Bachmann will drive oil price below $2 a gallon

[Kulindahr]

What is this - I don't even...

Let me get you a pillow, before you hurt yourself on that wall.

 

[Rand]

From the fair and balanced reporting of Car Talk:

Maybe she missed it, but last year, former Shell president John Hofmeister told Fox News that he expected prices to reach, not $2 but $5 a gallon by 2012. Sometime between 2018 and 2020, he said, the supply problem will become so bad that some gas stations in regions farthest from oil refineries won’t be able to get supplied. He predicted that we’ll go back to the rationing of the 1970s, with cars being able to fill up only on certain days.

[Quote truncated by moderator] © 2011, Dewey, Cheetham and Howe.


http://cartalk.com/blogs/jim-motavalli/?p=1116

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

And monkeys will fly out of my ass.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

^Opie, justapixel is so extreme that I've pondered the possibility that he might be a Democratic sockpuppet.

Is this possible?

Lord help him if he's not.

Obvious troll is obvious. I will give him 2 points for not using the usual "troll flags" like "Fartbama" and "libtard".

 

[Kulindahr]

From the fair and balanced reporting of Car Talk:

Maybe she missed it, but last year, former Shell president John Hofmeister told Fox News that he expected prices to reach, not $2 but $5 a gallon by 2012. Sometime between 2018 and 2020, he said, the supply problem will become so bad that some gas stations in regions farthest from oil refineries won’t be able to get supplied. He predicted that we’ll go back to the rationing of the 1970s, with cars being able to fill up only on certain days.

[Quoted Post: Truncated by Moderator]



http://cartalk.com/blogs/jim-motavalli/?p=1116

The ONLY way there could be a serious impact on domestic US prices is if we got a hundred or more "anything to oil" (thermal depolymerization) plants up and running -- which would take at least five years if it got started tomorrow. That could replace a good tenth of our oil imports within a theoretical Bachmann presidency, and possibly a bit more than an eighth by the end of a second term. IFF that product was pooled with imports instead of going on the global market, it could keep prices down under $5 a gallon, but what producer is going to settle for that lower price, rather than putting it out where it will get what sweet light crude is getting (or better)?

There's another way to make oil out of certain plastic trash, but it comes up against an obstacle: so far, the result is something that has to be fed into a refinery to be useful, and we don't have the refinery capacity for that to make any difference -- the beauty of thermal depolymerization is that with a good feed stock it can produce products that can go straight to the market instead of to the refinery, effectively increasing our domestic refined supply.

I bet Bachmann hasn't even heard of "anything to oil", or the other alternative. She certainly hasn't done the arithmetic for the drilling options, or the shale oil, or anything else. And counting on wishful thinking or ignorant optimism are paths to disaster.

 

[Tengilethos]

It will need both increasing supply by exploiting more "unconventional" sources of oil (like oil shale and the anything-to-oil plants) and reducing demand to stop or at least slow the rise in fuel prices. There are even many low-hanging fruits here. Ban plastic bags and use paper bags or cloth bags instead. (Noooo, the treeees!) Cut wasteful packaging. Change urban development plans to stop sprawl and enact policies to support denser cities.
A combination of more renewable energy and nuclear plants can reduce oil demand as well. Cut the biofuel bullshit (except algae perhaps) and erect wind or solar power plants on the fields instead, biofuel is inefficient.
There are more things that can be done, but most require extensive government interference with the economy. Likely won't happen.

 

[Kulindahr]

It will need both increasing supply by exploiting more "unconventional" sources of oil (like oil shale and the anything-to-oil plants) and reducing demand to stop or at least slow the rise in fuel prices. There are even many low-hanging fruits here. Ban plastic bags and use paper bags or cloth bags instead. (Noooo, the treeees!) Cut wasteful packaging. Change urban development plans to stop sprawl and enact policies to support denser cities.
A combination of more renewable energy and nuclear plants can reduce oil demand as well. Cut the biofuel bullshit (except algae perhaps) and erect wind or solar power plants on the fields instead, biofuel is inefficient.
There are more things that can be done, but most require extensive government interference with the economy. Likely won't happen.

Forget trees: we could make enough things from hemp that the U.S. could eliminate nearly 2% of its oil imports. That would be a quick and easy one -- just get rid of all the laws restricting hemp growth and use.

Biofuel is fine, but get the subsidies and requirements out of it and let the real world figure out the situation. There are plants that can be used to make fuels that aren't food plants, and that's where the focus should be -- especially on oily plants, which are already part way to what's needed.

In fact I heard recently that the leftover crud from making hemp into paper can be used as a biofuel starter -- and on top of that, it wouldn't hurt the hemp at all if the fields had wind turbines towering above them.

I also like the idea of floating solar farms -- cool the ocean while making electricity.

 

[Kulindahr]

We spoke in another thread about digitalization, and how this social force will change the dynamics of the United States. Digitalization on a mass scale will dramatically reduce demand for lumber, so your idea about substituting plastic bags for paper is quite doable.

I remember in the 70s when plastic bag usage came in, and how we all hated them. (I still do, to be honest with you.) The nice thing about paper bags is that they biodegrade.

All in all, this idea is a win/win situation.

Hemp would make stronger and more flexible bags than paper, while being better for the environment on both ends: fewer chemicals to turn it into material for bags, and quicker decomposition if tossed into the woods or someplace.

BTW, I've hated plastic bags every since I first picked one up. The only good thing about them is they're nice for trash bags in the car.

 

[Tengilethos]

Offshore wind parks even profit from more regular wind than on land. And decriminalizing hemp in all forms would have so many benefits that no normal politician would ever support it.

Regarding subsidies, I bet many people would be shocked if they knew how much public money the oil industry receives.

Unrelated, but another problem with biofuel ist that I see no reason to artificially reduce potential supply of food so that global food prices rise even more. Except if it is some conspiracy to indirectly reduce global population growth, which would be a clever idea but morally troubling.

 

[Kulindahr]

Offshore wind parks even profit from more regular wind than on land. And decriminalizing hemp in all forms would have so many benefits that no normal politician would ever support it.

Regarding subsidies, I bet many people would be shocked if they knew how much public money the oil industry receives.

Unrelated, but another problem with biofuel ist that I see no reason to artificially reduce potential supply of food so that global food prices rise even more. Except if it is some conspiracy to indirectly reduce global population growth, which would be a clever idea but morally troubling.

Any rational politician would support dumping all the (anti-) hemp laws: it would create jobs, generate tax revenues, improve the balance of trade, benefit national security, help the environment....

Some Oregon politicians have looked into doing with hemp what Montana did with firearms and Texas with lightbulbs: decree that growing and making things with hemp is legit so long as it all stays within the boundaries of Oregon. An estimate (based on rather vague information, IMO) for the job impact was that while it might cost the state a few dozen forest jobs, it would generate about two thousand totally new jobs, along with other benefits (like improved air quality -- not only does hemp make better paper than wood, it takes fewer nasty chemicals to process it).

 

[jonbrianblake]

The President of the US has no power to drop the price of gas by half. Experts from both sides of the political spectrum said today that it would take a world-wide depression for gas to drop that far.

 

[frankfrank]

Regarding subsidies, I bet many people would be shocked if they knew how much public money the oil industry receives.

And even you, I'll bet, are not even including the massive military presence that we maintain all over the Middle East and elsewhere, to assure our unstoppable supply route for petroleum and all kinds of other resources. If the Middle East was as barren of natural resources as Mongolia, it's unlikely we'd have much of a military presence over there. (OK, there'd be some, because there's still the Israel agenda as well, but that's another thread topic.)

And even though it's been said more than once, most of the public never views or reads the media where the NEGATIVE TAXES (where some oil companies, and other large corporations, not only pay no corporate taxes, but get welfare payments) get mentioned.

For all that Obama and others tried, nobody succeeded in getting any of this removed during the debt ceiling clusterfuck...did they? I don't think so.

 

[Kulindahr]

Agreed again, Kulindahr.

However, I think it's more likely that a legalization of hemp would come out of California. After all, medical marijuana is also legal there.

But I do have a question: isn't hemp processing a whole lot more expensive than timber?

The expense depends on what you intend to make. For basic paper fiber, it's actually cheaper. For rope fiber, it's REALLY cheap; it's also cheap for making tarps.

If you want really fine fiber, it starts becoming questionable. But there the argument shifts to another place: harvesting the hemp fiber is much cheaper than harvesting the wood fiber, with a lot less waste.

Of course that's assuming equivalent volumes -- with hemp being processed in small amounts, the cost is something like five times that of wood. Another factor is that hemp fiber availability is seasonal -- harvest time -- while trees can be cut at any time, so hemp requires storage facilities that wood doesn't.

But the length of hemp fibers makes for very strong products -- a grocery bag made of hemp paper/cloth could be five or more times stronger than wood paper or plastic. That's why it's been used for rope, canvas (did you know "canvas" is a corruption of "cannabis"?)... and these days, car bodies.



RE California: medical marijuana is legal in Oregon, though state authorities here haven't threatened to arrest federal agents interfering with that. But I haven't seen anything about California lawmakers looking into industrial hemp production, while some in Oregon have -- though admittedly, California has a much larger internal market.

 

[star-warrior]

In a world where demands on food is growing through burgeoning population growth, giving valuable arable land over to growing fuel is a terrible idea.

Reducing the dependency on finite fuels and look towards developing greener sources of energy is the way forward, otherwise there will be conflicts in the future over fuel resources. If you want them, at least grow them in your own yard. When third world countries are growing them, its not different to growing opium poppies, giving farming land to a money rich cash crop.

 

[thewiz]

Because oil has become a world commodity, it doesn't matter if we cut our use to half of what it is; speculation is driving the market and keeping the price per barrel high. The other problem is that oil produced in the United States does not stay in the United States.

First, anyone check to see when the last refinery was built in this country? We've made improvements and increased production through modernization of existing plants but no new ones are being brought on line. No one wants such a thing "in my back yard." Therefore, oil must be shipped to places that can process it into gasoline and other products. At that point, it goes on the market and may or may not come back. If it does, it is subject to world pricing.

If Ms. Bachmann is talking about the new plan of the Tea Party -- to not authorize a new transportation bill and eliminate the gas tax -- it may or may not reduce the price at the pump. When tax authorization lapsed for the airlines recently, did you see the price of tickets decrease? Nope; the airlines simply pocketed the money. If anyone thinks that because you don't levy 18.4 cents per gallon, the price is somehow going to drop to $2, they must be smoking hemp.

The problem is that the gas tax has not been increased since 1993. The collection has been falling as mileage is improved on autos and less miles are driven. If you eliminate the dollars, where do people think the funding for repairing/rebuilding our highway system, transit systems, airports, and rail is going to come from? That 18.3 cents may be quickly eaten up by new tires, realignment costs, and tearing your car apart on failing roads (provided the bridges don't collapse as you drive across them).

Anyone notice that the U.S. automakers did not oppose efforts to increase car mileage? I remember the days when they said you couldn't increase mileage to 15 mpg...or 20...or 25 and would fight, scream and kick. This time they are saying...okay...we can work with that.

 

[Kulindahr]

In a world where demands on food is growing through burgeoning population growth, giving valuable arable land over to growing fuel is a terrible idea.

Reducing the dependency on finite fuels and look towards developing greener sources of energy is the way forward, otherwise there will be conflicts in the future over fuel resources. If you want them, at least grow them in your own yard. When third world countries are growing them, its not different to growing opium poppies, giving farming land to a money rich cash crop.

Hemp can be grown on land where it now takes corporate welfare to get food produced -- taxpayers pay the agrocorporations to grow it, and then pay again to buy it. In other words, they're growing food on not even marginal land... and then after a few years they can shut down the land and get paid for not growing anything where they shouldn't have in the first place, after drawing down the water table and poisoning the ground. To grow hemp there would take seed -- and that's about it.

I'll also note that there are vast tracts of arable land in this country which do nothing but take up space between the halves of interstates -- not something you'd want to grow food in, because of all the exhaust fumes, but for growing hemp it would be excellent. Hemp has also been proposed as a "fallow" crop, sown in with clover in a field taking a year off -- and what isn't harvested gets plowed in, nutrients for the next crop.

At any rate, we wouldn't be surrendering much land at all from food production, and would be benefiting the environment in many places where we did.


BTW, if you're concerned about food production, get into the fight to have sewage waste composted and sold as soil augments, instead of just getting rid of it (for that matter, sewage can also, with the right additional feed stock, go into "anything to oil" plants). If all our sewage waste were turned into soil additives, to build it back up, we could actually be increasing the amount of topsoil we have.

 

[star-warrior]

Water is recycled in the UK, yes, recycled. Londoners are said to drink water which has passed through other people's bladders.

Today, solar panels are expensive because of the silicon used. Even though there is sand everywhere it is not currently viable to use that to extract silicon. High grade silica ore is mined in south america. If and when the scientist develope a method which is economically feasible to grow silicon from sand easily, the price of solar panels will fall, providing the world with a clean way of converting solar energy into usable power. The problem then becomes one of how to transport the electricity from one place to another.

Currently, electricity going down metal (say copper) wires is lossy due to electrical resistance. Alternating current (AC) is more lossy than direct current (DC), so how does one use DC from Solar panels in a near lossless cable? Superconducting wire. When matter is supercooled to temperatures near absolute zero, it loses all electrical resistivity, you'll probably seen the floating magnet trick... Now we need a metal or alloy under the right conditions that will achieve a state of zero electrical resistance, ie superconducting. Luckily, advances in the science of superconductivity has meant that you don't need absolute zero to achieve that state, liquid nitrogen on certain alloys can do it.

I've seen a program recently where they postulate the use of transcontinental solar arrays linked by superconducting wire so what instant DC power can be sent from areas on the globe in direct sun to those in on the night side. This would essentially need multiregion and multi-cultural interdependency to get it off the ground. Once set up, it could be a virtually limitless supply of clean energy waiting to be tapped.

 

[chrisrobin]

Has anyone in "the liberal media"* bothered to ask Ms. Bachmann how this was going to come about?

The blowviators are either:
1. Mentally ill
2. Brain dead
3. Incompetent
4. Getting paid well for not asking the question by the corporate media.

My vote goes to #4. It's called "news management". It has become an art form.

*Another Republican "big lie" Tell me that an international corporation like Time-Warner is "liberal". I don't believe it.

 

[Jack Springer]

$2 a gallon gas promise by Bachmann? no

8% unemployment promise by Obama? no

Both are liars.

 

[frankfrank]

$2 a gallon gas promise by Bachmann? no

8% unemployment promise by Obama? no

Both are liars.

One's already been proven to be a lie.

The other one pertains to the future, and is even more improbable than the one already proven to be a lie.