$4/gallon gas in 2011

An electric econobox with a 40mile range is a joke.

BUT the trend is clear: Won't be too long before you can get a 3/4 ton with an electric drive. After all. . five years ago a "hybrid SUV" was also a joke.

now all we need are the nuke plants to power the things. . . .
 
Com,
I'm going to get very technical on your nuclear solution. Nuclear plants are base load generation meaning they have to pretty much operate at a constant output level. Electrical load in a 24 hour cycle is not level so load following and peak generation is required to most efficiently meet load. Coal and gas fired units provide this capability. A nuclear unit currently has a higher capital cost per MW than the other two meaning more costly to ratepayers. However off-peak load like recharging electric powered cars overnight has the potential to make nukes more cost effective by providing load leveling on a 24 hour cycle. Other load leveling measures that are already in use like cycling air conditioners and electric water heaters are a couple of examples. Installing scrubbers and low NOx burners on coal plants are also many times lower cost than nukes resulting in lower costs to ratepayers. I just don't agree with you that nukes should replace existing coal plants from an economic perspective. From an environmental perspective you'd win the argument as long as the Feds find a nuclear waste disposal site. Obama pulled the plug on Yucca Flats after billions have been spent on the site.
 
320Bob said:
Com,
I'm going to get very technical on your nuclear solution. Nuclear plants are base load generation meaning they have to pretty much operate at a constant output level. Electrical load in a 24 hour cycle is not level so load following and peak generation is required to most efficiently meet load. Coal and gas fired units provide this capability. A nuclear unit currently has a higher capital cost per MW than the other two meaning more costly to ratepayers. However off-peak load like recharging electric powered cars overnight has the potential to make nukes more cost effective by providing load leveling on a 24 hour cycle. Other load leveling measures that are already in use like cycling air conditioners and electric water heaters are a couple of examples. Installing scrubbers and low NOx burners on coal plants are also many times lower cost than nukes resulting in lower costs to ratepayers. I just don't agree with you that nukes should replace existing coal plants from an economic perspective. From an environmental perspective you'd win the argument as long as the Feds find a nuclear waste disposal site. Obama pulled the plug on Yucca Flats after billions have been spent on the site.
Click to expand...
Bob,

You raise some interesting points, however, your comparison is somewhat unfair in that you are citing /MWhr opex costs for nuclear plants built decades ago. The new designs operate with much higher efficiency and are more than competitive with fossil plants. The challenge for nuclear is in construction cost, which will be mitigated in the long run as more vendors, suppliers, and lenders re-enter the market.
 
I used capital costs to refer to construction costs not MWH operating costs so I believe you and I are in agreement. Standardizing on a single design like the French and some others have done would reduce or stabilize nuke construction costs compared to what was done in the past.
 
comsnark said:
An electric econobox with a 40mile range is a joke.

BUT the trend is clear: Won't be too long before you can get a 3/4 ton with an electric drive. After all. . five years ago a "hybrid SUV" was also a joke.

now all we need are the nuke plants to power the things. . . .
Click to expand...


It takes a lot of energy to tow a cruiser. Under current technology a battery of sufficient power to move heavy loads would be huge and too heavy for payload.

MM
 
Last edited:
Louisiana Oil & Gas Association

As crude oil prices hover around $90 a barrel and gasoline at an average of $3.00 per gallon according to AAA, it appears that many analysts are predicting even higher prices for 2011.
Due to growing global demand, analysts from companies such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan, and Merrill Lynch all see oil prices climbing to $100 in 2011. As well, other analysts are predicting even higher prices. Economist Dian L. Chu is predicting crude could hit $110 to $115 a barrel in March of 2011. In a recent blog post Chu wrote, “At that level, gasoline at the pump could hit $3.70-$3.80 a gallon range.”
On a recent CBS talk show, Former Shell Oil president John Hofmesiter predicts that world oil supplies will tighten and gasoline prices will hit $5.00 in 2012. In his opinion, these price increases are caused by competition and growth of the emerging economies of China and India. “We’re right back to where we were in 2007 and 2008, in terms of U.S. demand. What’s different this time, however, is that Asia’s demand is much, much higher than two years ago,” said Hofmesiter.
World crude oil production has leveled off in the past 3 years in the range of 85 million barrels per day, indicating peak oil has arrived. In the 1970’s, the U.S. produced 10 million barrels per day. Currently, the U.S. consumes 20 million barrels a day and produces a mere 7 million. Instead of producing more oil to meet our demand, the unfortunate scenario is that we’re producing less.
Growing U.S. oil production would have a significant and beneficial impact on oil and gasoline prices in our country. The big question is, “Why are prices increasing and are we doing enough here at home to thwart these inevitable increases?” Unfortunately, instead of sustaining our demand through domestic production, policy makers keep 90% of our Outer Continental Shelf resources off limits. Additionally, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is shut down and the next five-year federal leasing plan has been postponed until 2017.
Rising prices in an economic recession can be a confusing scenario. It’s important to understand how this could occur and how the coming price increases are indications of a larger global issue.
Many will suggest that speculators play a part in rising prices, as was the case when oil prices hit a record of $147. Speculators will always have some degree of price impact in any commodity market. However, we see a greater issue here at work: oil supply vs. oil demand.
The truth is that oil is finite and rising global demand is unsustainable at current production rates. Simply put, world supplies of crude production can’t keep up pace with skyrocketing global demand. While U.S. demand for oil remains flat, demand for oil continues to rise in developing economies such as India and China. This rising demand, lack of supply, and continued production decline is the root of continued price increases and is driving the global market today. Peak oil is real and prices will continue to rise as global production continues to decline. For the sake of our country and our way of life, we must seek policies that increase our access to produce domestic energy and establish sound policies that address the coming energy crisis.
 
320Bob said:
Com,
I'm going to get very technical on your nuclear solution. Nuclear plants are base load generation meaning they have to pretty much operate at a constant output level. Electrical load in a 24 hour cycle is not level so load following and peak generation is required to most efficiently meet load. Coal and gas fired units provide this capability. A nuclear unit currently has a higher capital cost per MW than the other two meaning more costly to ratepayers. However off-peak load like recharging electric powered cars overnight has the potential to make nukes more cost effective by providing load leveling on a 24 hour cycle. Other load leveling measures that are already in use like cycling air conditioners and electric water heaters are a couple of examples. Installing scrubbers and low NOx burners on coal plants are also many times lower cost than nukes resulting in lower costs to ratepayers. I just don't agree with you that nukes should replace existing coal plants from an economic perspective. From an environmental perspective you'd win the argument as long as the Feds find a nuclear waste disposal site. Obama pulled the plug on Yucca Flats after billions have been spent on the site.
Click to expand...

We agree far more on this topic than we disagree.

The Capital, Fuel, and Legal costs all go into the $/MW figure that we pay for power. For nuclear, the Legal costs are astronomical and are a true hinderance to that technology. If you waved the magic wand and made it go away, the overall cost for nuclear power would be much lower and competitive.

Once built, nuclear power is very cheap which is why the units are baseloaded as you state; and the more expensive (on a fuel basis) coal and gas plants are turned back.

And yes. . my argument against coal is environmental. The plants are dirty; getting the coal is a nasty business as well. From an economic perspective; the cheapest plant is the one that is running today. Shutting down existing coal plants that have already been retrofitted is definately a pipe dream from an economic perspective.
 
twyant said:
World crude oil production has leveled off in the past 3 years in the range of 85 million barrels per day, indicating peak oil has arrived. In the 1970’s, the U.S. produced 10 million barrels per day. Currently, the U.S. consumes 20 million barrels a day and produces a mere 7 million. Instead of producing more oil to meet our demand, the unfortunate scenario is that we’re producing less
Click to expand...

That's the important part, right there. The "peak oil" theory was cooked up by the left to induce this very situation with the price of gasoline. It has been the blueprint for the push to reduce the use of oil and other fossil fuels, and increase the use of "green" energy sources (which don't exist yet).

There is a classic bait and switch going on here. The "Peak Oil" theory originally stated that the actual supply of oil that we could pump out of the Earth would max out, leaving us with no more oil left to pump out. However, the article stating that we have reached PO is correct only to the extent that we have stopped pumping it out of the ground. We haven't "run out" of oil, we simply won't go get it out of the ground.

Open up ANWR and all of the other oil fields that we know are out there and pump them at max capacity until they're dry. By the time that happens in another 200 years or so, we might actually have a "green" energy source that is a viable replacement for oil.

The fix to the global price of oil is simple. The oil under and around the continental US is already owned by the citizens of the US as a whole. It is already "paid for".We could completely eliminate the global oil market by simply not buying any foreign oil, and NOT exporting a drop. Simply issue permits for US companies to extract and refine it. Their profit would be the margin based on the costs of extracting, transporting, storing, distributing, and selling it at the pumps.

Of course if we were to eliminate all of the current federal and state taxes on all fuels, we'de be paying about $1.50 a gallon right now anyway. So there is an easy fix right there.
 
comsnark said:
For nuclear, the Legal costs are astronomical and are a true hinderance to that technology. If you waved the magic wand and made it go away, the overall cost for nuclear power would be much lower and competitive.
Click to expand...

Wow, I agree with you on this. This is the same "problem" we have with the health care system. And civil aviation, and... well... you get the point. I'm seeing a trend here.
 
A great question for Secretary Salazar and the Administration is this, “Are we truly on a responsible path to meeting our nation’s energy needs when we limit access to over 99% of our nation’s offshore oil and gas reserves?” Better yet, “If we shut off access to these vital resources, where are we going to get it?” Supply and demand economics are fairly simple to understand. If you limit access to create supply and the demand for oil continues to rise not only here at home but significantly in developing countries around the world, the obvious repercussion of this policy will result in higher energy prices for all Americans.
In reality, the Obama plan to expand offshore drilling was just that, a plan. Technically, the Administration has nothing to rescind given that Congress gave no approval to open these areas for oil and gas exploration. The announcement to shut off offshore access is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and political posturing.Although the expansion of new areas in offshore production are extremely important, at the moment, the most pressing issue the Administration should be working towards is alleviating the permitting gridlock caused by the recent deepwater drilling moratorium. In his comments on the Administration’s decision, Secretary Salazar claimed, “We believe the most appropriate course of action is to focus development on areas with existing leases and not expand to new areas at this time.” If it is the intention of the Administration to focus on areas already open for exploration, it is imperative that they ensure an adequate and streamlined permitting process and remove the de facto moratorium that is stifling growth in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the end, the continuation of a failed energy policy that shuts off access to our vast offshore reserves will pave the future road with higher energy prices, drastic unemployment, and will perpetuate our insatiable dependency on foreign sources of energy.
 
sfergson727 said:
First step for energy independance: Abolish Lawyers! (and the EPA)
Click to expand...

I am with you on the lawyers.

Not so much on the EPA. Personally, I kinda like having air I can breathe and water I can drink.

You can argue if the EPA is too restrictive or too political. . but without the EPA this country would be alot more like China -> which is not a good thing.
 
sfergson727 said:
I don't think that is true. We have enough educated people here to ensure that we wouldn't go the way of China without the EPA. Like it or not, public pursuation works.
Click to expand...

I work in the petrochemical industry (not an oil company) We do all the "responsible care" stuff. We have lots of Green advertising. We pride ourselves on it. We sell environmental sevices as well. Green Green Green and smiling frogs on lilly pads and happy safe workers all around with daisies on their shoes.

I can tell you for a fact that we wouldn't spend fifteen cents to provide any "pollution controls" not required by the letter of the law. Legal minimum requirements do vary region by region; and our manufacturing plants are specifically designed to the letter of the law. If we can "value engineer" pollution controls (water and air pollution) out of a plant and still meet the law -> we will do it. To EXCEED legal minimum requirements would place us at a notable competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, and would be a disservice to our stockholders. Even WITHOUT competition, spending money without economic benefit would negatively affect ROI (return on investment), and would be a disservice to our stockholders.

NOx and SOx control in one of our facilites cost a few million bucks to install. You can bet your sweet behind the equipment wouldn't be there if not legally required. I know. I have worked on the design of facilities that have specifically excluded the equipment. Such equipment costs a maybe $50K per year to run in a plant that has utility bills in the $50M range. If we could legally do so. . we would shut it down in an instant. Without question. Without a second thought. An oily water seperator for waste water costs like $10k and like nothing to operate. I can also ensure you that for places where the waste water permit doesn't require them. . . they ain't there.

Frankly . . we don't mind the EPA. They provide a level playing field. The legal requirements apply to both ourselves and our commercial competitors. The cost of the environmental stuff (capital, operating, and legal) gets passed to the customers directly, as a cost of doing business, and we all advertise about how green we are.

Green Green Green. And I assure you that our PAC groups don't fund environmentally minded liberals. Unless those Liberals support something that we think we can make money selling.
 
Last edited:
I sure hope we do not turn this thread into a political thread. It's interesting to see what people are paying or think they will be paying for fuel this summer.
We had a marina by use Big Bay Point and they had a great deal with their boaters. You could pre buy your fuel over the winter when it was at a low point. They had a limit but I forget how much, I think 1500 gallons but could be wrong. The deal was done through their supplier of fuel, you got a fuel card that you used at their pumps that worked like a debit card but it was based on gallons not the price per gallon. Being tied to that marina was fine if you did not leave Simcoe as we did for 5 years. It was a win win for everyone, no big fuel bills once a month over the summer, the marina is buying in bulk and getting a better break on the per gallon price and so is the supplier. The marina did this for years right up to when they sold to a developer that has torn it down and is building a huge development on the site.

Ken
 
Well after what I just put a deposit on I hope fuel prices don't go ridiculously high. I am taking her for a sea trial tomorrow morning. I probably wont be wanted on the forum though as I missed out on the Sea Ray I was coming to look at, it sold this morning just before I arrived. :) But I got an excellent deal on a Silverton 360 with shaft drives. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,253
Messages
1,429,366
Members
61,131
Latest member
VaBreeze
Back
Top