| |
| America's economy and oil |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Shaderwolf |
 Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: America's economy and oil |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 312
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada (wanna play?)
|
Today, America's economy relies heavily on oil. Stocks, jobs, and transportation. If we just stopped using oil, and suddenly switched to some other source of alternate energy, what would happen? I'm writing a paper on the effects of oil and alternate energies on the economy. I believe that if we never used oil in the first place, it would be allot more simple (and cheaper) but, we're so deep in it, wouldn't a sudden change disrupt the economy?
Please answer in sections, and if possible give solutions.
section1- jobs
section2- stocks
section3- transportation (all products in the united states need to be shipped, so this effects the price of domestic products)
section4- Anything I've left out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
Shaderwolf; "if we had never used oil, in the first place", begs the question, what would we have been using? Even with crude at 100.00 per barrel, it remains the cheapest, most efficient and accessible product for all forms of transportation.
We are not nor could we simply STOP, in total, the use of oil, regardless what price it goes to. IMO, its pretty much at a peak now, if all the *coming on line* (New finds and refining capacity) would get on line.
Many, honestly believe 25.00 or more is built in *speculation* which public trading will always create in a volatile commodity.
To your scenario, which would create an international depression, everything would come to a complete standstill. Our world transportation systems alone has products for use 4-6 months already in motion. Virtually every non-perishable item is en-route for use next year. Most Christmas items, for instance, is at the stores location or in a chains stores warehouse. With no oil, all trucks, transportation systems (vital in metropolitan areas), trains, planes and shipping would stop...period. There could be no agriculture and if there were some, the products could not get to the markets. If your writing a paper on the issue, think you know the rest...
If you give your scenario a ten year window, the exact opposite could be the result. Although I do not agree with the ethanol program, we currently do have a surplus of Corn, to produce the product which is growing fast enough to double or triple the 10% in short order. In three years agriculture could probably manage the 100% figure, but the cost of many food products would go up rather dramatically. Other alternative fuels or energy, already have investors pouring money into there products or business. Most, even those making no money, stocks are up 1-2-300% in the past couple years. The solar power industry, wind farms, battery power and other bio-fuel companies are building new factories and have future orders those factories could never fill. Jobs are plentiful, with an actual shortage in many fields. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| samcdkey |
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 123
|
Think of uses of oil beyond energy too
* Alkenes (olefins) which can be manufactured into plastics or other compounds
* Lubricants (produces light machine oils, motor oils, and greases, adding viscosity stabilizers as required).
* Wax, used in the packaging of frozen foods, among others.
* Sulfur or Sulfuric acid. These are a useful industrial materials. Sulfuric acid is usually prepared as the acid precursor oleum, a byproduct of sulfur removal from fuels.
* Bulk tar.
* Asphalt
* Petroleum coke, used in speciality carbon products or as solid fuel.
* Paraffin wax
* Aromatic petrochemicals to be used as precursors in other chemical production
Other uses in medicine and fertilisers
http://www.endoil.org/fools_black_gold/uses_of_oil
_________________
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Shaderwolf |
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 312
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada (wanna play?)
|
| Exactly my point! We obviously can't just stop using oil. We are dependant on petrolium for every aspect of our every day life! Obviously, the rad we are taking is not the best. I need to figure out a solution (just good enough to be accepted by my proffessor) to improve the future. A plan. Do you have any Ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
If we just stopped using oil, and suddenly switched to some other source of alternate energy, what would happen?
Do you mean stop using Oil as energy or stop using oil altogether (plastics, and everything else samcdkey mentions) ?
section4- Anything I've left out?
As was mentioned, theres the oil we eat.
'begs the question, what would we have been using?'
I agree it was the cheapest etc, but now the oil primacy is in part because Oil has been favored, reserached and developped for the past 100 years. At the start of the last century, electic cars were winning races. If electric cars had been favored by industrialists then, a hundred years of R&D might have made electric cars as efficient(if not more) than todays gasoline cars.
If some freak accident straight out of a sci-fi B-movie would make all petroleum vanish, as jackson33 mention everything would stop, forget about jobs and the stock market, millions if not billions of people would starve and die within a year or so (for lack of food).
As with cars, agriculture has been based on petroleum for decades, were poisonning ourselves with pesticides and poluting the crap out of water with chemical fertilizers. Basically our agriculture damaging for our environment and ourselves. Pesticides also suppress the immune system of bees, which is not a good idea since bees polinate massive amounts of food producing plants(fruits, etc). Industrial production of monoculture mono-variety also weakens the soil and makes these crops vulnerable to pathogens which creates a need for even more fertilizers and toxic pesticides and herbicides.
we currently do have a surplus of Corn
Ethanol is a scam and Ethaol made from Corn is an outrage. It has no way of making a significant difference and reduces the amount of crops for food that would be farmed and raise the price of food its total nonsense(and producing it pollutes and takes water). Corn is so subsidized if they could make toilets out of corncobs and cornsyrup glue they would.
Jobs are plentiful
I agree locally produced Renewable energy is a great and promissing sector that will be an engine of economic development.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
| Shaderwolf wrote: |
| Exactly my point! We obviously can't just stop using oil. We are dependant on petrolium for every aspect of our every day life! Obviously, the rad we are taking is not the best. I need to figure out a solution (just good enough to be accepted by my proffessor) to improve the future. A plan. Do you have any Ideas? |
What I described as a "ten year window", induced by some political event would allow a solution. From my point of view, to eliminate dependency on unfriendly Countries. When AND IF, its ever determined we could or will run out of crude oil our open economical system will take over and a solution found. In reality the process is in motion, but with out a threat or 300.00 oil, the public backing is minimal. Long range, you might check out Nanotechnology, which among other things is dreaming of a combustible fuel, which can be reproduced from a number of other inorganic materials. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
Ice; When looking back at the history of *Refining Crude*, the *Internal Combustible Eugine* and the development of the *Automobile* you will find a coming together of all three about 1885. The first refinery was built in where Poland is now, in 1854. Small and little to no demand. Combustible engines date well back as do some forms of powered travel.
Then Benz, developed an engine (later used in his own auto) and others used the ideas for other cars. The 1st in the US was built by Mr. Olds...
Back then we were not concerned with Global Warming, where crude came from or the host of issues we are now concerned with. Keep in mind Crude, virtually worthless until the late 1930's (1-2.00 per barrel tops) the combination could have never been trumped by solar, wind or any of todays ideas.
I agree on the Ethanol Issue, for economic reasons. Food cost are up and transporting this product to where its added to gas products is very high, with no pipe lines suited for the purpose. However, since the worlds current refining capacity is below actual usage its a little effort to keep prices stable. I also think we could find a bio-fuel (sugar beets or the new idea Trees) where a supply could easily be maintained w/o disruption in food supplies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
Ice; When looking back at the history of *Refining Crude*, the *Internal Combustible Eugine* and the development of the *Automobile* you will find a coming together of all three about 1885. The first refinery was built in where Poland is now, in 1854. Small and little to no demand. Combustible engines date well back as do some forms of powered travel.
Then Benz, developed an engine (later used in his own auto) and others used the ideas for other cars. The 1st in the US was built by Mr. Olds...
Back then we were not concerned with Global Warming, where crude came from or the host of issues we are now concerned with. Keep in mind Crude, virtually worthless until the late 1930's (1-2.00 per barrel tops) the combination could have never been trumped by solar, wind or any of todays ideas.
I agree on the Ethanol Issue, for economic reasons. Food cost are up and transporting this product to where its added to gas products is very high, with no pipe lines suited for the purpose. However, since the worlds current refining capacity is below actual usage its a little effort to keep prices stable. I also think we could find a bio-fuel (sugar beets or the new idea Trees) where a supply could easily be maintained w/o disruption in food supplies. |
I agree with both top paragraphs, good points btw, but for paragraph 3, I still think Ethanol is a really bad idea and a total decoy and waste of research, focus, energy and funds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
Ethanol; Remembering were talking energy to primarily drive the world transportation systems, cars, trucks, rail, air, shipping etc...Also, I am not bringing GW or any need to reduce carbon based products. Simply the economics...
Corn, IMO was not the correct way to go. Frankly, except for a few politicians in Washington or the corn belt and a few farmers, there seems to be little support.
Saw a report on CNBC, Monday; In California, they are well into a project to use Trees to produce fuel. Trees are 50% carbon, with stored carbons similar to oil or coal. The lumber industry has long produced more forestry than it can use and there is a surplus of planted acreage. This MAY be the route to go, until Nanotech or some technology comes into play which could even come close to the worlds needs. This currently around 80 Million Barrels PER DAY worldwide, fueling untold numbers of vehicles. Battery (electrical) transportation, is a reality and even if improved, there is no infrastructure to support a system or is it a convenient means. Many warehouse operations, have spent millions to support internal fork lift operations. Aside from the higher cost of the lifts, they have an elaborate recharging requiring longer times to recharge than can use. This means buying twice the lifts for larger operations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
Electricity does require investments and would take time to develop but imo its worth it because you have a fighting chance to have the energy produced locally in a renewable manner or in many ways(more competition in the means of producing it).
If you look at the TGV (european high speed train) and the Bullettrain from japan, they beat the living crap out of petrol guzzling trains and are electric and dont need to recharge. Tramways in several european cities also offer an alternative to buses without a need to recharge(that I know of).
An Apollo like EV-infrastructure project could make considerable advances in electric transportation within a decade, but would require political power and the old poluting industries have too much money and influence to see something like that take shape, they most likely will stall for time while semi-endorsing solutions that require a supplier-distribution infrastructure so they can corner the market and become the providers of alternative X instead of having a situation where individuals, farmers, and corporations might get a change to become self sufficient and produce the energy thus liberating their captive market addicted to their oil or distribution services.
Speaking of Fork Lifts, have you seen small vehicles with (compressed) air engines? Recharge time is quick and done with electricity but it uses compression of air to store the energy. (edit: I should say recharge time is quick when filled with air that has already been compressed, the onboard compression unit is small and takes time if you dont have access to a compressor)
you have to check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c
(hum, I think its worth putting up in a seperate topic)
Last edited by icewendigo on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
I certainly can't argue the efficiency of *High Speed Trains*, or those that operate on overhead electrical systems. In the US we had street cars in every metropolitan area for years, but buses became the preferred mode during the cheap oil periods. Am Track, is our National Rail Passenger system and could carry hundreds of people, more economically than the Autos or Bus Systems. Last I heard Am Track was running on 5-10% occupancy and Greyhound was bought up for pennies on the dollar by Trailways Bus. Haven't seen one in years.
Yes, that you tube vehicle, was at Fox News a couple weeks ago. Forget the price, if mentioned, but may be a problem.
We can go round and round on much of this, however people (especially in the US) are going to go with the most convenient mode of transportation. Then there is a safety problem, where cars are using the same road 40 ton trucks are traveling along with them. They want fast heavy vehicles. They will pay extra for this safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
The prices mentioned on the website's FAQ
http://www.theaircar.com/
are reasonable (more so if the cost of Oil goes up) but we cant be totally sure yet the actual price will be close to the predicted price.
I'm sure a lot of people wont want such a car instead of their safer main battle tank armored vehicle  , but the idea is for people to have a choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1058
|
I don't see air cars going very far per fueling. Electric went out of style mostly because they couldn't get a far enough range between chargings. Hydrogen probably won't ever happen because it's too hard to build a good fuel cell that doesn't require a lot of platinum to work (and who can afford that?).
Part of the problem is that even a lot of our power grid is run off of oil. We could switch to coal, but only if we can keep pollution down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
Battery powered vehicles, will improve with technology. Smaller systems with greater storage capabilities. Hybrid autos, remember use alternative power to there limits (speed/distance) then turn to regular gasoline or diesel. As the technology improves, power packs are easy to change giving future hybrids a good shot for being the mode used during some form of transition...
Power grids, assuming electrical power we use and in the US. Its been a little while since I researched the figures; 55% Coal, 20% Natural Gas, 18%-20% Nuclear and less than 3% of the power plants generate from fuel oils. The remainder being from non-fossil fuel or alternatives, which include Wind, Solar, Tidal, bio-fuels and geothermal. GT has really been growing in California with a State/Federal program has spent millions. Calpine Electric, California largest provider of electricity is also building facilities to use geothermal energy. They had been 100% Gas generated,
had filed bankruptcy and are said will come out of that next month.
Power grids are another issue, with potential problems beyond that fuel cost or source, concerning distribution to where needed. Improvements are underway, but there progress seems to be in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| simon398 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: Hi... |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
I agree it was the cheapest etc, but now the oil primacy is in part because Oil has been favored, reserached and developped for the past 100 years. At the start of the last century, electic cars were winning races. If electric cars had been favored by industrialists then, a hundred years of R&D might have made electric cars as efficient(if not more) than todays gasoline cars.
______________
Simon
Did you see it? One more time? You won't get faked out here!
http://www.SelectWealthSystem.com/?t=wc
_________________
John Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
