It's official. Australian is not English.
-
@rad131304 said:
1c) At some point, we need plants to filter out that pesky CO2. Personally, I like breathing.
Currently, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%. (Up from 0.02%-0.03% in the past)
It could be 0.3% and still wouldn't cause any breathing problems, in fact, the air you exhale contains 4% CO2.
-
@ammoQ said:
Kill rad131304 ! He's helping global warming !@rad131304 said:
1c) At some point, we need plants to filter out that pesky CO2. Personally, I like breathing.
Currently, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%. (Up from 0.02%-0.03% in the past)
It could be 0.3% and still wouldn't cause any breathing problems, in fact, the air you exhale contains 4% CO2.
-
@rad131304 said:
1a) Having the supply would be great ... if we could actually do anything with it. We barely have the capacity to refine the existing crude oil imports because the US has not built a new refinery since 1976; we make up most of our gigantic gasoline deficit (36m gallons in 2005 IIRC) by importing from countries on the previously mentioned list (see here).
This is such utter nonsense. We are not operating at a loss of refining capacity. Plenty of facilities have been expanded since 1976 and advances in technology have greatly increased the amount of fuel that can be refined in existing facilites. What's more, what you are saying is clearly wrong because the cost of crude is the single biggest factor in the price of gasoline, period (taxes are second). When oil is cheap, gas is cheap; when oil is expensive, gas is expensive. If refinery capacity was the problem, the price of gas would be high regardless of the price of oil (since the scarcity of finished product would be the driving factor in price, not the scarcity of the oil itself). What's more, we export more finished gasoline than we import, by about 20 million barrels a year.
@rad131304 said:
1b) It would also have been nice for GWB to have not screwed other drive-train and renewable technologies for hydrogen fuel (see here) which one would have weaned us off the oil teet all together, rather than just move us to the domestic one by drilling in ANWR or offshore.
Hydrogen is not a practical alternative to petroleum at this time. It may be one day, but you are complaining that the government didn't spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize and prop-up an ineffecient, impractical technology for the purposes of hiding the costs from consumers. The same thing is currently done with ethanol and it distorts the energy and agriculture markets.
@rad131304 said:
1c) At some point, we need plants to filter out that pesky CO2. Personally, I like breathing.
Or we develop technologies that allow us to synthetically convert CO2 to oxygen much more efficiently than plants, which will probably be a reality in the next century. Regardless, when did I say I have anything against plants?
@rad131304 said:
2) WTF does the fact that oil is a traded commodity have to do with this? I thought we were talking about using less oil, not the effing price.
I was talking about reducing the price, which can be accomplished by a variety of means. Using less oil can reduce the price, although it requires ceasing the activities that used that oil or making those activities more expensive. Another alternative is to eliminate the stranglehold middle Eastern nations have on oil supplies and one of the ways to do that is to encourage domestic exploration and development. The obvious benefit is that we get less oil from crazed, Muslim fanatics who funnel their cash into ridiculous displays of wealth, armies that suppress their people and terrorist groups. The less obvious benefit is that more suppliers of oil means a more competitive marketplace and less influence over prices for a handful of power-hungry sheikhs. Even if we're not producing one barrel of oil for a good 5 years, we are stabilizing the marketplace right away and giving speculators more confidence in stable future oil prices, which will affect what I pay for at the pump today. It's the same way that Apple hasn't sold a single iPad (and has actually sunk a lot of money in developing it) and yet book publishers are already re-negotiating with Amazon over prices for Kindle books.
-
@Aaron said:
My favourite part is "rapeseed oil." I think maybe they meant "grapeseed." And it's listed twice so it doesn't seem to be just a typo.
The best branding move EVER was to rename "rapeseed oil" as "Canola oil".
But yes, rapeseed is an actual plant, and its oil it quite possible. You probably just know it as Canola.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The
bestworst branding move EVER was to rename "rapeseed oil" as "Canola oil".FTFY.
I don't know about you, but "Canola" is very forgettable and sounds kind of like "Canada", and "Canola oil" brings to mind a bunch of weak-beer-drinking pussies playing hockey and rubbing each other's naked man parts with oil.
On the other hand, "rapeseed" brings to mind fierce, potent American men rampaging naked across the Arctic tundra, slashing the sissy Canadian men apart with machetes, the blood running down their muscular legs and dripping off the tip of their long, semi-erect penises... and when the slaughter is done, it's on to the houses and igloos, where the red, white and blue seeds of masculinity and honor are planted in the moist, yielding, bruised soil of the Canadian uterus, leaving the women exhausted, yet satisfied for the first time in their lives.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
potent American men rampaging naked across the Arctic tundra, slashing the sissy Canadian men apart with machetes, the blood running down their muscular legs and dripping off the tip of their long, semi-erect penises... and when the slaughter is done, it's on to the houses and igloos, where the red, white and blue seeds of masculinity and honor are planted in the moist, yielding, bruised soil of the Canadian uterus, leaving the women exhausted, yet satisfied for the first time in their lives.
Yours is a special brand of patriotism.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't know about you, but "Canola" is very forgettable and sounds kind of like "Canada"
Like everything that sucks, canola is, in fact, named for Canada. It stands for "Canadian oil, low acid." They originally wanted to simply call it "Canadian oil", but there was a lot of confusion because it doesn't contain oil crushed from actual Canadians. Naturally, this caused a major backlash from Americans who simply looking for a delicious oil made from cold-pressed Canucks, which, as we all know, is the best choice for traditional American cuisine, such as deep-fried butter.
-
@bstorer said:
Like everything that sucks, canola is, in fact, named for Canada. It stands for "Canadian oil, low acid."
Son of a bitch, you're not joking.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The best branding move EVER was to rename "rapeseed oil" as "Canola oil".
But yes, rapeseed is an actual plant, and its oil it quite possible. You probably just know it as Canola.
I'm surprised this actually got rebranded in Australia. Here we have such unpolitically correct brands as Coon cheese and 9/11 bottleshops.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Of course not. Rape[seed] is Serious Business.@bstorer said:
Like everything that sucks, canola is, in fact, named for Canada. It stands for "Canadian oil, low acid."
Son of a bitch, you're not joking.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@rad131304 said:
1a) Having the supply would be great ... if we could actually do anything with it. We barely have the capacity to refine the existing crude oil imports because the US has not built a new refinery since 1976; we make up most of our gigantic gasoline deficit (36m gallons in 2005 IIRC) by importing from countries on the previously mentioned list (see here).
This is such utter nonsense. We are not operating at a loss of refining capacity. Plenty of facilities have been expanded since 1976 and advances in technology have greatly increased the amount of fuel that can be refined in existing facilites.
netCapacityWRTDemand <> AbsoluteCapacity === TRUE
does that help?
@morbiuswilters said:
What's more, what you are saying is clearly wrong because the cost of crude is the single biggest factor in the price of gasoline, period (taxes are second). When oil is cheap, gas is cheap; when oil is expensive, gas is expensive. If refinery capacity was the problem, the price of gas would be high regardless of the price of oil (since the scarcity of finished product would be the driving factor in price, not the scarcity of the oil itself).
WTF? Thanks for your talking point - back to the actual converstion now ....
@morbiuswilters said:
What's more, we export more finished gasoline than we import, by about 20 million barrels a year.
Source? According to the EIA, we (the USA) generally import more gasoline than we export (one net positive export/import month in 6), so clearly I'm wrong. Do some research
@morbiuswilters said:
@rad131304 said:
1b) It would also have been nice for GWB to have not screwed other drive-train and renewable technologies for hydrogen fuel (see here) which one would have weaned us off the oil teet all together, rather than just move us to the domestic one by drilling in ANWR or offshore.
Hydrogen is not a practical alternative to petroleum at this time. It may be one day, but you are complaining that the government didn't spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize and prop-up an ineffecient, impractical technology for the purposes of hiding the costs from consumers. The same thing is currently done with ethanol and it distorts the energy and agriculture markets.
Did you even bother to attempt to understand my statement, or read the linked article? Just to emphasize my feelings on this topic: "Hydrogen is the fuel of the future ... and it always will be" (I don't know who said this but it's a great quote that really encapsulates hydrogen as a fuel).
On ethanol; it's not impractical (see: brazilian E85 market), ethanol derived from corn is impractical - mostly because of the water requirements (see: midwest has water, o wait it doesn't ... @#*$). If you bother to look into E85 in brazil, you'll notice they derive it from sugar, which produces a higher BTU fuel than corn ethanol (plus sugar is not a staple food).
Also, they like plowing rain forest to plant sugar cane and raise cattle and love the bikini and crotch waxing ... not sure where I am going with that.
@morbiuswilters said:
Or we develop technologies that allow us to synthetically convert CO2 to oxygen much more efficiently than plants, which will probably be a reality in the next century. Regardless, when did I say I have anything against plants?
Morbs, of all people, you should recognize sarcasm/trolling.
@morbiuswilters said:
I was talking about reducing the price, which can be accomplished by a variety of means. [sic]
So maybe you should state that your real concern is the price of oil and not some assinine pipe dream notion of 'energy independence' or 'energy security' which is about as achievable as winning a 'war on terror'; S.M.A.R.T. goals ... they still teach that process, right?
-
@bstorer said:
They originally wanted to simply call it "Canadian oil", but there was a lot of confusion because it doesn't contain oil crushed from actual Canadians.
It used to. Blame the human rights activists at the U.N. who kept telling us that tossing the occasional worker into a compactor was against some sort of international labour laws. It's really your fault; as Americans, you pay most of their bills.
-
@rad131304 said:
Source? According to the EIA, we (the USA) generally import more gasoline than we export (one net positive export/import month in 6), so clearly I'm wrong. Do some research
Apparently TRWTF is me because I can't read - I read those tables wrong; 4 net positive export/import months.
-
@Aaron said:
Don't blame me; I steadfastly ignore everything the U.N. says, like any True American.@bstorer said:
They originally wanted to simply call it "Canadian oil", but there was a lot of confusion because it doesn't contain oil crushed from actual Canadians.
It used to. Blame the human rights activists at the U.N. who kept telling us that tossing the occasional worker into a compactor was against some sort of international labour laws. It's really your fault; as Americans, you pay most of their bills.
-
@bstorer said:
Don't blame me; I steadfastly ignore everything the U.N. says, like any True American.
Sure, but you still fund them with your tax money. Unless you don't pay taxes. In which case I'll be forwarding your information to the IRS.
-
@Aaron said:
Not me. In lieu of paying taxes, I throw teabags while dressed up like a figure from the 1770s. Sometimes I go to town hall meetings and shout loudly.@bstorer said:
Don't blame me; I steadfastly ignore everything the U.N. says, like any True American.
Sure, but you still fund them with your tax money.
@Aaron said:
Unless you don't pay taxes. In which case I'll be forwarding your information to the IRS.
Income tax is illegal, because mumble mumble Taft mumble mumble 16th Amendment mumble mumble show me the law mumble mumble voluntary mumble mumble.
-
@rad131304 said:
netCapacityWRTDemand <> AbsoluteCapacity === TRUE
does that help?
No, because it's wrong. Your argument was that increasing oil production would be useless because refining capacity is tapped-out. This is false. Now, there have been periods where refining capacity has been exhausted, due to refineries shuttering temporarily (e.g. Katrina). Things like hurricanes are a pain in the ass and will cause fluctuations in the supply of gasoline, but it's not economical to have gobs of extra refining capacity sitting around waiting for that couple of months every decade when things go to shit.
@rad131304 said:
WTF? Thanks for your talking point - back to the actual converstion now ....
It's not a "talking point", it's central to the argument you are creating. You're the one who is mindlessly parroting shit like "More drilling won't reduce the cost of gas because there is a shortage of refining capacity!" That is false. We have had a few short periods over the last decade where a shortage of refinery capacity has driven up the price of gasoline (e.g. after Katrina), but those were quickly over with. The years of increasing gasoline prices were due to increasing crude prices. Therefore, reducing crude prices would reduce gasoline prices. Your point regarding refinery capacity is incorrect.
@rad131304 said:
On ethanol; it's not impractical (see: brazilian E85 market), ethanol derived from corn is impractical - mostly because of the water requirements (see: midwest has water, o wait it doesn't ... @#*$). If you bother to look into E85 in brazil, you'll notice they derive it from sugar, which produces a higher BTU fuel than corn ethanol (plus sugar is not a staple food).
I was referring to the US ethanol market, I figured that should be obvious. Whether or not sugar-derived ethanol is economical, I do not know. I'm doubtful, to say the least. First, you have to eliminate deck-stacking like ethanol subsidies. Another consideration is crude oil availability and refinery capacity in Brazil. America tends to get very cheap crude, which makes it harder for ethanol to compete effectively. Without a doubt, ethanol is not a competitve or efficient solution for the US at this time.
@rad131304 said:
So maybe you should state that your real concern is the price of oil and not some assinine pipe dream notion of 'energy independence' or 'energy security' which is about as achievable as winning a 'war on terror'; S.M.A.R.T. goals ... they still teach that process, right?
The concerns are linked. Control of oil gives great economic and political power to oppressive regimes throughout the Middle East. Reducing the cost of crude oil would undermine those regimes and would be great economically. Somewhat off-topic, the "War on Terror" is a fine name, it's annoying when idiots try to criticize the effort with such weak non-sequitors. It's a targeted effort to reduce the influence of groups that use terror as a political tactic, via the use of military force. How is that so difficult to understand? You'd be better off trying to construct the (weak) argument that military engagements are not the most effective way of reducing the impact of terrorist groups. You could then offer the alternatives of focusing solely on nation-building and aid missions, or for complete isolationism. Those strategies are both ineffectual and discredited, and I don't really want to argue about them now, but at least you'd be making a (weak) point. As it is, you are just playing semantic games.
-
@bstorer said:
@Aaron said:
mumble Joe SmumbleUnless you don't pay taxes. In which case I'll be
Income tax is illegal, because
forwarding your information to the IRS.
mumble mumble Taft mumble mumble 16th Amendment mumble
mumble show me the law mumble mumble voluntary mumble
mumble.
-
Aren't most of the oil-producing nations on the verge of financial collapse due to depressed oil prices?
No...where do you get this stuff from?
Canada...Russia....Saudi Arabia....Norway "on the verge of financial collapse"
LOL....Rarely have I heard so many words used to express so little knowledge, as from you Morbius.
-
@ogilmor said:
No...where do you get this stuff from?
Canada...Russia....Saudi Arabia....Norway "on the verge of financial collapse"
Last time I checked, Russia wasn't doing so hot. Regardless, it was clear we were talking about nations where oil is the central element of the economy, such as Iran, Venezuela, UAE...
-
@Nyquist said:
Welcome to TDWTF where nothing is OT.
Nobody shares information any better than this.
Nobody.
-
@bridget99 said:
@Nyquist said:
Welcome to TDWTF where nothing is OT.
Nobody shares information any better than this.
Nobody.
I think you mean knowledge, not information.
-
@ogilmor said:
Canada...Russia....Saudi Arabia....Norway "on the verge of financial collapse"
Canada isn't really an "oil-producing nation." Petroleum products may be the largest single component of exports by gross revenue, but metals, lumber, plastics, natural gas, cars, etc. together make up a much larger chunk. There's also some pretty heavy trade with China and SE Asia, i.e. coal. It's a diversified economy just like the U.S., just happens to be a little more resource-focused.
Norway has been on the verge of collapse for a long time now because they tried to implement the Swedish welfare state without the culture to support it. Oil was one of the few things that kept them afloat in recent years. Of course an economy doesn't simply "collapse" in an instant, erupting in civil war or something, but I know a few people who live there and they all say it's not pretty economically. Hard to get a job, pay scale is low relative to cost of living, social benefits can't keep up, high rates of alcoholism... they're not doing well at all.
As for Saudi Arabia, come on, most of the country is dirt poor anyway, it's just the sheiks that have money, and Russia only seems good today because of how deep in the crapper they were a couple of decades ago. Basically anything that doesn't involve hordes lining up for food rations is A-OK.
-
Remember kids, if you die in Canada, you die in real life!
