The price of gas depends on ???

[presluc]

Yes, both conservation and alternative forms of energy production are available now that could power electric cars. They just have to be more widely developed and used, along with upgrading our electric grid, to make them more cost competitive with gas, which I was glad to see that some of the stimulus money went for upgrading the electric grid along with funding for alternative energy development.




IMO, there are many variables that will determine this. A couple of the biggest variables are the leadership and public investment we put into it, and the price of gas, which is just going to keep going up and up.

We'll see what others may think.

Well this is not my first convesation about Alternitive fuel and energy to oil.

Actually my first conversation was in 1969 talking to a friend in a factory.
He said just think they'll have to have a changeover that means overtime.
I ask how long he said shouln't take 10 years but to besafe I'll say 1985.
In 1985 I was talking to a friend in a bar about alternitive fuel I said I was a bit skeptic.
He said that's because not enough people knew about it now they'll really start on it.
Wait and see 2000 is gonna be a big year everythings gonna change.

It's now 2012 and I'm still discussing a dream I had in 1968.

It is my belief, my old friend that I will not live long enough to see the big changeover, and the day America can tell the middle east and OPECK to go to Hell.

However, that is OK, for others will come and others will ask not is alternitive fuel possible but WHEN can it be done?


That will be a happy day my friend a happy day
While I'm here I'll continue to debate against those that think "OIL FOREVER" OR DRILL BABY DRILL" is the only answer to fuel and energyeace

 

[oldreliable67]

No, they just didn't make as much. I posted the example of this. If you bought at $60, sell at $80 and it then goes to $100, you didn't lose.



You've only stated your position that it works and posted examples that back up my position.



Just imagine if the number of speculators we have now were pricing oil then.



By agreeing that end users should be able to lock in prices for future use is evading the point?



Again, it's your opinion that without these markets, oil production would stop? Cost is being added, not value.



I have no problem with this. If you want to buy 500,000 barrels of oil and sit on it, go for it.



During this
same period, activity on the crude oil futures market – as measured by the number of contracts
outstanding, trading activity, and the number of traders – has increased significantly. While these
increases broadly coincided with the run-up in crude oil prices, the Task Force’s preliminary analysis to
date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil
prices.


LOL, yeah, many got into the markets, the markets soared but all these extra people in the market had very little to do with the prices. LOL



Banks ****ed us over royally.



Just before crude oil hit its record high in mid-2008, 15 of the world’s largest banks were betting that prices would fall,

Big deal. They could see that the prices were not fundementally supported by actual circumstances and they knew that bubbles always burst. Again, the banks postions here back up my position. They could see that oil was not fundementally worth $145. Exhuberant speculation was the reason for it.



I'm not sure what some realizing that the prices had been bid up far beyond the fundementals does to my point.

That is without doubt the weirdest bunch of non-replies, evasions and distortions I think I have ever read here at DP. It is rare that I make a comment like this here, but this is total BS.

Given your continued refusal to acknowledge the facts as related to commodites futures markets in general and the energy complex in particular, there seems to be little point in continuing.

The very last thing I will write on this subject to you, is to reiterate: how in the world can you realistically deny that a futures complex doesn't add value in the distribution chain when it has thousands of participants, speculators and commercial end-users alike who trade millions of contracts annually in pursuit of their objectives?

A trade in a futures contract does not mean that a barrel of gold or bar of gold or t-bond or pork bellies change hands. Only the promise to deliver at a future date changes hands. How you can say that adds cost even if contracts change hands thousands of times during their life is totally beyond me.

You're wrong, fundamentally wrong. So be it.

 

[1Perry]

That is without doubt the weirdest bunch of non-replies, evasions and distortions I think I have ever read here at DP. It is rare that I make a comment like this here, but this is total BS.

Given your continued refusal to acknowledge the facts as related to commodites futures markets in general and the energy complex in particular, there seems to be little point in continuing.

The very last thing I will write on this subject to you, is to reiterate: how in the world can you realistically deny that a futures complex doesn't add value in the distribution chain when it has thousands of participants, speculators and commercial end-users alike who trade millions of contracts annually in pursuit of their objectives?

I've answered this over and over and it is you that refuses to answer the relative questions that relate to this. One more time. YES, it adds value to the markets. It allows people to piggyback and make a living doing nothing basically.

Are you saying (for the I do not know how many times now) that this adds nothing to the price of the commodity?

A trade in a futures contract does not mean that a barrel of gold or bar of gold or t-bond or pork bellies change hands.

Right, only the paper (or computer transaction) representing that item.

Only the promise to deliver at a future date changes hands. How you can say that adds cost even if contracts change hands thousands of times during their life is totally beyond me.

You're wrong, fundamentally wrong. So be it.

I laid out the scenario. You did absolutely nothing to refute that it was a legitimate scenario. Nothing. You are the one dodging the questions. Saying up is down, a gain is a loss and really, little else.

 

[oldreliable67]

I've answered this over and over and it is you that refuses to answer the relative questions that relate to this. One more time. YES, it adds value to the markets. It allows people to piggyback and make a living doing nothing basically.

"doing basically nothing?" You obviously have never worked in a commodity pit as a trader risking your own capital. I have. It is a very, very difficult way to make a living. You just have no clue and appear to be deliberately being obtuse.

Are you saying (for the I do not know how many times now) that this adds nothing to the price of the commodity?

Yes. In fact, studies have shown that the presence of an effective futures market can reduce the price of a commodity. A principal reason being the risk management capabilities offered to it's end-user participants. That, after all, is the ultimate goal of the price discovery mechanism of futures markets. The volume and participation statistics bear out their success. Those contracts that don't succeed in adding value via performing this function, fall by the wayside (I listed a few of the failed contracts to illustrate this point).

I laid out the scenario. You did absolutely nothing to refute that it was a legitimate scenario. Nothing. You are the one dodging the questions. Saying up is down, a gain is a loss and really, little else.

Baloney. I pointed out to with both logic and statistics that your assertion that if crude went up to $145, speculators must have made a lot of money. I pointed out that some made money, some lost money. I documented for you the extreme naivety and erroneous nature of the "It's all the speculators fault that crude oil went to $145!" assertion. You continue to assert otherwise, ignoring the facts.

You continue to remind me of my grandparents who, when I went to work for the First National Bank in one city, thought that all banks named "First National Bank" were part of the same company, regardless of location.

Ok. Wrap it up. No more exchanges with you on this topic.

 

[1Perry]

"doing basically nothing?" You obviously have never worked in a commodity pit as a trader risking your own capital. I have. It is a very, very difficult way to make a living. You just have no clue and appear to be deliberately being obtuse.

The vast majority of investors never see a pit but I can see where perhaps some of the problem comes from. I'm not blaming those who work in the pits. They are hired to do a job and that is what they are doing.

Yes. In fact, studies have shown that the presence of an effective futures market can reduce the price of a commodity. A principal reason being the risk management capabilities offered to it's end-user participants. That, after all, is the ultimate goal of the price discovery mechanism of futures markets. The volume and participation statistics bear out their success. Those contracts that don't succeed in adding value via performing this function, fall by the wayside (I listed a few of the failed contracts to illustrate this point).

Which continues to go back to the question you refuse to answer. Are you trying to say that oil would not continue to be pumped, sold and used without the markets? And while I will not argue that the theory that markets can fall, once again you told me I needed to provide verification for my positions, I've pointed this out to you and you continue to ignore your own requirements.

Will oil markets one day reduce the price? Perhaps, much in the same way stocks in Blacksmiths are Us aren't going to bring much attention but that will happen with or without the markets.

Baloney. I pointed out to with both logic and statistics that your assertion that if crude went up to $145, speculators must have made a lot of money.

It's sad that you can not argue honestly. This is the arguement of the child. I've pointed out over and over my arguement has nothing to do with how much one makes. I'm all for people making money. I've pointed this out to you over and over but you have to resort back to it because you refuse to answer the actual question.

I pointed out that some made money, some lost money. I documented for you the extreme naivety and erroneous nature of the "It's all the speculators fault that crude oil went to $145!" assertion. You continue to assert otherwise, ignoring the facts.

Here we go again. I never once said that it was all the speculators fault. You do this to try and deflect upon me. It doesn't work. I do not believe it's all the speculators fault. Increased end users play a major role. You know very well that my arguement is that speculators add to the cost needlessly.

You continue to remind me of my grandparents who, when I went to work for the First National Bank in one city, thought that all banks named "First National Bank" were part of the same company, regardless of location.

ad hominens do you no help here either.

Ok. Wrap it up. No more exchanges with you on this topic.

I only wish we could have actually exchanged thoughts in a grown up manner.

 

[Catawba]

This is certainly good news:

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

"It is hoped that wind and solar energy will one day become major contributors to a future energy grid that has reduced its reliance upon fossil fuels. But one of the biggest problems facing these sectors is the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. To maintain a consistent energy supply to the grid during such periods we would need a method of storing the energy.

Unfortunately current battery technology is poor and performance degrades quickly, only allowing for several hundred recharge cycles. Advancements would need to be made so that the batteries have a far longer life, can hold much higher levels of energy, and are cheap to produce.

A team of Stanford researchers have recently taken the first steps to producing such a miracle battery. They have used nanoparticles of a crystalline copper hexacyanoferrate to create a high-power, durable, cheap negative-electrode (cathode).

In fact it is so inexpensive to make, so efficient and so durable that it could be used to build batteries big enough for economical, large-scale energy storage on the electrical grid – something researchers have sought for years.

Standard lithium-ion batteries that power most small electronic devices deteriorate with each charge, as the electrodes crystalline structure wears, meaning that the energy storage capacity reduces over time. Due to the precise structure of this cathode it can remain intact, surviving 40,000 cycles of charging and discharging, after which it could still be charged to more than 80 percent of its original charge capacity. The combination of materials that it uses also enables it to recharge and discharge very quickly, and the quicker that a battery can do this, the more power it can release.

Colin Wessells, a graduate student in materials science and engineering who is the lead author of a paper describing the research said, “At a rate of several cycles per day, this electrode would have a good 30 years of useful life on the electrical grid.”"

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

 

[oldreliable67]

This is certainly good news:

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

"It is hoped that wind and solar energy will one day become major contributors to a future energy grid that has reduced its reliance upon fossil fuels. But one of the biggest problems facing these sectors is the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. To maintain a consistent energy supply to the grid during such periods we would need a method of storing the energy.

Unfortunately current battery technology is poor and performance degrades quickly, only allowing for several hundred recharge cycles. Advancements would need to be made so that the batteries have a far longer life, can hold much higher levels of energy, and are cheap to produce.

A team of Stanford researchers have recently taken the first steps to producing such a miracle battery. They have used nanoparticles of a crystalline copper hexacyanoferrate to create a high-power, durable, cheap negative-electrode (cathode).

In fact it is so inexpensive to make, so efficient and so durable that it could be used to build batteries big enough for economical, large-scale energy storage on the electrical grid – something researchers have sought for years.

Standard lithium-ion batteries that power most small electronic devices deteriorate with each charge, as the electrodes crystalline structure wears, meaning that the energy storage capacity reduces over time. Due to the precise structure of this cathode it can remain intact, surviving 40,000 cycles of charging and discharging, after which it could still be charged to more than 80 percent of its original charge capacity. The combination of materials that it uses also enables it to recharge and discharge very quickly, and the quicker that a battery can do this, the more power it can release.

Colin Wessells, a graduate student in materials science and engineering who is the lead author of a paper describing the research said, “At a rate of several cycles per day, this electrode would have a good 30 years of useful life on the electrical grid.”"

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

Very interesting! Thanks for posting that!

Unfortunately, it now only exists in lab tests and on paper. Hopefully, this research will lead to rapid development and the promise of this research is fulfilled.

 

[sharon]

Ha... about five years ago the Saudis gave Stanford $10 million for this battery research.. Hooray for Stanford... they have pulled it off.

 

[Catawba]

Ha... about five years ago the Saudis gave Stanford $10 million for this battery research.. Hooray for Stanford... they have pulled it off.

The Saudis are investing heavily in alternative energy. I wonder what they know that we do not???

 

[MoSurveyor]

The Saudis are investing heavily in alternative energy. I wonder what they know that we do not???

Oh, I think we know - we just have the Ostrich Syndrome.

 

[EagleAye]

This is certainly good news:

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

That's just out-****ing-standing! That's what I like to hear. This would be excellent in EVs as well.

 

[Catawba]

That's just out-****ing-standing! That's what I like to hear. This would be excellent in EVs as well.

Yes, this could be a game changer!!!

 

[presluc]

This is certainly good news:

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

"It is hoped that wind and solar energy will one day become major contributors to a future energy grid that has reduced its reliance upon fossil fuels. But one of the biggest problems facing these sectors is the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. To maintain a consistent energy supply to the grid during such periods we would need a method of storing the energy.

Unfortunately current battery technology is poor and performance degrades quickly, only allowing for several hundred recharge cycles. Advancements would need to be made so that the batteries have a far longer life, can hold much higher levels of energy, and are cheap to produce.

A team of Stanford researchers have recently taken the first steps to producing such a miracle battery. They have used nanoparticles of a crystalline copper hexacyanoferrate to create a high-power, durable, cheap negative-electrode (cathode).

In fact it is so inexpensive to make, so efficient and so durable that it could be used to build batteries big enough for economical, large-scale energy storage on the electrical grid – something researchers have sought for years.

Standard lithium-ion batteries that power most small electronic devices deteriorate with each charge, as the electrodes crystalline structure wears, meaning that the energy storage capacity reduces over time. Due to the precise structure of this cathode it can remain intact, surviving 40,000 cycles of charging and discharging, after which it could still be charged to more than 80 percent of its original charge capacity. The combination of materials that it uses also enables it to recharge and discharge very quickly, and the quicker that a battery can do this, the more power it can release.

Colin Wessells, a graduate student in materials science and engineering who is the lead author of a paper describing the research said, “At a rate of several cycles per day, this electrode would have a good 30 years of useful life on the electrical grid.”"

Breakthrough in Battery Technology Could Radically Change the Energy World

Ah my friend that is indeed good news.

However, I'm begining to wander if the stall of alternitive fuel and energy to oil is caused by one word.

That word would be "PROBLEM".

It is my opinion that the technical department of todays Reserch & Developement on Alternitive fuel, treat the word "PROBLEM like radioactive material.
They here the word "PROBLEM" and run away screaming , that's impossible or that can't be done or we can't use that or do that.

There was a time Scientist, and Intellectuals tackled problems not run away like a bitch from problems.

When we have such timid people afraid to take risk, it is small wonder that the subject of Alternitive fuel and energy to oil is mearly discussed with baby steps once in a decade or so to save the precious oil by useing hybrids and cutting back to 6 and 4 cylinderseace

 

[Catawba]

Ah my friend that is indeed good news.

However, I'm begining to wander if the stall of alternitive fuel and energy to oil is caused by one word.

That word would be "PROBLEM".

It is my opinion that the technical department of todays Reserch & Developement on Alternitive fuel, treat the word "PROBLEM like radioactive material.
They here the word "PROBLEM" and run away screaming , that's impossible or that can't be done or we can't use that or do that.

There was a time Scientist, and Intellectuals tackled problems not run away like a bitch from problems.

When we have such timid people afraid to take risk, it is small wonder that the subject of Alternitive fuel and energy to oil is mearly discussed with baby steps once in a decade or so to save the precious oil by useing hybrids and cutting back to 6 and 4 cylinderseace

I get where you are coming from Pres, but I think the lack of priority might be a bigger obstacle than the problems present. I don't think is so much that scientists and intellectuals have run away, there has just not been enough leadership and resources devoted to alternative energy. Certainly not compared to the leadership and resources devoted to the military/industrial complex.

If we put the kind of concerted public/private effort into the development of sustainable energy as we did into the development of the atom bomb and all our wars to keep the middle east oil flowing, we could be light years ahead of where we are now.

 

[presluc]

I get where you are coming from Pres, but I think the lack of priority might be a bigger obstacle than the problems present. I don't think is so much that scientists and intellectuals have run away, there has just not been enough leadership and resources devoted to alternative energy. Certainly not compared to the leadership and resources devoted to the military/industrial complex.

If we put the kind of concerted public/private effort into the development of sustainable energy as we did into the development of the atom bomb and all our wars to keep the middle east oil flowing, we could be light years ahead of where we are now.

An excellant post as usual, always 2 steps ahead of me.
Perhaps one day with enough knowledge I can catch up. loleace

 

[UtahBill]

Ah my friend that is indeed good news.

However, I'm begining to wander if the stall of alternitive fuel and energy to oil is caused by one word.

That word would be "PROBLEM".

It is my opinion that the technical department of todays Reserch & Developement on Alternitive fuel, treat the word "PROBLEM like radioactive material.
They here the word "PROBLEM" and run away screaming , that's impossible or that can't be done or we can't use that or do that.

There was a time Scientist, and Intellectuals tackled problems not run away like a bitch from problems.

When we have such timid people afraid to take risk, it is small wonder that the subject of Alternitive fuel and energy to oil is mearly discussed with baby steps once in a decade or so to save the precious oil by useing hybrids and cutting back to 6 and 4 cylinderseace

I don't know your work history, education, experience, etc. but I know mine, and I have worked around a lot of engineers and some scientists. They LOVE problems as long as someone is willing to pay them to look for answers. Those highly educated people aren't sitting on their hands doing nothing. They are competitive, even when getting paid by government contract. Problem to them means opportunity. Maybe the real "problem" is unrealistic expectations of uneducated citizens?

 

[UtahBill]

I get where you are coming from Pres, but I think the lack of priority might be a bigger obstacle than the problems present. I don't think is so much that scientists and intellectuals have run away, there has just not been enough leadership and resources devoted to alternative energy. Certainly not compared to the leadership and resources devoted to the military/industrial complex.

If we put the kind of concerted public/private effort into the development of sustainable energy as we did into the development of the atom bomb and all our wars to keep the middle east oil flowing, we could be light years ahead of where we are now.

Jimmy Carter tried that, people laughed. Not so many are laughing now.....
We could hurt the oil cartels right now, if we wanted to.....simply by govt mandates related to conservation. Lower speed limits, raise the taxe on gasoline and diesel and other oil related consumer products, and we would soon be able to make the Middle East take notice. Instead, we complain about the price of energy and expect it to become more abundant and cheaper.
Not gonna happen.....we will have to learn to get by on less long before any magic beanstalks pop up leading us to the gas station of Eden.....

 

[presluc]

I don't know your work history, education, experience, etc. but I know mine, and I have worked around a lot of engineers and some scientists. They LOVE problems as long as someone is willing to pay them to look for answers. Those highly educated people aren't sitting on their hands doing nothing. They are competitive, even when getting paid by government contract. Problem to them means opportunity. Maybe the real "problem" is unrealistic expectations of uneducated citizens?

A little late there Bill, the fault of my post was explained to me in post#639, which I agreed to in post #640.
Speaking for myself I do not argue when someone comes up with a point that counteracts mine especialy if it is a better point.
Bottom Lline I only need to be corrected once, and then by a poster that is more to the point than you.eace

 

[presluc]

Jimmy Carter tried that, people laughed. Not so many are laughing now.....
We could hurt the oil cartels right now, if we wanted to.....simply by govt mandates related to conservation. Lower speed limits, raise the taxe on gasoline and diesel and other oil related consumer products, and we would soon be able to make the Middle East take notice. Instead, we complain about the price of energy and expect it to become more abundant and cheaper.
Not gonna happen.....we will have to learn to get by on less long before any magic beanstalks pop up leading us to the gas station of Eden.....

You are baseing your point on the theory that oil can never be replaced ,
However oil is a "FOSSIL FUEL " that must be replaced
Perhaps I am not a highly intellectual person, perhaps my education is not of a high IQ.
This much I know this planet will run out of oil.
That's not a matter of "IF" it's a matter of "WHEN"?,eace

 

[sharon]

Jimmy Carter tried that, people laughed. Not so many are laughing now.....
We could hurt the oil cartels right now, if we wanted to.....simply by govt mandates related to conservation. Lower speed limits, raise the taxe on gasoline and diesel and other oil related consumer products, and we would soon be able to make the Middle East take notice. Instead, we complain about the price of energy and expect it to become more abundant and cheaper.
Not gonna happen.....we will have to learn to get by on less long before any magic beanstalks pop up leading us to the gas station of Eden.....

OPEC is directly responsible for stability in supply and price no matter what the Petro dollar does.

 

[UtahBill]

OPEC is directly responsible for stability in supply and price no matter what the Petro dollar does.

but not solely responsible....

 

[EagleAye]

Jimmy Carter tried that, people laughed. Not so many are laughing now.....
We could hurt the oil cartels right now, if we wanted to.....simply by govt mandates related to conservation. Lower speed limits, raise the taxe on gasoline and diesel and other oil related consumer products, and we would soon be able to make the Middle East take notice. Instead, we complain about the price of energy and expect it to become more abundant and cheaper.
Not gonna happen.....we will have to learn to get by on less long before any magic beanstalks pop up leading us to the gas station of Eden.....

We're actually seeing a decline in foreign oil demand, while there's a steady increase of cars on the road. A lot of that is due to the increase of hybrids and cars with better gas mileage. We're making a dent. If EVs or at least plugin-hybrids become popular, then OPEC will get seriously nervous.

 

[UtahBill]

You are baseing your point on the theory that oil can never be replaced ,
However oil is a "FOSSIL FUEL " that must be replaced
Perhaps I am not a highly intellectual person, perhaps my education is not of a high IQ.
This much I know this planet will run out of oil.
That's not a matter of "IF" it's a matter of "WHEN"?,eace

no, I know it can be replaced, just not cheaply.....

 

[UtahBill]

We're actually seeing a decline in foreign oil demand, while there's a steady increase of cars on the road. A lot of that is due to the increase of hybrids and cars with better gas mileage. We're making a dent. If EVs or at least plugin-hybrids become popular, then OPEC will get seriously nervous.

agree, but what we personally pay for transportation fuel is based on 2 things, the dollar per gallon price, and how many gallons we use.....

 

[EagleAye]

agree, but what we personally pay for transportation fuel is based on 2 things, the dollar per gallon price, and how many gallons we use.....

Well, optimally the amount of petroleum we use for transportation would be cut down to that used by airlines. EVs would amount to a terrific conservation effort. 2011 models of EVs are getting $0.95 per 25 miles. Petroleum Cars getting 30mpg are getting roughly $2.80 for 25 miles (cost may vary). So EVs are already getting superior results. Add to that, EVs are not requiring petroleum for their power source. That's no gallons at all. Under "optimal" conditions EVs in 2011 are getting a 100 mile range. And all of this in a car for about $32,000. Well within the budget of many consumers. If this can continue, and Catawba's new battery find goes into general use, we may be able to kiss the Middle-East goodbye.