Reply With Quote
US doesn't have to be the largest producer.TB,when US is biggest producer, not lower prices today, which are now and always tied to world price. NG is going the same way
lol simpleton.
lost productivity from drivng (instead of reading)
US doesn't have to be the largest producer.TB,
lol simpleton.
You get -slapped everytime you try to talk petroleum. You probably best stop, now.
Mebbe thinkprogress can tell you what to think on this issue, cause you've clearly no clue.
the next time you slap me will be the first, less
I said get back to us when the US price of gasoline/diesel drops IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD as USA to be biggest producer.
Not my problem you can't construct a cogent sentence.
BTW, you were -slapped into oblivion in this thread. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6146697
lol simpleton.
TB
No, just in threads.TB
lol simpleton
I'm sure you were too cowardly to open the thread. I'll post it again, just in case you grow a spine.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6146697
mother ing hat trick.
We have actually sort of run through some of this before in discussions about mass transit.
The bottom line is that it is not a slam dunk in terms of being more efficient than cars, but needs a certain level of ridership.
A mildly full train is way more efficient than the same number of people in cars, but it takes a certain composition of factors, such as population density and so forth to get usage to the levels needed.
Sort of a chicken/egg conundrum.
Cities could certainly be smaller and have more buildings if one didn't have to use so much surface area for roads and parking.
Oddly enough, there was an economic study of cities that said, across countries of all sorts, the bigger a city, the higher the income of the people in that city. This goes for the US, as well as India, China, and all the developing world as well. I think that there is a very strong synergy going on there.
"in terms of being more efficient than cars"
there's more than just ENERGY efficiency.
The sunbelt is pretty much screwed due to suburban/exurban sprawl. The oilcos love it, America is Under Their Thumb.
Youre a ridiculous human being.
Well, our sprawl will get more expensive as the 3-4bn Asians and Africans start competing for each new barrel of oil, especially with their economic growth outpacing ours for the rest of our lives, they will be more and more able to outbid us for it.
Simple economics will drive us either to alternatives, or to denser layouts of cities.
This shift is a potential game-changer for the fiscal course of the United States. This kind of resource wealth can serve as a backstop against the slide of the dollar due to loose fiscal policy. The collapse I figured was inevitable may yet be avoided, and the concomitant splitting up of the country and protracted calamitous internecine conflict may be forestalled.
With widespread suffering no longer serving as the catalyst for major social change, you're probably looking at an extension of present trends. That means uneven growth between regions and conflict driven primarily by demographic changes.
New prediction: by mid-century the Republican Party will cease to exist in its current form. It may continue on as a hybrid between the Cons ution Party and an American version of the BNP, but it will not have a significant role in American national politics. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party will split off to form a new left party, and the rump of the GOP establishment will be absorbed into the Democratic Party.
FWIW, I seem to remember telling you that technological change would make your prediction of implosion highly unlikely, as it was predicated on such a decline.
Past historical patterns of large empires violently declining were only possible because of fairly static technological change, and, to a great extent, a lack of stabilizing forces such as integrated global trade markets, and difficult information exchange.
Change happens, and history, although a useful guide for some things, should be taken with a grain of salt.
A Singularity event though, seems far more probable to me. That may be my own faulty thinking, but such is the fun of prognostication.
I would agree. The GOP is pardon the pun, cons utionally unable to fathom its own pending demise. It will sink in eventually when they lose Texas.
That will shock a lot of people.
"when they lose Texas."
they would lose it now if Hispanics would vote.
But RickyBobby has replaced govt career professionals with Repug political hacks (just like the dubya/ head Repugs did at Fed level, eg, FEMA. It's part of the Repug philosophy to up govt) that is will take a long time for a TX one-party Dem state to repair the damage.
Well, with no likely impending collapse for me to stay ahead of, the GOP resolved to descend into oblivion, and a couple of decades to go before the Democrats sluff off the portion of their party I despise, politics becomes a very peripheral subject for me.
"When they lose Texas"
According to the head of Texas republican party, TX in 2040: 60% Hispanic, 25% white, the remaining 15% black with some Asian. Anybody want to speculate on the year that a court says that hard racial quotas in university admissions are cons utional? 2025?
But, an extremely positive tech shock such as this could stave off the obvious American (esp. Texan) descent into very explicit racial politics for some time.
I haven't paid for fuel in 4 years.
It won't happen. When they get close they will recruit some libertarian or Dem to cross over, and they will do so gladly as power is the goal of these ing church mice, their political ideals are just conduits to get them there.
http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...l-fallacy-7748Among the unchallenged verities of U.S. politics, the most universally accepted is that of the crucial strategic and economic significance of oil, and particularly Middle Eastern oil. On the right, the need for oil is seen as justifying an expanded and assertive military posture, as well as the removal of restrictions on domestic drilling. On the left, U.S. foreign-policy is seen through the prism of “War for Oil,” while the specter of Peak Oil threatens to bring the whole system down in ruins.
The prosaic reality is that oil is a commodity much like any other. As with every major commodity, oil markets have some special features that affect supply, demand and prices. But oil is no more special or critical than coal, gas or metals—let alone food.
Let’s start with some numbers. The United States currently uses about nineteen million barrels a day, of which about eleven are imported, mostly from within the Western Hemisphere. Imports from the Persian Gulf supply about 15 percent of total U.S. oil demand, a share that has declined over time.
At a price of $100 a barrel, expenditure on oil is around $700 billion a year, or 4 percent of GDP. That’s comparable to the amount spent on accommodation and restaurant services, and far smaller than, say, the health care or financial services sectors.
Imports from the Persian Gulf cost $73 billion in 2011, of which Iraq received around $20 billion. So, if the multi-trillion dollar Iraq war really was a “war for oil,” it was exceptionally ill-advised.
Oil has become steadily less important as an energy source in recent years. U.S. consumption of petroleum for gasoline peaked in 2005, well before the recession, and economic recovery has not produced a rebound. Consumption of oil per person has been declining since about 1980. At least as far as the United States is concerned, Peak Oil is an event in the past, not the future.
Moreover, while oil is a very convenient fuel for many purposes, there are few for which it is essential. Cars can run on liquefied natural gas, ethanol or biodiesel, not to mention electricity. High prices have already led to the abandonment of oil in many uses for which it was once the preferred fuel, such as electricity generation.
If oil is a commodity of modest importance, why does it loom so large in the thinking of U.S. policymakers and the general public? The answer, undoubtedly is the memory of the OPEC oil embargo imposed in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war of 1973. This shock was followed by months of queues and rationing, and by the double-digit inflation and high unemployment of the late 1970s.
Given this sequence of events, it was easy to conclude that control over oil exports is a powerful weapon in the hands of the OPEC states, and that shocks to the supply and price of oil represent a major cause of economic crises. Neither of these conclusions was correct at the time, and any validity they once had is long gone.
"Cars can run on liquefied natural gas, ethanol or biodiesel"
there's not enough corn ethanol nor soy biodiesel to replace petroleum fuel, quite apart from the insanity of destroying/wasting farmland and water to grow corn + soy for fuel.
"why does it loom so large in the thinking of U.S. policymakers and the general public"
Because BigOil has the market/propaganda/financial power to protect itself while attempting, mostly successfully, to kill any and alternatives.
what new technologies? do they materially affect the flow rate (and hence, the net energy produced)?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
