A brave, bold prediction from the Great Samini
Crude shock for BP: US field may be shut months
August 9, 2006BP SAID it had discovered corrosion so severe at the huge Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska that it would have to replace 26 kilometres of pipeline.
The work could shut down the biggest source of domestic crude in the US for months and drive global petrol prices even higher.
The news boosted the price of crude oil for September delivery by $US2.22, or 3 per cent, to a near record of $76.98 a barrel. (Story.)
The Great Samini predicts that when the Prudhoe Bay oil pipeline is reopened, the corresponding drop in oil prices will be less than the corresponding hike in oil prices associated with its closing.
Verily, the Great Samini is subtle and his ways mysterious…
:xpost:
lullaby pit 
The price of oil after they open up the pipeline will be dependent on the US dollar, the supply of on hand oil, the crack percentage, the terrorism premium, the refinery capacity and utilization, and the amount of speculative longs in the market. I could well be over the earlier price, as there is a well defined upward price channel that oil is trading in. After all, oil is in a very robust bull market, and should perform well. I don’t know why people get their panties in a bunch when the price of oil goes up, and wish it to drop. I bet they don’t want their stocks, IRA’s, and mutual funds to drop in price, like they do with oil. Chances are, that most people who own retirement funds have a lot of money invested in oil and don’t even realize it. Frankly, I find oil to be a great trading opportunity, and plenty of little guys are making fortunes playing the oil futures market. I don’t care which way markets go, as long as they move, have volatility, and give me the opportunity to make money from either side.
Aloha,
Jeff
The price of oil after they open up the pipeline will be dependent on the US dollar, the supply of on hand oil, the crack percentage, the terrorism premium, the refinery capacity and utilization, and the amount of speculative longs in the market. I could well be over the earlier price, as there is a well defined upward price channel that oil is trading in. After all, oil is in a very robust bull market, and should perform well. I don’t know why people get their panties in a bunch when the price of oil goes up, and wish it to drop. I bet they don’t want their stocks, IRA’s, and mutual funds to drop in price, like they do with oil. Chances are, that most people who own retirement funds have a lot of money invested in oil and don’t even realize it. Frankly, I find oil to be a great trading opportunity, and plenty of little guys are making fortunes playing the oil futures market. I don’t care which way markets go, as long as they move, have volatility, and give me the opportunity to make money from either side.
Aloha,
Jeff
The Great Samini envies your investor position. At present, the only investment he has in the oil market is when he has to fill up the truck.
The Great Samini needs a scooter.
The Great Samini envies your investor position. At present, the only investment he has in the oil market is when he has to fill up the truck.
The Great Samini needs a scooter.
Yes, but do scooters come in “center line of the road” yellow?
Yes, but do scooters come in “center line of the road” yellow?
The Great Samini predicts that vehicles as small as scooters should come in colors that contrast strongly with the center stripe of the road.
Samini realizes that wasn’t really a prediction, exactly…
The Great Samini predicts that vehicles as small as scooters should come in colors that contrast strongly with the center stripe of the road.
Samini realizes that wasn’t really a prediction, exactly…
Vehicles as small, hard to see, and slow moving as scooters should come in blinking neon with huge (albeit aerodynamic) “I’m HERE – Don’t hit me!” arrows pointing down at the scooter from a 6 foot pole above the scooter.
Vehicles as small, hard to see, and slow moving as scooters should come in blinking neon with huge (albeit aerodynamic) “I’m HERE – Don’t hit me!” arrows pointing down at the scooter from a 6 foot pole above the scooter.
Scooters get great mileage. I like this new car and want one. Check it out http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
With the optional photovoltaic array, you can get completely off the grid. It’s great for getting around town.
Aloha,
Jeff
Scooters get great mileage. I like this new car and want one. Check it out http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
With the optional photovoltaic array, you can get completely off the grid. It’s great for getting around town.
Aloha,
Jeff
That’s what the Great Samini predicts, yes.
That’s what the Great Samini predicts, yes.
Whoa! The Great Samini wants one.
However, he predicts he can’t afford it just yet….
Whoa! The Great Samini wants one.
However, he predicts he can’t afford it just yet….
Nice hat
The word ‘subtle’ didn’t come to mind when I looked at that photo.
Nice hat
The word ‘subtle’ didn’t come to mind when I looked at that photo.
Re: Nice hat
The Great Samini thinks that’s because you’ve had bad professors.
Re: Nice hat
The Great Samini thinks that’s because you’ve had bad professors.
And if you don’t get off the grid with that optional photovoltaic array, then all this car does is trade gasoline pollution for coal and natural gas emissions. Which is worse is a point of debate.
Of course, if you can afford the car, you can probably afford the photovoltaic array too.
And if you don’t get off the grid with that optional photovoltaic array, then all this car does is trade gasoline pollution for coal and natural gas emissions. Which is worse is a point of debate.
Of course, if you can afford the car, you can probably afford the photovoltaic array too.
The better course of action would be nuclear power to generate our electricity, but I’m not going to open that can of worms. Natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline. Coal doesn’t burn cleaner than gasoline, but the scrubbing technology in the past 3 decades has reduced pollution from coal fired generators greatly. The biggest source of pollution on this planet (carbon, NOX, and sulphur) is still volcanoes. Sunlight is still the biggest producer of ozone, which despite being a pollutant, is needed in our eco-system.
People never mention that with photovoltaic systems, they wear out and have to be replaced at great expense. They just can’t stand all of those damn electrons getting knocked around from the sunlight.
I’d have that car in a second if my lovely wife would allow me such an indulgence.
Aloha,
Jeff
The better course of action would be nuclear power to generate our electricity, but I’m not going to open that can of worms. Natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline. Coal doesn’t burn cleaner than gasoline, but the scrubbing technology in the past 3 decades has reduced pollution from coal fired generators greatly. The biggest source of pollution on this planet (carbon, NOX, and sulphur) is still volcanoes. Sunlight is still the biggest producer of ozone, which despite being a pollutant, is needed in our eco-system.
People never mention that with photovoltaic systems, they wear out and have to be replaced at great expense. They just can’t stand all of those damn electrons getting knocked around from the sunlight.
I’d have that car in a second if my lovely wife would allow me such an indulgence.
Aloha,
Jeff
Well, that’s not inherently 100% accurate. Depends on the relative efficiency of the vehicle, right?
Well, that’s not inherently 100% accurate. Depends on the relative efficiency of the vehicle, right?
Which would be one of the reasons it’s a point of debate.
Which would be one of the reasons it’s a point of debate.
The site makes claim for 1 cent/mile. If that’s the case, we’re probably talking about a pretty good piece of tech. Didn’t evaluate the claim, though….
The site makes claim for 1 cent/mile. If that’s the case, we’re probably talking about a pretty good piece of tech. Didn’t evaluate the claim, though….
I did a little looking into the claim, and they’re claim proves my comment in another thread about marketing.
Depending on when you charge your car (summer winter, peak vs. off-peak) and how far above baseline you are, the cost to charge the electric car can be between about 0.6 cents per mile to as high as 5.5 cents per mile, using Pacific Gas and Electric’s Schedule E-9, rate A profile. For comparison, my new car (2006 Honda Civic EX sedan) will be about 8.6 cents per mile with $3.00/gallon fuel costs, and a Toyota Prius should be about 6 cents/mile. Oh, and if you happen to use Southern California Edison instead of PG&E, your cost/mile will be different too.
In parts of the country where electricity is cheaper (anywhere but Alaska, Hawaii, and New England), the equation tilts in favor of the electric car, where it tilts against the electric car in New England, Alaska, and Hawaii. Except that the cost of gasoline also is cheaper outside of the Pacific region. Which basically means that the cost/mile number they give isn’t a lie, but it isn’t true either.
Finally, their $100k price doesn’t include the costs of electrical installation (although it does include the charger itself), so you can reasonably expect to pay another $2k-10k for the electrical installation, depending on electric company, age of the home, level 1, 2, or 3 charging, etc.
I’m not saying that it’s not a good idea if you live somewhere that the gas is expensive and the electricity is cheap – it is. I’m pointing out that the car isn’t ideal, that Tesla Motors has marketed their car using data that is simultaneously honest and dishonest, and that there are hidden costs.
I did a little looking into the claim, and they’re claim proves my comment in another thread about marketing.
Depending on when you charge your car (summer winter, peak vs. off-peak) and how far above baseline you are, the cost to charge the electric car can be between about 0.6 cents per mile to as high as 5.5 cents per mile, using Pacific Gas and Electric’s Schedule E-9, rate A profile. For comparison, my new car (2006 Honda Civic EX sedan) will be about 8.6 cents per mile with $3.00/gallon fuel costs, and a Toyota Prius should be about 6 cents/mile. Oh, and if you happen to use Southern California Edison instead of PG&E, your cost/mile will be different too.
In parts of the country where electricity is cheaper (anywhere but Alaska, Hawaii, and New England), the equation tilts in favor of the electric car, where it tilts against the electric car in New England, Alaska, and Hawaii. Except that the cost of gasoline also is cheaper outside of the Pacific region. Which basically means that the cost/mile number they give isn’t a lie, but it isn’t true either.
Finally, their $100k price doesn’t include the costs of electrical installation (although it does include the charger itself), so you can reasonably expect to pay another $2k-10k for the electrical installation, depending on electric company, age of the home, level 1, 2, or 3 charging, etc.
I’m not saying that it’s not a good idea if you live somewhere that the gas is expensive and the electricity is cheap – it is. I’m pointing out that the car isn’t ideal, that Tesla Motors has marketed their car using data that is simultaneously honest and dishonest, and that there are hidden costs.
The problem with going nuclear, aside from what to do with the waste, is that we can’t be bothered to build the plants safely. And why is that? For the same reason that the improvement in scrubber technology isn’t worth Boo.
See, my dad used to work for an environmental services corp. They made scrubbers. He could go on and on about this coal-fired plant, where the owners intentionally abused the scrubbers so that they’d break, so that, in turn, they could tell the federal regulatory agency, “See … See … they don’t work!”
He could also tell you about other plants, where the backup safety systems were removed because the owners felt, “They’re an unnecessary, redundant expense.”
This is why nuclear plants are inherently dangerous: they’re not built the way a physicist would want. And, to be blunt, anyone but a physicist (or nuclear engineer) hasn’t a f***ing clue what “radiation” is … or isn’t.
So we get nuclear plants that are accidents waiting to happen, built to make money. Or to make weapons. But not to generate power safely.
The problem with going nuclear, aside from what to do with the waste, is that we can’t be bothered to build the plants safely. And why is that? For the same reason that the improvement in scrubber technology isn’t worth Boo.
See, my dad used to work for an environmental services corp. They made scrubbers. He could go on and on about this coal-fired plant, where the owners intentionally abused the scrubbers so that they’d break, so that, in turn, they could tell the federal regulatory agency, “See … See … they don’t work!”
He could also tell you about other plants, where the backup safety systems were removed because the owners felt, “They’re an unnecessary, redundant expense.”
This is why nuclear plants are inherently dangerous: they’re not built the way a physicist would want. And, to be blunt, anyone but a physicist (or nuclear engineer) hasn’t a f***ing clue what “radiation” is … or isn’t.
So we get nuclear plants that are accidents waiting to happen, built to make money. Or to make weapons. But not to generate power safely.
But remember, that they haven’t built any nuclear plants in a few decades. A lot of technology has been improved since the late 70’s. I might not be a physicist(my PhD is in Physical Chemistry), but I did minor in physics and math, and have always loved playing around with radioactive substances……with all due concern to safety. I do know what radiation is, and respect it.
Aloha,
Jeff
But remember, that they haven’t built any nuclear plants in a few decades. A lot of technology has been improved since the late 70’s. I might not be a physicist(my PhD is in Physical Chemistry), but I did minor in physics and math, and have always loved playing around with radioactive substances……with all due concern to safety. I do know what radiation is, and respect it.
Aloha,
Jeff
You, then, are among the Priviledged Few who actually understand what radiation actually is, and is not.
The owners of power companies Do Not.
The construction companies building the nuclear power plants Definitely Do Not.
The construction workers building the nuclear power plants … just don’t care.
This is the real problem with nuclear energy. And advances in reactor design don’t cure it.
(Never mind that we’re using relativistic neutrons, electrons, and Helium-nuclei to, basically, heat an overgrown tea kettle. And sloppily, at that.)
You, then, are among the Priviledged Few who actually understand what radiation actually is, and is not.
The owners of power companies Do Not.
The construction companies building the nuclear power plants Definitely Do Not.
The construction workers building the nuclear power plants … just don’t care.
This is the real problem with nuclear energy. And advances in reactor design don’t cure it.
(Never mind that we’re using relativistic neutrons, electrons, and Helium-nuclei to, basically, heat an overgrown tea kettle. And sloppily, at that.)
Electrons and helium nuclei are not used in fission reactions that are the basis of the nuclear power industry. Helium nuclei are a product of a fusion reaction, but those are typically found in weapons, not simple reactors. The nuclear reaction that reactors use is; 1 neutron hits an atom of U-235 which subsequently breaks up into one atom of Sr-90 and one atom of Xe-143 and 3 extra neutrons. Both alpha and gamma radiation are also released by this reaction as a byproduct. The 3 neutrons hit other U-235 atoms and produce a chain reaction. U-238 decay does produce beta radiation and a He-4 and Th-234 plus some alpha radiation, but this reaction does not have sufficient velocity to produce a chain reaction required for a sustainable fission reaction.
You’re making some broad generalizations about what the power companies, construction companies, and workers understand about radiation and it’s effect. Since there haven’t been any projects in this country in a long time, there’s not sufficient documentation to prove your generalization. I also can’t find any merit with your broad generalization that “advances in reactor design don’t cure it….” Also, your overgrown tea kettle analogy simply doesn’t fly. Where is the sloppiness involved, is it in the design, or is it a deliberate attempt to kill people…..the customers? Your comment,”relativistic neutrons, electrons, and Helium-nuclei…..,” is part of a lecture I must have missed, because you really don’t know what you’re trying to say.
From a personal observation, one of my old college roommates runs a nuclear reactor in Dardanelle, Arkansas. His #1 priority is with safety, and he knows what he’s doing. I’ve been to the plant several times and find the engineering process, design, and operating protocols to be first rate.
As for nuclear waste disposal, I think we need to work on that.
Aloha,
Jeff
Electrons and helium nuclei are not used in fission reactions that are the basis of the nuclear power industry. Helium nuclei are a product of a fusion reaction, but those are typically found in weapons, not simple reactors. The nuclear reaction that reactors use is; 1 neutron hits an atom of U-235 which subsequently breaks up into one atom of Sr-90 and one atom of Xe-143 and 3 extra neutrons. Both alpha and gamma radiation are also released by this reaction as a byproduct. The 3 neutrons hit other U-235 atoms and produce a chain reaction. U-238 decay does produce beta radiation and a He-4 and Th-234 plus some alpha radiation, but this reaction does not have sufficient velocity to produce a chain reaction required for a sustainable fission reaction.
You’re making some broad generalizations about what the power companies, construction companies, and workers understand about radiation and it’s effect. Since there haven’t been any projects in this country in a long time, there’s not sufficient documentation to prove your generalization. I also can’t find any merit with your broad generalization that “advances in reactor design don’t cure it….” Also, your overgrown tea kettle analogy simply doesn’t fly. Where is the sloppiness involved, is it in the design, or is it a deliberate attempt to kill people…..the customers? Your comment,”relativistic neutrons, electrons, and Helium-nuclei…..,” is part of a lecture I must have missed, because you really don’t know what you’re trying to say.
From a personal observation, one of my old college roommates runs a nuclear reactor in Dardanelle, Arkansas. His #1 priority is with safety, and he knows what he’s doing. I’ve been to the plant several times and find the engineering process, design, and operating protocols to be first rate.
As for nuclear waste disposal, I think we need to work on that.
Aloha,
Jeff
I don’t know enough to track on what either of you are talking about, but do recall that had a post or two on nukes some time back. He’s calling himself something like a “pro-nuke liberal,” and is pointing to the recent success of nukes in Europe as a model for what we could be doing here.
To sum that argument up, I guess it would be that “times have changed.” If it’s possible for us to ramp up something like that Euro experience here, it would be a huge improvement over what we’ve had, wouldn’t it?
Meanwhile, I keep hoping somebody will nail fusion….
I don’t know enough to track on what either of you are talking about, but do recall that had a post or two on nukes some time back. He’s calling himself something like a “pro-nuke liberal,” and is pointing to the recent success of nukes in Europe as a model for what we could be doing here.
To sum that argument up, I guess it would be that “times have changed.” If it’s possible for us to ramp up something like that Euro experience here, it would be a huge improvement over what we’ve had, wouldn’t it?
Meanwhile, I keep hoping somebody will nail fusion….
The reason that the Europeans have succeeded with their programs is because they haven’t stopped building reactors. This is one area where I think the Western Europeans have gotten us soundly beat. The French design very elegant reactors, from a scientific and engineering standpoint. Each time a new reactor goes online, improvements are made due to better engineering and re-engineering. The power companies don’t want accidents any more than we do, and to think so would be ludicrous. An accident would cause the plant to close (ie: 3 mile island) and would whack billions of dollars off of the bottom line.
I don’t think we’ll se a sustainable fusion program in our lifetime, as you need so much energy to activate a fusion reaction as to make it unrealistic. The hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction, and the source of energy for the fusion reaction to take place in a hydrogen bomb is from an atomic bomb. The atom bomb is the trigger for the hydrogen bomb, so to speak.
My main worry about nuclear power is the long term storage of the waste. There needs to be in place a program that concentrates the waste into a small area. This is economically feasable.
Aloha,
Jeff
The reason that the Europeans have succeeded with their programs is because they haven’t stopped building reactors. This is one area where I think the Western Europeans have gotten us soundly beat. The French design very elegant reactors, from a scientific and engineering standpoint. Each time a new reactor goes online, improvements are made due to better engineering and re-engineering. The power companies don’t want accidents any more than we do, and to think so would be ludicrous. An accident would cause the plant to close (ie: 3 mile island) and would whack billions of dollars off of the bottom line.
I don’t think we’ll se a sustainable fusion program in our lifetime, as you need so much energy to activate a fusion reaction as to make it unrealistic. The hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction, and the source of energy for the fusion reaction to take place in a hydrogen bomb is from an atomic bomb. The atom bomb is the trigger for the hydrogen bomb, so to speak.
My main worry about nuclear power is the long term storage of the waste. There needs to be in place a program that concentrates the waste into a small area. This is economically feasable.
Aloha,
Jeff
I don’t think they’re using Nebraska for anything. And there are parts of Jersey where I think some nuke waste might actually improve things a bit.
I don’t think they’re using Nebraska for anything. And there are parts of Jersey where I think some nuke waste might actually improve things a bit.
LOL:)
Aloha,
Jeffd
LOL:)
Aloha,
Jeffd
Okay, so you caught me.
(A) My memory isn’t all that great, and I was too lazy to look up the
exact products of U235 fission. (Or which Pl isotopes are used in reactors, and what their fission products are.)
(B) I’m playing fast-and-loose with the whole process, lumping in the decay emissions of the fission products with “fission reactor.” I’m well aware that the two forms of radiation from fission are neutrons and EM in the gamma end of the spectrum. 😉
(BTW: “Beta” radiation is just relativistic electrons. As for “alpha” radiation … those bare He nuclei may or may not have relativistic momentum. It rather depends on what’s undergoing decay, and there is most likely a distribution spectrum to the products. But, again, I’m lazy & don’t feel like cracking open my QM book. :wink:)
But, that you know all of this proves my point. You understand it. I understand it. The guys working at fission reactors understand it. Everyone else? “Radiation” is just some scary “thing” to them.
(C) When I said, “the power plant owners,” and “the construction company owners,” that’s who I meant. Not the engineers working at the nuclear facility. Not the engineers who designed the plant.
As for my broad generalizations about power companies: yeah, so?
Though I don’t have experience with them, my father has been a project manager on several things, from scrubber installation on coal-fired power plants, to the construction of pharmaceutical plants. He’s seen secondary and tertiary backup systems cut from construction plans because the plant owner considered them an “unnecessary” expense. I repeat: the engineers said, “You need a backup safety system, and a backup for the backup, if you don’t want people to die.” The owners said, “Safety systems are unnecessary. Nothing really bad will ever go wrong. All we need is an alarm to go off.”
I side with the engineers. I suspect, when all is said and done, that you do, too.
And companies poison their customers all of the time. Just look at the upper Hudson River, or the Housatonic River. Or, more recently, the Coca-Cola plant in India (I think it’s the state of Maharashtra?) where they drained the aquifer, then pumped waste water back down into the empty wells.
As long as it takes years to kill the customers, if it makes the companies a buck today, they don’t care.
Okay, so you caught me.
(A) My memory isn’t all that great, and I was too lazy to look up the
exact products of U235 fission. (Or which Pl isotopes are used in reactors, and what their fission products are.)
(B) I’m playing fast-and-loose with the whole process, lumping in the decay emissions of the fission products with “fission reactor.” I’m well aware that the two forms of radiation from fission are neutrons and EM in the gamma end of the spectrum. 😉
(BTW: “Beta” radiation is just relativistic electrons. As for “alpha” radiation … those bare He nuclei may or may not have relativistic momentum. It rather depends on what’s undergoing decay, and there is most likely a distribution spectrum to the products. But, again, I’m lazy & don’t feel like cracking open my QM book. :wink:)
But, that you know all of this proves my point. You understand it. I understand it. The guys working at fission reactors understand it. Everyone else? “Radiation” is just some scary “thing” to them.
(C) When I said, “the power plant owners,” and “the construction company owners,” that’s who I meant. Not the engineers working at the nuclear facility. Not the engineers who designed the plant.
As for my broad generalizations about power companies: yeah, so?
Though I don’t have experience with them, my father has been a project manager on several things, from scrubber installation on coal-fired power plants, to the construction of pharmaceutical plants. He’s seen secondary and tertiary backup systems cut from construction plans because the plant owner considered them an “unnecessary” expense. I repeat: the engineers said, “You need a backup safety system, and a backup for the backup, if you don’t want people to die.” The owners said, “Safety systems are unnecessary. Nothing really bad will ever go wrong. All we need is an alarm to go off.”
I side with the engineers. I suspect, when all is said and done, that you do, too.
And companies poison their customers all of the time. Just look at the upper Hudson River, or the Housatonic River. Or, more recently, the Coca-Cola plant in India (I think it’s the state of Maharashtra?) where they drained the aquifer, then pumped waste water back down into the empty wells.
As long as it takes years to kill the customers, if it makes the companies a buck today, they don’t care.