A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #102  
Old May 25th 06, 03:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

On 24 May 2006 17:53:16 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:


Right, that's why we'll eventually use up the oil supply.


No, we won't. We will always have oil. We may stop using it, but
we'll never run out.


Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no
matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it.


Read what I wrote. Learn economics.
  #104  
Old May 25th 06, 12:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

On Thu, 25 May 2006 01:28:10 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

Right, that's why we'll eventually use up the oil supply.

No, we won't. We will always have oil. We may stop using it, but
we'll never run out.


Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no
matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it.


He just means we will never extract the last drop. Most people would
consider "running out" being the point at which it's no longer economically
viable to extract any more. Rand isn't that imaginative.


No, the words "use up," have a pretty well-defined meaning. We'll
never "use up" oil.
  #106  
Old May 25th 06, 02:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



Alan Anderson wrote:


Just to be contrary, though, I can imagine a scenario where a
bioengineered petroleum-eating microbe, originally intended to help
clean up such things as supertanker spills, gets out of control and
begins consuming underground oil reserves.


Actually they're looking at using oil eating microorganisms to extract
difficult oil deposits from underground; the bacteria eat the oil, then
you mix the bacteria and their waste products into solution with water
and pump the goo to the surface where it's reprocessed into petroleum
products.
Soap is another method, as it allows the oil to go into solution with
water and be pumped up.

Pat
  #107  
Old May 26th 06, 04:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:15:55 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no
matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it.


You're wrong. As price rises, demand falls due to customers switching to
alternatives. Eventually, you end up with oil that's so expensive, no one
in their right mind would use it, so you never truly "run out" of oil.


Yes, which is why the notion of a sustained price of (say) a hundred
fifty bucks a barrel, in current dollars, is ludicrous.
  #108  
Old May 26th 06, 06:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


Rand Simberg wrote:
Yes, which is why the notion of a sustained price of (say) a hundred
fifty bucks a barrel, in current dollars, is ludicrous.


Could you elaborate on that. Why is $150/barrel "ludicrous"?

  #109  
Old May 26th 06, 06:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

On 26 May 2006 10:05:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
Yes, which is why the notion of a sustained price of (say) a hundred
fifty bucks a barrel, in current dollars, is ludicrous.


Could you elaborate on that. Why is $150/barrel "ludicrous"?


Because it's an unsustainable price. Even at current prices, it makes
sense to start to open up shale and tar sands, which can be produced
for on the order of thirty bucks a barrel, and for which the supply is
greater than Middle East reserves.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.