According to Gold, Gas Prices Aren't Rising; Dollar is Falling

[cannabineer]

I don't recall any hyperefficient '80s cars. In '92 i bought a Honda Civic VX. That thing outmiled the current Prius, and without the hybridity. Nobody makes its equivalent any more.

I think two factors conspire. One is that our and international pollution standards have gotten tougher ... particularly in fuel formulation. In the mid-90s we had all that "oxygenation" horese poop to accept, with the unsung consequence that 10 tpo 20 per cent of the fuel for which we pay is dead weight. Shell uses "nitrogen" (waste amines) to do the same thing ... add "ash" to their fuel. Hmpf.

The other is that folks demand more goodies (air bags, electronics, soundproofing, oversize underprofile wheels) than they used to, and the manufacturers have decided that a stripped model won't make them money. The reasonably-equipped car of 1980 was the stripper of 1993 was not to be had in 2008. cn

 

[ginwilly]

It's probably consumer driven but I think the technology went into power after all of those weak efficient box cars of the 80s. We have 6cyls now that produce 300HP while still getting over 30mpg, that's pretty cool. It just seems that other than computers we've been in a technology stall. It could also very well just be my perception, I grew up watching the Jetsons and figured we'd have flying cars by now.

 

[cannabineer]

It's probably consumer driven but I think the technology went into power after all of those weak efficient box cars of the 80s. We have 6cyls now that produce 300HP while still getting over 30mpg, that's pretty cool. It just seems that other than computers we've been in a technology stall. It could also very well just be my perception, I grew up watching the Jetsons and figured we'd have flying cars by now.

30 mpg mixed cycle??? Tell me more!

<aside> I never thought flying cars were anything more than a particular sort of science fiction, real raygun-gothic Century of Progress sort of stuff. They were predicated on the idea of unlimited cheap energy, which we now know was a nice dream. cn

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I had a '91 Honda CRX Si that got me 33 hwy and upper 20's city. It was fun, quick, and nimble. Like a go-kart with a better ride.

Best part was back then, I filled up on $10.

 

[ginwilly]

30 mpg mixed cycle??? Tell me more!

<aside> I never thought flying cars were anything more than a particular sort of science fiction, real raygun-gothic Century of Progress sort of stuff. They were predicated on the idea of unlimited cheap energy, which we now know was a nice dream. cn

Our fire department had a hover craft in the 80's, I just knew we were on our way

The new mustang has 305 hp while getting 29mpg from a 6 cyl. (hwy)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1205_2013_ford_mustang_v_6_premium_first_test/?ti=v2

 

[Carthoris]

Well as the Obama admin would say "I misspoke".

http://www.inquisitr.com/353249/ancient-greenhouse-gases-from-rome-and-china-helped-warm-planet-study/

I am glad you recognize your error. It was an interesting idea though.

http://www.examiner.com/article/do-ice-core-bubbles-indicate-man-made-global-warming-during-roman-times

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-climate-romans-idUSBRE89212020121003

Of course, the study is incorrect for a simple and obvious reason. The population went up every century during the time it covered. Rome and China aren't the only places in the world. You wouldn't see a giant change one way or another in the total amount of gasses. There might be changes, sure, but it wouldn't be dramatic. The fact that we went into an ice age with a population almost double what it was really proves there is no correlation between human activities and the temperature in those times. The fact that when you look at the temperature of the world on a chart or timeline it looks like a radio wave before and after humans showed up proves that man really hasn't made any drastic changes before the recent times. While there are some correlations with our current temperatures and man's use of fossil fuels, correlations do not always have any meaning. You mowed your yard and my dog died. If I showed you mowing your yard and my dog dying on a chart the week he died I could point to the lines and say it seemed that your mowing the yard killed the dog, but we all know that is not true. Then, if go back and do the last year it is obvious that every time you mowed the yard my dog didn't die.

I found a dozen references to the study, but I couldn't find the study itself. Do you have any knowledge of the study aside from incomplete stories on it? It is like reading a review for a movie or something.

It is telling that our current temperature and the speed it rises are normal for the planet. This is not to say that we are not causing it to get hotter faster, but there is no evidence that we are alone in causing the temperature change or even really pushing it much. The planet has never stayed the same temperature, it is always changing up or down at any given time.

Another interesting fact is when you overlay CO2 against the temperature historically there is no correlation. There were times we were in an ice age and the CO2 levels were way higher than now. 10x's or more in some cases for centuries.

I always had a question about higher co2 and higher temperatures. Isn't that how we grow marijuana? How would higher growth rates come into play if we were in fact seeing co2 induced global warming? Have we seen an increase not due to technology for plants anywhere?

 

[canndo]

At the moment...

YES Science will save us... just as it always does, in the nick of time when some large monster attacks Tokio or a killer virus from outerspace.


In the movies. In the real world there is no free lunch and few magic bullets.

 

[NLXSK1]

YES Science will save us... just as it always does, in the nick of time when some large monster attacks Tokio or a killer virus from outerspace.


In the movies. In the real world there is no free lunch and few magic bullets.

But there are microwaves, and satellites, and fracking, and velcro, and powered flight, and nuclear power, and cell phone networks, and...

You are the one focused on theatre...

 

[canndo]

It does green energy some good. Like Solyndra and the rest of Obama's failed stimulus. Obama has given 90 billion in green energy subsidies to make cars in Finland with our tax dollars. He's sending jobs over seas, and he still doesn't know how tax credits work with outsourcing jobs.

More lies promulgated by someone who doesn't seem to look into things.


Fiskar is a U.S. company based in California, one I actually did some business with. Most of the jobs are American ones save a few Finnish assembly workers, which is common practice

Fisker is not a Finnish company, it is American, headquartered in California. Aside from a few Finnish assembly workers, all their jobs are American ones.
*
The DOE loan is for the next model, the Nina, to be assembled in USA.


But you go right ahead with your alternate reality.

 

[canndo]

We also have more oil in oil shale than all the other countries in the world have oil in any form. We will develop the technology to use it eventually just like we developed the technology to use natural gas, coal, and oil. We can also turn coal into oil, and we have a lot of coal. One can only expect that solar power might actually be useful someday also.

This, is bullshit. We have a gread deal of oil bearing shale but the net energy gain is minimal and the destruction to the environment is huge - there are a a variety of grades of tar sands and shale and these aren't very good. Our faith in technology is one way to simply ignore the reality of things as the folks you believe in to swoop in at the last minute with a technological fix are the same ones who are saying not only that it can't be done but that we are running out of easily recoverable oil. You don't get to have iit both ways.

 

[cannabineer]

Our fire department had a hover craft in the 80's, I just knew we were on our way

The new mustang has 305 hp while getting 29mpg from a 6 cyl. (hwy)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1205_2013_ford_mustang_v_6_premium_first_test/?ti=v2

And that's the problem. Not 30 mpg and not mixed cycle. Heck; a C5 'Vette will get 32 mpg in pure highway! Teens in mixed cycle. i live in a hilly area, so EPA highway miles are a cruel tease. Jmo. cn

 

[canndo]

I don't see natural gas vehicles around. No trucks, ships or commercial aircraft.
How long will that natural gas last at the current more-or-less exponential energy consumption rate? cn

Next time you see a big bus look on top, you will either see a cowling or a pair of tanks - those are gaseous fuel tanks. I have two friends with gaseous fuel cars - one has a fueling station in his garage. A company I worked for made injectors and carbs for gaseous fuel systems and they offered to convert my truck to gaseous - with all the free fuel I wanted - Wish I had done it but it would have meant the loss of a significan portion of the bed of my truck.
They are all over the place if you just look around - also you will see hiden organizational fueling stations all over the place.

 

[canndo]

Thats not true. Solyndra is an energy producing manufacturing company correct? Its all part of Obama's energy plan that we currently have in motion. Thats why its relevant. 90 billion dollars in green energy subsidies, while suffocating the middle class with high gas prices is bad policy. I can talk about it because I live it every day. When I go to fill up my car so I can get to work. I live it when I go to cash my paycheck, and th government wants to rape my earnings. Then they want to take all the money I've been paying into Medicare, and put it into ObamaCare. Thats not partisan politics. Its my life.

Yet another lie that you seem to be repeating here. Obama is taking the 716 billion from suppliers and insurance companies and not from individuals. Why is this outright falsehood being repeated? because Romney and Ryan are using it over and over and over again - and you seem to be believing it.

 

[cannabineer]

Next time you see a big bus look on top, you will either see a cowling or a pair of tanks - those are gaseous fuel tanks. I have two friends with gaseous fuel cars - one has a fueling station in his garage. A company I worked for made injectors and carbs for gaseous fuel systems and they offered to convert my truck to gaseous - with all the free fuel I wanted - Wish I had done it but it would have meant the loss of a significan portion of the bed of my truck.
They are all over the place if you just look around - also you will see hiden organizational fueling stations all over the place.

Would this be an option in my locale? cn

 

[ginwilly]

Yet another lie that you seem to be repeating here. Obama is taking the 716 billion from suppliers and insurance companies and not from individuals. Why is this outright falsehood being repeated? because Romney and Ryan are using it over and over and over again - and you seem to be believing it.

Remember when you claimed there were no medicare cuts in the healthcare bill and you knew because you read it? not one of your better moments. Unfortunately for you this is another.

716B to suppliers and insurance companies, not individuals. Chew on that a sec and tell me if you believe medicare pays individuals.....ever... for anything, or do they pay suppliers and insurance companies.

hint: stop repeating everything Obama tells you, he lies and/or doesn't really know.

 

[canndo]

I'm not asking about Solyndra and current politics. I'm talking about energy, and my line of inquiry was launched by NL's obviously ridiculous claim that crude oil is a renewable resource. the two serious(?) replies push gas or coal (both carbon-bearing fossil fuels) but without numbers or a plan. Why are you so keen to divert the question to partisan irrelevancies? cn

There are certain old wells that have been found to have been replenishing. There really is a theory that our original theory of the production of fossil fuels is incorrect and that there is some unknown mechanism that creates these hydrocarbons without would would be the traditional source.
Even if this theory is correct, those old wells have been replenished only a fraction of what they once were, in otherwords, if it is renewable, we would have to reduce our total usage by something like 95 percent in order to use no more than is produced.

 

[ginwilly]

France is renewing a portion of their nuclear (nucular for the Bush fans) waste, that's promising.

 

[cannabineer]

There are certain old wells that have been found to have been replenishing. There really is a theory that our original theory of the production of fossil fuels is incorrect and that there is some unknown mechanism that creates these hydrocarbons without would would be the traditional source.
Even if this theory is correct, those old wells have been replenished only a fraction of what they once were, in otherwords, if it is renewable, we would have to reduce our total usage by something like 95 percent in order to use no more than is produced.

If you mean Thomas Gold's abiogenic petroleum theory, that is (at best!) controversial.
As for the wells that replenish, could that not be explained by seepage from an undiscovered or otherwise overlooked reservoir? cn

 

[canndo]

I can't imagine a world that doesn't have Fusion before 2100 unless there is a total and utter collapse. Rising oil prices will push investment into new energies and cause consumers to demand the development of efficient vehicles. Even when accounting for the increase in population and use of oil we are looking at 100 years worth of oil. Though, it might be more since rising prices will curb demand as well as other energies. Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and natural gas will be utilized in the coming decades. Even if fusion never pays off, solar power will likely be capable of powering our lives, thus leaving oil to making plastics and the like. How far can we really be from solar powered cars? It is gonna happen eventually. Look to see trains make a giant come back since they use electricity/coal.

Now this is funny. On the one hand we have a person who is depending upon the advent of fusion but it is likely that this poster is against "wasteful government expenditure" and for free enterprise. No company would take on the expense and risk of developing fusion and our current government attempt is likely to be shut down because it costs millions a day to experiment with. As with Solyndra, the right thinks that science will save us but they are unwilling to foot the bill if it has any risk at all of failure. Oh no, no R&D here because government is wasteful and never gives us anything for our tax dollars.

100 years worth of oil? in Exxon's dreams maybe. 100 years worth of affordable oil? hardly.

the right believes somehow, even though they all profess to be experts in everything economic, that oil will simply and gradualy rise in price -and so give us plenty of time to arrange for an alternative, convert our infrastructure and revamp our fleet of cars, trucks, ships and planes to something else just before a total economic collapse of the global economy. The reality is a bit different.

A single true shortfall of supplies of as little as a million brls a day will send the gobal economy into chaos. The way things work now is that we still have the saudi fields and they still attempt to even up our global supply. But something that few lay folk understand is that any field that is being drained at faster than a preset amount will be ruined and will never again yield it's potential - these fields are not like bathtubs of crude sunk in the sand.

One day in the not too distant future, there will be the first of many shortfalls and the saudies, in an effort to preserve the furthest extent of their field's yield will refuse to fill in the gaps. There will be no gradual increase in the price of fuel

 

[canndo]

In 1900, man had not invented airplanes. WW1 brought us fight planes and tanks that well.. sucked. lol. WW2 brought us jet planes, modern tanks, and guided missles. In 1950, space was still a dream. We can visit space pretty much whenever we want now, and if you are rich you can even buy a ticket on a space shuttle. In the early 80s we had personal computers, and if you had money you could have one. Hell, I had a laptop in the early 80s. I had a computer before windows. It was rare, but my mom was a programmer for IBM. In just 25 years, computers have went from what was essentially a digital typewriter that you could play very basic(basic, get it? lol.) games and programs on to the six core 3.3 ghz computer with 12gb of memory and terabytes of harddrive(mostly porn) that I am using right now that cost less to build than my yearly beer allowance.(fuck you, I like beer). Cars are driving themselves around us, semis now play follow the leader without a driver. We couldn't imagine today 25 years ago, it is near impossible to know how insane our abilities will be in 50 years.

Come to think of it... that is why the unibomber started killing computer people. Technology increases exponentially. In 50 years we might not even be human anymore.

All of these advances were incremental - oh they may not have looked that way but they were. there is no room for incremental changes in energy technology and even less if you don't enlist the help of government in order to bridge the transition.