!OIL!

[jammy 0]

OK... if you want a forum for maths make one, dont confuse me because this has nothing to do with the 20trillion barrels of oil underneath the USA, btw the earth can only lose or gain mass if stuff goes into space. eg rockets, meteors etc

[beebs 129]

On the contrary, I know many people who don't own a car, nor have any interest in driving. They're just content with using the bus and walking where they need to be. And this is in the city with one the most dysfunctional mass transit system and non-pedestrian friendly road systems in NA (IMO).

I'm not anti-car or anything, I love owning my car and would obviously be disappointed if the rising cost of gas forced me to give it up. But also I understand that the price of gas is driven by supply and demand as well. Right now, we simply don't have enough refineries to pump out the gasoline. We can have as many trillions upon trillions barrels of oil sitting in the ground, but if our refinery capacity is maxed out while the demand still increases, the price will increase.

[fukuda 351]

but in the western world owning a car is so important and so the norm that not owning a car is considered bizarre. quote>

A big part of (city) people use mass transit here and a big majority of under 40 y.o. people don't own a car, there are several reasons for that, of course, the main one is that we have one of the lowest salaries of western europe and loans already extend over 50 years (there is nearly no house rental).

For instance, my 27 apartments building has 7 parking places, and it's only partly used.

So cars are also a luxury in the western world, depending where.

changing from oil to hydrogen will take around 50 years though, it will give the oil fuelled economy time to become wealthy enough to allow the conversion to hydrogen and then when this change to hydrogen happens the economy will probably grow at an unpresidented amount, by this I mean the GLOBAL ECONOMY.quote>

Hydrogen is never going to replace oil, it can only replace oil-based fuels, nothing more.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: El Burro

If you can't get Euro cars, EPA won't regulate emissions and US car manufacturers continue to make gas guzzlers... its probably the best thing for the US to be introduced to a Hybrid generation... it'll certainly make more difference in the US than most other places around the world.quote>

Exactly.  It's the best option currently available.  (and, if every American drove a hybrid car, we could change our Middle East policy.  but let's not go there.)quote>

I'll have to see if I can find it, but the US Dept of Energy released a report not terribly long ago that indicated that the hybrid car market was having less of an effect on cutting down gas usage than had been previously hoped for.

Part of that makes sense, because not everyone will really be able to meet their needs with the average hybrid (and hybrid pickup trucks are proving to be more of a fantasy than a reality right now).  Most of the industrial world wouldn't be able to either.

As for Middle East policy, I'll discuss that with anyone who's interested in doing it privately.  Don't want to start a flame war here.

[hym 358]

Beebs:  Owning a car may not be a right, but for some, it isn't a luxury either.  It's literally the tool that makes the difference between them living or dying.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Part of the problem with selling many of the European cars here is they are perceived as too small to share the road with 18-wheelers.   Way back, there was this car (I think it was called the Colt) that was being pitched as a small, efficient, European-type model.  Problem was, if you drove one of these things on the highway and an 18-wheeler happened to pass you, it would spin you around in circles.  The car simply did not have enough mass to share the road with the big rigs.  and we have to share the road with the tractor-trailers.

It would be interesting to see some statistical comparisons to the typical American 18 wheeler and the typical British lorry.  The ones I saw looked quite small to me.  But then, they didn't have that far to go.quote>

If this tells you (and anyone else for that matter) anything, my mother drives a car that is considered large by American standards.  Even with it's over 1.5 ton mass, some of the tractor-trailers we drove by on the highway (and there were hundreds), caused the car to rock quite significantly from the air turbulence of the semi in the next lane over.  And, despite the efforts to make the Smart car safe on US highways, modern SUV's still killed the driver in nearly every frontal impact (but I digress....).

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: fukuda

but in the western world owning a car is so important and so the norm that not owning a car is considered bizarre. quote>

A big part of (city) people use mass transit here and a big majority of under 40 y.o. people don't own a car, there are several reasons for that, of course, the main one is that we have one of the lowest salaries of western europe and loans already extend over 50 years (there is nearly no house rental).

For instance, my 27 apartments building has 7 parking places, and it's only partly used.

So cars are also a luxury in the western world, depending where.

quote>

Even in the more affluent areas of Western Europe are cars unecessary if you live and work in a city or its surrondings. Fore example are most urban areas within the municipality of Copenhagen covered by less than 500 m to a busstop or train or metro station.

Originally posted by: jammy

OK... if you want a forum for maths make one, dont confuse me because this has nothing to do with the 20trillion barrels of oil underneath the USA, btw the earth can only lose or gain mass if stuff goes into space. eg rockets, meteors etcquote>

Don't confuse you with maths? Economics, politics and sciences are far more important for oil supplies than an estimate on reserves.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Hydrogen is never going to replace oil, it can only replace oil-based fuels, nothing more.quote>

Hydrogen fuel cells can't totally replace oil. It can replace gasoline and diesel in vehicles, which cause 60% of emissions and 60% of consumption of oil. Which would be a great help.

Making plastics from oil is a good thing, since they have many uses for consumers.

If a program is started with the ultimate goal of eliminating oil dependence, all new cars could have fuel cells or solar power in about 10-20 years, and within 40 years, fusion reactors could be online and running industrial installations.

By 2020-2025, fuel dependence can be eliminated, thus cutting 60% of CO₂ emissions. By 2045 fusion power can be up and running.

I'll have to see if I can find it, but the US Dept of Energy released a report not terribly long ago that indicated that the hybrid car market was having less of an effect on cutting down gas usage than had been previously hoped for.

Part of that makes sense, because not everyone will really be able to meet their needs with the average hybrid (and hybrid pickup trucks are proving to be more of a fantasy than a reality right now).  Most of the industrial world wouldn't be able to either.quote>

Hybrids are only a temporary solution, and it does not help the broader consumption. In most places, the electricity from the plug charger is coming from oil. Also, when the battery runs out or when you go above a certain speed, you start burning gasoline in your engine.

In short, hybrids save you money, but it is not a long-term solution.

beebs, you said that owning a car was a luxury not a right. In my believe owning a car in a poor country is a luxury but in the western world owning a car is so important and so the norm that not owning a car is considered bizarre. If you dont like it its a shame but I am procar and love carsquote>

Well, if most people in an area have one, it is not a right, but it is not a luxury either. It is a convenient tool for medium and long distance travel. I don't think that not owning a car is bizzare. In the US/Canada, it is unusual. But, in large cities people can get around without one (ex. New York).

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

I'll have to see if I can find it, but the US Dept of Energy released a report not terribly long ago that indicated that the hybrid car market was having less of an effect on cutting down gas usage than had been previously hoped for. quote>

It depends on the car.   (article)   Taking a few quotes from the article:

There’s more to consider than just gas savings: This technology is expensive — adding $3,000 to almost $12,000 to the price.quote>

That may be true, even if those numbers seem high to me.  But how many times have we seen technology that is expensive in the beginning but declines in price after a few years?

In fact, after crunching the numbers, Edmunds.com found only the Prius saved the buyer money after five years — just $81 over a conventional Camry. quote>

This article is from August 2005, well before gas reach $4 a gallon.   The numbers would look different today.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Part of that makes sense, because not everyone will really be able to meet their needs with the average hybrid (and hybrid pickup trucks are proving to be more of a fantasy than a reality right now).  Most of the industrial world wouldn't be able to either.quote>

True.  I doubt we will see any hybrid tractor trailers any time soon.  But for the average person driving a hybrid is not painful at all.  The first time I drove my Prius home from the dealer I was shocked to realize I was driving at 80 mph.   My previous car complained well before that speed.  My Prius does not.

Originally posted by: hym

If this tells you (and anyone else for that matter) anything, my mother drives a car that is considered large by American standards.  Even with it's over 1.5 ton mass, some of the tractor-trailers we drove by on the highway (and there were hundreds), caused the car to rock quite significantly from the air turbulence of the semi in the next lane over.   quote>

Thank you.  That is a good example of what I was saying.

And, despite the efforts to make the Smart car safe on US highways, modern SUV's still killed the driver in nearly every frontal impact (but I digress....).quote>

That's not really a digression.  Safety is a concern and a lot of the smaller cars are not safe.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Hybrids are only a temporary solution, and it does not help the broader consumption. In most places, the electricity from the plug charger is coming from oil. Also, when the battery runs out or when you go above a certain speed, you start burning gasoline in your engine. quote>

That is not how they work.   Hybrids are not plugged in.   They do not use household electricity. The idea behind the hybrid is to capture the energy that is "lost" in conventional cars.

Every time a driver steps on the gas pedal, he is burning gas to create momentum.  Every time he steps on the brake, he is killing momentum that he used gas to create.  Hybrids capture that lost energy and use it to charge the electric battery.   This is why hybrids burn very little gas in bumper-to-bumper city traffic.

There are times when the gas engine does kick in to charge the battery.   Running the air conditioning can cause that to happen.  But I have noticed that driving with the windows open is actually worse because the drag causes a significant reduction in gas mileage. 

(This is easy to see.  Drive 5 minutes with the windows up and the AC on then drive 5 minutes with the AC off and the windows down.  The interval bar graph clearly shows the difference.)

It is not an issue of using the electric battery up to a certain speed, then having the gas engine take it from there.  I have driven down a highway at 60 mph, for prolonged periods of time, using just the electric engine.

In short, hybrids save you money, but it is not a long-term solution. quote>

I agree.  Anything that uses any oil at all is not a long-term solution.

I have kept track of how many gallons of gas I have used and what I paid for them.  By my calculations, I have use 998 gallons of gas in my Prius over the last 4 years.   To go the same distance in my previous car, I would have used 2,581 gallons of gas.

Saving 1,583 gallons of gas is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[MrCinatit 30]

Originally posted by: jammy OK... if you want a forum for maths make one, dont confuse me because this has nothing to do with the 20trillion barrels of oil underneath the USA, btw the earth can only lose or gain mass if stuff goes into space. eg rockets, meteors etcquote>

Could you supply us with a link stating where these 20 trillion barrels of oil are supposed to be at?

Osteis gives a completely different figure.

Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. quote>

Every other site I have visited has given estimates between 800 million and 2 trillion barrels - a lot less than the stated 20 trillion.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

{blah blah blah}

quote>

In all your nerdy showing off, you're missing the point. The point is that drilling oil out of the ground is not removing mass from the Earth, and even if it was the amount is so small compared to the mass of the earth that so far as the stability of our orbit and all that is concerned it wouldn't make a noticeable difference to anything.

Food for thought: 14 orders of magnitude make the difference between the mass of that oil and the mass of the Earth.

The sun is 1.9891 ×10³⁰ kg. "Only" 6 orders of magnitude more massive than the Earth.

Just to spell this out, not in scientific notation, now-

Daily oil: 12000000000 kg

Oil from 100 years at that rate*: 438000000000000 kg

The Earth: 5973600000000000000000000 kg

The Sun: 1989100000000000000000000000000 kg

You: ~50-100 kg

That's a lotta zeros, ain't it?

*way too big a figure, since production has increased every year.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

If this tells you (and anyone else for that matter) anything, my mother drives a car that is considered large by American standards.  Even with it's over 1.5 ton mass, some of the tractor-trailers we drove by on the highway (and there were hundreds), caused the car to rock quite significantly from the air turbulence of the semi in the next lane over.   quote>

Thank you.  That is a good example of what I was saying.quote>

If I may, here is a second example.  My dad once rented a typical Chevy Silverado to help move my sister to a new apartment complex.  The only thing that could rock that truck was if a semi blew past you while you were at a dead standstill, or something similar.  Even then, it didn't rock much.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Hybrids are only a temporary solution, and it does not help the broader consumption. In most places, the electricity from the plug charger is coming from oil. Also, when the battery runs out or when you go above a certain speed, you start burning gasoline in your engine. quote>

That is not how they work.   Hybrids are not plugged in.   They do not use household electricity. The idea behind the hybrid is to capture the energy that is "lost" in conventional cars.

Every time a driver steps on the gas pedal, he is burning gas to create momentum.  Every time he steps on the brake, he is killing momentum that he used gas to create.  Hybrids capture that lost energy and use it to charge the electric battery.   This is why hybrids burn very little gas in bumper-to-bumper city traffic.quote>

This is one of their primary advantages.  Typical internal combustion vehicles waste a good deal of fuel when they are starting and stopping constantly (which is what rush hour driving is like).  Even if you aren't starting and stopping a lot, you're still driving at a low speed, which again wastes fuel.

There are times when the gas engine does kick in to charge the battery.   Running the air conditioning can cause that to happen.  But I have noticed that driving with the windows open is actually worse because the drag causes a significant reduction in gas mileage. 

(This is easy to see.  Drive 5 minutes with the windows up and the AC on then drive 5 minutes with the AC off and the windows down.  The interval bar graph clearly shows the difference.)quote>

For those of us that don't drive a Prius (), this little blurb from Mythbusters might be helpful.  According to Ford Motors, driving with the windows down is more fuel efficient at lower speeds, however, as you gain speed, the efficiency goes down.  Around 50-60 miles an hour, the effciency flips and suddenly it's more efficient to drive with the AC instead of the windows.  Granted, this is an approximation considering not all cars fit exactly to this model, but it does give an idea as to the mathematics of the efficiency calculations.

It is not an issue of using the electric battery up to a certain speed, then having the gas engine take it from there.  I have driven down a highway at 60 mph, for prolonged periods of time, using just the electric engine.quote>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the Prius uses the gas engine to supplement the electric motor if the load is more than the electric motor can handle, like having to make a sudden and very fast acceleration.

[jammy 0]

Mr. Cinatit - Yes, the official figure is something like 1.8-2.3 trillion barrels but as in the link i gave at the beginning www.oilcrisis.com/shale/ the calculation is incorrect, to see the full calculation go to this website

Also I hate Prius cars for a good reason, you may think the engine is better, more enviromentaly friendly but it uses a very certain type of nickel, this nickel has to go through an extreme mining process in Canada. It then has to be shipped to Europe for something to be done to it, then its off to China then to Japan to be assembled in a polluting factory, In the longrun or for around 45,000miles a Landrover Discovery is more efficient.

[fukuda 351]

Hmm, as my teachers and several process engineers that I know keep their skepticism, I'll do the same at the moment.

[coolotter88 2]

I heard the Nickel processing plant in canada has completely ruined the nearby forests in ontario.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: jammy

Also I hate Prius cars for a good reason, you may think the engine is better, more enviromentaly friendly but it uses a very certain type of nickel, this nickel has to go through an extreme mining process in Canada. It then has to be shipped to Europe for something to be done to it, then its off to China then to Japan to be assembled in a polluting factory, In the longrun or for around 45,000miles a Landrover Discovery is more efficient.quote>

The Green Party of Canada has a different view on that report.

A partial quote:

The Globe and Mail had an article on Friday (July 27, 2007) claiming the environmental impact of a Hummer is less than for hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.

Needless to say, a lot of heads are turning (and being scratched). I decided to take my head and hands over to Google and do a little search on the topic, and it appears there's an "inconvenient truth" about the Globe and Mail's article: the research it's based on is apparently riddled with inaccuracies and out-of-date data and has already been debunked by several academic and industry groups, and in other newspapers as wellquote>

Another article:

Hybrid Cars And Fuzzy Math

Thursday, April 26, 2007; Page A28

The only fuzzy math in George F. Will's April 12 op-ed column, "Fuzzy Climate Math," came from his primary resource, CNW Marketing Research.

Alleging that the Hummer H3 is more environmentally friendly than a Toyota Prius, Mr. Will claimed that the mining and smelting of the "zinc" that is used in the "battery-powered second motor" causes significant environmental damage.

If Mr. Will had vetted the CNW study, he would have found that it has been discredited by Argonne National Laboratory, MIT, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others.

First, to state the basic facts correctly, the battery, not the motor, in the Prius contains nickel, not zinc.

Nickel has been mined in Sudbury, Ontario, since the late 1800s, and practices existing then have been abandoned for decades.

In fact, the Greater Sudbury Region has reclaimed its land and initiated stringent environmental controls on mining, and it aims to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions 97 percent by 2015.

Second, legitimate life-cycle analysis does indeed conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid over a conventional vehicle, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage. So, the hybrid has a significantly lower lifetime energy use.

Instead of squashing the innovative Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive technology with his Hummer, Mr. Will should have praised the free-enterprise system for producing such an elegant solution to the energy and environmental challenges we face.

That would be thinking globally and clearly.quote>

[IDS2 3,429]

Take a look at this graph, adjusted for inflation, of oil prices since 1949-approx. 2005. In all, it's gone down about 2 1/2 dollars since then.

Imagine-7 dollars a gallon! That's a bit more than what our friends in Canada pay now and about what our pals from across the pond pay.

Full article

Think about it: it's much less of a bite from our pocketbooks than it was after World War II.

[Duke87 1,070]

First of all, that graph is out of date. The average is over 4 dollars a gallon now, not almost at 3.

Second of all, there is an interesting point here about adjusting for "purchasing power". You see adjustment for inflation all the time. Adjusted for inflation, prices are at a record high. Adjusting for average income (mean or median?) is less common but you also see it. On the other hand, adjusting for both simultaneously is problematic since it gives you figures that are more and more inflated as you go further back in time. All you need to do is adjust for average income to get an accurate figure. Average income in and of itself changes to adjust for inflation.

So, I want to see a graph adjusted for one or the other, not both. Doing it for both sounds like an means of skewing the data to make it look like it indicates something it doesn't.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Part of that makes sense, because not everyone will really be able to meet their needs with the average hybrid (and hybrid pickup trucks are proving to be more of a fantasy than a reality right now).  Most of the industrial world wouldn't be able to either.quote>

True.  I doubt we will see any hybrid tractor trailers any time soon.  But for the average person driving a hybrid is not painful at all.  The first time I drove my Prius home from the dealer I was shocked to realize I was driving at 80 mph.   My previous car complained well before that speed.  My Prius does not.quote>

OK, out of curiosity, how does not noticing that you're driving at 80 MPH have anything to do with your Prius as opposed to a gas car?  I'm curious because my mom had the exact same experience, literally - as in going 80 MPH and not realizing it, in a 2001 gas car.  No, offense, but your old car sounds like it was a piece of crap by the time you replaced it.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Hybrids are only a temporary solution, and it does not help the broader consumption. In most places, the electricity from the plug charger is coming from oil. Also, when the battery runs out or when you go above a certain speed, you start burning gasoline in your engine. quote>

That is not how they work.   Hybrids are not plugged in.   They do not use household electricity. The idea behind the hybrid is to capture the energy that is "lost" in conventional cars.

Every time a driver steps on the gas pedal, he is burning gas to create momentum.  Every time he steps on the brake, he is killing momentum that he used gas to create.  Hybrids capture that lost energy and use it to charge the electric battery.   This is why hybrids burn very little gas in bumper-to-bumper city traffic.

There are times when the gas engine does kick in to charge the battery.   Running the air conditioning can cause that to happen.  But I have noticed that driving with the windows open is actually worse because the drag causes a significant reduction in gas mileage. 

(This is easy to see.  Drive 5 minutes with the windows up and the AC on then drive 5 minutes with the AC off and the windows down.  The interval bar graph clearly shows the difference.)

It is not an issue of using the electric battery up to a certain speed, then having the gas engine take it from there.  I have driven down a highway at 60 mph, for prolonged periods of time, using just the electric engine.quote>

Correct me if I'm wrong (since you own a hybrid and I've never even ridden in one ) but the electric engine is used when you're doing city driving and steady highway driving, and the gas engine is just used to recharge the battery or when you are doing fast acceleration (like having to punch it when getting on the highway).  Right?

Saving 1,583 gallons of gas is nothing to sneeze at. quote>

*Atchooh*

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[fabsies55 5]

uve got a POINT of what your saying but cmon do u not think we have not done enough damage to this planet already we really do need new sources of energy as many people have probly said already i just cant be stuffed reading it all but yea we really need new energy get all scientists to get cars to run on co2 emissions or even garbage play garbage from a bin like wasted food or something... but on the contrary i still believe in a way that they should be high prices to teach people lessons which no body learns but not too high keep the $1.40 ( unleaded and australian money)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

True.  I doubt we will see any hybrid tractor trailers any time soon.  But for the average person driving a hybrid is not painful at all.  The first time I drove my Prius home from the dealer I was shocked to realize I was driving at 80 mph.   My previous car complained well before that speed.  My Prius does not.quote>

OK, out of curiosity, how does not noticing that you're driving at 80 MPH have anything to do with your Prius as opposed to a gas car?  I'm curious because my mom had the exact same experience, literally - as in going 80 MPH and not realizing it, in a 2001 gas car.  No, offense, but your old car sounds like it was a piece of crap by the time you replaced it. quote>

My point was driving is Prius is not painful.  Some people think it is like driving a golf cart.  It is not like that at all.

And, yeah, my old car didn't have much life left in it.  I don't get a new car every year or two just for the heck of it.  I give them their recommended care and feeding and drive them until they are done.

Correct me if I'm wrong (since you own a hybrid and I've never even ridden in one ) but the electric engine is used when you're doing city driving and steady highway driving, and the gas engine is just used to recharge the battery or when you are doing fast acceleration (like having to punch it when getting on the highway).  Right? quote>

Pretty much.  It's a little more complicated than that.  For instance, I get the impression that the gas engine is used to upshift gears but it goes back to the electric engine once it's at the new gear.

Saving 1,583 gallons of gas is nothing to sneeze at. quote>

*Atchooh*

quote>

Hands VT some tissues

Originally posted by: fabsies55

uve got a POINT of what your saying but cmon do u not think we have not done enough damage to this planet already we really do need new sources of energy quote>

I agree; we need new sources of energy.   The technology just isn't there yet.

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Gridlock

{blah blah blah}

quote>

In all your nerdy showing off, you're missing the point. The point is that drilling oil out of the ground is not removing mass from the Earth, and even if it was the amount is so small compared to the mass of the earth that so far as the stability of our orbit and all that is concerned it wouldn't make a noticeable difference to anything.

Food for thought: 14 orders of magnitude make the difference between the mass of that oil and the mass of the Earth.

The sun is 1.9891 ×10³⁰ kg. "Only" 6 orders of magnitude more massive than the Earth.

Just to spell this out, not in scientific notation, now-

Daily oil: 12000000000 kg

Oil from 100 years at that rate*: 438000000000000 kg

The Earth: 5973600000000000000000000 kg

The Sun: 1989100000000000000000000000000 kg

You: ~50-100 kg

That's a lotta zeros, ain't it?

*way too big a figure, since production has increased every year.quote>

You know i find your tone quite obnoxious , tis a lot of zero s , and you could of saved your own time by forgeting all the zero s and quite simply stating , That you dont agree that the extraction of oil/minerals would ever be significant enough to interfere with the precision of the equinoxes.

Also duke in your eagerness to troll your missing the point, if removing 120Mill tonnes a day isnt removing mass from the earth , then what is it doing ? exactly ? .

A gallon of gasoline may produce 5-6ib s of carbon , but its now in the atmosphere ,and not in the earth .

Im one that believes everything in nature has a purpose , i dont believe the earth created what we know as "oil" to be used in the combustion engine .

Im as dependant on oil as everyone else, the 2 trillion barrels under the US means we can continue on the path to our own extinction . Its a real dilema.

Most Biofuels are not the way forwards , we desperately need the topsoils for agriculture , its estimated , that earth looses some 70 million tonnes of topsoil per annum , it just completely breaks down and looses its structure, the production of ethonal will accelarate this considerably . Its estimated 70 years and mass starvation and famine will hit . Regardless of warming or oil supplies . This is also another serious problem mankind faces.

I wonder how my Grandchildrens , children are going to get on .

When all the oil has gone , then all we have to look forwards to is the Cave ins ,Earthquakes , Warming , Climate destabilization ,famine and disease,for millions of years to come  all for 250 years worth of oil suppies .

Ive heard of something called Algae oil , possibly 33,000 gallons / acre  . This looks promising .

I hope for our childrens , childrens sakes we can sort this out .

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: GridlockAlso duke in your eagerness to troll your missing the point, if removing 120Mill tonnes a day isnt removing mass from the earth , then what is it doing ? exactly ?quote>

Suppose the earth weighs 100 kilo. There is no structures on it, no atmosphere, but it does have a gravity field which draws things against its centre. Then suppose I extract one kilo of sand from it, but not far enough to escape earth's gravity field. It instantly fells to the ground. Does the earth weigh 99 or 100 kilos?

Suppose you live on earth, and that you weigh 80 kilos. Then suppose you die, and is buried in the ground. Has the weight of earth increased?

That of course depends on how you define the weight of earth. Is it only the weight of what's below ground? Does it include the water? Does it include structures? Should sunken ships be included, but not the ships sailing on the seas? Or both? Or neither? Does the weight of a human counts towards the weight of the earth as long as it lives within its gravity field? Or only when buried below ground?

The point is, thanks to gravity, all matter are being pushed towards the centre of the earth.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Gridlock

{blah blah blah}

quote>

In all your nerdy showing off, you're missing the point. The point is that drilling oil out of the ground is not removing mass from the Earth, and even if it was the amount is so small compared to the mass of the earth that so far as the stability of our orbit and all that is concerned it wouldn't make a noticeable difference to anything.

Food for thought: 14 orders of magnitude make the difference between the mass of that oil and the mass of the Earth.

The sun is 1.9891 ×10³⁰ kg. "Only" 6 orders of magnitude more massive than the Earth.

Just to spell this out, not in scientific notation, now-

Daily oil: 12000000000 kg

Oil from 100 years at that rate*: 438000000000000 kg

The Earth: 5973600000000000000000000 kg

The Sun: 1989100000000000000000000000000 kg

You: ~50-100 kg

That's a lotta zeros, ain't it?

*way too big a figure, since production has increased every year.quote>

You know i find your tone quite obnoxious , tis a lot of zero s , and you could of saved your own time by forgeting all the zero s and quite simply stating , That you dont agree that the extraction of oil/minerals would ever be significant enough to interfere with the precision of the equinoxes.quote>

There's nothing wrong with using actual numbers (or at least approximations since no one has ever stuck the sun on a scale).  Especially since stuff like this could use some form of hard numbers behind it.

Also duke in your eagerness to troll your missing the point, if removing 120Mill tonnes a day isnt removing mass from the earth , then what is it doing ? exactly ? .

A gallon of gasoline may produce 5-6ib s of carbon , but its now in the atmosphere ,and not in the earth .quote>

As he said earlier, the mass may not be in the earth, but it's still on the earth, so the earth hasn't really lost any measurable mass.  Let's say you're weighed on a scale as 100kg, then a doctor goes and cuts out a 5kg kidney.  Stand on the scale again and now you only weigh 95kg.  But what if, while you're standing on the scale, the doctor hands you the 5kg kidney back for you to hold?  If you hold the kidney, the scale will register the additional 5kg weight, bringing you back up to 100kg total.  Yes, your body is now 5kg lighter, but when you add the kidney back in, the net weight change is 0kg.  The same principle applies to the earth.

Im one that believes everything in nature has a purpose , i dont believe the earth created what we know as "oil" to be used in the combustion engine .quote>

Likewise, I believe that everything in/on the earth has a purpose.  I also see no reason why natural resources on the earth can't be used to better mankind since we have to live here.

[jammy 0]

fabsies55- Yeh read at least some of the post ok? 

Duke87- I agree, that graph is way out of date and the only time oil has ever been this expensive is way back in the early 20th century.

I know whilst the petrol prices are high we need to change our driving habits to conserve fuel, and it is not the case of changing your car but changing the way you drive, as proved on a rescent car tv programme a Toyota Prius and a BMW M3 where driven around a race track for 10 laps, the Prius led the way driving as fast as it could and the powerful gas guzzling coupe followed behind at the same speed, in the end the Prius only managed something like 17mpg and the BMW did 19mpg, so obviously it is down to driving habits.

here are some tips...

On a motorway (freeway) limit your speed to 50mph as much as you can, it doesnt matter if people think your driving like a 3279023478 year old because your the one conserving 38% of your fuel, as driving at 70mph uses 38% more. (to do with drag on road etc)

Drive as smoothly as possible, this is more of a european driver problem, we like to brake sharply and then accelarate quickly. When your foot is not on the accelarator you burn hardly any fuel at all so try to coast drive as much as possible (in my mums BMW 1series a mpg above 100mpg can be achieved for the short time her foot is not on the accelarator)

If you drive below 30mph then open your window to stay cool, but if you travel over 30mph use the air con in short bursts, this will mean that although the air con uses up fuel he car will not have much drag on it because of the open windows.

Make sure your tyres are ALWAYS pumped up as the drag caused by under inflated tyres can burn up to 35% more fuel as the car/suv/truck tries to drag itself along, fitting thinner tyres will also decrease resistance meaning a raised mpg.

If you followed all these rules you could oncrease your cars mpg by up to 85%, so a car currently achieving 

10mpg will do 18.5mpg

20mpg will do  37mpg

30mpg will do  55.5mpg

40mpg will do  74mpg

50mpg will do  92.5mpg

the figures are quite amazing really

anyway even if we pump all this oil shale then I still think we should continue these driving habits, have high mpg fuels and then we will probably only get through a snall percent of the oil under the USA before we have cars that run on hydrogen and power plants all nuclear, wind, solar etc.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: jammy On a motorway (freeway) limit your speed to 50mph as much as you can, it doesnt matter if people think your driving like a 3279023478 year old because your the one conserving 38% of your fuel, as driving at 70mph uses 38% more. (to do with drag on road etc) quote>

Yeah, sorry. That I can't do. I'm a neurotic obsessive compulsive who's in a hurry to get everywhere. Doing 50 on the highway is like torture to me. I can't go that slow of my own choosing.

Drive as smoothly as possible, this is more of a european driver problem, we like to brake sharply and then accelarate quickly. When your foot is not on the accelarator you burn hardly any fuel at all so try to coast drive as much as possible (in my mums BMW 1series a mpg above 100mpg can be achieved for the short time her foot is not on the accelarator)quote>

This is tricky to do since often things force you to hit the brake and afterwards you want to sped back up rather than coasting slowly.

If you drive below 30mph then open your window to stay cool, but if you travel over 30mph use the air con in short bursts, this will mean that although the air con uses up fuel he car will not have much drag on it because of the open windows.quote>

I always drive with the windows open instead of the AC for just that reason. You need to be going faster than 30 before it becomes less efficient.

Make sure your tyres are ALWAYS pumped up as the drag caused by under inflated tyres can burn up to 35% more fuel as the car/suv/truck tries to drag itself along, fitting thinner tyres will also decrease resistance meaning a raised mpg.quote>

Since I don't actually own my own car and am driving either my father's car or a city car, that's kinda out of my control.

Finally, you left out the most important part: ditch the Hummers and Escalades and get something more reasonably sized. Getting a hybrid isn't entirely practical right now since the availability of them is very limited with people going crazy swithcing to them. There's a waiting list over a year long if you want a Prius. Toyota can't make the batteries fast enough to meet the demand. But get a Sentra instead of a Pathfinder and you can save a lot of fuel and drive one right off the lot.

[jammy 0]

Duke87 - If you dont want to follow some suggestions then that is your choice, and yes I agree! Escalades are goregous andso are Hummers but they are no good to us, until they bring out one that does 50mpg... hope they do

[IDS2 3,429]

It is way out of date, and thank you for pointing out that it is somewhat skewed....only after taking a closer look did I notice that it included both purchasing power and inflation. Well then, think about these numbers from this week's Time Magazine: Venezuela sells their gas at 12 cents a gallon while Eritrea sells theirs for nearly 10 dollars a gallon.

[krbe 193]

Yeah, and for those who want Venezuelan or Saudi Arabian prices, the former chief of OPEC or something said it quite clearly in an interview with a Norwegian daily a few days ago: Even though you're ruling a country dictatorily, you have to pay attention to the people's sentiment. In Saudi Arabia (where this minister, diplomat, and lawyer has most of his experience from), there is a high inflation because everything have to be imported. That means that rising prices in the rest of the world means sharply rising prices in Saudi Arabia; and if they can weaken any popular anger with almost free gas, they'll do it.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Technology that doesn't need use of oil is already out there, and there have been options available for 20 years. Brazil and their government would be more than happy to export sugarcane for ethanol use, they have plenty. I'd much rather use ethanol from Brazil than oil from Saudi Arabia.

As for western nations needing cars to get by, in most of Europe, South and Central America you don't need a car to get by, only in the U.S and probably areas of Canada.

When gas prices go down, people will go back and buy trucks and SUVs like they did in the 90's (car sizes went down during the 70's oil crisis, then went right back up to massive sizes that we know today during the 90's as prices went back down). Gotta remember though, developing nations like India and China are booming and their use of energy is growing, so don't expect for prices to go down anytime soon, the U.S has it good compared to others.

[Gridlock 9]

Krbe & Hym ,Thanks guys ,although sand to sand , kidney to kidney ,is not quite the same as oil ,refined, then burned to hydrocarbon gasses .

The total weight of the earth is not constant it changes every day, but as duke said the earth is realy realy big so daily changes have no effect, and mother nature seems to have taken care of things , in the natural cycle it tends to balance out pretty well , there are also much bigger forces at work out there .

Understanding how Earth's mass varies over time is necessary to study changes in global sea level, polar ice mass, deep ocean currents, depletion and recharge of continental aquifers, and now the way the planet drags space and time as it rotates.

Although the oil is a tiny tiny amount of earths overall mass , i feel that its the worst most destructive kind of mass redistribution/loss that earth can be subjected to .

Back to the cost of oil we all aware of the real reasons for the high cost of oil , i summed them up with a blah,blah ,blah last time ,hehe.

The cost of oil has increased for these 3 reasons

2001-2008+ War with Iraq ,more recent threats to attack Iran , speculation regarding Peak oil theory although the peak oil speculation only accounts for around 15% of the increase in the cost of oil .