[coberst]

Three Cheers for $4 Gasoline

Of course you must keep in mind that I am a retired engineer, living in the Smoky Mountains, who drives 10 miles to town once a week for groceries; these facts make it possible for me to develop a Solomon like understanding of reality from an Archimedean point of view.

Quickie from Wiki—“An Archimedean point is a hypothetical vantage point from which an observer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality. The ideal of "removing oneself" from the object of study so that one can see it in relation to all other things, but remain independent of them, is described by a view from an Archimedean point.”

Does $4 gas signify the beginning of the ending of a civilization of adolescent life styles divorced from the reality principle? Does it presage the beginning of the ending of a self-absorbed and largely fictional pattern of social behavior?

I doubt it but I can dream can’t I?

This morning I listened to NPR interviewing the mayor of Houston Texas speaking about anticipated efforts for completely remodeling the living and cultural standards of the citizens of Houston in anticipation of creating a city where citizens might work, shop, and live within walking distances of shops, supermarkets, and jobs.

Reality seldom challenges salient points of hero-systems largely because the earth has been so bountiful; natural bounty has thus far allowed Americans to live largely in a world of playful fantasy that may be beginning to crumble around a commercial-military hero-system of fantasy.

Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock because he tried to awaken the youth of Athenian society to this very reality-principle; he died a hero in the eyes of history because he asked the youth to question their own hero-system.

Will $4 gas lead you to question your own commercial-military hero-system?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

No because I never "believed" in it to begin with...We are a nation built on lies, double standards, bigotry, thievery and murder...a concept I grasped in my youth and still fully comprehend...and this prevents any hero worship for any part of it on my part. (With the exception of those that had/have balls enough to stand up for what's right and fight for change)

[InfiniteNow]

I am personally glad to see prices rising. It means that the public will drive toward renewable energy much more quickly. In terms of progress and better technology, we couldn't ask for anything better than high gas prices when it comes to motivating the populace and convincing them of the importance of change.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I am personally glad to see prices rising. It means that the public will drive toward renewable energy much more quickly. In terms of progress and better technology, we couldn't ask for anything better than high gas prices when it comes to motivating the populace and convincing them of the importance of change.

The only problem with your logic is that every time Fuel prices go up so go the cost of every thing.

Farmers have to pay more for fuel->the cost of produce goes up.
Truckers have to pay more for fuel->the cost of transporting goods goes up.->Manufacturers need to recoup expences caused by higher shiping costs->the cost of their goods goes up->this is passed on to the retailer and finally it hits the consumer (who's already feeling the pinch at the pump) where it hurts because sadly the average joe's wages rarely keep up with these increasing costs .

[REASON]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I am personally glad to see prices rising. It means that the public will drive toward renewable energy much more quickly. In terms of progress and better technology, we couldn't ask for anything better than high gas prices when it comes to motivating the populace and convincing them of the importance of change.

Generally I agree with this point, but the reasons are illegitimate and I hate that I'm getting screwed in the process, and I'm affraid that it won't produce the change you're hoping it will.

Currently, it's being used to push for opening up protected areas for more petroleum exploration and drilling.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by REASON

Currently, it's being used to push for opening up protected areas for more petroleum exploration and drilling.

I recently posted about that eslewhere. The long and short of it is that the numbers just don't bear out such an approach. The returns are minimal, and costs substantial. We should not drill ANWR.

See below for why.


I'm looking at the USGS Fact Sheet which comes from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment.


Here's what they say:

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels

In the report I shared, they also make a very interesting comment that just because the oil is there does not mean we can recover it. Here's a splendid little graphic which makes this apparent to even the most ignorant agenda biased uninformed of viewers:

Further, I found the following:


Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beyond the existence of the reserves, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16 billion barrels (2,500,000,000 m³) of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668 billion barrels (1,219,100,000 m³) of oil to be recovered.

The benefits just do not outweigh the costs. See below for more (from the same link above):

In May of 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."

This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year.

The report also states:

"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

More information is available by checking the Energy Information Administrations numbers:

EIA - Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge



If anybody is struggling with the graphic above, see below.

Figure 4. Schematic graph illustrating petroleum volumes and probabilities. Curves represent categories of oil in assessment. An example of how one reads this graph is illustrated by the blue and orange lines projected to the curve for economically recoverable oil. There is a 95-percent chance (i.e., probability, F95) of at least volume V1 of economically recoverable oil, and there is a 5-percent chance (F05) of at least volume V2 of economically recoverable oil.

Sidenote 3:

In-place resources.—The amount of petroleum contained in accumulations of at least 50 MMBO without regard to recoverability.

Technically recoverable resources.—Volume of petroleum representing that proportion of assessed in-place resources that may be recoverable using current recovery technology without regard to cost.

Economically recoverable resources.—That part of the technically recoverable resource for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis

ANWR, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All reported oil volumes in millions of barrels. Basic statistical principles determine that mean values can be added and subtracted but F95 and F05 values cannot (e.g., means for the undeformed and deformed parts of the ANWR 1002 area sum to the mean for the total ANWR 1002 area, but F95 and F05 values do not). F95 , 95-percent probability level; F05 , 5-percent probability level

[Zythryn]

I hate to see the pain it is causing many people around the world (not US gas prices but increasing energy prices in general).
However, since our society as a whole seems to not be willing to pursue better sources of energy without the increase in prices, I believe the increase in prices is necessary.

[modest]

They just had a story on NPR about this little guy - the Zap Xebra. It's entirely electric, goes about 40 mph, about 40 miles a day, and has three wheels. To make it legit for the road it has to be classified as a motorcycle. I suppose if you're going to stand out for having an electric car, you might as well really stand out

California residents are getting a one thousand dollar rebate from the state for buying one:

CARB Approves ZAP Xebra Electric Vehicle for $1000 Rebate

SACRAMENTO, CA. - The California Air Resources Board is offering a $1,000 rebate towards the purchase of a Xebra electric car and truck from ZAP.

Both the Xebra electric city car and pickup have passed a full battery of testing and approval requirements by the California Air Resources Board and have been officially approved for the $1,000 cash rebates. To receive a rebate, vehicles must be ARB qualified and pass a range and speed course as well as comply with all federal motor vehicle safety standards, and meet a minimum manufacturer warranty.

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

TEST. Previous post not appearing.


Edit: Well, that's odd.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

TEST. Previous post not appearing.


Edit: Well, that's odd.

Did you get a message saying "this post must be approved by a moderator" or something similar? It's happened to me a couple times lately. AFAIK, Tormod is working on it, or is at least aware of it. (if indeed this is what happened to you)