Oil Prices and the Media

[Pangloss]

so by logic then, if you increase the price of something, then is it automatically consumed less.

 

That's not why Europeans consume less gasoline. They would consume less (even per person) even if it cost the same.

 

The reason why is the same reason why rail works in Europe and not (so much) in the United States.

 

Syntax has it right -- they drive less. But that doesn't mean that the "price of petrol" isn't a major factor in their economy. And perception is a major factor here -- Europeans are always *complaining* about the price of gas, at least insofar as they razz Americans about how cheap it is over here.

 

So it matters to Europeans, and yet nothing has changed -- they're still burning the stuff. No salt-water-based miracle drive on the horizon, at a clean cost of pennies-per-parsec.

 

 

So nobody seems to have answered my question yet..... Anybody else want to take a shot at it?

[Ophiolite]

If that's true' date=' then why hasn't Europe invented *warp* drive by now? I mean the price of gas is so high there, you'd think we'd have colonized half the galaxy by now.

 

Europeans aren't stupid -- they continue to forefront many areas of scientific discovery. So is it possible there's a flaw in the logic there?[/quote']Examine the expenditure upon gasoline not in terms of price per gallon, but as a percentage of disposable income and you will likely find that applying high tax rates to contrain use is working.

[reverse]

Yes it's all about perception.

peoples habits and attitudes.

they can distort the real supply and demand curves.

 

 

Ps we need a good simple cartoon character,

Similar to Ronald Mc Donald.

I’m thinking “the oil pig”

I kind of imagine an orange spiky sort of tusked shouted thing.

Something the kids can really understand on a basic level.

Now, what incentive can we give Hollywood to export these values to the rest of the world.

 

kidding.

[syntax252]

Yes it's all about perception.

peoples habits and attitudes.

they can distort the real supply and demand curves.

 

 

Ps we need a good simple cartoon character' date='

Similar to Ronald Mc Donald.

I’m thinking “the oil pig”

I kind of imagine an orange spiky sort of tusked shouted thing.

Something the kids can really understand on a basic level.

Now, what incentive can we give Hollywood to export these values to the rest of the world.

 

kidding.[/quote']

 

Since oil is a fossil fuel, why not a dinnysar? Like the historical icon on the BLS web site? I think kids would relate to little speeches about not burning up too many of Dinny's ancestors.

[reverse]

 

 

So nobody seems to have answered my question yet..... Anybody else want to take a shot at it?

 

which question?

[Pangloss]

Examine the expenditure upon gasoline not in terms of price per gallon, but as a percentage of disposable income and you will likely find that applying high tax rates to contrain use is working.

 

 

That's actually my point, the thing I've been planning to get at if nobody could answer my question: High taxes have an impact on consumption, but they don't seem to have an impact on the development of alternate forms of energy.

 

Of course, Europe is not the United States. A high price of gas here would presumably have a different impact, given much greater land-growth area and the tradition of auto usage. But it's not like Joe Six-Pack is going to get fed up with paying $6/gal for unleaded, and suddenly leap up one day and build himself a state-of-the-art chemistry lab.

 

Put another way, Zephram Cochran only gets to invent warp drive in his backyard in the movies. In real life he needs a massive grant from the National Science Foundation and a contract with Boeing. (grin)

 

Anyway, it's not like anyone here was really hammering the point that high taxes should lead us to alternate fuels, but it's something that you hear in the media and around the various Internet forums from time to time, so I thought it worth discussing a bit.

[reverse]

Since oil is a fossil fuel, why not a dinnysar? Like the historical icon on the BLS web site? I think kids would relate to little speeches about not burning up too many of Dinny's ancestors.

 

 

some kids bite you when you call them a dino, but they always cry when you call them a pig.

children have sharp teeth and are fast...you have to be careful.

[reverse]

That's actually my point' date=' the thing I've been planning to get at if nobody could answer my question: High taxes have an impact on consumption, but they don't seem to have an impact on the development of alternate forms of energy.

 

[/quote']

 

oh that.

umm

what is the breakdown of fuel use...is it mostly private cars, or is it goods transport.

that would alter how effective the tax was.

[coquina]

oh that.

umm

what is the breakdown of fuel use...is it mostly private cars' date=' or is it goods transport.

that would alter how effective the tax was.[/quote']

 

How much fossil fuel is burned in power plants? People squall about nuke plants, so to conserve fossil fuels that also need to turn the heat down, the A/C up, wash in cold water, and conserve electricity.

[reverse]

Isn’t the real reason for the fuel variance between the US and the UK simply a matter of timing and size.

 

Weren’t many places in the US built after the event of the motorcar…and laid out with that in mind?

And weren’t many of the places in the UK slowly modified from Roman foot traffic to Carts to small cars?

I mean, look how wide and straight the roads are in the US.

That’s gotta be a clue.

 

(Sorry, I just couldn’t find a way to work the Media into that one - in order to stay directly on topic).

[Pangloss]

When you look at the developing nations, conservation efforts look pretty pointless. It really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if 60 million Brits (or even 250 million Americans) shave 10% off their oil-fired heating bill when you've got a billion Chinese busily upgrading from coal to electric/oil heating.

[reverse]

That, I have never understood.

Why does the US want the rest of the world to be democratic and have free trade.

 

It’s not that good for US resources…

It’s like owning the only toy store in the mall and trying to get all the other stores to sell toys as well.

 

Go figure?

[john5746]

kinda makes you wonder, what will the US do with all those nukes when Asia dominates the economy?

[reverse]

Turn them into fission power plants?

(with a good intercompany newsletter)

Reducing the need for oil?

 

 

(heh) got the media in to that one.

[syntax252]

How much fossil fuel is burned in power plants? People squall about nuke plants, so to conserve fossil fuels that also need to turn the heat down, the A/C up, wash in cold water, and conserve electricity.

 

Sandi, I really think that nuclear power is in the cards for the future.

 

Perhaps I am wrong, but as the oil reserves run dry, I think people will be less and less concerned about nuclear power plants and they can be built as needed to replace older methods of producing steam. Perhaps in some cases even be retrofit to existing plants.

 

In any event, I don't think we have anything to be concerned about because the big shooters in the economy are not going to let things go all to Hell in a handbasket when there is money to be made.

 

So, once again, GREED will come to the rescue.

[coquina]

Sandi' date=' I really think that nuclear power is in the cards for the future.

 

Perhaps I am wrong, but as the oil reserves run dry, I think people will be less and less concerned about nuclear power plants and they can be built as needed to replace older methods of producing steam. Perhaps in some cases even be retrofit to existing plants.

 

In any event, I don't think we have anything to be concerned about because the big shooters in the economy are not going to let things go all to Hell in a handbasket when there is money to be made.

 

So, once again, GREED will come to the rescue. [/quote']

 

I expect we will turn to nuclear power also. If the plants are run properly, nuclear power is safe. Look at all the nuke ships that have been built over the years, and the US has not had a problem. However, they require a lot of maintenance, and there has to be adequate regulation to insure commercial power companies don't cut corners. (There's that "G" word again!)

 

Also - as time goes on, eventually there will be a considerable problem with disposing of the spent fuel.

[Ophiolite]

Look at all the nuke ships that have been built over the years, and the US has not had a problem.

Thresher.

Edit: Link added to decrease obscurity of response.

http://www.disastercity.com/thresher/

[Pangloss]

No.

 

Thresher isn't the only sub that's been lost, Ophiolite. But none were lost due to a problem with their nuclear reactors.

 

That would be like decrying the use of jet engine technology because of the bombing of the USS Cole.

[syntax252]

Also - as time goes on' date=' eventually there will be a considerable problem with disposing of the spent fuel.[/quote']

 

That does seem to be a primary impediment to Nukes.

 

Personally, I think the disposal problem is overstated. I understand that the stuff will be dangerous for millinia, but if we put it all in one secure place, we should be able to keep it under control OK.

 

[Aardvark]

In Europe' date=' I think the average distance drivin is a year would be less than the American average of about 15.000 miles. So I think that that is why those high prices are tolerable there. Also, how much of that is in the form of one tax or another?[/quote']

 

I don't know the exact figures, but it seems correct that American drivers average higher mileage. However, considering how much lower the petrol prices are i think they still end up spending less on fuel.

 

Almost all of the price difference is tax. The tax rate on petrol in the UK is about 300%.

[coquina]

Thresher.

Edit: Link added to decrease obscurity of response.

http://www.disastercity.com/thresher/

 

Thresher didn't sink because there was a problem with her reactor, she sank because there was a problem with the silver brazing of welds, which allowed seawater to leak into her engine room, which in turn caused the reactor to shut down.

 

Scorpion was lost due to several explosions, but it is thought that a torpedo exploded and caused several others to explode - there are no indications that her reactor failed - there is no excess radiation at the site.

http://www.txoilgas.com/589-court.html

 

I didn't mean to say that there has never been a sinking of a nuclear ship - only that there hadn't been a failure of the reactors.

 

PS - Norfolk, VA, homport of the Atlantic Fleet, and Newport News Ship (now Northrupp-Grumman) are both close by. I remember when Scorpion failed to return home. I also remember the bruhaha that was raised at the shipyard after the Thresher sank. (even though NNS&DDCo did not build her) Examination of welds on other ships revealed that workers had thrown all kinds of crap into the space and welded over the top of it.

 

I now build a machine cuts a piece of weld out of the hull for sampling. It's kind of neat - it's portable and operated pnematically. The base of the machine is tack welded to the hull over the weld section - it has a dish shaped saw blade that cuts into the weld on one side - then the saw blade is withdrawn, the machine is spun around 180 degrees (separate from the tack welded base), then the other side of the weld is cut - this removes a wedge-shaped sample for testing.

 

The machine was developed as a result of the loss of Thresher.

[Ophiolite]

No.

 

Thresher isn't the only sub that's been lost' date=' Ophiolite. But none were lost due to a problem with their nuclear reactors.

 

That would be like decrying the use of jet engine technology because of the bombing of the USS Cole. [/quote']I think you are rather missing the point here. The sinking of a nuclear powered vessel for whatever reason carries the risk of the release of significant quantities of radioactive material. I was countering Coquinas suggestion that the US has not had a problem. The source of the problem is inconsequential, it is the possibility of any problem that is significant.

A nuclear power plant that 'fails' as a result of a fire destroying the control systems, or a plane crashing into the reactor building, will produce much the same consequences for the environment as one that fails directly because of a reactor problem.

[To anticipate possible responses, let me note that I am a tree hugging green who strongly favours very carefully monitored nuclear power generation; looks forward to nuclear fusion; and is outraged that all NASA deep space missions have been compromised by restrictions on radioactive materials.]

[syntax252]

I don't know the exact figures' date=' but it seems correct that American drivers average higher mileage. However, considering how much lower the petrol prices are i think they still end up spending less on fuel.

 

Almost all of the price difference is tax. The tax rate on petrol in the UK is about 300%.[/quote']

 

You know, I wondered why there was so much difference in price.

 

I think in Michigan, we have about 28 cents and the same for the federal gas tax for a total of about 58 cents + 6% Mi. sales tax of course. Now I could be off some on those figures but I think that is close.

 

Anyway, since it is mostly tax, it would seem to me that the person to holler at would be your local MP? Is that what you call them over there-- Member of Parliment?

 

That seems like a Hell of a tax.

 

You can be sure that the American public never would buy that.

[Pangloss]

The sinking of a nuclear powered vessel for whatever reason carries the risk of the release of significant quantities of radioactive material.

 

Can you give an example of any of the numerous nuclear subs that have been lost at sea that have resulted in a problem with radioactive contamination?

[coquina]

Can you give an example of any of the numerous nuclear subs that have been lost at sea that have resulted in a problem with radioactive contamination?

 

It seems the Western ones have remained contained - not so with those of the former Soviet Union source "Naval Officers' Association of Canada"

 

http://www.naval.ca/article/young/nuclearsubmarineaccidents_bymichaelyoung.html

 

We seem to have gotten off on a tangent here - is anyone interested in continuing the discussion of the safety of nuclear power elsewhere?