need of dexterity than people today. This
would suggest oversized hands compared to the body size, perhaps with
a few more digits and, of course, dexterous toes as well. Light takes
energy also so these folks would need larger eyes to be able to read
in the dark.
Yes, clearly when you look at it from the point of evolution, we need
to be breeding bug eyed midget knuckle dragging furry humans with six
fingers and prehensile toes, tails optional.
Sometimes the larger view isn't worth much.
Anthony
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-14, 10:21 am |
|
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:dg8osh$v6i$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Yes, very well described and as you are aware the energy giants are busy
> putting in place the necessary implements of controls for when we arrive
> at this alternative, but I tend to view this issue from a slightly longer
> view.
> If we take it that all energy is received from the sun and this planet has
> been in reception of this for about 4.6 billion years and mans evolution
> has been for just 2.5 million of this period. The Industrial Revolution is
> the point in this evolution in which man has evolved to harvest this
> store.
> It is estimated that this store should last for about 300 years, but as
> energy cannot destroyed. Is the issue the rate of energy consumption or
> the rate of human evolution?.
> RayH.
It's hard to ignore the fact that enough solar energy falls on the earth in
one day to power the entire world consumption of electricity for 27 years.
Even baby steps in the direction of capturing some of this free energy would
go a long way.
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-14, 3:21 pm |
| Yes Anthony, but the evidence is that the human body is evolving to a larger
size.
RayH.
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BMmdnZLaIMssa7reRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> Ray Hogan wrote:
> ...
>
> This argues for conservation of energy. The less energy you use then the
> less you need to obtain from any source, fossil fuels, solar or anything
> else. From an evolutionary view, like yours, one might consider that a
> lot of animals thrive using a lot less energy, even food, than humans so
> clearly there is room for improvement.
>
> What would a human being look like that was evolved to exist with less
> energy needs? Well, smaller for starters. The smaller a creature is,
> the less food it needs to survive, the less space it occupies, the less
> it needs heating and cooling and all the rest. Such a person would be
> thin as well and possibly covered in fur for those long winter nights.
> With the progress in technology, it seems clear that a more evolved
> form of human would have more need of dexterity than people today. This
> would suggest oversized hands compared to the body size, perhaps with
> a few more digits and, of course, dexterous toes as well. Light takes
> energy also so these folks would need larger eyes to be able to read
> in the dark.
>
> Yes, clearly when you look at it from the point of evolution, we need
> to be breeding bug eyed midget knuckle dragging furry humans with six
> fingers and prehensile toes, tails optional.
>
> Sometimes the larger view isn't worth much.
>
> Anthony
| |
| zenboom 2005-09-16, 6:21 am |
| this is more nutrition than evolution.
BTW he made a joke
--
R'zenboom
ain't no monkey
"Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:dg9n5u$9ea$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Yes Anthony, but the evidence is that the human body is evolving to a
larger
> size.
> RayH.
>
> "Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BMmdnZLaIMssa7reRVn-pA@comcast.com...
busy[color=darkred]
arrive[color=darkred]
longer[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| Ray Hogan 2005-09-16, 6:21 am |
| But where is the extra nutrition or the wealth to secure it coming from -
yes, through the energy chain.
RayH.
"zenboom" <?signal.ds?@?bluebottle.com?> wrote in message
news:dgdvp4$dod$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> this is more nutrition than evolution.
> BTW he made a joke
>
> --
> R'zenboom
> ain't no monkey
>
> "Ray Hogan" <rayh@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:dg9n5u$9ea$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> larger
> busy
> arrive
> longer
>
>
| |
| spakker 2005-09-16, 4:21 pm |
| Interesting thread ! Some consolation may be that petrol costs nearly 8
dollars a gallon (4.55 litres) here in the UK. I'm sure there's more tech
know-how that can help out eg. BMW diesel 270 hp. 0 -60 mph in 6 seconds and
40 mpg.
|
|
|
|
|