Off Topic The Goodhand Arms

Those of us that work in the plastics industry know all to well what is happening with oil prices

 

No I don't. You said *all* avoidance. I gave some examples and you now imply you didn't mean those.

 

Everybody knows what is happening to oil and gas prices. But you don't know why. Tell me why, FLT.

 

OK. What happened is what always happens. Price went up. Lots and lots of marginal oil sources became profitable (for example, some shale oil is only profitable at $85 a barrel). Supply went up. Increase in supply = drop in price. Add in the possibility of a desire by the Saudis to burn a few marginal supplier's fingers so they don't come back so readily the next time oil goes above $85. Then add a dollop of fracked gas lowering the price of gas, a clear alternative to oil for many purposes, so demand drops.

Basic economics, nothing more.

Orrrr,,, It's a conspiracy involving (literally) tens of thousands of people to prevent the development of a disputed technology that may well never come to fruition.

Occam's Razor, Occam's razor. Go to sleep saying it.

Vin

 

There's a difference between driving a different direction to avoid a toll booth and lying about where you live/putting income into another category with a lower tax rate. I'm all for the latter two cases being illegal.

 

Occam's Razor is pretty much a method I use to try to understand or solve something when I don't have all the data, Vin. That and, if you manage to eliminate all other factors, that which remains must be the truth.

I'm not convinced by LENR myself. It's too much of a stretch for my pragmatic brain. Besides, I don't completely understand the nuclear chemistry. Nobody actually does. Then again, nobody completely understands electricity, yet it exists and is harnessed.

On the price of oil, I think there are some slightly special circumstances going on. What you are suggesting is the economics of a blip. This isn't a blip, in my opinion. It's a major change in direction. Of course, if fuel prices return to their high levels within the next year or so we'll know that it was a blip. Those oil companies who have pulled out will be kicking themselves in that case.

 

Primarily, or initially because OPEC (oil producers) couldn't agree on production levels and so more was produced and market was 'flooded'/had more availability. More oil available = lower price. Usually these guys agree on figures and we all pay the price. I don't understand why they didn't agree though.

 

I was arguing in about 2006 (when oil hit $60) that it would return to $40 a barrel. Adjusted for inflation, that'd be around $55. I consider the decade of high prices to be the blip.

Vin

 

Oh, I see. Well, all good then, if you are right. The only problem remains is keeping fossil fuel pollution in check. There's been a technology for that too for several years, which the USA and Germany have heavily invested in, but have put on the back burner [sorry] for now.

And LENR can take as long as it needs. Mind you, judging by the amount of research that is now going into it, from countries and companies worldwide, it'll be soon, if it happens at all, as it doesn't produce harmful radioactivity, is pollution free, is ridiculously efficient, uses relatively abundant base materials, and is super cheap to run. I'd also say that was worth waiting for.

 

What a sporting Sunday! England v Australia, Murray v Djokovic, then Saints v Swansea. The trouble is that the cricket is opposite the tennis, so my remote is going to be smoking hot.

 

One thing I am personally amazed at is that nobody [here] seems to have the slightest interest in a power technology that will theoretically keep the planet fit for human habitation and be dirt cheap to run in the process. Not even interested enough to go and find out whether I'm writing complete tosh or not.

 

I tend to duck, just to make sure some of that techno stuff gets anywhere near not going over my head. I don't really need to duck though. I just have to rely on there being enough techno engineering types out there who can solve these things for us. Sorry, my mind is just not built that way and before you say that I could go and learn, I strongly believe that I have so much going on in my little world that I daren't try and fill this little head with more confusing things, or it will explode and I will spiral into a despairing depression. Seriously. I have that compartment in my brain turned off. I sometimes wish I could change that and have genuinely thought of seeing someone to try and make that change, but it scares me.

 

Some of us are. The problem with LENR is that it's dropped out of the scientific mainstream as people who tried to reproduce it couldn't. It's not appearing in journals, just on the internet. My experience of things like that is that the reason they aren't taken seriously is that they aren't working. Conspiracy theories aside, there isn't a set of people preventing research into feasible alternative energies. Again, economics says that if it's possible there would be a HUGE incentive to investigate further.

There was an excellent segment on Inside Science on R4. The guy who discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria and fought the medical establishment to a standstill said his biggest problem now is that he's become a magnet for nutters who write to him and say "like you, no-one believes me". They seem to think that the fact they aren't being taken seriously means they must be right. From what I read (albeit briefly) today, I get the whiff of that about LENR.

Vin

 

I'm very interested TSS, and LENR may well be the energy source that saves Mother Earth. The problem is though, and it's encapsulated in the way you say "fit for human habitation", anything which is cheap and plentiful may well get used to excess. The problem we face isn't just to find a cheap energy source, it's getting people to consume less of everything, including the earth itself. As an example of what I mean, Bayer is trying to get the ban on insecticides which kill bees overturned. Bearing in mind that before the ban came in the global bee population was being seriously eradicated by indiscriminate insecticide use: on one farm in Canada 37 million dead bees were found. And bees are an essential element in the life cycle of the majority of plants, and therefore ultimately, all living things. So it isn't just humans we have to save the planet for, we're all in this together.

 

But on the subject of bees, there is a problem. Nicotinoids were blanket banned across Europe despite the evidence being uncertain. That's not science, it's belief. Why they couldn't have banned them in test areas (or retained them in test areas) and compared the effects, I simply cannot understand. It was appallingly unscientific. And don't take my word for it, I got the same from a beekeeper customer and a government bee expert who was visiting his hives when I called. They thought it was madness because they want to know what's causing problems.

Vin

 

Yes, I can see how that came out as selfish and human orientated solely. What I meant was - the planet doesn't need saving. The Earth will go on just fine, in its own sweet way. But as you rightly point out, if we don't curb our consumption of resources, the Earth is liable to get a might too juicy for humans to live on and already the by-product of our consumption, our waste, in pollution, in our spread of habitat, or other forms, is making it difficult for other key species to survive at present.

It's actually difficult to debate about saving the planet without entering into it with a selfish slant, but I fully take on board what you mean. We are indeed, all in this together. Even that is selfish to some extent. We wouldn't be half as concerned really if it didn't affect us directly.

The way LENR is being promised is that it will replace every transformer in every application. For example, in the home it will replace the gas for heating and [sadly] cooking, and the mains electricity for light and power. At this moment, NASA have their own version of LENR for use in space missions in the future, and almost certainly in the ISS.

It will replace the internal combustion engine and the turbofan in aircraft. After a little searching, I've found that there are companies out there doing research and design into car and aero engine manufacture already. To be honest, there isn't an application where it isn't being considered.

 

Police investigating road rage incident involving Roy Keane. Am I alone in assuming it was him that was angry

 

it's not avoidance

they want us to put money into ISA's to save...

 

I agree but it's still tax avoidance. Save in a non-ISA and you pay tax thereby not avoiding it. Why do those who espouse all tax avoidance should be illegal fail to grasp this?

 

Well you could put it another way. The environmental agencies felt that they had to act in some way to counteract the deaths of bees, as they are so important with the production of food. And they simply didn't know where to concentrate on for certain. The use of Neonicotinoids had appeared to have indirectly caused dramatic reductions in bee, and consequent bird, populations, so that's why some countries decided upon a ban.