$4 Barrel of Oil, End of ME Control

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Producer wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

Donald Trump was interviewed about oil, and he said that anything above $20 a barrel was a rip off, so last year when gas hit $140 a barrel it was ridiculous robbery.

So Donald Trump is the expert on oil price?

Donal Trump is an expert on any financial matters? [/quote]

You’re joking right? if i could sit one on one with him and talk investments and opportunities, rest assured i’d take that to anyone on this board, lol. No offense.

22

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
As much as i want to see this happen…

…I’m almost afraid of what the democrats/republicans would do with all that money which normally would be pumped into the mid east. All that Isreal aid money, the aid money we give to Arab countries, the money spent on constant troop deployment, choosing sides in stupid arab conflicts, money going to oil companies…its a lot of money. I have a feeling theyre not going to simple write everyone some huge ass tax cuts or put to much use without a huge public push.

Individual income taxes make up what like just over a trillion dollars for the government (quick yahoo search could be wrong)? With the money we save getting out of the middle east we could easily do away with it.

With all the political power oil companies have in this country, i cant imagine they’ll just stand by and let this happen.[/quote]

Ding Ding, correct. They’ll be damned before they give up their market.

Unless there is some movement to get the USA off the Oil economy and make a slow switch. In that case oil will be considered a crude and dirty technology, fit for export to the third world. But i don’t believe it.

23

[quote]Gregus wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Producer wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

Donald Trump was interviewed about oil, and he said that anything above $20 a barrel was a rip off, so last year when gas hit $140 a barrel it was ridiculous robbery.

So Donald Trump is the expert on oil price?

Donal Trump is an expert on any financial matters?

You’re joking right? if i could sit one on one with him and talk investments and opportunities, rest assured i’d take that to anyone on this board, lol. No offense.
[/quote]

No, I’m not joking. The man has driven how many businesses into bankruptcy? Three, Four? As far as I can tell, the man spent daddy’s fortune, then went looking for other suckers to give him more money to send. His casinos are some of the only nonprofitable ones in the country. If you want to call suckering people into lending you billions of dollars only to come close to defaulting and having to give over most of what you bought and built with that money good financial sense, then I wouldn’t want to talk to you about investments myself.

24

Trump knows how to make money, the behavior of markets and consumers, and trends of commodities. Yea he has failed in the past, but the bottom line is that he is very knowledgeable from both success and failure. How many people can say they have their own casino and golf course?

25

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Trump knows how to make money, the behavior of markets and consumers, and trends of commodities. Yea he has failed in the past, but the bottom line is that he is very knowledgeable from both success and failure. How many people can say they have their own casino and golf course?[/quote]

Hes a real estate developer, I wouldn’t be trusting his opinion on oil prices.

26

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Unaware wrote:

No its not meaningless, its just simplified. Obviously they are all not plugged in at the same time. But maybe they are all plugged in when they get home after rush hour. You could reduce that by spreading out when people charge, but then theres way more than 2.5 million cars in LA. Either way you are talking about a huge strain on the power grid.

If you prefer:

The US uses 378,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day.

One gallon of gasoline 121 MJ

= 4.5 x 10^16 joules per day

Now 1 GW reactor running 24hours a day produces

1 x 10^9(3600)(24) = 8.64 x 10^14

Or you need ~529 large nuclear reactors to produce the same amount of energy that the US consumes in gasoline everyday. Not going to happen in the next 20 years.

Now you could say that eclectic cars are more efficient, or whatever other mitigating factors that might lead our eclectic cars to use less energy than they do in gas.

I will admit my calculations are crude, but there is no way this portable nuclear reactor is goign to give us $4 oil or let us all use electric cars.

Edit: math

Your point is well taken that switching to all electric cars provides huge infrastructure hurtles, but I still don’t think it’s as bad as you are trying to make out. Consider, for example, your new calculation. Even ignoring things like a difference in efficiency, do you really think we would need the 500+ new stations? Couldn’t much of the extra load just be shifted to existing stations during the night (since most people would power their cars at night anyway).

While I’m certainly no expert on our large scale distribution and use of electric, it seems that between management of the systems we already have and more efficient vehicles that the extra stations needed wouldn’t be nearly the 500+ figure you quote. Add in new alternative generating methods like those being discussed in this thread, and it seems like it at least is feasible as a 20 year project or something. [/quote]

What I am saying is a lot of people think that someone will invent a cool electric car and then we will all just start driving them one day. I’m sure the US could provide the necessary power if it planned ahead, but when was the last time you saw a new power plant. They are just getting round to planning to replace our old plants.

The OP is not any kind of revelation with regards to mass energy production. Its just existing tech made portable.

Were not going to see $4 barrel anytime soon, if ever. You can’t even get a meal at McDonalds for $4.

27

[quote]Unaware wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Unaware wrote:

No its not meaningless, its just simplified. Obviously they are all not plugged in at the same time. But maybe they are all plugged in when they get home after rush hour. You could reduce that by spreading out when people charge, but then theres way more than 2.5 million cars in LA. Either way you are talking about a huge strain on the power grid.

If you prefer:

The US uses 378,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day.

One gallon of gasoline 121 MJ

= 4.5 x 10^16 joules per day

Now 1 GW reactor running 24hours a day produces

1 x 10^9(3600)(24) = 8.64 x 10^14

Or you need ~529 large nuclear reactors to produce the same amount of energy that the US consumes in gasoline everyday. Not going to happen in the next 20 years.

Now you could say that eclectic cars are more efficient, or whatever other mitigating factors that might lead our eclectic cars to use less energy than they do in gas.

I will admit my calculations are crude, but there is no way this portable nuclear reactor is goign to give us $4 oil or let us all use electric cars.

Edit: math

Your point is well taken that switching to all electric cars provides huge infrastructure hurtles, but I still don’t think it’s as bad as you are trying to make out. Consider, for example, your new calculation. Even ignoring things like a difference in efficiency, do you really think we would need the 500+ new stations? Couldn’t much of the extra load just be shifted to existing stations during the night (since most people would power their cars at night anyway).

While I’m certainly no expert on our large scale distribution and use of electric, it seems that between management of the systems we already have and more efficient vehicles that the extra stations needed wouldn’t be nearly the 500+ figure you quote. Add in new alternative generating methods like those being discussed in this thread, and it seems like it at least is feasible as a 20 year project or something.

What I am saying is a lot of people think that someone will invent a cool electric car and then we will all just start driving them one day. I’m sure the US could provide the necessary power if it planned ahead, but when was the last time you saw a new power plant. They are just getting round to planning to replace our old plants.

The OP is not any kind of revelation with regards to mass energy production. Its just existing tech made portable.

Were not going to see $4 barrel anytime soon, if ever. You can’t even get a meal at McDonalds for $4. [/quote]

ha, well, we’re on the same page then. I’m not quite sure I see porta potty-sized nuclear reactors under every street corner in the future either.

28

Unless I’m mistaken we still get alot of our electic from oil burning power plants so if this were to happen I tink it would be great. The problem is, e still have to many people like Van Jones who would do all they can to stop this.