Global recession or just a glitch?

[Serge Teulon]

Hi Guys,

 

I don't about our comrades outside of the UK but here it seems that there is a downtime on work since the start of the year.

I'm not just speaking about myself but also about other very seasoned DP's that I have been

talking to.

 

What is the general consensus?

 

Cheers

S

[Walter Graff]

In general I have been told that besides the US, the UK, Germany and other countries in the EU are in a down economy and I would imagine that does affect many areas of production.

[Paul Bruening]

I am uncertain how an economy's condition effects production volume. Does an economic low result in lower advertising production? Are industrial production budgets the first to go when companies start getting low on cash flow? Will people consume less entertainment when money gets tight? I had always assumed that movie consumption would go up in hard times as other, much more expensive forms of entertainment went down. Yet, in one of my art history classes I found myself writing a long paper on Hollywood musicals of the Busby Berkly era. In my research I found that the depression killed off a little over a third of the theaters in America. A large portion of the remaining had to merge to survive and just barely did. Contrary to my original sense, bad economy does lead to lower consumption of entertainment product. I have noticed that sales numbers listed on IMDB seem rather low. I haven't done enough research to know if they are lower than at this time in previous years or if it just part of the home movie consumption trend. Does anyone know how those numbers are looking? I assume Variety would make note of any trends unfolding. Anyone have an eye on this?

[Phil Rhodes]

It's certainly not been great. I've heard this independently mentioned two or three times, other than me.

 

P

[Guest]

The US is in the worst shape of all the industrialized economies. The Iraq war has brought the US treasury to its knees. The US dollar is sinking faster than the Titanic, the sub-prime mortgage mess is sweeping the country, and the US debt is so big we need to invent a new computer to calculate the number. On top of all this the US needs to import 22 million barrels of oil per day from foreign countries and pay for it with devalued US currency. Yet the US Fed Reserve continues to cut interest rates :blink:

 

There is a definite downtown in production work in the USA that is for sure.

 

Just think of what the numbers where like coming out of the USA when Bill Clinton left office, the US was running a surplus for the first time in 30 years, and there was peace and prosperity in the land. Then this guy, who's name we will not mention, comes along & sends the US economy into the toilet.

 

Truly amazing.

 

R,

[Freya Black]

I've heard this independently mentioned two or three times, other than me.

 

*giggle* I love the qualifying statement.

Glad to see you still have your sense of humour despite the bad times! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Adamo P Cultraro]

....Says the man from Ontario, Canada.

 

Can we leave the politics out of it?

[Guest]

....Says the man from Ontario, Canada.

 

Can we leave the politics out of it?

 

If I said any thing that is not mathematically or factually correct, I will be happy to make a correction.

 

R,

[Evan Winter]

There's still a fair bit of work in music videos right now although a lot of my artists are European. In fact, whenever they talk about coming over to L.A. to shoot and spend their converted Euros or Pounds I can practically hear the smile in their voice as we talk over the phone. Strangely enough, my average budget level is going up as the American dollar goes down... However, I am afraid that, as the recession tightens it grip worldwide, this temporary trend will come to a frighteningly abrupt halt. :(

 

Evan W.

[James Steven Beverly]

It's a "fight now pay later war" JUST like Vietnam. I've been through this poop before with Nixon in the 70s and early 80s, We'll get out of it. FORTUNATELY he's almost OUT of office and this next year he really can't do any more damage because as a lame duck president and through his incredible, almost bordering on criminal negligence, he's lost any credibility he may once have had. The US SEEMS to continue to truck along despite the gross mismanagement of the last 8 years, the one thing here EVERYONE seems to be a little worried about is fuel prices and oil company profits (3 BILLION dollars in a single quarter, bastards!). But then again what did you expect, a Texas oilman who jacks up oil prices, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

 

We're getting to the point were we're starting to get fed up and are going to DEMAND alternative fuels and power sources. 4 bucks a gallon in the US us outrageous and the one thing you don't want to do is piss off the American people, we end up tending to DO something about it. This whole fuel crisis may be a blessing in disguise, we're killing the environment with fossil fuels and need alternatives like solar and renewables so if gas get too expensive, just see how long it takes for electric cars and alcohol to replace it. It is really time for a change. B)

[Walter Graff]

"the one thing here EVERYONE seems to be a little worried about is fuel prices and oil company profits "

 

Fear not, the folks who make the money on oil prices are the guys who predict its change plus or minus. It's near peaked now and for them to continue their profit they need another movement so expect to see it drop back to 90 a barrel after a short while.

 

"(3 BILLION dollars in a single quarter, bastards!)."

 

You mean 10 billion! Exxon in one quarter. Hey the real money is in refining, nearly .50 a gallon to Exxon and others who own the few 143 refineries in the US.

 

"But then again what did you expect, a Texas oilman who jacks up oil prices, what a surprise. "

 

It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

"We're getting to the point were we're starting to get fed up and are going to DEMAND alternative fuels and power sources. "

 

Actually we'll probably never see much of anything alternative for the masses in our lifetime.

 

"just see how long it takes for electric cars and alcohol to replace it."

 

As I said, never in our lifetime on a mass scale.

[Guest]

"4 bucks a gallon in the US us outrageous"

 

They'd be dancing in the streets of Europe with gasoline at that price :D

 

At least the USA has a some what valid excuse for high gasoline prices, large population limited reserves.

 

If you want to see stupid look at Canada. We export two million barrels of oil per day to the USA, then import 1 million from foreign countries. Canada could be 100% energy self sufficient very easily, tripple :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Well, it could be done, but making it all go electric only really shifts the problem - and nuclear (sorry, George, nucular) isn't really a road we want to go down too far, I think.

 

What we need is places which have a lot of space and a lot of sunlight (Africa, Australia, to a lesser extent parts of the US and Mexico) looking into the low-efficiency, low-cost but hugely scalable solar techniques (such as solar chimneys, heliostat farms, even direct conversion) on a truly grand scale - the mathematics is somewhat supportive of this being a worthwhile approach. Then up here in the grim north we can go to tidal, wave and wind energy, and then start planning a very considerable international power distribution system so we can pick up the slack for each other when it's cloudy, night-time or calm. I think microgeneration may also be a way to go. There is no one solution; everyone has to do a little bit in many areas of their lives for a very large total effect.

 

The problem with all of this is that until Russia, China and the US put their houses in order, the rest of us are pissing into the wind - and China is about to become a really serious problem, because they're huge, and they traditionally don't give a damn what anyone thinks of them. Quite why we're having anything to do with these people I have no idea. It's amazing what we'll put up with for cheap consumer goods.

 

P

[Mark Williams]

The problem in the UK is we are running out of oil and having to import fuel. That leaves us open to the whim of those who have it. Not only that but fossil fuels are very bad for the environment. While its true we could do a lot more with wave sun and wind power it will never be enough for our energy hungry demands. Also we are demanding more and more with all the little gadgets we all want. For our industries to compete in the world we need cheap non polluting energy. lots of it. Global warming could destroy us if we dont cut back greenhouse gases. Nuclear power doesnt pollute and can solve our energy problems. Imagine if we could make all new cars electric? Or run on hydrogen we could reverse global warming completely. I agree nuclear power can be dangerous a potential terrorist target and hard to dispose of its waste products. But the alternative risk is far worse.

 

Nuclear waste could be launched from an uninhabited place in crash proofed containers and dumped in space pushed on a collison course for the sun. It could be ensured that all new reactors have the very highest safety factors built in. The world needs a nuclear council to control Monitoring, safety requirements and inspections. Countries like france are nuclear dependent. Soon many others will be too. If we in the UK dont get our act together we will be left behind. And for what? If there is a nuclear accident in the world like Chenobyl we would be just as vulnerable. Better to try to set standards looking to a future for global conservation than leave some countries to their own not so stringent rules. In the meantime we're pumping out green house gases destroying the planet. We should start building a new generation of reactors as soon as possible.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Mark Williams

[Phil Rhodes]

> While its true we could do a lot more with wave sun and wind power it will never be enough for

> our energy hungry demands.

 

That's why it will never be a single solution. We need to create more, but also use less. People cruising around in gigantic 4x4s which never go off road, with six litre engines, is ludicrous. Leaving high streets full of shop signs switched on 24/7 is ludicrous.

 

> For our industries to compete in the world we need cheap non polluting energy.

 

What industries would those be, again?

 

> Nuclear power doesnt pollute

 

Well, it does, just not much in the short term. If you're over the age of about forty you won't live to see the problem. I will. You can practically dredge ⁹⁷Tc out of the Irish Sea already, which is extremely uncool unless you like the idea of getting five skate wings per skate.

 

> Or run on hydrogen we could reverse global warming completely.

 

How on earth is that going to work? To obtain hydrogen, you need - usually - to electrolyse water. Hydrogen is nothing more than an energy storage medium, and an inefficient one at that because the only sane way to apply it to personal transport is in an internal combustion engine. We want to be moving away from those as they're horrendously inefficient, and there is not enough platinum on the planet to make enough fuel cells to run all the cars. Much better to charge an electric car directly, but much better yet to avoid cars entirely. This is much more difficult in spread-out countries like the US and there will always be a need for them, but I can see a future whereby you'd go pick one up when you needed one, like a hire car, which also greatly mitigates the charge time issues.

 

> Nuclear waste could be launched from an uninhabited place in crash proofed containers and

> dumped in space pushed on a collison course for the sun.

 

Nice idea, but the safety issues are crazy - it's not just a case of finding an "uninhabited place", as you would be making at least most of an orbit before making for the sun. A faulty lift vehicle could deorbit and spray crap more or less anywhere - it can't be made safe enough to do. Also, the costs would be absolutely ludicrous. This is a lovely idea but it is also a complete fantasy that could not be made to work - at least, certainly not before we have the ability to construct high-tensile carbon materials and make a very cheap orbital lift device (which I think will probably be done at some reasonably imminent juncture). The French have some interesting research going on regarding transmutation of fission products, but it's horribly slow. Nuclear is probably all we can do in the short term but it must be gone into knowing it can only ever be short term - and I feel that modern politics is simply incapable of managing that sort of thirty to fifty year project with the required degree of responsibility.

 

> It could be ensured that all new reactors have the very highest safety factors built in.

 

The recent Canadian stuff is nice because it does not dump huge quantities of heat to the environment. There are also interesting new ideas regarding pelletising the fuel in a graphite sphere, which makes it easy to handle, difficult or impossible to cause a serious problem since every fuel pellet is inherently moderated, and easy to clean up if it's spilled. The reactors are small and easy to maintain. But they're not as cost effective as a pressurised water reactor, so I suspect that idiots will probably prevail there too.

 

> The world needs a nuclear council to control Monitoring, safety requirements and inspections.

 

That's the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN-sponsored outfit which some people like to ignore.

 

> We should start building a new generation of reactors as soon as possible.

 

Your unbridled enthusiasm for nuclear power disturbs me.

 

P

[Walter Graff]

"If you want to see stupid look at Canada. We export two million barrels of oil per day to the USA"

 

Actually closer to 2.5 million, not 2 million.

 

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ent/import.html

 

 

"Canada could be 100% energy self sufficient very easily"

 

Except you are confusing commodities with conservation. Two very seperate things.

[Walter Graff]

"Global warming could destroy us if we don't cut back greenhouse gases."

 

A highly debated topic in the scientific world.

 

 

" Nuclear power doesn't pollute and can solve our energy problems."

 

Actually this statement is a common misconception. In fact the creation of the fuel rods for nuclear plants does indeed produce what the global warming pundits like to call CO2 emissions from the mining of the uranium to the waste disposal.

 

 

"Imagine if we could make all new cars electric? Or run on hydrogen we could reverse global warming completely. "

 

No one has actually proven that we are causing global worming. As I said a highly debated topic in the scientific community.

 

 

"Nuclear waste could be launched from an uninhabited place in crash proofed containers and dumped in space pushed on a collision course for the sun."

 

And then potentially explode on lift off or crash back to earth in a dense population area or just in wilderness and stil have grave consiquences. There is not an apple you eat to this day that does not still contain isotopes of radiation from Chernobyl. And there is no such thing as crash proof containers when you are talking about going to space.

[Guest]

"If you want to see stupid look at Canada. We export two million barrels of oil per day to the USA"

 

Actually closer to 2.5 million, not 2 million.

 

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ent/import.html

 

 

"Canada could be 100% energy self sufficient very easily"

 

Except you are confusing commodities with conservation. Two very seperate things.

 

Fine 2.5 million, don't piss us off or it's lights out :D

 

When I say Canada could easily be energy self sufficient, I mean that there is no need at all for Canada to import oil from any one. We produce more than enough for our own needs, then we can export the surplus.

 

I want the oil industry in Canada nationalized so I can pay .02 a litre to fill up my gas guzzling SUV!!

 

R,

[Saba Mazloum]

last time i checked it said " cinematography.com....." or am i at a wrong website? :huh:

[Walter Graff]

When I say Canada could easily be energy self sufficient, I mean that there is no need at all for Canada to import oil from any one. We produce more than enough for our own needs, then we can export the surplus.

 

And that is why I said you are confusing a commodity with conservation. Why buy a record when you can download it for free? Folks do and it kills the industry of selling records. Canada requires the trade of oil for income. Sure it could be 100% on it's own but then it will not be generating income, jobs, and entire industries for its people. The trade of oil is part of the economy and to loose it would mean lossing a portion of the Canadas livelyhood.

 

The US actually exports 20,000 barrels a day to Canada too. Do they have to? No, but it is part of the global economy and that economy can not function wihtout the trade of oil.

It's one of the reasons why solar and all the others will never materialize as anything more than trophies like the Prius. Yes some groups are trying to claim all this global warming, etc, but they have a vested interest and agenda.

[Mark Williams]

> While its true we could do a lot more with wave sun and wind power it will never be enough for

> our energy hungry demands.

 

That's why it will never be a single solution. We need to create more, but also use less. People cruising around in gigantic 4x4s which never go off road, with six litre engines, is ludicrous. Leaving high streets full of shop signs switched on 24/7 is ludicrous.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be so but that is not to blame solely for global warming. The fact is its fossil fuels and a contribtuion from all of us

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> For our industries to compete in the world we need cheap non polluting energy.

 

What industries would those be, again?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats true most of our industries have gone to cheaper countries or broke however we do still make stuff here in the UK and soon we will have to again. Cheap goods from china wont last forever and we have a working class here who need work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> Nuclear power doesnt pollute

 

Well, it does, just not much in the short term. If you're over the age of about forty you won't live to see the problem. I will. You can practically dredge ⁹⁷Tc out of the Irish Sea already, which is extremely uncool unless you like the idea of getting five skate wings per skate.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sellafield was one of the first nuclear reactors. Things have moved on since then.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> Or run on hydrogen we could reverse global warming completely.

 

How on earth is that going to work? To obtain hydrogen, you need - usually - to electrolyse water. Hydrogen is nothing more than an energy storage medium, and an inefficient one at that because the only sane way to apply it to personal transport is in an internal combustion engine. We want to be moving away from those as they're horrendously inefficient, and there is not enough platinum on the planet to make enough fuel cells to run all the cars. Much better to charge an electric car directly, but much better yet to avoid cars entirely. This is much more difficult in spread-out countries like the US and there will always be a need for them, but I can see a future whereby you'd go pick one up when you needed one, like a hire car, which also greatly mitigates the charge time issues.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im not going to argue with you fine electric cars then.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> Nuclear waste could be launched from an uninhabited place in crash proofed containers and

> dumped in space pushed on a collison course for the sun.

 

Nice idea, but the safety issues are crazy - it's not just a case of finding an "uninhabited place", as you would be making at least most of an orbit before making for the sun. A faulty lift vehicle could deorbit and spray crap more or less anywhere - it can't be made safe enough to do. Also, the costs would be absolutely ludicrous. This is a lovely idea but it is also a complete fantasy that could not be made to work - at least, certainly not before we have the ability to construct high-tensile carbon materials and make a very cheap orbital lift device (which I think will probably be done at some reasonably imminent juncture). The French have some interesting research going on regarding transmutation of fission products, but it's horribly slow. Nuclear is probably all we can do in the short term but it must be gone into knowing it can only ever be short term - and I feel that modern politics is simply incapable of managing that sort of thirty to fifty year project with the required degree of responsibility.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Containers could be made that could with stand an impact and could be reusable. As for cost the space shuttle may be an option. However Nuclear waste could be buried deep underground as it already is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> It could be ensured that all new reactors have the very highest safety factors built in.

 

The recent Canadian stuff is nice because it does not dump huge quantities of heat to the environment. There are also interesting new ideas regarding pelletising the fuel in a graphite sphere, which makes it easy to handle, difficult or impossible to cause a serious problem since every fuel pellet is inherently moderated, and easy to clean up if it's spilled. The reactors are small and easy to maintain. But they're not as cost effective as a pressurised water reactor, so I suspect that idiots will probably prevail there too.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And thats why the world needs a new monitoring system with real powers?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> The world needs a nuclear council to control Monitoring, safety requirements and inspections.

 

That's the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN-sponsored outfit which some people like to ignore.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we need a new one with all countries on board with a new mandate

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> We should start building a new generation of reactors as soon as possible.

 

Your unbridled enthusiasm for nuclear power disturbs me.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Unbridled enthusiasm? Sorry not me However the fact is times running out. Nuclear power is not an option of choice its an option of no choice. Either that or continue as we are and thats a lot more disturbing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Phil Rhodes]

> Containers could be made that could with stand an impact

 

It's not about impact, it's about hitting the atmosphere at M=25. Anything that could stand it would be heavier than the contents. It is non-doable, until we get fully fledged unobtainium to make them out of.

 

> As for cost the space shuttle may be an option.

 

Actually that's the last thing you'd want to use - it's about the most expensive orbital lift vehicle we have (a price for its flexibility). Estimates put the cost of an STS-C (post Challenger) lift at between US$3500 and $5000 a kilo. Other designs have been as low as $2000 a kilo, but it's still hopelessly expensive - remember, we're talking about specifically very heavy metals here.

 

Burying it is short-termism of the worst kind.

 

P

[David Mullen ASC]

We've got several billion people breathing air, eating and drinking, producing human waste, pulling tons of fish out of the ocean, tons of raw minerals out of the ground, tilling millions of acres of land for crops, consuming tons of oil, producing mountains of garbage, a lot of it not biodegradable...

 

Anyone who thinks we couldn't possibly be having a negative impact on the environment is living in the Great State of Denial.

 

And unless you believe that a soon-to-happen plague will reduce the human population to Medieval levels... it's only going to get worse when this planet has another several billion extra people on it consuming at the same current rates.

 

There has to be a radical rethink about what we call modern civilization and modern economies based on mass consumption, unless we want fate to rethink things for us.

 

And I wouldn't putdown little things, like driving less or getting a more fuel-efficient car or using less plastic, etc. With billions of people on this planet, a small change in behavior spread to enough people adds up to a big change.

 

As for nuclear power, as a sci-fi geek, I always thought nuclear power was cool, the energy of the 20th Century and the future... but until there is a way of dealing with radioactive waste and the dangers of a radiation leak from a faulty plant (I don't trust modern companies to build anything that is fail-safe), it just seems irresponsible to just hope for the best and proceed onwards with building more plants. Someone has to design a plant that uses much less nuclear fuel and produces much less waste, is imperious to mishandling and mismanagement and terrorism, and has a plan to deal with the waste. Expending a lot of energy to shoot the waste into space, and hope that it doesn't come back down or explode on the launchpad, well, that's not really a solution.

[Mark Williams]

> Containers could be made that could with stand an impact

 

It's not about impact, it's about hitting the atmosphere at M=25. Anything that could stand it would be heavier than the contents. It is non-doable, until we get fully fledged unobtainium to make them out of.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well many things did survive from the shuttle explosion including the flight box recorder and worms I disagree I believe the technology to survive such an explosion is already available.. Perhaps starlite. Expensive maybe but then those containers would be used over and over.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

> As for cost the space shuttle may be an option.

 

Actually that's the last thing you'd want to use - it's about the most expensive orbital lift vehicle we have (a price for its flexibility). Estimates put the cost of an STS-C (post Challenger) lift at between US$3500 and $5000 a kilo. Other designs have been as low as $2000 a kilo, but it's still hopelessly expensive - remember, we're talking about specifically very heavy metals here.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the first hurdle is ito determine if its possible and then look at cost. A project like this would involve most or all Countries with nuclear reactors and would be a shared non profit making cost. The shuttle is expensive and a newer cheaper generation is well overdue. Obviously costs would have to be worked out and factored into the cost of energy to us the consumer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Burying it is short-termism of the worst kind.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

Why? If buried deep enough then it would never be a problem.

 

If they do go ahead and build nuclear reactors they will likely be the last as new ways to create pollution free energy are invented. Nuclear fusion will most likely be the next generation.

 

To sum what would be ideal is

 

1)A way to launch nuclear waste into the sun with re-usable explosion proof crash proof containers that would open in space to launch a secondary waste container that is expendable.

2)A new Delivery vehicle that could do the job

3) Working out how much this cost to the energy user. The energy should be used for electric cars and transportation.

4) If the above doesnt work out then a proper burial disposal site

5) This will likely be the last of the nuclear plants that will be replaced by fusion reactors in the future.

 

The alternative is to let things continue and have the rest of the world build their own nuclear reactors and not get involved instead we can all wait for london norfolk and much of the UK to end up underwater. Thats if the weather doesnt get us first.

[Guest]

"Sure it could be 100% on it's own but then it will not be generating income, jobs, and entire industries for its people. The trade of oil is part of the economy and to loose it would mean lossing a portion of the Canadas livelyhood."

 

Canadians would be paying for the oil instead of Americans, it would not be given away for free.

 

Any way I should have my wind/solar powered car ready for mass market in a few weeks.

 

R,