By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Can the world economy recover with rising oil prices?

NJ5 on 23 June 2009

 

@akuma587: I don't think the US is setting an example for anyone with these fuel standards, at least not for the biggest consumers of oil. As far as I know, Europe and China have had more stringent fuel standards than the US for a long time.
http://euobserver.com/885/28171
Anyway, setting higher fuel standards is definitely a good thing, but it only addresses one part of the problem... that and it looks like too little too late. The world isn't doing enough.

@akuma587: I don't think the US is setting an example for anyone with these fuel standards, at least not for the biggest consumers of oil. As far as I know, Europe and China have had more stringent fuel standards than the US for a long time.

http://euobserver.com/885/28171

Mr Obama's plan, a compromise between car manufacturers and environmental critics, would require the average US vehicle - cars and light trucks - to achieve 35.5 miles per gallon (in metric around 15 kilometres to the litre) by 2016, a 30 percent advance over current fuel standards.

(...)

China currently enforces an average fuel efficiency standard of 35.8 miles per gallon (mpg) and Japan demands 42.6 mpg.

Europe meanwhile requires vehicles achieve 43.3 mpg and by 2016 - the deadline of the Obama scheme - vehicles in the 27-country bloc will have to meet an efficiency standard of 50 mpg.

Anyway, setting higher fuel standards is definitely a good thing, but it only addresses one part of the problem... that and it looks like too little too late. The world isn't doing enough.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Squilliam on 23 June 2009
HappySqurriel said:

I work in a company currently that is heavily related to both conventional and renewable energy and I'll let you in on something that is very well known ... Besides Fossil Fuels, Nuclear energy and Hydro-Electric we have no way to generate enough energy to meet our current energy consumption in a cost effective manner; and no matter how much money governments throw at it this is not likely to change for several decades.

At the same time, political resistance to the development of fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro-electric powerplants (and the growing environmental resistance to Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Tidal power) means that until we develop a magical energy source the world is only going to be able to increase supply by a tiny fraction of the increase in demand over the next half century.

I'm personally very afraid at what happens to the world when Oil starts to approach $500 a barrel ... People often don't realize how dependant the world is on inexpensive energy to provide the basic necessities of life. As people start being denied basic food, clothing, shelter and transportation because the cost of energy has become too high political instability will follow

Lets see:

Wind: Kills birds, eyesore, noise, vibration.

Solar: Local heatbloom, covers acres of land, environmentally unfriendly production of panels.

Geothermal: Heavy metal discharge into local waterways

Tidal: Kills fish, probably some other gripes as well.

All: Not in my backyard!

The two important points for the next few years are to increase efficiency so every unit of energy does more work for us and to find non depletable sources of energy to slowly replace fossil fuels. Personally im a proponent of electric vehicles like the Volt, but not so expensive!



Tease.

HappySqurriel on 23 June 2009
Squilliam said:
HappySqurriel said:

I work in a company currently that is heavily related to both conventional and renewable energy and I'll let you in on something that is very well known ... Besides Fossil Fuels, Nuclear energy and Hydro-Electric we have no way to generate enough energy to meet our current energy consumption in a cost effective manner; and no matter how much money governments throw at it this is not likely to change for several decades.

At the same time, political resistance to the development of fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro-electric powerplants (and the growing environmental resistance to Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Tidal power) means that until we develop a magical energy source the world is only going to be able to increase supply by a tiny fraction of the increase in demand over the next half century.

I'm personally very afraid at what happens to the world when Oil starts to approach $500 a barrel ... People often don't realize how dependant the world is on inexpensive energy to provide the basic necessities of life. As people start being denied basic food, clothing, shelter and transportation because the cost of energy has become too high political instability will follow

Lets see:

Wind: Kills birds, eyesore, noise, vibration.

Solar: Local heatbloom, covers acres of land, environmentally unfriendly production of panels.

Geothermal: Heavy metal discharge into local waterways

Tidal: Kills fish, probably some other gripes as well.

All: Not in my backyard!

The two important points for the next few years are to increase efficiency so every unit of energy does more work for us and to find non depletable sources of energy to slowly replace fossil fuels. Personally im a proponent of electric vehicles like the Volt, but not so expensive!

I like the idea of electric cars, but I don't think that anyone is prepared for the electric car which limits its viability ... The average household uses more energy in transportation than they do from all other sources, and we don't have the infastructure in place to increase electricity output to the level that would be required if a small portion of the population decided to switch over to electric vehicles.



akuma587 on 23 June 2009

Really the only smart answer when it comes to energy is to use everything: solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc. We can use oil and coal as a holdover, but we should really be doing everything in our power to move away from each as both have significant costs.

Oil creates more problems for our economy than just about anything else, and is one of the leading reasons why the dollar depreciates with respect to other currencies. The dollar is pegged to oil. OPEC does everything in their power to keep oil prices high. This ends up screwing up the currency.

Coal at least doesn't cause those kinds of problems, but it has plenty of other baggage along with it. It really is the least attractive of all the available fuel sources we have.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 23 June 2009
akuma587 said:
Really the only smart answer when it comes to energy is to use everything: solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc. We can use oil and coal as a holdover, but we should really be doing everything in our power to move away from each as both have significant costs.

Oil creates more problems for our economy than just about anything else, and is one of the leading reasons why the dollar depreciates with respect to other currencies. The dollar is pegged to oil. OPEC does everything in their power to keep oil prices high. This ends up screwing up the currency.

Coal at least doesn't cause those kinds of problems, but it has plenty of other baggage along with it. It really is the least attractive of all the available fuel sources we have.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

OPEC is less then half of our import. There is no way you can tie the value of our dollar to the price OPEC sets for oil.

The value of our dollar is tied to the value of the assets of the US in comparison to how many dollars we have. Doing things like spending trillions of dollars we don't have is what effects the dollar. That, and a 1.3 trillion in lose of US value.

Not how much someone else sets for a product we buy.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 24 June 2009
HappySqurriel said:

I like the idea of electric cars, but I don't think that anyone is prepared for the electric car which limits its viability ... The average household uses more energy in transportation than they do from all other sources, and we don't have the infastructure in place to increase electricity output to the level that would be required if a small portion of the population decided to switch over to electric vehicles.


There are three really good positives from electric vehicles. They are far more efficient, so it takes a lot less energy to travel the same distance even accounting for transmission losses from the power lines. They can be charged off peak so they don't have to add a significant load to the electrical system and they can be charged from sources other than oil, say gas, hydro, nuclear, solar etc.



Tease.

Tyrannical on 24 June 2009

It is in the government’s best interest to keep oil cheap, but it may not be in private companies best interest to keep oil prices low.

 

So I’d probably support a government built coal to oil infrastructure to keep oil prices stabilized and ensure a steady domestic supply.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

bdbdbd on 24 June 2009

@Squilliam: You're right about that. However, problem with the solar power (this may not come into mind in NZ) is, that at the time most of the energy would be needed, there's little of it available. What you'd need, would be power plants (coal or oil for a fast startup) to keep the supply steady.
But. Solar power would be great addition where it's available throughout the year.

Charging cars would likely bring the problem with the grid capacity, since you'd have to have lots of cars in charge simultanously (which itself would create the peak). The grid, of course, wouldn't be much of a problem in the long run.

Before electric cars, i would see the 2nd generation hybrids (that you btw can charge from the grid) more viable option with the tech known today.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Squilliam on 24 June 2009
bdbdbd said:
@Squilliam: You're right about that. However, problem with the solar power (this may not come into mind in NZ) is, that at the time most of the energy would be needed, there's little of it available. What you'd need, would be power plants (coal or oil for a fast startup) to keep the supply steady.
But. Solar power would be great addition where it's available throughout the year.

Charging cars would likely bring the problem with the grid capacity, since you'd have to have lots of cars in charge simultanously (which itself would create the peak). The grid, of course, wouldn't be much of a problem in the long run.

Before electric cars, i would see the 2nd generation hybrids (that you btw can charge from the grid) more viable option with the tech known today.

A Chevrolet Volt has an 8.8KW battery pack good for 40 Miles of purely electrical running. Since it takes 8 hours to charge the power draw would only be a little over a KW. It would be no worse than a small heater running through the night in terms of electrical consumption. I doubt that even a whole street of Volts would strain the grid locally. I hear theres plenty of coal/nuclear/hydro power to go around at night so it shouldn't be an issue. Also charging a Volt would cost only 80c which is a pittance next to the cost of gasoline.

Solar power is pretty useful, but only in places with a lot of illumination. However its really expensive to install unfortunately and at this time except in corner cases its worse than a typical coal/gas fired power station.

 



Tease.

outlawauron on 24 June 2009

Heh, rising oil prices help my state out a whole lot.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.