Whatever happened to lower priced diesel after winter? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cphilip · #31 04-13-2008, 11:39 AM

.... add to the list of causes... increased cost of producing low sulfur Fuel and Market Speculators...

showme · #32 04-13-2008, 11:56 AM

The oil prices lately have not been based on supply and demand, nor how hard it is to come by. If you've ever seen the movie on the Enron scam, "Enron-The Smartest Guys In The Room", you will know exactly what's happening. The stock market traders have utilized Enron's idea of bidding on supposed "futures", imagined possible worth of a barrel of oil, and are having a field day. Profits for the oil companies are unimaginable and should be illegal. The only negative thing we hear about oil prices from Wall Street is that the "earnings" for a particular quarter aren't as high as expected. Boo-hoo.
Winter heating oil, storms in the Gulf of Mexico, a fire in a refinery are all factored in, and if the consuming public are real idiots, great reasons to use for higher prices. The price per barrel is because opportunists, as were exposed at Enron, are bidding the price further and further UP. I actually heard it reported truthfully on the news the other day. A reporter actually said it, which is scary, since the news organizations are owned and tweaked by the large corporations that are taking us all to the cleaners daily.
I know a guy who's uncle is one of the main engineers over 7 gulf coast oil rigs. He told my friend that when Katrina hit, it was reported by his oil company that over half of them were out of service. He says that all were working fine, and that it was a lie to increase profits, which he was totally against. Until we get together and cause major inconveniences to these companies, as they do in Europe when they're getting screwed by the government and business, the profit taking will continue. The US has become so apathetic!! We are fish in a barrel, and the oil companies can't believe their luck. If you haven't seen "Enron, The Smartest Guys In the Room", rent it (or buy it and let others watch it, as I have), and you can see where these prices have come from. They will bid it up as long as no one makes them stop. Where the hell are our paid congressmen?? I believe they're getting a second income from somewhere besides their constituents. Or maybe they don't have to pay for their own fuel.

TimFreeh · #33 04-13-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

The Shoreham plant (long island) was actually stopped (purchased) by the local government, not federal regulation (they were granted a low power license and actually operated). The regulatory process is rigorous (as it should be), but that's not the hold up today.

I know it wasn't federal regulation that killed shoreham, thats why I said local citizen objections brought it down - AFTER it had all been approved and built. Do you think this was wise decision? Do you think it was fair to the utility that spent (thanks for the correction) billions of dollars to develop the site?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Regarding the time frame for construction, I don't think you understand their complexity. It takes significantly longer than 2 years to just to procure the major equipment (how many people in the world do you think are capable of fabricating reactor vessels today?). It takes close to two years just to complete start-up testing after they are completely built, these are very complicated facilities.

I'll certainly admit I know very little about building a nuclear reactor but is it even a little bit possible that maybe it not quite as hard as you think it is? Remember the WW2 analogy? Maybe you are could be done a little faster if we had a streamlined approval process? There should be 1 or 2 designs that are replicated all over the country - and there should be a lot less weight given to the NIMBY crowd and the environmental lobby. I live approximately 30 miles (line of site) to a nuclear plant and on most days I can see the steam from the cooling towers, if they wanted to build another one in my backyard it would be fine with me.

Given the bureacrazy, red-tape and environmental laws in our country I'm amazed that fuel is as cheap as it is - and I agree with Hattie unless we change our ways you can expect to see Diesel in the $6-7 dollar range in the not too distant future.

Did I read your statement correctly? You were involved is a DESIGN that cost 5 billion dollars?

dagObx · #34 04-13-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by showme

The oil prices lately have not been based on supply and demand, nor how hard it is to come by. If you've ever seen the movie on the Enron scam, "Enron-The Smartest Guys In The Room", you will know exactly what's happening. The stock market traders have utilized Enron's idea of bidding on supposed "futures", imagined possible worth of a barrel of oil, and are having a field day. Profits for the oil companies are unimaginable and should be illegal. The only negative thing we hear about oil prices from Wall Street is that the "earnings" for a particular quarter aren't as high as expected. Boo-hoo.
Winter heating oil, storms in the Gulf of Mexico, a fire in a refinery are all factored in, and if the consuming public are real idiots, great reasons to use for higher prices. The price per barrel is because opportunists, as were exposed at Enron, are bidding the price further and further UP. I actually heard it reported truthfully on the news the other day. A reporter actually said it, which is scary, since the news organizations are owned and tweaked by the large corporations that are taking us all to the cleaners daily.
I know a guy who's uncle is one of the main engineers over 7 gulf coast oil rigs. He told my friend that when Katrina hit, it was reported by his oil company that over half of them were out of service. He says that all were working fine, and that it was a lie to increase profits, which he was totally against. Until we get together and cause major inconveniences to these companies, as they do in Europe when they're getting screwed by the government and business, the profit taking will continue. The US has become so apathetic!! We are fish in a barrel, and the oil companies can't believe their luck. If you haven't seen "Enron, The Smartest Guys In the Room", rent it (or buy it and let others watch it, as I have), and you can see where these prices have come from. They will bid it up as long as no one makes them stop. Where the hell are our paid congressmen?? I believe they're getting a second income from somewhere besides their constituents. Or maybe they don't have to pay for their own fuel.

I don't think many people are tracking the oil futures market on this forum. If you were, you would know that THIS is EXACTLY the reason we are all paying high-$$ at the pump.

I was employed at a company that also had a gas station. I have been tracking this speculator-driven crap for better than a year. When the dollar slumps overseas & the stock market doesn't perform the way the investors want it to, the it's off to oil futures they go. Even the futures analysts say that oil is over-priced, thanks in large part to the speculators.

Go to Yahoo.com & look in the Business News section. If there's nothing about it in that, do a search for "oil & gas prices". Your eyes will be opened by the articles there telling it like it is......

Hatterasguy · #35 04-13-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

You are entitled to your opinion, but I've been in the nuclear power business for almost 30 years and I'm telling you how the process really works. They don't cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" (if they did we would have a lot more than we do now). The cost will be in the multi-billion dollars for the next plants (the last original plant design I was involved with in the 80s cost about $5 billion by the time it was completed).

There were/are plenty of NIMBYs, but the real obstacle has always been funding. The 2007 energy bill included some federal loan guarantees, which is partially responsible for the current crop of new applications. The Shoreham plant (long island) was actually stopped (purchased) by the local government, not federal regulation (they were granted a low power license and actually operated). The regulatory process is rigorous (as it should be), but that's not the hold up today.

Regarding the time frame for construction, I don't think you understand their complexity. It takes significantly longer than 2 years to just to procure the major equipment (how many people in the world do you think are capable of fabricating reactor vessels today?). It takes close to two years just to complete start-up testing after they are completely built, these are very complicated facilities. Even china (with full government support) is not going to build them much faster, although their total construction time will probably be less than the u.s. Realistically, we may see new u.s. plants on-line in the 10-15 year time frame (which should get them operating before the end of the current plants' lives, about 2030).

China like Russia probably cuts a lot of corners, I'm sure their plants are dangerious junk compared to ours.

#36 04-13-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

Did I read your statement correctly? You were involved is a DESIGN that cost 5 billion dollars?

I was primarily involved in the design, the entire project cost was around $5 billion. As I recall the engineering company's (my ex-employer) total bill was less than one billion, but it was certainly in the $100s of million range (we are talking about 1980s dollars).

Yes, I agree that the design/approval/construction process can be somewhat streamlined, and standardizing the design is an important aspect of reducing the cost. However, you have to remember that the u.s. (unlike france) does not have government owned utilities that can agree on a single "cookie cutter" design. There are two major nuclear supply system designers (and a host of smaller ones) who are competing for this business. Each of these supplies is trying to develop "generic" designs that will require a minimum of site-specific engineering In my personal opinion, the first few plants will be relatively expensive and slow, but they will get more efficient as time goes on. Don't expect miracles, we may see the construction time reduced by a few years, but we won't see any on-line in 5 years. I would be surprised to see a new one operating by 2015, but 2020 is probably reasonable (I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it). The real question is; where will we be by 2050? I would like to see the number of u.s. operating plants double or triple to about 200-300 units by then (that's probably optimistic). We will also have to get serious about fuel production and waste storage before we get too far down this road, we have to look at the whole system.

I do understand the WW2 example, but we are not talking about PT boats, jeeps, and B-29s; these are very complex designs that require specialized components (many of which are only available from a couple of worldwide sources) and have a design life of 40-60 years. Building one of these is more like the effort required to put a new airline design in service. Also, there is a significant shortage of qualified personnel in the u.s. at the moment; the majority of people who were involved in previous u.s. projects are retired (or close to retirement). It will probably take about a decade to rebuild the talent pool.

#37 04-13-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

China like Russia probably cuts a lot of corners, I'm sure their plants are dangerious junk compared to ours.

I hope not, the current plants are being largely designed/built by western companies (with lots of local labor). The last thing that the industry needs is an event in a western designed plant anyplace in the world. There is just too much money on the table to let that happen.

I will be more concerned about the potential of china building future plants on their own, sorta like the prospect of china independently building airliners.

pawoSD · #38 04-13-2008, 03:30 PM

I'd never set foot in a Chinese car....let alone a plane!

We're at the tipping point of the foundations of the economy vs. energy supply. The next few years will likely give a good glimpse of whats going to happen in the future. If diesel is $7 by next year then there's going to be a LOT of inflation in most markets (since diesel moves just about everything)....and it will cause a ton of problems or even economic downfall.

#39 04-13-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawoSD

I'd never set foot in a Chinese car....let alone a plane!

Oh come on, you know you want a brand new Chery!

Its just as safe as American vehicles.

Hatterasguy · #40 04-13-2008, 08:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGr38YSIn4&feature=related

How its supposed to look, as usual Lexus delivers impecable results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEG_T2LYf88&feature=related
Or the 3 series, notice the side impact airbags doing their thing, again perfect results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Ts94rjr4M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo&feature=related
A quality Chinese car.

The Chinese have a lot of people, so if some die in car accidents they really don't care...

I'll take the BMW thank you very much.

lietuviai · #41 04-13-2008, 08:53 PM

Smart car crash test.

dxpoo · #42 04-13-2008, 09:23 PM

Ethanol as it is now is a crock, yes... However, there's a lot of research going on right now about cellulosic ethanol (I'm in the field as a microbiologist and work with an enzyme biochemist on it). The key to ethanol, or any other biofuel is don't make it out of something you need for something else, like food. The demand is far too high. Make it from trash, wood waste, crop waste etc.

Also, don't put all your eggs in one basket. A combined approach of cellulosic ethanol, microbially mediated cellulosic hydrogen, and algae biodiesel will make a pretty significant impact on things.

Nothing will replace oil however until we understand that we don't have a supply problem so much as a consumption problem. New fuel sources, as well as stemming our needs will be the only solution, but we have the automakers suing CARB and other states that try to impose stricter fuel economy standards....

Ford and GM's business model and profitability is not my concern, and should they collapse from the "great expense" of getting a few more MPG from their 4000lb cars, then so be it. Capitalism is a ***** sometimes. Everybody wants it until things get shaky and then comes the fascism of the Federal bailout

Funny thing we learned from the Congressional Oil Company hearings... The oil companies get billions a year from the government to research alternate energy sources, and the largest of them, Exxon, uses it to *drumroll* finance exploratory drilling...

That has nothing to do with domestic production capacity, now does it? Seems like they're using Federal research subsidies to secure downstream revenue channels to me.