[rsmurano]

Climate change has been talked about for over 100 years. These papers from scientists stated the risk of rising waters in the next few years, that was back in the 1920’s. IMO, this subject is more political than in reality.
Also, it’s not true that we are running out of a minerals. Back in the 70’s, my natural resources college class told us we will run out of oil in 10 years. What we don’t realize, any statement about mineral availability is using current technology. Back in the 70’s, they could only drill X number of feet but new technology allows us to find bigger reserves at lower depths and drill down further. This is true with other natural resources.
The cost of gas, home heating all comes down to the costs of a barrel of oil and natural gas. If oil/natural gas goes up in price, utilities are allowed to pass these new costs along with no issue. Same goes for gas.

[Regorp]

Originally Posted by amexsbow

HOW THINGS WORK
Having worked in the Oil and Gas industry and the Utilities industry, I would like to clear up some misconceptions. The Oil and Gas industry does not set the price of the product. That is set by the futures market. The Utility industry uses oil and gas to produce electricity. The Utilities industry does not set the price of electricity. That is set by the regulatory commissions of states or municipalities.
When the amount of a given product is restricted and the demand for that product is increasing the price of the product will increase according to demand.
So, when the price of oil and gas goes up what happens.
Transportation costs rise.
Costs rise to ship raw materials.
Manufacturing costs rise.
Distribution costs rise.
Add the rise in costs for each step of the manufacturing process from the ground to the store and the increased costs are substantial. If you are in business, which one of you is willing to reduce your income to keep costs down. How long will you stay in business?
And if someone artificially restricts the flow of energy what happens?

Wake up before it is too late!

And everyone knows who is really the blame!!

[DeeCee Dubya]

Well said. Career geoscientist here urging everyone to MAXIMIZE their carbon footprint.

Future generations of entitled snot nose kids will be no more responsible with energy than we were.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by Regorp

And everyone knows who is really the blame!!

It's them!

[virtualcynthia]

This conversation was way over my head. Is there a book or video on Energy for Dummies?

[rwcw]

Originally Posted by Cliff Fr

It's truly unfortunate that the price of an essential commodity is determined by speculators in the futures market. They often make a large amount of money yet produce nothing! I wish their was a better way to set prices abd ensure a fair profit for the actual
producers

I heard that the US produces more oil than it consumes and that it goes into the world market, not directly into the US distribution system. So, additional oil wells will apparently not help solve our price situation if that's true.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by rwcw

I heard that the US produces more oil than it consumes and that it goes into the world market, not directly into the US distribution system. So, additional oil wells will apparently not help solve our price situation if that's true.

It was, but not currently...

[jjombrello]

Totally disagree. Planes don't fly on electricity, trains don't run on electricity or wind, semis don't run on electricity or wind, etc. The climate change hoax is simply that. Over the centuries the world has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. Remember that not that long ago, time wise, the entire mid-west was covered by a glacier. When is receded, that is how the Great Lakes got formed. Today the Greenland ice mass is growing. There are as many scientist who dispute the claim of climate change as those who claim it is real. Too many manufactured reports have been written supporting the climate change philosophy, only to be proven wrong because they used made-up numbers. We can drill, produce and use fossil fuels for centuries without spending the multi-trillions of dollars being spent on something that is not imminent. Saying this, I do support making use of all energy sources, but it has to be practical and of optimal cost. Diving headlong into this development, while totally discounting fossil fuel is foolhardy and costly.

[AlanC]

Don't forget all the petrochemical plants that produce thousands of products (not energy) from oil. All types of plastics, insect repellants, computers, paint, fertilizers, over-the-counter medicines, cleaning products, rubber, cosmetics, lubricants and asphalt. This list goes on and on, thousands and thousands of everyday items. Add that to the cost of truck diesel/gas to transport back and forth. If you think inflation is high now, just wait until these increases are passed along. Just something to think about........

[montagnard1969]

Good points. Unfortunately those who have never been in business or run one have no clue how commodity prices affect their bottom line. Every thing that moves [ships] are affected by the cost of fuel. Again, those who have no clue don't understand that utilities are regulated but their costs of producing that "river of electricity" we all tap into are subject to the cost of the fuel that creates the electricity. The commodity that transmits and delivers electricity, the copper and aluminum wires, are subject to the price rises in these products. It is all connected in some way and those who don't understand running a business are ignorant of these facts. All they do is play the "blame game". There's plenty of blame to go around, but our [USA] of dealing with oil production, sending manufacturing overseas, curtailing mining, oil exploration and pipeline construction are all to blame for where we are today. Why didn't we have compressed natural gas cars years ago? Now we are shipping natural gas to Europe where they are paying 10 to 20 times what we sell it for in the US per therm. Any company that can sell their product at those rates are fools for not doing so. Do you want to pay $50 to $100 per therm of natural gas?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jjombrello

Totally disagree. Planes don't fly on electricity, trains don't run on electricity or wind, semis don't run on electricity or wind, etc. The climate change hoax is simply that. Over the centuries the world has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. Remember that not that long ago, time wise, the entire mid-west was covered by a glacier. When is receded, that is how the Great Lakes got formed. Today the Greenland ice mass is growing. There are as many scientist who dispute the claim of climate change as those who claim it is real. Too many manufactured reports have been written supporting the climate change philosophy, only to be proven wrong because they used made-up numbers. We can drill, produce and use fossil fuels for centuries without spending the multi-trillions of dollars being spent on something that is not imminent. Saying this, I do support making use of all energy sources, but it has to be practical and of optimal cost. Diving headlong into this development, while totally discounting fossil fuel is foolhardy and costly.

Uh, yes, there is a startup industry making e-planes, and uh, most of the rest of the world run Trains on Electricity. Even many areas of the US have electric trains.

Yes, you are right there are many scientists that claim climate change is not real, but almost none of them are climate scientists. The majority, like 99%, of climate scientists say it is no longer a theory, it is happening and it is now. It is not a question any longer. The pentagon has reported yearly for decades that climate change is a major concern for national security.

The US Government has an agency that monitors world energy production and consumption. It reports to the president every year. Every year for decades it has reported that oil is a finite resource and is becoming hard (more expensive) to produce every year.

Nothing is ever practical cost when new. Every major change has the same chicken and egg problem. It can't be practical until it is successful and it can't be successful until it is practical. The traditional solution has been someone taking the risk and producing something at an outrageous price (Flat screens TVs were introduced at $16K for a 24inch display). If they can survive, eventual price comes down, demand goes up and the new replaces the old.

Fossil energy is addictive - it has a very high energy density has traditionally be easy to find and produce and a small tank of gas can run an ICE engine a long time. The entire world economy is based on that cheap powerful source of energy. We ship $0.50 parts around the world because it is so cheap to ship. Food comes from thousands of mile away, because it is so cheap to ship. But, with that cheap and powerful energy source comes a steep price - like most addictions - pollution - not too long ago people were advised to not go outside in some cities in the US because the pollution was so high it could kill them. Acid rain cause massive damager to old growth forests. And on and on.

As with any addiction, it is killing us, but it is very hard to quit.

I firmly believe that going "back" is not a viable solution, we need to move forward, and the faster we can transition, the less pain we will suffer, so I support subsidies of alternate energy sources. I support taxing heavily fossil fuel sources to encourage migration to alternatives. I support change. But, I am not foolish to believe that every change will work. Not everything will go well. There will be false starts and bad ideas. But, there will also be good ideas, and successes.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

I have worked both industries as well. I have always played a location quiz with myself, "where would I want to live if oil hit $200 per barrel or higher?" The answer has always been where heating costs are minimized, and water, and food is grown in the area. One can survive heat with shade and water, but cold requires heat to survive. Food and protein food requires water and sunshine and the longer the growing season the better.

With capitalistic (lowest cost) optimization the colder areas, having shorter to very short growing seasons, require substantial vehicular imported food, and imported heat supply as well. These all require extra income to remain.

FL, Southern CA, HA come to mind as the best locations for these factors. Hence, a home in TV is also attractive, relative to the Northeast or other northern locations.

However, don't forget there is demand destruction as prices rise. . . demand destruction for petroleum based products will occur as prices increase. For those who have deferred big maintenance for cost, one might want to make plans to get it done sooner rather than later, especially with asphalt shingles. Maybe the ARC will become more open to longer lived metallic roofing material. If there was ever a time for the allowance, now is the time to be approving the options.

Mass generation from renewables is difficult due to the instability of production. Complimentary to petroleum based absolutely the future, but storability of electricity is difficult and somewhat dangerous, with that much energy stored in such a small space. . more research needs to be done, and there has been a lot already, which is not publicized.

So at the moment, the world could be at peak population and luxury, but the future remains uncertain. And I don't count out the creativity of humans who have exceeded the natural human capacity limits of the planet.

hopeful guy

Nice that you mentioned population. More people should give thought to that.

[mtdjed]

[QUOTE=MartinSE;2069960]Uh, yes, there is a startup industry making e-planes, and uh, most of the rest of the world run Trains on Electricity. Even many areas of the US have electric trains.

N- Planes were attempted in the 1960's. That did not go well. Nobody flying on E-Planes and not in our lifetime. Trains run on Electricity which for the most part is generated by fossil fuels.

Pollution problems can be overcome through technology also. Look at LA today verse 20 years ago.

We are addicted to, light, heat, AC, Food, travel, medicine, water, sanitation all of which happen to be consumers of energy. That addiction is supported by energy that has been mostly supplied by fossil fuels. That per cent is not changing fast. Claiming that E-Trains and E-Planes is the "Future" may be true, but Electricity isn't magic because you have a nice clean plug in the wall. Follow that wire back to the generator, the turbine and the energy source and you will find that most are fossil or nuclear fuels. Even water power comes with pollution and damage to the environment.

I support change also. LED lights as opposed to incandescent really works. I will adopt others that are introduced. However, I look at the 80% reliance on fossil fuel at this time and am not convinced it will transition to a lower percent quickly. So to keep our current addictions, we have to reduce our reliance at a rate that equals our migration to Non fossil sources.

Continuing to produce fossil fuels during this transition is not going back. Higher taxes on these sources is not going to eliminate "our" addiction to comforts that we have .

[MartinSE]

[QUOTE=mtdjed;2070128]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Uh, yes, there is a startup industry making e-planes, and uh, most of the rest of the world run Trains on Electricity. Even many areas of the US have electric trains.

N- Planes were attempted in the 1960's. That did not go well. Nobody flying on E-Planes and not in our lifetime. Trains run on Electricity which for the most part is generated by fossil fuels.

Pollution problems can be overcome through technology also. Look at LA today verse 20 years ago.

We are addicted to, light, heat, AC, Food, travel, medicine, water, sanitation all of which happen to be consumers of energy. That addiction is supported by energy that has been mostly supplied by fossil fuels. That per cent is not changing fast. Claiming that E-Trains and E-Planes is the "Future" may be true, but Electricity isn't magic because you have a nice clean plug in the wall. Follow that wire back to the generator, the turbine and the energy source and you will find that most are fossil or nuclear fuels. Even water power comes with pollution and damage to the environment.

I support change also. LED lights as opposed to incandescent really works. I will adopt others that are introduced. However, I look at the 80% reliance on fossil fuel at this time and am not convinced it will transition to a lower percent quickly. So to keep our current addictions, we have to reduce our reliance at a rate that equals our migration to Non fossil sources.

Continuing to produce fossil fuels during this transition is not going back. Higher taxes on these sources is not going to eliminate "our" addiction to comforts that we have .

I have no issues with almost everything you said. I will point out that change won't happen until it is cost effective, and it will not become cost effective until it is in mass production. So, early adopters, like Tesla owners, home owners with sufficient panels to get off the grid, etc. are helping to get us off fossil fuels and onto cleaner alternatives.

But, even so, I agree we are looking at a decade at least maybe two. But, without trying it will never happen. People like to continuously talk about how it isn't the time, but it will never be the time until it is.

[Nick B]

Which pipelines were shut down? I haven't heard that.