Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
40 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Japan Is Aggressively Buying Up Oil And Gas Around The World rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting look at where Japanese business interests are looking forward:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Japan-Is-Aggressively-B...

I don't think they have many domestic sources at all so I can see this being an important thing for them.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting look at where Japanese business interests are looking forward:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Japan-Is-Aggressively-B...

I don't think they have many domestic sources at all so I can see this being an important thing for them.


Ferret


Of course they are. They had this f-uped issue was some reactors on a fault line.


Yeah, in retrospect they did a pretty bit of design and placement there.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Like buying up all the buggy whip factories in the year 1905...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Like buying up all the buggy whip factories in the year 1905...



Um....what?


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting look at where Japanese business interests are looking forward:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Japan-Is-Aggressively-B...

I don't think they have many domestic sources at all so I can see this being an important thing for them.


Ferret


Of course they are. They had this f-uped issue was some reactors on a fault line.


Yeah, in retrospect they did a pretty bit of design and placement there.



Ferret


They failed in the tile placement game. :surprise:



I see what you did there.


Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
Makes sense, natgas prices are bouncing off of record lows, and with both China and India aggressively moving in on their own asset targets then Japan needs to be nimble in the market right now. Japan imports nearly all of its energy resources, and Fukushima helped the foreign oil&gas companies more than any trade agreement ever could.

Contrast this with the USA, where many of the shale gas wells that were tapped 5-10 years ago are sitting idle & unused due to low natgas prices. And it may take decades for good enough economic conditions to get them producing again. Meanwhile solar continues its climb: In 1975 solar power cost $100 per watt, and today it's 61 cents.

So let's hope Trump flipflops on his campaign promises to the coal-burning knuckledraggers & gets with the program of shifting some of that sweet, sweet corporate welfare from oil&gas to an actual renewable energy resource of the future. That future is bright:

2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:


So let's hope Trump flipflops on his campaign promises to the coal-burning knuckledraggers & gets with the program of shifting some of that sweet, sweet corporate welfare from oil&gas to an actual renewable energy resource of the future. That future is bright:


I'm with you 100% except when you go off track and call the sweet corporate welfare is coal and oil. Of course you know that the renewables and the wind energy that can't stand on their own with subsidies and kickbacks and minimum pricing (i.e., a different form of subsidies).

Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
sfox wrote:
Like buying up all the buggy whip factories in the year 1905...

Um....what?

That sounds a lot like what someone who was buying buggy whip factories in 1905 would have said.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
Ferretman wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:


So let's hope Trump flipflops on his campaign promises to the coal-burning knuckledraggers & gets with the program of shifting some of that sweet, sweet corporate welfare from oil&gas to an actual renewable energy resource of the future. That future is bright:


I'm with you 100% except when you go off track and call the sweet corporate welfare is coal and oil. Of course you know that the renewables and the wind energy that can't stand on their own with subsidies and kickbacks and minimum pricing (i.e., a different form of subsidies).

Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".



Ferret

actually most renewable energy subsidies go to biofuels - ie they are another form of agriculture subsidies (and removing them would hurt rural america which as we found out is best america)
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:


So let's hope Trump flipflops on his campaign promises to the coal-burning knuckledraggers & gets with the program of shifting some of that sweet, sweet corporate welfare from oil&gas to an actual renewable energy resource of the future. That future is bright:


I'm with you 100% except when you go off track and call the sweet corporate welfare is coal and oil. Of course you know that the renewables and the wind energy that can't stand on their own with subsidies and kickbacks and minimum pricing (i.e., a different form of subsidies).

Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".



Ferret

actually most renewable energy subsidies go to biofules - ie they are another form of agriculture subsidies (and removing them would hurt rural america which as we found out is best america)


It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel also have some pretty nice subsidies and has done for years. Those subsidies have allowed the oil and gas industry to capture the market - most of the world pretty much depends on them now (so-called carbon-lockin). A shift of subsidy from fossil to renewable (preferably not bio-fuel - it isn't efficient enough in the long run) helps balance the structural inequity in the current market due to the multiple decades of fossil-fuel subsidy. It is also a good thing anyway - those countries that get in at the start of developing a technology benefit hugely through sales and licensing.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
Ferretman wrote:
Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".
A very convenient attitude when the oil/gas/coal industries have sucked up $500+ billion over the last 50 years in taxpayer cash, but once clean energy enters the picture, then suddenly people get very libertarian and demand all energy concerns "stand on their own."

If we want to be serious about real energy independence (without using it as a buzzword for drilling more oil wells at every turn) then making sure the USA leads the world in solar tech is a good place to start. But...

Quote:
For every $1 the industry spends on campaign contributions and lobbying in DC, it gets back $103 in subsidies. Here's how it works:
Amount the fossil fuel industry spent during the 113th Congress (2013 & 2014) on contributions to Congress' campaigns: $40,833,823.
Oil and Gas lobbying total 2013: $140,389,740.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
sfox wrote:
Like buying up all the buggy whip factories in the year 1905...

Um....what?

That sounds a lot like what someone who was buying buggy whip factories in 1905 would have said.


Um...what?


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:


They failed in the tile placement game. surprise



Given area involved, is there anywhere that wouldn't still have issues from being on the ring of fire? I mean they've been getting chains of like 7+ earthquakes this year, 3 iirc.

I guess there's always those offshore tidal generators but I didn't think that tech had progressed very far.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:

Um...what?


Ferret


I think its one of those power grid variants that few people have tried.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
[
actually most renewable energy subsidies go to biofuels - ie they are another form of agriculture subsidies (and removing them would hurt rural america which as we found out is best america)


Oh there's probably some local uses but it doesn't seem to be an energy efficient methodology:

http://www.ecopedia.com/transportation/should-we-be-growing-...

Interesting extract:

"1.5 gallons of gasoline equivalents to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.”


Ouch.

There's also a general issue with land being used for crops. As there's a need for more crops (and there's some fantastic there for increased yields in the field by the way) the bare fact is that more space (and we mustn't forget water) is needed for crops. That trade-off is becoming an issue:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303133614.h...

Again an interesting extract:

"About 4 percent of the world's agricultural land and 3 to 4 percent of its fresh water are now used for growing biofuels... bout one-third of the malnourished people in the world, the findings suggest, could be fed by using these resources for food production."


I suspect it's like most such articles and a bit heavy on the hyperbole but the gist is most likely correct.

Using crops for fuel is a remarkably inefficient way to create energy. Nuclear reactors (fission for now, maybe someday fusion) is far and away the better way to go.

I'm curious about your throw-away "what's best for America"....I'm in all the meetings, nobody believes that.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I doubt the US is going to retract its stance any time soon on nuclear. 3 mile island and Chernobyl, not to mention Japan's issues, have mostly salted the earth. The only ones we've built since then are mobile and in the ocean. IIRC navy does keep like 3 training reactors on land but by and large it's all in ships/subs ever since.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Shelburne
Vermont
flag msg tools
Ferretman wrote:

Using crops for fuel is a remarkably inefficient way to create energy. Nuclear reactors (fission for now, maybe someday fusion) is far and away the better way to go.

Ferret

Completely agree that growing corn for fuel production is a total waste. Not just of money but even more so of resources that could have been brought to better use somewhere (or sometime) else.

Nevertheless, nuclear energy is only economically viable when the government takes over the liability in case of a major accident. In a free market with private insurance coverage we would never have had any reactors. Not to mention the cost for the nuclear research that was performed with government funding. Thus, nuclear energy would never have survived in a "true" free market.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
andyl wrote:

It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel also have some pretty nice subsidies and has done for years.


Leaving aside your poor case for such, you've just made my case even more strongly--stop all subsidies. The market will work it out.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:

Using crops for fuel is a remarkably inefficient way to create energy. Nuclear reactors (fission for now, maybe someday fusion) is far and away the better way to go.

Ferret

Completely agree that growing corn for fuel production is a total waste. Not just of money but even more so of resources that could have been brought to better use somewhere (or sometime) else.

Nevertheless, nuclear energy is only economically viable when the government takes over the liability in case of a major accident. In a free market with private insurance coverage we would never have had any reactors. Not to mention the cost for the nuclear research that was performed with government funding. Thus, nuclear energy would never have survived in a "true" free market.


I will have to loosely agree you there--generally they just aren't cost effective. There are spot uses (spacecraft, military applications, submarines, etc.) but the technology is begging for a revamp of costs and application.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Much of the research into biofuels these days doesn't involve edible (by humans) crops. But as Ferret pointed out, biofuels are energy blackholes at this time. Wind-generated energy works in areas, ironically enough, like Texas and Oklahoma where there is a lot of wind and little in terrain to block it. Solar is getting better, but despite its improvement in how much it takes to produce energy, it is still far too expensive for 80 percent of households. And nuclear, as noted above, has taken some hits lately.

So we can stop using oil, natural gas, and coal. Let's go back to whale oil and steam-power! Or we can figure out better ways to reduce pollutants and particle emission, we can use natural gas as a stop gas due to its lower impact on the environment, and we can wean the world off of coal.

Or we can invest in horse-drawn buggies.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:


Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".



Ferret


Please explain how the market handles the externalities of coal and oil consumption.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
Much of the research into biofuels these days doesn't involve edible (by humans) crops. But as Ferret pointed out, biofuels are energy blackholes at this time. Wind-generated energy works in areas, ironically enough, like Texas and Oklahoma where there is a lot of wind and little in terrain to block it. Solar is getting better, but despite its improvement in how much it takes to produce energy, it is still far too expensive for 80 percent of households. And nuclear, as noted above, has taken some hits lately.

So we can stop using oil, natural gas, and coal. Let's go back to whale oil and steam-power! Or we can figure out better ways to reduce pollutants and particle emission, we can use natural gas as a stop gas due to its lower impact on the environment, and we can wean the world off of coal.


I'm more inclined towards the "all of the above" approach myself.

remorseless1 wrote:

Or we can invest in horse-drawn buggies.


My family bought an awesome nice horse-drawn buggy...it was very nice, needed a bit of work.

Sadly that was just before they moved away from horses and into show dogs, so it just moved back to one corner of the yard. I don't know if it just rotted away or my dad sold it.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".



Ferret


Please explain how the market handles the externalities of coal and oil consumption.


I think you have to explain why any "externalities" are relevant first?

To my engineer's eye, the basic trade-off of vast amounts of energy for relatively small cost and pollution don't even compare.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Just hook those puppies up to the buggy and apply the whip!

Yes, I am in favor of "all of the above"* but I do think we need to do that with the idea that eventually we will have renewable, clean energy sources. I can tell you with 100% certainly what would really help clean up the environment -- one hell of a lot less people.


*--An idea pushed by Obama and Bush.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
Rulesjd wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


Remove all the subsidies and let the market figure out what works. Anything is just a distortion based on "belief" not "reality".



Ferret


Please explain how the market handles the externalities of coal and oil consumption.


You just ignore them. Simples.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.