I understand your logic, but you're not looking at supply and demand. More supply - lower prices. Less supply - higher prices. If refining is a capacity limiter then it doesn't matter how much refining costs - it would drive the price way up
Here's a short article from The Cato Institute. A well respected conservative think tank.
My point is that refining capacity isn't a supply limiter. Maybe on a week to week basis there could be several cents of added volatility but its not the fundamental problem that people seem to be making it out to be.
I read the article tpe, and it gave me the standard pseudo-capatalist answer of "supply and demand". My gawd that's the only fictional "hawg wash" the right wingers know how to spit-out of their mouths. :mad:
We are NOT here to discuss politics. Let's drop this NOW and get back to the topic. If we can't stay on subject, then it may be time to retire this one.
Nuclear power plants that could have been built in the 70s and 80s would be serving now to replace coal and oil for the supply of energy. I watched as a few loud protestors blocked entraces to construction of an Ohio nuclear plant. Their groups filed lawsuits and sought rules changes. Among them was a part time instructor at a local community college who was portrayed as an expert. His degree was in biology-dime a dozen at the time-not physics or chemistry.\
The waste problem will be handled. Construction, like that of refineries, takes time. The protestors bought decades of no nuclear but they're not here now saying that they should have been built then and we could be on our way to reduced oil consumption. They're just sitting back thinking what a wonderful green US they helped achieve.
I agree, but in all honesty the technology of the 1960's Nuclear plants is a disater pal.
They were thinking about closing Palisades just a few months ago because of reactor problems. Fortunately they got a 20 yr. extension from the NRC.
General Electric, Siemens-Westinghouse, Bechtel, all have really modern designs now. The latest one to the best of my knowledge is the one that was built a few years ago in South Africa, by General Electric. We could use the juice pal. The Government could help energy company's out with federal dollars, and if there is a way to capture the hydrogen, and sell it to us consumers I'll gladly buy it. We can win this battle of using oil as a main source of energy, or at the very least stableize it. :shades:
We use hardly any oil to generate electricity. So I'm not sure how expanded nuclear energy capacity would help with present gas prices and oil dependency. Maybe down the road if we end up going with hydrogen as a fuel source or battery powered EVs.
"Some of those country's gave us what $10 dollars. I guess it's the thought that counts."
Actually, most of those countries gave food/supplies and/or sent equipment/manpower to help in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.
Besides, just how much aid could one reasonably EXPECT from Afghanistan? And yes, it is the thought that counts. But all in all, the MONETARY aid received from foreign governments exceeded $1B. This doesn't include money sent directly to relief agencies (Red Cross) from foreign individuals.
Unfortunately, government bureacracy was so screwed up that it was a red-tape nightmare just trying to get the stuff/manpower being volunteered actually TO the appropriate place.
The answer to your original question is: No, we need oil for way more than fuel. It is and has been a tool for other countries to control the industrailized nations. For example, Russia is now trying to control Europe with it's natural gas. The big three or four don't want the USA to use diesel cars on a large scale like Europe. I don't see how in the world you can keep steering people away from politics. It is now a part of oil as oil itself.
afghanistan is actually one of the wealthier country's on that list. Bangledesh or Sri Lanka is poorer. Afghanistan atleast has billions of dollars in Opium farms. Since we took over the local farm populus has increased the production of this drug by 126%. They have the finest guard force in the world protecting the fields (US Military) :sick: So yeah they could of done slightly more. The U.S. gives Billions in aide and we get back a Billion. Go figure. :mad:
"In 2004 dollars the component of gasolines cost due to distribution, marketing, and refining has remained fairly constant. In 1968 it was 82 cents per gallon. It hit a high of 94 cents per gallon in 1980. For the past 20 years it has fluctuated between 44 and 61 cents a gallon."
Component cost of gasoline makes NO difference.
Doesn't anyone understand that prices for a commodity are set based on the supply and demand for that commodity, and NOT by what it cost to bring it to market?
Let's assume for a moment that the U.S. is able to refine 10M gal/day of gasoline (number pulled out of thin air; I've NO idea what the real number is).
Now, we must also realize that the DEMAND for gasoline is NOT a fixed number. As the retail cost goes UP, at some price point the demand will go down. Conversely, if the retail cost goes DOWN, people will start to use more of it and the demand will go up.
For simplification, let's assume that we don't import any refined gasoline (we actually do but I'm trying to keep this simple). That means the the DEMAND for gasoline can't exceed 10M gal/day because that's all we can supply. So what mechanism do we have to limit the demand to whatEVER the available supply is?
Price. The price is increased until the demand is EQUAL to the supply. What the component cost of the gasoline was has absolutely no bearing on the price paid.
What the component cost of the gasoline was has absolutely no bearing on the price paid
That doesn't make much sense.
The price paid is made up of its components. If the price paid has gone up then the price of one or more of its components must have gone up. Which component is it? The only one that makes any sense is the refineries profit because they are the ones benefitting from this commodity's price being bid up due to limited supply. That fact is that their profits have remained flat over the past 20 years. If you have any information to the contrary please pass it on.
Natural gas and oil are used in high peak periods in some areas for backup generators. The coal currently used could be used to generate oil by processes similar to the sand oil extraction. Our local paper this morning had an article about a new plant design to try to burn coal that wouldn't meet the wonderful EPA (remember them) requirements they put in place a couple decades ago. Lots of coal doesn't burn the "they" want it to. But instead of coal and special, expensive plants we could be using nuclear power and the coal and natural gas could go other places!!!
I agree, but in all honesty the technology of the 1960's Nuclear plants is a disater pal.
I think they were pretty darn good. San Onofre has produced a lot of electricity for nearly 40 years and is still going strong. Many anti-nuclear activists are now on the Nuclear bandwagon. Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace for one. Stewart Brand founder of The Whole Earth Catalog is now a Nuclear power activist. That is not saying the newer generation of nuclear power plant is not better.
The component cost has now bearing because consumers are competing for oil.The component cost has no bearing because consumers are competing for oil. Let’s look back when gas was 2.00 a gallon in America. As China and India grow, they demand more oil, so they (their markets, not the governments) say to the gas companies “Hey, we’ll pay 2.25 a gallon.” So what are the oil companies going to do? Say no, and keep selling gas at 2.00 a gallon in the US? No. What then happens is America (its market, not the government) says, “well, we still want gas so we’ll pay 2.50 a gallon.” This goes back and forth until the maximum price people are willing to pay for gas is reached.
The demand for gas is high compared to how much there is, so the price goes up.
The profits are going up because it doesn’t really cost any more to get the oil out of the ground. The extraction cost was the same when oil was 10 dollars a barrel. But now with the higher demand, the oil is worth much more once it’s out of the ground. The people who own the wells are the ones making giant profits. And while that means a lot of money for the oil companies, countries that produce oil are really making out. According to the Washington Post, the revenues of oil producing countries rose from 300 billion in 2002 to over 750 billion in 2005.
Which component is it? The only one that makes any sense is the refineries profit because they are the ones benefitting from this commodity's price
I disagree. I think it is simply the crude oil component that has gone up. You have Kings & Queens getting rich off of $70 per barrel oil in Canada, Saudi, Norway & the UK. I am not hearing anyone lambast the Queen for her billions in profit from Shell oil & BP. How much of the $54 in every $70 barrel of oil goes into the Kings coffers in Norway? If the Norwegian government was looking out for it's people they would not be paying over $6 per gallon for gas. They are an oil exporter. At least in the Venezuelan dictatorship they give the gas to the people for 12 cents a gallon.
I think we are pointing fingers at the wrong people in this high priced oil period. I don't see Canada saying, hey you are there to protect us from outside invasion we will sell you our vast resources of oil for $30 per barrel. We live in a greedy world and many of our friends are the greediest. At least with Exxon I can get a bit back in my 401K.
I disagree. I think it is simply the crude oil component that has gone up
I think you misunderstood my response. I am in agreement as to which component went up, crude oil. I was saying that if the price increase was due to refinery capacity not being able to meet demand then refinery profits would be dramatically increasing. All the information that I have read says they aren't and they really can't go up that much. Europe has a unleaded gas refining surplus. We can always purchase their gas should we experience a temporary production deficit. Yes it will be more expensive but not that much more. This whole refining thing is a red herring, at least when talking about the current situation.
Another misunderstanding. I consider profit as part of the component. If a refinery pays $75/barrel for oil that is what I consider to be its crude oil component. If you want to break it down further and say $25 was production cost and $50 was profit driven by supply and demand that's fine. I was lumping them together.
If we have $2.90 a gallon at the pump (at least in my area) we can break that down into it's components. About $1.80 is the crude oil component and 45 cents for taxes. That leaves 65 cents for everything else. This everything else category is what would be effected by a refining capacity shortage and its not happening.
Many anti-nuclear activists are now on the Nuclear bandwagon. Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace for one. Stewart Brand founder of The Whole Earth Catalog is now a Nuclear power activist
These environmentalist are jumping on the Nuclear bandwagon for one main reason. They see global warming as the biggest environmental threat. Nuclear energy does not produce the green house gases that coal burning powerplants do. The reason I say this is that if we use these individual's support to defend this technology then we should also give their reasons credibility, which I do.
"This whole refining thing is a red herring, at least when talking about the current situation."
Then by the same logic, a CHANGE in refining capacity would have no effect on the price of gas?
In other words, if we LOST 10% of our refining capacity, gas prices would not go up? I don't buy it.
Another thing to consider: refined gas futures are traded on the commodities market. Like oil, if the traders anticipate some future dispruptions to the supply, then the price jumps. If there is some excess refining capacity, then small disruptions to supply wouldn't have much effect on the futures market because the traders would know that excess capacity could make up small disruptions. But if there is NO excess capacity, then anticipated disruptions (either forseen or unforseen) would have a much larger effect on the futures market.
In other words, if we LOST 10% of our refining capacity, gas prices would not go up? I don't buy it.
No, I didn't say that. That probably would create a situation where demand would outstrip supply at the current price and imported unleaded gas may not be enough for the long term. The thing about the demand for gasoline consumption in this country is that it remains in a fairly tight range. Barring natural disasters we don't need a lot of excess capacity we just need to be able to expand our capacity at about 1 1/2% per year, which we have. I posted this link before and you may have already read it. Please tell me what portion of this article you disagree with, its a short article.
we should also give their reasons credibility, which I do.
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I just wonder where goof balls like Martin Sheen are at? I still see him laying in front of a bulldozer on that one nuclear project. Environmentalists as a whole are very narrow minded idealists.
We also agree on electric vehicles as the best alternative. Once they get decent batteries. I would buy a small electric vehicle for 90% of my errands. It would be perfect. Most of the small ones available now are not rated for CA roads posted over 35 MPH.
Did anybody watch C-span last night? Because ther was a guy informing congress with many facts without any political BS. He presented chart after chart showing the case of energy and how much the USA and world has been using, is using now and what is projected in the near term. In that he demostrated that various forms of energy must be used if a country can substain it's energy usage and growth. The bottom line was the USA must act now as to avoid major problems in adjusting to our needed energy for the future which includes all forms of energy not just one or two.
With his stated information, he was able to shed new light on how much energy is being used, how long these types of energy will last and in what forms and various other forms of energy that needs to be developed. Of which he listed many.
The good part was he stated where he got his facts, explained it in a way even congress could understand and presented it to congress without any political BS. Unfortunately, I believe politics will prevail as usual and basicly nothing will be done except the usual lip service as history has shown. :lemon:
Did anybody watch C-span last night? Because ther was a guy informing congress with many facts without any political BS. He presented chart after chart showing the case of energy and how much the USA and world has been using, is using now and what is projected in the near term.
Saw it. He mentioned Peak oil a number of times. Unless there are major oil field finds in the future, demand will outstrip supply in forseeable future. We are and will increasingly be competing against future millions of drivers in China.
"Please tell me what portion of this article you disagree with."
Well, there's not much in there I disagree with; I think that we are just drawing (slightly) different conclusions.
I've got the impression that you feel that pump prices are ONLY a function of the prices of the material components + production/delivery costs and some relatively fixed amount of profit. I also had the impression that you felt actual refining capacity had NO bearing on pump prices; I think now that was a false impression.
Key point I got from that article:
"How much domestic refining capability we have is increasingly less important than the amount of international refining capacity we can access."
I think many people believe that we are able to refine ALL of our own gasoline and only import crude oil. Yes, it is true that we import a fair amount of refined product (mostly from Europe where there is some excess refining capacity). So, as long as the TOTAL refining capacity we have access to (domestic and imported) is not tight, then the prices WOULD be driven more by the component costs.
But this only holds true as long as there is excess foreign capacity - and as long as we enjoy (relatively) unfettered access to it.
Another point to consider - because the supply chain for refined product is rather long (given the fact that some of it is imported from overseas), and we simply CAN'T supply all the refined product we consume domestically, this means that short term disruptions to the domestic supply DO result in spikes in the price of gas. Having excess capacity overseas is fine longterm but doesn't mitigate short term price fluctuations. This IS a function of a lack of excess domestic capacity.
you: We use hardly any oil to generate electricity. So I'm not sure how expanded nuclear energy capacity would help with present gas prices and oil dependency.
me: well like millions of households, at least in the northeast, we heat with oil. Hundreds of gallons per year per household. My house also has electric baseboard heating, which was installed because during the 80's electric was cheaper than oil. That's not true anymore.
So if electric is cheaper, many people would shutoff their oil burners and use electric. But electric isn't cheaper partly because there is an insufficent supply of LNG; there isn't much spare capacity. And the EPA has some rules about how many plants and how many days coal can be used. It is also preicted that there will be rolling brown-outs here in NE in the next few years, because of insufficent capacity, because of growing demand.
So if we had nuclear power plants generating electricity it would eliminate the problems of fueling them, and provide the electrical supply necessary to heat houses electrically. This would then free up those billions of gallons used to heat houses every year.
You also can't go to electric car technology without adding significant electrical generating capacity. You either need nuclear or burn other fossil fuels.
you: The price paid is made up of its components. If the price paid has gone up then the price of one or more of its components must have gone up.
me: The cost, NOT the price-paid, is made up of the cost components.
you: If the price paid has gone up then the price of one or more of its components must have gone up.
me: No, the cost and the cost components could go down and the price-paid could go up. The price-paid is independent of the cost unless the industry is regulated. For example: If I make widgets that cost $1 in parts and $2 in labor and overhead = $3 total, that has no effect on whether someone is willing to buy them for $2.50, $5, or $10 each. I will sell them for whatever the market will bear. If my material goes up $0.25 that does not mean I can raise the price-paid. Only the customer determines that. If people are buying widgets at $10 ea. in sufficent quantity that I'm making enough profit(quantity sold X profit margin), I leave the price there. If people aren't buying enough I'll lower the price. If I think there is alot of demand for widgets, such that my competition is able to sell the same type widget for $12, I'll raise my price to $12.
One of the purposes of a corporations is to make the most wealth for the stockholders, which usually means making the most profit. Corporations sell their products to the highest bidder at any given time. They do not have to sell their product at some fixed amount above their cost.
Have not heard rationing mentioned by anyone in media or otherwise. Hope that our country never has to resort to this measure. Older relatives of mine who lived during WWII had told me years ago about the horror stories of rationing such as black market/corruption, red tape, etc.
If we were to get to rationing, imagine that owner of Cad Escalade would get same amount of gas as Chevy Aveo owner. Don't want to see this. But, American public needs to wake up and be more energy concious. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times proposed a high US gasoline tax at the pump to help in this regard.
I've posted several times that I consider profit to be one of the components. I'm not an accountant so maybe that isn't the correct word but I have seen profits listed in other breakdowns of what we are paying at the pump. Regardless, my point was that refinery costs plus their profits have remained fairly static and small over the past 20 years. So in the context of this current thread I am refuting that refining capacity has much to do with current prices at the pump. Yes if refineries had extra capacity they could easily choose to flood the market with unleaded gas. Yes this would drive down the price we pay at the pump. They could drive the price down to where it was less than they paid to produce it. Why would they choose to do this?
If a manufacturer has a very good idea of how much they need to produce what is the point of having excess capacity? It just means their facility will spend more time being idle, which doesn't seem too efficient to me.
me: well like millions of households, at least in the northeast, we heat with oil. Hundreds of gallons per year per household. My house also has electric baseboard heating, which was installed because during the 80's electric was cheaper than oil. That's not true anymore
I could be wrong on this but I don't think the oil used for distillates (heating oil) could have been used for unleaded gas. My understanding is that you can get around 20 gallons of unleaded gas out of a barrel of oil. The other 22+ gallons goes towards the different oil byproducts like the distillates. Let's say we no longer needed to use heating oil. Does this mean we could now produce more unleaded gas out of a barrel of oil? Like I said I don't know but I had always thought not. If someone has the definitive answer I'd be interested.
All of you sound like a bunch of bickering politicians. Which after all is the big reason nothing gets done. You guys are arguing the effects of refineries going down, and speculators worrying about future supply. The topic of the forum is will our dependency on oil ever end. Of course speculators and less refining will make the cost go up, but that is not the real topic.
Last night on C-Span a rather intelligent man spoke before the house about the our countries future energy needs. It was a brilliant speech in which he pointed out which energy sources produced more energy then they took to generate and which energy sources were energy negative.
It was a brilliant speech the problem is that he was preaching to an empty house, there was like 6 people there. counting Me and the two other people who decided to watch that instead of american ideal :mad: . No wonder the world hates us. So where were the politicians at while this speech was going on. Probably either hunting down illigals or driving them buy fake green cards in there 50K luxury SUVs at 14 mpg. Who cares about the illegals, send them home hince the term illegal we have bigger problems. The politicans need to be listening to that guy when he says the time to build infastrucure is now, while oil is still resonalbe. The time for half measures are over. 100 dollars please, why doesn't the bush addministration just kick me in the junk.
There is alot of talk on nuclear reactors here which is good but rocky you know just enough about nuclear fission to be dangerous. Go to the DOE web page and read about this reactor you are talking about. only about half of what you think it can do is actually true. The new ones won't melt down, please the titanic can't sink either. It is a nuclear device it can melt down the changes of that happening thanks the the safeguard are low but it can. the Generation 4 reactors don't recycle there fuel. Roughly 90% of the uranium is recovered in a fuel cycle. much better then the current technology which is a once through reactor where nothing is reused. That 10% is gone forever and can't be recycled. Go to DOE and read the aricle from Feb 13, titles Platt's Nuclear energy conference.
No I'm saying I have more faith in the guys that work for the NRC that beg to differ with your DOE claim. The DOE doesn't oversea the Nuclear Power Plants pal and I'm saying I put more faith in what the NRC says vs. DOE on this Topic.
I never heard anything about 10 % of the fuel couldn't be recycled rorr. This is a newsflash to me. I'm not calling him a liar, but I would of thought I would atleast of heard/knew about this. I was told rorr all of the fuel could be recycled in the new designs. I'll have to ask my buddy if he heard about this.
"I was told rorr all of the fuel could be recycled in the new designs."
I don't think you misheard, or were lied to. I think it is possible that you misinterpreted. What you think of as 'recycled' may not mean what your acquaintance with NRC meant by 'recycled'.
I found this on the NRC website:
"Spent nuclear fuel is used fuel from a reactor that is no longer efficient in creating electricity, because its fission process has slowed. However, it is still thermally hot, highly radioactive, and potentially harmful. Until a permanent disposal repository for spent nuclear fuel is built, licensees must safely store this fuel at their reactors.
Reprocessing extracts isotopes from spent fuel that can be used again as reactor fuel."
The point is that YES, spent fuel can be reprocessed (ie. 'recycled'). But the whole POINT of a reactor is that the U235 in the fuel fissions (ie. splits apart into smaller atoms) releasing energy.
The only way for a 'recycle' process to be 100% effective would be if one could put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. NO 'recycle' process re-assembles the split atoms BACK into U235. Once the U235 ungoes fission, that's it. Sayonara. Adios. Hasta la vista, baby. You can 'recycle' until the cows come home but you ain't gonna get that portion of the spent fuel which has undergone fission BACK.
The point of recycling is that even in 'spent' fuel, not all of the U235 has undergone fission. The recycling process simply seeks to extract that portion which is still usable (but which is not in a high enough concentration to be commercially usable).
I am not sure the critics are as worried about meltdown as they are disgruntled employees or terrorists. Workers getting the postal clerk syndrome and going berserk.
Lemme just say I know alot more than you give me credit for. I know the inside scoop, but obviously there is sensitive informaion on details. I used to work There.
Because Friedman of the NY Times proposes a high tax at the pump makes me believe he doesn't own a car, doesn't have a driver's license and relies on the Subway and maybe a taxi once in a while.
Remembering the WWII rationing when folks used to trade, barter, or sell their gas stamps for shoe stamps, meat stamps, sugar stamps, etc or cash. New tires for commercial vehicles were very rare while top capping the used casings was common. If you got a full recapped tire, you were a little better off than most.
Well for starters we are responsible for protecting the plant from radiological sabatoge and you'd be suprised how much they would share with us for our knowledge on how best to protect the plant. I personally had some good friends that were in management and we all had the same clearance so why not.
BTW-a Security Guard doesn't carry firearms and is unarmned. :P We were Security Officers and carry firearms and not just some rent a cop
The real issue is that Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco and BP-Amocco should never have been allowed to merged. More oil companies more competition would have led to more aggressive refinery building as well as more exploration and drilling.
---------
It's like we're back in the days of Standard Oil...
Ummm, wait a minute... Chevron, the second largest oil company in the US, used to be Standard Oil of California. And the largest oil company in America, Exxon, used to be Standard Oil.
Comments
Here's a short article from The Cato Institute. A well respected conservative think tank.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/taylor-050603.html
My point is that refining capacity isn't a supply limiter. Maybe on a week to week basis there could be several cents of added volatility but its not the fundamental problem that people seem to be making it out to be.
Rocky
BTW- aren't ya suppose to be sleeping ? :P
The waste problem will be handled. Construction, like that of refineries, takes time. The protestors bought decades of no nuclear but they're not here now saying that they should have been built then and we could be on our way to reduced oil consumption. They're just sitting back thinking what a wonderful green US they helped achieve.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
They were thinking about closing Palisades just a few months ago because of reactor problems. Fortunately they got a 20 yr. extension from the NRC.
General Electric, Siemens-Westinghouse, Bechtel, all have really modern designs now. The latest one to the best of my knowledge is the one that was built a few years ago in South Africa, by General Electric.
Rocky
Rocky
P.S. Cold Fusion could power our cars.
Actually, most of those countries gave food/supplies and/or sent equipment/manpower to help in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.
Besides, just how much aid could one reasonably EXPECT from Afghanistan? And yes, it is the thought that counts. But all in all, the MONETARY aid received from foreign governments exceeded $1B. This doesn't include money sent directly to relief agencies (Red Cross) from foreign individuals.
Unfortunately, government bureacracy was so screwed up that it was a red-tape nightmare just trying to get the stuff/manpower being volunteered actually TO the appropriate place.
The answer to your original question is: No, we need oil for way more than fuel. It is and has been a tool for other countries to control the industrailized nations. For example, Russia is now trying to control Europe with it's natural gas. The big three or four don't want the USA to use diesel cars on a large scale like Europe. I don't see how in the world you can keep steering people away from politics. It is now a part of oil as oil itself.
Rocky
Component cost of gasoline makes NO difference.
Doesn't anyone understand that prices for a commodity are set based on the supply and demand for that commodity, and NOT by what it cost to bring it to market?
Let's assume for a moment that the U.S. is able to refine 10M gal/day of gasoline (number pulled out of thin air; I've NO idea what the real number is).
Now, we must also realize that the DEMAND for gasoline is NOT a fixed number. As the retail cost goes UP, at some price point the demand will go down. Conversely, if the retail cost goes DOWN, people will start to use more of it and the demand will go up.
For simplification, let's assume that we don't import any refined gasoline (we actually do but I'm trying to keep this simple). That means the the DEMAND for gasoline can't exceed 10M gal/day because that's all we can supply. So what mechanism do we have to limit the demand to whatEVER the available supply is?
Price. The price is increased until the demand is EQUAL to the supply. What the component cost of the gasoline was has absolutely no bearing on the price paid.
That doesn't make much sense.
The price paid is made up of its components. If the price paid has gone up then the price of one or more of its components must have gone up. Which component is it? The only one that makes any sense is the refineries profit because they are the ones benefitting from this commodity's price being bid up due to limited supply. That fact is that their profits have remained flat over the past 20 years. If you have any information to the contrary please pass it on.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think they were pretty darn good. San Onofre has produced a lot of electricity for nearly 40 years and is still going strong. Many anti-nuclear activists are now on the Nuclear bandwagon. Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace for one. Stewart Brand founder of The Whole Earth Catalog is now a Nuclear power activist. That is not saying the newer generation of nuclear power plant is not better.
The demand for gas is high compared to how much there is, so the price goes up.
The profits are going up because it doesn’t really cost any more to get the oil out of the ground. The extraction cost was the same when oil was 10 dollars a barrel. But now with the higher demand, the oil is worth much more once it’s out of the ground. The people who own the wells are the ones making giant profits. And while that means a lot of money for the oil companies, countries that produce oil are really making out. According to the Washington Post, the revenues of oil producing countries rose from 300 billion in 2002 to over 750 billion in 2005.
I disagree. I think it is simply the crude oil component that has gone up. You have Kings & Queens getting rich off of $70 per barrel oil in Canada, Saudi, Norway & the UK. I am not hearing anyone lambast the Queen for her billions in profit from Shell oil & BP. How much of the $54 in every $70 barrel of oil goes into the Kings coffers in Norway? If the Norwegian government was looking out for it's people they would not be paying over $6 per gallon for gas. They are an oil exporter. At least in the Venezuelan dictatorship they give the gas to the people for 12 cents a gallon.
I think we are pointing fingers at the wrong people in this high priced oil period. I don't see Canada saying, hey you are there to protect us from outside invasion we will sell you our vast resources of oil for $30 per barrel. We live in a greedy world and many of our friends are the greediest. At least with Exxon I can get a bit back in my 401K.
I think you misunderstood my response. I am in agreement as to which component went up, crude oil. I was saying that if the price increase was due to refinery capacity not being able to meet demand then refinery profits would be dramatically increasing. All the information that I have read says they aren't and they really can't go up that much. Europe has a unleaded gas refining surplus. We can always purchase their gas should we experience a temporary production deficit. Yes it will be more expensive but not that much more. This whole refining thing is a red herring, at least when talking about the current situation.
Another misunderstanding. I consider profit as part of the component. If a refinery pays $75/barrel for oil that is what I consider to be its crude oil component. If you want to break it down further and say $25 was production cost and $50 was profit driven by supply and demand that's fine. I was lumping them together.
If we have $2.90 a gallon at the pump (at least in my area) we can break that down into it's components. About $1.80 is the crude oil component and 45 cents for taxes. That leaves 65 cents for everything else. This everything else category is what would be effected by a refining capacity shortage and its not happening.
These environmentalist are jumping on the Nuclear bandwagon for one main reason. They see global warming as the biggest environmental threat. Nuclear energy does not produce the green house gases that coal burning powerplants do. The reason I say this is that if we use these individual's support to defend this technology then we should also give their reasons credibility, which I do.
Then by the same logic, a CHANGE in refining capacity would have no effect on the price of gas?
In other words, if we LOST 10% of our refining capacity, gas prices would not go up? I don't buy it.
Another thing to consider: refined gas futures are traded on the commodities market. Like oil, if the traders anticipate some future dispruptions to the supply, then the price jumps. If there is some excess refining capacity, then small disruptions to supply wouldn't have much effect on the futures market because the traders would know that excess capacity could make up small disruptions. But if there is NO excess capacity, then anticipated disruptions (either forseen or unforseen) would have a much larger effect on the futures market.
No, I didn't say that. That probably would create a situation where demand would outstrip supply at the current price and imported unleaded gas may not be enough for the long term. The thing about the demand for gasoline consumption in this country is that it remains in a fairly tight range. Barring natural disasters we don't need a lot of excess capacity we just need to be able to expand our capacity at about 1 1/2% per year, which we have. I posted this link before and you may have already read it. Please tell me what portion of this article you disagree with, its a short article.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/taylor-050603.html
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I just wonder where goof balls like Martin Sheen are at? I still see him laying in front of a bulldozer on that one nuclear project. Environmentalists as a whole are very narrow minded idealists.
We also agree on electric vehicles as the best alternative. Once they get decent batteries. I would buy a small electric vehicle for 90% of my errands. It would be perfect. Most of the small ones available now are not rated for CA roads posted over 35 MPH.
Because ther was a guy informing congress with many facts without any political BS.
He presented chart after chart showing the case of energy and how much the USA and world has been using, is using now and what is projected in the near term.
In that he demostrated that various forms of energy must be used if a country can substain it's energy usage and growth.
The bottom line was the USA must act now as to avoid major problems in adjusting to our needed energy for the future which includes all forms of energy not just one or two.
With his stated information, he was able to shed new light on how much energy is being used, how long these types of energy will last and in what forms and various other forms of energy that needs to be developed.
Of which he listed many.
The good part was he stated where he got his facts, explained it in a way even congress could understand and presented it to congress without any political BS.
Unfortunately, I believe politics will prevail as usual and basicly nothing will be done except the usual lip service as history has shown. :lemon:
Because ther was a guy informing congress with many facts without any political BS.
He presented chart after chart showing the case of energy and how much the USA and world has been using, is using now and what is projected in the near term.
Saw it. He mentioned Peak oil a number of times. Unless there are major oil field finds in the future, demand will outstrip supply in forseeable future. We are and will increasingly be competing against future millions of drivers in China.
Well, there's not much in there I disagree with; I think that we are just drawing (slightly) different conclusions.
I've got the impression that you feel that pump prices are ONLY a function of the prices of the material components + production/delivery costs and some relatively fixed amount of profit. I also had the impression that you felt actual refining capacity had NO bearing on pump prices; I think now that was a false impression.
Key point I got from that article:
"How much domestic refining capability we have is increasingly less important than the amount of international refining capacity we can access."
I think many people believe that we are able to refine ALL of our own gasoline and only import crude oil. Yes, it is true that we import a fair amount of refined product (mostly from Europe where there is some excess refining capacity). So, as long as the TOTAL refining capacity we have access to (domestic and imported) is not tight, then the prices WOULD be driven more by the component costs.
But this only holds true as long as there is excess foreign capacity - and as long as we enjoy (relatively) unfettered access to it.
Another point to consider - because the supply chain for refined product is rather long (given the fact that some of it is imported from overseas), and we simply CAN'T supply all the refined product we consume domestically, this means that short term disruptions to the domestic supply DO result in spikes in the price of gas. Having excess capacity overseas is fine longterm but doesn't mitigate short term price fluctuations. This IS a function of a lack of excess domestic capacity.
me: well like millions of households, at least in the northeast, we heat with oil. Hundreds of gallons per year per household. My house also has electric baseboard heating, which was installed because during the 80's electric was cheaper than oil. That's not true anymore.
So if electric is cheaper, many people would shutoff their oil burners and use electric. But electric isn't cheaper partly because there is an insufficent supply of LNG; there isn't much spare capacity. And the EPA has some rules about how many plants and how many days coal can be used. It is also preicted that there will be rolling brown-outs here in NE in the next few years, because of insufficent capacity, because of growing demand.
So if we had nuclear power plants generating electricity it would eliminate the problems of fueling them, and provide the electrical supply necessary to heat houses electrically. This would then free up those billions of gallons used to heat houses every year.
You also can't go to electric car technology without adding significant electrical generating capacity. You either need nuclear or burn other fossil fuels.
Rocky
me: The cost, NOT the price-paid, is made up of the cost components.
you: If the price paid has gone up then the price of one or more of its components must have gone up.
me: No, the cost and the cost components could go down and the price-paid could go up. The price-paid is independent of the cost unless the industry is regulated.
For example: If I make widgets that cost $1 in parts and $2 in labor and overhead = $3 total, that has no effect on whether someone is willing to buy them for $2.50, $5, or $10 each. I will sell them for whatever the market will bear. If my material goes up $0.25 that does not mean I can raise the price-paid. Only the customer determines that.
If people are buying widgets at $10 ea. in sufficent quantity that I'm making enough profit(quantity sold X profit margin), I leave the price there. If people aren't buying enough I'll lower the price. If I think there is alot of demand for widgets, such that my competition is able to sell the same type widget for $12, I'll raise my price to $12.
One of the purposes of a corporations is to make the most wealth for the stockholders, which usually means making the most profit. Corporations sell their products to the highest bidder at any given time. They do not have to sell their product at some fixed amount above their cost.
http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=12796
It probably won't be released on a large scale so anyone wanting to see it might have to wait for the DVD version.
If we were to get to rationing, imagine that owner of Cad Escalade would get same amount of gas as Chevy Aveo owner. Don't want to see this. But, American public needs to wake up and be more energy concious. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times proposed a high US gasoline tax at the pump to help in this regard.
Rocky
If a manufacturer has a very good idea of how much they need to produce what is the point of having excess capacity? It just means their facility will spend more time being idle, which doesn't seem too efficient to me.
I could be wrong on this but I don't think the oil used for distillates (heating oil) could have been used for unleaded gas. My understanding is that you can get around 20 gallons of unleaded gas out of a barrel of oil. The other 22+ gallons goes towards the different oil byproducts like the distillates. Let's say we no longer needed to use heating oil. Does this mean we could now produce more unleaded gas out of a barrel of oil? Like I said I don't know but I had always thought not. If someone has the definitive answer I'd be interested.
Last night on C-Span a rather intelligent man spoke before the house about the our countries future energy needs. It was a brilliant speech in which he pointed out which energy sources produced more energy then they took to generate and which energy sources were energy negative.
It was a brilliant speech the problem is that he was preaching to an empty house, there was like 6 people there. counting Me and the two other people who decided to watch that instead of american ideal :mad: . No wonder the world hates us. So where were the politicians at while this speech was going on. Probably either hunting down illigals or driving them buy fake green cards in there 50K luxury SUVs at 14 mpg. Who cares about the illegals, send them home hince the term illegal we have bigger problems. The politicans need to be listening to that guy when he says the time to build infastrucure is now, while oil is still resonalbe. The time for half measures are over. 100 dollars please, why doesn't the bush addministration just kick me in the junk.
There is alot of talk on nuclear reactors here which is good but rocky you know just enough about nuclear fission to be dangerous. Go to the DOE web page and read about this reactor you are talking about. only about half of what you think it can do is actually true. The new ones won't melt down, please the titanic can't sink either. It is a nuclear device it can melt down the changes of that happening thanks the the safeguard are low but it can. the Generation 4 reactors don't recycle there fuel. Roughly 90% of the uranium is recovered in a fuel cycle. much better then the current technology which is a once through reactor where nothing is reused. That 10% is gone forever and can't be recycled. Go to DOE and read the aricle from Feb 13, titles Platt's Nuclear energy conference.
Rocky
Um, are you saying that heresay found on an online automotive forum is more reliable than what is on the DOE website? :surprise:
Rocky
A couple of things:
First, is it possible that you misunderstood (or misinterpreted) what "the guys" that work for the NRC were telling you?
Second of all, exactly which claims made by the DOE do you disagree with?
Rocky
I don't think you misheard, or were lied to. I think it is possible that you misinterpreted. What you think of as 'recycled' may not mean what your acquaintance with NRC meant by 'recycled'.
I found this on the NRC website:
"Spent nuclear fuel is used fuel from a reactor that is no longer efficient in creating electricity, because its fission process has slowed. However, it is still thermally hot, highly radioactive, and potentially harmful. Until a permanent disposal repository for spent nuclear fuel is built, licensees must safely store this fuel at their reactors.
Reprocessing extracts isotopes from spent fuel that can be used again as reactor fuel."
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html
The point is that YES, spent fuel can be reprocessed (ie. 'recycled'). But the whole POINT of a reactor is that the U235 in the fuel fissions (ie. splits apart into smaller atoms) releasing energy.
The only way for a 'recycle' process to be 100% effective would be if one could put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. NO 'recycle' process re-assembles the split atoms BACK into U235. Once the U235 ungoes fission, that's it. Sayonara. Adios. Hasta la vista, baby. You can 'recycle' until the cows come home but you ain't gonna get that portion of the spent fuel which has undergone fission BACK.
The point of recycling is that even in 'spent' fuel, not all of the U235 has undergone fission. The recycling process simply seeks to extract that portion which is still usable (but which is not in a high enough concentration to be commercially usable).
Rocky
120mm tank rounds? :surprise:
(just kidding - I know that 'depleted uranium' is NOT the same thing as spent reactor fuel......)
Rocky
Lemme just say I know alot more than you give me credit for. I know the inside scoop, but obviously there is sensitive informaion on details. I used to work There.
Rocky
Remembering the WWII rationing when folks used to trade, barter, or sell their gas stamps for shoe stamps, meat stamps, sugar stamps, etc or cash. New tires for commercial vehicles were very rare while top capping the used casings was common. If you got a full recapped tire, you were a little better off than most.
Ahhh, I remember it well.
BTW-a Security Guard doesn't carry firearms and is unarmned. :P We were Security Officers and carry firearms and not just some rent a cop
Rocky
---------
It's like we're back in the days of Standard Oil...
Ummm, wait a minute... Chevron, the second largest oil company in the US, used to be Standard Oil of California. And the largest oil company in America, Exxon, used to be Standard Oil.
We ARE in the days of Standard Oil.