Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Making Cars (and more) Lighter, Stronger, Faster, and Much More Effici

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I stopped listening about 1/4 of the way through because we have more than enough oil to become an oil exporting nation. The solution is to stop being idiotic about our crippling regulation of the domestic industry and our pitiful prosecution of the war. The solution is not to pointlessly waste money and effort to convert our economy to needless alternative technologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped listening about 1/4 of the way through because we have more than enough oil to become an oil exporting nation. The solution is to stop being idiotic about our crippling regulation of the domestic industry and our pitiful prosecution of the war. The solution is not to pointlessly waste money and effort to convert our economy to needless alternative technologies.

Actually, the interesting part of the talk I thought was the idea that cars could get lighter and safer using technology, as opposed to being heavier. He spoke of less regulation and a business for profit solution to the problem...which would be ideal since our nation continues to bow to the Arabian savages and gives in to them when we are the ones who built their infrastructure for them. Since they appear to be unwilling to give us back our technology, perhaps we should simply out compete them.

I don't agree with everything he has to say...mainly because it starts with the premise that we need efficient automobiles because the Earth is in trouble and we must conserve "natural resources"...blanking out the fact that the Earth IS a natural resource. Efficiency in design is a good thing, but not for altruistic reasons. The efficiency of design was what intrigued me.

...think about it for a moment: superior design through technology...lighter, faster, more efficient, and stronger, safer, cheaper automobiles. Is there something there that is unappealing?

Edited by prosperity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...think about it for a moment: superior design through technology...lighter, faster, more efficient, and stronger, safer, cheaper automobiles. Is there something there that is unappealing?

No - what's unappealing is what he is attempting to leash those concepts to. That "conserving" is a necessary or particularly important thing. It's BS through and through - we have plenty of oil, bowing to Arabian savages or no bowing to Arabian savages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped listening about 1/4 of the way through because we have more than enough oil to become an oil exporting nation. The solution is to stop being idiotic about our crippling regulation of the domestic industry and our pitiful prosecution of the war. The solution is not to pointlessly waste money and effort to convert our economy to needless alternative technologies.

This sounds like good news to me. Enough to meet our needs AND export? I thought there was some recoverable oil in ANWAR, offshore, and around the Great Lakes, but I didn't realize we were talking about this kind of oil being available. Maybe you are talking about oil shale though, which costs a lot more to make into petroleum. Where can I find out more about this? I have always thought it would be a good idea to conserve the sweet crude, the stuff that is cheap to refine, until the world oil market on sweet crude runs low enough to make the lower grade stuff more viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like good news to me. Enough to meet our needs AND export? I thought there was some recoverable oil in ANWAR, offshore, and around the Great Lakes, but I didn't realize we were talking about this kind of oil being available. Maybe you are talking about oil shale though, which costs a lot more to make into petroleum. Where can I find out more about this? I have always thought it would be a good idea to conserve the sweet crude, the stuff that is cheap to refine, until the world oil market on sweet crude runs low enough to make the lower grade stuff more viable.

I've heard about such things from all over the place. (Yahoo news, google news, etc) Shale oil is one, but more recently I've heard of horizontal drilling, oil sands, and lots of conventionally accessible reserves off of various coasts which are simply blocked from being accessed by state and local governments. Even shale is a valid consideration - yes, it cost more to produce... but that calculation was done when oil was under $60 a barrel. Right now it's over $100.

The only thing necessary to implement any of these technologies is an investment in them. Which only requires a sustained period of high oil prices, so that investors can be sure they will get a return. Unfortunately, such investment is driven off by the large amount of uncertainty injected into the market by repeated and vicious government regulations and senseless fines. If profits are going to be cut into with such things, then investors will put their money into industries where it is safer - and thus American oil production will remain low.

If the government would just keep their hands off - if they would laissez-faire - then we could be a net oil exporting country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Efficiency in design is a good thing, but not for altruistic reasons. The efficiency of design was what intrigued me.

The reason I have a problem with this (and I suspect the reason Inspector might as well) is because this statement of yours is not intrinsically true. Every innovation has an opportunity cost. That is each innovation brings a certain amount of value at a certain time and cost a certain amount to develop. Whether or not innovation is good is highly contextual. Innovation before it's time is actually a BAD thing because other innovations that where either more valuable, or cheaper to develop were foregone to get them.

An unfettered free market is the best mechanism to work on the right innovations at the right time. There is far too much oil in the ground with technology that already makes it much more cost effective, and far too much remaining that we could incrementally develop technology to extract that it doesnt' make sense yet. If it did, a fully unfettered free market (not one whose profits have been stripped, or whose interests are distorted by energy subsidies) would work on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like good news to me. Enough to meet our needs AND export? I thought there was some recoverable oil in ANWAR, offshore, and around the Great Lakes, but I didn't realize we were talking about this kind of oil being available. Maybe you are talking about oil shale though, which costs a lot more to make into petroleum. Where can I find out more about this? I have always thought it would be a good idea to conserve the sweet crude, the stuff that is cheap to refine, until the world oil market on sweet crude runs low enough to make the lower grade stuff more viable.

Here's an even more well-kept secret. Two thirds of all the oil that has ever been discovered in the U.S. is STILL IN THE GROUND.

There are two primary recovery technologies in use, primary and secondary recovery. Primary is simply when oil has enough pressure and is in a reservoir that it can be freely pumped to the surface. Secondary is called water flooding, and is when one pumps water into evacuated chambers in order to work the oil free and carry it to the surface. These two methods are usually dirt cheap, and they result in recovery of only about 20-30% of the original oil in place (OOIP).

There are what are called tertiary recovery technologies, but these are generally more costly and many times fields are closed down rather than employ them. That is because unlike what you say, the best and most economical thing to do is pump the oil that costs the cheapest. The rest of the oil isn't going anywhere, there is a ton of fields that can still use primary and secondary recovery to recover their oil. This is why the myth of a sudden shortage in oil is a myth. In fact as oil becomes "scarcer" it's price will rise gradually making remaining reserves viable to go after, and if battery or fuel cell technology has advance to the point then, it will make those technologies viable as well. This recovery results in another 20-25% removal of the oil in place. The rest of hte 45-60% of the oil we don't yet have the technology to extract. When there is talk about "proven reserves" and (most oil maps today show only this). It refers only to the oil for which there is known technology to extract it, usually just primary and secondary recovery. Man will have plent of time to develop alternatives and the free market will function just fine to do it since we'll have so much time to do it.

I give the same response when people talk about the value of recycling plastics. Why on earth should I recycle plastic today at a cost above virgin material, when they are very inert and we know right where we put them. If in centuries (and it will be that long if not a millenia) we need them, we can simply go mine our old landfills. We are WASTING resources working on these things when other things will bring us more value!

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - what's unappealing is what he is attempting to leash those concepts to. That "conserving" is a necessary or particularly important thing. It's BS through and through - we have plenty of oil, bowing to Arabian savages or no bowing to Arabian savages.

Right. A package deal of sorts...which is what I said I disliked about it. I am not debating whether or not we have enough oil to make that approach necessary.

The reason I have a problem with this (and I suspect the reason Inspector might as well) is because this statement of yours is not intrinsically true. Every innovation has an opportunity cost. That is each innovation brings a certain amount of value at a certain time and cost a certain amount to develop. Whether or not innovation is good is highly contextual. Innovation before it's time is actually a BAD thing because other innovations that where either more valuable, or cheaper to develop were foregone to get them.

An unfettered free market is the best mechanism to work on the right innovations at the right time. There is far too much oil in the ground with technology that already makes it much more cost effective, and far too much remaining that we could incrementally develop technology to extract that it doesnt' make sense yet. If it did, a fully unfettered free market (not one whose profits have been stripped, or whose interests are distorted by energy subsidies) would work on it.

I never said it was intrinsically true. YOU did. But I see your point in the rest of what you have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I have a problem with this (and I suspect the reason Inspector might as well) is because this statement of yours is not intrinsically true. Every innovation has an opportunity cost. That is each innovation brings a certain amount of value at a certain time and cost a certain amount to develop. Whether or not innovation is good is highly contextual. Innovation before it's time is actually a BAD thing because other innovations that where either more valuable, or cheaper to develop were foregone to get them.

Precisely correct, Kendall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard about such things from all over the place. (Yahoo news, google news, etc) Shale oil is one, but more recently I've heard of horizontal drilling, oil sands, and lots of conventionally accessible reserves off of various coasts which are simply blocked from being accessed by state and local governments. Even shale is a valid consideration - yes, it cost more to produce... but that calculation was done when oil was under $60 a barrel. Right now it's over $100.

Here is just one recent example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give the same response when people talk about the value of recycling plastics. Why on earth should I recycle plastic today at a cost above virgin material, when they are very inert and we know right where we put them. If in centuries (and it will be that long if not a millenia) we need them, we can simply go mine our old landfills. We are WASTING resources working on these things when other things will bring us more value!

Kendall, ever since I saw the Penn and Teller show "Bullshit!" on recycling, this point has really intrigued me -- it's amazing to think that this WHOLE recycling hoopla with plastics is.... bullshit.

Do you have any other sources where I can read about this? ... When I explain this point to people, saying I got my information from Penn and Teller usually doesn't suffice for them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...