Cheap Oil Is An Economic Time Bomb For America!

[M14 Shooter]

That's not counting the $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2008

FY2008 deficit: $458B
FY2009 deficit: $1412B
The Obama signed FY2009 budget into law in march 2009.

Not true....The FY 2009 was signed by Shrub in Sept 2008!

Google, your friend.
President Obama to sign budget despite earmarks breaking campaign pledge - NY Daily News
FY2009 budget, signed by Obama, March 2009.
FY2009 deficit: $1412B

 

[M14 Shooter]

This will be my only reply to you. If you want to reply to it I won't read or reply to it.

Because you cannot handle the truth.

Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law on 3-112009.
President Obama to sign budget despite earmarks breaking campaign pledge - NY Daily News
Obama signs massive imperfect spending bill - politics - White House NBC News
As Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law. the FY2009 budget deficit belongs to Him.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

 

[william the wie]

The whole energy issue is simply spinning a wheel. While nuclear energy is efficient and cheap, most plants were given a 30 year lifespan....that's overdue so I guess nuclear will be abandoned in another 10-15 years. I've always thought ocean tides and river currents should have been exploited...tremendous amount of wasted energy in moving water.

It's already been demonstrated that these technologies kill tremendous quantities of ocean life.

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

You have evidence to back that up? Or more computer models?

The Gulf Stream is the only reason western Europe is habitable. (I realize that FL is unusual in teaching this in grammar school but I got the same lessons in MD, VA and RI as well so I am just reviewing this in case you forgot.)

For example the majority of Canadians live south of England, look on a world map and see. Removing heat energy or reducing kinetic energy to slow the Gulf Stream so more heat will be lost to radiation will cool Western Europe including the port of Murmansk in northern Russia.

As to the Pacific again look at a world map. Lots of exposure to the Antarctic Ocean close to none with the Arctic Ocean creating the driest deserts in the world south of the equator. (Most of the Sahara is well watered pastureland by Aussie standards much less Chilean.) Changing the difference in temperature between the Pacific north and south of the equator will change the track of cyclonic activity.

If this is what wasn't obvious to you and you don't live in the hurricane zone a quick lesson. Tiny differences in temperatures off shore can make a huge difference in damage totals as with Sandy. Changing track has history changing effects as with the kamikazi that destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet or the hurricane that destroyed the armada.

But seriously the above is not taught where you come from?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

Over the course of a typical year, how much energy does the gulf stream deliver to Europe?

 

[Care4all]

This will be my only reply to you. If you want to reply to it I won't read or reply to it.

Because you cannot handle the truth.

Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law on 3-112009.
President Obama to sign budget despite earmarks breaking campaign pledge - NY Daily News
Obama signs massive imperfect spending bill - politics - White House NBC News
As Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law. the FY2009 budget deficit belongs to Him.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

sorry, bush does not get only 7 years of his 8 years in fscal responsibility and obama is to get 9 years out of 8 fiscal responsibilities....

BEFORE Obama took office, the CBO scored and estimated the Bush 2009 fiscal budget to have a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit....it ended up being 1.4 trillion, so they were close.

 

[M14 Shooter]

sorry, bush does not get only 7 years of his 8 years in fscal responsibility and obama is to get 9 years out of 8 fiscal responsibilities....

GWB did not sign the FY2009 budget.
How does GWB carry responsibility for money spent under a budget he did not sign?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The whole energy issue is simply spinning a wheel. While nuclear energy is efficient and cheap, most plants were given a 30 year lifespan....that's overdue so I guess nuclear will be abandoned in another 10-15 years. I've always thought ocean tides and river currents should have been exploited...tremendous amount of wasted energy in moving water.

It's already been demonstrated that these technologies kill tremendous quantities of ocean life.

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

You have evidence to back that up? Or more computer models?

The Gulf Stream is the only reason western Europe is habitable. (I realize that FL is unusual in teaching this in grammar school but I got the same lessons in MD, VA and RI as well so I am just reviewing this in case you forgot.)

For example the majority of Canadians live south of England, look on a world map and see. Removing heat energy or reducing kinetic energy to slow the Gulf Stream so more heat will be lost to radiation will cool Western Europe including the port of Murmansk in northern Russia.

As to the Pacific again look at a world map. Lots of exposure to the Antarctic Ocean close to none with the Arctic Ocean creating the driest deserts in the world south of the equator. (Most of the Sahara is well watered pastureland by Aussie standards much less Chilean.) Changing the difference in temperature between the Pacific north and south of the equator will change the track of cyclonic activity.

If this is what wasn't obvious to you and you don't live in the hurricane zone a quick lesson. Tiny differences in temperatures off shore can make a huge difference in damage totals as with Sandy. Changing track has history changing effects as with the kamikazi that destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet or the hurricane that destroyed the armada.

But seriously the above is not taught where you come from?

Removing heat energy or reducing kinetic energy to slow the Gulf Stream

Do you really imagine that ocean turbines will measurably change ocean currents?

 

[william the wie]

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

Over the course of a typical year, how much energy does the gulf stream deliver to Europe?

Damn, I should remember that, I was taught it enough times. All my memory banks trigger is that Norway shares the same latitudes as Alaska but they preferred to settle in SD because ND and MN were so much colder than where they came from.

 

[Care4all]

sorry, bush does not get only 7 years of his 8 years in fscal responsibility and obama is to get 9 years out of 8 fiscal responsibilities....

GWB did not sign the FY2009 budget.
How does GWB carry responsibility for money spent under a budget he did not sign?

it was his budget that Congress was following, and his fiscal responsibility....the fiscal year began October 1st , before the crash, 2008, there is nothing Obama could do for at least the first 6 months of his presidency that would cost the country money....even the stimulus passed early on, did not come in to play, was not being spent until fy 2010, for the most part..... only a tiny bit of the bill was spent in fiscal 2009...every thing that was spent in fiscal 2009, was spent due to actions and bills and laws that were already in place in 2005,6, 7, 08 and even before those years....Obama did not write the budget, as he did for fy2010-2015 so far.... President Bush DID write the Budget for FY 2002-2009.

As mentioned, you can not give Bush just 7 years of fiscal responsibility out of his 8 Fiscal Years, no matter how hard you try on this....and try to give Obama 9 years of fiscal responsibility...instead of his fiscal 8 years.... it simply can not be manipulated in that manner.

When President Bush took office, he issued a tax cut, which made our surplus, less of a surplus than Clinton had submitted for his last fiscal budget...but guess what, that is STILL Clinton's 8th year of fiscal responsibility and it goes under him....

 

[william the wie]

The whole energy issue is simply spinning a wheel. While nuclear energy is efficient and cheap, most plants were given a 30 year lifespan....that's overdue so I guess nuclear will be abandoned in another 10-15 years. I've always thought ocean tides and river currents should have been exploited...tremendous amount of wasted energy in moving water.

It's already been demonstrated that these technologies kill tremendous quantities of ocean life.

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

You have evidence to back that up? Or more computer models?

The Gulf Stream is the only reason western Europe is habitable. (I realize that FL is unusual in teaching this in grammar school but I got the same lessons in MD, VA and RI as well so I am just reviewing this in case you forgot.)

For example the majority of Canadians live south of England, look on a world map and see. Removing heat energy or reducing kinetic energy to slow the Gulf Stream so more heat will be lost to radiation will cool Western Europe including the port of Murmansk in northern Russia.

As to the Pacific again look at a world map. Lots of exposure to the Antarctic Ocean close to none with the Arctic Ocean creating the driest deserts in the world south of the equator. (Most of the Sahara is well watered pastureland by Aussie standards much less Chilean.) Changing the difference in temperature between the Pacific north and south of the equator will change the track of cyclonic activity.

If this is what wasn't obvious to you and you don't live in the hurricane zone a quick lesson. Tiny differences in temperatures off shore can make a huge difference in damage totals as with Sandy. Changing track has history changing effects as with the kamikazi that destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet or the hurricane that destroyed the armada.

But seriously the above is not taught where you come from?

Removing heat energy or reducing kinetic energy to slow the Gulf Stream

Do you really imagine that ocean turbines will measurably change ocean currents?

Only if they produce economically significant amounts of energy, test projects should have trivial effects. But the turbines are only part of the problem. The anchors conducting heat between the surface and the ocean bottom will either be uneconomical or a much bigger problem.than the turbines. Strong, non-conducting materials come in two varieties : short half life in seawater like kevlar or expensive like reinforced marine concrete.

 

[longknife]

How in the hell does a thread on low oil prices get hijacked to climate change?

 

[SAYIT]

The whole energy issue is simply spinning a wheel. While nuclear energy is efficient and cheap, most plants were given a 30 year lifespan....that's overdue so I guess nuclear will be abandoned in another 10-15 years. I've always thought ocean tides and river currents should have been exploited...tremendous amount of wasted energy in moving water.

Agree.
I've always been intrigued by the potential for geo-thermal energy ... building the power plant above realistically and economically retrievable (and virtually limitless) sub-surface heat.

 

[SAYIT]

We can build much safer nuke plants than we did in the 60s and 70s.
And if it weren't for liberal whiners, we would. With zero CO2.
You'd think the warmers would climb on the nuke bandwagon.
Thorium reactors could save the ice that they love so much.

Let's try for a new oil refinery first....haven't had one approved in almost 40 years. Which is why the Keystone XL is needed now.

I must admit a preference for natural gas powered electric generation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does GWB carry responsibility for money spent under a budget he did not sign?

it was his budget that Congress was following, and his fiscal responsibility.....

A Dem congress passed it... a Dem President signs it... and it's GWB's fault?
I don't understand why you don't understand that you've lost this argument.

 

[william the wie]

We can build much safer nuke plants than we did in the 60s and 70s.
And if it weren't for liberal whiners, we would. With zero CO2.
You'd think the warmers would climb on the nuke bandwagon.
Thorium reactors could save the ice that they love so much.

Let's try for a new oil refinery first....haven't had one approved in almost 40 years. Which is why the Keystone XL is needed now.

I must admit a preference for natural gas powered electric generation.

Yeah the really crazy-sounding stuff like the nukes at sea that were going to be built on Blount Island after TMI get everyone up in arms. The radiators and anchors were almost total offsets so it wouldn't affect hurricanes or Europe but it got chopped

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

Over the course of a typical year, how much energy does the gulf stream deliver to Europe?

Damn, I should remember that, I was taught it enough times. All my memory banks trigger is that Norway shares the same latitudes as Alaska but they preferred to settle in SD because ND and MN were so much colder than where they came from.

The gulf stream, is ~100km miles wide and ~1km deep. Water moving at 1m/s represents how much power?

 

[Flopper]

I don't get any of this...First of all, isn't cheap ANYTHING ( let alone petroleum) good for the consumer? Second of all, didn't oil companies push for fracking, and isn't that partially responsible for the low prices of petroleum? What is good for the economy is bad for it, cheap goods hurt us, we need to get used to high prices and bite the bullet and not do what's good for us because it's really bad for us.....WHAT? This sounds like the mad hatter's tea party here...

If petroleum is your only major product, then low energy prices are not good for the consumer or anyone else in the country. In a country such as Russia where the oil and gas sector accounted for 16% of the GDP, 52% of federal budget revenues and over 70% of total exports falling energy prices are bad, very bad.

That's good, very good.

And Venezuela with oil being 25% of GDP and 95% of it's exports. And of course Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the dictators that run these countries don't even feel the pain but the people do.

 

[Care4all]

How does GWB carry responsibility for money spent under a budget he did not sign?

it was his budget that Congress was following, and his fiscal responsibility.....

A Dem congress passed it... a Dem President signs it... and it's GWB's fault?
I don't understand why you don't understand that you've lost this argument.

because I can THINK, I know i haven't lost the argument...and because there is absolutely nothing new a President can do to affect the things or expenses, already in motion...we had to pay our bills... this budget/funding that Obama signed near immediately after becoming president, was NOT written the day before he signed it...He didn't write the bill.... even the auto bailouts began in 2008 signed by Bush and initiated by Bush, for a second go around, when Obama took office, and Bush also signed a few supplemental spending bills for the 2009 budget of HIS....before leaving office.... the 2008 crash and nearly ALL THE BAILOUTS in 2008, were funded in fiscal 2009....

and lastly, extensive accounting and analysis on this shows specifically what out of the 2009 fiscal budget Obama was able to affect, and it came to less than 200 billion, out of the $1.4 TRILLION deficit.

AND Bush had 8 years in office and 8 years of fiscal responsibilities with 8 budgets that he turned in, including 2009's, and it was scored in January of 2009, BEFORE obama was sworn in, to cost out with over a trillion dollar deficit, due to some of the measures he took with bailouts in 2008/2009 fiscal.

 

[whitehall]

Oil is necessary for the production of just about everything. As oil prices drop manufacturing costs drop and companies are able to expand and increase production and hire more more skilled labor. Cheap diesel prices drive down transportation costs and the producer and consumer are both better off. When the cost of av-gas drops more people fly and more tourist dollars are spread around. Of course if the government gets involved in the production and cost of oil all bets are off. The radical left is a doom and gloom faction of society and they would whine if they were giving out gold.

 

[Care4all]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo