z31maniac said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
Just like any thread you prove you are incapable of reading and simple math. Go to the link provided. Divide the number of wells drilled by the number of rigs per year. Quickly realize it doesn't take 3-8 years to drill a well. Try weeks, not years. The problem is you keep expecting and anticipating groundbreaking, earth shattering, mind blowing revelations. The ultra sad reality is that nothing in life is that complex.
I read an article today that said 96% of thermometers used to record climate data are too close to brick, asphalt, or concrete which are man made and store heat. This means a lot of climate data is suspect. Do I have to read it you? Do I need to comprehend it for you too? I've often argued society ain't getting smarter. Prove I'm wrong! Can you find the article yourself? Should you?
I'm not promising anything to anyone. I'm actually trying really hard to be nice and civil while discussing the very simple and patently obvious truth. I've sworn to be nicer, but posts like this make it really hard. It's nothing but a poorly constructed uninformed insult. It's the type of nonsense the crowd here adores. No substance just muck that confirms to bad narratives.
In fact, I can't wreck what anyone thinks because most people have stopped thinking and just do what they're told.
Good luck changing the temperature of the planet when you can't feed, clothe and shelter everyone or even stop murdering people for sport. I'm sure the forced conversion to EVs will solve all the problems..... mind blown yet? Your thoughts wrecked?
Why don't you do something mind wrecking to me instead of lobbing the same tired insults my way. Astound me!
"I'm trying to be nice" while quoting your own words where you literally insulted someone.
You're a trip.
And he wonders why people don't respond to him lol
This is what happens kids, when you get all your politics from twitter
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:
ddavidv said:
Lots of fanatical praise about Tesla. I offer a contrary opinion. And, to be fair, I actually like the product and would consider one aside from the following.
Teslas are horrible to get parts for. They weren't great pre-pandemic and aren't any better now. Waiting 6 months for a taillight is inexcusable.
If you crash your Tesla they will want you to take it to a 'certified Tesla repair shop' or Tesla body shop. The labor rates are often nearly double what every other body shop charges. Putting a bumper or quarter panel on a Tesla isn't any different than any other car, but it costs more because, Tesla.
Try to get repair information from Tesla if you aren't one of the above places. Ain't happening.
The 'low cost to maintain' only applies when the car isn't needing work. When it does, you will pay more. Or your insurance company will, which means ultimately you will.
I like the product but strongly dislike the company.
Tesla needs to work on their parts distribution system. I read an article a few weeks ago about a Tesla Service Center that had about five of the old Tesla Roadsters sitting in a lot beside the building. Some missing parts. Some half covered with tarps. The guy in the article walked in and tried to buy one, only to find out they were not for sale. After a bit of hemming and hawing the manager admitted these were parts cars. My friend who has the Tesla that needed a motor was somewhat upset that she was getting a used motor for a replacement instead of a new one, even though she was willing to pay cash in advance. I am willing to bet that this motor came from a "parts car" too.
Ford and GM have an advantage over Tesla here. Their system is already in place and has been for years. They just have to add EV parts to the mix.
They also have a shortage of technicians who can fix EVs which helps create those six month wait times and high prices for repairs. They just have to train more technicians. Having independent EV repair shops around would help as well. Disgruntled Tesla employees could set up their own shops across the street with their own parts cars.
Both parts distribution and technician availability are problems that are fixable over time.
The new Tesla 2 does look interesting as cheaper runabout for around town, or with some Konis and thicker sway bars, a killer autocross car. But these will be made in China. All bets are off if the Chinese start flying their fighters over Taiwan. Lets hope Elon can build these in Mexico if he needs to.
I think I can understand why parts are difficult to obtain. To my knowledge they are the only company that makes running changes to a model throughout its life.
Not only that but they upgrade cars once sold.
That said yes you are right even a small accident can total a Tesla. I believe the idea behind that is to put an owner into a better car.
Leave the aftermarket to the aftermarket to develop at its's own pace.
While that might slightly drive up the cost of insurance on a Tesla. It will also prevent shoddily repaired cars from falling into the public's hands.
Having said that I fall back on common experience of Tesla owners I talk to. So far everyone has said nothing negative about their Tesla. Most "repairs" are done while recharging and those like door handles that don't work properly are dealt with by having a technician stop out to the house or work and repair it on site.
frenchyd said:
ICE use a non renewable resource. While there may be plenty of oil left. It's getting harder and more expensive to recover it. That means more and more cost.
EV's use a renewable resource. Wind and solar along with tides, waves, falling water, etc.
This is where you are wrong. The peak oil theory is false. Science has learned the planet continues to make oil and gas and it will continue to do so long after you and I are long gone.
EVs use electricity. They don't use wind or solar. Electricity is made many ways.
If the salt / aluminum batteries are made that can power EVs are brought to market, big win.
You can make wind or solar power and get it to market without oil. Try and fail.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Politics has nothing to do with simple division. Nice try though!
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
frenchyd said:
ICE use a non renewable resource. While there may be plenty of oil left. It's getting harder and more expensive to recover it. That means more and more cost.
EV's use a renewable resource. Wind and solar along with tides, waves, falling water, etc.
This is where you are wrong. The peak oil theory is false. Science has learned the planet continues to make oil and gas and it will continue to do so long after you and I are long gone.
EVs use electricity. They don't use wind or solar. Electricity is made many ways.
If the salt / aluminum batteries are made that can power EVs are brought to market, big win.
You can make wind or solar power and get it to market without oil. Try and fail.
That's just not true. There is no inorganic origin of petroleum. It was debunked back in the 70's and still is.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
Science has learned the planet continues to make oil and gas and it will continue to do so long after you and I are long gone.
It's true, the planet does make oil and gas, but it's doing it from decomposed plant matter from eons ago. There are a few spots where abiogenic oil is claimed to exist, but it's a fringe theory at best. Nobody, especially nobody in the industry, takes it seriously.
Besides, even if there were significant abiogenic oil reserves on earth, any process that's making oil that we know how to access is far too slow to replenish our reserves at anything close to the rate we're extracting oil from those reserves.
So """technically""" the earth is making more oil as we speak, but not at any sort of relevant rate. We get what we get. Once we're out, we're out. Once we're almost out, you start extracting more expensive/less efficient fields (oil sands, shale, etc). Sometimes methods get developed that let you access previously inaccessible oil much more cheaply (ie, fracking), but there are only so many options.
VolvoHeretic said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
frenchyd said:
ICE use a non renewable resource. While there may be plenty of oil left. It's getting harder and more expensive to recover it. That means more and more cost.
EV's use a renewable resource. Wind and solar along with tides, waves, falling water, etc.
This is where you are wrong. The peak oil theory is false. Science has learned the planet continues to make oil and gas and it will continue to do so long after you and I are long gone.
EVs use electricity. They don't use wind or solar. Electricity is made many ways.
If the salt / aluminum batteries are made that can power EVs are brought to market, big win.
You can make wind or solar power and get it to market without oil. Try and fail.
That's just not true. There is no inorganic origin of petroleum. It was debunked back in the 70's and still is.
It's organic. It's natural. It's ongoing. The inorganic origin theory is about as accurate as Peak Oil. I never said anything about "inorganic." Debunked..... is not even a word.
In reply to Matthew Kennedy :
No we don't ever run out. Nice try though. Our reserves far exceeded needs but I only have detailed knowledge of that from all over the world. If everyone could actually comprehend our energy crisis is manufactured to enrich a small group then we could actually have meaningful change.
Want to impress everyone and blow minds? Explain how to make electricity, a power grid, and have EVs without coal. Yes, coal. I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. I plan to live longer to antogonize anyone using the word debunked.
Wikipedia.org: Abiogenic petroleum origin
Wikipedia.org: Petroleum
Wikipedia.org: Cyanobacteria
You decide.
Edit: There isn't enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean today to support the plant growth that occurred billions of years ago and allowed the conversion of CO2 into O2 and Cellulose which turned into petroleum in the oceans and coal on the land.
We have been "almost out of oil" since I was in grade school, and I'm not that young.
Matthew Kennedy said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Matthew Kennedy :
Explain how to make electricity, a power grid, and have EVs without coal.
nuclear
Okay explain how to build a nuclear power plant without coal. Should I go make popcorn? I don't care if it's fission or fusion either. Big hint, no coal = no infrastructure at all. Sleep well!
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Please go back and show me where I said we were out of oil?
I agree There is plenty of oil. But access to it is getting harder and harder. Why else would we go to such extraordinary measures to get it?
As I've said. There may be oil in a lot of places. But the cost of recovery isn't within reason for a lot of it.
What does it cost to put a rig someplace and drill down to get it?
At what point does the amount of oil recovered offset the cost of drilling?
Am I correct that a puddle of oil won't cover it? Or even a small pond?
I'll bet we need a lake to make it worthwhile? But what size lake?
I remember reading a long while back about a Billion dollar well drilling platform. I don't know it that included the cost of towing into position. But maybe those millions are just chump change in the oil industry? After all they get billions and billions of tax breaks. So I can see where they get jealous of anything else that might approach the money they get.
Aside from that there is all the oil they extract from shale. Very sweet crude, in fact isn't it too sweet? That most refineries aren't set up to handle it so they mix it with other crude?
On top of that there is all the natural gas they extract as well.
In reply to frenchyd :
You said a well takes 3 to 8 years to develop. That's not true. That crew would be jobless and unhirable. Rigs probably average about a dozen or so wells a year. You are right there are economic concerns. That is the only valid question for oil and gas. That's it. What's it worth?
You may not have made the specific argument that oil is running out. Some here have. Many make that argument to justify "green" initiatives. It's a bad argument because it is false. You heavily support the green initiatives based on this bad and false argument,
The entire zero carbon argument is in fact stupid. No coal = no infrastructure period. The fact people listen to and support these stupid (or evil and dishonest; you choose) people is a direct testament to the state of education.
Newsflash, I do not think I'm that smart. I know plenty of smarter people. Sadly I'm living on a planet with a much larger sum of stupid people. Ignorance is on the decline. People today are just plain stupid. They could and should no better but they do not.
Prove it you say? Fine: COAL! You need it to make steel. Without steel you have no power plants period. Without coal, you have Stone Age darkness or you make candies and animal fat lamps. Nearly all technological advances are built on the oldest tech. No tools, no wheel, no coal, no modern society. It all builds on the work of our ancestors. That is the gift of knowledge and humanity. Sadly modern people think their phones and computers are smart and anyone that disagrees with the TV is stupid.
EVs do win in the end. It's an economic and technological issue. Those are the right questions. It's not going to save the planet.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Please don't assume I'm like everybody else. I have steadfastly made the statement of being pro EV and renewables for economic reasons. Even my statement about non renewables is an economic one. Wind and sun are free and once captured and used come in a locally useable manner. ( electricity).
Whereas oil needs to be transported to a refinery and then transported to a gas station. Then picked up by its ultimate user. Each one of those steps is one that electricity doesn't have to have.
Yes an argument can be made that a big plant can make electricity slightly cheaper than a home solar plant or wind generator. But once profit and transit losses are added it gets a lot closer.
With regard to the time it takes to develop a site, in spite of what you say. I stand by those numbers. Yes a drilling crew needs to keep working although when oil prices are too low the Rigs stand around not used.
But from the time someone decides to explore an area until the crew goes out can easily be that long. As I've said. Rights need to be obtained as do permits. Lawyers and public officials are not known for the speed they conduct business. And if courts are reluctantly involved. Well it's reasonably sure it will be towards the long end of that time schedule. Then the crews need to work into the schedule.
Do you notice how little steel is made in America compared to the past? A whole lot less than in the past. We import most of it.
What we do make tends to be the better stuff. That we can charge more for.
In reply to frenchyd :
It does not take 3-8 years to develop a well. You provide nothing but "stand by your numbers." Not impressed. Also, most wells are not exploratory but developmental. They still a well to produce, pick up, move to the next pad 100-500m away and drill the next well as nauseum. While one is being drilled, new well pads are being scraped into the Earth. It isn't rocket science although it seems like it based on your replies.
For a developmental well (over 90% of wells) all the exploration, surveying, permitting etc is already done. Most exploration wells don't take as long as you say either. If that happened we'd still be burning whale fat for lighting.
Yes most steel manufacturing takes place outside the US, that's another long term problem no one cares about.
You keep focusing the drilling process. Ignoring everything that precedes it. Yes the actual drilling can be done reasonably quickly.
I keep referring to what precedes the drilling. And the fact that yes sometimes drilling produces a dry well. Or not enough oil to make it viable.
If you tell me that you can drill anyplace you want to in a few weeks ? Without permits or legal agreements in place I'm going to call you on that.
I'm not sure if buying steel is bad for the country. Yes there is a bunch of Iron Ore up in NorthernMinnesota that isn't being used.
And of course that means coal isn't being dug up either. I'm sure there is plenty more. But maybe it's OK that we aren't using it. Japan and South Korea are willing to sell us. Pretty much all we need. Germany was too ( until Russia cut off their natural gas )
Sooner or later Russia and Ukraine are going to get back to making and selling it.
I have a lot of other things that bother me more. Flooding on the upper Mississippi River, Missouri river, And Red River of the north. For example That is a problem that has an easy solution.
The Oggalala reservoir is drying up and the breadbasket of the Midwest has to snk deeper and deeper wells to keep growing crops. Tunnel bore to the reservoir and let the flood waters refill it.
Why does California grow rice ( a monsoon crop ) in the near desert of Southern California?
Wouldn't Louisiana be a better place for that crop? You could divert flooding on the lower Mississippi onto the rice fields Win Win
VolvoHeretic said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
g/electricity-mix Coal is still the largest source of power and has been on the increase for the last 40 years. From here.
Also from that above source: Electricity Generation From Coal, 2022 Be sure to pay attention to the trends.
Remember when I said that climate change doesn't follow smooth steady trends but hits tipping points followed by rapid change? Prepare for an ice free Arctic. Yahoo.com: Arctic could be ice-free a decade earlier than thought
Since those numbers were published 14 Gigawatts of coal fired power plants have been taken off line/ retired.
as of May of this year,
Solar & Wind have created 252 TWH.
Water 117 TWH
combined 369 TWH
Coal created 149 TWH
According to EIA
The last time Coal generated 50% of the electrical power in America was 2008
Part of the reason coal is losing out. Is once the power plant drops below 70% usage efficiency drops severely.
Natural gas would be taking up some slack but a number of power plants signed contracts last year for natural gas around $8.81 per MBU it's now down around $2.15 per MBU
In reply to frenchyd :
You clearly did not understand very much. A lot of things are done in parallel. Read this slowly please..... most wells are developmental. That means all that work is already done, the land is owned, they know what's down there, permits are on file, and all the paperwork is done. All they have to do is build a pad, drill and complete the well. They can do this multiple times a year. If they do not, they go out of business.
Yet again this is a really simple fE36 M3g math problem and I gave you the data. The data is public record. No company is going to pay taxes on fake wells drilled or drill without permits. Your assumptions are supported by nothing yet you cling to them. And then you insist I don't understand you. In fact I do understand. I flat out disagree with you and I have evidence to prove it. In TX (which you like to talk about a lot too when I actually was born there and worked in the energy business there) they drill thousands of wells a year and complete them along with all the required pater work. They do it with a few hundred rigs. Your claim is factually incorrect and mathematical incorrect by decades (think base 10 not years). Go take a vacation in West TX and watch it for yourself. I recommend Odessa. Go meet a rig crew and ask them how long it takes. Heck sign on as a gopher (go fer) You'll be there a few weeks not 3 years!
I'm sure things are very easy in Texas with regard oil. Not all states are the same.
Even in Texas I'm sure there are some cantankerous land holders who refuse to sell or allow access.
You keep wanting me to focus on drilling.
I granted you that. But I've read too much about delays and legal fights to agree that it is always a walk in the park.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Lighten up Francis.
VolvoHeretic said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Lighten up Francis.
My names Anthony, not sure how you missed that.
frenchyd said:
I'm sure things are very easy in Texas with regard oil. Not all states are the same.
Even in Texas I'm sure there are some cantankerous land holders who refuse to sell or allow access.
You keep wanting me to focus on drilling.
I granted you that. But I've read too much about delays and legal fights to agree that it is always a walk in the park.
E all
Read it, but can't recall where etc. that's quite convenient. Just do the math. It's weeks not years. Anyone with any kind of integrity and mathematical ability knows it. Denying this simple math fact only proves your just making up nearly everything you say. Sure you aren't a politician?
Tom1200
UberDork
6/16/23 11:07 p.m.
OK I know I said 1500 but at 1400 I think JG, David and Tom should send me an autographed T-shirt for blowing up the forum.
