Buy futures or buy oil company shares. Oil is not only used to produce petrol. Even if green energy sources increase there will still be a demand for oil.
I agree with you, it can be used in other industries for producing goods. However it seems that most of oil is used as energy.
Topic: Long term OIL - page 44. (Read 91840 times)
To be true, most of our daily products (except food) is made from oil. Take a look around in your room. How many plastic products do you have (or at least products with plastic parts)? Those are all made with crude oil
Buy futures or buy oil company shares. Oil is not only used to produce petrol. Even if green energy sources increase there will still be a demand for oil.
I agree with you, it can be used in other industries for producing goods. However it seems that most of oil is used as energy.Petrochemicals are another big use of oil. However, demand for petrochemicals is directly correlated to overall economic demand. Hence petrochemical prices are slumping too.
Just the world nuclear would be no for a normal person and thinking that there is one in your country will make you scared in your every day life.
This is what fear-mongering and propaganda can do to you.
One good earthquake can make everything bad happens as like we saw.
I thought Fukushima was resistant from earthquakes?
Yes it was but not resistant on tsunami..In future on wars and terrorist attacks or some other natural catastrophes?
Oil is still far better solution, while we don't find something better!
I thought Fukushima was resistant from earthquakes?
Yes it was but not resistant on tsunami..In future on wars and terrorist attacks or some other natural catastrophes?
Oil is still far better solution, while we don't find something better!
How many people died as a result of the Fukushima disaster? The answer is ZERO.
How many people got cancer as a result of the disaster? According to Toshihide Tsuda (Okayama University), around 100 cases of thyroid cases have been detected in Fukushima and the neighboring areas, which can be attributed to the nuclear disaster. Thyroid cancer is not a life-threatening condition, and the survival rates are near 100%.
So my logic is simple. Fukushima was once in a 100 year catastrophe. Even during that event, no one lost their lives.
A huge zone is considered as dangerous, had to be evacuated and will not be inhabitable for decades.
The economic fallouts are also extremely important, they had to pay (and still do) huge amounts to decontaminate and for safety controls. If we only take into account the financial aspect this power plant probably costed a hundred times more than it produced.
Buy futures or buy oil company shares. Oil is not only used to produce petrol. Even if green energy sources increase there will still be a demand for oil.
I agree with you, it can be used in other industries for producing goods. However it seems that most of oil is used as energy.Petrochemicals are another big use of oil. However, demand for petrochemicals is directly correlated to overall economic demand. Hence petrochemical prices are slumping too.
Buy futures or buy oil company shares. Oil is not only used to produce petrol. Even if green energy sources increase there will still be a demand for oil.
I agree with you, it can be used in other industries for producing goods. However it seems that most of oil is used as energy. Recent news is that the oils long term fall is not over. It is expected the price of oil once again goes low by the coming weeks.
This looks to be a very bad situation for the countries whose economy is completely dependent on oil wealth.
In the short term yes, but if the price really does fall further, which I think would be unlikely, it will result in a real oil shortfall in the coming years.This looks to be a very bad situation for the countries whose economy is completely dependent on oil wealth.
Brazil have said that they won't auction any more exploration areas, as at $50 oil is far too cheap. The major oil economies are all in trouble. Investment is falling off a cliff, drilling of fracking wells is stopping.
The amount of money needed to restart will be much more than the running costs, so once they are closed, it will take time and investment (by those with burned fingers) to get them back up and running. That along with the lag time associated means I think there will be an oil shortage in the next 10 years, with oils prices rising greatly.
I predict the return of $100 before 2020.
Recent news is that the oils long term fall is not over. It is expected the price of oil once again goes low by the coming weeks.
This looks to be a very bad situation for the countries whose economy is completely dependent on oil wealth.
This looks to be a very bad situation for the countries whose economy is completely dependent on oil wealth.
Well, if they can finally crack economical fusion power, it's gonna knock oil into a few niche markets.
And nuclear, even fusion (when that shows up) isn't pollution free. Thousands of tons of radioactive materials are being stored because we have no way to dispose of it. Any fluids or materials that come in contact with the core become irradiated by neutron activation and we have no way of treating it other than putting it someplace out of the way for a very long time until it becomes less radioactive.
It is really minimal for fusion in relation to fission. In around 100 years there could already be no traces of radioactivity left depending on materials used for the reactor.
And we are just at the start of creating an efficient fusionreactor.
And nuclear, even fusion (when that shows up) isn't pollution free. Thousands of tons of radioactive materials are being stored because we have no way to dispose of it. Any fluids or materials that come in contact with the core become irradiated by neutron activation and we have no way of treating it other than putting it someplace out of the way for a very long time until it becomes less radioactive.
We could say it here this one disaster in 100 years but if you are planning to drive electric cars and to ban oil for good, you'll need a thousands of new nuclear plants all over the world. So probability for disaster will rise rapidly.
Just the world nuclear would be no for a normal person and thinking that there is one in your country will make you scared in your every day life.
This is what fear-mongering and propaganda can do to you.
One good earthquake can make everything bad happens as like we saw.
I thought Fukushima was resistant from earthquakes?
Yes it was but not resistant on tsunami..In future on wars and terrorist attacks or some other natural catastrophes?
Oil is still far better solution, while we don't find something better!
I thought Fukushima was resistant from earthquakes?
Yes it was but not resistant on tsunami..In future on wars and terrorist attacks or some other natural catastrophes?
Oil is still far better solution, while we don't find something better!
How many people died as a result of the Fukushima disaster? The answer is ZERO.
How many people got cancer as a result of the disaster? According to Toshihide Tsuda (Okayama University), around 100 cases of thyroid cases have been detected in Fukushima and the neighboring areas, which can be attributed to the nuclear disaster. Thyroid cancer is not a life-threatening condition, and the survival rates are near 100%.
So my logic is simple. Fukushima was once in a 100 year catastrophe. Even during that event, no one lost their lives.
Using nuclear power take greater responsibility for environment and human health.
Who can guarantee you won't see another Focushima or even worse Chernobyl?
Planet will clean herself from co2 and dust particles, but you need thousands of years to pass if something terrible happened near nuclear facilities.
Who can guarantee you won't see another Focushima or even worse Chernobyl?
Planet will clean herself from co2 and dust particles, but you need thousands of years to pass if something terrible happened near nuclear facilities.
Environment and people lives. Ergh. Just thinking about it gives me the chills. Just the world nuclear would be no for a normal person and thinking that there is one in your country will make you scared in your every day life.
One good earthquake can make everything bad happens as like we saw.
I thought Fukushima was resistant from earthquakes?
Yes it was but not resistant on tsunami..In future on wars and terrorist attacks or some other natural catastrophes?
Oil is still far better solution, while we don't find something better!
I thought Fukushima was resistant from earthquakes?
Yes it was but not resistant on tsunami..In future on wars and terrorist attacks or some other natural catastrophes?
Oil is still far better solution, while we don't find something better!
I don't know, those money invested in nuclear power are the same that money from oil i think.
Long term Radioactivity is much more destructive for human health,
especially can influence on human reproductive possibilities.
Yes i'm against pollution you talk, but this is far more dangerous.
Long term Radioactivity is much more destructive for human health,
especially can influence on human reproductive possibilities.
Yes i'm against pollution you talk, but this is far more dangerous.
Don't believe the fear-mongering and the propaganda. What happened to the Chernobyl plant should be blamed on the incompetent Soviet workers and the greedy supervisors. 30 years have passed and the modern nuclear power plants are equipped with mechanism to make sure that a meltdown cannot occur even in case of a catastrophic event. Compare the Chernobyl incident to that occurred in Fukushima, and you will get the picture.
Can you compare that number to the 1 million plus deaths, which results from pollution by thermal power plants every year?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS3WvKKSpKII believe there is much propaganda from US in this documentary but i think this problem was real problem! And whole Europe felt it in one moment.
I remember 86' no one wants to eat salad in ex Yu. Funny NO!?
Many cancer illnesses are related to this event.
Yes and we are very far from Ukraine. But we were exposed also.
I don't know, those money invested in nuclear power are the same that money from oil i think.
Long term Radioactivity is much more destructive for human health,
especially can influence on human reproductive possibilities.
Yes i'm against pollution you talk, but this is far more dangerous.
Long term Radioactivity is much more destructive for human health,
especially can influence on human reproductive possibilities.
Yes i'm against pollution you talk, but this is far more dangerous.
I Believe this kind of pollution do influence on people like were you said here.
But how will Fukushima influence on whole world you will never see real research results, because this kind of pollution is long term and can influence on generations to come.
But how will Fukushima influence on whole world you will never see real research results, because this kind of pollution is long term and can influence on generations to come.
The negative health effects of nuclear power plants are over-exaggerated and converted in to anti-nuclear propaganda by activists who are on the payroll of the OPEC and the Western corporations such as Shell and Exxon Mobil. How many people died as a result of the nuclear pollution from Fukushima? Can you compare that number to the 1 million plus deaths, which results from pollution by thermal power plants every year?
This makes the American producers even more vulnerable to the decrease in prices. In Russia, the oil production is monopolized by a few major companies, such as Rosneft, Lukoil, Bashneft, Tatneft, Gazpromneft.etc. In Saudi Arabia, almost 100% of the production is done by the state-owned Aramco. These mega-corporations are capable of withstanding the low prices for many years. The same can't be said about the medium-sized and small sized crude oil producers in the United States.
I Believe this kind of pollution do influence on people like were you said here.But how will Fukushima influence on whole world you will never see real research results, because this kind of pollution is long term and can influence on generations to come.
Radioactive Wolves Of Chernoby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLJuQQDPY8Y
Combustion engine is actually 19th century technology. It's weird why an engine which is only 30% energy efficient is still being used. It's ancient. Electric cars are the future. Say bye to big oil in next decades. Lithium is the key.
Yes you are may be right. but what is price for electric car- purchasing price?Producing price per car ? Maintenance, battery ?
Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car. Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.
As for electric-only, there are plenty of viable models that are not overly expensive. The Nissan Leaf starts at $29k and the Chevy Volt starts at $33k. Tesla is working on a version now as well that will start in the mid-$30k range. The biggest limitation for electric-only vehicles for me is the range. I think the Leaf is around 100 miles, and the Volt offers 50 electric-only miles, though it does run on gas as well.
Well, the killer is not only the range. It's also the recharge time. The average gas vehicle goes about 300 miles before needing to stop for 2 minutes to fill up. Even if you got a car that can do that 300 mile range, it will still take you hours (if quick charging) or most of a day (if not interested in killing battery) to recharge. Hybrids make a lot more sense, especially for heavier use in urban centers. Idling in a regular car is basically burning gas to power your radio.
no, you would exchange your discharged battery for a recharged one at the "gas" station.
but thats all future, we need better energy sources and then we can think about switching to the infrastructure needed.
Well, yes, that would be ideal, but it's not the case right now or in the near future. Also, car manufacturers would need to agree to a battery standard to allow the same battery to fit in any vehicle. Otherwise, it's gonna be fun driving around on a dying battery pack finding someone who's got your pack in stock. And I think you mean energy storage rather than energy source. And yes that does require lots of developing. Some would say hydrogen is the answer, and it might be, assuming they figure out a way to store it without the threat of blowing up.
no i really mean energy source, not storage.
if we would have 100% clean energy (i.e. renewables, fusion) there would be not much of a problem to switching to electric cars.
but we are on world average around 20% maybe?
* im off, its 11% EIA: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=527&t=1
I have to disagree with you on that one. It's not the source of the energy that's impeding the electric car. It's the ability to carry and load that energy that's the issue. It's not like we have a global energy crisis or anything. To the end user, the power is coming out of the outlet, regardless of whether it was generated by renewables or not.
It is not. Range of batteries are already going 300 miles. You dont need to recharge like i explained.
The problem of batteries right now is monetary and pollution cost.
But if we would have clean energy sources then the battery cost would be a good trade off.
Right now our energy comes mainly from gas and oil.
Jump to: