M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
gwhite wrote:
> 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.
Carl is right, this is true.
Our current gasoline price spike is nothing unusual. People seem to forget how
the oil companies do this every year -- lots of press releases every spring,
telling us how and why prices will be going up. They're just boosting prices
for the summer driving season, especially Memorial Day through July 4. They've
been starting this effort a little earlier every year for the last several
years. You can corroborate this by reading through old newspapers. The same
pattern emerges every year, with the same kinds of stories from the same
"sources" (PR think-tanks). It's all just part of an ongoing haggle with the
public.
>> 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.
It seems you don't believe this "claim."
> There are
> many new coal energy plants planned for construction. I just read it
> in the paper a few days ago.
Yup, unfortunately. In case you haven't noticed, energy companies are big
backers of our current administration -- which in many cases, has returned the
favor by calling the dogs off.
>> 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.
My point was that the cleanup would be more expensive than the "treasure" is
worth. So digging it up is pointless. And it might even cost more than the
land is worth. So it will sit like that for eternity, unless the taxpayers pick
up the tab. This is the problem with coal. It's only cost efficient when the
environmental damage caused by the mining is ignored -- which is in fact what
happens.
>> 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.
That *is* the sticky point, and it's a reality. The beneficiaries are not
bearing the full cost.
Matt O.
> 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.
Carl is right, this is true.
Our current gasoline price spike is nothing unusual. People seem to forget how
the oil companies do this every year -- lots of press releases every spring,
telling us how and why prices will be going up. They're just boosting prices
for the summer driving season, especially Memorial Day through July 4. They've
been starting this effort a little earlier every year for the last several
years. You can corroborate this by reading through old newspapers. The same
pattern emerges every year, with the same kinds of stories from the same
"sources" (PR think-tanks). It's all just part of an ongoing haggle with the
public.
>> 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.
It seems you don't believe this "claim."
> There are
> many new coal energy plants planned for construction. I just read it
> in the paper a few days ago.
Yup, unfortunately. In case you haven't noticed, energy companies are big
backers of our current administration -- which in many cases, has returned the
favor by calling the dogs off.
>> 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.
My point was that the cleanup would be more expensive than the "treasure" is
worth. So digging it up is pointless. And it might even cost more than the
land is worth. So it will sit like that for eternity, unless the taxpayers pick
up the tab. This is the problem with coal. It's only cost efficient when the
environmental damage caused by the mining is ignored -- which is in fact what
happens.
>> 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.
That *is* the sticky point, and it's a reality. The beneficiaries are not
bearing the full cost.
Matt O.