Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Peak Oil my ass
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Alim Nassor 1
Nov 18, 2012, 6:39:15 AM11/18/12
to
Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
would swamp OPEC.
A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
world's proven oil reserves."
Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
"In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1
trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said
Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
(AMSO).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852#.UKjHMGfw9rT
trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
would swamp OPEC.
A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
world's proven oil reserves."
Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
"In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1
trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said
Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
(AMSO).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852#.UKjHMGfw9rT
Patrick Powers
Nov 18, 2012, 7:39:55 AM11/18/12
to
Oil yur ass? How much you pay?
Alim Nassor 1
Nov 18, 2012, 8:13:53 AM11/18/12
to
Patrick Powers
Nov 18, 2012, 8:32:30 AM11/18/12
to
Alim Nassor 1
Nov 18, 2012, 8:38:25 AM11/18/12
to
halfpastdead
Nov 18, 2012, 11:39:03 AM11/18/12
to
to making up when you make a post like this ?
do i have to break out that old signature ?
*****************************************
I didn't know that climate change was a left/right issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP
FL Turbo
Nov 18, 2012, 12:35:38 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:39:03 -0800, "halfpastdead"
<aa9...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 18 2012 5:39 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>
>> Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
>> trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
>> would swamp OPEC.
>>
>> A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
>> estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
>> River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
>> world's proven oil reserves."
>>
>> Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
>> recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
>>
>> "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1
>> trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said
>> Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
>> (AMSO).
>>
>>
>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852#.UKjHMGfw9rT
>
>now are these REAL numbers or those numbers you make up and readily admit
>to making up when you make a post like this ?
>
How about if you do your own research for once?
<aa9...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 18 2012 5:39 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>
>> Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
>> trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
>> would swamp OPEC.
>>
>> A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
>> estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
>> River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
>> world's proven oil reserves."
>>
>> Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
>> recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
>>
>> "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1
>> trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said
>> Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
>> (AMSO).
>>
>>
>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852#.UKjHMGfw9rT
>
>now are these REAL numbers or those numbers you make up and readily admit
>to making up when you make a post like this ?
>
How about if you look it up?
Too hard for you to do?
Is it that you are as stupid as some people think you are?
>do i have to break out that old signature ?
>
>
>*****************************************
>I didn't know that climate change was a left/right issue.
>
On the one side, there are the people like AlGore who insist that we
are on the verge of catastrophic global warming unless we do something
NOW to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.
That involves more government taxes, more government rules and
regulations, and more overall controls on energy production.
The political Left just luvs them their gummint, and the more the
better.
You may have noticed that the political Right has a high aversion to
any more power given to the Federal government, as well as total
opposition to a World Government.
That should answer the question.
Well, that is with people with more than 200 or 300 brain cells.
How about you?
I'll await with unabated breath for your answer.
--------------------------------------------------
A Whyizzit.
Whyizzit that we have sympathy for those with a mental disability, but
contempt for those who are merely stupid?
ChrisRobin
Nov 18, 2012, 3:43:01 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 6:39 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
> Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
> trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
> would swamp OPEC.
<snip>
> Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
> trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
> would swamp OPEC.
"This tantalizing bonanza, however, remains just out of reach, at least
for now. The cost of extracting the Green River oil at the moment would be
higher than what it could be sold for."
Details, details. Lol.
Follow
Nov 18, 2012, 4:24:43 PM11/18/12
to
wait... You mean technology *advances*?
Follow :)
TruthSeeker
Nov 18, 2012, 5:10:06 PM11/18/12
to
"peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
oil" folks were hoping for.
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Alim Nassor
Nov 18, 2012, 5:56:14 PM11/18/12
to
Follow
Nov 18, 2012, 5:55:06 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 3:49 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Nov 18 2012 4:24 PM, Follow wrote:
>
> > And computers take up whole rooms, with men in lab coats to run them. Oh
> > wait... You mean technology *advances*?
>
> I too pray for technological miracles to solve our looming energy crisis.
> However, betting the house on technology that doesn't yet exist is not a
> sane energy policy.
I agree completely, Chris! It's about time you started talking sense. I
don't understand why Obama has bet it all on wind and solar either. What
a dumbass, huh?
Follow :)
> On Nov 18 2012 4:24 PM, Follow wrote:
>
> > And computers take up whole rooms, with men in lab coats to run them. Oh
> > wait... You mean technology *advances*?
>
> However, betting the house on technology that doesn't yet exist is not a
> sane energy policy.
I agree completely, Chris! It's about time you started talking sense. I
don't understand why Obama has bet it all on wind and solar either. What
a dumbass, huh?
Follow :)
ChrisRobin
Nov 18, 2012, 5:49:39 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 4:24 PM, Follow wrote:
> And computers take up whole rooms, with men in lab coats to run them. Oh
> wait... You mean technology *advances*?
> wait... You mean technology *advances*?
Alim Nassor
Nov 18, 2012, 5:58:50 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 2:58 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
"Enefit, an oil producer headquartered in Estonia, has been producing
oil from oil shale in Europe for more than 30 years, according to the
CEO of its Utah subsidiary, Enefit American Oil. Rikki Hrenko says
Enefit brings the shale to the surface, then heats it in retorts.
"It's more labor intensive to have to mine the shale," Hrenko said.
"But the economics are still quite feasible." She puts the break-even
price at about $65 a barrel. The cost of producing in Utah, she
thinks, will be only slightly higher than in Estonia."
And this?
"GAO's report says commercial development of oil shale is "at least
15-20 years away."
Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association
in Glenwood Springs, Colo., isn't so sure. Right now, he says, it
costs his members somewhere between $40 and $80 to produce a barrel of
oil from shale, depending on the technology they use. The price of
oil, currently at $86 a barrel, has risen in the past over $100 a
barrel and continues to fluctuate. Technology, he points out, is also
evolving. "
ChrisRobin
Nov 18, 2012, 6:34:39 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 5:10 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
It takes energy – lots of it – to extract energy. While your product is
> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
selling for more, your expenses are also rising accordingly. Of course,
the other important metric – the one you'll NEVER see in these
pie-in-the-sky articles about shale development – is EROEI. The EROEI of
this development 10 or 20 years down the road is impossible to estimate,
because the extraction technology doesn't even exist yet. In other words:
These people are basing their forecasts on pure technofantasy.
> Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
> and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
> oil" folks were hoping for.
ChrisRobin
Nov 18, 2012, 6:41:00 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 5:55 PM, Follow wrote:
> I agree completely, Chris! It's about time you started talking sense. I
> don't understand why Obama has bet it all on wind and solar either. What
> a dumbass, huh?
I disagree that Obama has "bet it all" on wind and solar, but I do agree
> I agree completely, Chris! It's about time you started talking sense. I
> don't understand why Obama has bet it all on wind and solar either. What
> a dumbass, huh?
that he's a dumbass. That said, no president in my lifetime has had a
sensible energy policy in place, so he's not alone.
ChrisRobin
Nov 18, 2012, 6:52:16 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 5:58 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> Missed this?
Nope, I read the whole thing. Contradictions aplenty.
> "Enefit, an oil producer headquartered in Estonia, has been producing
> oil from oil shale in Europe for more than 30 years, according to the
> CEO of its Utah subsidiary, Enefit American Oil. Rikki Hrenko says
> Enefit brings the shale to the surface, then heats it in retorts.
>
> "It's more labor intensive to have to mine the shale," Hrenko said.
> "But the economics are still quite feasible." She puts the break-even
> price at about $65 a barrel. The cost of producing in Utah, she
> thinks, will be only slightly higher than in Estonia."
I'll believe it when I see it.
> And this?
>
> "GAO's report says commercial development of oil shale is "at least
> 15-20 years away."
>
> Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association
> in Glenwood Springs, Colo., isn't so sure. Right now, he says, it
> costs his members somewhere between $40 and $80 to produce a barrel of
> oil from shale, depending on the technology they use. The price of
> oil, currently at $86 a barrel, has risen in the past over $100 a
> barrel and continues to fluctuate. Technology, he points out, is also
> evolving. "
Industry insiders have been touting shale as the "next big thing" for a
century. Still hasn't panned out. Here's an interesting compilation of
quotes about the miracle of shale dating all the way back to 1916 (PDF
download)... nearly 100 years of unfulfilled promises:
checksandbalancesproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/oil_shale_quotes_timeline_final3.pdf
> Missed this?
Nope, I read the whole thing. Contradictions aplenty.
> "Enefit, an oil producer headquartered in Estonia, has been producing
> oil from oil shale in Europe for more than 30 years, according to the
> CEO of its Utah subsidiary, Enefit American Oil. Rikki Hrenko says
> Enefit brings the shale to the surface, then heats it in retorts.
>
> "It's more labor intensive to have to mine the shale," Hrenko said.
> "But the economics are still quite feasible." She puts the break-even
> price at about $65 a barrel. The cost of producing in Utah, she
> thinks, will be only slightly higher than in Estonia."
> And this?
>
> "GAO's report says commercial development of oil shale is "at least
> 15-20 years away."
>
> Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association
> in Glenwood Springs, Colo., isn't so sure. Right now, he says, it
> costs his members somewhere between $40 and $80 to produce a barrel of
> oil from shale, depending on the technology they use. The price of
> oil, currently at $86 a barrel, has risen in the past over $100 a
> barrel and continues to fluctuate. Technology, he points out, is also
> evolving. "
century. Still hasn't panned out. Here's an interesting compilation of
quotes about the miracle of shale dating all the way back to 1916 (PDF
download)... nearly 100 years of unfulfilled promises:
checksandbalancesproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/oil_shale_quotes_timeline_final3.pdf
Tim Norfolk
Nov 18, 2012, 7:00:24 PM11/18/12
to
TruthSeeker
Nov 18, 2012, 7:46:44 PM11/18/12
to
On 18/11/12 4:34 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Nov 18 2012 5:10 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
>> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
>> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
>
> It takes energy � lots of it � to extract energy. While your product is
> On Nov 18 2012 5:10 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
>> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
>> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
>
> selling for more, your expenses are also rising accordingly. Of course,
> the other important metric � the one you'll NEVER see in these
> pie-in-the-sky articles about shale development � is EROEI. The EROEI of
> this development 10 or 20 years down the road is impossible to estimate,
> because the extraction technology doesn't even exist yet. In other words:
> These people are basing their forecasts on pure technofantasy.
Spoken like a true Luddite. The fundamental technology is there, it's
> because the extraction technology doesn't even exist yet. In other words:
> These people are basing their forecasts on pure technofantasy.
just normal refinement of the technology, and as noted below even if for
the first time since the industrial revolution technology became
stagnant, rising prices would make current technology viable (profitable).
>> Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
>> and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
>> oil" folks were hoping for.
> Oil is a finite resource. You cannot increase production forever.
But I'm not worried about forever, a few centuries will suffice. And
by the time it finally runs out there will be alternatives. Remember
whale oil? We were once pretty dependent on that, how much is used for
heating and lighting today?
Randy Hudson
Nov 18, 2012, 10:36:03 PM11/18/12
to
In article <XImdnQjShpBQwTTN...@giganews.com>,
looking at, is that at any particular time, rational drillers will bring up
the easiest, cheapest oil. Thus, *all else being equal*, the marginal cost
of oil production will go up, as the remaining oil will uniformly be more
expensize to produce than that already produced.
Technology means that all else is not equal. But, the underlying problem
is, as Will Rogers said about real estate, "they ain't makin' no more of
it." We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing
oil in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to
over $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a move
from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage labor.
If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us to
$1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the continuation of
tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in the past 50 years.
> Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
> and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
> oil" folks were hoping for.
I doubt most of them were hoping for decreased production; decreased
production doesn't make anyone better off. Those who warned that an Obama
victory would lead to a deepening economic depression, mostly still hope
that will not actually occur.
TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
The "peak oil" argument, which I don't entirely buy but I think is worth
> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
looking at, is that at any particular time, rational drillers will bring up
the easiest, cheapest oil. Thus, *all else being equal*, the marginal cost
of oil production will go up, as the remaining oil will uniformly be more
expensize to produce than that already produced.
Technology means that all else is not equal. But, the underlying problem
is, as Will Rogers said about real estate, "they ain't makin' no more of
it." We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing
oil in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to
over $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a move
from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage labor.
If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us to
$1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the continuation of
tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in the past 50 years.
> Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
> and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
> oil" folks were hoping for.
production doesn't make anyone better off. Those who warned that an Obama
victory would lead to a deepening economic depression, mostly still hope
that will not actually occur.
Pepe Papon
Nov 19, 2012, 12:19:25 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:46:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> Oil is a finite resource. You cannot increase production forever.
>
>The earth itself is a finite resource. So is the sun, for that matter.
> But I'm not worried about forever, a few centuries will suffice. And
>by the time it finally runs out there will be alternatives.
Alternatives? Like what? Solar? Wind? Biomass? The same
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> Oil is a finite resource. You cannot increase production forever.
>
>The earth itself is a finite resource. So is the sun, for that matter.
> But I'm not worried about forever, a few centuries will suffice. And
>by the time it finally runs out there will be alternatives.
technologies that the right-wing has been deriding as pie-in-the sky?
As it stands now, the technology doesn't exist to tap the shale oil.
The technology also doesn't exist for us to rely on renewable energy
sources for the bulk of our energy needs. Given a choice of where to
invest, why not choose the cleaner, renewable technologies?
--
Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
Alim Nassor
Nov 19, 2012, 12:45:49 AM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 11:19 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:46:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:46:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
>
> "Enefit, an oil producer headquartered in Estonia, has been producing
> oil from oil shale in Europe for more than 30 years, according to the
> CEO of its Utah subsidiary, Enefit American Oil. Rikki Hrenko says
> Enefit brings the shale to the surface, then heats it in retorts.
> "It's more labor intensive to have to mine the shale," Hrenko said.
> "But the economics are still quite feasible." She puts the break-even
> price at about $65 a barrel. The cost of producing in Utah, she
> thinks, will be only slightly higher than in Estonia."
Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association
in Glenwood Springs, Colo., isn't so sure. Right now, he says, it
costs his members somewhere between $40 and $80 to produce a barrel of
oil from shale, depending on the technology they use. The price of
oil, currently at $86 a barrel, has risen in the past over $100 a
barrel and continues to fluctuate. Technology, he points out, is also
evolving. "
They are trying to come up with better ways to do it. And they will,
in Glenwood Springs, Colo., isn't so sure. Right now, he says, it
costs his members somewhere between $40 and $80 to produce a barrel of
oil from shale, depending on the technology they use. The price of
oil, currently at $86 a barrel, has risen in the past over $100 a
barrel and continues to fluctuate. Technology, he points out, is also
evolving. "
but it is being produced from shale as we speak. As a matter of fact
I started getting royalties this year from 3 wells drilled in the
Barnett Shale. One of them produces more condensates than it does gas.
Pepe Papon
Nov 19, 2012, 3:07:04 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:45:49 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 11:19 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:46:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
>>
>> <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> >> Oil is a finite resource. You cannot increase production forever.
>>
>> >The earth itself is a finite resource. So is the sun, for that matter.
>> > But I'm not worried about forever, a few centuries will suffice. And
>> >by the time it finally runs out there will be alternatives.
>>
>> Alternatives? Like what? Solar? Wind? Biomass? The same
>> technologies that the right-wing has been deriding as pie-in-the sky?
>>
>> As it stands now, the technology doesn't exist to tap the shale oil.
>> The technology also doesn't exist for us to rely on renewable energy
>> sources for the bulk of our energy needs. Given a choice of where to
>> invest, why not choose the cleaner, renewable technologies?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>Actually it does and it was mentioned twice in the article.
It's good to know that we're in no immediate danger of exhausting our
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 11:19 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:46:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
>>
>> <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> >> Oil is a finite resource. You cannot increase production forever.
>>
>> >The earth itself is a finite resource. So is the sun, for that matter.
>> > But I'm not worried about forever, a few centuries will suffice. And
>> >by the time it finally runs out there will be alternatives.
>>
>> Alternatives? Like what? Solar? Wind? Biomass? The same
>> technologies that the right-wing has been deriding as pie-in-the sky?
>>
>> As it stands now, the technology doesn't exist to tap the shale oil.
>> The technology also doesn't exist for us to rely on renewable energy
>> sources for the bulk of our energy needs. Given a choice of where to
>> invest, why not choose the cleaner, renewable technologies?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>Actually it does and it was mentioned twice in the article.
energy supply. The fact remains, however, that burning fossil fuels
pollutes the air, and that we still ought to be investing in cleaner
energy sources.
brattt
Nov 19, 2012, 6:34:57 AM11/19/12
to
Travel A
Nov 19, 2012, 11:00:00 AM11/19/12
to
Government funded technology development and subsidies (big tax credits
to outright partial funding) for extraction costs would bring the profit
margin into the "successful energy program" range.
The only real problem is a left wing influenced government that's
hostile to existing energy resource development.
Wonder how far those billions of dollars thrown down the rat hole of
solar panels and silly windmills would go toward immediatly producing
energy from Shale oil?
Let private enterprise work on the not-yet-doables of wind and solar
ennergy, and let's get the country behind realistic alternatives to
energy resources.
And more "South Dakotas," government-land/coastal drilling, natural gas
fracking, plus new nuclear power plants please.
End of energy problem.
Both Hillary and Obama stated during the 2008 Democrat primaries that
they were open to new nuclear power plants. What happened? I guess they
just meant that they thought the architectural models were cute.
to outright partial funding) for extraction costs would bring the profit
margin into the "successful energy program" range.
The only real problem is a left wing influenced government that's
hostile to existing energy resource development.
Wonder how far those billions of dollars thrown down the rat hole of
solar panels and silly windmills would go toward immediatly producing
energy from Shale oil?
Let private enterprise work on the not-yet-doables of wind and solar
ennergy, and let's get the country behind realistic alternatives to
energy resources.
And more "South Dakotas," government-land/coastal drilling, natural gas
fracking, plus new nuclear power plants please.
End of energy problem.
Both Hillary and Obama stated during the 2008 Democrat primaries that
they were open to new nuclear power plants. What happened? I guess they
just meant that they thought the architectural models were cute.
Truthseeker
Nov 19, 2012, 11:45:48 AM11/19/12
to
On 11/19/12 9:00 AM, Travel A wrote:
> Both Hillary and Obama stated during the 2008 Democrat primaries that
> they were open to new nuclear power plants. What happened? I guess they
> just meant that they thought the architectural models were cute.
Right there is an excellent test of a person's bona fides when he
> Both Hillary and Obama stated during the 2008 Democrat primaries that
> they were open to new nuclear power plants. What happened? I guess they
> just meant that they thought the architectural models were cute.
professes concern for MMCC and wants us to reduce carbon emissions. If
it's genuine, he will support streamlining and fast-tracking building
new nuclear power plants. If he opposes nuclear power, you know it's
just ideological window-dressing for big-government PC.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Nov 19, 2012, 11:54:41 AM11/19/12
to
On 11/18/12 8:36 PM, Randy Hudson wrote:
> In article <XImdnQjShpBQwTTN...@giganews.com>,
> TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
>> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
>> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
>
> The "peak oil" argument, which I don't entirely buy but I think is worth
> looking at, is that at any particular time, rational drillers will bring up
> the easiest, cheapest oil. Thus, *all else being equal*, the marginal cost
> of oil production will go up, as the remaining oil will uniformly be more
> expensize to produce than that already produced.
>
> Technology means that all else is not equal. But, the underlying problem
> is, as Will Rogers said about real estate, "they ain't makin' no more of
> it." We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing
> oil in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to
> over $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a move
> from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage labor.
> If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us to
> $1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the continuation of
> tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in the past 50 years.
The trend is not linear. Recent developments are making oil, and
> In article <XImdnQjShpBQwTTN...@giganews.com>,
> TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> A little detail that seems to have escaped Chris. Another is that the
>> "peak oil" prediction includes a rising price of oil, which if it
>> happened would render that "at the moment" meaningless.
>
> The "peak oil" argument, which I don't entirely buy but I think is worth
> looking at, is that at any particular time, rational drillers will bring up
> the easiest, cheapest oil. Thus, *all else being equal*, the marginal cost
> of oil production will go up, as the remaining oil will uniformly be more
> expensize to produce than that already produced.
>
> Technology means that all else is not equal. But, the underlying problem
> is, as Will Rogers said about real estate, "they ain't makin' no more of
> it." We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing
> oil in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to
> over $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a move
> from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage labor.
> If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us to
> $1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the continuation of
> tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in the past 50 years.
especially natural gas, cheaper. Which will put off bringing shale oil
online, but only put off because as you say, eventually the price will
rise high enough to make it profitable. And price rises of the kind
you're suggesting will result in a move to other energy sources.
The sky is not falling.
>> Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
>> and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
>> oil" folks were hoping for.
>
> I doubt most of them were hoping for decreased production; decreased
> production doesn't make anyone better off. Those who warned that an Obama
> victory would lead to a deepening economic depression, mostly still hope
> that will not actually occur.
for climate change, and they welcome anything that would lower our use
of it.
--
Truthseeker
mo_ntresor
Nov 19, 2012, 12:03:04 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19 2012 9:54 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> > The "peak oil" argument, which I don't entirely buy but I think is worth
> > looking at, is that at any particular time, rational drillers will bring up
> > the easiest, cheapest oil. Thus, *all else being equal*, the marginal cost
> > of oil production will go up, as the remaining oil will uniformly be more
> > expensize to produce than that already produced.
> >
> > Technology means that all else is not equal. But, the underlying problem
> > is, as Will Rogers said about real estate, "they ain't makin' no more of
> > it." We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing
> > oil in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to
> > over $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a
move
> > from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage labor.
> > If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us to
> > $1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the continuation of
> > tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in the past 50 years.
>
> The trend is not linear. Recent developments are making oil, and
> especially natural gas, cheaper. Which will put off bringing shale oil
> online, but only put off because as you say, eventually the price will
> rise high enough to make it profitable. And price rises of the kind
> you're suggesting will result in a move to other energy sources.
>
> The sky is not falling.
>
> > The "peak oil" argument, which I don't entirely buy but I think is worth
> > looking at, is that at any particular time, rational drillers will bring up
> > the easiest, cheapest oil. Thus, *all else being equal*, the marginal cost
> > of oil production will go up, as the remaining oil will uniformly be more
> > expensize to produce than that already produced.
> >
> > Technology means that all else is not equal. But, the underlying problem
> > is, as Will Rogers said about real estate, "they ain't makin' no more of
> > it." We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing
> > oil in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to
> > over $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a
move
> > from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage labor.
> > If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us to
> > $1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the continuation of
> > tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in the past 50 years.
>
> The trend is not linear. Recent developments are making oil, and
> especially natural gas, cheaper. Which will put off bringing shale oil
> online, but only put off because as you say, eventually the price will
> rise high enough to make it profitable. And price rises of the kind
> you're suggesting will result in a move to other energy sources.
>
> The sky is not falling.
>
> > I doubt most of them were hoping for decreased production; decreased
> > production doesn't make anyone better off. Those who warned that an Obama
> > victory would lead to a deepening economic depression, mostly still hope
> > that will not actually occur.
>
> Many of the people putting forth "peak oil" hate Big Oil, they blame it
> for climate change, and they welcome anything that would lower our use
> of it.
i suspect the individual commute to work will wind down in the next 50
> > production doesn't make anyone better off. Those who warned that an Obama
> > victory would lead to a deepening economic depression, mostly still hope
> > that will not actually occur.
>
> Many of the people putting forth "peak oil" hate Big Oil, they blame it
> for climate change, and they welcome anything that would lower our use
> of it.
years as well.
mo_ntresor
Tim Norfolk
Nov 19, 2012, 12:39:43 PM11/19/12
to
Edward A. Falk
Nov 19, 2012, 2:07:23 PM11/19/12
to
In article <lrtnn9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
The problem with the peak oil theory is this: There are many different
kinds of oil (in terms of how it's recovered), and they peak at different
times.
Used to be, you drilled a hole in Texas, and oil came gushing out.
It was a very cheap and effective way to get oil. That source of oil
peaked decades ago. Gushers are pretty much unheard of now.
Then, you drilled a hole and pumped it out. Less cost-effective than
tapping a gusher, but still viable. Once gushers peaked, the prices
adjusted and it became practical to pump oil instead. That kind of oil
is peaking now, or has already peaked.
And so it goes. Each time one source of oil peaks, prices adjust and
another source becomes viable until it too peaks. Now we're pumping
steam into the ground, processing oil shale, and developing technologies
to liquefy coal. All at costs which would have seemed prohibitive back
in the gusher days.
Because the end product -- gas in our gas tanks -- is the same no
matter what the source of the oil, we the consumers don't experience the
individual peaks as they pass by. All we see is a slow steady increase
in the price of gas. It's more of a plateau oil rather than a peak oil.
But no source of energy is infinite, all of them *will* peak eventually,
it's just a question of when. Eventually, the supply of oil really will
run down, or require more energy to extract than it provides (which
is pretty much the same result.) With luck, that won't happen in our
lifetimes, but it *will* happen. Let's just hope we've developed a
viable alternative before then.
I like to think that what's *really* going to happen is that the
cost of clean energy will come down to below the cost of extracting
petroleum and coal from the ground, and the fossile fuel era will
finally be over.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
ChrisRobin <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 18 2012 6:39 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>
>> Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
>> trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
>> would swamp OPEC.
>
>On Nov 18 2012 6:39 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
>
>> Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
>> trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
>> would swamp OPEC.
>
>"This tantalizing bonanza, however, remains just out of reach, at least
>for now. The cost of extracting the Green River oil at the moment would be
>higher than what it could be sold for."
Here is why "peak oil" doesn't really exist.
>for now. The cost of extracting the Green River oil at the moment would be
>higher than what it could be sold for."
The problem with the peak oil theory is this: There are many different
kinds of oil (in terms of how it's recovered), and they peak at different
times.
Used to be, you drilled a hole in Texas, and oil came gushing out.
It was a very cheap and effective way to get oil. That source of oil
peaked decades ago. Gushers are pretty much unheard of now.
Then, you drilled a hole and pumped it out. Less cost-effective than
tapping a gusher, but still viable. Once gushers peaked, the prices
adjusted and it became practical to pump oil instead. That kind of oil
is peaking now, or has already peaked.
And so it goes. Each time one source of oil peaks, prices adjust and
another source becomes viable until it too peaks. Now we're pumping
steam into the ground, processing oil shale, and developing technologies
to liquefy coal. All at costs which would have seemed prohibitive back
in the gusher days.
Because the end product -- gas in our gas tanks -- is the same no
matter what the source of the oil, we the consumers don't experience the
individual peaks as they pass by. All we see is a slow steady increase
in the price of gas. It's more of a plateau oil rather than a peak oil.
But no source of energy is infinite, all of them *will* peak eventually,
it's just a question of when. Eventually, the supply of oil really will
run down, or require more energy to extract than it provides (which
is pretty much the same result.) With luck, that won't happen in our
lifetimes, but it *will* happen. Let's just hope we've developed a
viable alternative before then.
I like to think that what's *really* going to happen is that the
cost of clean energy will come down to below the cost of extracting
petroleum and coal from the ground, and the fossile fuel era will
finally be over.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
bo dark
Nov 19, 2012, 3:44:19 PM11/19/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:38:25 AM UTC-6, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:32 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:13 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Nov 18, 6:39 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Oil yur ass? How much you pay?
>
> >
>
> > > Hell, for the privilege, you oughta be paying me.
>
> >
>
> > I not pay to peak at ass.
>
>
>
> Smart move, along with the oil there are huge amounts of gas.
LOL
> On Nov 18, 7:32 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:13 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Nov 18, 6:39 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 3:39 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
>
> > > > > trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
>
> > > > > would swamp OPEC.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 3:39 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
>
> > > > > trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
>
> > > > > would swamp OPEC.
>
> >
>
> > > > > A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
>
> > > > > estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
>
> > > > > River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
>
> > > > > world's proven oil reserves."
>
> >
>
> > > > > Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
>
> > > > > recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
>
> >
>
> > > > > "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1
>
> > > > > trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said
>
> > > > > Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
>
> > > > > (AMSO).
>
> >
>
> > > > >http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story...
>
> > > > > estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
>
> > > > > River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
>
> > > > > world's proven oil reserves."
>
> >
>
> > > > > Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
>
> > > > > recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
>
> >
>
> > > > > "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1
>
> > > > > trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said
>
> > > > > Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
>
> > > > > (AMSO).
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > > > Oil yur ass? How much you pay?
>
> >
>
> > > Hell, for the privilege, you oughta be paying me.
>
> >
>
> > I not pay to peak at ass.
>
>
>
> Smart move, along with the oil there are huge amounts of gas.
LOL
ChrisRobin
Nov 19, 2012, 10:58:04 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 7:46 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 18/11/12 4:34 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > It takes energy – lots of it – to extract energy. While your product is
> On 18/11/12 4:34 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > selling for more, your expenses are also rising accordingly. Of course,
> > the other important metric – the one you'll NEVER see in these
> > pie-in-the-sky articles about shale development – is EROEI. The EROEI of
> > this development 10 or 20 years down the road is impossible to estimate,
> > because the extraction technology doesn't even exist yet. In other words:
> > These people are basing their forecasts on pure technofantasy.
>
> Spoken like a true Luddite. The fundamental technology is there, it's
> just normal refinement of the technology, and as noted below even if for
> the first time since the industrial revolution technology became
> stagnant, rising prices would make current technology viable (profitable).
I'm not a Luddite, I'm simply pointing out that large scale shale
> > because the extraction technology doesn't even exist yet. In other words:
> > These people are basing their forecasts on pure technofantasy.
>
> Spoken like a true Luddite. The fundamental technology is there, it's
> just normal refinement of the technology, and as noted below even if for
> the first time since the industrial revolution technology became
> stagnant, rising prices would make current technology viable (profitable).
development, in terms of energy returned on energy invested, is close
enough to a zero sum game as to be a non-starter, at least as some sort of
miracle cure-all for our looming energy crisis (and that doesn't even
begin to factor in any potential environmental consequences, which could
be very serious). It's going to take DECADES to refine this technology to
the point it's economically viable – no industry on the planet can afford
that kind of prolonged development cycle.
> >> Also, even without shale oil, technology is resulting in proven reserves
> >> and production in North America increasing, not decreasing as the "peak
> >> oil" folks were hoping for.
>
> > Oil is a finite resource. You cannot increase production forever.
>
> The earth itself is a finite resource. So is the sun, for that matter.
> But I'm not worried about forever, a few centuries will suffice. And
> by the time it finally runs out there will be alternatives. Remember
> whale oil? We were once pretty dependent on that, how much is used for
> heating and lighting today?
there always has been in the past, simply isn't logical – it's a leap of
faith. The energy is there, certainly. But will we be able to develop the
technology to harness and store it, particularly given the increasingly
dismal state of the world economy? This is not a certainty by any stretch.
ChrisRobin
Nov 19, 2012, 11:03:03 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19 2012 11:45 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> If he opposes nuclear power, you know it's
> just ideological window-dressing for big-government PC.
Right, because there aren't like a million legitimate reasons to oppose
> If he opposes nuclear power, you know it's
> just ideological window-dressing for big-government PC.
nuclear power.
Alim Nassor
Nov 19, 2012, 11:03:39 PM11/19/12
to
Follow
Nov 20, 2012, 1:04:37 AM11/20/12
to
Follow :)
Follow
Nov 20, 2012, 1:09:27 AM11/20/12
to
it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
against clean energy? Very strange that when environmentalists talk about
a "multi pronged" approach to energy, they just mean a whole bunch of non
viable theories that they will be funding.
Thanks for the rational explanation here.
Follow :)
Randy Hudson
Nov 20, 2012, 3:03:44 AM11/20/12
to
In article <5rqdnYtUxZfP-TfN...@giganews.com>,
trend? Practically any growth trend, in technology, in production, in
prices, is exponential, not linear.
One technology I expect will prove useful does not make crude oil production
cheaper, but derives hydrogen, gasoline, and kerosene from coal and natural
gas. Gasoline at $50/gallon is not competetive with hydrogen-using fuel
cells, but kerosene or the equivalent will still be needed for airplanes;
the energy density of fuel cells is not sufficient for them to be used for
air travel. So 10 (CH4) --> 1 (C10H22) + 9 (H2)
and 8 (CH4) --> 1 (C8H18) + 7 (H2) will be key.
> Recent developments are making oil, and especially natural gas, cheaper.
Part, though not all, of the current price advantage of natural gas is
because production has increased faster than the ability to utilize it. As
utilization develops (probably including facilities for producing gasoline
directly from natural gas, as noted above), the price of gas will increase
faster than the price of oil, until the markets for those two forms of
energy are again in equilibrium.
> Which will put off bringing shale oil online, but only put off because as
> you say, eventually the price will rise high enough to make it profitable.
> And price rises of the kind you're suggesting will result in a move to
> other energy sources.
> The sky is not falling.
But it is getting cloudier, all day :-)
> Many of the people putting forth "peak oil" hate Big Oil, they blame it
> for climate change, and they welcome anything that would lower our use
> of it.
The concept of Peak Oil originated with King Hubbert, who worked for Shell
Oil. While aspects of it have been used as arguments against oil companies,
it neither depends on nor asserts any malevolence by "Big Oil".
Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 11/18/12 8:36 PM, Randy Hudson wrote:
>> We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing oil
>> in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to over
>> $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a move
>> from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage
>> labor. If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us
>> to $1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the
>> continuation of tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in
>> the past 50 years.
> The trend is not linear.
I don't quite understand what you are saying with that statement. Which
> On 11/18/12 8:36 PM, Randy Hudson wrote:
>> We've had tremendous technological progress in finding and producing oil
>> in the last 50 years, yet the price has gone from under $2/barrel to over
>> $100/barrel in that time. Some of that is inflation, but that's a move
>> from under 2 hours of minimum-wage labor to 15 hours of minimum-wage
>> labor. If that trend is projected, anothr 50 years will have brought us
>> to $1000/barrel oil in today's dollars. And that's *with* the
>> continuation of tecnological improvement at the same rate we've had in
>> the past 50 years.
> The trend is not linear.
trend? Practically any growth trend, in technology, in production, in
prices, is exponential, not linear.
One technology I expect will prove useful does not make crude oil production
cheaper, but derives hydrogen, gasoline, and kerosene from coal and natural
gas. Gasoline at $50/gallon is not competetive with hydrogen-using fuel
cells, but kerosene or the equivalent will still be needed for airplanes;
the energy density of fuel cells is not sufficient for them to be used for
air travel. So 10 (CH4) --> 1 (C10H22) + 9 (H2)
and 8 (CH4) --> 1 (C8H18) + 7 (H2) will be key.
> Recent developments are making oil, and especially natural gas, cheaper.
because production has increased faster than the ability to utilize it. As
utilization develops (probably including facilities for producing gasoline
directly from natural gas, as noted above), the price of gas will increase
faster than the price of oil, until the markets for those two forms of
energy are again in equilibrium.
> Which will put off bringing shale oil online, but only put off because as
> you say, eventually the price will rise high enough to make it profitable.
> And price rises of the kind you're suggesting will result in a move to
> other energy sources.
> The sky is not falling.
> Many of the people putting forth "peak oil" hate Big Oil, they blame it
> for climate change, and they welcome anything that would lower our use
> of it.
Oil. While aspects of it have been used as arguments against oil companies,
it neither depends on nor asserts any malevolence by "Big Oil".
Pepe Papon
Nov 20, 2012, 4:40:37 AM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:34:57 -0800, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
Is there any ambiguity here? Of course I'm saying that.
wrote:
Pepe Papon
Nov 20, 2012, 4:41:45 AM11/20/12
to
problems, which could conceivably be even worse than global warming.
Pepe Papon
Nov 20, 2012, 4:48:42 AM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>And why is
>it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
>solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
>against clean energy?
How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
money in it?
wrote:
>And why is
>it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
>solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
>against clean energy?
money in it?
brattt
Nov 20, 2012, 6:46:26 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 3:40 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >Is this your way of saying "You were correct. The technology does exist"?
>
> Is there any ambiguity here? Of course I'm saying that.
>
> --
>
> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
it's just so pleasant to *hear* you say that.
> >Is this your way of saying "You were correct. The technology does exist"?
>
> Is there any ambiguity here? Of course I'm saying that.
>
> --
>
> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
mo_ntresor
Nov 20, 2012, 9:16:23 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >And why is
> >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
> >against clean energy?
>
> How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> money in it?
STRAWMAN!!!!!!
> >And why is
> >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
> >against clean energy?
>
> How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> money in it?
mo_ntresor
da pickle
Nov 20, 2012, 9:43:38 AM11/20/12
to
mo_ntresor
Nov 20, 2012, 9:54:03 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 7:43 AM, da pickle wrote:
> >> How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> >> money in it?
> >
> > STRAWMAN!!!!!!
>
> >> How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> >> money in it?
> >
> > STRAWMAN!!!!!!
>
> He wants to invest YOUR money ... not HIS money.
and -- BIG SURPRISE -- it's everybody with NO MONEY thinks that's
DEFINITELY the way to go!
mo_ntresor
Follow
Nov 20, 2012, 11:17:38 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
like the post above. The government cannot speed it up or slow it down
any more than they can control the weather. So I prefer they stop trying,
or maybe if they absolutely *must* do something, then at least they can
get behind the trends and work on it that way.
Investing in companies like Solara, for example, does nothing. Solara was
not a research organization, it was a commercial organization trying to
market a product that was not ready for the market and it failed. Imagine
what could have been done if we had a wise president in office who
invested that money into research than into a failing commercial
organization.
Out of control, unwise spending while apparently being hell bent on
destroying an existing, working technology is what annoys me (and most
others).
Follow :)
Randy Hudson
Nov 20, 2012, 11:39:59 AM11/20/12
to
In article <mekma8hqilc43ljlh...@4ax.com>,
Society can benefit by subsidizing activities that have positive
externalities, and penalizing activities that have negative externalities.
One can oppose subsidies on the grounds that the positive externalities are
nonexistent, or not sufficiently enhanced by the subsidies to warrant those
subsidies.
Based on what he wrote that I've quoted above, apparently Follow thinks
"clean energy" has positive externalities, but the "clean solutions" being
subsidized do not, or at least are not enhanced by the subsidies. That
could be based on specific knowledge and beliefs, or it could be like a
fellow who believes in exercise, but doesn't like running, doesn't like
walking, doesn't like swimming, etc, and so ends up not exercising. He
understands that it's beneficial, but isn't willing to pay the short-term
cost of doing something he dislikes for the expected but vague benefits.
externalities, and penalizing activities that have negative externalities.
One can oppose subsidies on the grounds that the positive externalities are
nonexistent, or not sufficiently enhanced by the subsidies to warrant those
subsidies.
Based on what he wrote that I've quoted above, apparently Follow thinks
"clean energy" has positive externalities, but the "clean solutions" being
subsidized do not, or at least are not enhanced by the subsidies. That
could be based on specific knowledge and beliefs, or it could be like a
fellow who believes in exercise, but doesn't like running, doesn't like
walking, doesn't like swimming, etc, and so ends up not exercising. He
understands that it's beneficial, but isn't willing to pay the short-term
cost of doing something he dislikes for the expected but vague benefits.
ChrisRobin
Nov 20, 2012, 1:20:10 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 1:04 AM, Follow wrote:
> Right. There aren't.
Nonsense. But we don't need a million reasons, only one: Privately owned
nuclear plans are simply not economically viable without massive
government subsidies and an absolute abrogation of any financial risk:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html
> Right. There aren't.
Nonsense. But we don't need a million reasons, only one: Privately owned
nuclear plans are simply not economically viable without massive
government subsidies and an absolute abrogation of any financial risk:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html
ChrisRobin
Nov 20, 2012, 1:25:58 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 11:17 AM, Follow wrote:
> I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
> this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
> it.
<snip>
> I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
> this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
> it.
Then you can't possibly be a proponent of nuclear power – it simply isn't
economically viable without huge government subsidies.
Follow
Nov 20, 2012, 2:11:26 PM11/20/12
to
would bet money that the reason costs are so high are regulations and
lawsuits. In Utah for example, we have a nuclear plant proposed as well,
which they estimate will take 10 years before they even break ground on
before they can get through the lawsuits alone. After that comes round
after round of regulation complicity and inspections. I'll grant you that
some of these regulations are necessary, but certainly not all of them.
So when you drive costs up with nonsense and protests, then say "see, it
costs too much to be viable now," it's kinda a pile of bullshit.
If private enterprise can build 5 billion dollar casinos and sink 10s of
billions into tourism based space programs, it can build a nuclear power
plant if the hippies get the hell out of the way.
Follow :)
ChrisRobin
Nov 20, 2012, 2:27:17 PM11/20/12
to
uninhabitable for centuries, it's going to be prohibitively expensive to
build and insure. Trust the free market.
Follow
Nov 20, 2012, 3:00:40 PM11/20/12
to
misguided idiots who protest that cause the prohibitive expense.
Follow :)
VegasJerry
Nov 20, 2012, 3:04:00 PM11/20/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zKdAPi3D0
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:18:15 AM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >And why is
> > >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> > >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
> > >against clean energy?
> >
> > How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> > money in it?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
.> I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
> The government cannot speed it up or slow it down
> any more than they can control the weather. So I prefer they stop trying,
> or maybe if they absolutely *must* do something, then at least they can
> get behind the trends and work on it that way.
>
> Investing in companies like Solara, for example, does nothing.
Except subsidize a solar panel company like the Chinese did theirs. Oh, wait, the Chinese subsidized theirs with more money and now our country is buying from them. Kind of like when Mitt Romney has his own Solyndra. A Bay State solar panel developer that landed a state loan from Mitt Romney when he was Massachusetts governor. It went belly up - a day after the GOP presidential hopeful ripped President Obama's green-energy investments. Lowell-based Konarka Technologies announced that it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and ceased operations, laying off its 85 workers and liquidated.
> Out of control, unwise spending while apparently being hell bent on
> destroying an existing, working technology is what annoys me (and most
> others).
When, in fact, you're the annoying one.
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
>
> Follow :)
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:18:15 AM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >And why is
> > >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> > >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
> > >against clean energy?
> >
> > How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> > money in it?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
> this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
> it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
> thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
> like the post above.
Why don’t we do away with the police departments and have private police? Kind of like the German's SS. And our fire departments; dump them. You can purchase your 'insurance' from some local guy with a fire truck. And our highways! Why not let private folks build highways and put in toll booths? Yea, that would sure be cheaper. And we can dump our military and hire Blackwater and Halliburton.
> it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
> thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
> like the post above.
> The government cannot speed it up or slow it down
> any more than they can control the weather. So I prefer they stop trying,
> or maybe if they absolutely *must* do something, then at least they can
> get behind the trends and work on it that way.
>
> Investing in companies like Solara, for example, does nothing.
> Out of control, unwise spending while apparently being hell bent on
> destroying an existing, working technology is what annoys me (and most
> others).
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
>
> Follow :)
VegasJerry
Nov 20, 2012, 3:06:09 PM11/20/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:58:28 PM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 18 2012 3:49 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18 2012 4:24 PM, Follow wrote:
> >
> > > And computers take up whole rooms, with men in lab coats to run them. Oh
> > > wait... You mean technology *advances*?
> >
> > I too pray for technological miracles to solve our looming energy crisis.
> > However, betting the house on technology that doesn't yet exist is not a
> > sane energy policy.
.> I agree completely, Chris! It's about time you started talking sense. I
> don't understand why Obama has bet it all on wind and solar either.
He hasn't and you can't show where he has.
> What a dumbass, huh?
Yea, try taking a pill for it.
Jerry
>
>
>
> Follow :(
> On Nov 18 2012 3:49 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18 2012 4:24 PM, Follow wrote:
> >
> > > And computers take up whole rooms, with men in lab coats to run them. Oh
> > > wait... You mean technology *advances*?
> >
> > I too pray for technological miracles to solve our looming energy crisis.
> > However, betting the house on technology that doesn't yet exist is not a
> > sane energy policy.
.> I agree completely, Chris! It's about time you started talking sense. I
> don't understand why Obama has bet it all on wind and solar either.
He hasn't and you can't show where he has.
> What a dumbass, huh?
Yea, try taking a pill for it.
Jerry
>
>
>
> Follow :(
Follow
Nov 20, 2012, 4:35:30 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20 2012 1:04 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zKdAPi3D0
>
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:18:15 AM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> > On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >And why is
> > > >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> > > >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you
are
> > > >against clean energy?
> > >
> > > How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> > > money in it?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
> ..> I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zKdAPi3D0
>
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:18:15 AM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> > On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >And why is
> > > >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> > > >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you
are
> > > >against clean energy?
> > >
> > > How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> > > money in it?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
Making up positions for me.
Learn to lose!
WHA!~HA!~HA!
Follow (laughing at Jerry) n' Salt Lake City :)
FL Turbo
Nov 20, 2012, 8:34:10 PM11/20/12
to
fund?
How many windmill farms are you willing to fund?
How many solar panel farms are you willing to fund?
Just bear in mind that when nuclear plants are built, they deliver a
substantial amount of electrical energy, year after year after year.
All the windmills and solar cells only deliver a minute amount of
energy.
When the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, they are useless.
Just as an aside here, the Brits found out a big problem with their
offshore windmills.
In very cold winter weather, they were useless.
Even worse, they need power from the grid to keep them rotating, lest
the bearings seize up.
Not only were they useless to deliver power, they sucked up power off
the grid as well.
Ooops!
Windmills are reaching the end of their useful life.
They don't reliably deliver anywhere near their rated output, either.
Plenty of money to build them, but no money to maintain them.
Got any other "renewable" energy schemes in mind that can do any
better?
Hydroelectric?
Nuclear Fusion?
What else is there?
I can't think of anything else.
How about you?
FL Turbo
Nov 20, 2012, 8:44:51 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:39:59 +0000 (UTC), i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson)
wrote:
Huh?
I freely admit that you have me baffled.
All of this "externalities" stuff is beyond me.
I know you're trying to say something but I'll be damned if I know
what it is.
So, um, what's your conclusion?
What's your point?
I'm always willing to learn.
wrote:
I freely admit that you have me baffled.
All of this "externalities" stuff is beyond me.
I know you're trying to say something but I'll be damned if I know
what it is.
So, um, what's your conclusion?
What's your point?
I'm always willing to learn.
Pepe Papon
Nov 21, 2012, 3:07:30 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:46:26 -0800, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
>On Nov 20 2012 3:40 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>
>> >Is this your way of saying "You were correct. The technology does exist"?
>>
>> Is there any ambiguity here? Of course I'm saying that.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>it's just so pleasant to *hear* you say that.
Why? I always adjust my opinion to the available evidence.
wrote:
>On Nov 20 2012 3:40 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>
>> >Is this your way of saying "You were correct. The technology does exist"?
>>
>> Is there any ambiguity here? Of course I'm saying that.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>it's just so pleasant to *hear* you say that.
Pepe Papon
Nov 21, 2012, 3:14:30 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:17:38 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And why is
>> >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
>> >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
>> >against clean energy?
>>
>> How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
>> money in it?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
>this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
>it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
>thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
>like the post above. The government cannot speed it up or slow it down
>any more than they can control the weather. So I prefer they stop trying,
>or maybe if they absolutely *must* do something, then at least they can
>get behind the trends and work on it that way.
It's pretty hard to defend the position that government investment in
research hasn't resulted in valuable technologies that the free market
couldn't or wouldn't produce. Take the Internet, for example.
>Investing in companies like Solara, for example, does nothing. Solara was
>not a research organization, it was a commercial organization trying to
>market a product that was not ready for the market and it failed. Imagine
>what could have been done if we had a wise president in office who
>invested that money into research than into a failing commercial
>organization.
I also question the wisdom of the government investing in startup
companies. I absolutely believe, however, that the government needs
to invest in basic research to develop technologies that are not
currently profitable, but might be down the road.
>Out of control, unwise spending while apparently being hell bent on
>destroying an existing, working technology is what annoys me (and most
>others).
Nobody's trying to destroy any technologies. People trying to come up
with alternatives that solve the problems inherent in existing
technologies. Those are not the same thing.
wrote:
>On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And why is
>> >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
>> >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you are
>> >against clean energy?
>>
>> How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
>> money in it?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
>this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
>it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
>thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
>like the post above. The government cannot speed it up or slow it down
>any more than they can control the weather. So I prefer they stop trying,
>or maybe if they absolutely *must* do something, then at least they can
>get behind the trends and work on it that way.
research hasn't resulted in valuable technologies that the free market
couldn't or wouldn't produce. Take the Internet, for example.
>Investing in companies like Solara, for example, does nothing. Solara was
>not a research organization, it was a commercial organization trying to
>market a product that was not ready for the market and it failed. Imagine
>what could have been done if we had a wise president in office who
>invested that money into research than into a failing commercial
>organization.
companies. I absolutely believe, however, that the government needs
to invest in basic research to develop technologies that are not
currently profitable, but might be down the road.
>Out of control, unwise spending while apparently being hell bent on
>destroying an existing, working technology is what annoys me (and most
>others).
with alternatives that solve the problems inherent in existing
technologies. Those are not the same thing.
Pepe Papon
Nov 21, 2012, 3:18:59 AM11/21/12
to
regardless of whether or not it has positive externalities. He is
ideologically opposed to ANY government investment.
Follow
Nov 21, 2012, 9:57:41 AM11/21/12
to
no good in the world of research. I never said anything remotely close to
that. Of course there have been good and valuable fruits to the piles of
money government has poured into research.
The problem, Pepe, is their power to do it. Which clause in the
Constitution empowers Congress to allocate moneys to research?
Follow :)
VegasJerry
Nov 21, 2012, 10:31:48 AM11/21/12
to
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:38:17 PM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 20 2012 1:04 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zKdAPi3D0
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:18:15 AM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> > > On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >And why is
> > > > >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> > > > >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you
> are
> > > > >against clean energy?
> > > >
> > > > How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> > > > money in it?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
> >
> > ..> I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
> > > this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
> > > it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
> > > thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
> > > like the post above.
> > Why don�t we do away with the police departments and have private police?
> On Nov 20 2012 1:04 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zKdAPi3D0
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:18:15 AM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> > > On Nov 20 2012 2:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:27 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >And why is
> > > > >it that if you don't want to throw money down a hole for these "clean
> > > > >solutions" which are being artificially propped up as our saviors, you
> are
> > > > >against clean energy?
> > > >
> > > > How is it not being against clean energy when you oppose investing any
> > > > money in it?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
> >
> > ..> I oppose any government investment in anything. It doesn't mean I'm anti
> > > this or pro that, it meant I think government should stay the hell out of
> > > it. I oppose government trying to railroad the public into using one
> > > thing over another when the free market *will* eventually resolve it just
> > > like the post above.
Nervous laughter when unable to respond.
> Making up positions for me.
> Learn to lose!
Make that 'learning' to lose. At least you laugh at yourself.
> WHA!~HA!~HA!
And I'm laughing at you, too.
Jerry (lol) 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Nov 21, 2012, 10:54:06 AM11/21/12
to SJ...@inc.com
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:34:13 PM UTC-8, FL Turbo wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:20:10 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
> <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 20 2012 1:04 AM, Follow wrote:
> >
> >> Right. There aren't.
> >
> >Nonsense. But we don't need a million reasons, only one: Privately owned
> >nuclear plans are simply not economically viable without massive
> >government subsidies and an absolute abrogation of any financial risk:
> >
> >http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html
.> So how many "green" energy scams like Solyndra are you willing to
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:20:10 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
> <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 20 2012 1:04 AM, Follow wrote:
> >
> >> Right. There aren't.
> >
> >Nonsense. But we don't need a million reasons, only one: Privately owned
> >nuclear plans are simply not economically viable without massive
> >government subsidies and an absolute abrogation of any financial risk:
> >
> >http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html
> fund?
It wasn't a scam. And that leaves you with no argument.
> How many windmill farms are you willing to fund?
> How many solar panel farms are you willing to fund?
> Just bear in mind that when nuclear plants are built, they deliver a
> substantial amount of electrical energy, year after year after year.
> All the windmills and solar cells only deliver a minute amount of
> energy.
> When the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, they are useless.
> Just as an aside here, the Brits found out a big problem with their
> offshore windmills.
> In very cold winter weather, they were useless.
> Even worse, they need power from the grid to keep them rotating, lest
> the bearings seize up.
> Not only were they useless to deliver power, they sucked up power off
> the grid as well.
> Ooops!
You really have a non argument.
> Windmills are reaching the end of their useful life.
> They don't reliably deliver anywhere near their rated output, either.
> Plenty of money to build them, but no money to maintain them.
> Got any other "renewable" energy schemes in mind that can do any
> better?
>
> Hydroelectric?
> Nuclear Fusion?
Look at all those unfinished plants in the Northwest (WHOOPS)
> What else is there?
>
> I can't think of anything else.
> How about you?
Jerry
Randy Hudson
Nov 21, 2012, 12:01:26 PM11/21/12
to
In article <s6coa810tp58t2le5...@4ax.com>,
"Externality" is the word used by economists to refer to ways that economic
decisions sometimes help or hurt people who weren't involved in the
decision.
When a manufacturing company decides the cheapest way to make a product
involves polluting the air, that is a form of negative externality; it hurts
the people who breathe that air.
When a shipping company puts up a lighthouse to help its own ships safely
navigate to port, and others who did not pay for the lighthouse also use its
light for their own navigation, that is a positive externality.
Governments, acting on behalf of the societies they govern, pass laws that
discourage negative externalities and subsidize positive ones. A small fine
for air pollution, for example, would make it cheaper for the manufacturing
company to make the product without polluting the air; if that can't happen,
the public treasury has some funds which are availabe to benefit all,
including those who suffer from the pollution. The lighthouse might not be
worth enouh to the shipping company for them to build it by themselves; but
if the government chips in, they might, and all, including the other
shippers, will benefit.
> I know you're trying to say something but I'll be damned if I know
> what it is.
I'm saying that people sometimes get hurt or helped by the decisions of
others. It's reasonable for them to offer subsidies to encourage the
outcomes that help them, and to use their power to regulate or tax to
discourage outcomes that hurt them.
> So, um, what's your conclusion?
> What's your point?
Follow said he supported renewable energy, in general, but opposed the
specific subsidies that were being used for domestic solar and wind
development. Pepe, I think it was, suggested that the claims to support
clean energy were belied by Follow's opposition to the specific subsidies
that were being discussed. I pointed out that one can believe that clean
energy has positive externalities, and therefor deserves encouragement and
possibly subsidies, while disagreeing with the appropriateness of subsidies
for particular ventures that claim the banner "Clean Energy".
--
Randy Hudson
decisions sometimes help or hurt people who weren't involved in the
decision.
When a manufacturing company decides the cheapest way to make a product
involves polluting the air, that is a form of negative externality; it hurts
the people who breathe that air.
When a shipping company puts up a lighthouse to help its own ships safely
navigate to port, and others who did not pay for the lighthouse also use its
light for their own navigation, that is a positive externality.
Governments, acting on behalf of the societies they govern, pass laws that
discourage negative externalities and subsidize positive ones. A small fine
for air pollution, for example, would make it cheaper for the manufacturing
company to make the product without polluting the air; if that can't happen,
the public treasury has some funds which are availabe to benefit all,
including those who suffer from the pollution. The lighthouse might not be
worth enouh to the shipping company for them to build it by themselves; but
if the government chips in, they might, and all, including the other
shippers, will benefit.
> I know you're trying to say something but I'll be damned if I know
> what it is.
others. It's reasonable for them to offer subsidies to encourage the
outcomes that help them, and to use their power to regulate or tax to
discourage outcomes that hurt them.
> So, um, what's your conclusion?
> What's your point?
specific subsidies that were being used for domestic solar and wind
development. Pepe, I think it was, suggested that the claims to support
clean energy were belied by Follow's opposition to the specific subsidies
that were being discussed. I pointed out that one can believe that clean
energy has positive externalities, and therefor deserves encouragement and
possibly subsidies, while disagreeing with the appropriateness of subsidies
for particular ventures that claim the banner "Clean Energy".
--
Randy Hudson
Follow
Nov 21, 2012, 2:48:17 PM11/21/12
to
On Nov 21 2012 10:01 AM, Randy Hudson wrote:
> Follow said he supported renewable energy, in general, but opposed the
> specific subsidies that were being used for domestic solar and wind
> development. Pepe, I think it was, suggested that the claims to support
> clean energy were belied by Follow's opposition to the specific subsidies
> that were being discussed. I pointed out that one can believe that clean
> energy has positive externalities, and therefor deserves encouragement and
> possibly subsidies, while disagreeing with the appropriateness of subsidies
> for particular ventures that claim the banner "Clean Energy".
>
> --
> Randy Hudson
Let me help you here, so this pointless stumbling and guessing can end.
> Follow said he supported renewable energy, in general, but opposed the
> specific subsidies that were being used for domestic solar and wind
> development. Pepe, I think it was, suggested that the claims to support
> clean energy were belied by Follow's opposition to the specific subsidies
> that were being discussed. I pointed out that one can believe that clean
> energy has positive externalities, and therefor deserves encouragement and
> possibly subsidies, while disagreeing with the appropriateness of subsidies
> for particular ventures that claim the banner "Clean Energy".
>
> --
> Randy Hudson
I would love renewable clean energy, mostly because I don't have to pay
much for a working solar panel or windmill beyond my initial investment.
In fact, I have been looking for these kinds of solutions for a very long
time. I run a very mobile business, and I need power in many remote
places. A good, working solar panel would be wonderful for my line of
work. The problem is, that they don't exist, and they are no where near
existing. They're all garbage and they produce less energy than what it
would take to power a lightbulb. They also need a big, heavy, nasty
lead-acid battery to capture that energy, which, under solar power wears
out *very* quickly with the horrible trickle charging of the solar panel.
That said, get me a working, feasible solar solution, and I'll buy it. I
support anything that will lower my fuel fees for generators. In fact, a
working, expensive solar panel would pay for itself in less than a year,
the rest would be gravy for me. I pay a LOT for power.
To contrast that, I believe in our Constitution, AS WRITTEN, and I see no
power for Congress to fund any research, no matter how good their
intention, no matter how much it would benefit me. So while I think there
is no question that our government should not fund this, I hope private
industry does and makes piles of money being the first to market with a
viable solar solution!
I don't understand why it is that when you're opposed to government
dollars being poured into these pits you must be opposed to what they're
trying to achieve.
Follow :)
Dutch
Nov 21, 2012, 4:28:49 PM11/21/12
to
Follow wrote:
> Let me help you here, so this pointless stumbling and guessing can end.
Cut the patronizing crap Beldin.
> Let me help you here, so this pointless stumbling and guessing can end.
VegasJerry
Nov 21, 2012, 5:42:49 PM11/21/12
to
Jerry
ChrisRobin
Nov 22, 2012, 2:24:38 AM11/22/12
to
newsgroup, and I've been here for longer than I care to admit.
Insurance companies refuse to insure nuclear power plants without explicit
government backstops because the potential claims are orders of magnitude
larger than they can afford to pay out. Not terribly complicated.
Pepe Papon
Nov 22, 2012, 3:21:17 AM11/22/12
to
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:57:41 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>It is impossible to defend a position that government investment has done
>no good in the world of research. I never said anything remotely close to
>that. Of course there have been good and valuable fruits to the piles of
>money government has poured into research.
>
>The problem, Pepe, is their power to do it. Which clause in the
>Constitution empowers Congress to allocate moneys to research?
You certainly must be aware that the answer to this has been debated
for centuries, beginning with the Founders themselves. Madison said
the power does not exist, and Hamilton said it does. To date, the
Court has sided with Hamilton.
wrote:
>
>It is impossible to defend a position that government investment has done
>no good in the world of research. I never said anything remotely close to
>that. Of course there have been good and valuable fruits to the piles of
>money government has poured into research.
>
>The problem, Pepe, is their power to do it. Which clause in the
>Constitution empowers Congress to allocate moneys to research?
for centuries, beginning with the Founders themselves. Madison said
the power does not exist, and Hamilton said it does. To date, the
Court has sided with Hamilton.
Pepe Papon
Nov 22, 2012, 3:29:39 AM11/22/12
to
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:42:49 -0800 (PST), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:
>>
>> Follow :)
>
>You cannot expect a private company to do the R&D that would eventually benefit others. You cannot expect a private company to build roads for themselves, that end up benefiting others. The government represents us. If we feel we need something to benefit the commons, we tell them. If we feel we need R&D, we tell our elected representatives. If we feel we need a big military to protect us, we tell them. Apparently your right wing nut leaders, like Limbaugh, have you fearing the word social and socialistic. Divided you fall.
He's not arguing that. He's arguing that the law of the land, i.e.
the Constitution, does not legally endow the government with the power
to do so. Put another way, he's saying that such government spending
is unconstitutional.
Your argument can be restated, however, as an issue of the general
welfare, which is covered by the general welfare clause of the
Constitution. This point has been argued since the time of the
Founding Fathers. The Courts, to date, have agreed with what you
stated above.
wrote:
>>
>> Follow :)
>
>You cannot expect a private company to do the R&D that would eventually benefit others. You cannot expect a private company to build roads for themselves, that end up benefiting others. The government represents us. If we feel we need something to benefit the commons, we tell them. If we feel we need R&D, we tell our elected representatives. If we feel we need a big military to protect us, we tell them. Apparently your right wing nut leaders, like Limbaugh, have you fearing the word social and socialistic. Divided you fall.
the Constitution, does not legally endow the government with the power
to do so. Put another way, he's saying that such government spending
is unconstitutional.
Your argument can be restated, however, as an issue of the general
welfare, which is covered by the general welfare clause of the
Constitution. This point has been argued since the time of the
Founding Fathers. The Courts, to date, have agreed with what you
stated above.
da pickle
Nov 22, 2012, 10:10:23 AM11/22/12
to
inner tubes for information about what you think you might know about
"the general welfare" *clause* for even a slight education.
Randy Hudson
Nov 22, 2012, 3:45:19 PM11/22/12
to
In article <8unra8dknqgeaecnb...@4ax.com>,
New Deal programs were accepted by the Court.
The Hamilton side has won most of the cases since then. The biggest
exception was the Medicaid dispute in the Obamacare case, where the
Roberts-authored decision said that the government could not condition their
award of *all* a State's Medicaid funds on that State contributing to
coverage of an expanded benneficiary list. (A pure Madisonian decision
would have prohibited the Feds giving *any* money to Medicaid; the chances
of that decicion issuing were zero.)
Pepe Papon <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> You certainly must be aware that the answer to this has been debated
> for centuries, beginning with the Founders themselves. Madison said
> the power does not exist, and Hamilton said it does. To date, the
> Court has sided with Hamilton.
The court mostly sided with Madison until the late 1930s, when various
> You certainly must be aware that the answer to this has been debated
> for centuries, beginning with the Founders themselves. Madison said
> the power does not exist, and Hamilton said it does. To date, the
> Court has sided with Hamilton.
New Deal programs were accepted by the Court.
The Hamilton side has won most of the cases since then. The biggest
exception was the Medicaid dispute in the Obamacare case, where the
Roberts-authored decision said that the government could not condition their
award of *all* a State's Medicaid funds on that State contributing to
coverage of an expanded benneficiary list. (A pure Madisonian decision
would have prohibited the Feds giving *any* money to Medicaid; the chances
of that decicion issuing were zero.)
halfpastdead
Nov 22, 2012, 10:35:41 PM11/22/12
to
On Nov 18 2012 7:38 AM, Alim Nassor 1 wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:32 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 5:13 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 18, 6:39 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 18, 3:39 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
> > > > > trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
> > > > > would swamp OPEC.
> >
> > > > > A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
> > > > > estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
> > > > > River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
> > > > > world's proven oil reserves."
> >
> > > > > Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
> > > > > recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
> >
> > > > > "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed
1
> > > > > trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here,"
said
> > > > > Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
> > > > > (AMSO).
> >
> > > >
>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story...
> >
> > > > Oil yur ass? How much you pay?
> >
> > > Hell, for the privilege, you oughta be paying me.
> >
> > I not pay to peak at ass.
>
> Smart move, along with the oil there are huge amounts of gas.
POTW.. good one
*****************************************
I didn't know that climate change was a left/right issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP
> On Nov 18, 7:32 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 5:13 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 18, 6:39 am, Patrick Powers <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 18, 3:39 am, Alim Nassor 1 <AlimNass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Drillers in Utah and Colorado are poking into a massive shale deposit
> > > > > trying to find a way to unlock oil reserves that are so vast they
> > > > > would swamp OPEC.
> >
> > > > > A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
> > > > > estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green
> > > > > River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire
> > > > > world's proven oil reserves."
> >
> > > > > Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil
> > > > > recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.
> >
> > > > > "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed
1
> > > > > trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here,"
said
> > > > > Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil
> > > > > (AMSO).
> >
> > > >
>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story...
> >
> > > > Oil yur ass? How much you pay?
> >
> > > Hell, for the privilege, you oughta be paying me.
> >
> > I not pay to peak at ass.
>
> Smart move, along with the oil there are huge amounts of gas.
POTW.. good one
*****************************************
I didn't know that climate change was a left/right issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP
Pepe Papon
Nov 22, 2012, 11:40:15 PM11/22/12
to
Pickle, though. You can't resist an opportunity to condescend. Your
need to feel superior is all too transparent. You're no different
from Beldin, really.
FL Turbo
Nov 23, 2012, 2:22:47 PM11/23/12
to
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:01:26 +0000 (UTC), i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson)
Thanks for the explanation.
I was kinda, sort sure that was it, but I just wanted to hear you
explain it in your own words.
>> I know you're trying to say something but I'll be damned if I know
>> what it is.
>
>I'm saying that people sometimes get hurt or helped by the decisions of
>others. It's reasonable for them to offer subsidies to encourage the
>outcomes that help them, and to use their power to regulate or tax to
>discourage outcomes that hurt them.
>
Ah, yes.
But then the next question is who shall define precisely what those
outcomes are, and what is their validity?
That's where the argument starts, isn't it?
If I or anyone else doesn't support someone else's assessment, that's
where the argument begins and continues.
>> So, um, what's your conclusion?
>> What's your point?
>
>Follow said he supported renewable energy, in general, but opposed the
>specific subsidies that were being used for domestic solar and wind
>development. Pepe, I think it was, suggested that the claims to support
>clean energy were belied by Follow's opposition to the specific subsidies
>that were being discussed. I pointed out that one can believe that clean
>energy has positive externalities, and therefor deserves encouragement and
>possibly subsidies, while disagreeing with the appropriateness of subsidies
>for particular ventures that claim the banner "Clean Energy".
I'd say that the "externality" of wasted taxpayer money on most "green
energy" poured down a rathole is a significant outcome to be avoided.
Who is to decide?
I was kinda, sort sure that was it, but I just wanted to hear you
explain it in your own words.
>> I know you're trying to say something but I'll be damned if I know
>> what it is.
>
>I'm saying that people sometimes get hurt or helped by the decisions of
>others. It's reasonable for them to offer subsidies to encourage the
>outcomes that help them, and to use their power to regulate or tax to
>discourage outcomes that hurt them.
>
But then the next question is who shall define precisely what those
outcomes are, and what is their validity?
That's where the argument starts, isn't it?
If I or anyone else doesn't support someone else's assessment, that's
where the argument begins and continues.
>> So, um, what's your conclusion?
>> What's your point?
>
>Follow said he supported renewable energy, in general, but opposed the
>specific subsidies that were being used for domestic solar and wind
>development. Pepe, I think it was, suggested that the claims to support
>clean energy were belied by Follow's opposition to the specific subsidies
>that were being discussed. I pointed out that one can believe that clean
>energy has positive externalities, and therefor deserves encouragement and
>possibly subsidies, while disagreeing with the appropriateness of subsidies
>for particular ventures that claim the banner "Clean Energy".
energy" poured down a rathole is a significant outcome to be avoided.
Who is to decide?
Randy Hudson
Nov 24, 2012, 7:22:50 PM11/24/12
to
In article <riiva81ttf8mvga0i...@4ax.com>,
choose a group action, is Government.
> That's where the argument starts, isn't it?
> If I or anyone else doesn't support someone else's assessment, that's
> where the argument begins and continues.
Yes. People have different views; but that's a feature, not a bug.
Discussing where and why our views differ helps find errors that probably
occur on all sides, so that decisions -- not just the particular decision
that triggered the discussion, but all the decsions that depend on the facts
and implications that underlay the disputed decision -- are improved.
> I'd say that the "externality" of wasted taxpayer money on most "green
> energy" poured down a rathole is a significant outcome to be avoided.
I'd say waste is bad, but it's generally not an externality. Sometimes it's
caused by externalities. And the waste that matters isn't the waste of
money; it's the waste of limited resources bought with that money.
FL Turbo <SJ...@Inc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:01:26 +0000 (UTC), i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson)
> wrote:
>
>>When a manufacturing company decides the cheapest way to make a product
>>involves polluting the air, that is a form of negative externality; it hurts
>>the people who breathe that air.
>>
>>When a shipping company puts up a lighthouse to help its own ships safely
>>navigate to port, and others who did not pay for the lighthouse also use its
>>light for their own navigation, that is a positive externality.
>>
>>Governments, acting on behalf of the societies they govern, pass laws that
>>discourage negative externalities and subsidize positive ones. A small fine
>>for air pollution, for example, would make it cheaper for the manufacturing
>>company to make the product without polluting the air; if that can't happen,
>>the public treasury has some funds which are availabe to benefit all,
>>including those who suffer from the pollution. The lighthouse might not be
>>worth enouh to the shipping company for them to build it by themselves; but
>>if the government chips in, they might, and all, including the other
>>shippers, will benefit.
>>
> Thanks for the explanation.
> I was kinda, sort sure that was it, but I just wanted to hear you
> explain it in your own words.
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:01:26 +0000 (UTC), i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson)
> wrote:
>
>>When a manufacturing company decides the cheapest way to make a product
>>involves polluting the air, that is a form of negative externality; it hurts
>>the people who breathe that air.
>>
>>When a shipping company puts up a lighthouse to help its own ships safely
>>navigate to port, and others who did not pay for the lighthouse also use its
>>light for their own navigation, that is a positive externality.
>>
>>Governments, acting on behalf of the societies they govern, pass laws that
>>discourage negative externalities and subsidize positive ones. A small fine
>>for air pollution, for example, would make it cheaper for the manufacturing
>>company to make the product without polluting the air; if that can't happen,
>>the public treasury has some funds which are availabe to benefit all,
>>including those who suffer from the pollution. The lighthouse might not be
>>worth enouh to the shipping company for them to build it by themselves; but
>>if the government chips in, they might, and all, including the other
>>shippers, will benefit.
>>
> Thanks for the explanation.
> I was kinda, sort sure that was it, but I just wanted to hear you
> explain it in your own words.
>
>>I'm saying that people sometimes get hurt or helped by the decisions of
>>others. It's reasonable for them to offer subsidies to encourage the
>>outcomes that help them, and to use their power to regulate or tax to
>>discourage outcomes that hurt them.
>>
>>others. It's reasonable for them to offer subsidies to encourage the
>>outcomes that help them, and to use their power to regulate or tax to
>>discourage outcomes that hurt them.
>>
> But then the next question is who shall define precisely what those
> outcomes are, and what is their validity?
Each person decides. Putting those individual decisions together, to
> outcomes are, and what is their validity?
choose a group action, is Government.
> That's where the argument starts, isn't it?
> If I or anyone else doesn't support someone else's assessment, that's
> where the argument begins and continues.
Discussing where and why our views differ helps find errors that probably
occur on all sides, so that decisions -- not just the particular decision
that triggered the discussion, but all the decsions that depend on the facts
and implications that underlay the disputed decision -- are improved.
> I'd say that the "externality" of wasted taxpayer money on most "green
> energy" poured down a rathole is a significant outcome to be avoided.
caused by externalities. And the waste that matters isn't the waste of
money; it's the waste of limited resources bought with that money.
0 new messages