M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
g.daniels
Guest
a few cents more on the electric bill 'eliminates' acid rain and
destruction of east coast forests and lakes
remove the global threat of mecury killing the oceans o2 producing
phytoplankton, the food chains bottom.
and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
and usa? subsidized gas
will that be paper or plastic?
try bikes and long underwear?
for a few cents more....
for a few sense more we'd have a near zero problem hear!
so, if ya gotta truck at 11 mpg and ya don't need one
3xpletivedeleted
destruction of east coast forests and lakes
remove the global threat of mecury killing the oceans o2 producing
phytoplankton, the food chains bottom.
and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
and usa? subsidized gas
will that be paper or plastic?
try bikes and long underwear?
for a few cents more....
for a few sense more we'd have a near zero problem hear!
so, if ya gotta truck at 11 mpg and ya don't need one
3xpletivedeleted
W
W K
Guest
"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
try $5-$6
news:[email protected]...
> and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
try $5-$6
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
<< and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
exchange.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
exchange.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
G
g.daniels
Guest
O'peck rattles the per barrel sowrd!!
and SUV people, and where's the breakdown on environmentalists, Reps,
Dems, real estate and insurance salesmen and lawyers for SUV
ownership, AND multiple SUV ownership? california, california....
and these people complain
having voted for a war rather than evolutionary change
which is not WWII ATTITUDE
maybe so many are gone that the ones left can't muster numbers for a
hearing on the evening news
or maybe the news are goofing on us
"we gotta kill the arabs" and "we gotta have free gas" in the same
breath
interesting, no?
and SUV people, and where's the breakdown on environmentalists, Reps,
Dems, real estate and insurance salesmen and lawyers for SUV
ownership, AND multiple SUV ownership? california, california....
and these people complain
having voted for a war rather than evolutionary change
which is not WWII ATTITUDE
maybe so many are gone that the ones left can't muster numbers for a
hearing on the evening news
or maybe the news are goofing on us
"we gotta kill the arabs" and "we gotta have free gas" in the same
breath
interesting, no?
A
Andrew Webster
Guest
[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> << and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
>
> try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
>
> When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
> exchange.
That would make it $7.36 per gallon (imperial).
> << and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
>
> try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
>
> When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
> exchange.
That would make it $7.36 per gallon (imperial).
C
Carl Fogel
Guest
[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> << and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
>
> try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
>
> When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
> exchange.
>
> Peter Chisholm
Dear Gene, Wk, and Peter,
Gas prices in the U.S. include state and federal
taxes, usually discreetly omitted because they
are far in excess of other sales taxes. They're
trickier to figure, too, because they are a flat
rate per gallon, rather than a percentage of the
price of the gasoline.
Gas prices in Europe often include taxes that
amount to more than the cost of the gas itself.
And just to confuse things further, Gene may have
had prices for a 4-quart U.S. gallon of gas, while
others might be thinking of the 5-quart Imperial
gallon, whose greater cost is offset by the
illusion of impressively better mileage.
Beyond that, there's the matter of taxes. While
it might be argued that special oil tax laws in
the U.S. amount to subsidy, it could also be
argued that the governments themselves effectively
own the gas companies in many other countries and
use them as a particularly effective method of
taxing their citizens.
In the end, oil is a widely available world-wide
commodity, whose price is governed by politics,
weather, local field problems, transport costs,
refinery capacity, how low the suppliers are willing
to go, and demand--not by shortage.
Any local reduction in production provokes increased
production in the rest of the world, where people
are eager to pump sludge out of the ground and sell
it to their neighbors, who are just as eager to buy it.
The wide distribution of oil is shown by production
statistics. Of the world's roughly 75 million barrel
per day production, Saudi Arabia provides only about
9 million barrels, about 12%. This is hardly a
Microsoft monopoly position.
The next largest producer is the U.S., at about 5
million barrels per day, then Iran, at just under
4 million barrels per day. Combined, these two amount
to only about 10% of the world's production.
This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
pumping from previously idled fields.
Carl Fogel
> << and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
>
> try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
>
> When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
> exchange.
>
> Peter Chisholm
Dear Gene, Wk, and Peter,
Gas prices in the U.S. include state and federal
taxes, usually discreetly omitted because they
are far in excess of other sales taxes. They're
trickier to figure, too, because they are a flat
rate per gallon, rather than a percentage of the
price of the gasoline.
Gas prices in Europe often include taxes that
amount to more than the cost of the gas itself.
And just to confuse things further, Gene may have
had prices for a 4-quart U.S. gallon of gas, while
others might be thinking of the 5-quart Imperial
gallon, whose greater cost is offset by the
illusion of impressively better mileage.
Beyond that, there's the matter of taxes. While
it might be argued that special oil tax laws in
the U.S. amount to subsidy, it could also be
argued that the governments themselves effectively
own the gas companies in many other countries and
use them as a particularly effective method of
taxing their citizens.
In the end, oil is a widely available world-wide
commodity, whose price is governed by politics,
weather, local field problems, transport costs,
refinery capacity, how low the suppliers are willing
to go, and demand--not by shortage.
Any local reduction in production provokes increased
production in the rest of the world, where people
are eager to pump sludge out of the ground and sell
it to their neighbors, who are just as eager to buy it.
The wide distribution of oil is shown by production
statistics. Of the world's roughly 75 million barrel
per day production, Saudi Arabia provides only about
9 million barrels, about 12%. This is hardly a
Microsoft monopoly position.
The next largest producer is the U.S., at about 5
million barrels per day, then Iran, at just under
4 million barrels per day. Combined, these two amount
to only about 10% of the world's production.
This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
pumping from previously idled fields.
Carl Fogel
K
Kyle.B.H
Guest
"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> O'peck rattles the per barrel sowrd!!
> and SUV people, and where's the breakdown on environmentalists, Reps,
> Dems, real estate and insurance salesmen and lawyers for SUV
> ownership, AND multiple SUV ownership?
Why all the focus on SUV's. Aren't pick-ups, sports cars, and old cars just
as bad? In fact when it comes to pollution, old cars are the worst of all.
But they just don't have the class warfare element that SUV's do ... and
anyways...how do you think all those college students and dread-headed
protesters get to their parties?
news:[email protected]...
> O'peck rattles the per barrel sowrd!!
> and SUV people, and where's the breakdown on environmentalists, Reps,
> Dems, real estate and insurance salesmen and lawyers for SUV
> ownership, AND multiple SUV ownership?
Why all the focus on SUV's. Aren't pick-ups, sports cars, and old cars just
as bad? In fact when it comes to pollution, old cars are the worst of all.
But they just don't have the class warfare element that SUV's do ... and
anyways...how do you think all those college students and dread-headed
protesters get to their parties?
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
Kyle.B.H wrote:
> Why all the focus on SUV's. Aren't pick-ups, sports cars, and old
> cars just as bad? In fact when it comes to pollution, old cars are
> the worst of all.
Not really. SUVs are, for one, much bigger than they need to be, and two, not
required to meet the same pollution standards that cars are. A new Navigator
probably pollutes less than a '74 Cutlass, but more than an '84 Civic.
Technology matters, but size matters too.
Old cars aren't a big problem anymore, because there aren't enough of them left
to affect air quality disproportionately. If we cracked down on all the old
cars, we wouldn't help things much. In fact, we *would* see a bigger
improvement if we could get most SUV drivers into smaller, more efficient,
cleaner vehicles.
Sports cars are governed by the same rules as other cars (as opposed to trucks),
so they're just as clean. The last Corvette I drove got well over 30mpg on the
highway. My brother's Miata does much better than that. A 6 cylinder BMW 3
Series coupe gets about 34mpg. What SUV even comes close to that?
> But they just don't have the class warfare element
> that SUV's do ...
This is true. Unfortunately, a lot of old-school environmental activism is
class warfare in disguise, which puts people off the legitimate efforts.
Fortunately, that's changing. Edward Abbey is out, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in.
> and anyways...how do you think all those college
> students and dread-headed protesters get to their parties?
Belching VW buses! I loved that Honda Insight ad featuring the VW bus.
Matt O.
> Why all the focus on SUV's. Aren't pick-ups, sports cars, and old
> cars just as bad? In fact when it comes to pollution, old cars are
> the worst of all.
Not really. SUVs are, for one, much bigger than they need to be, and two, not
required to meet the same pollution standards that cars are. A new Navigator
probably pollutes less than a '74 Cutlass, but more than an '84 Civic.
Technology matters, but size matters too.
Old cars aren't a big problem anymore, because there aren't enough of them left
to affect air quality disproportionately. If we cracked down on all the old
cars, we wouldn't help things much. In fact, we *would* see a bigger
improvement if we could get most SUV drivers into smaller, more efficient,
cleaner vehicles.
Sports cars are governed by the same rules as other cars (as opposed to trucks),
so they're just as clean. The last Corvette I drove got well over 30mpg on the
highway. My brother's Miata does much better than that. A 6 cylinder BMW 3
Series coupe gets about 34mpg. What SUV even comes close to that?
> But they just don't have the class warfare element
> that SUV's do ...
This is true. Unfortunately, a lot of old-school environmental activism is
class warfare in disguise, which puts people off the legitimate efforts.
Fortunately, that's changing. Edward Abbey is out, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in.
> and anyways...how do you think all those college
> students and dread-headed protesters get to their parties?
Belching VW buses! I loved that Honda Insight ad featuring the VW bus.
Matt O.
W
W K
Guest
"Andrew Webster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > << and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
> >
> > try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
> >
> > When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
> > exchange.
>
> That would make it $7.36 per gallon (imperial).
It would, but I was using real figures and its $5.60 per 3.8 litres (lowest
cost self service, UK).
Slightly higher for diesel.
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > << and the euro's pay $4 a gallon
> >
> > try $5-$6 >><BR><BR>
> >
> > When I was in the UK in October, I paid 90p per liter...$1.80 per Pound
> > exchange.
>
> That would make it $7.36 per gallon (imperial).
It would, but I was using real figures and its $5.60 per 3.8 litres (lowest
cost self service, UK).
Slightly higher for diesel.
M
Mike Latondresse
Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in.
>
>
>
Oh absolutely wonderful...he is the ass who comes up to BC and tries to
tell us how to manage our forest. The poster boy of the inane.
news:[email protected]:
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in.
>
>
>
Oh absolutely wonderful...he is the ass who comes up to BC and tries to
tell us how to manage our forest. The poster boy of the inane.
G
g.daniels
Guest
G
g.daniels
Guest
carl's humour is contagious.
in the 1950's, the oil industry (and that's what THEY call it)wrote an
analysis stating that all oil fields were discovered in the sense that
most of the available oil field ever to be discovered had at that time
been discovered.
bike commuting reveals all hear.Watching reflexless fat women bearing
down the road in 3 tons of empty space every day from hubnut level
brings one to slightly understand the madness of something like
Kazinski's head.
in the 1950's, the oil industry (and that's what THEY call it)wrote an
analysis stating that all oil fields were discovered in the sense that
most of the available oil field ever to be discovered had at that time
been discovered.
bike commuting reveals all hear.Watching reflexless fat women bearing
down the road in 3 tons of empty space every day from hubnut level
brings one to slightly understand the madness of something like
Kazinski's head.
G
gwhite
Guest
[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
> for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
> in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
> pumping from previously idled fields.
Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
> This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
> for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
> in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
> pumping from previously idled fields.
Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
H
H. M. Leary
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
> > This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
> > for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
> > in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
> > pumping from previously idled fields.
>
> Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
IIRC.. some 60 years ago the Germans did a fairly good job of this.
Maybe at 4 - 5 bucks a gallon this could become feasible.
HAND
--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³
- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
[email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
> > This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
> > for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
> > in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
> > pumping from previously idled fields.
>
> Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
IIRC.. some 60 years ago the Germans did a fairly good job of this.
Maybe at 4 - 5 bucks a gallon this could become feasible.
HAND
--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³
- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
gwhite wrote:
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
>> This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
>> for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
>> in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
>> pumping from previously idled fields.
I once knew an old lady who owned a bunch of oil wells in Oklahoma. She had the
financial news running all the time, hoping with crossed fingers that oil would
reach a certain (high) price per barrel. Once it did, she could afford to "turn
on the spigot, and let the money run out."
> Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
Having witnessed the environmental devastation caused by mining coal, I'd prefer
it stay in the ground. Unforunately, acid rain, CO2 emissions, etc., are the
only problems with coal ever discussed. Mining coal is like tearing up your
backyard with a bulldozer, to find $1.25 buried there, and leaving the mess for
the next homeowner to clean up. I'm with you on investment in other
technologies, but not that one.
Matt O.
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
>> This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
>> for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
>> in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
>> pumping from previously idled fields.
I once knew an old lady who owned a bunch of oil wells in Oklahoma. She had the
financial news running all the time, hoping with crossed fingers that oil would
reach a certain (high) price per barrel. Once it did, she could afford to "turn
on the spigot, and let the money run out."
> Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
Having witnessed the environmental devastation caused by mining coal, I'd prefer
it stay in the ground. Unforunately, acid rain, CO2 emissions, etc., are the
only problems with coal ever discussed. Mining coal is like tearing up your
backyard with a bulldozer, to find $1.25 buried there, and leaving the mess for
the next homeowner to clean up. I'm with you on investment in other
technologies, but not that one.
Matt O.
C
carlfogel
Guest
H. M. Leary wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> > [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> >
> > > This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased for long.
> > > Rising prices encouraged long-term investment in fields beyond
> > > OPEC's control and the resumption of pumping from previously idled
> > > fields.
> >
> > Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> > technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> > fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
> IIRC.. some 60 years ago the Germans did a fairly good job of this.
> Maybe at 4 - 5 bucks a gallon this could become feasible.
> HAND
> --
> ³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³
> - Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
Dear H.M.,
Colorado has oil shale reserves, but they're not much use. Trying to
refine coal into fuel doesn't work well, either. Ethanol depends
entirely on government subsidy. There has never been any economical
substitute for pumping sludge out of the ground and refining
it.
The Germans were reduced to hauling fighter aircraft to the runways
with horses to eke out their fuel supplies after they lost their
access to the Roumanian oil fields. There was no fuel for reasonable
pilot training (not that they survived with Allied fighters patrolling
the skies.)
Similarly, their surprise winter attack had no real hopes of success
beyond a fantasy that they would somehow capture vast Allied fuel dumps
(probably the easiest military supplies to destroy).
Indeed, a common observation among military historians is that the U.S.
army was heavily mechanized, while the German army depended to a
surprising degree on horses. Both Germany and Japan seized oil fields as
their first objectives when they went to war, neither country having any
significant oil fields of its own.
See "Oil and war : how the deadly struggle for fuel in WWII meant
victory or defeat," Robert Goralski.
Carl Fogel
--
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> > [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> >
> > > This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased for long.
> > > Rising prices encouraged long-term investment in fields beyond
> > > OPEC's control and the resumption of pumping from previously idled
> > > fields.
> >
> > Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> > technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> > fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
> IIRC.. some 60 years ago the Germans did a fairly good job of this.
> Maybe at 4 - 5 bucks a gallon this could become feasible.
> HAND
> --
> ³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³
> - Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
Dear H.M.,
Colorado has oil shale reserves, but they're not much use. Trying to
refine coal into fuel doesn't work well, either. Ethanol depends
entirely on government subsidy. There has never been any economical
substitute for pumping sludge out of the ground and refining
it.
The Germans were reduced to hauling fighter aircraft to the runways
with horses to eke out their fuel supplies after they lost their
access to the Roumanian oil fields. There was no fuel for reasonable
pilot training (not that they survived with Allied fighters patrolling
the skies.)
Similarly, their surprise winter attack had no real hopes of success
beyond a fantasy that they would somehow capture vast Allied fuel dumps
(probably the easiest military supplies to destroy).
Indeed, a common observation among military historians is that the U.S.
army was heavily mechanized, while the German army depended to a
surprising degree on horses. Both Germany and Japan seized oil fields as
their first objectives when they went to war, neither country having any
significant oil fields of its own.
See "Oil and war : how the deadly struggle for fuel in WWII meant
victory or defeat," Robert Goralski.
Carl Fogel
--
G
g.daniels
Guest
more production does not solve the problem
only makes the problem more severe
hydrogen hyrdrogen hyrdrogen.
ok how much energy does it take to produce hydrogen.
is there a hydrogen/solar rig?
how much energy does it take to produce citric acid?
only makes the problem more severe
hydrogen hyrdrogen hyrdrogen.
ok how much energy does it take to produce hydrogen.
is there a hydrogen/solar rig?
how much energy does it take to produce citric acid?
G
gwhite
Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> gwhite wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> >
> >> This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
> >> for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
> >> in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
> >> pumping from previously idled fields.
>
> I once knew an old lady who owned a bunch of oil wells in Oklahoma. She had the
> financial news running all the time, hoping with crossed fingers that oil would
> reach a certain (high) price per barrel. Once it did, she could afford to "turn
> on the spigot, and let the money run out."
>
> > Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> > technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> > fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
>
> Having witnessed the environmental devastation caused by
> mining coal, I'd prefer it stay in the ground.
If other forms of energy are provided at a lower cost, then that is
what should happen. I was mostly saying that there is a lot of
potential energy, not what should be specifically done. I was
agreeing with Carl that OPEC are not lords unto themselves. They need
to keep the price low enough such that competing forms of energy are
not pursued. That is, if they want to sell their oil.
> Unforunately, acid rain, CO2 emissions, etc., are the
> only problems with coal ever discussed.
Modern coal energy plants do have scrubbers to greatly reduce acid
rain. Indeed the controversy has died down. I'm sure they could be
made better, but I don't know the cost. Coal plants do emit C02, for
those who are concerned with the claim of global warming. There are
many new coal energy plants planned for construction. I just read it
in the paper a few days ago.
> Mining coal is like tearing up your
> backyard with a bulldozer, to find $1.25 buried there,
> and leaving the mess for the next homeowner to clean up.
The only thing important is the that the backyard is represented by
the seller truthfully to the next buyer. If it is "torn up," but the
buyer decides that's okay for the selling price, then I don't see a
problem with inheriting a "cleanup." After all, truth in selling
means the buyer was aware there would be costs of improvement.
> I'm with you on investment in other
> technologies, but not that one.
I would let the marketplace decide. The only confounding issue is
that of externalities, specifically pollution. Are the beneficiaries
bearing the full cost of the energy and not someone else? That's the
only sticky part to it in my mind.
> gwhite wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> >
> >> This is why OPEC could not set oil prices as it pleased
> >> for long. Rising prices encouraged long-term investment
> >> in fields beyond OPEC's control and the resumption of
> >> pumping from previously idled fields.
>
> I once knew an old lady who owned a bunch of oil wells in Oklahoma. She had the
> financial news running all the time, hoping with crossed fingers that oil would
> reach a certain (high) price per barrel. Once it did, she could afford to "turn
> on the spigot, and let the money run out."
>
> > Exactly. And high prices too would increase investment in other
> > technologies such as tar sand conversion and coal conversion to liquid
> > fuel. The US sits on huge reserves of coal.
>
> Having witnessed the environmental devastation caused by
> mining coal, I'd prefer it stay in the ground.
If other forms of energy are provided at a lower cost, then that is
what should happen. I was mostly saying that there is a lot of
potential energy, not what should be specifically done. I was
agreeing with Carl that OPEC are not lords unto themselves. They need
to keep the price low enough such that competing forms of energy are
not pursued. That is, if they want to sell their oil.
> Unforunately, acid rain, CO2 emissions, etc., are the
> only problems with coal ever discussed.
Modern coal energy plants do have scrubbers to greatly reduce acid
rain. Indeed the controversy has died down. I'm sure they could be
made better, but I don't know the cost. Coal plants do emit C02, for
those who are concerned with the claim of global warming. There are
many new coal energy plants planned for construction. I just read it
in the paper a few days ago.
> Mining coal is like tearing up your
> backyard with a bulldozer, to find $1.25 buried there,
> and leaving the mess for the next homeowner to clean up.
The only thing important is the that the backyard is represented by
the seller truthfully to the next buyer. If it is "torn up," but the
buyer decides that's okay for the selling price, then I don't see a
problem with inheriting a "cleanup." After all, truth in selling
means the buyer was aware there would be costs of improvement.
> I'm with you on investment in other
> technologies, but not that one.
I would let the marketplace decide. The only confounding issue is
that of externalities, specifically pollution. Are the beneficiaries
bearing the full cost of the energy and not someone else? That's the
only sticky part to it in my mind.
C
carlfogel
Guest
Gwhite wrote:
> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> [snip all but flattering agreement]
> I was agreeing with Carl that OPEC are not lords unto themselves. They
> need to keep the price low enough such that competing forms of energy
> are not pursued. That is, if they want to sell their oil.
Dear GW,
Actually, OPEC merely needs to keep the price low enough that the
numerous other oil-producing countries don't undercut them and that
their own members don't (as they historically do) break ranks and start
selling the stuff on the sly.
In terms of economics, oil is a widely available commodity. In many
places, it's forced out of the ground under natural pressure in
incredible quantities as soon as a hole is drilled.
This leaves numerous countries and companies trying to mine and sell a
bulk item that ships well and even runs through pipelines to distant
markets. The problem isn't a lack of oil--it's getting it out of the
ground and to the refinery more cheaply than the other guy while still
making a profit.
If Saudi Arabia stops production tomorrow, only 12% of the world's daily
production will be lost, and the rest of the producers will happily
start pumping and selling more--they all have excess capacity and unused
proven reserves. Exploration is aimed at finding wells that are more
economical in some way--easier to drill, closer to facilities, or
yielding oil that's cheaper to refine.
They're not worried about solar, nuclear, wind, coal, horses, or pedals,
none of which move serious vehicles very well in comparison to internal
combustion. They're worried about the guy in the next country
undercutting their price per barrel by ten cents or a dollar.
Meanwhile, I notice few mothers with three children wishing that
everyone would switch to bicycles and mass transit schemes.
Carl Fogel
--
> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> [snip all but flattering agreement]
> I was agreeing with Carl that OPEC are not lords unto themselves. They
> need to keep the price low enough such that competing forms of energy
> are not pursued. That is, if they want to sell their oil.
Dear GW,
Actually, OPEC merely needs to keep the price low enough that the
numerous other oil-producing countries don't undercut them and that
their own members don't (as they historically do) break ranks and start
selling the stuff on the sly.
In terms of economics, oil is a widely available commodity. In many
places, it's forced out of the ground under natural pressure in
incredible quantities as soon as a hole is drilled.
This leaves numerous countries and companies trying to mine and sell a
bulk item that ships well and even runs through pipelines to distant
markets. The problem isn't a lack of oil--it's getting it out of the
ground and to the refinery more cheaply than the other guy while still
making a profit.
If Saudi Arabia stops production tomorrow, only 12% of the world's daily
production will be lost, and the rest of the producers will happily
start pumping and selling more--they all have excess capacity and unused
proven reserves. Exploration is aimed at finding wells that are more
economical in some way--easier to drill, closer to facilities, or
yielding oil that's cheaper to refine.
They're not worried about solar, nuclear, wind, coal, horses, or pedals,
none of which move serious vehicles very well in comparison to internal
combustion. They're worried about the guy in the next country
undercutting their price per barrel by ten cents or a dollar.
Meanwhile, I notice few mothers with three children wishing that
everyone would switch to bicycles and mass transit schemes.
Carl Fogel
--
Similar threads
C
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 781
T
R
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 3K
J
C
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 861
C
G
- Replies
- 103
- Views
- 5K
D
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
D
- Replies
- 67
- Views
- 2K
D
J
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 761
J
N
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 851
N