Cap and Trade and the Illusion of the New Green Economy
Eric Gisin
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/cap-and-trade-and-the-illusion-of-the-new-green-economy/
July 1, 2009, 06:30:21 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I don't think Al Gore in his wildest dreams could have imagined how successful the "climate crisis"
movement would become. It is probably safe to assume that this success is not so much the result of
Gore's charisma as it is humanity's spiritual need to be involved in something transcendent - like
saving the Earth.
After all, who wouldn't want to Save the Earth? I certainly would. If I really believed that
manmade global warming was a serious threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to
'fix' the problem.
But there are two practical problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming: (1) global
warming is (or at least was) likely to be a mostly natural process; and (2) even if global warming
is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming without new energy technologies
that do not currently exist.
On the first point, since the scientific evidence against global warming being anthropogenic is
what most of the rest of this website is about, I won't repeat it here. But on the second
point.what if the alarmists are correct? What if humanity's burning of fossil fuels really is
causing global warming? What is the best path to follow to fix the problem?
Cap-and-Trade
The most popular solution today is carbon cap-and-trade legislation. The European Union has
hands-on experience with cap-and-trade over the last couple of years, and it isn't pretty. Over
there it is called their Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Here in the U.S., the House of
Representatives last Friday narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The Senate plans on taking up
the bill as early as the fall of 2009.
Under cap-and-trade, the government institutes "caps" on how much carbon dioxide can be emitted,
and then allows companies to "trade" carbon credits so that the market rewards those companies that
find ways to produce less CO2. If a company ends up having more credits than they need, they can
then sell those credits to other companies.
While it's advertised as a "market-based" approach to pollution reduction, it really isn't since
the market did not freely choose cap-and-trade.it was imposed upon the market by the government.
The 'free market' aspect of it just helps to reduce the economic damage done as a result of the
government regulations.
The Free Market Makes Waxman-Markey Unnecessary
There are several serious problems with cap-and-trade. In the big picture, as Europe has found out,
it will damage the economy. This is simply because there are as yet no large-scale, practical, and
cost-competitive replacements for fossil fuels. As a result, if you punish fossil fuel use with
either taxes or by capping how much energy is allowed to be used, you punish the economy.
Now, if you are under the illusion that cap-and-trade will result in the development of high-tech
replacements for fossil fuels, you do not understand basic economics. No matter how badly you might
want it, you can not legislate a time-travel machine into existence. Space-based solar power might
sound really cool, but the cost of it would be astronomical (no pun intended), and it could only
provide the tiniest fraction of our energy needs. Wind power goes away when the wind stops, and is
only practical in windy parts of the country. Land-based solar power goes away when the sun sets,
and is only practical in the sunny Southwest U.S. While I personally favor nuclear power, it takes
forever to license and build a nuclear power plant, and it would take 1,000 1-gigawatt nuclear
power plants to meet electricity demand in the United States.
And no one wants any of these facilities near where they live.
Fortunately, cap-and-trade legislation is not necessary anyway because incentives already exist -
right now - for anyone to come up with alternative technologies for energy generation and energy
efficiency. Taxpayers and consumers already pay for billions of dollars in both government research
(through taxes) and private research (through the cost of goods and services) to develop new energy
technologies.
Whoever succeeds in these efforts stands to make a lot of money simply because everything we do
requires energy. And I do mean everything.even sitting there and thinking. Using your brain
requires energy, which requires food, which requires fossil fuels to grow, distribute, refrigerate
and cook that food.
Economic Competitiveness in the Global Marketplace
Secondly, when instituted unilaterally by a country, cap-and-trade legislation makes that country
less competitive in the global economy. Imports and trade deficits increase as prices at home rise,
while companies or whole industries close and move abroad to countries where they can be more
competitive.
The Obama administration and congress are trying to minimize this problem by imposing tariffs on
imports, but this then hurts everyone in all of the countries involved. Remember, two countries
only willingly engage in trade with each other because it economically benefits both countries by
reducing costs, thus raising the standard of living in those countries.
The Green Mafia
Third, cap-and-trade is a system that is just begging for cheating, bribing, and cooking the books.
How will a company's (or a farm's) greenhouse gas emissions be gauged, and then monitored over
time? A massive new bureaucracy will be required, with a litany of rules and procedures which have
limited basis in science and previous experience.
And who will decide how many credits will initially be given by the government to each
company/farm/industry? Does anyone expect that these decisions will be impartial, without political
favoritism shown toward one company over another, or one industry over another? This is one reason
why some high-profile corporations are now on the global warming bandwagon. They (or at least a few
of their executives) are trying to position themselves more favorably in what they see to be an
inevitable energy-rationed economic system.
Big Oil and Big Coal Will Not Pay for Cap-and-Trade
Fourth, it is the consumer - the citizen - who will pay for all of this, either in the form of
higher prices, or reduced availability, or reduced economic growth. Companies have no choice but to
pass increased costs on to consumers, and decreased profits to investors. You might think that "Big
Business" will finally be paying their "fair share", but Big Business is what provides jobs. No Big
Business, no jobs.
The Green Jobs Illusion
Fifth, the allure of "green jobs" might be strong, but the economic benefit of those jobs is an
illusion. The claim that many thousands of new green jobs will be created under such a system is
probably true. But achieving low unemployment through government mandates does not create wealth -
it destroys wealth.
Let me illustrate. We could have full employment with green jobs today if we wanted to. We could
pay each other to dig holes in the ground and then fill the holes up again, day after day, month
after month. (Of course, we'll use shovels rather than backhoes to reduce fossil fuel use.) How's
that for a green jobs program?
My point is that it matters a LOT what kinds of jobs are created. Let's say that today 1,000 jobs
are required to create 1 gigawatt of coal-fired electricity. Now, suppose we require that
electricity to come from a renewable source instead. If 5,000 jobs are needed to create the same
amount of electricity with windmills that 1,000 jobs created with coal, then efficiency and wealth
generation will be destroyed.
Sure, you can create as many green jobs as you want, but the comparative productivity of those jobs
is what really matters. In the end, when the government manipulates the economy in such a fashion,
the economy suffers.
And even if a market for green equipment (solar panels, windmills, etc.) does develop, there is
little doubt that countries China will be able to manufacture that equipment at lower cost than the
United States. Especially considering all of our laws, regulations, limits, and restrictions.
So, What's the Alternative?
If anthropogenic global warming does end up being a serious problem, what can be done to move away
from fossil fuels? I would say, encourage economic growth, and burn fossil fuels like there is no
tomorrow! Increased demand will lead to higher prices, and as long as the free market is allowed to
work, new energy technologies will be developed.
As long a demand exists for energy (and it always will), there will be people who find ways to meet
that demand. There is no need for silly awards for best inventions, etc., because the market value
of those inventions will far exceed the value of gimmicky, government-sponsored competitions.
Why are Politicians so Enamored by Cap-and-Trade?
Given the pain (and public backlash) the EU has experienced from two years' experience with its
Emissions Trading Scheme, why would our politicians ignore that foreign experience, as well as
popular sentiment against cap-and-trade here at home, and run full-steam with eyes closed into this
regulatory quagmire?
The only answer I can come up with is: more money and more power for government. As a former
government employee, I am familiar with the mindset. While the goal of a private sector job is to
create wealth, the government employee's main job is to spend as much of that wealth as possible. A
government agency's foremost goal is self preservation, which means perpetuating a public need for
the agency. The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might
have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly na�ve.
All Pain, No Gain
And finally, let's remember what the whole purpose of carbon cap-and-trade is: to reduce future
warming of the climate system. Even some prominent environmentalists are against Waxman-Markey
because they do not believe it will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions here at home. To
the extent that provisions are added to the bill to make it more palatable to politicians from
agricultural states or industrial states, it then accomplishes even less of what it is intended to
accomplish: reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
And even if cap-and-trade does what is intended, the reduction in CO2 emissions as a fraction of
global CO2 emissions will moderate future warming by, at most, around one tenth of a degree C by
late in this century. That is probably not even measurable.
Of course, this whole discussion assumes that the climate system is very sensitive to our carbon
dioxide emissions. But if the research we are doing is correct, then manmade global warming is
being overestimated by about a factor of 5, and it is the climate system itself that causes climate
change.not humans.
If that is the case, then nothing humanity does is going to substantially affect climate one way or
the other. Indeed, given the fact that life on Earth depends upon the tiny amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, I continue to predict that more atmospheric CO2 will, in the end, be a good thing for
life on Earth.
Yet, many politicians are so blinded by the additional political power and tax revenue that will
come from a cap-and-trade system that they do not want to hear any good news from the science. For
instance, in my most recent congressional testimony, the good news I presented was met with an ad
hominem insult from Senator Barbara Boxer.
I can only conclude that some politicians actually want global warming to be a serious threat to
humanity. I wonder why?
Jeffrey Turner
> (2) even if global warming
> is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming
> without new energy technologies
> that do not currently exist.
And he's a selfish, lazy bastard who can't be arsed to do anything
difficult. Yes, we know. Rest of redundant, duplicitous rant snipped
out of mercy for intelligent readers.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
leona...@gmail.com
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > (2) even if global warming
> > is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming
> > without new energy technologies
> > that do not currently exist.
>
> And he's a selfish, lazy bastard who can't be arsed to do anything
> difficult. Yes, we know. Rest of redundant, duplicitous rant snipped
> out of mercy for intelligent readers.
>
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
Eric Gisin
Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:8uydnVVJloE0JNbX...@posted.localnet...
Rob Dekker
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
....
> Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
Rob
Bret Cahill
>
> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
> a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
better?
Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
like Haitians.
We need to be forcing the oil companies to do something akin to
digging their own graves.
Bret Cahill
What A. Fool
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>>
>> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
>> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
>> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
>> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
>> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
>> a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
>> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
>> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
>That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
>
>And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
>years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
>back into the U. S. economy.
>
>> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
>> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>
>The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
>sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
>next couple of decades.
The national debt held by the public is less than 8 Trillion,
where do you suggest the 10 Trillion could come from?
>The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
>security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
>better?
The balance of trade is not tightly connected to the
national debt, owners of dollars can buy real estate, start up
new companies here, buy stock in existing companies, etc.
>Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
Not lazy thinking, just the very thing lawyers in congress
are good at.
>If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
>resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
>like Haitians.
I don't follow that, as long as foreigners hold dollars it
does not affect anything, and when they spend dollars,
doesn't it mean income for somebody in the US?
If it all was spent on buying US exports, wouldn't that
help the GDP? Isn't the reason there is a trade debt
that others have not been spending the dollars to buy
US goods and services (or real estate or whatever)?
>We need to be forcing the oil companies to do something akin to
>digging their own graves.
>
>Bret Cahill
Most are international companies now, what needs
to be done is becoming less clear, and a few extremist
greens are causing a lot of problems, like shutting down
a big part of the irrigation in California, driving up prices
of produce.
But perhaps it will soon become apparent what
has to be done, the national debt interest problem and
the borrow and spend issue has to be resolved, but
I don't see where it is connected to the balance of
trade debt.
Jerry Okamura
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
> news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> ....
>> Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>
> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
> transportation are viable :
> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
> but combined that can come a long way.
> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a long
> time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil
> fuel usage.
> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
> on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save the US a $500
> billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
How is the electricity you need going to be generated? How much added
electrical generating capacity would be needed? Biofuels need land to grow
the vegetation needed to convert to a biofuel doesn't it? Land is also used
to produce food isn't it? When you use land to produce both the feedstock
for biofuels, doesn't that mean there is less land to produce food? And
what about those countries in the world, that are not able to produce enough
food for their own population, do you want them to divert land to produce
the feedstock for biofuels, when they already cannot produce enough food for
their own population? Doesn't this mean that coutnries like the United
States which has a lot of land that can produce both food and use land to
produce biofuels, just got richer, while those countries who do not have the
land, just got a whole lot more poor? And if the United States diverts
their land from producing something like corn and wheat, doesn't that mean
there is less corn and wheat available to help those countries which we send
our surplus corn and wheat to? What happens to the population of those
countries, if the United States no longer can send them our supluse corn and
wheat, because we no longer have a surplus, we are using that land to
produce the feestock to produce biofuels? If a farmer can make more money
to produce food, will he still use his land to produce the feestock that is
needed to produce biofuels? Isn't it likely that there will be competition
for the use of the land between the economic forces at work to produce
biofuels and the economic forces at owrk to produce food? Don't we already
know what happens?
>
> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that
> path is 2-4x worse than going coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>
For now?
Jerry Okamura
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:450d6360-b484-429f...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>> > Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>>
>> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
>> transportation are viable :
>> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
>> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
>> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
>> but combined that can come a long way.
>> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
>> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
>> a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out
>> liquid fossil fuel usage.
>> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
>> on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
>> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
> That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
>
> And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
> years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
> back into the U. S. economy.
>
>> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that
>> path is 2-4x worse than going
>> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>
> The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
> sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
> next couple of decades.
>
aren't we well on our way to bankrupting the country? Does it really matter
how the country goes bankrupt?
Bret Cahill
GOP tax cuts for the rich always causes deficits to soar. We saw this
under the Gipster and under Dumbya.
Toward the end of the high tax Clinton economic boom the surpluses
were heading toward the trillions and Repugs impeached Clinton for it.
And then Dumbya cut taxes on the rich and eventually the entire system
collapsed under the debt caused by GOP tax cuts for the rich.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
> > transportation are viable :
> > (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
> > (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
> > Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
> > but combined that can come a long way.
> > Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
> > investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a long
> > time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil
> > fuel usage.
> > But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
> > on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save the US a $500
> > billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
> How is the electricity you need going to be generated?
Try googling "power plants."
Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> >> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
> >> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
> >> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
> >> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
> >> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
> >> a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
> >> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
> >> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
> >That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
>
> >And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
> >years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
> >back into the U. S. economy.
>
> >> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
> >> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>
> >The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
> >sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
> >next couple of decades.
>
> The national debt held by the public is less than 8 Trillion,
> where do you suggest the 10 Trillion could come from?
From the $100 trillion in savings from not buying foreign oil.
> >The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
> >security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
> >better?
> The balance of trade is not tightly connected to the
> national debt, owners of dollars can buy real estate, start up
> new companies here, buy stock in existing companies, etc.
But Americans won't be the owners of those dollars.
The poor will want to motor around so they'll have to tax the rich to
get the money to pay for the $15/gallon fuel.
The money will go directly from the rich to oil rich despotisms.
And there's no reason for it to come back since we don't manufacture
anything here anymore except bs.
> >Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
> Not lazy thinking,
It's lazy thinking.
> just the very thing lawyers in congress
> are good at.
> >If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
> >resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
> >like Haitians.
> I don't follow that, as long as foreigners hold dollars
Then they'll be riding around in Huimmers and we'll be living like
Hatians.
> it
> does not affect anything,
Then let me hold your dollars.
Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
What A. Fool
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>>
>> >> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
>> >> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
>> >> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
>> >> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
>> >> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
>> >> a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
>> >> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
>> >> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>>
>> >That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
>>
>> >And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
>> >years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
>> >back into the U. S. economy.
>>
>> >> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
>> >> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>>
>> >The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
>> >sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
>> >next couple of decades.
>>
>> The national debt held by the public is less than 8 Trillion,
>> where do you suggest the 10 Trillion could come from?
>
>From the $100 trillion in savings from not buying foreign oil.
The entire assets of the world in real estate, stocks, bonds,
money accounts and everything else is about $65 Trillion.
You have the right idea, just too liberal when talking
about money. The total US currency in existence is less
than 900 Billion, and more than half of that circulates overseas.
>[snip]
>Bret Cahill
Chris From Suffolk, NY
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> You have the right idea, just too liberal when talking
> about money. The total US currency in existence is less
> than 900 Billion, and more than half of that circulates overseas.
> >[snip]
> >Bret Cahill
Your figure does not account for digital currency or money held by
banks and treasuries. That is only the paper and coin money held by
the public.
I don't think Congress even knows how many dollars are actually out
there, hence the HR 1207 bill to audit the federal reserve.
Michael Coburn
You are implying a link that does not exist. The use of current
resources for the development of alternative energy has naught to do with
current national debt.
>>The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
>>security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
>>better?
>
> The balance of trade is not tightly connected to the
> national debt, owners of dollars can buy real estate, start up new
> companies here, buy stock in existing companies, etc.
And if those owners of real estate, etc. are foreign stockholders then
the gains on that income are not taxed here in the USA. And if we
increase corporate taxes then the financial portion of the corporation
moves to Bimini. This HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGEEEEEE loss in tax revenues
will definitely increase the national debt. This also happens with the
loss in taxes on wage income when actual production is outside the US tax
jurisdiction. These sorts of operations ab-use United States
infrastructure and the enforcement of IP rights on a world wide basis
because they are avoiding the payments for same. The national debt is
caused by the cost of government enforcement of business IP rights and
other property rights on a world wide basis by the world policeman (that
would be the US government) while not collecting sufficient revenue to
cover those costs.
The most obvious solution to the problem is to collect the fees for this
service as the goods flow into the country. But I must add that the one
saving grace of consumption taxes are that these taxes cannot be avoided
by shifting production offshore. That is nor an endorsement of
consumption taxes because such taxes are regressive and still do not
address the real problem which is the cost of enforcement of business
property rights.
>>Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
>
> Not lazy thinking, just the very thing lawyers in congress
> are good at.
They are good at finding ways to blame others for their dereliction of
duty.
>>If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
>>resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
>>like Haitians.
>
> I don't follow that, as long as foreigners hold dollars it
> does not affect anything, and when they spend dollars, doesn't it mean
> income for somebody in the US?
If they buy "means of production" or goods then the money does enter the
American economy in some way. If they buy assets then long term capital
gains will shield most of that direct income from taxation. And if the
recipient of the income then builds a factory in China there is again no
tax benefit to the people of America other than the possible income of
the American owners(s). Here in America the stupeedos want to shield
even this unearned income from taxation.
If the foreigners buy land and other means of production in the USA they
will avoid most of the taxes that would otherwise go to pay for the
protection of their property rights. That shortfall will have to be made
up by taxing US production or consumption in some way.
If they buy US made goods it is s different story in that there is a
continuing revenue stream that will be taxed as well as jobs and wages
for Americans. The profits of Americans owners are also taxed albeit very
lightly.
> If it all was spent on buying US exports, wouldn't that
> help the GDP? Isn't the reason there is a trade debt that others
> have not been spending the dollars to buy US goods and services (or real
> estate or whatever)?
Yes. True story. If the US actually produced goods at competitive
prices and other peoples of the world bought these goods than that would
be just peachy. It doesn't happen because of the way the tax system is
designed and because the people of other nations must work for almost
nothing or they will starve.
>>We need to be forcing the oil companies to do something akin to digging
>>their own graves.
>>
>>Bret Cahill
>
> Most are international companies now, what needs
> to be done is becoming less clear, and a few extremist greens are
> causing a lot of problems, like shutting down a big part of the
> irrigation in California, driving up prices of produce.
It seems that the favorite target of the rightarded is always the
environmentalists. Both the environmentalists and the rightarded attacks
are diversions.
> But perhaps it will soon become apparent what
> has to be done, the national debt interest problem and the borrow and
> spend issue has to be resolved, but I don't see where it is connected to
> the balance of trade debt.
I have hopefully assisted in addressing that lack of knowledge.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org... ....
>>> Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>>
>> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas
>> for transportation are viable :
>> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids. (2) Biofuels (various
>> forms competing). Neither one by itself is able to replace all
>> transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way. Not
>> surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments
>> (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a long time
>> (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil
>> fuel usage.
>> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than
>> depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
>> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
> How is the electricity you need going to be generated?
With natural gas, wind, and solar and future thorium reactors.
> How much added
> electrical generating capacity would be needed?
Thorium reactors will produce more than enough.
> Biofuels need land to
> grow the vegetation needed to convert to a biofuel doesn't it?
Of course.
> Land is
> also used to produce food isn't it?
Land that grows switchgrass is not land that grows food crops. Land that
grows sugar cane is not land that grows food crops. Land used for algae
farming is not land that can be used for food crops. You spend too much
time reading crap produced by oil company "scientist" and rightarded
stink tanks.
> When you use land to produce both
> the feedstock for biofuels, doesn't that mean there is less land to
> produce food?
Not unless you do something stupid.
> And what about those countries in the world, that are not
> able to produce enough food for their own population, do you want them
> to divert land to produce the feedstock for biofuels, when they already
> cannot produce enough food for their own population?
We do not tell other countries what to do with their resources. I would
think that the people of those countries would take their "leaders" to
the guillotine for such actions.
> Doesn't this mean
> that coutnries like the United States which has a lot of land that can
> produce both food and use land to produce biofuels, just got richer,
> while those countries who do not have the land, just got a whole lot
> more poor?
Yes... It does. The balance of trade will shift back in to the favor of
the America.
> And if the United States diverts their land from producing
> something like corn and wheat, doesn't that mean there is less corn and
> wheat available to help those countries which we send our surplus corn
> and wheat to?
Yes, the price of food will rise as the cost of fuel rises.
> What happens to the population of those countries, if the
> United States no longer can send them our supluse corn and wheat,
> because we no longer have a surplus, we are using that land to produce
> the feestock to produce biofuels?
That is up to those countries, isn't it. In a free trade global market
we do not interfere with those countries and they do not interfere with
us.
> If a farmer can make more money to
> produce food, will he still use his land to produce the feestock that is
> needed to produce biofuels?
Most would not.
> Isn't it likely that there will be
> competition for the use of the land between the economic forces at work
> to produce biofuels and the economic forces at owrk to produce food?
Sure. That's why food production will not suffer from biofuel
production. The food production is more profitable on land that is
actually suitable to food production and the biofuel production is more
profitable on the land NOT suited to food production.
> Don't we already know what happens?
Nope.
>>
>> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of
>> that path is 2-4x worse than going
>> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>>
> For now?
We also don't have thorium reactors "for now". A a society I want
investment in thorium reactors. As a capitalist business man I want
investment in coal. The primary reason is the projected time horizon for
return on investment, and that coal technology would be much less
disruptive to current income from current investments across the board.
Jerry Okamura
An outright lie. It is a two part equation, not a one part equation.
Deficits occur when you spend more than you receive. It is as simple as
that. You can cut revenue, and not have deficits, if you also cut spending
accordingly. It is also a lie because revenue continue to increase even
when there is a cut in taxes.
Toward the end of the high tax Clinton economic boom the surpluses
were heading toward the trillions and Repugs impeached Clinton for it.
Another lie. Clinton was impeached on December 19th 1998. Also a lie about
the national debt...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Bret Cahill
Jerry Okamura
Try googling "power plants."
Which tells us what?
Jerry Okamura
Nice words, how do you do that?
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h2nsv...@news5.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:26:20 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>> news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org... ....
>>>> Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>>>
>>> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas
>>> for transportation are viable :
>>> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids. (2) Biofuels (various
>>> forms competing). Neither one by itself is able to replace all
>>> transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way. Not
>>> surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments
>>> (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a long time
>>> (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil
>>> fuel usage.
>>> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than
>>> depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
>>> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>>
>> How is the electricity you need going to be generated?
>
> With natural gas, wind, and solar and future thorium reactors.
Natural gas ia also a finite resource like oil is, isn't it? Wind
generators are not wanted by some special interest groups aren't they? How
much land is required to generate one kilowatt of power? Can you run a
solor generation facility anyplace in the country?
>
>> How much added
>> electrical generating capacity would be needed?
>
> Thorium reactors will produce more than enough.
But has Obama and the democrats in Congress said that they want to build
more nuclear power plants?
>
>> Biofuels need land to
>> grow the vegetation needed to convert to a biofuel doesn't it?
>
> Of course.
>
>> Land is
>> also used to produce food isn't it?
>
> Land that grows switchgrass is not land that grows food crops. Land that
> grows sugar cane is not land that grows food crops. Land used for algae
> farming is not land that can be used for food crops. You spend too much
> time reading crap produced by oil company "scientist" and rightarded
> stink tanks.
>
>> When you use land to produce both
>> the feedstock for biofuels, doesn't that mean there is less land to
>> produce food?
>
> Not unless you do something stupid.
Well, isn't that the definition of doing something stupid?
>
>> And what about those countries in the world, that are not
>> able to produce enough food for their own population, do you want them
>> to divert land to produce the feedstock for biofuels, when they already
>> cannot produce enough food for their own population?
>
> We do not tell other countries what to do with their resources. I would
> think that the people of those countries would take their "leaders" to
> the guillotine for such actions.
Relevance?
>
>> Doesn't this mean
>> that coutnries like the United States which has a lot of land that can
>> produce both food and use land to produce biofuels, just got richer,
>> while those countries who do not have the land, just got a whole lot
>> more poor?
>
> Yes... It does. The balance of trade will shift back in to the favor of
> the America.
How does it affect the balance of trade, when we give the stuff away.
>
>> And if the United States diverts their land from producing
>> something like corn and wheat, doesn't that mean there is less corn and
>> wheat available to help those countries which we send our surplus corn
>> and wheat to?
>
> Yes, the price of food will rise as the cost of fuel rises.
And that is a good thing?
>
>> What happens to the population of those countries, if the
>> United States no longer can send them our supluse corn and wheat,
>> because we no longer have a surplus, we are using that land to produce
>> the feestock to produce biofuels?
>
> That is up to those countries, isn't it. In a free trade global market
> we do not interfere with those countries and they do not interfere with
> us.
There is no such thing as a truly free trade global market, it is all one
big managed trade operation. So, your premise is not going to happen.
>
>> If a farmer can make more money to
>> produce food, will he still use his land to produce the feestock that is
>> needed to produce biofuels?
>
> Most would not.
>
Are you living in some sort of dream world?
>> Isn't it likely that there will be
>> competition for the use of the land between the economic forces at work
>> to produce biofuels and the economic forces at owrk to produce food?
>
> Sure. That's why food production will not suffer from biofuel
> production. The food production is more profitable on land that is
> actually suitable to food production and the biofuel production is more
> profitable on the land NOT suited to food production.
Isn't land, like oil a finite resource?
>
>> Don't we already know what happens?
>
> Nope.
>
When you use land to produce biofuels you cannot use that land to produce
food. You then have a situation where land, which is also a finite
resource, is trying to serve two masters. The example of Brazil is the best
illustration of what will happen. They started down the road of encouraging
their farmers to use the land to produce ethanol. That worked until the
farmers found out that they could make more money producing food. That
occurred because, with farmers producing less food, the price of that food
rose. At some point it was more profitable to grow food crops, then it was
to grow vegetation for the production of ethanol.
What A. Fool
There isn't any "digital" currency, about 900 Billion is
for printed currency, all "accounts" are counted as M1 or M2.
The FRB knows to the dollar how much currency is out,
and how much they have in the warehouses, the NY FRB has
the biggest supply because the service most of the western
hemisphere and Europe when currency is requested at the
going exchange rate.
An audit of the FRB would cover far more than currency,
as the FRB services all banks plus some armored car money
delivery services.
The 65 Trillion I mentioned does include every account,
stock, bond and property in the world.
The US share of world action is so great, it is in the
interest of every country to cooperate in solving the money
crisis and get out of the tax and spend, and the borrow and
spend modes.
Allowing the FRB to buy treasuries other than on
a short term basis would be very silly, with the government
paying itself interest.
What A. Fool
Something you may not be aware of is that the present
national debt is about what the interest on the 255 Billion debt
since the end of WWII adds up to.
In other words, every president would have had a
balanced budget if that debt would have been cleared
at the end of WWII.
Michael Coburn
I will not do your research for you. Go do your own. I answered the
question and you don't like the answer. Tough shit.
>>
>>> How much added
>>> electrical generating capacity would be needed?
>>
>> Thorium reactors will produce more than enough.
>
> But has Obama and the democrats in Congress said that they want to build
> more nuclear power plants?
The word thorium is very important in what I said. You, of course, want
to leave it out.
>>
>>> Biofuels need land to
>>> grow the vegetation needed to convert to a biofuel doesn't it?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>> Land is
>>> also used to produce food isn't it?
>>
>> Land that grows switchgrass is not land that grows food crops. Land
>> that grows sugar cane is not land that grows food crops. Land used for
>> algae farming is not land that can be used for food crops. You spend
>> too much time reading crap produced by oil company "scientist" and
>> rightarded stink tanks.
>>
>>> When you use land to produce both
>>> the feedstock for biofuels, doesn't that mean there is less land to
>>> produce food?
>>
>> Not unless you do something stupid.
>
> Well, isn't that the definition of doing something stupid?
>>
>>> And what about those countries in the world, that are not
>>> able to produce enough food for their own population, do you want them
>>> to divert land to produce the feedstock for biofuels, when they
>>> already cannot produce enough food for their own population?
>>
>> We do not tell other countries what to do with their resources. I
>> would think that the people of those countries would take their
>> "leaders" to the guillotine for such actions.
>
> Relevance?
It is called staying out of other nation's sovereign decisions. If people
in those nations choose to use their resources to produce fuel for pieces
of green paper then so be it.
>>
>>> Doesn't this mean
>>> that coutnries like the United States which has a lot of land that can
>>> produce both food and use land to produce biofuels, just got richer,
>>> while those countries who do not have the land, just got a whole lot
>>> more poor?
>>
>> Yes... It does. The balance of trade will shift back in to the favor
>> of the America.
>
> How does it affect the balance of trade, when we give the stuff away.
You seem to be very confused.
>>
>>> And if the United States diverts their land from producing something
>>> like corn and wheat, doesn't that mean there is less corn and wheat
>>> available to help those countries which we send our surplus corn and
>>> wheat to?
>>
>> Yes, the price of food will rise as the cost of fuel rises.
>
> And that is a good thing?
It is what it is.
>>
>>> What happens to the population of those countries, if the United
>>> States no longer can send them our supluse corn and wheat, because we
>>> no longer have a surplus, we are using that land to produce the
>>> feestock to produce biofuels?
>>
>> That is up to those countries, isn't it. In a free trade global market
>> we do not interfere with those countries and they do not interfere with
>> us.
>
> There is no such thing as a truly free trade global market, it is all
> one big managed trade operation. So, your premise is not going to
> happen.
This is irrelevant inking. You have no argument.
>>
>>> If a farmer can make more money to
>>> produce food, will he still use his land to produce the feestock that
>>> is needed to produce biofuels?
>>
>> Most would not.
>>
> Are you living in some sort of dream world?
That farmers work to maximize their profits is a dream world is living in
a dream world? You seem to have a very serious mental problem.
>>> Isn't it likely that there will be
>>> competition for the use of the land between the economic forces at
>>> work to produce biofuels and the economic forces at owrk to produce
>>> food?
>>
>> Sure. That's why food production will not suffer from biofuel
>> production. The food production is more profitable on land that is
>> actually suitable to food production and the biofuel production is more
>> profitable on the land NOT suited to food production.
>
> Isn't land, like oil a finite resource?
Sure. But consider that the land surrounding the Sea of Cortes and the
Sea of Cortes itself is currently mostly unused producing next to
nothing. The development of that entire area as algae farms of various
sorts would not bump up against any fixed resource problems.
>>
>>> Don't we already know what happens?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
> When you use land to produce biofuels you cannot use that land to
> produce food.
You are hopeless. We already went through this, Jerry. The land that
_CAN_ be used for food is different land than the land that will be used
for biofuels.
> You then have a situation where land, which is also a
> finite resource, is trying to serve two masters.
How many times does it have to be told to you before it gets through that
steel helmet?
> The example of Brazil
> is the best illustration of what will happen. They started down the
> road of encouraging their farmers to use the land to produce ethanol.
> That worked until the farmers found out that they could make more money
> producing food. That occurred because, with farmers producing less
> food, the price of that food rose. At some point it was more profitable
> to grow food crops, then it was to grow vegetation for the production of
> ethanol.
They are using the same land for either purpose. It is not necessary to
use crop land for biofuels feedstock. But you can see why even in that
case that people are not going to starve because the farmers will respond
to market conditions.
Michael Coburn
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
Jerry Okamura
Don't want to defend your statement?
>
>>>
>>>> How much added
>>>> electrical generating capacity would be needed?
>>>
>>> Thorium reactors will produce more than enough.
>>
>> But has Obama and the democrats in Congress said that they want to build
>> more nuclear power plants?
>
> The word thorium is very important in what I said. You, of course, want
> to leave it out.
Not really, has Obama supported more thorium power plants?
so, your answer is, let them suffer?
>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't this mean
>>>> that coutnries like the United States which has a lot of land that can
>>>> produce both food and use land to produce biofuels, just got richer,
>>>> while those countries who do not have the land, just got a whole lot
>>>> more poor?
>>>
>>> Yes... It does. The balance of trade will shift back in to the favor
>>> of the America.
>>
>> How does it affect the balance of trade, when we give the stuff away.
>
> You seem to be very confused.
Won't answer the question?
>
>>>
>>>> And if the United States diverts their land from producing something
>>>> like corn and wheat, doesn't that mean there is less corn and wheat
>>>> available to help those countries which we send our surplus corn and
>>>> wheat to?
>>>
>>> Yes, the price of food will rise as the cost of fuel rises.
>>
>> And that is a good thing?
>
> It is what it is.
Is it a good thing?
>
>>>
>>>> What happens to the population of those countries, if the United
>>>> States no longer can send them our supluse corn and wheat, because we
>>>> no longer have a surplus, we are using that land to produce the
>>>> feestock to produce biofuels?
>>>
>>> That is up to those countries, isn't it. In a free trade global market
>>> we do not interfere with those countries and they do not interfere with
>>> us.
First of all, ther is no free trade. Second, we DO interfere into the
affairs of other countries, so it is rather meaningless to say we should
not.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a truly free trade global market, it is all
>> one big managed trade operation. So, your premise is not going to
>> happen.
>
> This is irrelevant inking. You have no argument.
>
>>>
It is relevant because there is no free trade. So, your complaint is
meaningless.
>>>> If a farmer can make more money to
>>>> produce food, will he still use his land to produce the feestock that
>>>> is needed to produce biofuels?
>>>
>>> Most would not.
>>>
>> Are you living in some sort of dream world?
>
> That farmers work to maximize their profits is a dream world is living in
> a dream world? You seem to have a very serious mental problem.
Which was my point, wasn't it? The farmer will produce what makes him the
most money. If that is using his land for producing biofules, he will do
that. If that is using his land for producing food, he will do that.
>
>>>> Isn't it likely that there will be
>>>> competition for the use of the land between the economic forces at
>>>> work to produce biofuels and the economic forces at owrk to produce
>>>> food?
>>>
>>> Sure. That's why food production will not suffer from biofuel
>>> production. The food production is more profitable on land that is
>>> actually suitable to food production and the biofuel production is more
>>> profitable on the land NOT suited to food production.
Land is a finite resource. Land that is used for one thing, cannot be used
for another thing.
>>
>> Isn't land, like oil a finite resource?
>
> Sure. But consider that the land surrounding the Sea of Cortes and the
> Sea of Cortes itself is currently mostly unused producing next to
> nothing. The development of that entire area as algae farms of various
> sorts would not bump up against any fixed resource problems.
Have you been in that part of the country? There is very little farming
going on because there is a lack of water.
>
>>>
>>>> Don't we already know what happens?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>> When you use land to produce biofuels you cannot use that land to
>> produce food.
>
> You are hopeless. We already went through this, Jerry. The land that
> _CAN_ be used for food is different land than the land that will be used
> for biofuels.
But the land that can be used to grow food crops is also land that can
produce biofuels.
>
>> You then have a situation where land, which is also a
>> finite resource, is trying to serve two masters.
>
> How many times does it have to be told to you before it gets through that
> steel helmet?
Because you have not made your case????
>
>> The example of Brazil
>> is the best illustration of what will happen. They started down the
>> road of encouraging their farmers to use the land to produce ethanol.
>> That worked until the farmers found out that they could make more money
>> producing food. That occurred because, with farmers producing less
>> food, the price of that food rose. At some point it was more profitable
>> to grow food crops, then it was to grow vegetation for the production of
>> ethanol.
>
> They are using the same land for either purpose. It is not necessary to
> use crop land for biofuels feedstock. But you can see why even in that
> case that people are not going to starve because the farmers will respond
> to market conditions.
Well, that is right. So, they are now using their land to produce food.
And the government of Brazil has to provide "incentives" to the farmers to
sell their product for the production of ethanol.
What A. Fool
Is there some reason you can't do an easy compounded
interest calculation on 255 Billion for 65 years?
Michael Coburn
I am not wasting any more of my time, Jerry.
You are an idiot.
Michael Coburn
Yes. It is meaningless.
What A. Fool
It is about the same as the national debt, meaning
that if the present situation had been anticipated, and any
means used to pay that debt before 1950, there would
be no national debt today.
All the moaning in congress about leaving debt for
grandchildren to pay seems silly when our great grandfathers
left a debt of 255 Billion, which with compounded interest
is the debt owed today.
Jerry Okamura
taken. Because if you were, you would not give up.
Bret Cahill
> An outright lie.
Everyone agrees that deficits soared after the Gipper cut taxes for
his "WiLL wORk for FoOd, GoD bLEsS" economy.
That's why Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" when
Dumbya was destroying Clinton's high tax economic boom with a GOP tax
cut recession - credit meltdown economy.
> It is a two part equation, not a one part equation.
> Deficits occur when you spend more than you receive. It is as simple as
> that. You can cut revenue, and not have deficits, if you also cut spending
> accordingly. It is also a lie because revenue continue to increase even
> when there is a cut in taxes.
>
> Toward the end of the high tax Clinton economic boom the surpluses
> were heading toward the trillions and Repugs impeached Clinton for it.
>
> Another lie. Clinton was impeached on December 19th 1998.
After it was obvious that the high tax Clinton economic boom was going
to balance the budget.
> Also a lie about
> the national debt...http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Looks like Clinton's high tax boom was reducing the deficit.
And now, after impeaching Clinton for balancing the budget, after
cheerleading Dumbya wasting a trillion on nation building, after
Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter, Repugocrites think
that have standing to discuss deficits?
With hypocrisy like this we can expect _more_ fundy fishing Repug
governors to brag about their philandering.
Bret Cahill
Jerry Okamura
> An outright lie.
"EVERYONE AGREED"? Why are we having this conversation then?
Bret Cahill
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote in message
What conversation?
You lost the debate as soon as you dodged the GOP tax cut recession
and the high tax Clinton economic boom issues.
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9dy3m.10281$Kn1....@newsfe09.iad...
>
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ....
>>
>> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
>> transportation are viable :
>> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
>> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
>> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
>> but combined that can come a long way.
>> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
>> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a
>> long
>> time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid
>> fossil
>> fuel usage.
>> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
>> on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save the US a $500
>> billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
You have a lot of questions below, and thanks for that !
Allow me to answer the crucial ones, at least crucial in my opinion.
So my answers below just address how I thing that by using plug-in hybrids
and biofuels we could get off oil in a (economically and technical)
reasonable and efficient way.
> How is the electricity you need going to be generated? How much added
> electrical generating capacity would be needed?
First let's see how much electricity does a plug-in hybrid need (per mile) ?
Electric vehicles (or plug-in hybrid running in electric mode) will need
something like 0.5 kWh/mile driven.
Numbers here are from Tesla (roadster at 0.28 kWh/mile) and GM Volt (0.4
kWh/mile) and assuming that
real world cars are a bit bigger on average than these guys.
I'm open to better numbers if you can show them.
Next, how many miles do we drive in the US ?
I have seen a graph of this somewhere, but can't find it right now.
Quick Google shows that in 2008 we (in the US) drive something like 2.8
trillion miles.
That kind of makes sense (with 250 million vehicles driving 12,000 miles
average per year),
but I'm open to better numbers if you can show them.
So, if all these miles were driven electric, we would need 1.4 trillion kWh
electricity extra.
The US used 4,157 million megawatthours (or 4.1 trillion kWh) in 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
1.4/4.1 is only 35% increase in electricity generation needed.
Give or take some inefficiencies (charge/discharge inefficiency, trucks etc)
and you get to a ballpark of 50% extra electricity generation needed to
electrify the entire US fleet of road transportation !!!!
Sounds too good ? Maybe, but it's the truth. The key is that electric drive
is at least a factor 2-4 better in efficiency than ICEs as used in cars,
even if you take heat-to-electricity efficiency into account and losses in
electric power distribution.
This will also reflect in the price : electric powered vehicles will drive
2-4x further for the same cost of 'fuel'. In other words, electric drive
(when you charge from the grid) will be for equivalent of less than
$1/gallon gasoline.
That's an economic reality that will be hard to deny when oil prices go back
to $100+ dollars/gallon, and gasoline of more than $4/gallon.
Still, 1.4 trillion kWh per year (35% increase over current use) is not
something that's easily generated.
The key here is that there are many opions to generate this power. There is
coal (when it complies with emission standards), nat gas, wind, geothermal,
solar, and the big one (if we can solve it's own issues) nuclear fission.
Either way, the portfolio of generation sources for electricity is large,
while there few sources for gasoline. Also, the 2-4x efficiency difference
will prevent that we will energy sources to synthesize liquid fuel if the
same source can be used to generate electricity.
And that is the key to success for electric drive, and can take care of HALF
of our oil usage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif
The remainder of oil is mostly used for aviation and chemical processing.
Both of these could be supplied with biofuels, which is the next topic.
> Biofuels need land to grow
> the vegetation needed to convert to a biofuel doesn't it? Land is also
> used
> to produce food isn't it? When you use land to produce both the feedstock
> for biofuels, doesn't that mean there is less land to produce food?
Yes. That is true. We need land to grow biofuel.
How much land, and what kind of land is still under discussion.
Current 1st generation biofuels (in the US from corn mainly) are still
fairly inefficient.
Even though ethanol from corn also produces a large amount of distillers
grain (high protein animal food), still overall land is taken away that
could otherwise be used for food production.
Also, the efficiency of corn ethanol is not that great, and neither is the
yield per acre.
This limits the total amount of corn ethanol to about where we are now : in
the range of 5% of liquid fuel usage.
The next generation biofuels will likely be some form of biomass to liquid
fuel conversion.
Either cellulosic ethanol or a biomass to syngas to liquid fuel synthesis.
That process can take ANY cellulosic biomass as input, rather than just corn
(or other food equivant).
The DOE has done a detailed study about the amount of biomass that can be
produced 'sustainably' in the US, and ended up with numbers of 1 billion to
1.3 billion ton biomass annually, which can be 'harvested' without affecting
land for food production much.
This includes agricultural waste, forest trimmings etc. They estimate that
we can produce 100 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent fom that, or about
25% of our current oil usage.
This should be enough for aviation and chemical processing (plastics) use at
least the part that is currently done from oil.
With 50% savings of going to electric drive/plug-in hybrids and another 25%
of current usage taken care of by biomass conversion, we now reduced oil
usage by 75% of current usage !!
That's what I mean when I say "we can come a long way" using plug-in hybrids
and biofuels.
All this without significantly increasing fossil energy usage elsewhere.
And I did not yet include new developments (such as algae oil and
breakthroughs in any other energy generation aspect).
Also, I assumed that efficiency improvements that are to be expected will
sort of compensate for growth in the US economy and population. Both of
these (positive and negative) forces are to be expected in this country over
the next several decades.
> what about those countries in the world, that are not able to produce
> enough
> food for their own population, do you want them to divert land to produce
> the feedstock for biofuels, when they already cannot produce enough food
> for
> their own population?
If they follow the US lead on this, they will see the same improvements that
we will see when we follow this path.
> Doesn't this mean that coutnries like the United
> States which has a lot of land that can produce both food and use land to
> produce biofuels, just got richer, while those countries who do not have
> the
> land, just got a whole lot more poor? And if the United States diverts
> their land from producing something like corn and wheat, doesn't that mean
> there is less corn and wheat available to help those countries which we
> send
> our surplus corn and wheat to?
We can talk about this for a very long time, but I personally think that
every country should find their own 'niche'.
China for example has become the master in low cost production of consumer
goods.
India became the capital of software engineering, with highly skilled
English speaking engineers.
Other countries will find their own nich, and if they don't, then they are
probably already poor and are not able to buy our wheat and corn any way. We
can always give it away if needed (during humanitarian crisis)....
I think the countries that suffer the most from a USA without oil import
would be the oil producing countries.
I personally do not have much of a problem with that, but if you think that
Saoudi Arabia and Iran and Venesuela need some financial assistance in the
post oil era, than good luck with that opinion.
> What happens to the population of those
> countries, if the United States no longer can send them our supluse corn
> and
> wheat, because we no longer have a surplus, we are using that land to
> produce the feestock to produce biofuels?
Food will still be for sale at market prices.
> If a farmer can make more money
> to produce food, will he still use his land to produce the feestock that
> is
> needed to produce biofuels? Isn't it likely that there will be
> competition
> for the use of the land between the economic forces at work to produce
> biofuels and the economic forces at owrk to produce food? Don't we
> already
> know what happens?
People will always prefer food over fuel, so fuel prices just set a lower
limit to food prices.
That said, It's almost certain that when oil prices go up that food (and
feedstock) prices go up.
There is no problem with that as long as we can keep the price of oil in
check, and I think that is only possible if we offer an ALTERNATIVE to oil
as the main feedstock for ground transportation.
That is why we need electic drive and plug-in hybrids, and that is why we
need to stimulate biofuels from cellulosis.
If we do not do that, then indeed all the terrible scenarios that you
envision (food price explosion, starving poor countries and world economies
coming to a grinding halt) can all easily come true.
Let's face it : we are heavily addicted to oil, and it will kill us and
everything around us if we do not kick the habit...
It is time to change !!
>>
>> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that
>> path is 2-4x worse than going coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>>
Rob
> For now?
>
leona...@gmail.com
•• Jimmy Carter created "stagflation". Prices rose
along with taxes and the economy took a dive.
To run the goverment Carter issued 30 year
bonds @ 10% interest.
When Reagan came in he called all of the 10 of
10 bonds and replaced them with 5% bonds an
huge saving.
> and the high tax Clinton economic boom issues.
•• There was another economic dive caused by high
taxes and gutting the armed forces. Both fascist
administrations cost me big time.
•• Some day you might learn to separate facts from
factoids. I doubt it will be soon.
•• Everything you have learned from Moveon, Kos,
CBS etc is merely fascist propaganda and you
are fascist too.
•• Liberalism = fascism = Big government + Govt
controls + high taxes (to pay for all those useless
govt honchos)
– –
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
leona...@gmail.com
> >news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> >> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
> >>news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> ....
>
> >> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
> >> transportation are viable :
> >> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
> >> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
> >> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
> >> but combined that can come a long way.
> >> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
> >> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a
> >> long
> >> time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid
> >> fossil
> >> fuel usage.
•• Hybrids use as much energy as an equivalent gas
or diesel energy when you consider that you are
plugging into a power line which loses power
during transmission.
Dekker admits that your taxes are going to
subsidize development of a product that will not
even benefit your descendants.
•• Oil and natural gas are in plentiful supply and are
the most efficient energy suppliers. Coal should be
reserved for steel making.
As for CO2 we need as much as we can get. Nature
circulates it to where it is most needed.
Photosynthesis converts around 100,000,000,000
tonnes of CO2 into biomass every year. Growing
populations need more of that every year.
- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Bret Cahill
And you lost the debate as soon as you dodged the high tax Clinton
economic boom.
In general Repugliars will dodge _any_ economic issue.
leona...@gmail.com
•• I was there where were you??
—— ——
Bret Cahill
wrote:
Where? Issue dodging land?
Everyone can see you cut snip dodged The Question:
Why do you think Karl Rove abandoned the rhetoric of the Gipster in
favor of jingoism?
"Either you support the president [and his tax cuts on the rich] or
you're a Saddam lover."
The reason is the high tax Clinton economic boom put Reaganism on the
ash heap of history.
All that's left to the GOP is a bunch of confused spree shooters
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
That's including all the inefficiencies.
> I'm open to better numbers if you can show them.
>
> Next, how many miles do we drive in the US ?
> I have seen a graph of this somewhere, but can't find it right now.
> Quick Google shows that in 2008 we (in the US) drive something like 2.8
> trillion miles.
Whooa! No one believes this will happen over night.
The time determining step will getting EVs and PHEVs on the road, not
more electric power.
As I pointed out in another post the cost of building new power plants
is so low compared to liquid fuel it shouldn't even appear in any
spread sheet.
> That kind of makes sense (with 250 million vehicles driving 12,000 miles
> average per year),
> but I'm open to better numbers if you can show them.
> So, if all these miles were driven electric, we would need 1.4 trillion kWh
> electricity extra.
> The US used 4,157 million megawatthours (or 4.1 trillion kWh) in 2007.http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
> 1.4/4.1 is only 35% increase in electricity generation needed.
> Give or take some inefficiencies (charge/discharge inefficiency, trucks etc)
> and you get to a ballpark of 50% extra electricity generation needed to
> electrify the entire US fleet of road transportation !!!!
>
> Sounds too good ? Maybe, but it's the truth. The key is that electric drive
> is at least a factor 2-4 better in efficiency than ICEs as used in cars,
> even if you take heat-to-electricity efficiency into account and losses in
> electric power distribution.
> This will also reflect in the price : electric powered vehicles will drive
> 2-4x further for the same cost of 'fuel'. In other words, electric drive
> (when you charge from the grid) will be for equivalent of less than
> $1/gallon gasoline.
> That's an economic reality that will be hard to deny when oil prices go back
> to $100+ dollars/gallon, and gasoline of more than $4/gallon.
>
> Still, 1.4 trillion kWh per year (35% increase over current use) is not
> something that's easily generated.
It's just not an issue. The converse of "if you build it they will
come" is true here.
If you use the power, by the magic of demand and supply, they will
build power plants.
> The key here is that there are many opions to generate this power. There is
> coal (when it complies with emission standards), nat gas, wind, geothermal,
> solar, and the big one (if we can solve it's own issues) nuclear fission.
My utility provides carbon labling.
________________Bret's Utility_________State Power Mix
Eligible Renewables___8%___________10%
Bio_______________< 1% __________ <1%
Geothermal________ 1% ____________ 2%
Small Hydro________ 7%_____________6%
Solar_____________ <1%____________ <1%
Wind_____________ <1%____________ 2%
Coal______________ 27% ___________ 32%
Large Hydro________ 11%___________ 24%
Nat. Gas___________ 51% ___________31%
Nuclear____________ 3%____________ 3%
Other _____________ <1%___________ 0%
> Either way, the portfolio of generation sources for electricity is large,
> while there few sources for gasoline. Also, the 2-4x efficiency difference
> will prevent that we will energy sources to synthesize liquid fuel if the
> same source can be used to generate electricity.
> And that is the key to success for electric drive, and can take care of HALF
> of our oil usage...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif
> everything around us if ...
If there's one thing rightards won't do it's face reality.
Bret Cahill
Jerry Okamura
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:fcb6635c-97b5-4588...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
What conversation?
Obviously none
You lost the debate as soon as you dodged the GOP tax cut recession
and the high tax Clinton economic boom issues.
In your dreams
Michael Coburn
>> > "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>> >news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> >> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> ....
>> >>> Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>>
>> >> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas
>> >> for transportation are viable :
>> >> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids. (2) Biofuels (various
>> >> forms competing). Neither one by itself is able to replace all
>> >> transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
>> >> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
>> >> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
>> >> a long
>> >> time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid
>> >> fossil
>> >> fuel usage.
>
> •• Hybrids use as much energy as an equivalent gas
> or diesel energy when you consider that you are plugging into a
> power line which loses power during transmission.
Even if that were true (and it probably isn't) the net is that we will
import less oil. That is a very, very good thing.
> Dekker admits that your taxes are going to subsidize development of a
> product that will not even benefit your descendants.
I do not see that, but you have revealed yourself as being rightarded in
most of the crap you post. Thus, anything you have to say is highly
suspect.
> •• Oil and natural gas are in plentiful supply and are
> the most efficient energy suppliers. Coal should be reserved for
> steel making.
__**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a fully
functioning world economy.
> As for CO2 we need as much as we can get. Nature circulates it to
> where it is most needed. Photosynthesis converts around
> 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into biomass every year. Growing
> populations need more of that every year.
We simply do not have a shortage of CO2. But rightarded fundamentalistic
conservative protectors of the status quo rentiers will ever lie, and
lie, and lie, and lie, and lie some more. And when they stop lying they
start to lie some more about their lying.
"I told the Republicans that when they stop lying about me I'd stop
telling the truth about them", Harry Truman.
Rob Dekker
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5bc5c9ee-b7c7-4705...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
....
> �� Hybrids use as much energy as an equivalent gas
> or diesel energy when you consider that you are
> plugging into a power line which loses power
> during transmission.
Can you provide some evidence for this claim ?
> In real science the burden of proof is always on
> the proposer, never on the sceptics.
You got that right.
Rob
Last Post
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:11:32 -0700, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:sxw3m.3379$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> >> >> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:h2hb0s$aee$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >> ....
>
> >> >> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas
> >> >> for transportation are viable :
> >> >> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids. (2) Biofuels (various
> >> >> forms competing). Neither one by itself is able to replace all
> >> >> transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
> >> >> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
> >> >> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
> >> >> a long
> >> >> time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid
> >> >> fossil
> >> >> fuel usage.
>
> > or diesel energy when you consider that you are plugging into a
> > power line which loses power during transmission.
>
> import less oil. That is a very, very good thing.
•• Check the real cost of the electricity including the
batteries plus the extra cost of the vehicle and you
will find that the savings are zilch.
Why do you think importing less crude is a good
thing? Do you understand that there is enough
untapped crude in the lower 48 to last for a few
centuries. I would take some deep drilling in the
old holes. [Google for Eugene Island] We only
need to unload Pelosi and her fascist gang from
congress.
>
> > Dekker admits that your taxes are going to subsidize development of a
> > product that will not even benefit your descendants.
>
> I do not see that, but you have revealed yourself as being rightarded in
> most of the crap you post. Thus, anything you have to say is highly
> suspect.
>
> > •• Oil and natural gas are in plentiful supply and are
> > the most efficient energy suppliers. Coal should be reserved for
> > steel making.
>
> __**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a fully
> functioning world economy.
•• Six years ago available reserves were estimated
to be greater by a factor of 100. That was before
the mammoth discovery at Tupi. Don't choke
on that bone!
> > As for CO2 we need as much as we can get. Nature circulates it to
> > where it is most needed. Photosynthesis converts around
> > 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into biomass every year. Growing
> > populations need more of that every year.
>
> We simply do not have a shortage of CO2.
•• Proof???
•• ROTFLMAO
We need all we can get. It is essential to all life
on the planet. I have posted the science in simple
terms several time over the years but you and
your fascist ilk choose to ignore it.
> But rightarded fundamentalistic
> conservative protectors of the status quo rentiers will ever lie, and
> lie, and lie, and lie, and lie some more. And when they stop lying they
> start to lie some more about their lying.
>
•• There you go spewing the liberal fascist mantra.
Attack the messenger when you do not like the
message. Wake up and see the Sun, Mike
because that is what keeps you warm.
— —
Michael Coburn
If it is an even break the electricity wins because we will reduce our
reliance on imported oil.
> Why do you think importing less crude is a good thing?
Because it forces the United States to be "competitive" or at least try
to be competitive in world commerce and this destroys wages and jobs here
in the USA and thus reduces the quality of life that would otherwise
exist for the American people. But for the need of oil this nation could
shoot the darling digit at China and the rest. We do not _NEED_ to
compete but for the fact that we must pay for imported oil.
> Do you
> understand that there is enough untapped crude in the lower 48 to
> last for a few centuries.
I do not believe this garbage any more than I think pigs can fly. And
even if it exists (highly unlikely) do you think you can recover that
crude for less than $10 a gallon at the pump? How do you think you will
do with the real costs of production in the world market?
> I would take some deep drilling in the old
> holes. [Google for Eugene Island] We only need to unload Pelosi and
> her fascist gang from congress.
There are some preservers of the status quo that will suck on anything so
as to continue the economic rent flowing into the pockets of the current
rentiers.
>>
>> > Dekker admits that your taxes are going to subsidize development
>> > of a product that will not even benefit your descendants.
>>
>> I do not see that, but you have revealed yourself as being rightarded
>> in most of the crap you post. Thus, anything you have to say is highly
>> suspect.
>>
>> > •• Oil and natural gas are in plentiful supply and are
>> > the most efficient energy suppliers. Coal should be reserved for
>> > steel making.
>>
>> __**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a fully
>> functioning world economy.
>
> •• Six years ago available reserves were estimated
> to be greater by a factor of 100. That was before the mammoth
> discovery at Tupi. Don't choke on that bone!
Greater than what??? And at what price???
>> > As for CO2 we need as much as we can get. Nature circulates it to
>> > where it is most needed. Photosynthesis converts around
>> > 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into biomass every year. Growing
>> > populations need more of that every year.
>>
>> We simply do not have a shortage of CO2.
>
> •• Proof???
>
> •• ROTFLMAO
> We need all we can get. It is essential to all life on the planet. I
> have posted the science in simple terms several time over the years
> but you and your fascist ilk choose to ignore it.
>
>> But rightarded fundamentalistic
>> conservative protectors of the status quo rentiers will ever lie, and
>> lie, and lie, and lie, and lie some more. And when they stop lying
>> they start to lie some more about their lying.
>>
> •• There you go spewing the liberal fascist mantra.
> Attack the messenger when you do not like the message. Wake up and
> see the Sun, Mike because that is what keeps you warm.
The continuing lies about "liberalism" being "fascism" from the
rightarded lie machine. This is done because the "right" _IS_ fascist:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html ------------
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the
development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the
moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual
peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a
renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of
sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy
and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet
it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the
position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of
life or death....
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the
materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained
simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups
and by the change and development in the means and instruments of
production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in
heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive,
direct or indirect.
...
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic
ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in
its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the
simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies
that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and
it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind,
which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a
mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
---------------------------------------------------------------
The latter day Republican party and the rightards that are its members
are fascist to the core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism -----------------------
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete
over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different
policies, but they are generally united by their support for political
liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech,
limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's
right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3]
[4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political
ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as
liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have
equal rights by law.[6]
...
Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The
Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal
state was the United States of America,[13] founded on the principle that
"all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed."[14]
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is extremely important that rightards confuse the actual definitions
of liberal and fascist because they do NOT want to be recognized for what
they are. By REDEFINING the words and repeating the lies ad nauseum they
advance the cause of "all government is bad" and the Democrats did it
toooooooooooooo. And all the other lame ass excuses for their destruction
of America and the lining of the pockets of the rentier.
The sun currently is the source of most of our energy. The oil is
sunlight captured from long ago in a big piggy bank. We are emptying
that piggy bank and the rate of new holes to drain the bank cannot keep
pace with the demands. The bursting of the financial bubble dramatically
reduced the demand for oil. It may be that the price of oil was the pin
that popped that bubble.
Improvements in the comfort of the people of this earth and the ability
to support the current population of the earth in a more comfortable
existence will demand more oil than we can get. And this country does
not have enough INEXPENSIVE oil to support itself.
Last Post
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:15:35 -0700, Last Post wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 1:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:11:32 -0700, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > •• Hybrids use as much energy as an equivalent gas
> >> > or diesel energy when you consider that you are plugging into a
> >> > power line which loses power during transmission.
>
> >> Even if that were true (and it probably isn't) the net is that we will
> >> import less oil. That is a very, very good thing.
>
> > •• Check the real cost of the electricity including the
> > batteries plus the extra cost of the vehicle and you will find that
> > the savings are zilch.
>
> If it is an even break the electricity wins because we will reduce our
> reliance on imported oil.
•• Do tell us how we will reduce our reliance on on
imported oil ~1-when the present fascist
government will not allow domestic drilling and
2~ biodiesel and ethanol are blended with mostly
crude oil products. 3~ and solar will be limited to
desert areas where they get at least 120 sun days
or more. Wind is so costly it will soon be limited
to remote areas not serviced in the grid.
> > Why do you think importing less crude is a good thing?
>
> Because it forces the United States to be "competitive" or at least try
> to be competitive in world commerce and this destroys wages and jobs here
> in the USA and thus reduces the quality of life that would otherwise
> exist for the American people.
•• How do you figure that???
> But for the need of oil this nation could
> shoot the darling digit at China and the rest.
•• NONSENSE
> We do not _NEED_ to
> compete but for the fact that we must pay for imported oil.
>
•• NONSENSE
> > Do you
> > understand that there is enough untapped crude in the lower 48 to
> > last for a few centuries.
>
> I do not believe this garbage any more than I think pigs can fly. And
•• FASCIST Fools like you never look at facts just whine like little
kids.
> even if it exists (highly unlikely) do you think you can recover that
> crude for less than $10 a gallon at the pump? How do you think you will
> do with the real costs of production in the world market?
•• Domestic production is cheaper than anything abroad.
>
> > I would take some deep drilling in the old
> > holes. [Google for Eugene Island] We only need to unload Pelosi and
> > her fascist gang from congress.
>
> There are some preservers of the status quo that will suck on anything so
> as to continue the economic rent flowing into the pockets of the current
> rentiers.
Of course, you did not dare to read about the Eugene
Island site. You might have learned something
(G-d forbid)
> >> > Dekker admits that your taxes are going to subsidize development
> >> > of a product that will not even benefit your descendants.
>
> >> I do not see that, but you have revealed yourself as being rightarded
> >> in most of the crap you post. Thus, anything you have to say is highly
> >> suspect.
>
> >> > •• Oil and natural gas are in plentiful supply and are
> >> > the most efficient energy suppliers. Coal should be reserved for
> >> > steel making.
>
> >> __**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a fully
> >> functioning world economy.
>
> > •• Six years ago available reserves were estimated
> > to be greater by a factor of 100. That was before the mammoth
> > discovery at Tupi. Don't choke on that bone!
>
> Greater than what??? And at what price???
•• You are ignorant of what a "factor of 100" means.
•• market price of course
> >> > As for CO2 we need as much as we can get. Nature circulates it to
> >> > where it is most needed. Photosynthesis converts around
> >> > 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into biomass every year. Growing
> >> > populations need more of that every year.
>
> >> We simply do not have a shortage of CO2.
>
> > •• Proof???
>
> > •• ROTFLMAO
> > We need all we can get. It is essential to all life on the planet. I
> > have posted the science in simple terms several time over the years
> > but you and your fascist ilk choose to ignore it.
>
> >> But rightarded fundamentalistic
> >> conservative protectors of the status quo rentiers will ever lie, and
> >> lie, and lie, and lie, and lie some more. And when they stop lying
> >> they start to lie some more about their lying.
>
> > •• There you go spewing the liberal fascist mantra.
> > Attack the messenger when you do not like the message. Wake up and
> > see the Sun, Mike because that is what keeps you warm.
>
> The continuing lies about "liberalism" being "fascism" from the
> rightarded lie machine. This is done because the "right" _IS_ fascist:
•• Sonny boy, Benito Musolini secretary general
of the Italian Socialist Party, in 1919
reorganized the party and renamed it Il Fascisti
•• Whoever at Fordham (a school for which I have
had little respect) wrote that bit of bullshit needs
a good kick in the ass for misguiding students.
BTW I have an MA in political science and taught
it at the graduate level.
– –
Michael Coburn
> On Jul 7, 10:59 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:15:35 -0700, Last Post wrote:
>> > On Jul 6, 1:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:11:32 -0700, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> >> > •• Hybrids use as much energy as an equivalent gas
>> >> > or diesel energy when you consider that you are plugging
>> >> > into a power line which loses power during transmission.
>>
>> >> Even if that were true (and it probably isn't) the net is that we
>> >> will import less oil. That is a very, very good thing.
>>
>> > •• Check the real cost of the electricity including the
>> > batteries plus the extra cost of the vehicle and you will find
>> > that the savings are zilch.
>>
>> If it is an even break the electricity wins because we will reduce our
>> reliance on imported oil.
>
> •• Do tell us how we will reduce our reliance on on
> imported oil ~1-when the present fascist government will not allow
> domestic drilling
By developing and deploying alternatives.
> and 2~ biodiesel and ethanol are blended with
> mostly crude oil products.
Thus reducing the amount of petroleum needed.
> 3~ and solar will be limited to desert
> areas where they get at least 120 sun days or more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvdc
> Wind is so
> costly it will soon be limited to remote areas not serviced in the
> grid.
Nice try, liar.
>> > Why do you think importing less crude is a good thing?
>>
>> Because it forces the United States to be "competitive" or at least try
>> to be competitive in world commerce and this destroys wages and jobs
>> here in the USA and thus reduces the quality of life that would
>> otherwise exist for the American people.
>
> •• How do you figure that???
We do not need to trade but for the oil problem. We try to export enough
to cover the cost of our oil gluttony, but we fail. And in order to
compete we are forced to destroy wages.
>> But for the need of oil this nation could shoot the darling digit at
>> China and the rest.
>
> •• NONSENSE
good sense.
>> We do not _NEED_ to
>> compete but for the fact that we must pay for imported oil.
>>
> •• NONSENSE
What can we do when rightards are stuck on stupid?
>> > Do you
>> > understand that there is enough untapped crude in the lower 48
>> > to last for a few centuries.
>>
>> I do not believe this garbage any more than I think pigs can fly. And
>
> •• FASCIST Fools like you never look at facts just whine like little
> kids.
Mirror time, chump.
>> even if it exists (highly unlikely) do you think you can recover that
>> crude for less than $10 a gallon at the pump? How do you think you
>> will do with the real costs of production in the world market?
>
> •• Domestic production is cheaper than anything abroad.
At present fields that is probably true. But you aren't talking about
the present fields. Its called lying, and it what the right is very,
very good at.
>>
>> > I would take some deep drilling in the old
>> > holes. [Google for Eugene Island] We only need to unload Pelosi
>> > and her fascist gang from congress.
>>
>> There are some preservers of the status quo that will suck on anything
>> so as to continue the economic rent flowing into the pockets of the
>> current rentiers.
>
> Of course, you did not dare to read about the Eugene Island site. You
> might have learned something (G-d forbid)
Oh... Did you find a nit on the tit of a flea on the ear of rump of a
horses ass to wave around as though it were the golden fleece?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Island_block_330_oil_field ---
Eugene Island 330 has been cited as an example of abiogenic petroleum
origin, which holds that petroleum reservoirs are continuously
replenished from inorganic sources deep within the Earth. However, Eugene
Island 330's fame comes precisely from its status as an unusual anomaly,
rather than being typical of the other 40,000 developed oil fields, and
most petroleum scientists believe that the depletion profile is
adequately explained by replenishment from deeper reservoirs of normal
biologically derived petroleum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Dekker admits that your taxes are going to subsidize
>> >> > development of a product that will not even benefit your
>> >> > descendants.
>>
>> >> I do not see that, but you have revealed yourself as being
>> >> rightarded in most of the crap you post. Thus, anything you have to
>> >> say is highly suspect.
>>
>> >> > •• Oil and natural gas are in plentiful supply and are
>> >> > the most efficient energy suppliers. Coal should be reserved
>> >> > for steel making.
>>
>> >> __**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a
>> >> fully functioning world economy.
>>
>> > •• Six years ago available reserves were estimated
>> > to be greater by a factor of 100. That was before the mammoth
>> > discovery at Tupi. Don't choke on that bone!
>>
>> Greater than what??? And at what price???
>
> •• You are ignorant of what a "factor of 100" means.
"Greater than what", he asked again?
> •• market price of course
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if the market for
oil, due to the lack of alternatives, sets the price at $600 a barrel
then that is just peachy is it?
I really do not care about your supposed credentials. The stuff produced
by Fordham is the actual stuff written by Mussolini, father of political
fascism in the 20th century. At least they spelled the name correctly.
> – –
> There are three types of people that you can_not_talk into behaving
> well. The
> stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
> 1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
> follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in
> very simple terms. If they don't agree, then you'll never be able to
> change their mind.
These are the Republican BASE.
> 2- the religious fanatic
>
If what you say goes against their
> religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it
> means their death."
These are also a part of the Republican BASE.
> 3- There is no way to reform evil-
> Not in a million years
And this _IS_ the Republican party.
> There is no way to convince the terrorists,
> anthropogenic global warming alarmists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
> predators to change their evil ways. They knew what they were doing was
> wrong, but that
> knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they
> went about performing their evil acts.
This "careful thing" is not true of fascist Republicans. They wear it
all as a badge of honor at all times.
Rob Dekker
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:9f8540ab-25dc-40db...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > __**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a fully
> > functioning world economy.
>
> to be greater by a factor of 100.
A factor of 100 greater than what ?
> That was before
> the mammoth discovery at Tupi. Don't choke
> on that bone!
From wiki:
- The Tupi accumulation, in block BM-S-11 of the Santos basin, contains at
least 5-8 billion barrels of recoverable oil, according to - the
state-controlled oil company.
On the high end (8 billion barrels), the 'mammoth' Tupi discovery (admitted
the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the world with oil for 3
months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is only 2 months.
What's next ?
Rob
Rob Dekker
> > If it is an even break the electricity wins because we will reduce our
> > reliance on imported oil.
>
> imported oil ~1-when the present fascist
> government will not allow domestic drilling and
You are acting like a hurt child.
Be specific in what you mean with "will not allow domestic drilling".
> 2~ biodiesel and ethanol are blended with mostly
> crude oil products.
What is your point ?
> 3~ and solar will be limited to
> desert areas where they get at least 120 sun days
> or more.
Says who ?
> Wind is so costly it will soon be limited
> to remote areas not serviced in the grid.
I do not think that the market is listening to your childish whining.
http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=143&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=4&cHash=773fe52939
"global wind market will grow by over 155% to reach 240 GW of total
installed capacity by 2012"
Rob
Rob Dekker
....
>
> On the high end (8 billion barrels), the 'mammoth' Tupi discovery
> (admitted the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the world with
> oil for 3 months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is only 2 months.
In other words, we need a Tupi discovery every 2-3 months to keep world
reserves the same.
Tupi was discovered in 2006, 3 years ago. So we already burned through 12-18
Tupi's since then.
How many Tupi's did we discover since 2006 ?
Face reality, for once : world oil reserves are going down, and they are
going down fast.
It's a sour 'good' thing that the world economy is in the pitts, since we
cannot pump more oil than we already do now.
That means we have reached Peak Oil.
And you know what happens after Peak Oil, don't you ?
Rob
Last Post
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:h31kvt$ckp$1...@news.parasun.com.
> > On the high end (8 billion barrels), the 'mammoth' Tupi discovery
> > (admitted the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the world with
> > oil for 3 months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is only 2 months.
•• ROTFLMAO
As usual Dekker is behind the times. Of course
if he saw the latest estimate he would be sure to
ignore it.
> In other words, we need a Tupi discovery every 2-3 months to keep world
> reserves the same.
> Tupi was discovered in 2006, 3 years ago. So we already burned through 12-18
> Tupi's since then.
> How many Tupi's did we discover since 2006 ?
>
> Face reality, for once : world oil reserves are going down, and they are
> going down fast.
> It's a sour 'good' thing that the world economy is in the pitts, since we
> cannot pump more oil than we already do now.
> That means we have reached Peak Oil.
•• ROTFLMAO
•• Peak oil is a primitive computer model that has
even less relevance than those of IPCC
>
> And you know what happens after Peak Oil, don't you ?
•• PEAK OIL is based on data that was obsolete decades past.
Sustainable oil?
Posted: May 25, 2004
By Chris Bennett
About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a
mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is
known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is
an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the
depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures
and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew
natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was
discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a
platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing
about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.
By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped
to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered
pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production
soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves
which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the
'70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels.
Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new
oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in
the '70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence
of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island
reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from
some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil
wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil
fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil
fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East,
where oil exploration and extraction have been
underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves
have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the
neighbourhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East
reserve oil.
Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead
dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could
there be another source for crude oil?
An intriguing theory now permeating oil company
research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually
be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of
unfathomable time and organic degradation. The
theory suggests there may be huge,
yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that
dwarf current world estimates.
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural
inorganic process which occurs between the
mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and
20 miles deep.
The mechanism is as follows:
• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found
in quantity throughout our solar system –
huge concentrations exist at great depth in the
Earth.
• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000
feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
of compressed methane-based gasses hit
pockets of high temperature causing the
condensation of heavier hydrocarbons.
• The product of this condensation is commonly
known as crude oil.
• Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate
into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural
gas."
• In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically
table regions around the globe, the crude oil
pools into reservoirs.
• In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically
active areas, the oil and natural gas continue
to condense and eventually to oxidize,
producing carbon dioxide and steam, which
exits from active volcanoes.
• Periodically, depending on variations of
geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the
surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand
deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the
continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of
Mexico and Uzbekistan.
• Periodically, depending on variations of
geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free
and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
There are a number of observations across the
oil-producing regions of the globe that support this
theory, and the list of proponents begins with
Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements)
and includes Dr. Thomas Gold (founding director of
Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space
Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources
Corporations, Houston, Texas.
In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold
presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
fossils or even current surface life.
He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from
the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry
does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also
interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities
among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric
life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of
oil. Where then did it come from?
Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout
the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often
present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-
prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a
fundamental product of the radiological decay of
uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great
depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more
miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in
areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas.
It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements
associated with life. It is found throughout the solar
system as a thoroughly inorganic product.
Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil
reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves,
such as the Eugene Island reservoir – not from the
sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic
reservoirs, but from the bottom up.
Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable,
primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth
under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As
this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached
by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin
dating back to the dinosaurs."
Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using
this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the
Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some
success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of
Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or
exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.
Could this be true?
In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a
paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of
hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr.
Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:
The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously
evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar,
even in the most favourable environment. The H-C
system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found
in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures
consistent with that environment.
He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists,
chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable
of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum
does not evolve from biological materials since the last
quarter of the 19th century."
Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at
some point in the relatively near future we will see
the last working pump on the last functioning oil well
screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the
Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap
energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker
and dangerous place.
If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of
the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen.
Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth
reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially
feasible extraction would provide the world with
generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted
saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil
could be off by a factor of over 100.
Chris Bennett manages an environmental engineering
division for a West Coast technology firm. He and his
wife of 26 years make their home on the San Francisco
Bay.
Bret Cahill
and the high tax Clinton economic boom issues.
> In your dreams
Speaking of dreams, what's the Repug action plan to get back into
power?
Dodging elections like a GOP shill tank economist dodges questions?
Bret Cahill
> > > or diesel energy when you consider that you are plugging into a
> > > power line which loses power during transmission.
>
> > Even if that were true (and it probably isn't) the net is that we will
> > import less oil. That is a very, very good thing.
>
> •• Check the real cost of the electricity including the
> batteries plus the extra cost of the vehicle and you
> will find that the savings are zilch.
The capital cost of building power plants is negligible < 2% when
compared to the money going overseas for oil over the next 50 years.
The operating cost of _any_ power plant is only 10 - 20% of that money
over the same period.
But the money savings are moot when you consider that consuming oil
will be restricted to the very rich in just a decade or so.
We have two choices, either we spend,
1. $10 trillion over the next decade or so to get off oil and have
something to show for the effort, or
2. $100 trillion for oil and when the oil is gone we'll have nothing
to show for our lack of planning.
We listened to Repugliars on tax cuts for the rich and merely got a
GOP tax cut recession/credit meltdown.
If we listen to Repugliars on _this_ issue we'll be living like
Haitians.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> •• NONSENSE
> •• NONSENSE
> •• FASCIST Fools like you never look at facts just whine like little
> •• Domestic production is cheaper than anything abroad.
> •• market price of course
This guy has as much to say as Rod Speed.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > to be greater by a factor of 100.
>
> A factor of 100 greater than what ?
That's just the way right wing-a-dings talk. It doesn't _have_ to
make sense.
Bret Cahill
Jerry Okamura
mean that is the only oil that will be recoverable in the future. That will
depend on advances in technology.
Rob Dekker
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message news:4f151c79-1d8d-4794...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 4:43 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:h31kvt$ckp$1...@news.parasun.com.
> > > On the high end (8 billion barrels), the 'mammoth' Tupi discovery
> > > (admitted the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the world with
> > > oil for 3 months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is only 2 months.
>
> �� ROTFLMAO
> As usual Dekker is behind the times. Of course
> if he saw the latest estimate he would be sure to
> ignore it.
Try me.
> > In other words, we need a Tupi discovery every 2-3 months to keep world
> > reserves the same.
> > Tupi was discovered in 2006, 3 years ago. So we already burned through 12-18
> > Tupi's since then.
> > How many Tupi's did we discover since 2006 ?
> >
> > Face reality, for once : world oil reserves are going down, and they are
> > going down fast.
> > It's a sour 'good' thing that the world economy is in the pitts, since we
> > cannot pump more oil than we already do now.
> > That means we have reached Peak Oil.
>
> �� ROTFLMAO
> �� Peak oil is a primitive computer model that has
> even less relevance than those of IPCC
>
> And you know what happens after Peak Oil, don't you ?
>
> �� PEAK OIL is based on data that was obsolete decades past.
>
>
> Sustainable oil?
> Posted: May 25, 2004
> .....
> In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold
> presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
> He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
> correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
> depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
> fossils or even current surface life.
Feel free to hold your breath until Dr. Gold finds his "sustainable" oil.
Meanwhile, you don't mind if the rest of us look for an alternative, do you ?
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:zH45m.6820$%R2....@newsfe07.iad...
Very true.
There will surely be advances, as there have been in the past. Things like horizontal drilling enhanced the recoverability from
scattered small oil pockets.
But the fact remains : we are about to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Our rate of extraction is much higher than our rate of
discovering new fields, or new methods of extraction.
Unless Dr.Gold is right (inorganic oil theory) we better start looking for alternatives.
Here is a very detailed overview of world oil reserves, and production rates :
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
Rob
Jerry Okamura
to accomplish what you think should be accomplished. Oil is a finite
resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
will begin to outstrip supply. As that starts to happen, the selling price
of the stuff will start to rise. As the price of the stuff starts to rise,
alternatives to oil which are now not cost effective become cost effective,
and since the price of oil will continue to rise, in time it will become
less cost effective, even if the price of the alternative does not change.
Of course that is assuming that the price of the alternative is also not
keeping pace with the price increase in oil. But since oil if a finite
resource, as demand outstrips supply, the price of the stuff will rise even
more, and will continue to increase as long as demand outstrips supply,
which will eventually happen, in any event. As the price increases even
more, even more alternatives become competitive in price, and we WILL start
to move to using these alternatives.
Last Post
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in messagenews:4f151c79-1d8d-4794...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Sustainable oil?
> > Posted: May 25, 2004
> > .....
> > In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold
> > presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
> > He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
> > correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
> > depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
> > fossils or even current surface life.
>
> Feel free to hold your breath until Dr. Gold finds his "sustainable" oil.
•• ROTFLMAO
Dr Gold's sustainable oil has been found in several, places,
including Saudi Arabia , Russia including the Black Sea, Khazakstan
and Siberia, Gulf of Mexico anbd thge South Atlantic
> Meanwhile, you don't mind if the rest of us look for an alternative, do you ?
•• There are no alternatives
•• Dekker: - you probable would do better if you
got behind the wheel of your old rig. You
certainly don't do well in science, economics or
political science.
Michael Coburn
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:6sy5m.2603$Ad2....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:zH45m.6820$%R2....@newsfe07.iad...
>>>
>>> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h31kvt$ckp$1...@news.parasun.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:9f8540ab-25dc-40db-
b2b7-1ee...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
We already tried that and it didn't work out real well.
> Oil is a
> finite resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later
> demand will begin to outstrip supply.
That already happened. Where have you been? Did $145 a barrel oil
escape your notice? The world could not pay it. It was the "prick" that
popped the latest Republican "let the market handle it" bubble.
> As that starts to happen, the
> selling price of the stuff will start to rise. As the price of the
> stuff starts to rise, alternatives to oil which are now not cost
> effective become cost effective, and since the price of oil will
> continue to rise, in time it will become less cost effective, even if
> the price of the alternative does not change. Of course that is assuming
> that the price of the alternative is also not keeping pace with the
> price increase in oil. But since oil if a finite resource, as demand
> outstrips supply, the price of the stuff will rise even more, and will
> continue to increase as long as demand outstrips supply, which will
> eventually happen, in any event. As the price increases even more, even
> more alternatives become competitive in price, and we WILL start to move
> to using these alternatives.
As we can see. You are a fundamentalist that cannot turn away from your
religious tenets even when reality slaps you in the face. A "command
economy" such as that attempted by the Soviets and China is the opposing
fundamentalist religious stupidity that equally ignores reality. Couched
between these idiotologies we have "rationality" that might manifest
itself as social democracy:
http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cdacs//bermanpaper.pdf ---------
For the first half of the twentieth century, Europe was the most
turbulent region on earth, convulsed by war, economic crisis, and social
and political conflict. For the second half of the century, it was among
the most placid, a study in harmony and prosperity. What changed?
Two narratives commonly emerge in answer to this question. The first
focuses on the struggle between democracy and its alternatives, pitting
liberalism against fascism, National Socialism, and Marxist-Leninism. The
second focuses on competition between capitalism and its alternatives,
pitting liberals against socialists and communists.
Democratic capitalism is simply the best, indeed the “natural” form of
societal organization, these stories assert, and once Western Europe
fully embraced it, all was well.
This account obviously contains some truth: the century did witness a
struggle between democracy and its enemies and the market and its
alternatives. But it is only a partial truth, because it overlooks a
crucial point: democracy and capitalism were historically at odds. An
indispensable element of their joint victory, therefore, was the
discovery of some way for them to coexist. In practice, that turned out
to mean a willingness to use political power to protect citizens from the
ravages of untrammeled markets. The ideology that triumphed was not
liberalism, as the “End of History” folks would have it, it was social
democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
jim
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> Let me suggest that we do not have to do anyting but allow the market place
> to accomplish what you think should be accomplished. Oil is a finite
> resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
> will begin to outstrip supply.
Yup that is how it works.
That was the point the world economy was at last summer. When you reach
that point without fail the economy crashes which lowers demand and
precipitates 15 year economic depression with demand for oil going much
lower as things get worse (there is much less disposable income). But
after 15 years the economy gets back up out of the gutter, and there
are some new discoveries of oil, and new efficiencies in energy usage
and so you have another 15 years of stable oil prices and economic
growth. This is the period where people go back to buying SUV's and
houses they can't afford and generally just living like there is no
tomorrow. And then the demand begins once again to outstrip the supply
and the whole process repeats.
The method for lifting the economy out of the gutter is to borrow from
the future. This is a reasonable thing to do because we all know that in
the future It's will be like the big Rock Candy Mountain where there is
plenty of cheap oil so they will be liberated from the pesky economic
problems we have today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqowmHgxVJQ
-jim
Last Post
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:zH45m.6820$%R2....@newsfe07.iad...> >> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in messagenews:9f8540ab-25dc-40db...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > __**CHEAP**__ oil is _not_ in plentiful supply when considering a fully
> >>> > functioning world economy.
>
> >>> .. Six years ago available reserves were estimated
> >>> to be greater by a factor of 100.
>
> >> A factor of 100 greater than what ?
>
> >>> That was before
> >>> the mammoth discovery at Tupi. Don't choke
> >>> on that bone!
>
> >> From wiki:
> >> - The Tupi accumulation, in block BM-S-11 of the Santos basin, contains at least 5-8 billion barrels of recoverable oil,
> >> according to - the state-controlled oil company.
Dekker: Wiki is always behind. According to a Bloomberg report 6
months ago the estimate has increased to 4 times as much and growing
> Unless Dr.Gold is right (inorganic oil theory) we better start looking for alternatives.
•• The late Dr Gold has always been right in everything he has done
> Here is a very detailed overview of world oil reserves, and production rates :http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10...
•• Dekker: you need to stick with gas from the pump
That group was obsolete 20 years ago but they did
not know it.
– –
Last Post
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6sy5m.2603$Ad2....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> >news:zH45m.6820$%R2....@newsfe07.iad...
>
> >> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> >>news:h31kvt$ckp$1...@news.parasun.com...
>
>
> Let me suggest that we do not have to do anyting but allow the market place
> to accomplish what you think should be accomplished.
•• Jerry better count pineapples, oil is too complex
and too global for you to comprehend
> Oil is a finite
> resource.
•• Right off the top you are dead wrong. It is
infinitely sustainable. ~~ perhaps forever.
> Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
> will begin to outstrip supply. As that starts to happen, the selling price
> of the stuff will start to rise.
•• Hogwash
•• BTW the first oil well in N America is still in
production near Petrolia Ontario about 30
miles from the Sarnia/Port Huron bridge
Now read this 5 year old article
You will learn a lot about physics
chemistry and petroleum.
Sustainable oil?
May 25, 2004
By Chris Bennett
In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold
presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
fossils or even current surface life.
He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from
the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry
does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also
interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities
among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric
life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of
oil. Where then did it come from?
Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout
the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often
present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-
prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a
fundamental product of the radiological decay or
Last Post
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > Let me suggest that we do not have to do anyting but allow the market place
> > to accomplish what you think should be accomplished. Oil is a finite
> > resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
> > will begin to outstrip supply.
>
> Yup that is how it works.
•• WRONG!! That is not how it works any more.
•• BTW the first oil well in N America is still in
production near Petrolia Ontario about 30
miles from the Sarnia/Port Huron bridge
.o0o.
James
�� Hogwash
By Chris Bennett
Could this be true?
=================
The Russians use the theory of abiotic oil and they have more of the stuff
than anybody. The oil haters will tell you it's ridiculous. They could
never handle the idea of an energy resource that is almost inexhaustable.
Last Post
•• There were 3 Russian sciensts in Dr. J.F. Kenney's team
jim
Last Post wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 3:41 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > > Let me suggest that we do not have to do anyting but allow the market place
> > > to accomplish what you think should be accomplished. Oil is a finite
> > > resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
> > > will begin to outstrip supply.
> >
> > Yup that is how it works.
>
> �� WRONG!! That is not how it works any more.
You are a addict. You snort gasoline straight from the pump. You might
ask yourself if that practice might be clouding your view of reality
just a tiny bit.
I don't have any idea how things work in your world but in the real
world when it gets to the point where consumers demand oil in excess of
what oil producers supply then the price starts to rise rapidly and
about at the point where the price doubles the economy falls like
humpty-dumpty off the wall. It then takes a very long time to put
humpty-dumpty back together again.
You obviously aren't going to see that simple and obvious relationship
between the economic cycles and oil because all your thoughts are
completely occupied with where your next snort of gasoline will be
coming from.
>
> �� BTW the first oil well in N America is still in
> production near Petrolia Ontario about 30
> miles from the Sarnia/Port Huron bridge
Ok let's just suppose this oil well will continue to pump oil forever
and ever. Even if your perpetual oil theory holds, it still should be
clear (to anyone who isn't constantly sniffing gasoline) that there will
still be points in time where the world's oil producers will not be able
to meet the demands of the worlds oil consumers. And the result will
still be a sharp up turn of prices and a consequent crash of the World's
economy and then the required long period of time to recover using
borrowed money to pay for that recovery.
My personal view is that the US should put a very hefty tax on all oil
that is consumed in the US. It should use the proceeds of that revenue
stream to pay down the national debt to zero. My estimation is that it
would take a tax of $200/barrel on all oil consumed in the US. And that
tax would need to be kept in place for twenty years to pay down all past
debt to zero. The result of taking that action would be to give to the
future a robust economy. It would be a future with no debt and a much
more secure and stable supply of energy.
Our current course is going to hand future generations a broken
economy, a mountain of debt and short supply of energy. And that future
is going to end up the same whether or not oil is reproducing
underground.
-jim
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h384c...@news7.newsguy.com...
When did we try that?
>
>> Oil is a
>> finite resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later
>> demand will begin to outstrip supply.
>
> That already happened. Where have you been? Did $145 a barrel oil
> escape your notice? The world could not pay it. It was the "prick" that
> popped the latest Republican "let the market handle it" bubble.
Are you purposely trying to be dense? If there was a true supply/demand
imbalance, the price of oil would go up and not go down. It will only go
down when there is more supply, other than when someone like OPEC is
"managing supply".
>
>> As that starts to happen, the
>> selling price of the stuff will start to rise. As the price of the
>> stuff starts to rise, alternatives to oil which are now not cost
>> effective become cost effective, and since the price of oil will
>> continue to rise, in time it will become less cost effective, even if
>> the price of the alternative does not change. Of course that is assuming
>> that the price of the alternative is also not keeping pace with the
>> price increase in oil. But since oil if a finite resource, as demand
>> outstrips supply, the price of the stuff will rise even more, and will
>> continue to increase as long as demand outstrips supply, which will
>> eventually happen, in any event. As the price increases even more, even
>> more alternatives become competitive in price, and we WILL start to move
>> to using these alternatives.
>
> As we can see. You are a fundamentalist that cannot turn away from your
> religious tenets even when reality slaps you in the face. A "command
> economy" such as that attempted by the Soviets and China is the opposing
> fundamentalist religious stupidity that equally ignores reality. Couched
> between these idiotologies we have "rationality" that might manifest
> itself as social democracy:
Are you saying that the study of economics is a religion? You are the first
one that I know of that would make that claim.
Last Post
> Last Post wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 3:41 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > > > Let me suggest that we do not have to do anyting but allow the market place
> > > > to accomplish what you think should be accomplished. Oil is a finite
> > > > resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
> > > > will begin to outstrip supply.
>
> > > Yup that is how it works.
>
> > WRONG!! That is not how it works any more.
•• When jackasses like you and Dekker who never
read through all the facts, and who buy two
fill-ups every week think you know it all but you
nothing past your toe nails.
I don't buy or sell any oil, gasoline or natural gas.
I no longer drive any vehicles but 40+ years ago
I bought and sold crude and bunker by the tanker
load and while retired I have stayed in close touch.
I will not attempt to teach idiots about the complex
politics of oil.
20 years ago Russia was running out of oil and Putin
was trying to buy black market oil from Saddam.
Today he is running his country on the profit of oil
and natural gas exports. [ ... ]
If the fascists in Congress Pelosi, Reid et al and King
Fascist Obama would permit drilling we could be
self sustaining in oil within 5 years
–– ––
Michael Coburn
No reason to continue this.
Bret Cahill
Last year. There was more to the GOP tax cut recession than tax cuts.
> >> Oil is a
> >> finite resource. Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later
> >> demand will begin to outstrip supply.
>
> > That already happened. Where have you been? Did $145 a barrel oil
> > escape your notice? The world could not pay it. It was the "prick" that
> > popped the latest Republican "let the market handle it" bubble.
>
> Are you purposely trying to be dense? If there was a true supply/demand
> imbalance, the price of oil would go up and not go down.
And it's been going up.
By 2012 the U. S. will be paying a couple trillion a year for overseas
oil and we will have _nothing_ whatsoever to show for this waste of
money.
Bret Cahill
jim
Last Post wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 7:32� pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > Last Post wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 10, 3:41 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > > > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > > > > Let me suggest that we do not have to do anyting but allow the market place
> > > > > to accomplish what you think should be accomplished. � Oil is a finite
> > > > > resource. � Being a finite resource, by definition sooner or later demand
> > > > > will begin to outstrip supply.
> >
> > > > Yup that is how it works.
> >
> > > WRONG!! That is not how it works any more.
>
> When jackasses like you and Dekker who never
> read through all the facts, and who buy two
> fill-ups every week think you know it all but you
> nothing past your toe nails.
I never claimed I wasn't a jackass or that i have read thru all the
facts or that I knew anything past my toe nails or that I don't buy a
fill-up occasionally. If you stop sniffing gasoline for a while and
take some deep breaths of fresh air, you might actually start writing
something that is relevant to the post you are replying to.
>
> I don't buy or sell any oil, gasoline or natural gas.
> I no longer drive any vehicles but 40+ years ago
> I bought and sold crude and bunker by the tanker
> load and while retired I have stayed in close touch.
So sniffing petroleum aromatics for forty years is the primary source of
all your knowledge?
>
> I will not attempt to teach idiots about the complex
> politics of oil.
>
It is time to put an end to the complex politics of oil.
The relationship of government to oil shouldn't be complex. It should
be so simple that even idiots can understand it. I won't speak for the
rest of the world but the US government should not be in the business of
regulating the use and production of oil. The politics of oil should be
abolished. The government should not attempt to regulate oil by complex
means. Instead it should just put a heavy excise tax on oil. Let the
marketplace sort out all the rest.
In the last 25 years the US government has borrowed $60 for every
barrel of oil the nation has consumed. We do this because as a nation
we have convinced ourselves that if we put a tax on oil to meet our
current spending needs we will all suffer a great economic calamity. But
this logic is based on depravity. It is evident that very few even
ponder the perversity of assuming there are no negative consequences to
pushing the taxes off onto the future. Apparently we have found the
miracle of the "free lunch" the tax we believe no one ever pays. What a
glorious thing.
The obvious implication for anyone who has given it any serious thought
is that our current policy is based on a belief in miracles - something
miraculous is going to happen that will make it easier for someone in
the future to pay the tax so therefore it is only logical that we not be
the ones who have to pay.
And sure enough, right on cue, along comes you with requisite miracle:
You proclaim:
"The future will have more oil than they know what to do with."
Hurray!
The sun is out. The sky is blue.
It is morning in America again.
> 20 years ago Russia was running out of oil and Putin
> was trying to buy black market oil from Saddam.
> Today he is running his country on the profit of oil
> and natural gas exports. [ ... ]
So has it come to this: we are lying in the gutter looking up at
Russia?
In your gasoline induced haze, do you see Russia as our role model for
what our next action will be? Don't ya think this might be a time to
reflect on how we got into this mess rather than pinning our hopes on
that one miracle that will make it possible to perpetuate all the things
that have led to this?
You claim I don't read what you wrote. I did and I'm willing to except
your claim of the miracle of perpetual oil. I'm perfectly willing to
accept that oil is being generated underground as a real possibility for
the future.
The problem is that perpetual oil doesn't solve anything. It doesn't
matter what quantity you say the oil miracle will produce. It doesn't
matter if it comes out of the ground under great pressure so that all
you have to is plug it into the pipeline and go.
Even if the most optimistic of your prediction comes true, the world's
economy will soon develop the capacity to consume that supply and it is
just a matter of time before demand will outstrip supply and the whole
result will be exactly the same as it is today - rapidly rising oil
prices and then economic collapse. The only real difference will be
that the well known natural law will come into play: "the bigger they
are the harder they fall"
>
> If the fascists in Congress Pelosi, Reid et al and King
> Fascist Obama would permit drilling we could be
> self sustaining in oil within 5 years
Yeah right.
I thought the miracle of perpetual oil was going to be visited upon
the current producing oil wells. No? OK we'll scrap that idea. Now you
have move on to discussing miracle plan B.
We could be self sustaining on our current oil production if that was
something that was truly valued. And conversely we could be just as much
not self-sustaining in five years as we are today with every oil well
you want to drill having been drilled. It is not a matter of supply. It
never has been a matter of supply. It has always been a matter of
demand. And demand is simply what people want to happen.
-jim
Last Post
same groups so that all who read my post can see
your bullshit responses
On Jul 11, 10:49 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> We could be self sustaining on our current oil production if that was
> something that was truly valued. And conversely we could be just as much
> not self-sustaining in five years as we are today with every oil well
> you want to drill having been drilled. It is not a matter of supply. It
> never has been a matter of supply. It has always been a matter of
> demand. And demand is simply what people want to happen.
•• ROTFLMAO -- What a deluded fool!!!!
- -
jim
Last Post wrote:
>
> When you respond to my posts, you followup to the
> same groups so that all who read my post can see
> your bullshit responses
I'm sorry I was simply unaware of this huge demand to see my responses.
It sounds like after you spend a couple hours sniffing gasoline from a
paper bag you start to believe something really important is being said
here?
>
> On Jul 11, 10:49 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>
> > We could be self sustaining on our current oil production if that was
> > something that was truly valued. And conversely we could be just as much
> > not self-sustaining in five years as we are today with every oil well
> > you want to drill having been drilled. It is not a matter of supply. It
> > never has been a matter of supply. It has always been a matter of
> > demand. And demand is simply what people want to happen.
>
> �� ROTFLMAO -- What a deluded fool!!!!
>
Oh Now I see you had something extremely profound and original to write.
We wouldn't want anybody to miss that would we?
-jim
Jerry Okamura
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a96b08ea-28eb-4f51...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Are you purposely trying to be dense? If there was a true supply/demand
> imbalance, the price of oil would go up and not go down.
And it's been going up.
By 2012 the U. S. will be paying a couple trillion a year for overseas
oil and we will have _nothing_ whatsoever to show for this waste of
money.
And are we going to hear from you where you admit that you were wrong, "if"
your prediction does not happen?
jim
Last Post wrote:
>
> �� Right off the top you are dead wrong. It is
> infinitely sustainable. ~~ perhaps forever.
Are you trying to work up a comedy routine? Are those little squiggles supposed
to be the drum role before you deliver the punch line?
I realize the Comedy of oil is a complex thing and it is made even more complex
by the need to appeal to a global audience, but personally I think it would
sound funnier if you delivered the line like this:
�� Right off the top you are dead wrong. It is
infinitely sustainable. ~~~~~~~~ at least for a little while.
See. It's all in the timing. Notice the longer drum roll before the punch line.
Last Post
On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> > Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
>
> > >> Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
> > >> transportation are viable :
> > >> (1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
> > >> (2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
> > >> Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
> > >> but combined that can come a long way.
> > >> Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
> > >> investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
> > >> a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out
> > >> liquid fossil fuel usage.
> > >> But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
> > >> on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
> > >> the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
>
> > > That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
>
> > > And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
> > > years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
> > > back into the U. S. economy.
>
> > >> There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that
> > >> path is 2-4x worse than going
> > >> coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
>
> > > The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
> > > sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
> > > next couple of decades.
>
> > How can we bankrupt the country?
>
> GOP tax cuts for the rich always causes deficits to soar. We saw this
> under the Gipster and under Dumbya.
•• BULLSHIT!!!!
-- --
Ouroboros Rex
> ... Original Newsgroups Line restored
>
> -- --
> There are three types of people that you
> can_not_talk into behaving well. The
> stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
> 1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
> follow the logic of what you say. You
> have to tell them what is right in very
> simple terms. If they don't agree, then
> you'll never be able to change their mind.
>
> 2- the religious fanatic
> religious belief, they will cling to that
> religious belief even if it means their
> death."
>
> 3- There is no way to reform evil-
> Not in a million years
> anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
> serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
> to change their evil ways. They knew what
> they were doing was wrong, but that
> knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
> them more careful in how they went about
> performing their evil acts.
As always, lenny post = crazyassed lies.
Rob Dekker
> >>> That was before
> >>> the mammoth discovery at Tupi. Don't choke
> >>> on that bone!
>
> >> From wiki:
> >> - The Tupi accumulation, in block BM-S-11 of the Santos basin, contains
> >> at least 5-8 billion barrels of recoverable oil,
> >> according to - the state-controlled oil company.
>
<unsnipped part that lastpost leonard found inconvenient>
>> On the high end (8 billion barrels), the 'mammoth' Tupi discovery
>> (admitted the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the
>> world with oil for 3 months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is
>> only 2 months.
>> What's next ?
> Dekker: Wiki is always behind. According to a Bloomberg report 6
> months ago the estimate has increased to 4 times as much and growing
First of all, you can edit Wiki yourself if you provide a proper reference.
But you can't, can you Leonard ?
Second, 4 times 2 months means 8 months of world consumption. Unless
Bloomberg reports that Tupi contains yet another factor of 2 more than your
already unreferenced 4x handwaving, we are still going down in reserves this
year.
What's next ?
> > Unless Dr.Gold is right (inorganic oil theory) we better start looking
> > for alternatives.
>
> .. The late Dr Gold has always been right in everything he has done
>
Feel free to hold your breath until we find out....
> > Here is a very detailed overview of world oil reserves, and production
> rates
> :http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10...
>
> .. Dekker: you need to stick with gas from the pump
> That group was obsolete 20 years ago but they did
> not know it.
Feel free to hold your breath until we find out....
Rob
Rob Dekker
On Jul 9, 11:11 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in
> messagenews:4f151c79-1d8d-4794...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jul 8, 4:43 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>
> > "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
> >news:h31kvt$ckp$1...@news.parasun.com.
> > > > On the high end (8 billion barrels), the 'mammoth' Tupi discovery
> > > > (admitted the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the
> > > > world with
> > > > oil for 3 months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is only 2
> > > > months.
>
> > �� ROTFLMAO
> > As usual Dekker is behind the times. Of course
> > if he saw the latest estimate he would be sure to
> > ignore it.
>
> Try me.
>
Leonard, your stunned silence is very re-assuring....
<snipped wandwaving>
Bret Cahill
> >> (admitted the greatest discovery in a long time) can supply the
> >> world with oil for 3 months. On the low end (5 billion barrels) it is
> >> only 2 months.
> >> What's next ?
> > Dekker: Wiki is always behind. According to a Bloomberg report 6
> > months ago the estimate has increased to 4 times as much and growing
>
> First of all, you can edit Wiki yourself if you provide a proper reference.
> But you can't, can you Leonard ?
>
> Second, 4 times 2 months means 8 months of world consumption.
Some of us are dying of liver cancer and don't plan to be around in 8
months.
> Unless
> Bloomberg reports that Tupi contains yet another factor of 2 more than your
> already unreferenced 4x handwaving, we are still going down in reserves this
> year.
> What's next ?
Anti - sustainability types enjoy a charming bohemian existence where
they don't worry about the future.
> > > Unless Dr.Gold is right (inorganic oil theory) we better start looking
> > > for alternatives.
> > .. The late Dr Gold has always been right in everything he has done
> Feel free to hold your breath until we find out....
It's a lot like the GOP action plan to get back into power.
Bret Cahill