Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On recycling solar panels, EU has a much more developed market than the US, and AFAIK, some US panels are being sent to EU. That said, I also believe the science will win out. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and people will continue to profit from new opportunities.
Correct, it's not that there's not the ability to, it's that there isn't the same regulation / economic incentive to do so here. So with solar panels we have an environmental plus, renewable energy, and a minus, resource use and waste accumulation, within the same industry.
Whether it's green energy, GMO crops, recycling... all these areas have positive and negative environmental impacts. We all have to assume that companies will spin the narrative to put themselves in a positive light. This is not unique to the oil industry and climate change is not our only environmental issue. We have to have independent scientific review and do our own research instead of following the narrative that's given to us; it's a safe assumption that the climate change narrative given my MSM does not reflect the totality of the environmental issues at stake and there are significant corporate interests (say TSLA for instance) influencing what is presented.
I was watching Tesla's Battery Day today which showcases new products and where Tesla is heading and Elon was taking some Q&A questions. I don't recall the exact question but it was about Climate change, and Elon who is a world leader in Green Energy answered the question that he never got into the business for the cause of Climate Change and stated that he got into the business before the politicization or creation of it all. He then followed up by stating and I'm paraphrasing "we don't know even know the effects or if its man-made". I think is response was dead on for what's really going on in the world. Climate has never been at a stand-still, and there isn't a record to show it that it ever was. There is no direct link to show that man is increasing the climate, and we don't know for sure where its heading in the future.
There is a lot of misconceptions about how much the oil industry knew, and when. There were a few scientists whose research in the 70's and 80's indicated that expanding use of fossil fuels would increase CO2 concentrations and potentially cause climate change. However, this was just a few of the scientists, and no one at the time had a full understanding of what the research meant, or even whether it was accurate. No large organization is going to pivot immediately based on the research of a small number of scientists.
Another issue I've never seen raised is that if any major oil company came out in the 80's and said "oil use will cause climate change, so we are going to stop looking for hydrocarbons and try to find alternatives", the general response would have been "darn oil companies, trying to raise prices again by lying to us".
I'm not sure that anything would have changed if the oil companies had said anything in the 80's. There were no alternatives, other than nuclear power. Viable solar was, and still is to a large extent, years away. Wind energy hadn't been developed much at all either.
We aren't going to stop using hydrocarbons anytime soon. Even if hydrocarbons stopped being used for transportation tomorrow, they are going to be used in plastics, resins, lubricants, and the myriad other products necessary for machinery, medical equipment, vehicle parts, etc. I also don't see an alternative to fossil fuels for air travel. Personally, I am not going to fly in an electric airplane.
After the Arab oil embargo in the70's, and President Carter's support of developing alternative energy sources, including solar, the public was ready for a shift away from so much dependence on petrol. When less gasoline is being bought by the public, prices fall, they don't soar, even when supply is scarce. This was proven during the oil crisis of the early-to-mid 70's.
The oil industry wasn't responsible for the Global Warming doubters.
The Global Warming crowd would have been more effective if they didn't continually yell at people telling them that they are the problem. "Change now, lest you not be saved". Most "Fire and Brimstone" preachers have been replaced by more moderate discourse. Not so the Global Warming crowd. Except now they call it climate change.
Many people would have been ready to discuss climate change, but not whilst being yelled at. Maybe we should have spent these past many years learning how to live with climate change and developing skills and products that will let us thrive, rather than forcing radical behavioral changes.
I agree with you.
When people take a position that automatically is not open to discussion I am suspicious that they are powered by emotion, not reason. In the case of tobacco the Surgeon General spent a lengthy amount of time studying and then came to his conclusion. Not so climate change. The alarmists reached their conclusion with little or no study and then demanded public "action" right away, or else. All this occurred while flying to distant conclaves in such places as Kyoto, Cancun, Copenhagen or the like. The advocates s such as Al Gore justified their palatial mansion's footprint by "carbon credits" deriving from activism.
What makes me skeptical is that most of the remedy in accords such as Kyoto or Paris involve flows of funds, not remediation. The remediation demands are basically impossible to meet, triggering financial involvement. I think we all know what happens to unconstrained monetary transfers.
After the Arab oil embargo in the70's, and President Carter's support of developing alternative energy sources, including solar, the public was ready for a shift away from so much dependence on petrol. When less gasoline is being bought by the public, prices fall, they don't soar, even when supply is scarce. This was proven during the oil crisis of the early-to-mid 70's.
Looks to me like prices soared in the 1970's.
Average price of a gallon of gas in US:
1969 $0.35
1975 $0.57
1979 $0.86
1980 $1.19
I don't know about you, but I consider an increase of 63% from 1969 to 1975 a massive increase. Just because the numbers look low to us now, doesn't negate the massive percentage increase.
After the Arab oil embargo in the70's, and President Carter's support of developing alternative energy sources, including solar, the public was ready for a shift away from so much dependence on petrol. When less gasoline is being bought by the public, prices fall, they don't soar, even when supply is scarce. This was proven during the oil crisis of the early-to-mid 70's.
Looks to me like prices soared in the 1970's.
Average price of a gallon of gas in US:
1969 $0.35
1975 $0.57
1979 $0.86
1980 $1.19
I don't know about you, but I consider an increase of 63% from 1969 to 1975 a massive increase. Just because the numbers look low to us now, doesn't negate the massive percentage increase.
Most of that ramp-up and the accompanying shortages occurred because of controls.
Around the end of 1972, gasoline sold for around $0.399, or 40 cents a gallon, at mid-priced stations in my area, suburban New York area. Adjusted for inflation, that's around $2.30 a gallon, which is the price at less expensive stations in the area. The average is only slightly more, in the mid-$2.40's. The end of 1972 feels like a different world. While spot shortages appeared that spring, around May 1973, the legendary lines did not start until late November 1973. Free glasses and other mementos were still being freely given away. Companies were aggressively advertising for business. Remember for Exxon "we're changing our name but not our stripes," Mobil's "Mr. Dirt," and Sunoco's "believe you me I can be very friendly"?
Since then, we have gone through price controls, two periods of long gas lines, and prices that have soured as high as $4.46 in mid-2008, or $4.96 adjusted for inflation. In May 2019 gasoline ranged from a low of $2.15 at Costco to a few outliers just around $3, with the $2.40's being a ballpark.
I suspect gasoline will remain cheap. Some of this is because of the pandemic but as I just pointed out prices in pre-Covid May 2019 were not much higher. A little history, using New York area prices is in order. For all inflation adjustment I use https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. I us regular leaded through 1979 and regular unleaded thereafter.
Gas was around $0.399 at the end of 1972 ($2.41 in May 2019 prices), just before widespread spot shortages the next summer, followed by gas lines in the winter of 1973-4 set in. I remember gas being around $0.559 in spring 1975, my senior year of high and first really big driving year. That was also when prices returned to levels set by competition at the pump rather than controls, which had held down prices from roughly January 1973 on. That comes to around $2.71 a gallon in inflation adjusted dollars, not far from May 2019 prices and significantly above current prices.
After decontrol in 1981 the price dropped from about $1.59 for unleaded regular, or $4.71 in today's dollars, to around $1.19 a gallon in late 1982. That would be around $3.12 in today's dollars. After bouncing back to $1.39 during summer 1983, or $3.56 in today's dollars, the prices began gyrating in that rough range, until they took a decisive tumble from the end of 1985 to April 1986, to around $1.00 per gallon, or $2.34 in today's dollars. After returning to around $1.59 in late 1990 and early 1991 as a consequence of Iraq's conquest of Kuwait, the prices again fell to around $1.00 per gallon in late 1998 and early 1999 ($1.56 in today's dollars).
So that first cheap period, which really came to an end by the summer of 2002 ($1.83 at pumps, or $2.59 when adjusted for inflation) the price rose with some fluctuations in between to around $4.46, or $5.19 adjusted for inflation. Now, with some bounces lower we have been between about $2.55 and $2.79 a gallon in most of the last two years.
We first hit $2.79 on the upside in August 2005, and are now below that level at most area stations again.
So prices have essentially fluctuated in a range from around $2.30 a gallon to around $3.40 a gallon, with a few extreme spikes up (in summer 2008) and down (winter 1998-9), with a current dip resulting from the Covid pandemic. I see no reason why we shouldn't stay in the low end of that range, given abundant domestic and Canadian supplies.
How some of the world's most powerful interests made us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer, and how the same tactics were used to make us doubt climate change:
What if the same tactics were used to prove something is true?
Would that render the tactics invalid or more valid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina
Exon started a decades-long campaign to shape public opinion and to spread doubt about climate change. They are worried the public will take this on, and enact radical changes in the way we use energy and affect their business, that's the bottom line.
I see no evidence of that.
There are 168 oil refineries operating in the US.
Only 13 are owned by oil companies and half of those are foreign oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Citgo (Venezuela).
The remaining 155 oil refineries are owned and operated by Valero, Tesoro, Goodway, Hunt, Nustar, WRB, PDV, Frontier, Motiva and about a dozen others.
Those companies do not conduct exploration. They do not own oil or natural gas fields nor do they own the rights to oil or natural gas fields.
All they do is buy oil on the global market and refine it for various uses.
Additionally, the oil companies have pioneered alternative fuel and alternative energy resources. They spend and have spent literally $Billions on research and development of both alternative fuels and energy (fuels and energy are not the same thing).
So, why haven't they quashed R&D?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina
Rather than accept the scientific evidence, they made the decision to fight the facts.
Let us examine scientific facts:
Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.
Just to make sure we're clear on the concept, 12.5°C is 22.5°F warmer than present temperatures.
From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 °C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.
Again, to make sure we're clear on the concept, 4.0°C - 5.0°C is 7.2°F - 9.0°F.
Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
Please note the sources of those peer-reviewed scientific articles.
The sources are impeccable, meaning they cannot be impugned by claims of "oil industry publications" or "oil industry funded research."
Please note that the temperature in the previous Inter-Glacial Period was warmer than present.
Please note that sea levels were higher in previous Inter-Glacial Periods than present.
Taken together, those facts, and many others, refute the claims that are made.
Temperatures are supposed to rise, because this is an Inter-Glacial Period.
The temperatures are far less than other Inter-Glacial Periods.
Sea level rise is far less than other Inter-Glacial Periods.
The Greenland and Western Antarctic Ice Sheets normally melt during Inter-Glacial Periods.
The claim that temperatures in this Inter-Glacial Period should not rise higher than they are now is scientifically invalid and refuted by evidence from other Inter-Glacial Periods.
That does not mean the climate is not changing. It certainly is, but it is not caused by humans.
Will we be inconvenienced by sea level rise?
Sure, but it is not my fault humans built cities on coastal areas before humans fully understood how the Earth works.
Perhaps if we had known 2,000 years ago of the existence of a Glacial Age we would not have been so short-sighted as to build cities three feet from the high tide mark thinking the sea level would never change.
Global warming is preferable to global cooling.
Global warming will not kill anyone, but global cooling will kill 100s of Millions of people and ruin the economies of every country on Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
When less gasoline is being bought by the public, prices fall, they don't soar, even when supply is scarce. This was proven during the oil crisis of the early-to-mid 70's.
Gasoline is not oil, but it is made from oil.
As I mentioned, there are 168 oil refineries, but only 16 produce gasoline.
What do the other 155 oil refineries produce? Your Life-Style.
What we can infer from that is your gasoline supply is fixed.
No matter what happens, you can only produce X amount of gasoline per year and not one drop more.
The only way to produce more gasoline is to build new refineries dedicated to gasoline production or stop producing the things for your Life-Style to produce gasoline.
Take triethanolamine.
It is made from oil and used for liquid laundry detergent.
If you stop refining triethanolamine from oil, then you can no longer buy liquid laundry detergent anywhere in the US, unless you import either triethanolomine, or liquid laundry detergent, or both from other countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillie767
Looks to me like prices soared in the 1970's.
Average price of a gallon of gas in US:
1969 $0.35
1975 $0.57
1979 $0.86
1980 $1.19
I don't know about you, but I consider an increase of 63% from 1969 to 1975 a massive increase. Just because the numbers look low to us now, doesn't negate the massive percentage increase.
What if the same tactics were used to prove something is true?
Would that render the tactics invalid or more valid?
I see no evidence of that.
There are 168 oil refineries operating in the US. More like 135
Only 13 are owned by oil companies and half of those are foreign oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Citgo (Venezuela).
The remaining 155 oil refineries are owned and operated by Valero, Tesoro, Goodway, Hunt, Nustar, WRB, PDV, Frontier, Motiva and about a dozen others.
Those companies do not conduct exploration. They do not own oil or natural gas fields nor do they own the rights to oil or natural gas fields.
All they do is buy oil on the global market and refine it for various uses.
Additionally, the oil companies have pioneered alternative fuel and alternative energy resources. They spend and have spent literally $Billions on research and development of both alternative fuels and energy (fuels and energy are not the same thing).
So, why haven't they quashed R&D?
Gasoline is not oil, but it is made from oil.
As I mentioned, there are 168 oil refineries, but only 16 produce gasoline.
What do the other 155 oil refineries produce? Your Life-Style.
What we can infer from that is your gasoline supply is fixed.
No matter what happens, you can only produce X amount of gasoline per year and not one drop more.
The only way to produce more gasoline is to build new refineries dedicated to gasoline production or stop producing the things for your Life-Style to produce gasoline.
Take triethanolamine.
It is made from oil and used for liquid laundry detergent.
If you stop refining triethanolamine from oil, then you can no longer buy liquid laundry detergent anywhere in the US, unless you import either triethanolomine, or liquid laundry detergent, or both from other countries.
Good point.
There are more like 135 refineries according top the Energy Information Administration.
Every refinery makes gasoline, it's unavoidable. Where did the 16 number come from?
Before we get any deeper into this discussion of How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin, someone should first prove there actually is any Global Warming.
If you examine the temperature records provided by several different proxy measures over the last 2000 yrs set out this article, among many other places,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbr.../#77932e56f148 ...you'll see that no temperature deviates more than 2 SD from the mean for the period, ie-- temperatures have been statistically stable for 2000 yrs, varying in a pseudo-cyclic manor within a normal range.
Maybe we should hold this discussion off anyway until next May-- just to see who survives the cold of this winter's La Nina.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
