^Glad to see you back on the forum Prof. Hope you're OK 
$200 a barrel.
- Thread starter Will E Worm
- Start date
Facetious
Moderated
I Hope the fraud - commy enviro posers finally grant us due mercy as well ~
That's a novel idea. I think mine sneaks out at night and drives itself around when I go too long without somewhere to go.
They would if it's development didn't put a temporary dent in their profits.
As far as the UK is concerned it's effectively $200 a barrel now.At the moment gas is around $7 to $7.50 per US gallon because of a rapacious government which not only charges duty on it, it then adds sales tax onto the duty as well.
It amuses people here to hear squeals from the US about their current gas price-believe me you're still getting it dirt cheap and I'll tell you this too,whatever it costs people will still go on buying it.There's been no significant fall in demand in the UK because it's a necessity not an optional purchase.
What I've done is to buy a diesel car, same size,same performance but about half the fuel consumption.
Regarding hydrogen cars, they are pie in the sky.The point about oil is that a world wide infrastructure exists for it.You can buy gas just about anywhere on Earth and for the energy it packs it's cheap and efficient.Hydrogen technology is difficult and expensive and if it's going to make any headway there will need to be countless outlets set up and immense production facilities too.
It amuses people here to hear squeals from the US about their current gas price-believe me you're still getting it dirt cheap and I'll tell you this too,whatever it costs people will still go on buying it.There's been no significant fall in demand in the UK because it's a necessity not an optional purchase.
What I've done is to buy a diesel car, same size,same performance but about half the fuel consumption.
Regarding hydrogen cars, they are pie in the sky.The point about oil is that a world wide infrastructure exists for it.You can buy gas just about anywhere on Earth and for the energy it packs it's cheap and efficient.Hydrogen technology is difficult and expensive and if it's going to make any headway there will need to be countless outlets set up and immense production facilities too.
And where do the buyers get the hydrogen from?
Think about the complete answer before you answer the question.
And if you're not sure where to look, open up a couple of IEEE Spectrum magazines if you're not sure.
Unfortunately us electrical engineering (EE) zealots are "too dumb" compared to the majority populous to know better, eh?
What does "natural gas" have to do with "fuel cells" you ask?
Again, read more about the comparison of "aggregate" CO2 production by extraction of hydrogen from "natural gas" (about 70% aggregate CO2 output versus gasoline for ICE) versus the "popular environmentalist" argument
(which is over 130%, at least and sometimes much worse, +30% over just using ICE vehicles!).
Remember, it ain't "clean" unless the entire, aggregate "energy" used to create something is "clean."
First off, we send every American citizen through a 101 on basic "non-technical fundamentals" of electrical and environmental engineering.
Secondly, if they fail the mandatory test at the end, we remove their right to vote.
From there, we can actually start "fighting" the so-called "big oil" and actually get things done.
The Energy Act of 2005 is the first, major and significant act to do anything in the last 30 years, but it's just a start.
We need more legislation like that, only ones that go much farther and further than it.
The common layperson that doesn't stop to listen to the extreme minority (i.e., sub-0.1%) of professionals with electrical engineering backgrounds.
No new nuclear power plants = 3 generations behind in design and crappy, 1st and 2nd generations falling part.
No new fossil fuel plants = old, pre-'70s/80s regulatory plants that are exponentially more dirty + rolling blackouts for citizens.
The phrase "renewable energies" without defining them = a majority society who has grown up thinking engineers and business people are purposely "holding them back."
We need reality, not bullshit -- unfortunately, I'm in the sub-0.1% minority.
So the thought that "big oil" is holding back "renewable energies" seems to hold key.
Unfortunately, it's the gross ignorance of the general public that is, and has been for 3 decades, sadly enough.
Truth.
And where exactly would the buyers get the hydrogen from to power the car?
Think about the complete answer before you answer the question.
And if you're not sure where to look, open up a couple of IEEE Spectrum magazines if you're not sure.
Unfortunately us electrical engineering (EE) zealots are "too dumb" compared to the majority populous to know better, eh?
Actually, considering oil companies are putting major investments into natural gas, they are "gearing up" for fuel cells.
What does "natural gas" have to do with "fuel cells" you ask?
Again, read more about the comparison of "aggregate" CO2 production by extraction of hydrogen from "natural gas" (about 70% aggregate CO2 output versus gasoline for ICE) versus the "popular environmentalist" argument
(which is over 130%, at least and sometimes much worse, +30% over just using ICE vehicles!).
Remember, it ain't "clean" unless the entire, aggregate "energy" used to create something is "clean."
I do!
First off, we send every American citizen through a 101 on basic "non-technical fundamentals" of electrical and environmental engineering.
Secondly, if they fail the mandatory test at the end, we remove their right to vote.
From there, we can actually start "fighting" the so-called "big oil" and actually get things done.
The Energy Act of 2005 is the first, major and significant act to do anything in the last 30 years, but it's just a start.
We need more legislation like that, only ones that go much farther and further than it.
Yes, because "old oil" isn't nearly as fucking ignorant as the common layperson.
The common layperson that doesn't stop to listen to the extreme minority (i.e., sub-0.1%) of professionals with electrical engineering backgrounds.
And electrical engineers saw this coming over 3 decades ago.Hypoth - Saw it coming
No new nuclear power plants = 3 generations behind in design and crappy, 1st and 2nd generations falling part.
No new fossil fuel plants = old, pre-'70s/80s regulatory plants that are exponentially more dirty + rolling blackouts for citizens.
The phrase "renewable energies" without defining them = a majority society who has grown up thinking engineers and business people are purposely "holding them back."
We need reality, not bullshit -- unfortunately, I'm in the sub-0.1% minority.
So the thought that "big oil" is holding back "renewable energies" seems to hold key.
Unfortunately, it's the gross ignorance of the general public that is, and has been for 3 decades, sadly enough.
Truth.
I think if the government would have started very seriously investing in alterative clean energy sources 40 years ago we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. You would have thought the first gas crisis would have taught us. Yet industry and the government took the quick and easy path and relied on what we had. Maybe if we started back then we would already have a means of efficiently creating hydrogen that didn't itself use fuel or other methods of creating CO2, or other sources we could relay upon now. It wasn't like the big oil companies were racing to find or even invest in alternatives back then. It's only when they saw a potential future profit in it for them. Maybe if entities didn't worry about profit as much in the past as they did about the greater good we wouldn't be in such a mess the world is about to be in. Unfortunately maximizing profit and doing the right thing seldom go hand in hand. That’s why corporations are looking at alternative energy now. Not because it's good for us, or what’s right for the world, but because the price of the normal sources of energy are getting high enough were it's looking to become more profitable. (Or maybe they think there will come a time that the government has no choice but to mandate it thus they are getting ready to keep their streams of profit alive.)
I think more nuclear power plants are the lesser of two evils at this point. Even the efficient ones, and even with the methods they are trying to create to reduce the materials half life would still create waste that will be here longer than any civilization has ever existed yet and that will have to be taken care of eventually.
I think more nuclear power plants are the lesser of two evils at this point. Even the efficient ones, and even with the methods they are trying to create to reduce the materials half life would still create waste that will be here longer than any civilization has ever existed yet and that will have to be taken care of eventually.
Government?
Not to harp on your phrase, but "if the government ... investing"?
Need we revisit the "electric car" as researched "by the government"?
It's basically the staple case we EEs use to say ... "hell no, let industry address it!"
Here's the flip ... (not aimed at you, just flipping the problem proper)
Instead of the "government ... investing," how about the government keeping people off our collective engineering backs?
How about not letting the EPA be run by a bunch of politicians who listen to lawyers and non-matter idiots.
And actually educating people on the realities of not only their power needs, but how we can solve them, in reality.
It's why they won't let anyone address Social Security either, because they fear the unknown.
People just don't care, until it's a major problem.
It's not yet a "major problem" in the US -- that will take $8/gallon.
Nuclear power -- insanely efficient, but gone overnight, busted by Greenpeace, which one of the two of the co-founders admits was stupid now (and utterly reversed himself in the '90s).
Hydro-electrical -- awesome generation, unfortunately it has this really nasty side-effect of destroying entire ecosystems. Non-option.
Wind -- solid, reliable, above average efficiency overall, could provide a great amount deployed in mass and strategically alongside nuclear. Unfortunately people bitch that it's an "eye-sore," especially in areas where it's most effective (hills and mountain tops, along powerful sea, river and ocean currents, etc...) and many are very influencial with their politicians.
Solar -- I'm an EE, don't make me laugh. It's great for "point" energy to drastically reduce energy usage, but the over-hyped "0 external power consuming" building insults my intelligence as an EE, along with the nearly quarter-million or so other EEs in the US. It will never generate more than 10-15% of our power requirements in today's levels, possibly not even 5% in the future as it goes more electric and "clean."
So yes, companies were motivated by "legal costs" not to fuck with things that ignorant environmentalists wouldn't stand for.
The co-founder of Greenpeace is an excellent read on these things and more.
I saw a "case study" in the '80s on a fossil fuel power plant that was purposely designed by engineers to be $6M "over budget" to be more clean.
The result? Not only is the plant qualified clean enough to be a "new" plant if built in the 21st century, but they've saved so much money in other ways.
Remember, engineers are masters of microeconomics as much as application of physics.
We know how to balance environment, microeconomics and technology into a form that is a long-term investment for all.
As I always say ...
If you let scientists design a subdivision, there would be very few houses.
If you let businesspeople design a subdivision, there would be very few trees.
But engineers design subdivisions that balance the environment with the property value, and maximize both better than either of the other two!
The Energy Act of 2005 opened up a slew of legal protections from the gross and mass ignorance of the common popular environmentalist.
I defend the US media, but they are the greatest proliferation of mass ignorance from an engineering perspective.
There are virtually no engineers at all anywhere in the media, unlike many other fields.
Most Americans are still basing their opinion of nuclear power plants based on the 1950s designs -- a design not even a decade old!
We're putting in largely French designs now, with some newer Japanese innovations.
Designs based on 50 years of not just research, but production, and fabricated over and over to the same quality.
US plants today were not even based on 20 years of knowledge, and most are 10 or under.
No "evil," the French and Japanese have had no problems whatsoever.
Hell, even the US has never deployed a graphite reactor like the CIS still does today (and Chernobyl was one).
And even Three Mile Island was an accident that actually proved the "worst case scenario" for a US design, with the failsafe systems working perfectly
(whereas the engineers at Chernobyl had theirs off-line -- that would never be allowed in the US).
Mass and gross ignorance of nuclear power is part of the problem.
Again, the co-founder of Greenpeace is a great read on this, because he was "the" instrument of that ignorance at one point.
It's funny when people argue with him, because he's openly admitted that the biggest problem with nuclear power is people who think like he used to, based on 100% fear, 0% fact.
Furthermore, far more nuclear aerosols are released into the atmosphere from coal generation than fissionable materials.
Lastly, new fission plant designs in the final prototype stages (Japanese have a couple now) can reuse the "useless" left-over rods.
I.e., all those "used rods" sitting at plants (instead of Nevada, don't get me started) can now be used to power the new designs for almost a century.
I have this same argument with everyone ...
Yeah, the plants aren't perfectly "clean" in every sense, but are they a shitload better than what we have?
Yes!
Because not letting people build new plants doesn't solve the problem that the old plants are running, running dirty, and not meeting the output needs.
So to not do so is just not meeting your selfish energy needs, but causing more environmental damage!
Which is why California bitch-smacked the fuck out of itself for almost a decade in their gross stupidity.
You almost had the point ...
Not to harp on your phrase, but "if the government ... investing"?
Need we revisit the "electric car" as researched "by the government"?
It's basically the staple case we EEs use to say ... "hell no, let industry address it!"
Here's the flip ... (not aimed at you, just flipping the problem proper)
Instead of the "government ... investing," how about the government keeping people off our collective engineering backs?
How about not letting the EPA be run by a bunch of politicians who listen to lawyers and non-matter idiots.
And actually educating people on the realities of not only their power needs, but how we can solve them, in reality.
Nope. But most people don't like change in reality.
It's why they won't let anyone address Social Security either, because they fear the unknown.
People just don't care, until it's a major problem.
It's not yet a "major problem" in the US -- that will take $8/gallon.
No, the industry took the "quick and easy path" after they realized they didn't have enough lawyers and political clout to change things.
Nuclear power -- insanely efficient, but gone overnight, busted by Greenpeace, which one of the two of the co-founders admits was stupid now (and utterly reversed himself in the '90s).
Hydro-electrical -- awesome generation, unfortunately it has this really nasty side-effect of destroying entire ecosystems. Non-option.
Wind -- solid, reliable, above average efficiency overall, could provide a great amount deployed in mass and strategically alongside nuclear. Unfortunately people bitch that it's an "eye-sore," especially in areas where it's most effective (hills and mountain tops, along powerful sea, river and ocean currents, etc...) and many are very influencial with their politicians.
Solar -- I'm an EE, don't make me laugh. It's great for "point" energy to drastically reduce energy usage, but the over-hyped "0 external power consuming" building insults my intelligence as an EE, along with the nearly quarter-million or so other EEs in the US. It will never generate more than 10-15% of our power requirements in today's levels, possibly not even 5% in the future as it goes more electric and "clean."
Yes! You get it! Good job!
Understand the "greatest cost" in the US is the "legal" one.
So yes, companies were motivated by "legal costs" not to fuck with things that ignorant environmentalists wouldn't stand for.
The co-founder of Greenpeace is an excellent read on these things and more.
Oh I utterly disagree!
I saw a "case study" in the '80s on a fossil fuel power plant that was purposely designed by engineers to be $6M "over budget" to be more clean.
The result? Not only is the plant qualified clean enough to be a "new" plant if built in the 21st century, but they've saved so much money in other ways.
Remember, engineers are masters of microeconomics as much as application of physics.
We know how to balance environment, microeconomics and technology into a form that is a long-term investment for all.
As I always say ...
If you let scientists design a subdivision, there would be very few houses.
If you let businesspeople design a subdivision, there would be very few trees.
But engineers design subdivisions that balance the environment with the property value, and maximize both better than either of the other two!
Unfortunately, the "price" is not in a pure technical/resource sense.
The Energy Act of 2005 opened up a slew of legal protections from the gross and mass ignorance of the common popular environmentalist.
I defend the US media, but they are the greatest proliferation of mass ignorance from an engineering perspective.
There are virtually no engineers at all anywhere in the media, unlike many other fields.
What "evil" is a nuclear power plant?
Most Americans are still basing their opinion of nuclear power plants based on the 1950s designs -- a design not even a decade old!
We're putting in largely French designs now, with some newer Japanese innovations.
Designs based on 50 years of not just research, but production, and fabricated over and over to the same quality.
US plants today were not even based on 20 years of knowledge, and most are 10 or under.
No "evil," the French and Japanese have had no problems whatsoever.
Hell, even the US has never deployed a graphite reactor like the CIS still does today (and Chernobyl was one).
And even Three Mile Island was an accident that actually proved the "worst case scenario" for a US design, with the failsafe systems working perfectly
(whereas the engineers at Chernobyl had theirs off-line -- that would never be allowed in the US).
Mass and gross ignorance of nuclear power is part of the problem.
Again, the co-founder of Greenpeace is a great read on this, because he was "the" instrument of that ignorance at one point.
It's funny when people argue with him, because he's openly admitted that the biggest problem with nuclear power is people who think like he used to, based on 100% fear, 0% fact.
Over 99% of nuclear waste is from weapons production, not fission plants.
Furthermore, far more nuclear aerosols are released into the atmosphere from coal generation than fissionable materials.
Lastly, new fission plant designs in the final prototype stages (Japanese have a couple now) can reuse the "useless" left-over rods.
I.e., all those "used rods" sitting at plants (instead of Nevada, don't get me started) can now be used to power the new designs for almost a century.
I have this same argument with everyone ...
Yeah, the plants aren't perfectly "clean" in every sense, but are they a shitload better than what we have?
Yes!
Because not letting people build new plants doesn't solve the problem that the old plants are running, running dirty, and not meeting the output needs.
So to not do so is just not meeting your selfish energy needs, but causing more environmental damage!
Which is why California bitch-smacked the fuck out of itself for almost a decade in their gross stupidity.
Similar threads
