Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Sorry folks, I know this is way off topic.

@sclass

I will defer to you on refinery knowledge. Mine is from a short job on one refinery. So orientation, plus BSing with the guys on site.

As far as I know, the Puget sound refineries have been running alaskan crude, so no adaptation for fracked oil.

But if the market predictions made long term changes in the gas to diesel ratio beyond what the current cracker could produce, they would build an alternate cracker.

And then it would be a turn of a valve, no?

......

I guess what I am getting at is the oftwominds post seemed to assume that changes only work one way. He didn't seem to be accounting for all the other players in his model reacting to the same changes he describes. And that's easy enough to do, for a post.

But as an investment model, that gets results that differ from reality wildly.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:31 am

As far as I know, the Puget sound refineries have been running alaskan crude, so no adaptation for fracked oil.

But if the market predictions made long term changes in the gas to diesel ratio beyond what the current cracker could produce, they would build an alternate cracker.

And then it would be a turn of a valve, no?

That’s cool. I’ve learned a lot from OT stuff here.

Yes. That’s pretty much what has happened with the frack oil feedstocks. It came on like a deluge and many refineries had trouble dealing with the new oil. Everyone has since adjusted. It is like the rail car explosions that happened at the same time. There was a lot of stranded oil on the market all of a sudden because of fracking. It got packed up into unsafe rail cars causing many explosions for a few months. Remember that insanity? Then people adjusted. Humans are cool right?

Your experience at the refinery reminded me of a really primitive setup I stumbled upon. I bought some gas from a “hill billy” *integrated oil company in Russia once. They let me look at their refinery. It was literally a moonshine still and a pipe submerged in a stream. I asked about their feedstock and the operator explained that the Russian military had spilled benzine for decades nearby and it had migrated to their town. Some enterprising families learned how to dig shallow wells and distill it. The basic idea behind refining is indeed pretty simple.

My guess is the Alaskan feedstocks are very consistent.

* exploration, production, refining, retail

Not to steer off topic but it's abit strange how costs and savings of everything is considered and split to down to the penny yet safety is not.

With exception of Tesla line vehicles, most if not all electric/hybrid vehicles are small/compact vehicles that are made with weight saving material to prioritize mpg. Coupled with vast majority of people commuting (still) with SUV's and Chevy Silverado's in addition to commercial trucks on the road...there's a bit more important things to consider than simply fuel costs and savings.

After all something along the line of a Nissan leaf getting t boned by a chevy Tahoe will be life changing and will "cost" you and possibly your family.

aptruncata wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:25 pm

After all something along the line of a Nissan leaf getting t boned by a chevy Tahoe will be life changing and will "cost" you and possibly your family.

you realize a world full of chevy tahoes will cost us all everything, yes?

aptruncata wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:25 pm

After all something along the line of a Nissan leaf getting t boned by a chevy Tahoe will be life changing and will "cost" you and possibly your family.

Blame the Chevy Tahoe, big cars are only safer as they externalise the risk onto smaller ones. Liability costs should reflect this - but I don't think they do ?

chenda wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:01 pm

Blame the Chevy Tahoe, big cars are only safer as they externalise the risk onto smaller ones. Liability costs should reflect this - but I don't think they do ?

yes they do, my old truck insurance had double the liability premiums of a small car. before i got rid of it i was shopping around for a smaller one and compared hypothetical quotes.

and i was in a couple of fender benders where the other car got utterly bashed and i couldn't identify the damage in mine--literally, i could not send the insurance a picture of where my truck got hurt.

and therein lies the problem--metal on metal is one thing, but i don't want to be liable for a life which no amount of insurance can possibly cover.

the idea of living having killed some innocent is a nightmare scenario for me.

and chevy tahoe texters ought to be shot in the public square.

eta: here's an upside down tahoe

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/icbRYusyMZ4/maxresdefault.jpg

dumb drivers don't realize those things are actual trucks and flip easily. cars drive better.

Alphaville wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:08 pm

yes they do, my old truck insurance had double the liability premiums of a small car. before i got rid of it i was shopping around for a smaller one and compared hypothetical quotes.

Oh that's good.

Alphaville wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:08 pm

and chevy tahoe texters ought to be shot in the public square.

Yes!! Actually several of my neighbours have these ridiculously oversized 4x4 BMW off road contraptions, they're so big that they obstruct passing traffic when parked on the street. Obviously they will never be taken off road. Ever.

Alphaville wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:28 pm

you realize a world full of chevy tahoes will cost us all everything, yes?

Yes. I follow what you mean.
It can vary by location but where I reside (greater los angeles) the insurance premiums are seriously through the roof but relatively cheap if you look at how many accidents and the amount of reckless drivers are on the road on a given day. Before electric vehicles, I used to think kei (economical) cars of japan made a lot of sense and considered importing one for use. However, japan has a speed limit of 60 mph still, most others own and drive kei cars and most people actually abide by the posted speed limit unlike my neck of the woods.

Interesting data here: https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocum ... t/pdf/55/2

I suppose it can also depend on the individuals risk threshold like anything else where you have to consider the possibility as well as the severity but it's something i'd consider before buying one for my daughter.

aptruncata wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:10 pm

kei (economical) cars of japan

yeah i hate la traffic. good drivers relative to the rest of the country, and the national stats prove it, but i detest your freeways and the need to drive everywhere.



nice to visit but i would not live there.

i also hear you on not getting an ultramini car. i wouldn't get one in new mexico either. simply too many trucks, etc.. hard to see them. it's like asking to get crushed.

but many compacts and mid size cars have high safety ratings and plenty airbags and the safety is not in the mass but the crumple zones, airbags, etc. plus the ability to escape an accident in the first place.

e.g. you might know this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK

aptruncata wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:10 pm

Interesting data here: https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocum ... t/pdf/55/2

sweet spot seems to be the vw golf per that data sheet. small but very safe. and also, yes, the nissan leaf up there. for someone needing more room and 4wd (eg me, in another life), the subaru outback looks great. (table on p.3)

anyway im familiar with the idea that trucks are safer for passengers, having driven one, but i cant find who causes the deaths. i,e, which car kills more third parties?

i do know that when i had a truck it felt like a deadlier weapon than when i drove a compact. not just heavier projectile, but less maneuverable (also my compacts were stick shift and sporty, truck was automatic). but now i just have no car and i'm investing the difference

Alphaville wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:08 pm

dumb drivers don't realize those things are actual trucks and flip easily. cars drive better.

I remember Top Gear doing a segment on SUV's, the stat that sticks in my mind is they are four times as likely to turn over in an accident. I saw the consequences of this driving back from the West of England once. A mother and two kids wiped out in a Range Rover.

I ride motorcycles. I don't care how safe cars are.

My Smart car seems a heck of a lot safer than a Chevette I used to own. Like a steel cage lunar landing module vs a tin can. I would have preferred electric, but third floor apartment didn't make it practical. Also, I gave up the practice of riding on the back of motorcycles when I turned 50, so that was the low hanging fruit.

If I remember correctly the energy density of lithium batteries has improved by about 3x in the last 30 years. That is a lot more significant than the much larger decrease in cost per unit of energy storage because the latter improvement has all occurred in a regime of lithium utilization much smaller than would be required for full electrification. So if you could scale up lithium extraction by a couple orders of magnitude while still driving down costs (including the environmental degradation of the extractiaon), I would be pretty surprised. Basically, as a scalable product, batteries have been languishing for decades. There is no technological revolution there currently, just an increase in hype and production capacity.

From a personal standpoint, I did not find EVs to be cost-effective given how infrequently I drive.

ZAFCorrection wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 6:01 pm

From a personal standpoint, I did not find EVs to be cost-effective given how infrequently I drive.

but you're looking from the pov of individual ownership. as an infrequent driver--why even own a car? we un-drivers need to think in terms of fleets instead.

personally i'd rather be transported by a less-polluting ride. after done with me they can go on to their next delivery,

anyway my money long-term is on hydrogen fuel cell. which is electric, but doesn't require batteries.

we'll get there eventually--if we don't go extinct first

Given all the fancy elements and processing that go into an electric car and (currently) the use of fossil fuels to run the power grid, I'd say it is most likely just sneaky accounting to say that electric cars are less polluting. Ya, at the point of use they are less polluting, but otherwise not really.

ZAFCorrection wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:37 pm

Given all the fancy elements and processing that go into an electric car and (currently) the use of fossil fuels to run the power grid, I'd say it is most likely just sneaky accounting to say that electric cars are less polluting. Ya, at the point of use they are less polluting, but otherwise not really.

in my state coal plants are being replaced with solar. true story. coal will be phased out in 10 or 15 years as i recall. maybe it's too slow, but it's moving.

the reasons you give is why i said in my first reply i'd get hybrid or efficient dino car today if i got any.

but in a decade? i hope my robocab will be electric--either battery or fuel cell, but electric.

ZAFCorrection wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:37 pm

Given all the fancy elements and processing that go into an electric car and (currently) the use of fossil fuels to run the power grid, I'd say it is most likely just sneaky accounting to say that electric cars are less polluting. Ya, at the point of use they are less polluting, but otherwise not really.

"The new research from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen - in The Netherlands - and Cambridge shows that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the climate than a petrol car."

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51977625

Alphaville wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 6:15 pm

but you're looking from the pov of individual ownership. as an infrequent driver--why even own a car? we un-drivers need to think in terms of fleets instead.

personally i'd rather be transported by a less-polluting ride. after done with me they can go on to their next delivery,

anyway my money long-term is on hydrogen fuel cell. which is electric, but doesn't require batteries.

we'll get there eventually--if we don't go extinct first

I'm pretty sure that if we get on top of the climate problem then transport will look nothing like it does today.

The advantage that batteries have over hydrogen is they are here now, it is a proven technology. There are still a lot of open questions regarding hydrogen despite the Japanese car manufacturers working on it for decades.

The only electric vehicle I've personally owned was a skateboard. It was a heck of a lot of fun, but dangerous and impractical for commutes longer than 5 miles. I still think that wasting as little power (by reducing vehicle/cargo weight) is the best way to go wrt environment/TCO. The sweet spot for most folks is probably a combination of human power and electric bicycle for 95% of use cases.

ducknald_don wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:02 am

The advantage that batteries have over hydrogen is they are here now, it is a proven technology. There are still a lot of open questions regarding hydrogen despite the Japanese car manufacturers working on it for decades.

yeah batteries work today, hence in the usa hybrid works well to curb emissions and is the sweet spot currently.

the problems with all-electric in the usa as ive mentioned are multiple:

first, we have a lack of charging infrastructure. it's being built in some places, but not sure how will it scale for individual owners. for fleets it's easier though--like the roomba, return to charging station (but not everyone can have a charging station at home)

then we have the issue of long distances vs. driving range. we have a lower population density than europe, and 200 mile commutes are not unheard of. this is also why we don't have good passenger rail (plus the politics of land, long story.)

the other hurdle here is that of prices: dino cars are much cheaper to produce and operate in spite of higher emissions, part because of more primitive technology and infrastrucure that's already been developed, part because the cost of batteries, and part because our oil prices are half or less than the rest of the developed world. which creates a big barrier to entry for electric. so a walmart employee who commutes to work might opt for a ford fiesta (not the safest car) instead of an unattainable tesla.

hybrid achieves emissions close to electric, especially in coal-electrified areas, and has the best range of all, but the monetary cost of ownership is still too high for consumers below median earnings. so, while it's a sweet spot for emissions under usa conditions, it's still a high price to purchase a depreciating asset--except perhaps for fleets (eg taxi) where fuel costs matter more.

so, emissions reductions would be most cheaply and quickly achieved by the individually-owning masses embracing the subcompact dino car for now. but pickups are "safer" and save you injuries and medical bills so the arms-racing masses drive trucks. which is the rational economic choice given current incentives (yes, we're screwed)