• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if the AGW scare is to protect the price of fossil fuel?

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
66,537
Reaction score
22,180
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Seriously...

Any intelligent person who has given a casual glance at the world development and fossil fuel usage, supply and demand, etc. see that it is getting more expensive to extract, and at some near future point, the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket.

What of differing ideas are attempting to mitigate this from a different point of view?

The democrats, maybe want to buy into carbon credit stocks and pretend they are caring, and the republicans maybe want to find more inexpensive fuel?

I would be curious, that under the idea for security of our nation, do you believe each side is doing about such a possibility.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Seriously...

Any intelligent person who has given a casual glance at the world development and fossil fuel usage, supply and demand, etc. see that it is getting more expensive to extract, and at some near future point, the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket.

What of differing ideas are attempting to mitigate this from a different point of view?

The democrats, maybe want to buy into carbon credit stocks and pretend they are caring, and the republicans maybe want to find more inexpensive fuel?

I would be curious, that under the idea for security of our nation, do you believe each side is doing about such a possibility.
Click to expand...

My prototype wind turbine made it's first small spin today which in an 8mph wind when facing mostly the wrong way, I have yet to sort out the rotation of the main wind collecting shed thingy, is not at all bad.
 
What if the AGW scare is to protect the price of fossil fuel?
Click to expand...

Do you truly not see how absurd it is to at once (1) promote ideas and ways to cut back on fossil fuel use and (2) do so to "protect the price of fossil fuel?" Surely you realize that the price of a commodity that people are being dissuaded from using is irrelevant. Control of supply is a tactic applicable to monopolistically competitive goods, not commodity goods; commodity sellers/producers are price takers, not price makers.

Were you smoking dope when you came up with that notion?

  1. [*=1]"Use renewable sources of energy."
    [*=1]Using renewable energy sources reduces demand of fossil fuels. (Shifts demand down/leftward)

    Z4ZMY.png


    Notice that P2 is lower than P1. That's what happens when demand and supply both shift "down"/left.

    3-3%20Equilbrium_06.jpg

    The above is when demand drops and supply stays the same.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Seriously...

Any intelligent person who has given a casual glance at the world development and fossil fuel usage, supply and demand, etc. see that it is getting more expensive to extract, and at some near future point, the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket.

What of differing ideas are attempting to mitigate this from a different point of view?

The democrats, maybe want to buy into carbon credit stocks and pretend they are caring, and the republicans maybe want to find more inexpensive fuel?

I would be curious, that under the idea for security of our nation, do you believe each side is doing about such a possibility.
Click to expand...

At some point in the near future the price of fossil fuels will plummet. Very near future, and being from a country that makes much of it's GDP from oil production, this is discomforting.
The advances in electric and alternate-fueled transportation will be geometric in the next few years and by 2040 the whole transportation industry will be unrecognizable to someone from today.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Seriously...

Any intelligent person who has given a casual glance at the world development and fossil fuel usage, supply and demand, etc. see that it is getting more expensive to extract, and at some near future point, the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket.

What of differing ideas are attempting to mitigate this from a different point of view?

The democrats, maybe want to buy into carbon credit stocks and pretend they are caring, and the republicans maybe want to find more inexpensive fuel?

I would be curious, that under the idea for security of our nation, do you believe each side is doing about such a possibility.
Click to expand...

Other than blaming Democrats and praising Republicans, because of course, that theory makes no sense at all.

If you were worried about the price of fossil fuels spiking because of dwindling supply ever more expensive to extract, and wanted to protect the country from the damage of skyrocketing fossil fuel costs, wouldn't you want to, TODAY, begin a swift transition from the soon to be prohibitively expensive fossil fuels to renewables?
 
Grand Mal said:
At some point in the near future the price of fossil fuels will plummet. Very near future, and being from a country that makes much of it's GDP from oil production, this is discomforting.
The advances in electric and alternate-fueled transportation will be geometric in the next few years and by 2040 the whole transportation industry will be unrecognizable to someone from today.
Click to expand...
I see it a bit differently.
I do not think the price of oil will plummet, but it will hit a hard ceiling and oscillate around there.
At some point the price of oil will be high enough that the greater profits for the refineries will be had by
buying wholesale electricity and making their feedstock from water, and atmospheric CO2.
That balance will mostly affect the newer higher priced oil, the old sources will continue to produce
a lower final cost of goods sold.
Most large refineries have co generation facilities, and as such have large electrical grid connections.
(Here is an example from Alberta, just east of Edmonton.)
Strathcona refinery cogeneration unit and related electrical facilities
As alternative energies come online, they will need some way to handle the large supply swings.
The Norther latitudes with their longer summer days will make the swings worse.
The Refinery can buy the wholesale surplus electricity, and produce fuel for their normal distribution infrastructure.
It would start with only a small portion of the refinery turning out man made fuel, but the ratio
would change as the supplies of cheap oil run down.
With a hard ceiling on oil prices, the more exotic and expensive extraction processes would become uneconomical.
( I am not sure where the tar sands fall in this.)
If the price of oil drops because of over supply, the refinery will change the ratio, back to more oil,
which will increase the demand.
 
Wow. Such unenlightened responses so far.
 
JasperL said:
Other than blaming Democrats and praising Republicans, because of course, that theory makes no sense at all.

If you were worried about the price of fossil fuels spiking because of dwindling supply ever more expensive to extract, and wanted to protect the country from the damage of skyrocketing fossil fuel costs, wouldn't you want to, TODAY, begin a swift transition from the soon to be prohibitively expensive fossil fuels to renewables?
Click to expand...

Please explicitly tell me what you disageree with.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please explicitly tell me what you disageree with.
Click to expand...

Your entire comment makes no sense, so I'm having trouble understanding your point enough to specifically disagree with anything in it other than you assign bad motives to Democrats and noble motives to Republicans, which is unsurprising. I'll leave it here unless you want to explain a bit because I'm lost....
 
Grand Mal said:
At some point in the near future the price of fossil fuels will plummet. Very near future, and being from a country that makes much of it's GDP from oil production, this is discomforting.
The advances in electric and alternate-fueled transportation will be geometric in the next few years and by 2040 the whole transportation industry will be unrecognizable to someone from today.
Click to expand...

Yep, combined with self driving vehicles whic will be able to go off and sort out their own recharging whilst you are at work we are currently in the stone age.

Well, OK, horse age.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yep, combined with self driving vehicles whic will be able to go off and sort out their own recharging whilst you are at work we are currently in the stone age.

Well, OK, horse age.
Click to expand...

It's gonna make changes in society like the end of the horse age.
For one thing, you could drive one of those electric vehicles inside.
I think the recharging thing is down to minutes instead of hours, but given that my tools have batteries I swap out for a recharged one I think that problem is about to be solved.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Seriously...

Any intelligent person who has given a casual glance at the world development and fossil fuel usage, supply and demand, etc. see that it is getting more expensive to extract, and at some near future point, the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket.

What of differing ideas are attempting to mitigate this from a different point of view?

The democrats, maybe want to buy into carbon credit stocks and pretend they are caring, and the republicans maybe want to find more inexpensive fuel?

I would be curious, that under the idea for security of our nation, do you believe each side is doing about such a possibility.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that "the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket" anytime soon.
 
JasperL said:
Your entire comment makes no sense, so I'm having trouble understanding your point enough to specifically disagree with anything in it other than you assign bad motives to Democrats and noble motives to Republicans, which is unsurprising. I'll leave it here unless you want to explain a bit because I'm lost....
Click to expand...

In my view, I gave one of several reasons possible for each side. I don't know it as fact. It would explain motives of each side. Different democrats obviously have their own reasons. Another reason some may want to reduce fossil fuel usage is they want to make sure they have emergency supplies. Some may want to have another leash on the public.

What are the views do you believe republicans have?
 
Xelor said:
Do you truly not see how absurd it is to at once (1) promote ideas and ways to cut back on fossil fuel use and (2) do so to "protect the price of fossil fuel?" Surely you realize that the price of a commodity that people are being dissuaded from using is irrelevant. Control of supply is a tactic applicable to monopolistically competitive goods, not commodity goods; commodity sellers/producers are price takers, not price makers.

Were you smoking dope when you came up with that notion?

  1. [*=1]"Use renewable sources of energy."
    [*=1]Using renewable energy sources reduces demand of fossil fuels. (Shifts demand down/leftward)

    Z4ZMY.png


    Notice that P2 is lower than P1. That's what happens when demand and supply both shift "down"/left.

    3-3%20Equilbrium_06.jpg

    The above is when demand drops and supply stays the same.
Click to expand...

SIAP. While production of renewable energy hasn't reached the level to compete with fossil fuel, the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's.:doh
 
cabse5 said:
SIAP. While production of renewable energy hasn't reached the level to compete with fossil fuel, the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's.:doh
Click to expand...

Untill renewable technology comes along with something that makes electricity much cheaper than coal.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Seriously...

Any intelligent person who has given a casual glance at the world development and fossil fuel usage, supply and demand, etc. see that it is getting more expensive to extract, and at some near future point, the price of fossil fuels will skyrocket.

What of differing ideas are attempting to mitigate this from a different point of view?

The democrats, maybe want to buy into carbon credit stocks and pretend they are caring, and the republicans maybe want to find more inexpensive fuel?

I would be curious, that under the idea for security of our nation, do you believe each side is doing about such a possibility.
Click to expand...

This sounds similar to the peak oil theory from the 80s that turned out to be a long way off. There is actually plenty of oil still around and new sources are found all the time. This isn't anything that's going to be an issue anytime soon, imo. I don't know if they are doing what you say, for those reasons, but I don't mind us continuing to figure out other sources of energy that can help out.
 
Fishking said:
This sounds similar to the peak oil theory from the 80s that turned out to be a long way off. There is actually plenty of oil still around and new sources are found all the time. This isn't anything that's going to be an issue anytime soon, imo. I don't know if they are doing what you say, for those reasons, but I don't mind us continuing to figure out other sources of energy that can help out.
Click to expand...
I think peak oil is a misstatement, there is plenty of oil, but the question is how much does it cost to extract.
I think the cheap easy oil has already been found and tapped, fracking helped the flow of older low producing wells,
but at the cost of shortening the well life. The new sources could be very expensive.
We think of oil as being free for the oil company, but is has a very real and measurable cost.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Even when the industrialized part of the world will likely triples or more? 3rd world nations are emerging and using more and more energy. Do you think we can double, triple, or more the oil pulled out of the ground, and process it efficiently?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Even when the industrialized part of the world will likely triples or more? 3rd world nations are emerging and using more and more energy. Do you think we can double, triple, or more the oil pulled out of the ground, and process it efficiently?
Click to expand...

Yes. The more we use the more we find.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. The more we use the more we find.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it will get more expensive. Expensive to the point alternatives will be needed without being subsidized.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not for a long time, IMHO.
Click to expand...

That depends.

If the demonrats keep causing conflict all over the world, it will take a long time. If we can reduce worldwide conflict, nations will emerge sooner rather than later.
 
Lord of Planar said:
... it is getting more expensive to extract ....
Click to expand...
if that were true the real price of oil would have gone up a long time ago. It hasn't, in fact it's about where it was 40 years ago:
180710realoil.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom