# $100 oil



## ctenidae (Jan 2, 2008)

Hope everyone's been getting limber for ski season. We're all going to be bending over.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 2, 2008)

I can't afford to ski lift served terrain due to the recent fillup of my heating oil tank  
Glad I bought a season pass last May saving up for one for next year is going to be tough this winter.


----------



## ckofer (Jan 2, 2008)

Ski busses. 

_I do my best thinking on the bus._


----------



## drjeff (Jan 2, 2008)

This is such a total over reactionary BS maneuver today.  Big deal, there's a short lived cold snap across maybe 1/3rd of the country, and voila oil jumps almost $4 a barrel before falling back a bit towards the end of trading.  Big deal, it's North America, it's January and it's cold, quite a newsflash!  The biggest B.S. move will be tommorrow when some gas station owner spikes the price .10 to .15 a gallon based on this, when the oil that was traded today isn't even close to the refinery that will finally turn it into what we'll use a fuel likely WEEKS from now!

This is almost a perfect example of how modern technology/communications can be a BAD thing at instilling unneeded volitility in commodities markets!


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 2, 2008)

unfortunately you are On Target  Doc: 

herd mentality ??, 
self-fulfilling prophesy ?? , 
overly nervous stock breakers ,??-

-welcome to the  brave new world of mass stock market hysteria   generated on the latest  economic hiccup . sneeze or piece of psycho babble

Idiots are running the show


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jan 2, 2008)

It's supply & demand.  

Greater world consumption + declining supply = higher prices.  


The tighter the supply, the greater the volatility.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 2, 2008)

Temporary spikes can be fueled and amplified by reactionary market hysteria. But long term trends are fueled by supply and demand. Milestones are less notable for their longevity than they are for their perspective.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 2, 2008)

Lack of a meaningful alternative energy policies coupled with multi-national Oligopolies who HAVE POLITICIANS IN THEIR BACK POCKET AND THUS HAVE NO MEANINGFUL REGULATION = ECONOMIC STRANGULATION


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jan 2, 2008)

Whatever I spend a couple grand a year in gas..and another several grand a year for skiing...better than sitting at home watching Oprah...lol..gas prices are still pretty reasonable..I can drive 400 miles for 40 bucks..not bad..


----------



## bigbog (Jan 2, 2008)

*....*

I think we should all be grateful that we have King George to thank for awakening us to the fact that _WE'RE_ the ones addicted to oil....;-)  
$.01


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

This came up in another discussion recently, but it's really a shame that the car and truck manufacturers created a horsepower race instead of a engineering more fuel efficient vehicles.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jan 3, 2008)

It touched $100 but ended up the day below. It might go over $100 but I still feel it will be going down in the next couple of months. It's not Bush's fault that people are still buying gas guzzlers and when they go shopping the driver sits in the SUV with the motor running waiting for the family. Yesterday I noticed two parked in the Fire Lane at Shaws doing that. In Burlington you can get a ticket for idling while parked.


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

Part of the answer, at least with private passenger vehicles, will be steep taxes on vehicles with poor fuel mileage.


----------



## hammer (Jan 3, 2008)

ckofer said:


> This came up in another discussion recently, but it's really a shame that the car and truck manufacturers created a horsepower race instead of a engineering more fuel efficient vehicles.


Went to the Auto Show in Boston last month...it was amazing how many huge SUVs were on display. I also noticed that the new Toyota Highlander is somewhat bigger than mine (I have an '01).

Nobody is holding a gun to people and telling them they have to buy one of these behemoth SUVs...

Each time I head up to Pats Peak I estimate it costs me about $15 in fuel alone. :x


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 3, 2008)

ckofer said:


> Part of the answer, at least with private passenger vehicles, will be steep taxes on vehicles with poor fuel mileage.


That and varying degrees of taxes of vehicle purchases. Larger and heavier vehicles put more wear and tear on the roads so a vehicle purchase price influenced by weight of the vehicle makes sense. No coincidence that heavier vehicles tend to get lower MPG as well. I maintain that alternative fuel vehicles will only become economically viable and personally/culturally desirable when fossil fuel prices become prohibitive of lifestyles. Skiing is a lifestyle and it is easy to poo poo on someone idling a vehicle but most skiers burn through a full tank of gas or more for a round trip ski weekend. Our lifestyle is part of the problem driving the consumption of fossil fuels, increasing demand, driving prices, etc. I say bring on four dollars per gallon and let's push for $150 a barrel. Then we will see some change. We are not yet at the breaking point when it comes to personal vehicle purchasing, though I think many people are starting to be MPG conscious, or at least more so than before.

Fuel consumption was the topic of an article I just put up yesterday which details in very precise and anal retentive measurements exactly how much fuel consumption and cost I am using this ski season. My hypothesis is that I will spend much more getting to the slopes than I do paying for lift tickets. Almost at $300 for 16 days and I anticipate 50+ this season. Just for some perspective, I get 35 MPG which means the average SUV driver driving Metro to 2k vert mountains probably has paid well over that much money for less than half as many days.

We often quibble over lift ticket prices but forget to add in the cost of gas. I quibble over both. When you add in cost of travel to lift ticket prices, you will often find it cheaper to pay more for a lift ticket at a closer mountain of nearly equal terrain and conditions than drive further away for a bigger mountain. Should be interesting to see how my cost calculator works out at the end of the season when I can average the per day cost of my pass and factor that average into the equation. Ironically, to drive per day costs down, I must ski and drive more days, lol.

Any ways, big point here is before we start causing a fuss about how expensive fuel costs are, let's look in the mirror and take a look at our own impact both personally and as a skiing/riding culture. My home heating tank needs a refill, now that is where I start getting concerned about the price of a barrel of oil. Not like I can adjust my personal lifestyle nor get a better MPG tank. :lol: If I had veins of ice like Marc, I could just set the thermostat at 55 though


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 3, 2008)

hammer said:


> Went to the Auto Show in Boston last month...it was amazing how many huge SUVs were on display. I also noticed that the new Toyota Highlander is somewhat bigger than mine (I have an '01).


Cars in general just seem "bigger" lately. My significant other recently bought a Nissan Sentra, 2003 I believe. It is tiny compared to the newer models. The new Altima is a tank compared to the older sized cars. I have noticed that trend with the larger Saturn cars. Pretty much across the board from economy to mid-sized to full sized cars, they just look bigger for some reason. I think SUV's are trending to the ends of the spectrum, either huge or a little smaller. It is trendy and cool and hip to have a so called "cross over"... a slightly slimed down SUV that doesn't scream out quite the way SUVs do, as the culture as a whole is changing perspective. But they still look bulkier than need be.


----------



## hammer (Jan 3, 2008)

One other thought...I know that it doesn't directly cost people anything, but has anyone working in an office building considered turning down the thermostat in/near their offices a few degrees? It shouldn't hurt the computers, and if all it means is that you may have to wear a sweater or sweatshirt then no big deal...


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jan 3, 2008)

hammer said:


> One other thought...I know that it doesn't directly cost people anything, but has anyone working in an office building considered turning down the thermostat in/near their offices a few degrees? It shouldn't hurt the computers, and if all it means is that you may have to wear a sweater or sweatshirt then no big deal...




Where I work the heat is hella high because the office manager is always cold so turning the thermstat down is not an option..cars are bigger because people are bigger.  What was considered overweight 30 years ago is pretty average.  The key in this world is to make as much money as possible because prices keep rising like crazy..a 10 percent raise doesn't mean much with inflation


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jan 3, 2008)

hammer said:


> Went to the Auto Show in Boston last month...it was amazing how many huge SUVs were on display. I also noticed that the new Toyota Highlander is somewhat bigger than mine (I have an '01).
> 
> Nobody is holding a gun to people and telling them they have to buy one of these behemoth SUVs...
> 
> Each time I head up to Pats Peak I estimate it costs me about $15 in fuel alone. :x




To be fair, it takes 3-5 years to bring cars/trucks to the market, so manufacturers can only react so quickly.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry for the rant guys but i'm  really tired of all the "cry assin " by the financially undisciplined public coupled with lack of leadership on alternatives.

This Energy thing IS NOT NEW guys !  this nation has been thru this once before in the 70's and FAILED to learn from that experience . People still live way beyond their means, are in serious debt thru lack of financial discipline and are materialistic to a fault.-- thus oversized cars , homes and rear ends 

YET  they want bail outs  and piss &  moan about how there's nothing they can do to help themselves--that's nonsense

 Personally : I ve been driving vehicles that average well over 30 mpg for over 35 years, have upgraded my home heating  sytems to hi- e stds, insulated to the max , 44 new hi -e windows and have always computed fuel costs in my skiing budget and am DEBT free with a strong net worth thru good planning AND  financial discipline and living withinn one's means as alife style . 

It ain't rocket science -.and the Fact of the Matter is NO ONE  cares about WHAT YOU HAVE -- so stop trying to impress them


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jan 3, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> the Fact of the Matter is NO ONE  cares about WHAT YOU HAVE -- so stop trying to impress them




Easier to give advice than to follow it, 'eh?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 3, 2008)

No its actually simple IF you have the WILL Power


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jan 3, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> No its actually simple IF you have the WILL Power




I THINK you MEAN willpower.

Anyway, I think things are a bit more complicated than you suggest and would necessitate breaking the golden "no politics" rule to properly discuss it.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 3, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> I THINK you MEAN willpower.
> 
> Anyway, I think things are a bit more complicated than you suggest and would necessitate breaking the golden "no politics" rule to properly discuss it.



Bottomline, as long as there continues to be long lines at Dunkin Donut's each morning and lots of people continuing to filter into convienence stores all day long buying $20+ worth of scratch tickets and $50 cartons of cigarrettes then people may bi&*h about energy prices but the really aren't as affected by them as they think.  When they have to start rationing out the money that they spend on *everyday* "disposable income" items, then maybe change will occur.


----------



## ctenidae (Jan 3, 2008)

drjeff said:


> This is such a total over reactionary BS maneuver today.  Big deal, there's a short lived cold snap across maybe 1/3rd of the country, and voila oil jumps almost $4 a barrel before falling back a bit towards the end of trading.  Big deal, it's North America, it's January and it's cold, quite a newsflash!  The biggest B.S. move will be tommorrow when some gas station owner spikes the price .10 to .15 a gallon based on this, when the oil that was traded today isn't even close to the refinery that will finally turn it into what we'll use a fuel likely WEEKS from now!
> 
> This is almost a perfect example of how modern technology/communications can be a BAD thing at instilling unneeded volitility in commodities markets!




Well, a cold snap, plus political unrest in Pakistan, supply cuts in Nigeria, increasing demand in China, Chavez beeing silly, and OPEC once more not raising quotas. But yeah, reactionary.

As mentioned, it's nothing new, and we, as a world, have had our thumbs up our backsides not worrying about it. Oil will run out eventually, maybe sooner than later, but for the past 30 years our energy policy has been, essentially, "Saudi Arabia has all teh oil we'll ever need, and always will". Well, not so much.

Gas prices affect a hell of a lot more than just your morning commute or ski trip. What do you think is used to raise, process, and transport your food? How about your clothes? Your everything-else-you-might-ever-buy? Here's a hint- it wasn't magic fairy dust. Core inflation (which includes food and energy prices) is expected to be close to 6% by the end of the year. The government, and particulary the Fed, conveniently doesn't report core inflation generally. They do inflation excluding food and energy. but guess what we spend most of our money on. Here's another hint- it's not fuzzy bunny slippers.

Breaking $100 is an important psychological event. Now that it's done it, it'll be back. Within a couple of weeks, oil will probably be over $100 to stay, adn by the end of the year we'll be looking back and saying "Boy, remember when oil was only $100 a barrel? Those were good times."


----------



## ctenidae (Jan 3, 2008)

Of course, this guy probably needs to be taken out behind the oil well and smacked around a bit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=505706&in_page_id=1770


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

There's no doubt that we need to find a more sustainable approach in regards to our energy demands. We share the planet with 6.7 billion others. What if you could harvest the energy that is just dumped out of your radiator or clothes dryer? Or think about the warm seasons-we use energy to remove energy from our homes and cars...


----------



## Marc (Jan 3, 2008)

Unfortunately thermodynamics tells us that heat is the most entropic form of energy, the form in which all energy tends to end up as.  Meaning it's hard and typically not energy or cost efficient to extract work from it, however- energy storage like you speak of is already being utilized.

The most basic form was the ice harvest which was enormously common before the invention of the refrigeration cycle.  Ice stored and insulated in sawdust acted as a huge heat sink in the summer to keep heat out of perishables.

Along the same lines, but not quite the type of heat storage you're speaking of, geothermal heating systems (using heat pumps) use a small amount of work input to consolidate and move heat to one insulated location (house) to sustain a high temperature.  They extract heat from the ground below the frost line where the earth stays a more constant temperature.  And they're great because the can reverse the process in the summer and extract heat from the house and dump it underground.

The solutions are out there and they're being developed rapidly now that the end the fossil fuel era is in site.  There's no use in trying to force the issue though, that just creates more problems then it solves.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 3, 2008)

This needs to happen at some point so people and manufacturers make better decisions. I hope it goes even higher (and yes I'm aware of the economic impact, sort of).


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

Marc said:


> Unfortunately thermodynamics tells us that heat is the most entropic form of energy, the form in which all energy tends to end up as.  Meaning it's hard and typically not energy or cost efficient to extract work from it, however- energy storage like you speak of is already being utilized.



Nicely put but I'm not giving up hope that some Nobel-prize-winning thinking will find a way to make better use of waste heat and other small energy gradients. I'm thinking steam-engine technology with the sun/heat waste converting to motion. Even eductors that use the sun's energy to draw cooler air from underground.


----------



## Marc (Jan 3, 2008)

ckofer said:


> Nicely put but I'm not giving up hope that some Nobel-prize-winning thinking will find a way to make better use of waste heat and other small energy gradients. I'm thinking steam-engine technology with the sun/heat waste converting to motion. Even eductors that use the sun's energy to draw cooler air from underground.



What you're thinking of will probably be very possible with advancements nanotechnology, but that's a little ways off yet.  Fortunately we already have very viable and practical solutions and even better ones just around the corner.  They'll be ready and economical when the conditions are right, so I don't freak out about it too much.  I just go with the flow, mang


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

*I'm currently building a building for my business and hope to incorporate a simple heating technology(see below). Rather than heating just the air, I have quite a mass of dry crushed stone under the floor. I think that if I can warm the under-slab area all fall, then I will have at least a non-freezing area through the winter. It seems to be the most efficient use of solar energy around here. This is offered as an example and not an endorsement of any brand:*

The *SunMate*™ Solar Panel is the ideal choice for homeowners that want an environmentally friendly, low-cost air heating option. The *SunMate*™ pulls cool air from your home, channels it through the absorber plate where it’s warmed by energy from the sun, then circulates it back into your home. A built-in thermostat automatically turns on the fan when the absorber plate reaches 110° F and shuts the fan off when the plate reaches 90°F. 
_What sets the SunMate™ apart from           other solar panels is the design._ One-piece construction produces a streamlined appearance that doesn’t detract from your home’s appearance. Heavy-duty, stainless steel and aluminum components provide quality construction that assures long life and virtually no maintenance.
 The *SunMate*_™_ by Environmental Solar System is efficient and affordable. A single panel heats up to 750 square feet. Double-sealed solar glass eliminates air infiltration and water leaks. Polyisocyanurate insulation results in extremely low heat loss and an 8.5 Watt fan operates for just pennies per day. You can run the SunMate completely without AC power by connecting the fan to a 20 Watt solar module! 
 The SunMate™ is installed vertically and mounted on the side of your home or building. The design accommodates 2” x 4” or 2” x 6” construction. Parallel installation allows you to integrate multiple panels for larger heating areas. 






Package Includes: 

1 SunMate solar air heater
1 Wall Mount Kit
 Features

High efficiency and reliability
Easy to install: wide variety of simple installations
Can be used for fresh air intake for tight houses
 Brushless 100 CFM, 12VDC - 8.5 Watt fan
 Automatic thermostat automatically turns the fan on and off
 10-Year Warranty on Solar Panel
 One Year Warranty on fan, thermostat and transformer


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jan 3, 2008)

Marc said:


> They'll be ready and economical when the conditions are right



Unfortunately one of those conditions is a thinning of the herd.  Earth cannot sustain even half the current human population of six billion.


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

1972






1974



​


----------



## Marc (Jan 3, 2008)

YardSaleDad said:


> Unfortunately one of those conditions is a thinning of the herd.  Earth cannot sustain even half the current human population of six billion.



Your contention is unknowable, at best.


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)




----------



## Marc (Jan 3, 2008)

ckofer said:


> *I'm currently building a building for my business and hope to incorporate a simple heating technology(see below). Rather than heating just the air, I have quite a mass of dry crushed stone under the floor. I think that if I can warm the under-slab area all fall, then I will have at least a non-freezing area through the winter. It seems to be the most efficient use of solar energy around here. This is offered as an example and not an endorsement of any brand:*



I don't want to seem like I'm poo pooing your idea, but your thermal mass would need to be well insulated for it to last any length of time.


----------



## ckofer (Jan 3, 2008)

Marc said:


> I don't want to seem like I'm poo pooing your idea, but your thermal mass would need to be well insulated for it to last any length of time.



Insulation is certainly an important part of the equation. I'm basically trying to keep this area at 45 F and use a large heater for very short periods when we are in the shop restocking trucks. I've 2 parallel 60' runs of 4" perforated pipe about 20' apart (under the floor). I plan to pump the warmed air into one and use the other for return. The investment is minimal now. If I feel that just warming the air in the shop works better, that will be easy to change. I plan to be careful about insulating and managing drafts.


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jan 3, 2008)

Marc said:


> Your contention is unknowable, at best.



I guess no one told you about the mass extinction that's going on.


----------



## ctenidae (Jan 4, 2008)

Marc said:


> Your contention is unknowable, at best.



Malthus was right.
He just didn't factor in technology very well.

These guys have a pretty good system for load shifting: http://www.ice-energy.com/

On the thermodynamics issue, there are several groups working on Sterling engines, and most say that, at base, it's a materials problem that is not far from resolution.

I still say algal biodiesel is where it's at. If only someone would give me a couple mil to prove it...


----------



## Marc (Jan 4, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Malthus was right.
> He just didn't factor in technology very well.
> 
> These guys have a pretty good system for load shifting: http://www.ice-energy.com/
> ...



Engines made of silver?  What the hell good does that do us??


Wait... you mean Stirling engines... right?   I love being an arsehole.


Unfortunately, from what I've seen, but I'm no industry insider, there isn't enough work being done on Stirling technology.  Most of the recent advances have been for using them as cryocoolers (inputing work to extract heat, rather than inputing heat to extract work).  Materials science will only progress so fast, and no matter how efficient and cheaply they can be made to work and manufactured, they will always be limited by the temperature gradient they're given to work with.  If it is a relatively small, constant difference, then we're talking buffers and storage, which requires a whole other field of technology to progress.

What I could see happening medium to long term is more localized eletricity production (I'm talking about township and personal property local) eliminating transfer losses using mass produced generation means and eletric transportation based on a charging and battery swapping infrastructure.  Of course, if that happens it will be through vastly improved battery technology and standardization.

I'm hoping for cities, there's promise for the flexible, polymer PV panels that would cover the exterior of buildings, all becoming locally self sufficient.  Only thing to do is wait and see I guess.


----------



## ctenidae (Jan 4, 2008)

The big issue with Stirling engines (arse) seeme to be materials that can handle the change in temperatures required from teh hot to cold sides without expanding or contracting too much to brreak the seal between the two sides, and yet still let the piston move. It's an interesting concept, but I'm not putting any money in it personally.

I think local generation has some legs, especially if thin film PVs get up and running. Still, PV's need some major improvements in efficiency, and most realists seem to think that's still at least 10 years away. And by "realists" I mean people who are not investing in PV's because they think it'll take that long, as opposed to people who think that PV's are the end all answer, and the breaktrhough is right around the corner. 

Biggest possible, and cheapest, energy savings comes in the form of better building insulation. Huge yeilds, small costs.


----------



## Marc (Jan 4, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> The big issue with Stirling engines (arse) seeme to be materials that can handle the change in temperatures required from teh hot to cold sides without expanding or contracting too much to brreak the seal between the two sides, and yet still let the piston move. It's an interesting concept, but I'm not putting any money in it personally.
> 
> I think local generation has some legs, especially if thin film PVs get up and running. Still, PV's need some major improvements in efficiency, and most realists seem to think that's still at least 10 years away. And by "realists" I mean people who are not investing in PV's because they think it'll take that long, as opposed to people who think that PV's are the end all answer, and the breaktrhough is right around the corner.
> 
> *Biggest possible, and cheapest, energy savings comes in the form of better building insulation. Huge yeilds, small costs.*



That is most definitely correct.  Hopefully sooner rather than later extremely strong rigid materials become cheap and easy to produce and we can have vacuum insulated homes.  Combined with low emissivity coatings, we could have a nearly perfectly insulated space.

As far as PV goes, I agree with those not sinking money into it right now, as they're still incredibly energy intensive to produce and costly.

Large scale and short term, and depending on the moods of the super rich and bird lovers, I think wind technology has the biggest potential for being viable.  Certainly easier to solve the ills of suicidal birds than the disposal issue of nuclear waste.


----------



## ctenidae (Jan 4, 2008)

Marc said:


> Large scale and short term, and depending on the moods of the super rich and bird lovers, I think wind technology has the biggest potential for being viable.  Certainly easier to solve the ills of suicidal birds than the disposal issue of nuclear waste.



Wind has some serious issues to overcome, not least of which is availability. The wind tends to blow most int eh morning and evenings, when the load is lowest. If someone comes up with a viable way to store electricity produced at night for distribution during the day, then wind may get somewhere. As it is, it's hard to build a viable grid on a 30% availability. The only way around it now is widely dispersed wind farms, but then you run into transmission problems. Tidal generation is a much more interesting and useful idea, since the ocean currents andn tides are always moving. Of course, the sea is a harsh mistress, so there are a lot of engineering issues to be overcome. Whatever salt water won't corrode, sand will erode.

Biomass, landfill methane, and geothermal are all nice ideas, too, as is local hydrogen. Trouble is, the way the grid's set up, none of the renewable solutions can be the one big answer. We need to rebuild the grid, anyway, and it needs to be done in a flexible way that allows for teh incorporation of a variety of generation techniques.


----------



## ckofer (Jan 4, 2008)

Hey guys there's a geek test on another thread somewhere.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jan 4, 2008)

ckofer said:


> Hey guys there's a geek test on another thread somewhere.



Ahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> The new Altima is a tank compared to the older sized cars.




While I agree with you that cars seem to be getting bigger, this above statement is false.  The new Altima is actually smaller than the previous model, which I believe had been on the road since 2002.  


The biggest culprit I see in enlarged vehicle is the Toyota Tacoma.  I can remember the Toyota SR5? I believe it was called before the Tacoma in the mid 90's and it was a pretty compact pick up truck.  The new Tacoma's are damn near as large as an F150 and the Tundras....BIG F'N RIG.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2008)

Warp Daddy said:


> This Energy thing IS NOT NEW guys !  this nation has been thru this once before in the 70's and FAILED to learn from that experience .



This isn't entirely true.  The energy crisis of the 70's and then again in the early 80's was to a much larger degree political posturing and market hysteria than today.   Supply and Demand wasn't the issue then and it played out because in both situations (as well as in 97) oil plummeted to around $10 a barrel (2008 dollars) once people calmed down.  Had Supply and Demand been the issue, this wouldn't have happened and we would've been much more serious about making the necessary investments in alternate fuels/technologies.

The nation didn't necessarily FAIL, they simply didn't really have to change and the market proved that.  

The primary difference between then and now?  India and China and because of them, it actually has become a Supply and Demand problem, not simply stock market hysteria / political posturing.

Unfortunately, it's human nature to an extent.  People won't change until they are forced to change.  The obese guy won't give up his double wopper until his doctor says, stop it now or you're going to develop diabetes and die early in life.  

The energy crisis is now truly real and it's going to be painful to go through the necessary changes.  I'm less concerned with how much it costs me to fill my tank to go to the mountain or the cost of fuel to heat my home, than I am with how much it's going to cost me to fill up my cart at the grocery store.   Anyone can find a way to drive less and dress warmer, but we all still gotta eat and that is where the true pain is going to be felt.  

Grain is the new gold.  Fuel prices are making it more expensive to farm it and transport it, which is driving more and more farmers to give up.  You couple that with an exploding world population and you have major problems.  Seven out of the last Eight years grain production has not been sustainable for our earths population.  We can all sit here and bitch on our computers about how it's getting that much more difficult to afford the drive to the mountain and heat our homes. It's quite the luxory when you consider how many people are dying because of lack of food.....and it's only going to get worse.

That is the true crisis in all of this.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2008)

ckofer said:


> Part of the answer, at least with private passenger vehicles, will be steep taxes on vehicles with poor fuel mileage.




One can only hope.  Right now the laws are purely based upon weight, not vehicle use/function.   Any Joey out there right now with a six figure plus income that can afford a Hummer or a Suburban can practically drive such a vehicle for free with a little creative accounting.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 5, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> While I agree with you that cars seem to be getting bigger, this above statement is false.  The new Altima is actually smaller than the previous model, which I believe had been on the road since 2002.


Must be thinking of the post-02 vs. the pre-02 then.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jan 5, 2008)

Many of the parts of this latest energy thing is not new......supply isues, productions issues(no new refineries built in the last 30 years) and our gasguzzling society but there are some new important twists to this latest energy situation.. 

In the last 5 years the economies of Chine and India have grown exponentially resulting in huge energy demands by these countries. One of the many reasons why I feel the price of crude will back off of $100 is that these economies while still growing,  the rate of growth is starting to slow down,  combined with the fact that India and China's own oil developement, especially China, is starting to come online, reducing their demand on oil from the mideast. The oil futures are showing this.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Apr 30, 2008)

Bump


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 30, 2008)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> Heating oil over $4 a gallon now I hear in my area ... looking at electric heat now.



We're locked in at $2.59 right now. Next fall is going to suck! We're going to use our tax advance/stimulus BS check to pre-buy Oil for next winter. We're getting $1800 for the two of us and the kids and that likely won't cover the heating bills next year.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 30, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Breaking $100 is an important psychological event. Now that it's done it, it'll be back. Within a couple of weeks, oil will probably be over $100 to stay, and by the end of the year we'll be looking back and saying "Boy, remember when oil was only $100 a barrel? Those were good times."



Sometimes it sucks being right.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 30, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> Sometimes it sucks being right.



For now....:wink:   If the damn dollar would only shore up maybe this week long downward trend in the price of crude will continue. If that happens oil speculators will jump off the oil train as fast as they jumped off the gold train recently where the price was $1000/oz a few weeks ago now at $865. .I still say $100 oil is possible in the near future.


----------



## ctenidae (May 1, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> For now....:wink:   If the damn dollar would only shore up maybe this week long downward trend in the price of crude will continue. If that happens oil speculators will jump off the oil train as fast as they jumped off the gold train recently where the price was $1000/oz a few weeks ago now at $865. .I still say $100 oil is possible in the near future.



I'm not so sure. I don't think the gold activity is as similar to oil activity as you may think. Different set of investors, different set of supply/demand curves, different set of geopolitical factors. Gold's trucking its way back up, too.

Abu Dabhai is sinking $1B into green energy research. Think they may know something we've refused to accept yet?


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 1, 2008)

ctenidae said:


> I'm not so sure. I don't think the gold activity is as similar to oil activity as you may think. Different set of investors, different set of supply/demand curves, different set of geopolitical factors. Gold's trucking its way back up, too.
> 
> Abu Dabhai is sinking $1B into green energy research. Think they may know something we've refused to accept yet?



I think the "green movement" is well underway in many aspects of our lives and in business, one positive thing from the high oil prices. As long as inflation is low I think gold will continue to drop or at least flatten out. Today Gold has dropped again to $851. 06 growth(better than expected btw) and .05 growth the last two quarters is the foundation for that. That's POSITIVE growth so in general our economy is NOT in recession IMHO. Looking at particular sectors some are definately in recession like the auto and real estate sectors.


----------



## ctenidae (May 1, 2008)

There's a deeper threat of inflation looming, and the Fed's cut yesterday didn't help that. According to David Hale, the Fed has admitted it's lost all control of inflation and has no way to protect the dollar, so all they're doing now is trying to maintain the stability of the financial system. That's not a comforting thought.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 1, 2008)

Personally I think the Fed has done a good job...according to the two Fed Regional Govenors I saw interviewed yesterday they didn't really want to lower the rate again but felt the .25 cut was already baked in the market so they went for the lesser of two evils. No rate cut would have helped the dollar but hurt the financial markets. 

You can drive yourself crazy looking at all the ying/yang things out there. Food is getting more expensive in part cause farmers are growing as much corn as possible, in deference to other crops,  to take advantage of the high prices to meet the increasing ethanol demand which in a way is a good thing regarding our foreign oil demand but it costs more to feed your family.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (May 1, 2008)

I wish bank CD rates kept pace with inflation..they were 5+ percent when inflation was low and now less than 4 percent with high inflation...


----------



## ctenidae (May 2, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I wish bank CD rates kept pace with inflation..they were 5+ percent when inflation was low and now less than 4 percent with high inflation...



That's pretty much the normal course of things. Low interest rates = plentiful money supply = high inflation. Conversely, high interest rates = expensive money = low inflation. Supply and demand. It's all about the curves.


----------



## ctenidae (May 2, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> You can drive yourself crazy looking at all the ying/yang things out there.



Unfortunately, that's what I do for a living. Fortunately, I'm already a bit crazy, so it all works out.

I don't disagree that the Fed has done a good job. It's just that their hands are tied in a lot of ways- given three competing issues, they ahve to focus on the one that A) has the gretest potential for massive distruption and 2) that they can do something about. It's unfortunate that the Fed is now stuck in the role of market stabilizer, since that's not really their job. They don't have any traditional tools for doing that, which is why Bernanke was a good choice- he spent a lot of his academic career studying how the Fed has gotten things wrong in the past. At the very least, he knows what not to do.


----------

