| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
 |
|
Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality is that the cost
of oil has been spiraling 30% a year and there is little reason to
believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years, either by
drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other
strategy. Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to
natural gas will simply not have a significant impact on world oil
markets and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of
fuel prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag
doll.
Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. The bigger effect is
the demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other
nations. China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American
steel industry which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution. The 19th
Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled by sales to a
richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot be expected to have much
impact on China>s growth rate. If current trends continue, in as
little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has
been plummeting. When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic
cell decades ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of
dollars. Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. No one in
academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively
expensive and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. This cannot be expected to last. Batteries
have been improving rapidly and no one in academia or industry will
deny that more advances are guaranteed.
It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and burning hydrocarbons
will soon be only for the rich. For the majority of Americans to
survive with any quality of life either short term or long term the
grid is the only hope but it>s a reliable hope.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue
altogether.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
[/quote]
Well? Don>t keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What do you think it>s been?
-10%?
[quote]and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
We>ll see...
[/quote]
If we _wait_ and see then it>s guaranteed that our only option will be
to pay $25/gallon in 6 years.
[quote]either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
Wrong again.
[/quote]
Angels going to descend from heaven with an endless supply of oil?
[quote]Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to natural gas
will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
[/quote]
But that hardly changes the fact that we>ll be paying $25/gallon in 6
years.
[quote]and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel prices
would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
[/quote]
In most states it>s already over $2.50 / gallon gasoline equivalent.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. �The bigger effect is the
demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
[/quote]
Over any length of time more than a few months the biggestest effect
is the industrialization of other nations.
[quote]As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price,
[/quote]
Which has lasted all of one week.
[quote]when there
hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
Nope, nothing like it.
[/quote]
Just keep repeating "nope nope nope" and the problem will go away.
[quote]which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
[/quote]
But it>s akin to the growth rate for China.
[quote]The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
be expected to have much impact on China>s growth rate.
Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
[/quote]
China is already going high tech. The Chinese can, like the American
steel industry, switch to selling domestically and keep the same high
growth rate.
[quote]If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
[/quote]
A denialist will keep repeating over and over, "nope nope nope" and
"ain>t gonna happen" with no rational basis whatsoever.
[quote]Living standards in spades.
[/quote]
I>m not concerned how the Chinese live compared with Americans. My
only concern is how most Americans will be living when the Chinese
economy allows China to chomp off a great deal of the American slice
of the world oil pie.
We know the rich arn>t going to give up their use of hydrocarbons.
[quote]In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has been plummeting.
Nope, just dropping a bit.
[/quote]
"A bit" being 75% in a half dozen years.
[quote]When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
Irrelevant. What matters is how much its dropped
since it was a commonly used commercial product.
[/quote]
75% in a few years.
[quote]Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
[/quote]
The American steel industry didn>t increase a thousandfold over night.
It took 30 years.
[quote]inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
[/quote]
They built a GW / year plant in a couple years. The price of
electricity can be forced to actually _drop_.
[quote]Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. �No one
in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
But at nothing like the same rate.
[/quote]
The positive spiral in oil costs => no future.
The collapsing cost of solar => a future.
[quote]Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
[/quote]
Not portable, limited to topography and wastes over 1/3rd of the
energy.
[quote]and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. �This cannot be expected to last.
We>ll see...
[/quote]
Are you planning to _wait_ and see?
[quote]And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
[/quote]
All that does is couple HC fuel costs. High HC fuel costs aren>t so
much an issue for Europeans as they have public transportation, cycle
and only drive infrequently.
[quote]Batteries have been improving rapidly
Nope.
and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
[/quote]
At least the _sign_ is correct.
[quote]And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
[/quote]
Part of the advances is reducing the metals.
[quote]It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and
burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
[/quote]
In 6 years fuel will be $25/gallon gas.
You think this is affordable?
[quote]For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
[/quote]
The grid may include nuclear but H2 is the most dubious of all
_proposed_ technology.
[quote]but it>s a reliable hope.
Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
[/quote]
"Any quality of life" might not include "long distance commutes" by
cars.
[quote]Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
Easily fixed by changing to nukes.
[/quote]
Regardless of how it>s powered, the grid is the only hope.
Either short term or long term.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
Well? �Don>t keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What do you think it>s been?
-10%?
YOU made that claim.
[/quote]
Well, it>s time for you to spout a number.
[quote]YOU get to provide the real data.
THATS how it works.
[/quote]
I>m satisfied that a hefty majority reading this agrees with me.
Now, to be sure, the majority is often wrong, but it>s up to those who
believe the majority is wrong to correct the majority.
Not me.
[quote]and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
We>ll see...
If we _wait_ and see then it>s guaranteed that our
only option will be to pay $25/gallon in 6 years.
Wrong again. We waited in the 70s and saw the price drop to reasonable levels again.
[/quote]
That was pre peak, pre Big China. The future ain>t gonna be based on
the past.
[quote]either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
Wrong again.
Angels going to descend from heaven with an endless supply of oil?
Nope, we use other sources of hydrocarbons than oil,
[/quote]
And the prices of those hydrocarbons will get dragged up like a rag
doll.
[quote]and even when
all of that has been used, and that wont be for a very long time, we can
move on to using nukes to make hydrogen and use that as a transport fuel.
[/quote]
Hydrogen as fuel is the most dubious of futuristic technologies.
[quote]Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to natural gas
will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
But that hardly changes the fact that we>ll be paying $25/gallon in 6 years.
Thats just a number you have plucked out of your arse.
[/quote]
Do the math: $5/gallon X 1.3 ^ 6 = $25
[quote]We can tell that from the smell.
[/quote]
You reek of being in a state of denial.
[quote]And even if that is the price then, I>ll just yawn because I had enough of a clue
to choose a car thats uses it very economically
[/quote]
If you are getting 50 mpg now you>ll need to buy something that will
get 250 miles/gallon just to stay even.
Only the high tech billion dollar 600 lb VW 4 wheel 2 seater clown car
gets that.
[quote]and it will be completely trivial
to only use that car in a way that will see that completely affordable.
[/quote]
Like getting to work?
[quote]and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel
prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
In most states it>s already over $2.50 / gallon gasoline equivalent.
Still a lot cheaper than gasoline.
[/quote]
Not for long.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. ?The bigger effect is the
demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
Over any length of time more than a few months the
biggestest effect is the industrialization of other nations.
But its the few months price rise that you are mindlessly hyperventilating about.
[/quote]
It>s been going up for years.
[quote]As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price,
Which has lasted all of one week.
We>ll see...
[/quote]
You do any planning for anything over a month in the future?
[quote]when there hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
Nope, nothing like it.
Just keep repeating "nope nope nope" and the problem will go away.
You havent established that there is a problem
[/quote]
The number 1 economic concern is high fuel prices.
[quote]that we dont have perfectly viable solutions for.
[/quote]
I agree we do have _one_ solution: the grid
[quote]which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
But it>s akin to the growth rate for China.
You cant compare apples and oranges.
[/quote]
Then we are probably in worse shape than even I think.
[quote]The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
be expected to have much impact on China>s growth rate.
Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
China is already going high tech. �The Chinese can, like the American steel
industry, switch to selling domestically and keep the same high growth rate.
Nope, they wont see the same high growth rate if their exports are decimated.
[/quote]
State of denial.
[quote]If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
A denialist will keep repeating over and over, "nope nope nope"
and "ain>t gonna happen" with no rational basis whatsoever.
You dont have any rational basis for your mindless hyperventilation and silly claims about prices.
[/quote]
They have been clearly stated, peak oil + China>s growth rate = most
Americans living on a tiny fraction of the fuel we are using today.
[quote]Living standards in spades.
I>m not concerned how the Chinese live compared with Americans.
You should be when you make such silly claims about their growth rate.
[/quote]
Why? You think we benefiit from envy?
[quote]My only concern is how most Americans will be living
when the Chinese economy allows China to chomp off
a great deal of the American slice of the world oil pie.
It wont, just like Japan never did either.
[/quote]
Japan>s growth was well before peak oil. Japan has a low growth rate
today.
[quote]We know the rich arn>t going to give up their use of hydrocarbons.
Corse they wont, and they wont need to either.
[/quote]
Which leave little oil left for the rest of the population.
[quote]And neither will the non rich that have enough of a clue either.
[/quote]
More hydrocarbon angels from heaven?
[quote]In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has been plummeting.
Nope, just dropping a bit.
"A bit" being 75% in a half dozen years.
Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
[/quote]
No one in the industry will deny it.
[quote]And its STILL not economically viable when grid power is available ANYWAY..
[/quote]
It>s cheaper than coal.
[quote]When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
[/quote]
. . .
[quote]Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
The American steel industry didn>t increase a thousandfold over night.
It took 30 years.
Irrelevant to what will happen with photovoltaic which is a different technology entirely.
[/quote]
PV will probably be much faster.
[quote]inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
They built a GW / year plant in a couple years.
The price of electricity can be forced to actually _drop_.
Irrelevant to a completely different technology, photovoltaic.
[/quote]
They built a 1 gigawatt _PV_ / year plant in a couple of years.
[quote]Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. ?No one
in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
But at nothing like the same rate.
The positive spiral in oil costs => no future.
Wrong again. Its just a different future.
[/quote]
A future stacking up bodies.
[quote]The collapsing cost of solar => a future.
You aint established any collapsing price of solar.
[/quote]
No one will deny it>s decreasing.
[quote]And if you dont like the use of hydrocarbons for power generation,
the obvious MUCH more viable alternative is nukes, not solar.
[/quote]
Lots of stainless steel in nuke plants. Coal is cheaper. And PV will
soon be the cheapest of all.
[quote]Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
Not portable,
Doesnt need to be, we invented the grid that fixed that.
[/quote]
Well we agree on the grid.
[quote]limited to topography
Doesnt matter, we invented the grid that fixed that.
[/quote]
What about S. Florida?
Maybe HVDC will get the power down there?
[quote]and wastes over 1/3rd of the energy.
Irrelevant to your stupid lie about prohibitively expensive.
[/quote]
I was thinking of batteries in vehicles.
[quote]and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. ?This cannot be expected to last.
We>ll see...
Are you planning to _wait_ and see?
Yep. I can handle hydrocarbon prices of 10 times the current price fine.
[/quote]
You aren>t in the majority.
[quote]And realise that nukes will be very viable indeed at those prices.
[/quote]
Solar will be even cheaper.
[quote]And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
All that does is couple HC fuel costs.
Wrong. It also dramatically reduces the dependancy on imported oil.
[/quote]
But that doesn>t change what I said.
[quote]High HC fuel costs aren>t so much an issue for Europeans as
they have public transportation, cycle and only drive infrequently.
That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
[/quote]
They>ll have one vehicle / household and not drive it often.
[quote]Batteries have been improving rapidly
Nope.
[/quote]
More denial.
[quote]and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
At least the _sign_ is correct.
No news tho.
[/quote]
Constant stream of announcements in _Science News_.
[quote]And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
Part of the advances is reducing the metals.
Pity that involves much more expensive metals.
[/quote]
It involves less and less expensive metals.
[quote]It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and
burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
In 6 years fuel will be $25/gallon gas.
You plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell..
You think this is affordable?
Yep, I can afford that fine.
[/quote]
Don>t run for office on that platform.
[quote]For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
The grid may include nuclear but H2 is the most dubious of all _proposed_ �technology.
Wrong again. And it isnt a proposed technology, its being used RIGHT NOW.
[/quote]
How many quads of H2?
[quote]but it>s a reliable hope.
Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
"Any quality of life" might not include "long distance commutes" by cars.
Nothing like the majority are actually that stupid. And its completely trivial to stop doing it in cars anyway.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
Easily fixed by changing to nukes.
Regardless of how it>s powered, the grid is the only hope.
Wrong again. Hydrogen from nukes is very viable.
[/quote]
Where? In some NASA or DARPA program?
[quote]Either short term or long term.
Wrong, as always.
[/quote]
Sticking your head in the sand and denying it won>t change reality.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
lorad
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality is that the cost
of oil has been spiraling 30% a year and there is little reason to
believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years, either by
drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other
strategy. Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to
natural gas will simply not have a significant impact on world oil
markets and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of
fuel prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag
doll.
Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. The bigger effect is
the demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other
nations. China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American
steel industry which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution. The 19th
Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled by sales to a
richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot be expected to have much
impact on China>s growth rate. If current trends continue, in as
little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has
been plummeting. When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic
cell decades ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of
dollars. Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. No one in
academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively
expensive and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. This cannot be expected to last. Batteries
have been improving rapidly and no one in academia or industry will
deny that more advances are guaranteed.
It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and burning hydrocarbons
will soon be only for the rich. For the majority of Americans to
survive with any quality of life either short term or long term the
grid is the only hope but it>s a reliable hope.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue
altogether.
Bret Cahill
[/quote]
Ethanol makes much more sense for any transportational needs in the
short term.
Use solar for building heating and cooling. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
[/quote]
No it hasnt.
[quote]and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
[/quote]
We>ll see...
[quote]either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
[/quote]
Wrong again.
[quote]Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to natural gas
will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
[/quote]
Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
[quote]and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel prices
would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
[/quote]
But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. The bigger effect is the
demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
[/quote]
The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price, when there
hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
[quote]China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
[/quote]
Nope, nothing like it.
[quote]which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
[/quote]
That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
[quote]The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
be expected to have much impact on China>s growth rate.
[/quote]
Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
[quote]If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
[/quote]
Taint gunna happen, you watch. Living standards in spades.
[quote]In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has been plummeting.
[/quote]
Nope, just dropping a bit.
[quote]When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. What matters is how much its dropped
since it was a commonly used commercial product.
[quote]Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
[/quote]
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
[quote]inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
[/quote]
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
[quote]Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. No one
in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
[/quote]
But at nothing like the same rate.
[quote]Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
[/quote]
Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
[quote]and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. This cannot be expected to last.
[/quote]
We>ll see...
And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
[quote]Batteries have been improving rapidly
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
[/quote]
How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
[quote]It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and
burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
[/quote]
Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
[quote]For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
[/quote]
Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
[quote]but it>s a reliable hope.
[/quote]
Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
[quote]Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
[/quote]
Easily fixed by changing to nukes. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Jul 26, 4:16 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality is that the cost
of oil has been spiraling 30% a year and there is little reason to
believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years, either by
drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other
strategy. Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to
natural gas will simply not have a significant impact on world oil
markets and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of
fuel prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag
doll.
[/quote]
Hydorcarbons are for the stupid, rather than rich or poor.
That>s why the idiots have been told for going on at least 50 years
nows,
that people with a sense of history, a taste of class,
a touch of benig out of the idiot AT&T town hall meetings,
are working on cruise missiles, electric SUVS,
microcompters, optical computers, auto-holograms,
PV Cells, and ozone batteries, rather than morons and hydorcarbons.
[quote]
Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. The bigger effect is
the demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other
nations. China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American
steel industry which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution. The 19th
Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled by sales to a
richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot be expected to have much
impact on China>s growth rate. If current trends continue, in as
little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has
been plummeting. When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic
cell decades ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of
dollars. Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. No one in
academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively
expensive and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. This cannot be expected to last. Batteries
have been improving rapidly and no one in academia or industry will
deny that more advances are guaranteed.
It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and burning hydrocarbons
will soon be only for the rich. For the majority of Americans to
survive with any quality of life either short term or long term the
grid is the only hope but it>s a reliable hope.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue
altogether.
Bret Cahill[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
On Jul 26, 5:25 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
Well? �Don>t keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What do you think it>s been?
-10%?
YOU made that claim.
Well, it>s time for you to spout a number.
YOU get to provide the real data.
THATS how it works.
I>m satisfied that a hefty majority reading this agrees with me.
[/quote]
That is another claim that you will have to prove.
If the 30% per year is not pulled from thin air, you can supply us
with the source of this information. Facts do not need to be agreed
with. If your facts are true, they are true even if you are the only
person that likes them.
As a populist, you have much need for improvement. You need to be
less abrasive, and if you are going to recognize everyone around as
fools, you had better learn to suffer them politely, if not gladly. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
Well? Don>t keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What do you think it>s been?
-10%?
[/quote]
YOU made that claim.
YOU get to provide the real data.
THATS how it works.
[quote]and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
We>ll see...
If we _wait_ and see then it>s guaranteed that our
only option will be to pay $25/gallon in 6 years.
[/quote]
Wrong again. We waited in the 70s and saw the price drop to reasonable levels again.
[quote]either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
Wrong again.
Angels going to descend from heaven with an endless supply of oil?
[/quote]
Nope, we use other sources of hydrocarbons than oil, and even when
all of that has been used, and that wont be for a very long time, we can
move on to using nukes to make hydrogen and use that as a transport fuel.
[quote]Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to natural gas
will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
But that hardly changes the fact that we>ll be paying $25/gallon in 6 years.
[/quote]
Thats just a number you have plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
And even if that is the price then, I>ll just yawn because I had enough of a clue
to choose a car thats uses it very economically and it will be completely trivial
to only use that car in a way that will see that completely affordable.
[quote]and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel
prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
In most states it>s already over $2.50 / gallon gasoline equivalent.
[/quote]
Still a lot cheaper than gasoline.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. ?The bigger effect is the
demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
Over any length of time more than a few months the
biggestest effect is the industrialization of other nations.
[/quote]
But its the few months price rise that you are mindlessly hyperventilating about.
[quote]As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price,
Which has lasted all of one week.
[/quote]
We>ll see...
[quote]when there hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
Nope, nothing like it.
Just keep repeating "nope nope nope" and the problem will go away.
[/quote]
You havent established that there is a problem that we dont have perfectly viable solutions for.
[quote]which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
But it>s akin to the growth rate for China.
[/quote]
You cant compare apples and oranges.
[quote]The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
be expected to have much impact on China>s growth rate.
Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
China is already going high tech. The Chinese can, like the American steel
industry, switch to selling domestically and keep the same high growth rate.
[/quote]
Nope, they wont see the same high growth rate if their exports are decimated.
[quote]If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
A denialist will keep repeating over and over, "nope nope nope"
and "ain>t gonna happen" with no rational basis whatsoever.
[/quote]
You dont have any rational basis for your mindless hyperventilation and silly claims about prices.
[quote]Living standards in spades.
I>m not concerned how the Chinese live compared with Americans.
[/quote]
You should be when you make such silly claims about their growth rate.
[quote]My only concern is how most Americans will be living
when the Chinese economy allows China to chomp off
a great deal of the American slice of the world oil pie.
[/quote]
It wont, just like Japan never did either.
[quote]We know the rich arn>t going to give up their use of hydrocarbons.
[/quote]
Corse they wont, and they wont need to either.
And neither will the non rich that have enough of a clue either.
[quote]In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has been plummeting.
Nope, just dropping a bit.
"A bit" being 75% in a half dozen years.
[/quote]
Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
And its STILL not economically viable when grid power is available ANYWAY.
[quote]When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
Irrelevant. What matters is how much its dropped
since it was a commonly used commercial product.
75% in a few years.
[/quote]
Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
And its STILL not economically viable when grid power is available ANYWAY.
[quote]Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
The American steel industry didn>t increase a thousandfold over night.
It took 30 years.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to what will happen with photovoltaic which is a different technology entirely.
[quote]inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
They built a GW / year plant in a couple years.
The price of electricity can be forced to actually _drop_.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to a completely different technology, photovoltaic.
[quote]Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. ?No one
in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
But at nothing like the same rate.
The positive spiral in oil costs => no future.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Its just a different future.
[quote]The collapsing cost of solar => a future.
[/quote]
You aint established any collapsing price of solar.
And if you dont like the use of hydrocarbons for power generation,
the obvious MUCH more viable alternative is nukes, not solar.
[quote]Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
Not portable,
[/quote]
Doesnt need to be, we invented the grid that fixed that.
[quote]limited to topography
[/quote]
Doesnt matter, we invented the grid that fixed that.
[quote]and wastes over 1/3rd of the energy.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to your stupid lie about prohibitively expensive.
[quote]and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. ?This cannot be expected to last.
We>ll see...
Are you planning to _wait_ and see?
[/quote]
Yep. I can handle hydrocarbon prices of 10 times the current price fine.
And realise that nukes will be very viable indeed at those prices.
[quote]And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
All that does is couple HC fuel costs.
[/quote]
Wrong. It also dramatically reduces the dependancy on imported oil.
[quote]High HC fuel costs aren>t so much an issue for Europeans as
they have public transportation, cycle and only drive infrequently.
[/quote]
That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
[quote]Batteries have been improving rapidly
Nope.
and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
At least the _sign_ is correct.
[/quote]
No news tho.
[quote]And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
Part of the advances is reducing the metals.
[/quote]
Pity that involves much more expensive metals.
[quote]It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and
burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
In 6 years fuel will be $25/gallon gas.
[/quote]
You plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
[quote]You think this is affordable?
[/quote]
Yep, I can afford that fine.
[quote]For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
The grid may include nuclear but H2 is the most dubious of all _proposed_ technology.
[/quote]
Wrong again. And it isnt a proposed technology, its being used RIGHT NOW.
[quote]but it>s a reliable hope.
Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
"Any quality of life" might not include "long distance commutes" by cars.
[/quote]
Nothing like the majority are actually that stupid. And its completely trivial to stop doing it in cars anyway.
[quote]Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
Easily fixed by changing to nukes.
Regardless of how it>s powered, the grid is the only hope.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Hydrogen from nukes is very viable.
[quote]Either short term or long term.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
In article
<644ebd64-d1cd-4e8d-bee4-903b7528d343@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]
Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.
[/quote]
Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.
There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."
But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."
The Simon-Ehrlich wager is ignored far too often.
--
NeoLibertarian
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30% a year
No it hasnt.
Well? Don>t keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
What do you think it>s been?
-10%?
YOU made that claim.
Well, it>s time for you to spout a number.
[/quote]
YOU made that claim.
YOU get to provide the real data.
THATS how it works.
[quote]YOU get to provide the real data.
THATS how it works.
I>m satisfied that a hefty majority reading this agrees with me.
[/quote]
More fool you. You have no basis what so ever for that 'satisfaction'
[quote]Now, to be sure, the majority is often wrong, but it>s up to
those who believe the majority is wrong to correct the majority.
[/quote]
You havent even established that thats what a majority believes.
[quote]Not me.
[/quote]
YOU made that claim.
YOU get to provide the real data.
THATS how it works.
[quote]and there is little reason to believe that 30% rate will drop
over the next 6 - 8 years,
We>ll see...
If we _wait_ and see then it>s guaranteed that our
only option will be to pay $25/gallon in 6 years.
Wrong again. We waited in the 70s and saw the price drop to reasonable levels again.
That was pre peak, pre Big China.
[/quote]
And it remains to be seen if there will be another drop now.
[quote]The future ain>t gonna be based on the past.
[/quote]
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
[quote]either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
Wrong again.
Angels going to descend from heaven with an endless supply of oil?
Nope, we use other sources of hydrocarbons than oil,
And the prices of those hydrocarbons will get dragged up like a rag doll.
[/quote]
Nope, not when we have so much coal particularly.
And there is no rag doll involved either.
[quote]and even when all of that has been used, and that wont be for a very long time, we
can move on to using nukes to make hydrogen and use that as a transport fuel.
Hydrogen as fuel is the most dubious of futuristic technologies.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Its ALREADY being used for that.
[quote]Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to natural gas
will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
But that hardly changes the fact that we>ll be paying $25/gallon in 6 years.
Thats just a number you have plucked out of your arse.
Do the math: $5/gallon X 1.3 ^ 6 = $25
[/quote]
Thats just plucking that 1.3 out of your arse.
[quote]We can tell that from the smell.
You reek of being in a state of denial.
[/quote]
The only thing I have denied is those number you have plucked out of your arse.
[quote]And even if that is the price then, I>ll just yawn because I had
enough of a clue to choose a car thats uses it very economically
If you are getting 50 mpg now you>ll need to buy
something that will get 250 miles/gallon just to stay even.
[/quote]
Dont need to stay even, just be able to afford what fuel it does use.
[quote]Only the high tech billion dollar 600 lb VW 4 wheel 2 seater clown car gets that.
[/quote]
Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?
[quote]and it will be completely trivial to only use that car in a way that will see that completely affordable.
Like getting to work?
[/quote]
Dont need to use the car to travel to work if you have a clue.
[quote]and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel prices
would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
In most states it>s already over $2.50 / gallon gasoline equivalent.
Still a lot cheaper than gasoline.
Not for long.
[/quote]
Wrong again, it will ALWAYS be a lot cheaper than gasoline, you watch.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. ?The bigger effect is the
demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
Over any length of time more than a few months the
biggestest effect is the industrialization of other nations.
But its the few months price rise that you are mindlessly hyperventilating about.
It>s been going up for years.
[/quote]
Not enough to matter.
[quote]As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price,
Which has lasted all of one week.
We>ll see...
You do any planning for anything over a month in the future?
[/quote]
Yep. I obviously did that when I chose a car that uses gasoline very
economically and I can convert to LPG or CNG if that makes sense.
AND I have never been stupid enough to heat my
house using oil, and chose to use the grid instead.
AND I chose to design it so it gets heated using passive solar when
that is available and works fine with swamp cooling in the summer too.
[quote]when there hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
Nope, nothing like it.
Just keep repeating "nope nope nope" and the problem will go away.
You havent established that there is a problem
The number 1 economic concern is high fuel prices.
[/quote]
Not for me it aint.
[quote]that we dont have perfectly viable solutions for.
I agree we do have _one_ solution: the grid
[/quote]
We have a hell of a lot more than just that one.
[quote]which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
But it>s akin to the growth rate for China.
You cant compare apples and oranges.
Then we are probably in worse shape than even I think.
[/quote]
Wrong again.
[quote]The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
be expected to have much impact on China>s growth rate.
Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
China is already going high tech. ?The Chinese can, like the American steel
industry, switch to selling domestically and keep the same high growth rate.
Nope, they wont see the same high growth rate if their exports are decimated.
State of denial.
[/quote]
Fact. You watch.
[quote]If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
A denialist will keep repeating over and over, "nope nope nope"
and "ain>t gonna happen" with no rational basis whatsoever.
You dont have any rational basis for your mindless
hyperventilation and silly claims about prices.
They have been clearly stated,
[/quote]
And are just plain wrong.
[quote]peak oil
[/quote]
There is a hell of a lot more involved than JUST oil.
[quote]+ China>s growth rate = most Americans living on a tiny fraction of the fuel we are using today.
[/quote]
Thats just your stupid pig ignorant claim. It wont happen like that, you watch.
What will actually happen is increasing uses of other than oil when the price of
oil makes that viable, and even when all the hydrocarbons are gone, and that
wont happen for hundreds of years, we can use hydrogen from nukes instead
for a transport fuel and the nukes to power the grid, just like france does now.
[quote]Living standards in spades.
I>m not concerned how the Chinese live compared with Americans.
You should be when you make such silly claims about their growth rate.
Why?
[/quote]
Because that determines what fuel they get to use.
[quote]You think we benefiit from envy?
[/quote]
Its got nothing to do with envy when their living standards are
MUCH worse than ours and might at most equal ours eventually.
Those clowns cant even manage to avoid obscene levels of pollution in their citys.
[quote]My only concern is how most Americans will be living
when the Chinese economy allows China to chomp off
a great deal of the American slice of the world oil pie.
It wont, just like Japan never did either.
Japan>s growth was well before peak oil. Japan has a low growth rate today.
[/quote]
And so will china>s be eventually too, for the same reason.
[quote]We know the rich arn>t going to give up their use of hydrocarbons.
Corse they wont, and they wont need to either.
Which leave little oil left for the rest of the population.
[/quote]
There>s a hell of a lot more involved than just oil.
[quote]And neither will the non rich that have enough of a clue either.
More hydrocarbon angels from heaven?
[/quote]
Nope, same thing I rubbed your nose in previously.
[quote]In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation,
the cost of solar has been plummeting.
Nope, just dropping a bit.
"A bit" being 75% in a half dozen years.
Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
No one in the industry will deny it.
[/quote]
Another lie.
[quote]And its STILL not economically viable when grid power is available ANYWAY.
It>s cheaper than coal.
[/quote]
Another lie.
[quote]When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
The American steel industry didn>t increase a thousandfold over night.
It took 30 years.
Irrelevant to what will happen with photovoltaic which is a different technology entirely.
PV will probably be much faster.
[/quote]
Nope, you watch.
[quote]inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
They built a GW / year plant in a couple years.
The price of electricity can be forced to actually _drop_.
Irrelevant to a completely different technology, photovoltaic.
They built a 1 gigawatt _PV_ / year plant in a couple of years.
[/quote]
At nothing like the price per KWh that coal can deliver.
[quote]Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. ?No one
in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
But at nothing like the same rate.
The positive spiral in oil costs => no future.
Wrong again. Its just a different future.
A future stacking up bodies.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
We didnt even do that during the great depression.
[quote]The collapsing cost of solar => a future.
You aint established any collapsing price of solar.
No one will deny it>s decreasing.
[/quote]
Thats nothing like collapsing.
[quote]And if you dont like the use of hydrocarbons for power generation,
the obvious MUCH more viable alternative is nukes, not solar.
Lots of stainless steel in nuke plants.
[/quote]
Doesnt have to be.
[quote]Coal is cheaper.
[/quote]
And nukes dont produce any CO2.
[quote]And PV will soon be the cheapest of all.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
[quote]Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
Not portable,
Doesnt need to be, we invented the grid that fixed that.
Well we agree on the grid.
limited to topography
Doesnt matter, we invented the grid that fixed that.
What about S. Florida?
[/quote]
Just include it in the grid.
[quote]Maybe HVDC will get the power down there?
[/quote]
They already have power down there.
[quote]and wastes over 1/3rd of the energy.
Irrelevant to your stupid lie about prohibitively expensive.
I was thinking of batteries in vehicles.
[/quote]
Yep, you blew your feet right off.
[quote]and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. ?This cannot be expected to last.
We>ll see...
Are you planning to _wait_ and see?
Yep. I can handle hydrocarbon prices of 10 times the current price fine.
You aren>t in the majority.
[/quote]
Their problem.
[quote]And realise that nukes will be very viable indeed at those prices.
Solar will be even cheaper.
[/quote]
Nope, you watch.
[quote]And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
All that does is couple HC fuel costs.
Wrong. It also dramatically reduces the dependancy on imported oil.
But that doesn>t change what I said.
[/quote]
Doesnt change what I said either.
[quote]High HC fuel costs aren>t so much an issue for Europeans as
they have public transportation, cycle and only drive infrequently.
That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
They>ll have one vehicle / household and not drive it often.
[/quote]
You said HAVE, not will have.
[quote]Batteries have been improving rapidly
Nope.
More denial.
[/quote]
More fact.
[quote]and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
At least the _sign_ is correct.
No news tho.
Constant stream of announcements in _Science News_.
[/quote]
And f ck all in the way of buyable product.
[quote]And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
Part of the advances is reducing the metals.
Pity that involves much more expensive metals.
It involves less and less expensive metals.
[/quote]
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim with buyable products.
[quote]It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and
burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
In 6 years fuel will be $25/gallon gas.
You plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
You think this is affordable?
Yep, I can afford that fine.
Don>t run for office on that platform.
[/quote]
I>ve never been stupid enough to run for any office.
[quote]For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
The grid may include nuclear but H2 is the most dubious of all _proposed_ ?technology.
Wrong again. And it isnt a proposed technology, its being used RIGHT NOW.
How many quads of H2?
[/quote]
Irrelevant. Its just not currently economic.
[quote]but it>s a reliable hope.
Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that
so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
"Any quality of life" might not include "long distance commutes" by cars.
Nothing like the majority are actually that stupid. And
its completely trivial to stop doing it in cars anyway.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
Easily fixed by changing to nukes.
Regardless of how it>s powered, the grid is the only hope.
Wrong again. Hydrogen from nukes is very viable.
Where? In some NASA or DARPA program?
[/quote]
Irrelevant, its not economic at the current price of oil.
[quote]Either short term or long term.
Wrong, as always.
Sticking your head in the sand and denying it won>t change reality.
[/quote]
Mindlessly hyperventilating and lying like that wont either. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality is that the cost
of oil has been spiraling 30% a year and there is little reason to
believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years, either by
drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other
strategy. �Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to
natural gas will simply not have a significant impact on world oil
markets and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of
fuel prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag
doll.
Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. �The bigger effect is
the demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other
nations. �China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American
steel industry which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution. �The 19th
Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled by sales to a
richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot be expected to have much
impact on China>s growth rate. �If current trends continue, in as
little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has
been plummeting. �When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic
cell decades ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of
dollars. �Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. �No one in
academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively
expensive and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. �This cannot be expected to last. �Batteries
have been improving rapidly and no one in academia or industry will
deny that more advances are guaranteed.
It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and burning hydrocarbons
will soon be only for the rich. �For the majority of Americans to
survive with any quality of life either short term or long term the
grid is the only hope but it>s a reliable hope.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue
altogether.
Bret Cahill
Ethanol makes much more sense for any transportational needs in the
short term.
[/quote]
Is there a way to get enough of in in the short term? Otherwise EtOH
will get dragged up in price like an HC liquid fuel.
Algae fuel seems promising but with grid battery we are certain.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.
Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism �in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.
There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."
But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."
[/quote]
Yer nuts.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality is that the cost
of oil has been spiraling 30% a year and there is little reason to
believe that 30% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years, either by
drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other
strategy. �Retrofitting all of one nation>s trucks and buses to
natural gas will simply not have a significant impact on world oil
markets and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of
fuel prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag
doll.
But Brett, one can also make or convert cars to Compressed natural Gas, and
it;s simply and cost efective to do it.
The price of Natural gas at the bowser is still under a third the price of
Gasoline at the bowser.
[/quote]
In most states it sells for half the equivalent.
But that won>t last.
[quote]The reserves of nataural gas are HUGE, and under utilised.
[/quote]
Uh oh. There>s that word again.
[quote]Every litre of NG, reduces "overall demand" by about 2 litres, therefore, a
world wide switch to natural Gas would in fact lower Oil prices
significantly - NG would then be an equal competitor for Oil .... the effect
should be obvious.
[/quote]
I>m not saying it shouldn>t be done, just that it>ll do very little to
make HC affordable.
Kind of like yacht or horse racing. I>m not against it. I>m only
saying it>s only for the rich.
[quote]Add to that the economies of scale of rolling out new NG infrastructure,
both at NG deposits, and also the ability to "pump NG by pipelines" accross
a nation, means a win-win-win.
The last win being a reduction in GHG emmissions from using NG
[/quote]
About 5 - 10% per unit energy basis assuming there aren>t too many
releases from accidents.
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. �The bigger effect is
the demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other
nations. �China>s double digit growth rate is akin to the American
steel industry which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution. �The 19th
Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled by sales to a
richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot be expected to have much
impact on China>s growth rate. �If current trends continue, in as
little as 6 years China>s economy will be larger than ours.
There are actually limits to how far and how fast China and India can go. NO
one is considering any of the social issues related to this massive
industrialization.
[/quote]
Maybe they>ll all suddenly go bonkers.
[quote]Gross assumptions are being made on pure % and maths that
there will be a growing market for the "things" they make. There are limits
to this also. There are all sorts of limits, most likely social and
political. Lot>s happened in the UK europe and the usa when
indisutrialisation happened, it was an endless doubling of GDP, lot';s of
shit hit the fan along the way.
[/quote]
Get Dick Cheney to "help it out."
[quote]In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has
been plummeting. �When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic
cell decades ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of
dollars. �Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
Californians now pay 50% more than that for grid power. �No one in
academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
YEP!
Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively
expensive and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
diesels over hybrids. �This cannot be expected to last. �Batteries
have been improving rapidly and no one in academia or industry will
deny that more advances are guaranteed.
YEP
It>s a hard fact to accept but extracting and burning hydrocarbons
will soon be only for the rich.
Too big a leap, unless you mean rich nations vs poor nations.
[/quote]
It>ll be more obvious in a couple years when all those SUVs are
abandoned by the side of the road.
[quote]For the majority of Americans to
survive with any quality of life either short term or long term the
grid is the only hope but it>s a reliable hope.
Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue
altogether.
[/quote]
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hydrocarbons Is Only for the Rich |
|
|
[quote]Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem.
Other than enviro-marxist no-growth obstructionism �in the United
States, there>s no such thing as a "decreasing" supply of oil.
There is more oil available today than ever before in history. Yes, we
hear about "decreasing supplies" and "peak oil."
But there>s no empirical evidence to show that there are, in fact,
"decreasing supplies."
You believe that since we have never observed ourselves runnig out of oil
in the past then we can>t run out of oil in the future? �That is what
"empirical" means, dimwit.
[/quote]
The state of denial of rightards is America>s ball and chain.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Frank Ketchum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: Re: Burning Hy | |
