Collapsing financial markets; oil falls to $92/barrel

[Ashliana]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices extended their steep losses Tuesday, tumbling below $92 a barrel as a worsening economy suggested U.S. energy demand will keep falling despite crude's return to year-ago levels.


Oil analysts believe the current financial crisis in the U.S. is affecting global demand for oil.

As conditions on Wall Street deteriorated, evidence mounted that U.S. consumers and businesses were bracing for a protracted economic downturn that should guarantee more of the money-saving energy conservation measures of the past year:

"The economic slowdown is completely unavoidable now and people will be driving less, trucking less and buying less," said James Cordier, president of Florida-based trading firms Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com. "Energy consumption will fall dramatically."

Light, sweet crude for October delivery fell $3.95 to $91.76 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier dipping to $90.55, its lowest level since February 8. On Monday, prices closed below $100 for the first time in six months, shedding more than $5 and wiping out all of oil's gains for the year.

Crude has fallen $55 -- or 37 percent -- since shooting above $147 on July 11.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/09/16/oil.prices.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Looks like as the financial markets, like AIG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIG), whose shares have plumetted from $70 per share last year to as low as $3.14 today, are collapsing, causing huge ripple effects (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152314746339697.html) in world stock prices.

Any thoughts from our financial gurus? Blame the Democrats, maybe? We'll see. At any rate, the price of oil dropping is great news. Scared investors equals low prices for us.

[Parkbandit]

I'm waiting for people like you to use the catch phrase "More examples of the failed Bush policies".. because I haven't laughed enough at you today.

[ClydeR]

It was a confluence of events.


Removal of the wall erected during the Great Depression that separated investment banking, commercial banking and insurance.


Encouraging banks to lend to homeowners with little or no down payment.


No incentive for mortgage loan originators to take care in investigating customer creditworthiness.


Insufficient due diligence for credit default swaps.


Rampant creation of fancy new securities backed only by other securities.

[Xaerve]

At any rate, the price of oil dropping is great news. Scared investors equals low prices for us.

Fucking idiot... haha.

[Daniel]

*You* are the investor.

There is no "them" that will help *you* get cheaper oil because they are scared.

[Inspire]

What I want to know is if the price of oil is dropping, why doesn't the price at the pump drop?

They raise the price at the pump when it goes up, but they take their sweet time lowering it back down.

At least this is the perception for me.

[Stretch]

What I want to know is if the price of oil is dropping, why doesn't the price at the pump drop?

They raise the price at the pump when it goes up, but they take their sweet time lowering it back down.

At least this is the perception for me.

Because they can. Pure and simple.

The price of oil isn't exactly based on traditional supply and demand curves.

[Audriana]

I want oil to rise to 1000 dollars a barrel, gas to 40 dollars a gallon.
I want coal to do the same.

Maybe then we'll get some wind & solar energy going.

ALL of the technology to produce an electric/hydrogen fuel cell hybrid car is there; 350 miles per charge, 200 miles per hydrogen tank (hydrogen is there for long-duration trips, but your day-to-day driving would be done on the battery only). Solar panels built into the sky-facing body parts of the car means your battery is recharging while you sit at work all day (not enough to run indefinately, but certainly a good boost of free power. And when new solar technology comes out that works on more than one very narrow band of energy, it can be easily upgraded and who knows... maybe an indefinately running car in the next 20 years).

The technology is just cheap enough that if someone were to start large-scale production it would simply push the price down to the typical oil-driven car prices.


The problem isn't just that oil companies don't want it, isn't that oil companies have huge influence over the car manufacturers, but that car manufacturers themselves don't want it. In an electric/hydrogen hybrid you cut the number of replacement parts by 3/4ths, and the reliability on everything but the battery (needs recycling every 5-10 years), increases dramatically.

The parts and service departments would need a fraction of the work force. Midas, Pep boys, etc would have large-scale layoffs. There are no more oil changes, no more brakes to replace (brakes are just for emergency, your braking power gets put into the battery). There would still be maintenance bays across the country, but nowhere near the number of workers required with oil-based cars.


This technology is available TODAY. So when you hear about anybody saying that we have to wait for the technology, they're very very wrong. Just look at Tesla Motors.


So anyway... Oil... RISE BABY. 200 bucks a barrel ASAP! Get a move-on to you too, Coal.

[Some Rogue]

Usually to cover some of the losses of selling below cost but there are tons of reasons. I deal with this crap everyday. (The company I work for owns a chain of convenience stores.)

Another thing is that you see the price of oil dropping, but that's the futures market. That's the price for October delivery, not current price.

[CrystalTears]

Another thing is that you see the price of oil dropping, but that's the futures market. That's the price for October delivery, not current price.
And yet the second oil prices go up, so do the gas prices, but it doesn't work the same in the other direction.

[Some Rogue]

Which was covered in the first part of my answer. :P

[CrystalTears]

So are they raising prices now to cover the expense of what they'll have to spend later? So it can't work in the other direction where they won't have to spend as much so they don't have to charge as much?

Gas companies piss me off! :tongue:

[Audriana]

What I want to know is if the price of oil is dropping, why doesn't the price at the pump drop?

They raise the price at the pump when it goes up, but they take their sweet time lowering it back down.

At least this is the perception for me.

Same way you can have a housing bubble increase prices by almost double in a matter of 2 months, but it takes two years for the prices to fall... Money makes people greedy.

[Kranar]

What I want to know is if the price of oil is dropping, why doesn't the price at the pump drop?


It will drop. There is a lag between the price of oil and the price of gas at the pump due to simple things like refining and delivery. Right now the gas at the pump is being sold from oil that was purchased one or two weeks ago, so they have to sell off that gas first based on what the price of oil was when they bought it. In one or two weeks, the price of gas will drop to reflect the price of oil as it is now, and so on so forth.



Another thing is that you see the price of oil dropping, but that's the futures market. That's the price for October delivery, not current price.


The futures market reflects the current price of the underlying product plus the risk free interest rate. For all intents and purposes the price of an oil futures contract is what oil is currently worth right now, despite the fact that the contract is for delivery in October.

[SolitareConfinement]

I want oil to rise to 1000 dollars a barrel, gas to 40 dollars a gallon.
I want coal to do the same.

Maybe then we'll get some wind & solar energy going.



you DO realize that batteries happen to take more energy to create than they can possibly ever store correct?

[Some Rogue]

This may be true as far as the refineries go but it's definitely not the case for gas stations themselves. We are basing our street price off of what it's going to cost to refill that tank, not what we already paid which is why a gas station often times loses money on selling gas. The margin on a gallon of gas for a gas station is usually a few pennies at best. It's the oil company making the money.

[SolitareConfinement]

This may be true as far as the refineries go but it's definitely not the case for gas stations themselves. We are basing our street price off of what it's going to cost to refill that tank, not what we already paid which is why a gas station often times loses money on selling gas. The margin on a gallon of gas for a gas station is usually a few pennies at best. It's the oil company making the money.


correct, a very good friend of mine owns a BP station in the next town over from me. His profit is 3 cents per gallon only. He claims he never loses money this way but at times his profit is only 1-2cents per gallon but its always in the plus for him.

oddly enough his biggest money makers are cigarettes and candy. goes to show you what kind of nation we are when it comes to our health :)

[crb]

What I want to know is if the price of oil is dropping, why doesn't the price at the pump drop?

They raise the price at the pump when it goes up, but they take their sweet time lowering it back down.

At least this is the perception for me.
Ike shut down the largest refinery in the US, you know, those big plants that turn oil into gas that we haven't built since the 70s.

As for all the oil talk...

One of the reasons for the big drop in commodities is these investment banks had large stakes in these commodities and when they needed to raise capital, they were the easiest positions to liquidate. The selling of commodities lately hasn't been based on fundamentals, it is pure liquidation, disproportional liquidation.

As for what caused the rest.

1. Economic policies started under clinton, continued by Bush, to put more poor people into their own homes, ie, government asking banks to lower lending standards.

2. Greenspan dollars - ie fed created too much liquidity and kept rates too low for too long after 911.

3. Fannie & Freddie being stupid hybrids. They need to be nationalized, then cut apart, into 10-12 chunks, and then auctioned off to become 100% private.

4. Stupid accounting rules where banks have are forced to value their subprime mortage backed assets at $0, or otherwise really low values, which fucks up their balance sheet and makes it seem as if they have these huge losses, which then requires them to raise capital to offset those losses lest they lose their credit rating, which would fuck them over for all the people who have money with them, etc etc. But it all stems from them valuing the mortgages way way way below value... as if the house & the land it sits on that the mortgage represents is worth $0.

When housing turns around you'll see all these banks have huge profits (on paper) as they revalue their mortgages to realistic levels.

What they need to do is just mark down an asset when it is sold.

[Audriana]

you DO realize that batteries happen to take more energy to create than they can possibly ever store correct?

Who cares if the energy used to produce them comes from an emissions-free, and (for all intents and purposes) unlimitedly abundant source such as the sun?
(Notice I didn't say 'renewable'... Plant-based energies aren't a step in the right direction IMO).


Sort of funny side-note...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/16/officially-official-2011-chevrolet-volt-finally-revealed/

Could just get me one of these, pop the engine and gas tank (and related BS) out, and pop in more batteries and you're good to go.

[Some Rogue]

correct, a very good friend of mine owns a BP station in the next town over from me. His profit is 3 cents per gallon only. He claims he never loses money this way but at times his profit is only 1-2cents per gallon but its always in the plus for him.

oddly enough his biggest money makers are cigarettes and candy. goes to show you what kind of nation we are when it comes to our health :)

Yeah, you get into losing money when you start paying the credit card fees. :( It also hurts when you're a Shell station and your competitors aren't and they buy shitty cheap gas so when you match their price, you're selling right at or below cost.

And that's definitely the truth about the money makers. Cigs, candy, and soda are generally it.

[Parkbandit]

you DO realize that batteries happen to take more energy to create than they can possibly ever store correct?


To be honest, I wouldn't expect too much from this one. She makes Ilvane look like Stephen Hawking.

[Tsa`ah]

you DO realize that batteries happen to take more energy to create than they can possibly ever store correct?

You really need to qualify statements such as this.

Outside of that, the current spike in gas prices has less to do with the price of crude, let alone what the price of crude was two weeks ago and more to do with the latest hurricane smashing into what is considered the central hub of our refining capabilities.

Every refinery along the east coast of Texas shut down prior to the hurricane making land fall ... and they'll not be up and running any time soon.

Until then we'll be using off-shore imports ... Bush wisely suspended, for once, bans on such products until our own refineries are up and running at a decent capacity.

At that point you can expect the crude free fall to level out.

[Some Rogue]

I wouldn't count on that. Crude falling has more to do with the economy than the hurricane. Crude has been falling for weeks, long before the hurricane ever came about. Gas prices are because of the hurricane.

[Kranar]

Outside of that, the current spike in gas prices has less to do with the price of crude, let alone what the price of crude was two weeks ago and more to do with the latest hurricane smashing into what is considered the central hub of our refining capabilities.


All that will do is add a fixed offset to the price of gas, that offset will not increase or decrease over time it will just remain fixed and when the refineries are back in production use the offset will be removed.

If you look at a chart of the price of crude oil and the average price of gas in the U.S., you can easily see that they move together. The more you zoom in on the chart the more noticeable the lag becomes between when the price of oil moves and when the price of gas at the pump matches it. As you zoom out, since a week is hardly noticeable on a 2 or 3 year chart, they look very similar.

I doubt that pattern is going to be broken in this instance and I'd be willing to bet that the price of gas at the pump will go down in a week or two to reflect the drop the price of oil.

[Tsa`ah]

All that will do is add a fixed offset to the price of gas, that offset will not increase or decrease over time it will just remain fixed and when the refineries are back in production use the offset will be removed.

If you look at a chart of the price of crude oil and the average price of gas in the U.S., you can easily see that they move together. The more you zoom in on the chart the more noticeable the lag becomes between when the price of oil moves and when the price of gas at the pump matches it. As you zoom out, since a week is hardly noticeable on a 2 or 3 year chart, they look very similar.

I doubt that pattern is going to be broken in this instance and I'd be willing to bet that the price of gas at the pump will go down in a week or two to reflect the drop the price of oil.

Did crude spike two weeks before the hurricanes? Did it spike enough for our price at the pump to jump between .30 and 1.00?

Our current prices are the direct result of the hurricanes and the refinery shut downs. If anything, we're subject to the cost of imports right now.

Though I'm not really that optimistic that crude will continue to fall, or that our gas prices will drop to pre-hurricane prices in two weeks ... value of a dollar in respect to yet more financial institutions circling the drain.

[Mistomeer]

Did crude spike two weeks before the hurricanes? Did it spike enough for our price at the pump to jump between .30 and 1.00?

Agreed, oil is down.


Our current prices are the direct result of the hurricanes and the refinery shut downs. If anything, we're subject to the cost of imports right now.

Not entirely. The current price of gas is, like Kranar said, largely based on the price of oil, which is up largely due to inflation. Since our economy has tanked so marvelously, we have impacted the International markets (look at the losses on the Hong Kong market this week or the Nikkei) and reduced inflation, thus reducing the price of oil. So we will most likely see a decrease at the pump in the coming weeks, as Kranar said. Most of the jump we are seeing now isn't from Ike, but from speculation prior to Ike.


Though I'm not really that optimistic that crude will continue to fall, or that our gas prices will drop to pre-hurricane prices in two weeks ... value of a dollar in respect to yet more financial institutions circling the drain.
You're failing to see the International affect of the financial institution collapse and the affect on inflation. Read this, for example:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUST2567020080916

[SolitareConfinement]

Who cares if the energy used to produce them comes from an emissions-free, and (for all intents and purposes) unlimitedly abundant source such as the sun?
(Notice I didn't say 'renewable'... Plant-based energies aren't a step in the right direction IMO).


Sort of funny side-note...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/16/officially-official-2011-chevrolet-volt-finally-revealed/

Could just get me one of these, pop the engine and gas tank (and related BS) out, and pop in more batteries and you're good to go.



wow...learn something new every day had no idea that creating a batteries in a FACTORY were emission free. such a revelation

^^^ obviously...sarcasm

your carbon footprint isn't going DOWN using windmills and solar generators. because the amount of energy it takes to create said batteries needed to store the solar energy

having such a vehicle is only going to save you at the pump. however you will need to find mechanics who can work on these new vehicles. how expensive is that going to be? then you are going to need to take into account that if everyone had one of these vehicles, the cost of these emission free perpetual motion law breaking acts of god will also go up thus creating more cost. at the end of the day your cost will even out.



You really need to qualify statements such as this.



so, you're saying you need perpetual motion laws explained? mk no problem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

i especially like how they explain its impossible to get more energy out of something than it takes to create

[Tsa`ah]

wow...learn something new every day had no idea that creating a batteries in a FACTORY were emission free. such a revelation

^^^ obviously...sarcasm

your carbon footprint isn't going DOWN using windmills and solar generators. because the amount of energy it takes to create said batteries needed to store the solar energy

having such a vehicle is only going to save you at the pump. however you will need to find mechanics who can work on these new vehicles. how expensive is that going to be? then you are going to need to take into account that if everyone had one of these vehicles, the cost of these emission free perpetual motion law breaking acts of god will also go up thus creating more cost. at the end of the day your cost will even out.

This is where you remove yourself from reality by relying on the opinions of people with a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

It's not going to take much more energy to manufacture electric cars than it is to manufacture gas/diesel vehicles. The differences is that the current standard continues to burn petro based fuels with no real reduction in the footprint.

It's the same lame ass argument people use about bio fuels. The shame is that your scope of vision is so limited when it comes to consumption of energy.


so, you're saying you need perpetual motion laws explained? mk no problem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

i especially like how they explain its impossible to get more energy out of something than it takes to create

Nothing gearing up for a baseball game ... only to arrive and it's basketball.

Batteries have nothing to do with perpetual motion. Case in point would be an electric fork-lift. They come in several variations with differing batteries. By your logic the battery should cost more than the cart simply because it takes sooo much more energy to create a battery. Batteries run anywhere from 1k to 25k depending on the application .... that is fitting into a machine that costs anywhere from 50-500k. The battery, with proper care, will power said lifts for 5-15 years depending on charging cycle, care, and cost/quality.

The battery, if charged from an independent source such as solar, wind, or waste reclamation, will likely make up the production cost and market price within a years time ... which wouldn't happen with propane.

Care to try again?

[crb]

The main problem with batteries right now, in addition to not having the capacity or longevity needed for large scale use, is that they aren't a clean technology. If they're thrown away they contaminate the environment. You'd have to make absolutely sure that with any large scale battery system you make sure no one is throwing old ones away.

We'll eventually get there, but we aren't there now, and in the end batteries aren't the ideal technology. If you really had a genie and could wish for something, wish for hydrogen fuel cells.

[Audriana]

so, you're saying you need perpetual motion laws explained? mk no problem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

i especially like how they explain its impossible to get more energy out of something than it takes to create

If the basis of your argument is perpetual motion, you're not understanding the laws of perpetual motion very well.

It's like you saying somebody is smart, and me going into a conversation about their personality type. They may be loosely related, but one doesn't really prove the other.



The main problem with batteries right now, in addition to not having the capacity or longevity needed for large scale use, is that they aren't a clean technology. If they're thrown away they contaminate the environment. You'd have to make absolutely sure that with any large scale battery system you make sure no one is throwing old ones away.

We'll eventually get there, but we aren't there now, and in the end batteries aren't the ideal technology. If you really had a genie and could wish for something, wish for hydrogen fuel cells.

Capacity, they have. It's there. It may not be 500 miles per pound of battery, but the capacity is there.
Logevity... 5-15 years... most cars have a faster turn-around time than that, but you'll be replacing batteries.

They are relitively clean. They won't be thrown away; This is like me saying "well, we shouldn't use petrol cars because if the oil is tossed in the street it will pollute our waters" - It isn't thrown in the street, it's recycled. Car batteries today are, likewise, recycled.


CRB would tote hydrogen fuel cells. They have the nifty plus that it keeps oil companies drilling for oil. The way oil companies want to get you your hydrogen is to get it from oil and/or natural gas.
Hydrogen will be the long-term (stormy weeks & overnight) storage solution for solar homes and businesses. It will be the long-distance driving fuel. But for 95% of your driving, electric on batteries is still the way to go.

Either way, with a HFC vehicle, it's STILL going to be an electric hybrid. Why not? converting energy you get when braking or going downhill into free electricity? So either way you have an 'evil evil battery'. You might as well beef it up and pop a charger onto it.


Hydrogen fuel cell / electric hybrid + solar powered home (be it through photovoltaics, heat conversion, or wind).

Solar panels and windmills power your home and seperate water into o2 and h2 during the day. h2 is stored on site, and is used to top off your emergency/long distance tank in your car. You plug your car into the home when you get home from work to recharge the battery. It also powers your home via HFC at night and during dark weather.


Hydrogen has the unfortunate downside of being VERY VERY VERY wasteful of energy. If you get the hydrogen via water electrolisis, it's about 25% efficient. If you get it via oil or other unclean methods, it's closer to 30%


That is because of the inherent inefficiency of the entire hydrogen fueling process, from generating the hydrogen with that electricity to transporting this diffuse gas long distances, getting the hydrogen in the car, and then running it through a fuel cell—all for the purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity to drive the same exact electric motor you'll find in an electric car
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png/600px-Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
Inefficient hydrogen has its place. In long-distance driving. Outside of that, electric via batteries is the way to go.

Li-Ion batteries are 86% efficient.

[crb]

Putting aside some of the other discussion, I wouldn't say that in an ideal situation, fuel cells are superior to battery technology in concept. Fuel cells are a clean source of energy, but you've got similar efficiency problems in creating them. Plus, you need a distribution method to get the cells to people, whereas getting energy from an electric grid, connected to presumably every building, should be much easier once small adaptations are made to the way we make buildings.

Considering that fuel cells are made by utilizing the energy from power plants (they're energy-intensive to make, but can take advantage of powerplants with currently wasted capacity) whereas an energy grid can simply feed the energy into the battery completely bypassing the need for fuel cells, the only thing really stopping us is a more efficient battery. We need to develop the technology with better capacity and increased efficiency.

Anyway, I don't think the dangers of irresponsible disposal of car batteries is going to be a huge problem. With normal, lithium batteries/etc, more education needs to be done to address disposal.

But how often do you rip out a huge part of your car and toss it in the garbage? I'd guess the vast majority of people couldn't even change their own oil, and more than half wouldn't know how to change a tire, much less rip out/replace the battery in a hybrid/electric car.
Batteries are not your car.

How many laptop, cellphone, etc batteries do you have that stop keeping a charge or working as well after a couple years? Even the manufacturer's acknowledge the batteries will have to be replaced regularly as they have limited lifespans with today's technology. so there will be a waste issue.

[crb]

If the basis of your argument is perpetual motion, you're not understanding the laws of perpetual motion very well.

It's like you saying somebody is smart, and me going into a conversation about their personality type. They may be loosely related, but one doesn't really prove the other.




Capacity, they have. It's there. It may not be 500 miles per pound of battery, but the capacity is there.
Logevity... 5-15 years... most cars have a faster turn-around time than that, but you'll be replacing batteries.

They are relitively clean. They won't be thrown away; This is like me saying "well, we shouldn't use petrol cars because if the oil is tossed in the street it will pollute our waters" - It isn't thrown in the street, it's recycled. Car batteries today are, likewise, recycled.


CRB would tote hydrogen fuel cells. They have the nifty plus that it keeps oil companies drilling for oil. The way oil companies want to get you your hydrogen is to get it from oil and/or natural gas.
Hydrogen will be the long-term (stormy weeks & overnight) storage solution for solar homes and businesses. It will be the long-distance driving fuel. But for 95% of your driving, electric on batteries is still the way to go.

Either way, with a HFC vehicle, it's STILL going to be an electric hybrid. Why not? converting energy you get when braking or going downhill into free electricity? So either way you have an 'evil evil battery'. You might as well beef it up and pop a charger onto it.


Hydrogen fuel cell / electric hybrid + solar powered home (be it through photovoltaics, heat conversion, or wind).

Solar panels and windmills power your home and seperate water into o2 and h2 during the day. h2 is stored on site, and is used to top off your emergency/long distance tank in your car. You plug your car into the home when you get home from work to recharge the battery. It also powers your home via HFC at night and during dark weather.


Hydrogen has the unfortunate downside of being VERY VERY VERY wasteful of energy. If you get the hydrogen via water electrolisis, it's about 25% efficient. If you get it via oil or other unclean methods, it's closer to 30%


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png/600px-Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
Inefficient hydrogen has its place. In long-distance driving. Outside of that, electric via batteries is the way to go.

Li-Ion batteries are 86% efficient.
oh for fuck sake, I said if you had a genie. Ashliana or whomever said that she wanted oil to go up to $40 a gallon or whatever so we'd stop using it. If people were talking about ideal situations, hydrogen is the ideal. Not today's hydrogen technology, hence the requirement of a genie.

Like.. cold fusion would be the ideal source of future electrical power. its pie in the sky.

sheesh.

I've said in many threads I think the near term solution is going to be electric vehicles, I thought we were talking about far in the future.

[CrystalTears]

The electric batteries are huge, so it wouldn't be something users would be doing themselves anyway, I don't imagine.

[crb]

If the basis of your argument is perpetual motion, you're not understanding the laws of perpetual motion very well.

It's like you saying somebody is smart, and me going into a conversation about their personality type. They may be loosely related, but one doesn't really prove the other.




Capacity, they have. It's there. It may not be 500 miles per pound of battery, but the capacity is there.
Logevity... 5-15 years... most cars have a faster turn-around time than that, but you'll be replacing batteries.

They are relitively clean. They won't be thrown away; This is like me saying "well, we shouldn't use petrol cars because if the oil is tossed in the street it will pollute our waters" - It isn't thrown in the street, it's recycled. Car batteries today are, likewise, recycled.


CRB would tote hydrogen fuel cells. They have the nifty plus that it keeps oil companies drilling for oil. The way oil companies want to get you your hydrogen is to get it from oil and/or natural gas.
Hydrogen will be the long-term (stormy weeks & overnight) storage solution for solar homes and businesses. It will be the long-distance driving fuel. But for 95% of your driving, electric on batteries is still the way to go.

Either way, with a HFC vehicle, it's STILL going to be an electric hybrid. Why not? converting energy you get when braking or going downhill into free electricity? So either way you have an 'evil evil battery'. You might as well beef it up and pop a charger onto it.


Hydrogen fuel cell / electric hybrid + solar powered home (be it through photovoltaics, heat conversion, or wind).

Solar panels and windmills power your home and seperate water into o2 and h2 during the day. h2 is stored on site, and is used to top off your emergency/long distance tank in your car. You plug your car into the home when you get home from work to recharge the battery. It also powers your home via HFC at night and during dark weather.


Hydrogen has the unfortunate downside of being VERY VERY VERY wasteful of energy. If you get the hydrogen via water electrolisis, it's about 25% efficient. If you get it via oil or other unclean methods, it's closer to 30%


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png/600px-Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
Inefficient hydrogen has its place. In long-distance driving. Outside of that, electric via batteries is the way to go.

Li-Ion batteries are 86% efficient.
and oh, audriana.... those capacity and longevity statistics you have for current batteries is bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is bullshit. There is a reason GM is having problems with the Volt engineering and meeting deadlines, and it isn't the chassis. We might get to what you say in 2-5 years, but we're not there now, today.

[Stanley Burrell]

We could also probably still use combustion engines that burn more abundant and easily-obtained sources of hydrocarbons. But the serious problem with that, is that we're being really, really, really gay.

[Audriana]

and oh, audriana.... those capacity and longevity statistics you have for current batteries is bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is bullshit. There is a reason GM is having problems with the Volt engineering and meeting deadlines, and it isn't the chassis. We might get to what you say in 2-5 years, but we're not there now, today.

Tesla Motors doesn't seem to have any problems with battery technology. They seem to just have a single problem... they can't make enough of their roadsters to satisify demand.

[Back]

Daily Show about AIG. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/daily-show-the-economy-an_n_127453.html)

I’m still waiting for my letter in the mail that shows how many shares I now own of AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Bear Sterns.

[Daniel]

We could also probably still use combustion engines that burn more abundant and easily-obtained sources of hydrocarbons. But the serious problem with that, is that we're being really, really, really gay.

Win.

[Clove]

Fuel cells have an effectively unlimited lifespan as long as they're refueled. Hydrogen isn't necessary to create a fuel cell (several fuels are an option) however their efficeincy isn't really the issue when your focus is to limit oil dependency. The big powerplants that you're using to transmit power to the grids could alternately use that power to make hydrogen for cells. Wind, solar, tidal, nuclear and geothermal are all options that could be exploited to this end. Distribution of fuel cells? No more problematic than the distribution of batteries. You put them in the vehicle when you build it; the advantage is they should not need replacement for the life of the vehicle. They're good enough to power the Space Shuttle- they'd power your El Camino just fine.

[Faent]

I'm waiting for people like you to use the catch phrase "More examples of the failed Bush policies".. because I haven't laughed enough at you today. -PB
This *is* a consequence of idiotic conservative policy. It's also a consequence of idiotic liberal policy. If you vote for conservatives or liberals, you support idiotic policies that fuck you and your neighbors over. In fact, almost *all* the policies your "representatives" support are idiotic. So while you're right to point out that the failing economy is not, in large part, due solely to conservative pigs, you have failed to observe that conservatives are just as pig-like as liberals.


No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

[Parkbandit]

This *is* a consequence of idiotic conservative policy. It's also a consequence of idiotic liberal policy. If you vote for conservatives or liberals, you support idiotic policies that fuck you and your neighbors over. In fact, almost *all* the policies your "representatives" support are idiotic. So while you're right to point out that the failing economy is not, in large part, due solely to conservative pigs, you have failed to observe that conservatives are just as pig-like as liberals.


While I realize this is world post in the wrong thread day, it is NOT the world post retardese day. You will have to check with Stanley when that day is.

[Parkbandit]

What's this? A contentless, personal attack rather than responding to an argument? From PB?! Never!

http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/STFU-Cunt.jpg

Fuck off twink.

[Parkbandit]

One has to wonder how you even know what a "twink" is. It's not an undesirable term, anyway.

You considering a twink something desirable, isn't a surprise to many people here.

[Parkbandit]

There you go again, making unsupportable inferences. I said it wasn't an undesirable thing. And you dodged the question of how you know the term. :O

I'm pretty sure you know the term vagina.. but similarly, not in a real life situation.

[Audriana]

Can't you guys go pull eachothers hair elsewhere? Like a preschool somewhere?

[Clove]

I hated twinked rogues in the battlegrounds.

[Parkbandit]

Can't you guys go pull eachothers hair elsewhere? Like a preschool somewhere?

Easy mush head.. don't strain yourself.

[Faent]

What's this? A contentless, personal attack rather than responding to an argument? From PB?! Never!

Parkbandit never had anything.

In other news, he's probably not worth arguing with. A recent study suggests the conservatives are *way* more irrational than liberals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

Giving a conservative a refutation of some bit of misinformation almost *doubles* the chance the conservative will believe the misinformation. Sounds like PB to me!

[Parkbandit]

I hated twinked rogues in the battlegrounds.

Depends on the level. Twinked hunters are worse imo.

My twink warlock is a damage whore: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Dunemaul&n=Saia

And my twink druid can't be stopped from capping flags in WSG: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Dunemaul&n=Bullchip

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit never had anything.

In other news, he's probably not worth arguing with. A recent study suggests the conservatives are *way* more irrational than liberals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

Giving a conservative a refutation of some bit of misinformation almost *doubles* the chance the conservative will believe the misinformation. Sounds like PB to me!


Wait.. show me what groundbreaking information you had in this post again?


This *is* a consequence of idiotic conservative policy. It's also a consequence of idiotic liberal policy. If you vote for conservatives or liberals, you support idiotic policies that fuck you and your neighbors over. In fact, almost *all* the policies your "representatives" support are idiotic. So while you're right to point out that the failing economy is not, in large part, due solely to conservative pigs, you have failed to observe that conservatives are just as pig-like as liberals.

I can't find anything in there worth responding too... except how I did.

[Nieninque]

Ummm...Pinky Bubblehead

[Tsa`ah]

The main problem with batteries right now, in addition to not having the capacity or longevity needed for large scale use, is that they aren't a clean technology. If they're thrown away they contaminate the environment. You'd have to make absolutely sure that with any large scale battery system you make sure no one is throwing old ones away.

We'll eventually get there, but we aren't there now, and in the end batteries aren't the ideal technology. If you really had a genie and could wish for something, wish for hydrogen fuel cells.


Batteries are not your car.

How many laptop, cellphone, etc batteries do you have that stop keeping a charge or working as well after a couple years? Even the manufacturer's acknowledge the batteries will have to be replaced regularly as they have limited lifespans with today's technology. so there will be a waste issue.


and oh, audriana.... those capacity and longevity statistics you have for current batteries is bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is bullshit. There is a reason GM is having problems with the Volt engineering and meeting deadlines, and it isn't the chassis. We might get to what you say in 2-5 years, but we're not there now, today.

I just had to put all three of these quotes together simply because of the sheer ignorance.

The production of batteries may not be as clean when compared to, well a clean source of energy such as solar or wind, but they're no more "dirty" than the production of materials used to, and the, assembly of any given automobile. This will always be a given.

No one throws away an industrial battery, why in the hell would someone throw away an electric car battery? Don't you think that the industry would put a core charge on it? It's not a fucking tire ... when it fails, it still has a great deal of value. We're not talking about a small lap-top or cell phone battery that weighs a few ounces to a few pounds.

Current industrial batteries are covered by warranties that range from 3-7 years. Just waltz into any factory or warehouse that has been in business for a decade or longer and has been using electric lift trucks for just as long and ask how long their batteries have lasted ... and they're nothing more than the same thing you have in your car right now despite the size.

Maybe if you had bothered to read up on the Volt and the problems GM is having with the battery ... you'd fucking understand that it's the same issue operators of lift trucks have (with the exception that there's a quarter inch of steel on those batteries) HEAT. Yes heat. GM has a fire issue with the volt.

Unfortunately for your argument, as someone has already pointed out, Tesla motors has developed a battery that solves all of the major problems. Heat, size, weight, and range ... and it's the same battery type you have in your lap-top and cell phone. That's right, lithium-ion ... and that's a first generation production for them (they haven't stopped the development process).

[Clove]

I have to agree with Tsa'ah that heat is a bigger issue than use-life. He's correct about recycling batteries too.

As I see it the biggest problem with electric cars are their range. As long as you plan on keeping all your driving under 200 miles and can pause to recharge for several hours you're in great shape. For that reason it makes an EXCELLENT option people in large cities or people who commute to large cities.

On the other hand if you're the type of person who will regularly drive long distances something that has an energy source that can be quickly "recharged" is a better option. I really don't know how cumbersome it is to recharge a fuel cell but my suspscion is that it's less time-consuming than a battery and if that's true it would be a better clean-power solution for vehicles that need the ability to drive longer distances continually.

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm surprised we haven't seen solar panels integrated on the roofs, hoods and trunks of the current hybrids and electric car prototypes. It just seems like they aren't exploiting every opportunity in these designs. I'm sure it would add expense and complexity but I can't help but feel it would be worthwhile anyway.

[Tsa`ah]

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm surprised we haven't seen solar panels integrated on the roofs, hoods and trunks of the current hybrids and electric car prototypes. It just seems like they aren't exploiting every opportunity in these designs. I'm sure it would add expense and complexity but I can't help but feel it would be worthwhile anyway.

Exactly!

Not only would you extend the range a tad, but also reduce charging time/cost ... or the ability to charge (somewhat) when a proper outlet isn't available.

http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/

[Audriana]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/232218;_ylt=AupXVAJttc0lQOTY.PSuFF8jtBAF


12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy Alan Henry - PC Magazine
Fri Sep 19, 7:15 AM ET



One significant problem with existing solar technology is that it's not terribly efficient at harvesting solar energy and turning it into electricity.


Solar technology is improving all the time, but one 12-year-old boy may have the key to making solar panels that can harness 500 times the light of a traditional solar cell. William Yuan is a seventh grader in Oregon whose project, titled "A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light," may change the energy industry and make solar energy far easier to harness and distribute.


At the heart of Yuan's project is a special solar cell that can harness both visible and ultraviolet light. Most solar cells in use today are either photovoltaic, meaning they harness only visible light, or thermal. While visible, infrared, and ultraviolet light are all heavily scattered or absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, ultraviolet light comes in at shorter wavelengths and with higher energy than both visible and infrared light. Ultraviolet light can provide more energy to a collector than other, longer-wavelength members of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yuan's solar cells are not just innovative for their collection of UV light, but also because they're engineered to stand freely in three dimensions (which allows them to collect more light) and make use of carbon nanotubes, which allow the cell to distribute the energy it collects without dissipating as much as traditional cells do.

Yuan is looking for a manufacturer to invest in building his new solar cell, and likely won't have a problem finding a partner. Yuan's solar cells have earned him a $25,000 scholarship to fund his education and research, a fellowship at the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, and a host of other awards in science and engineering. Yuan isn't the only young inventor making a difference, more and more young innovators are changing the face of clean technology.


The title should read, "The soon-to-be richest motherfucker alive just retired at age 12", or "12 year old licenses patent to print money".

Sorta ends that whole battery debate, don't it?

[Audriana]

As a side note: - This breakthrough was made about 9 months ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105.htm
http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/

You combine the aforementioned solar panels, you have a machine that you never have to go to a gas station again.

Electric Motors have so few moving parts and such, and have been perfected for industrial uses their reliability is outstanding. A car roof of those solar panels is enough to power your car... and your house... and the rest of the houses on your block... So it simply charges a highly-efficient silicon nano-tube Li-Ion battery enough for at least 24 hours of continual use...

You have to replace the battery every 5-10 years, the solar panels whenever you replace the battery. Both the panel and the battery are recycled.


So why invest in hydrogen technology? Why invest in bio fuels? By the time it makes a dent in the world pollution and oil dependency issues, these technologies will be there.

Why doesn't the government pump research dollars into the high-density battery technology or this kid's 3d ultra violet solar panels? Could it be because it would destroy every power company, natural gas company, and oil company on the planet?