NOW can we have funds for renewable energy?

[RandomGuy]

I have long been an advocate for the cessation of subsidies for the oil and gas industries, and some good-old fashioned research programs and market-distorting subsidies for renewables to jump-start companies in that sector.

My reasoning for making this argument was based on the following:

Peak Oil will make oil, and energy overall, more expensive at a rate faster than many seem to realize. This means it will never be cheaper to start switching over than right now, and those that do will have some solid comparative advantages over those who don't.

Renewable energy doesn't have to be imported, helping our trade deficit.

Renewables don't face the risks of ecological damage that oil/gas/coal extraction pose. Conspiracy theorists pooh-pooh global warming, but oil spills and toxic metal runoff from mine trailings are pretty tangible certain results, as we have recently been shown rather spectacularly.

I would propose a solid carbon tax of some sort, with the funds being dumped into research on solid renewables, and tax-breaks for companies building/using efficiency and renewable energy sources.

Cap and trade of carbon emissions seems to me to be a fair solution to this problem.

[DarrinS]

I would propose a solid carbon tax of some sort, with the funds being dumped into research on solid renewables, and tax-breaks for companies building/using efficiency and renewable energy sources.

Cap and trade of carbon emissions seems to me to be a fair solution to this problem.




Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

[balli]

Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

So what? Fuck your money- that's the cost of doing business. If we have to pay to ween ourselves off of the shit that's destroyed an entire patch of ocean, so what? You, me, nobody is entitled to a continual free lunch, Darrin.

[EmptyMan]

You are not going to save the world and solve our energy problem by taxing everyone. Tax tax tax crush crush wank wank...why does that always have to be the answer? I know the progressives feel it a necessity to beat the future into submission and speed up the process but please resist the urge.

Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy. The government will not pull it out of the government's ass. It will be a private entrepreneur. It's coming, it is inevitable. No need to have a tax wank off. There is already plenty of incentive, both fiscally and morally, to achieve a solution.


Taxing energy. God Damn. http://avatar.identi.ca/1765-48-20090311100849.jpeg

[boutons_deux]

Exactly, the only way to get alternative/renewable/sustainable fuels and energy is to price coal, nuclear, oil energy fully so "the market", consumers and businesses, can see what the true total/life-cycle/environmental costs are.

Assholes like Darrin only think narrowly about their own pocketbook, and don't have any vision beyond that.

Same with agricultural commodities.

[balli]

Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy.
WTF ever. I don't know about you, but I think it's beyond clear that we're running out of time for eventualities. I for one, have no faith in or patience with a private sector that will kill the earth before it delivers progress.

And I see no reason why we should be avoiding tax incentives designed to curb the use of oil. I don't care whether new tech is developed by the public or private; it's in the public's interest that we use less oil- it's therefore exactly the role of government to yes, speed up that process, by any means.

But you know me, I'd just assume build a gulag in America and nuke everyone else, but in the world of pragmaticism, taxation is (should-be) viewed as the only real solution.

[DarrinS]

I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).

[balli]

I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).
I can't even talk to you. I've said it before, I'll say it again- you're just a fucking retard. through and through.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).

In the short term it might be worth it.

[RandomGuy]

You are not going to save the world and solve our energy problem by taxing everyone. Tax tax tax crush crush wank wank...why does that always have to be the answer? I know the progressives feel it a necessity to beat the future into submission and speed up the process but please resist the urge.

Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy. The government will not pull it out of the government's ass. It will be a private entrepreneur. It's coming, it is inevitable. No need to have a tax wank off. There is already plenty of incentive, both fiscally and morally, to achieve a solution.


Taxing energy. God Damn. http://avatar.identi.ca/1765-48-20090311100849.jpeg

Hmm.

You kind of missed the point entirely, so I am not sure where to start.

1) Its not "taxing energy". That is a distortion. It is "taxing oil/gas/coal energy".

It is indeed inevitable. I noted that.

I also said that we should simply encourage the private sector to figure out what the solution should be, not the "government pulling it out of it's ass".

The thing about government funding R & D is that it can take a longer view and absorb a bit more risk when it comes to funding projects than private equity that must have fairly short time horizons for payoffs.

[RandomGuy]

Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

You are given the choice between two investments.
Given:
Cost of capital is inflation, 3%

Investment A attributes:
Initial payout is $100
To be increased, on a compounding basis, by 4% for ten years, 8% for years eleven through twenty and by 12% for years twenty-one through thirty.

Investment B attributes
Initial payout is $120
To be increased, on a compounding basis, by 4% for thirty years.

Both investments are offered to you for $1,000.

Which is the better investment?

[boutons_deux]

"In the short term it might be worth it."

GGA, there's no short term. If America would grow up and face the music like an adult, it would realize that the era of cheap, sustainable energy is actually over.

There may be some cheap, sustainable energy developed in the future, but with conservatives/Repugs and most Democrats captured by and pandering to the carbon fuel industries, America will never get there by choice, only by force.

Imagine committing $2T - $3T to renewable, sustainable energy rather than wasting that money by dishonestly invading and destroying Iraq for oil.

[MannyIsGod]

You are not going to save the world and solve our energy problem by taxing everyone. Tax tax tax crush crush wank wank...why does that always have to be the answer? I know the progressives feel it a necessity to beat the future into submission and speed up the process but please resist the urge.

Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy. The government will not pull it out of the government's ass. It will be a private entrepreneur. It's coming, it is inevitable. No need to have a tax wank off. There is already plenty of incentive, both fiscally and morally, to achieve a solution.


Taxing energy. God Damn. http://avatar.identi.ca/1765-48-20090311100849.jpeg

Always the solution? Yeah fucking right. We don't ever do shit like this.

In any event, considering all the tax breaks and loop holes oil companies get, we're not feeling the true cost of oil as it is. How do you feel about that?

[RandomGuy]

Always the solution? Yeah fucking right. We don't ever do shit like this.

In any event, considering all the tax breaks and loop holes oil companies get, we're not feeling the true cost of oil as it is. How do you feel about that?

Yup. There is a very good argument to be made that the true cost of oil usage is MUCh higher than what we pay. In essence we are stealing from our future selves, and our children.

BP has essentially stolen a lot of livlihoods in the Gulf area, and its actions will likely steal more from others as the full extent of the damage becomes known. If they actually do pay out all that they have stolen we will get closer to paying the real costs of oil.

[boutons_deux]

There's no need to tax, just pass through the true cost of nuclear, coal, oil and let the almighty perfect market decide.

Install scrubbers on every fucking coal plant, paid for by loans from US govt (not subsidies or tax breaks). The efficiency of the plants goes down so price of electricity goes up, but we won't have methyl mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic spewing over the the US. Every single stream and river of about 400 tested had fish contaminated with methyl mercury from coal-fired plants.

Coal is also a huge source of coal ash, itself toxic shit that the coal industry has compromised not to classify coal ash as toxic shit.

[Wild Cobra]

You are given the choice between two investments.
Given:
Cost of capital is inflation, 3%

Investment A attributes:
Initial payout is $100
To be increased, on a compounding basis, by 4% for ten years, 8% for years eleven through twenty and by 12% for years twenty-one through thirty.

Investment B attributes
Initial payout is $120
To be increased, on a compounding basis, by 4% for thirty years.

Both investments are offered to you for $1,000.

Which is the better investment?
Wow Random.

Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you the future?

Trust me. Energy companies are in this for profit. If they believed spending more money and effort on other energy means would pay off, they would.

[angrydude]

I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).

and you know what the worst part about it will be? It'll hurt the poor most of all.

Think of all those poor single mothers who won't be able to feed their children. Oh wait, I guess they should just go on welfare.

now it all makes sense.

[angrydude]

Always the solution? Yeah fucking right. We don't ever do shit like this.

In any event, considering all the tax breaks and loop holes oil companies get, we're not feeling the true cost of oil as it is. How do you feel about that?

the hard thing about pricing an externality like this is it is all just people's opinion of what the "real cost" is. And those people's opinions are usually based on imperfect information. Especially if what you are basing your opinion on is the cost of "climate change."

Then you go assuming that the shaky opinion based on incomplete knowledge is a fact and propose real policies that affect real people in very harsh ways. Then you're surprised when people resist.

[boutons_deux]

cost of "climate change."

not cost of climate change but the hard, quanitifiable, billable costs of stop fucking up the air, water, and land. And then the costs of remediating what is fucked up. Nothing airy fairy or academic about those costs.

[Yonivore]

Of course, y'all do know petroleum is used for more -- much, much, much more -- than just fuel, right?

[jack sommerset]

Of course, y'all do know petroleum is used for more -- much, much, much more -- than just fuel, right?

Didn't that terrorist in NYC try to use petroleum to blow up times square, you know the weapons of mass destruction he is being charged with?

[jack sommerset]

Honestly, why in the hell is this dude being charged with weapons of mass destruction using fireworks and gas knowing what our country thinks weapons of mass destruction is?!?! The mayor is not a repug. The peeps vote dem most of the time. WTF is that about?

[RandomGuy]

There's no need to tax, just pass through the true cost of nuclear, coal, oil and let the almighty perfect market decide.

Install scrubbers on every fucking coal plant, paid for by loans from US govt (not subsidies or tax breaks). The efficiency of the plants goes down so price of electricity goes up, but we won't have methyl mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic spewing over the the US. Every single stream and river of about 400 tested had fish contaminated with methyl mercury from coal-fired plants.

Coal is also a huge source of coal ash, itself toxic shit that the coal industry has compromised not to classify coal ash as toxic shit.

+1

This would be the ultimate "free-market" solution. We subsidize these industries by allowing them to pollute. That should stop.

[RandomGuy]

Wow Random.

Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you the future?

Trust me. Energy companies are in this for profit. If they believed spending more money and effort on other energy means would pay off, they would.

You did not answer my simple question. The answer is readily determinable and fairly easy to find for anybody with a good head for math.

My point is that one can examine alternatives based on likely costs/benefits.

Our answers and assumptions may not always turn out to be perfect, but I think we can make better decisions if we can put issues into concrete terms.

Do you agree that attempting to classify costs/benefits of decisions will likely tell us useful information to make better decisions?

[RandomGuy]

Of course, y'all do know petroleum is used for more -- much, much, much more -- than just fuel, right?

Yes, I do.

The implication you are attempting to make is:

"Even if we used renewable energy, we would still need oil" is a valid statement to a point.

The vast majority of oil ends up being converted into fuel though. Eliminating that usage would drastically reduce oil consumption.

Such tech would still expose us to oil depletion, albeit to the poitn where oil would probably still be around for my great-grandkids, and vastly reduce the coming increases in price over the next 40 years.

Given that they are now working on using algae to make sythetic oil, I would not imagine, however, that bypassing even that would present an insurmountable technical challenge. Certainly such "oil farms" would not be subject to massive ocean-bed oil leaks.

[RandomGuy]

By the by, here is a very interesting link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif

It shows the amount of oil being sucked into "nonfuel" needs.

It also shows that more than half of our energy usage is "lost", i.e. wasted as heat or similar, and a good chunk of *that* is from electrical resistance.

Seems to me from reading this that high-temperature superconducters should be a pretty high priority from an energy standpoint.

Reducing the wastage from electrical generation by just half would effectively more than double our electrical output.

[RandomGuy]

Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you the future?

Would that I did.

I *do* have data, and the ability to make some reasonable conclusions based on that data as to what is likely/probable/certain/unlikely and what is not.

Why does that seem to mystify you?

[DarrinS]

By the by, here is a very interesting link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif

It shows the amount of oil being sucked into "nonfuel" needs.

It also shows that more than half of our energy usage is "lost", i.e. wasted as heat or similar, and a good chunk of *that* is from electrical resistance.

Seems to me from reading this that high-temperature superconducters should be a pretty high priority from an energy standpoint.

Reducing the wastage from electrical generation by just half would effectively more than double our electrical output.



Interesting graph. I agree that we need to improve the efficiency of electrical transmission.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting graph. I agree that we need to improve the efficiency of electrical transmission.


Start with the intro to the science here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity

And look into the news articles.

This is part of what I mean by pumping some solid money into R & D.

Essentially what that means is that you can bury transmission lines to be able to cool them to the appropriate temperature ("high temperature" being something of a misnomer) using liquid nitrogen and capture a lot of that lost energy. What you gain would pretty much have to be more than the energy you would have to use to keep the lines cooled for it to be a net gain, but as you saw with the chart, there seems to be a lot of waste involved.

Also remember that a good chunk of the "lost" is simply waste heat from burning things. Most electrical generation boils water to make steam to turn turbines, and that generates heat that is kind of hard to capture and reuse.

One interesting greentech is that there are a lot of high-temperature industrial processes, such as firing bricks, or smelting processes that generate enormous amounts of waste heat. If you can tap into that heat, say by absorbing heat from exhaust from a smelter, in order to make electricity, you can basically get something from nothing. There is a guy with a start-up company that is attempting to sell this idea to private industry.

[RandomGuy]

There are a number of "game-changing" ideas floating around out there.

Perhaps I should modify the OP to reflect some of that.

[boutons_deux]

"generate enormous amounts of waste heat"

aka, co-generation. A very old idea.

Even low-grade heat from coal-fired and nuclear power stations could be used to warm greenhouses in temperate/northern latitudes.

Paris has a huge garbage burning plant that provides piped hot water to 1000s of buildings, rather than piling up garbage in landfills.

Efficiency is great, but 70% of oil consumed in USA goes to transport, so if no substitute is found for gasoline and diesel, the efficiencies elsewhere are welcome but marginal.

[RandomGuy]

"generate enormous amounts of waste heat"

aka, co-generation. A very old idea.

Even low-grade heat from coal-fired and nuclear power stations could be used to warm greenhouses in temperate/northern latitudes.

Paris has a huge garbage burning plant that provides piped hot water to 1000s of buildings, rather than piling up garbage in landfills.

Efficiency is great, but 70% of oil consumed in USA goes to transport, so if no substitute is found for gasoline and diesel, the efficiencies elsewhere are welcome but marginal.

Actually according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif

Transportation consumes more like 82% of oil.

Much of that is highly inefficiently used, giving a lot of room for improvement.

Mass transit, i.e. trains, are vastly more energetically efficient for moving people around. We need to stop building roads and freeways, and start allocating transportation funds to transit projects. If oil production falls off as most experts are predicting, that means a lot of unused roads when gasoline is $15/gal.

Much of that will also shift to electrical demand for electric cars, in all liklihood. This might continue demand for those roads, but likely at much lower volumes for a number of factors.

The question will then go back to: Where do we get our electricity?

As noted above, and if you look at the energy graph linked in this post, there is a LOT of room for efficiency to take up the slack and let renewables pick up the rest of the uptick, will go a long way towards making us far more energy independent.

[MannyIsGod]

the hard thing about pricing an externality like this is it is all just people's opinion of what the "real cost" is. And those people's opinions are usually based on imperfect information. Especially if what you are basing your opinion on is the cost of "climate change."


Ha, forget climate change. How about the cost of maintaining a military presence in the Persian Gulf?




Then you go assuming that the shaky opinion based on incomplete knowledge is a fact and propose real policies that affect real people in very harsh ways. Then you're surprised when people resist.

The subsidies and tax breaks oil companies get are not incomplete knowledge. The amount of money we spend militarily in the Persian gulf each year isn't incomplete knowledge.

People resist because people never want to pay more. It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't because legitimacy doesn't matter when it comes to the American's pocketbook.

[RandomGuy]

the hard thing about pricing an externality like this is it is all just people's opinion of what the "real cost" is. And those people's opinions are usually based on imperfect information. Especially if what you are basing your opinion on is the cost of "climate change."

Then you go assuming that the shaky opinion based on incomplete knowledge is a fact and propose real policies that affect real people in very harsh ways. Then you're surprised when people resist.

Estimates are made all the time on incomplete information. Modern businesses would be paralyzed if they waited until they knew everything perfectly to make a decision.

We are set to double the number of deepwater drilling rigs in the next ten years or so, according to the construction data I have seen.

At some point, some enterprising economist will put a dollar figure to the cost of the DeepWater Horizon spill. That isn't some vague "out there" estimation, but will be a pretty measurable externality to the cost of oil.

How many of *those* spills would you find acceptable? How many jobs do we sacrifice for the sake of continuing to use oil at the rate we have in the past?

[RandomGuy]

People resist because people never want to pay more. It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't because legitimacy doesn't matter when it comes to the American's pocketbook.

That is the suck part about the argument I am making.

I am asking people to pay more in the short term to avoid big long term costs.

We seem to be conditioned to be short-sighted these days.

[TeyshaBlue]

Actually according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif

Transportation consumes more like 82% of oil.

Much of that is highly inefficiently used, giving a lot of room for improvement.

Mass transit, i.e. trains, are vastly more energetically efficient for moving people around. We need to stop building roads and freeways, and start allocating transportation funds to transit projects. If oil production falls off as most experts are predicting, that means a lot of unused roads when gasoline is $15/gal.

Much of that will also shift to electrical demand for electric cars, in all liklihood. This might continue demand for those roads, but likely at much lower volumes for a number of factors.

The question will then go back to: Where do we get our electricity?

As noted above, and if you look at the energy graph linked in this post, there is a LOT of room for efficiency to take up the slack and let renewables pick up the rest of the uptick, will go a long way towards making us far more energy independent.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/monorailcat3.gif

[Wild Cobra]

Actually according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif

Transportation consumes more like 82% of oil.

Much of that is highly inefficiently used, giving a lot of room for improvement.

Mass transit, i.e. trains, are vastly more energetically efficient for moving people around. We need to stop building roads and freeways, and start allocating transportation funds to transit projects. If oil production falls off as most experts are predicting, that means a lot of unused roads when gasoline is $15/gal.

Much of that will also shift to electrical demand for electric cars, in all liklihood. This might continue demand for those roads, but likely at much lower volumes for a number of factors.

The question will then go back to: Where do we get our electricity?

As noted above, and if you look at the energy graph linked in this post, there is a LOT of room for efficiency to take up the slack and let renewables pick up the rest of the uptick, will go a long way towards making us far more energy independent.
Yes, it's more efficient when it is full.

How often do you see the public transportation trains, buses, etc. full? I wouldn't be able to find an accurate number without more work than i'm willing to put in, but I do know in the long run it is less efficient, else here in the Portland area, rides wouldn't be so highly subsidized.

I take the MAX at times to downtown Portland to avoid the parking hassle and traffic. I can normally count the number of people on one hand in the same card except if there is an event at the Rose garden like a Blazer game, or during morning or afternoon rush hour.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, it's more efficient when it is full.

How often do you see the public transportation trains, buses, etc. full? I wouldn't be able to find an accurate number without more work than i'm willing to put in, but I do know in the long run it is less efficient, else here in the Portland area, rides wouldn't be so highly subsidized.

I take the MAX at times to downtown Portland to avoid the parking hassle and traffic. I can normally count the number of people on one hand in the same card except if there is an event at the Rose garden like a Blazer game, or during morning or afternoon rush hour.

http://www.google.com/search?q=mass+transit+efficiency
Interesting results for that google search.

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/does_mt_saveE.html

http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

Both articles make some good points, and indicate that mass transit isn't as efficient as people think.

I think I have to re-think my assumption that mass-transit is generally more energy-efficient than individual vehicles.

The big winner in the second article seems to be electric scooters.

Not that I want to be tooling around in an electric scooter during Texas' 100+ degree summers. Fuck that.

It seems you are fairly right about that.

[Drachen]

http://www.google.com/search?q=mass+transit+efficiency
Interesting results for that google search.

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/does_mt_saveE.html

http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

Both articles make some good points, and indicate that mass transit isn't as efficient as people think.

I think I have to re-think my assumption that mass-transit is generally more energy-efficient than individual vehicles.

The big winner in the second article seems to be electric scooters.

Not that I want to be tooling around in an electric scooter during Texas' 100+ degree summers. Fuck that.

It seems you are fairly right about that.

Well, it still seems that your initial question is correct. "Now can we have some money for renewables?" If oil is priced without the subsidies, gas prices go up. If this happens, ridership on mass transit increases which moves mass transit's efficiency from even, to substantially better. This may also spur some of the missing innovation in transit's efficiencies over the last 30-40 years (sloped bus windshields come to mind). Additionally, perhaps more people will buy motorcycles and scooters. I have a honda rebel which gets me 65-70 MPG with me on it, or 75-80 MPG with my wife riding it (she weighs half of what I weigh), and this thing can move me at highway speeds (I have hit 83-84 MPH).

[RandomGuy]

Well, it still seems that your initial question is correct. "Now can we have some money for renewables?" If oil is priced without the subsidies, gas prices go up. If this happens, ridership on mass transit increases which moves mass transit's efficiency from even, to substantially better. This may also spur some of the missing innovation in transit's efficiencies over the last 30-40 years (sloped bus windshields come to mind). Additionally, perhaps more people will buy motorcycles and scooters. I have a honda rebel which gets me 65-70 MPG with me on it, or 75-80 MPG with my wife riding it (she weighs half of what I weigh), and this thing can move me at highway speeds (I have hit 83-84 MPH).

There is a good chunk of money being funneled into renewable energy research and companies now. I think there needs to be MUCH more.

What really needs to happen is that we start living closer to where we work.

Also, I should point out that tax dollars for roads are essentially subsidies for cars. The real free market solution for that is toll roads.

I am all for toll roads, actually. Let people/businesses pay the real costs.

[Drachen]

There is a good chunk of money being funneled into renewable energy research and companies now. I think there needs to be MUCH more.

What really needs to happen is that we start living closer to where we work.

Also, I should point out that tax dollars for roads are essentially subsidies for cars. The real free market solution for that is toll roads.

I am all for toll roads, actually. Let people/businesses pay the real costs.

Interesting way of looking at it, are all roads tolled roads, or just highways? Does every neighborhood have to have an HOA in order to have roads for their neighborhood. How does that system work? I am in no way attacking your idea, just asking for clarity. Anyway, the more money that is funneled to renewable energy, the easier the transition to electric cars will be.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting way of looking at it, are all roads tolled roads, or just highways? Does every neighborhood have to have an HOA in order to have roads for their neighborhood. How does that system work? I am in no way attacking your idea, just asking for clarity. Anyway, the more money that is funneled to renewable energy, the easier the transition to electric cars will be.

Not really a formed idea of any sort on my part. I am just for them in general.

(sits back and thinks for a bit)

It would probably be impractical to toll people on city streets, so it would have to simply be highway.

It is conceivable, if not politically feasible, to have GPS locators or odometer sensors installed in all cars for tax purposes that track miles driven.

Drive more miles = pay more road usage charges.

The GPS would then track which company/city/etc owned the roads, and when you paid the charges, it would allocate accordingly.

[boutons_deux]

Toll roads on major arteries is OK with the radio-tags in the toll booths, but the best way to tax road usage is tax on fuel, which discourages road usage, encourages fuel efficiency, and encourages switching to electric or other energy sources.

Yoni, WC, JackS, MiamiH could make a fortune blowing hot air into tanks for compressed air cars.

[Drachen]

Toll roads on major arteries is OK with the radio-tags in the toll booths, but the best way to tax road usage is tax on fuel, which discourages road usage, encourages fuel efficiency, and encourages switching to electric or other energy sources.



I agree here, but how do you adjust to ever increasing amounts of electric cars?

[jack sommerset]

Toll roads on major arteries is OK with the radio-tags in the toll booths, but the best way to tax road usage is tax on fuel, which discourages road usage, encourages fuel efficiency, and encourages switching to electric or other energy sources.

Yoni, WC, JackS, MiamiH could make a fortune blowing hot air into tanks for compressed air cars.

LOL@ more taxing.

I play golf. I play so much golf that I bought a golf cart to save in golf cart fees. A little over a year after I bought one like so many others did, almost every golf course changed golf cart fees to golf path fees. Same price as using their golf cart. It's all about money.

The dems leading the charge donot care about climate control, global warming, whatever enviromental bullshit they are selling so that they can make a buck . See Al Gore. It's all about making them money. Keep on spewing nonsense. It's funny.

[RandomGuy]

LOL@ more taxing.

I play golf. I play so much golf that I bought a golf cart to save in golf cart fees. A little over a year after I bought one like so many others did, almost every golf course changed golf cart fees to golf path fees. Same price as using their golf cart. It's all about money.

The dems leading the charge donot care about climate control, global warming, whatever enviromental bullshit they are selling so that they can make a buck . See Al Gore. It's all about making them money. Keep on spewing nonsense. It's funny.

These trends will happen regardless of whether or not "global warming" exists, and will be caused by simple economics and physics.

Either you want to get out ahead of the trend, and make your country more competitive globally... or you don't. Which is it?

[jack sommerset]

These trends will happen regardless of whether or not "global warming" exists, and will be caused by simple economics and physics.

FYI Global warming does not exist. My golf cart story is caused by greed.



Either you want to get out ahead of the trend, and make your country more competitive globally... or you don't. Which is it?

I do! Drill baby drill!

Let me know when the MIT geeks make a car as efficient and cost savings as oil does.

[ChumpDumper]

I do! Drill baby drill!How does that make us more competitive?

[clambake]

only a pussy would use a golf cart. lol

[jack sommerset]

How does that make us more competitive?

You really don't know?

[jack sommerset]

only a pussy would use a golf cart. lol

Lots of pussies out there then.

[RandomGuy]

You really don't know?

I know that domestic drilling, even if completely unrestricted, would make little difference to US competitiveness in a global market.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you think that "drill, baby, drill" will make us more competitive. I really, truly don't know why you think it will.

[RandomGuy]

FYI Global warming does not exist.

Your belief in conspiracy theories is irrelevant to peak oil and its ultimate economic effects.

[jack sommerset]

I know that domestic drilling, even if completely unrestricted, would make little difference to US competitiveness in a global market.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you think that "drill, baby, drill" will make us more competitive. I really, truly don't know why you think it will.

How do you know this?

USA buys more oil then anyone in the world. We would knock out the competition for the number one buyer, us. Drilling here would create more jobs. Lower the cost of gas. Create more money for our government which would fund more projects on energy. That's being competitve and smart.

[jack sommerset]

Your belief in conspiracy theories is irrelevant to peak oil and its ultimate economic effects.

LOL.........Global warming is a conspiracy theory. FYI means For Your Information.......I wasn't using it to make my point to drill baby drill thus the FYI reference.

[clambake]

the usa doesn't set the price of oil, dumbass.

[RandomGuy]

How do you know this?

USA buys more oil then anyone in the world. We would knock out the competition for the number one buyer, us. Drilling here would create more jobs. Lower the cost of gas. Create more money for our government which would fund more projects on energy. That's being competitve and smart.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
We produce roughly 5 million barrels per day. We import 11 million per day.
Using your logic, and ignoring for a second the way the market actually works, we would have to more than triple our production. (from 5 to 16)

Here is our Hubbert curve, the aggregate of all of the individual state Hubbert curves.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist_chart/MCRFPUS2a.jpg

The reserves just aren't there to do that, even if we opened up all the offshore deposits. What you propose to do is physically impossible. We have been using it faster than we have been discovering it, and your schtick would have us produce more oil now than we have EVER produced even at our peak when we could easily find onshore, cheap oil.

Assuming it was, and that we got it online, it would make little no impact at the pump, because of the way oil is traded as a commodity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
The US produces only about 7% of the total global supply. Assuming the reserves are physically there, we would then get to 19% of the global total.

[RandomGuy]

the usa doesn't set the price of oil, dumbass.

Precisely.

A US producer could either sell it domestically, or export it to somewhere else for a profit.

If someone bids the global price and that is higher than what they can get selling it to a domestic refiner, they will export it.

Ultimately, it is similar to dumping it all into a giant pool. All the producers dump it into a pool, and buyers simply bid on what is in there to get what they need.

Given that the two billion people in China and India are increasing their usage of oil at a rate faster than the US, their oil demands will get bigger much faster than ours. Simple math will bear this out.

This demand will be hitting just as oil starts getting harder to get economically, restricting supply.

What happens at this piont, and we are there now is a topic of much debate.

[jack sommerset]

the usa doesn't set the price of oil, dumbass.

We produce our own shit, everyones prices will go down. Common sense, dumbass.

[jack sommerset]

:lobt2:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
We produce roughly 5 million barrels per day. We import 11 million per day.
Using your logic, and ignoring for a second the way the market actually works, we would have to more than triple our production. (from 5 to 16)

Here is our Hubbert curve, the aggregate of all of the individual state Hubbert curves.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist_chart/MCRFPUS2a.jpg

The reserves just aren't there to do that, even if we opened up all the offshore deposits. What you propose to do is physically impossible. We have been using it faster than we have been discovering it, and your schtick would have us produce more oil now than we have EVER produced even at our peak when we could easily find onshore, cheap oil.

Assuming it was, and that we got it online, it would make little no impact at the pump, because of the way oil is traded as a commodity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
The US produces only about 7% of the total global supply. Assuming the reserves are physically there, we would then get to 19% of the global total.

Nice graph, brah. You don't know how much oil the USA has, do you?

[Wild Cobra]

Also, I should point out that tax dollars for roads are essentially subsidies for cars. The real free market solution for that is toll roads.

WTF are you talking about?

That's what state and federal taxes on fuel are for.

Subsidized my ass. We already pay for them.

[jack sommerset]

WTF are you talking about?

That's what state and federal taxes on fuel are for.

Subsidized my ass. We already pay for them.

Hook, line and sinker, random has been caught by the left. I hate people who want more and higher taxes. FUCK YOU. My wife and I pay about half our salary to taxes and they want more. FUCK YOU.

The same buttholes have no problem with Mr Fat Cat Barry Obongo going out on date night for a million dollars, playing golf everyday, having concerts at the white house every weekend, bribing congress with our money no less to push through his agenda, throwing in over 8,000 earmarks (said NEVER again with earmarks) in a bill that was supposed to jump start our economy not save some minnows.....

They have no problem with any of this. Lets talk about how much more we can tax and not talk about how irresponsible our elective officials have been for decades with our money!!!!!!

I say FUCK YOU respectfully about asking for more taxes on anything. Please don't tell me the USA can't be competitve in the oil business when our government won't even give us a chance.

[Parker2112]

Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

Bullshit. It will drive up the price of inefficient dirty industry. For those businesses who can find a way to do more while polluting less, not only will they be profitable from the industrial activity, but they will have carbon credits to sell to dirty-ass air polluting industrial dinosaurs who have let shit slide for too long. You did know that, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit. It will drive up the price of inefficient dirty industry. For those businesses who can find a way to do more while polluting less, not only will they be profitable from the industrial activity, but they will have carbon credits to sell to dirty-ass air polluting industrial dinosaurs who have let shit slide for too long. You did know that, right?
LOL...

You fool. A carbon tax will tax electricity, plastics, etc.

Just where do you think the majority of our electricity comes from?

Only 28% of our (2004) energy usage is for transportation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/USenergy2004.jpg

Almost 90% of it is carbon based:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif

2006 numbers have our electrical consumption at 29.26 petawatt hours. Of this, oil, gas, and coal account for 84.79% of our power producing fuel. This will be very heavily taxed under Cap~n~Tax.

Energy in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States)

[Parker2112]

I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).

That wouldnt be shit if gov and US auto had let MPGs improve as fast as they made improvements to performance. What a dick.

[Parker2112]

LOL...

You fool. A carbon tax will tax electricity, plastics, etc.

Just where do you think the majority of our electricity comes from?

Only 28% of our (2004) energy usage is for transportation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/USenergy2004.jpg

Almost 90% of it is carbon based:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif

2006 numbers have our electrical consumption at 29.26 petawatt hours. Of this, oil, gas, and coal account for 84.79% of our power producing fuel. This will be very heavily taxed under Cap~n~Tax.

Energy in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States)

for all the charts, you dont have a clue about cap n trade. dont buy the line from those who have the most to lose.

[Wild Cobra]

for all the charts, you dont have a clue about cap n trade. dont buy the line from those who have the most to lose.
If it doesn't make energy more expensive to quell it's usage, what good is it?

[Parker2112]

LOL...

You fool. A carbon tax will tax electricity, plastics, etc.

Just where do you think the majority of our electricity comes from?

Only 28% of our (2004) energy usage is for transportation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/USenergy2004.jpg

Almost 90% of it is carbon based:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif

2006 numbers have our electrical consumption at 29.26 petawatt hours. Of this, oil, gas, and coal account for 84.79% of our power producing fuel. This will be very heavily taxed under Cap~n~Tax.

Energy in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States)

Dude you dont know shit about Cap and Trade. Taxes are staged to give industry a chance to clean up their practices. eventually dirty industrial practices become to expensive and "clean coal" becomes economically viable.

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit. It will drive up the price of inefficient dirty industry. For those businesses who can find a way to do more while polluting less, not only will they be profitable from the industrial activity, but they will have carbon credits to sell to dirty-ass air polluting industrial dinosaurs who have let shit slide for too long. You did know that, right?
Then show us the plan. I think you'll be surprised and find it taxes far more than you suspect.

[Parker2112]

Then show us the plan. I think you'll be surprised and find it taxes far more than you suspect.

Why would the govt spend to get us out of an economic depression, then tax to put us back into one? It doesnt happen like that.

The info you are getting is coming from wealthy powerful sources who are going to be forced to update operations with new cleaner equipment, industries who are still operating with factories and technologies from the 50's and 60's. Take a look at the oil spill...the response is the same one they rolled out in the eighties.

Big business doesnt want anything that will pull down their bottom line, and so they try and use scare tactics to rally support.

Cap and trade works like this:
1) everyone has an equal right to pollute up to a certain emissions cap.
2) dirty companies must clean up and upgrade equip and fixtures sufficient to come in under the cap, or pay the tax.
2.5) the cap slowly gets lowered, prompting companies to improve operations slowly over time
3) companies who have newer facilities have an advantage, because they pollute less, and if they come in under the cap, they have extra credits to sell on the carbon market (many already exist in the US). They can sell extra credits to companies who are over, and companies who are over can relenquish these credits back to the govt for a "pass" on their pollution overages.
4) Thus, as the cap is slowly lowered (by reducing credits distributed), companies using older equip will eventually find it necessary to upgrade operations, because less credits on the market means higher price to buy compliance. When the price of credits is greater than the price to bring your facility into the 21st century, you will upgrade or operate at a loss.
5) All the while, this simultaneously drives the new tech market, because companies will be actively be seeking a good deal on new cleaner tech.

Ask yourself this: who loses here? I'll tell you: big biz who wants to keep the status quo, and they give you all the scary numbers.

Again ask: would the gov tax us under the table at such a vulnerable time?

Or is it more likely that big biz has a huge stake in this battle, multi-million dollar retrofits, and potentially losing some/most/or all of their market share to those who embrace new technologies?

You know the old story...big biz has been buying and burying patents to "100 mpg carbs" for years to cover up the advances so they maintain their share of the market. Well, this shows 1. how wealthy/powerful these interests are, and 2. how rtesistant they are to change, and 3. how they do not have the interests of the americcan people in mind.

[Winehole23]

http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm


Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburettor using Pogue’s theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canada’s National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: “You can get fantastic mileage if you’re prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1125201.ece

[Winehole23]

If we could get all the energy out of a gallon of gasoline and apply it to overcoming the rolling resistance of a car, we could get about 400 miles per gallon. But the internal engine resistance multiplies the force required by roughly five, meaning the best we could hope for is about 80 miles a gallon. The engineering constraints of getting useful work out of expanding hot gases cuts that figure by 50 per cent to about 40 miles per gallon. So better fuels and fuel injection could improve mileage, but not stupendously...

...Obviously a huge amount of the energy in a gallon of gasoline goes to waste. Some of that is unavoidable by the laws of physics, much of it is unavoidable as a matter of engineering reality. There may be designs out there that vastly exceed what we currently achieve. Maybe you could even fit them under the hood of an existing car. But you won't get them by slapping a cheap retrofit on an existing piston engine.http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/200mpgcar.htm

[RandomGuy]

We produce our own shit, everyones prices will go down. Common sense, dumbass.

Indeed, but not by much. Remember, the oil market is global.

Where would you get the massive investment of money for this ramp up?

How long would this increased production last?

[RandomGuy]

:lobt2:

Nice graph, brah. You don't know how much oil the USA has, do you?

Not off the top of my head, but it is rather easily found data.

Your point?

[RandomGuy]

WTF are you talking about?

That's what state and federal taxes on fuel are for.

Subsidized my ass. We already pay for them.

If you build roads and highways for those who use cars you are favoring cars over other forms of transport such as rail or bicycles or even walking.

That is the definition of a subsidy. It essentially favors the automotive industry over the rail industry, does it not?

[DarrinS]

If you build roads and highways for those who use cars you are favoring cars over other forms of transport such as rail or bicycles or even walking.

That is the definition of a subsidy. It essentially favors the automotive industry over the rail industry, does it not?


Americans don't prefer public transport, unless you make it extremely painful for them to drive cars.

[jack sommerset]

Not off the top of my head, but it is rather easily found data.

Your point?

I made my point. Nobody knows how much oild we have.

[jack sommerset]

Indeed, but not by much. Remember, the oil market is global.

Where would you get the massive investment of money for this ramp up?

How long would this increased production last?

Lets find out, drill baby drill!

[clambake]

I made my point. Nobody knows how much oild we have.

it doesn't matter how much oil we have. the US doesn't set the price of oil.

the simplest of concepts always manage to escape you. :lol

[jack sommerset]

it doesn't matter how much oil we have. the US doesn't set the price of oil.

the simplest of concepts always manage to escape you. :lol

We produce our own oil we can set the price for our own market. Why is that hard for you to understand? We flood the market with more oil, the competiton grows. Prices go down. Why is that hard for you to understand? We don't pay all those moneys to get the shit over here. Why is that hard for you to understand? We don't fund terrorist that try to kill us all over the world. Why is that hard for you to understand?

The simplest of concepts always manage to escape you. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Hook, line and sinker, random has been caught by the left. I hate people who want more and higher taxes. FUCK YOU. My wife and I pay about half our salary to taxes and they want more. FUCK YOU.

The same buttholes have no problem with Mr Fat Cat Barry Obongo going out on date night for a million dollars, playing golf everyday, having concerts at the white house every weekend, bribing congress with our money no less to push through his agenda, throwing in over 8,000 earmarks (said NEVER again with earmarks) in a bill that was supposed to jump start our economy not save some minnows.....

They have no problem with any of this. Lets talk about how much more we can tax and not talk about how irresponsible our elective officials have been for decades with our money!!!!!!

I say FUCK YOU respectfully about asking for more taxes on anything. Please don't tell me the USA can't be competitve in the oil business when our government won't even give us a chance.

You are now being given a choice of paying a little now, or a lot later. There really isn't another choice.

Which do you prefer?

[jack sommerset]

You are now being given a choice of paying a little now, or a lot later. There really isn't another choice.

Which do you prefer?

Doom and gloom with this one. You have no clue what will happen in the future. None.

Do you?

[RandomGuy]

I made my point. Nobody knows how much oild we have.

Actually we do know, and that is why I said I could easily find it.

Just because you are too lazy to attempt to find the answer, doesn't mean I am.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Approximately 60bn barrels.

Which, given current production, and assuming that 100% of the reserves are economically feasible to produce, yields 32 years of reserves.

It is certain that some percentage of these reserves is either not economical to produce (say for example $500/bbl+ to produce, making it extremely loss-intensive from a profit standpoint), nor really technically recoverable.

So in less than 32 years, we will come to the end. Long before then we will see the effects of this in higher prices, and some pretty substantial economic effects.

[RandomGuy]

Doom and gloom with this one. You have no clue what will happen in the future. None.

Do you?

Actually, I have a pretty good idea as to what the most likely outcome is.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620

You are probably too lazy to read it all though, and likely not to understand a good chunk of it.

The data exist, nonetheless.

[boutons_deux]

"we will see the effects of this in higher prices"

which will of course enrich the US oilcos so much that their current wealth will look like lunch money, and of course ship 100s of $Bs overseas.

Everybody take the short term/It's My Money view, and our current trajectory on medical/food/energy/water/land is fully sustainable indefinitely.

America is fucked, and there's nothing, especially not conservatives and Repugs, anybody will do about it.

[jack sommerset]

Actually, I have a pretty good idea as to what the most likely outcome is.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620

You are probably too lazy to read it all though, and likely not to understand a good chunk of it.

The data exist, nonetheless.

LMFAO......Nobody knows how much oil we can find. Nobody.

[RandomGuy]

We produce our own oil we can set the price for our own market.

The only way to truly do this is for the government to regulate oil companies and forbid them to sell oil to anybody from outside the US, even if they offer a higher price than what they could get from selling it in the US.

I thought you were against government restricting free markets.

Why are simple concepts like free markets beyond your understanding?

[RandomGuy]

LMFAO......Nobody knows how much oil we can find. Nobody.

To some degree the exact amount of oil is unknown.

We do know:

How much we have found and at what rate we are finding it.

We have been using/producing faster than we are finding it, and that trend is accelerating, despite high oil prices motivating companies/governments to find new oil.

It is physcially impossible to keep expanding production indefinitely. That is a mathmatical certainty.

It is universally agreed that we are using/producing it faster than it is being created.

We can take what we do know and make some pretty good estimates as to what will happen in the future, and I have outlined those estimates.

Oil, even with unrestricted development, will run out before my grandchildren learn how to drive, and long before that will become very expensive, relative to our ability to earn money to pay for it. Nominal prices might not spike terribly, as Gail pointed out, but given the economic stagnation likely to occur without a massive switchover to renewables, that oil will be relatively VERY expensive.

[clambake]

We produce our own oil we can set the price for our own market. Why is that hard for you to understand? We flood the market with more oil, the competiton grows. Prices go down.

:lol you could win the nobel for stupidity.

[jack sommerset]

The only way to truly do this is for the government to regulate oil companies and forbid them to sell oil to anybody from outside the US, even if they offer a higher price than what they could get from selling it in the US.

I thought you were against government restricting free markets.

Why are simple concepts like free markets beyond your understanding?

So you don't know how the free market works, you don't know how much oil we have, you predict doom and gloom(I thought that was a repug stunt) without any proof and you have no alternative to oil except tax more so people don't use up whatever amount you think is in the world. :toast

You're boring me smart guy. I'm off to watch the 2nd half. Doesn't look good for the red, white and blue...down 2-0.

[jack sommerset]

:lol
:lol you could win the nobel for stupidity.

:lol you could win the nobel for stupidity

[DarrinS]

Oil, even with unrestricted development, will run out before my grandchildren learn how to drive, and long before that will become very expensive, relative to our ability to earn money to pay for it. Nominal prices might not spike terribly, as Gail pointed out, but given the economic stagnation likely to occur without a massive switchover to renewables, that oil will be relatively VERY expensive.


Agreed with much of what you said, up until you stated this.

[clambake]

poor jackie doesn't know how big oil works. thats sad........for him.

[jack sommerset]

poor jackie doesn't know how big oil works. thats sad........for him.

poor clambake doesn't know how big oil works. thats sad........for him

[RandomGuy]

Agreed with much of what you said, up until you stated this.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. We will have SOME oil for a very long time.

It will be very very expensive though.

[Parker2112]

Agreed with much of what you said, up until you stated this.

Read "End of Oil" by Paul Roberts. If you believe we have centuries of oil left, just stop and think about consumption. Our consumption will suck the spiggot dry in this century. But our economy wont make it that long...once the production decreases to the point that oil becomes too expensive to use like water (which we do now), our economies will collapse completely.

This is the cliff that our govt is trying to avert as we speak. but too many powerful interests just want to stay on top no matter the fate of the machine.

[RandomGuy]

So you don't know how the free market works, you don't know how much oil we have, you predict doom and gloom(I thought that was a repug stunt) without any proof and you have no alternative to oil except tax more so people don't use up whatever amount you think is in the world. :toast

You're boring me smart guy. I'm off to watch the 2nd half. Doesn't look good for the red, white and blue...down 2-0.

?

It is the biggest sign of a loser in an argument that they declare victory and go home.

I do know how the free market works, you are the one who wants the government to forbid companies to sell oil to maximize profits.

I don't need to know exactly how much oil is in existence to know what is likely to happen.

Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

[clambake]

?

It is the biggest sign of a loser in an argument that they declare victory and go home.

I do know how the free market works, you are the one who wants the government to forbid companies to sell oil to maximize profits.

I don't need to know exactly how much oil is in existence to know what is likely to happen.

Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

he doesn't live on this planet.

[Parker2112]

?

It is the biggest sign of a loser in an argument that they declare victory and go home.

I do know how the free market works, you are the one who wants the government to forbid companies to sell oil to maximize profits.

I don't need to know exactly how much oil is in existence to know what is likely to happen.

Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

Read "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts.

[RandomGuy]

Here is a fun, free-market exercise.

Let's assume we spend vast amounts of money to quickly ramp up domestic production, and that indeed makes oil slighly cheaper globally, making the cost of gas fall for everybody, including China and India who both subsidize gasoline directly to some extent.

Given that their usage of oil is growing just about as fast as their economies, about 7-9%, our massive investment will simply fuel their growth. In effect, we will be subsidizing their governments.

[RandomGuy]

Read "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts.

I probably could have written that book, but the materials he based that summary on are all easily found online.

I share his optimism that we can find renewables to step up into the gap, as we have a LOT of good ideas and proven research in that area now.

It isn't a big leap of intuition to think that the trend of declining costs for newables will continue, and that will mitigate a lot of the most doom and gloom scenarios.

[RandomGuy]

?


Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

By the way jackie boy, until you answer this very simple question, you have pretty much demonstrated how little you truly understand the situation, and your ignorant opinion can be pretty much tossed in the toilet and flushed like any other unpleasant turd.

This is a simple question with a readily provable answer.

Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

[Parker2112]

I probably could have written that book, but the materials he based that summary on are all easily found online.

I share his optimism that we can find renewables to step up into the gap, as we have a LOT of good ideas and proven research in that area now.

It isn't a big leap of intuition to think that the trend of declining costs for newables will continue, and that will mitigate a lot of the most doom and gloom scenarios.

We are seeing doom and gloom. Wake up. Our recession/depression followed a huge spike in oil prices. Our Gulf is about to die. American troops fighting wars in two countries over our dependency. How much more doom and gloom do you want?

[Parker2112]

Its time to start turning this ship around, like 10 years ago.

[RandomGuy]

We are seeing doom and gloom. Wake up. Our recession/depression followed a huge spike in oil prices. Our Gulf is about to die. American troops fighting wars in two countries over our dependency. How much more doom and gloom do you want?

There is no oil in Afghanistan.

I am fairly certain at this point that the current asset bubble was pricked by the oil price spike.

[Parker2112]

There is no oil in Afghanistan.

I am fairly certain at this point that the current asset bubble was pricked by the oil price spike.

We were attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as a direct result of our foriegn policy in the middle east, which is entirely driven by our dependency.

Again, cant always see the big picture on the face of things. Thats why its the big picture.

[DarrinS]

We were attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as a direct result of our foriegn policy in the middle east, which is entirely driven by our dependency.

Again, cant always see the big picture on the face of things. Thats why its the big picture.


<shakes head>

[boutons_deux]

"There is no oil in Afghanistan."

There is lots of oil and goas in the eastern Caspian sea and eastern shore of Caspian, in Turkmenestan, Kazakstan. US oilcos have been agitating for a pipeline across AFGHANISTAN since the 1990s.

[Parker2112]

<shakes head>

We aren't reviled in the middle east for no reason...regardless of what your preacher or your favorite conservative talk show host tells you. Its not that simple. Maybe they hate us because we do shit like use our military might to take over a fucking country, who just happens to own one of the top three oil reserves in the world, and immediately install a friendly govt while killing thousands of their people?

Oh, but that isnt it at all...its their hate of our freedom, our bald eagle and our shopping malls that causes them to attack us...give me a fucking break...

Yeah I know, Saddam had it coming, but understand that if you run around stepping on people to continue supporting your oil habit, there are consequences.

[Parker2112]

"There is no oil in Afghanistan."

There is lots of oil and goas in the eastern Caspian sea and eastern shore of Caspian, in Turkmenestan, Kazakstan. US oilcos have been agitating for a pipeline across AFGHANISTAN since the 1990s.

Good call. I like your style.

[jack sommerset]

?

It is the biggest sign of a loser in an argument that they declare victory and go home.

lmfao. Desperate act for attention. Never delcared war or victory, did not go home and I am having a conversation that can be picked up anytime. You argue all you want big boy. Climb the tallest mountain and cryout "The sky is falling, the sky is falling, please will someone listen to me, the sky is falling." Read Chicken Little. You have alot in common.



I do know how the free market works, you are the one who wants the government to forbid companies to sell oil to maximize profits.

No, you don't and I never said I wanted the government to forbid companies to sell oil to maximize profits. Another sign you are desperate. You simply make up shit.



I don't need to know exactly how much oil is in existence to know what is likely to happen.

Yes you do boy genuis. No way you could have written "The End of Oil" or even a letter to hustler. You have to have some sort of expierence in these fields to do so.



Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

So important to you that you had to ask it twice. Little fags like you like asking question you know the answer too. You think it validates everything you said, it doesn't. You also said we would run out of oil before your grandchild could drive, didn't you. You admit you exagerated that one and one day you will admit you exagerate the doom and gloom you have presented to us today.

I have no clue when the oil will run out. Neither do you. The Earth will not last forever. Everything dies. I know that. I'm sure you will agree with me on that. There will be a alternative to oil one day. Be patient and quit acting like a douchebag know-it-all. You have no clue how much oil we have or any country has for that matter and you have no clue when it will run out. You have no clue what alternative we will have for oil. All you know is you want our government to tax us more and there is a good chance USA will not be able to produce oil at a 2 % increase every year FOREVER. On top of that you think the money the feds tax us for gas will all go to the development of other alternatives. Very stupid or naive.

Guess what? I'm taking my kid to Toy Story 3 , wonderboy. I'm sure you think I'm running away from your ignorant ass but live with the fact that you (spewstalk) are down pretty low on my list of things I like to do. I thought that was the same for everyone. I am having my doubts with you

Do all conversation last forever?

[Parker2112]

You have no clue how much oil we have or any country has for that matter and you have no clue when it will run out. You have no clue what alternative we will have for oil.

Actually this information is out there to be had. Sure, its not definite, but by the middle of this century our supply will be nowhere near the level of our consumption. Thats not the time you want to be coming up with solutions. As a matter of fact by that time, we wont have an economy sufficient to make drastic technological advancements.

Even depressed economies wont help to slow us, unless they hit all of Asia and the west simultaneously.

[jack sommerset]

Actually this information is out there to be had. Sure, its not definite, but by the middle of this century our supply will be nowhere near the level of our consumption. Thats not the time you want to be coming up with solutions. As a matter of fact by that time, we wont have an economy sufficient to make drastic technological advancements.

Even depressed economies wont help to slow us, unless they hit all of Asia and the west simultaneously.

LOL@ to be had. Not currently. I have to jump off this merry-go-round. It truly is boring me and I have better things to do. Nobody knows and I am tired of repeating it. Enjoys the day guys and dolls.

[Parker2112]

LOL@ to be had. Not currently. I have to jump off this merry-go-round. It truly is boring me and I have better things to do. Nobody knows and I am tired of repeating it. Enjoys the day guys and dolls.

You dont really fit into this sort of discussion. Next time you might make better use of your expertise by joining a discussion in a celeb gossip chat room

[RandomGuy]

Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?


All you know... is ... there is a good chance USA will not be able to produce oil at a 2 % increase every year FOREVER.

That is not the question I asked.

There is a very definite yes or no answer to the question, there is no "good chance" one way or the other.

Yes or no.

Either you can quit bullshitting me with how smart you are and how good your argument is, or you can man up and answer the question.

Every time you fail to answer a simple yes or no question, you make it more and more clear that you have not the first clue about this issue.

Now for the second time,


Yes or no, can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

[jack sommerset]

You dont really fit into this sort of discussion. Next time you might make better use of your expertise by joining a discussion in a celeb gossip chat room

No, you don't.

[jack sommerset]

Yes or no, genius, Can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?



That is not the question I asked.

There is a very definite yes or no answer to the question, there is no "good chance" one way or the other.

Yes or no.

Either you can quit bullshitting me with how smart you are and how good your argument is, or you can man up and answer the question.

Every time you fail to answer a simple yes or no question, you make it more and more clear that you have not the first clue about this issue.

Now for the second time,


Yes or no, can we increase oil production every year by 2% forever?

Actually it's the 3rd time, genius. I answered it. Re-read. It's there. I promise!

[RandomGuy]

Actually it's the 3rd time, genius. I answered it. Re-read. It's there. I promise!

I don't really count the second time. You didn't log on between #1 and #2, so it isn't fair to count it.

I re-read it. You didn't answer the question.

If you did, you will have to say it again for my poor libtard level of reading comprehension.

Yes or no, for the third time.

Can we (either the US and/or the world in general) keep increasing our oil production by 2% forever? (assuming no restrictions on oil drilling anywhere)

[RandomGuy]

Since jack is too lazy or dishonest to answer a direct question, I will do his work for him.

The answer is no. No we can't.

Mass of oil produced in 2008 in pounds = 8,206,660,000,000 or 8.2066 x 10 to the 12th power.

(7 pounds per gallon times best available oil data on world production converted to gallsons)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_one_gallon_of_crude_oil_weigh
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html

Increase this by 2% per year and by year and by the year 3411 the total weight of all the oil you have extracted equals:

1.63 x 10 to the 25th power.

Total mass of the earth:
1.32 x 10 to the 25th power

Assuming you can convert the earth into oil and keep going...

By the year 5533, your yearly production of oil will equal the mass of the sun. This leaves aside the fact that the total amount you will have produced will have exceeded the mass of the total solar system, sun included, several years before that.

So for the answer to that question to be "yes" jackie boy, you are telling me that we can convert the earth into oil in a little over a thousand years, and the solar system into oil in a bit over three thousand years.

I think it is safe to say this is physically impossible.

Therefore, the answer MUST be "no".

We cannot keep increasing oil production. It is quite literally impossible.

It isn't my opinion, you dipshit, that "there is a good chance" we cannot keep adding 2% to our production forever. It is a mathmatical certainty.

[Drachen]

I am just real curious as to if jack knows how oil is actually bought and sold. Also, I am curious if Jack knows that, without incentive, human's don't generally change their behavior. If Government provides fiscal incentive to get off of oil, rather than incentive to produce more oil, then and only then, will we get off of oil.

[rjv]

fusion, baby, fusion!

[RandomGuy]

We were attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as a direct result of our foriegn policy in the middle east, which is entirely driven by our dependency.


Indeed. In that way oil was related to our invasion of afghanistan, but only peripherally.

I have met no few number of people who seem to think we invaded Afghanistan to "get their oil", though, and was simply trying to make sure that was clear here.

[Wild Cobra]

Cap and trade works like this:
1) everyone has an equal right to pollute up to a certain emissions cap.
2) dirty companies must clean up and upgrade equip and fixtures sufficient to come in under the cap, or pay the tax.
2.5) the cap slowly gets lowered, prompting companies to improve operations slowly over time
3) companies who have newer facilities have an advantage, because they pollute less, and if they come in under the cap, they have extra credits to sell on the carbon market (many already exist in the US). They can sell extra credits to companies who are over, and companies who are over can relenquish these credits back to the govt for a "pass" on their pollution overages.
4) Thus, as the cap is slowly lowered (by reducing credits distributed), companies using older equip will eventually find it necessary to upgrade operations, because less credits on the market means higher price to buy compliance. When the price of credits is greater than the price to bring your facility into the 21st century, you will upgrade or operate at a loss.
5) All the while, this simultaneously drives the new tech market, because companies will be actively be seeking a good deal on new cleaner tech.

Yes, that's the general concept. I know that already. Have estimated numbers by chance?

Now put in supply and demand pricing. Get a clue, this is expected to cost an average of something like $1200 to $1800 averaged per family in extra costs associated with Cap and Trade annually. This is money better spent in other aspects of our economy rather than buying credits from foreign nations.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL... post #119 by Random Propaganda.

Typical liberal BS.

Liberals think that in forecasts, that economic forces are static rather than dynamic.

[Parker2112]

Yes, that's the general concept. I know that already. have estimated numbers by chance?

Now put in supply and demand pricing. Gert a clue, this is expected to cost an average of something like $1200 to $1800 averaged per family in extra costs associated with Cap and Trade annually. This is money better spent in other aspects of our economy rather than buying credits from foreign nations.

These numbers are issued to scare the public by those with interests at stake. In reality, these numbers cant be determined until the tax scheme is fully fleshed out. In order to know these details, you need to know: what industries will be regulated? how agressive will the scheme be from the start? how fast will you ramp up the caps? is the fed gov willing to reduce other taxation to counteract the extra cost to consumers?

These numbers are false from the word go, and you have to be skeptical of anyone who claims shit like this. they are trying to build opposition through fear.

[Wild Cobra]

These numbers are issued to scare the public by those with interests at stake. In reality, these numbers cant be determined until the tax scheme is fully fleshed out.
You are right to a point. These numbers are based on the plans discussed. The numbers that are invalid that have been put out to scare have been the ones in the $3000+ range.

[jack sommerset]

I don't really count the second time. You didn't log on between #1 and #2, so it isn't fair to count it.


That pretty much sums up this conversation. You only see what you want even though you are clearly wrong and of course make up a lamo excuse as to why.

LOL@ fair!!!!!!! What are you, 10?

[RandomGuy]

LOL... post #119 by Random Propaganda.

Typical liberal BS.

Liberals think that in forecasts, that economic forces are static rather than dynamic.

Only you would call a mathmatical proof of concept "propaganda".

It was merely pointing out the irrationality of the assumption that we could keep drilling more and more oil indefinitely by carrying it to its logical conclusion.

Given that we can't, the opposite conclusution, that oil has its definite limits, then becomes the proven assumption, and that gets built into the other arguments made concerning our urgent need to wean ourselves from this rapidly exhausting, finite resource.

At some point, the costs of continuing to use oil will outweigh the benefits.

I think we are rapidly approaching, if not past, that point.

Do you actually disagree with any of my arguments on some basis, or are you just here for a drive-by snarkism?

[RandomGuy]

That pretty much sums up this conversation. You only see what you want even though you are clearly wrong and of course make up a lamo excuse as to why.

LOL@ fair!!!!!!! What are you, 10?

Why does it not surprise me that you don't consider fairness a mature trait?

You juvenile attempts at mockery/insults simply helps me make my case that people with your ideological bent care more about emotional arguments than logical ones.

Thanks!

[DarrinS]

I think we are rapidly approaching, if not past, that point.





This is your only point I disagree with. How do you know this?

[jack sommerset]

Why does it not surprise me that you don't consider fairness a mature trait?

You juvenile attempts at mockery/insults simply helps me make my case that people with your ideological bent care more about emotional arguments than logical ones.

Thanks!

You are not using logic. You have no clue how much oil is out there. None. You use emotional arguments. That's why you said we would run out of oil before your grandchild could drive. But lets tax the hell out of gas. You're a joke.


Thanks!

[RandomGuy]

This is your only point I disagree with. How do you know this?

For a couple of reasons:

Environmental degredation caused by our usage and extraction of fossil fuels is greater than many know or will admit to. Those costs will go up, as the efficiency of those sources falls, forcing us to mine/drill more and more just to break even, energetically.

While I disagree with the more dysotopian claims made by people concerning peak oil, I do know that we are facing some pretty substantial run-ups in oil prices on the downward slope of production. Falling demand as the market adjusts will moderate the worst of the increases for oil, but we still face a shrinking supply curve and increasing demand.

Within the next 20 years that will become apparent.

[RandomGuy]

You are not using logic. You have no clue how much oil is out there. None. You use emotional arguments. That's why you said we would run out of oil before your grandchild could drive. But lets tax the hell out of gas. You're a joke.

Thanks!

By the same token, I don't know what the next set of winning lottery numbers are either, but I don't need to know that to estimate my odss of winning.

Do you think we need to know exactly how much oil exists before we realize that we should probably put some effort towards finding some replacement?

"I don't know how far it is to that cliff, but I don't think we should slow down before we get there."

Keep your foot on the gas if you want to, Jack, but don't say you weren't warned.

In the end, you will be forced to admit, that this libtard was right, and all your disbelief and middle-school insults won't change that.

Do we just wait for the massive disruptions caused by that switchover, when energy is much more expensive,

or

do we start doing something about it now to be ready?

Which do you prefer?

[ElNono]

Well, I guess we'll see, won't we?

Wake me up when we've gone past the cliff and reached the bottom of the pit... :sleep

[Wild Cobra]

Do you actually disagree with any of my arguments on some basis, or are you just here for a drive-by snarkism?
You approach the math from a static perspective, that our consumption will continue to increase by "x" amount. It has no room for supply and demand pricing, which will eventually change how we obtain energy sources.

I think "outside the box." You obviously don't.

[DarrinS]

For a couple of reasons:

Environmental degredation caused by our usage and extraction of fossil fuels is greater than many know or will admit to. Those costs will go up, as the efficiency of those sources falls, forcing us to mine/drill more and more just to break even, energetically.

While I disagree with the more dysotopian claims made by people concerning peak oil, I do know that we are facing some pretty substantial run-ups in oil prices on the downward slope of production. Falling demand as the market adjusts will moderate the worst of the increases for oil, but we still face a shrinking supply curve and increasing demand.

Within the next 20 years that will become apparent.


I agree with the whole "oil is a finite resource" thing, but I just don't see how anyone knows when all the wells will run dry. IMO, it's equally plausable that there's 500 years of oil left as it is that there's 20 years left. Who really knows?

[Wild Cobra]

I agree with the whole "oil is a finite resource" thing, but I just don't see how anyone knows when all the wells will run dry. IMO, it's equally plausable that there's 500 years of oil left as it is that there's 20 years left. Who really knows?
Well, I have a minor disagreement to that.

We know that "fossil fuel" is not the remains of mammals, plant's, etc. as we once thought. Science has also proven that mother earth is continually creating more oil. Thing is, we very likely do drain it far faster than it is made.

My point is, between that, and supply and demand pricing, we will never run out.

[jack sommerset]

By the same token, I don't know what the next set of winning lottery numbers are either, but I don't need to know that to estimate my odss of winning.

Do you think we need to know exactly how much oil exists before we realize that we should probably put some effort towards finding some replacement?

"I don't know how far it is to that cliff, but I don't think we should slow down before we get there."

Keep your foot on the gas if you want to, Jack, but don't say you weren't warned.

In the end, you will be forced to admit, that this libtard was right, and all your disbelief and middle-school insults won't change that.

Do we just wait for the massive disruptions caused by that switchover, when energy is much more expensive,

or

do we start doing something about it now to be ready?

Which do you prefer?

Thanks for the warning, chicken little.

Stop asking the doom and gloom questions, Mr Emotional. You're massive disruptions question is a sick fantasy in your head. Not going to happen. Yes we should know how much oil there is in the world before we start jumping off cliffs. The reason you know the odds of winning the lottery is because you know how many numbers are in the game. You have no clue how much oil is on earth and you don't know what alternative we could be using in 5 years for oil.

[CosmicCowboy]

Any time the federal government taxes one entity to support another they end up fucking it up. Corn Ethanol is a perfect example. Congress just sells out to the highest bidder.

[Drachen]

Well, I have a minor disagreement to that.

We know that "fossil fuel" is not the remains of mammals, plant's, etc. as we once thought. Science has also proven that mother earth is continually creating more oil. Thing is, we very likely do drain it far faster than it is made.

My point is, between that, and supply and demand pricing, we will never run out.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, I believe that this is still a major point of contention. I have even heard that if you locked a group of petroleum scientists, and geologists, etc in a room with guns and said don't come out until you have a definitive answer as to where oil comes from, then you will hear a whole lotta gun shots and no one will come out. LOL Abiotic oil formation is far from a proven concept, I would say it is probably more at the stage where it has just enough credence to cast a little doubt on the accepted "fossil" fuel theory.

Which ever way it is produced, I agree we are probably sucking it out far faster than it is being produced.

[RandomGuy]

You approach the math from a static perspective, that our consumption will continue to increase by "x" amount. It has no room for supply and demand pricing, which will eventually change how we obtain energy sources.

I think "outside the box." You obviously don't.



While I disagree with the more dysotopian claims made by people concerning peak oil, I do know that we are facing some pretty substantial run-ups in oil prices on the downward slope of production. Falling demand as the market adjusts will moderate the worst of the increases for oil, but we still face a shrinking supply curve and increasing demand.

Of course it has no room for supply and demand pricing. The intent of the test was to measure one concept and one concept only. If you really had bothered to read much, you might have noticed this bit above, where I readily acknowledge the interactions of supply and demand, and the rest of the thread where I made similar statements.

Your emotional need to tear liberals down to build yourself up limits the effectiveness of your arguments, because you rush into proclomations before reading things through.

I pretty much have stated in several places that these run ups will alter the way we get energy whether we do anything or not. Do I need to copy and paste to demonstrate that, or are you going to man up and admit you misspoke?

[RandomGuy]

Whoa Whoa Whoa, I believe that this is still a major point of contention. I have even heard that if you locked a group of petroleum scientists, and geologists, etc in a room with guns and said don't come out until you have a definitive answer as to where oil comes from, then you will hear a whole lotta gun shots and no one will come out. LOL Abiotic oil formation is far from a proven concept, I would say it is probably more at the stage where it has just enough credence to cast a little doubt on the accepted "fossil" fuel theory.

Which ever way it is produced, I agree we are probably sucking it out far faster than it is being produced.

Whatever theory of oil formation you use, we are consuming it at a far faster rate than it is being created.

[RandomGuy]

last one. honest.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with the whole "oil is a finite resource" thing, but I just don't see how anyone knows when all the wells will run dry. IMO, it's equally plausable that there's 500 years of oil left as it is that there's 20 years left. Who really knows?

It is not equally plausible that there is 500 years' worth of oil left as there is only 20 years left.

If there were 500 years worth of oil left, that would mean either:
1) that we have, to date, tapped less than 5% of all the oil that exists, despite extensive world-wide exploration and development. That would mean that it would be extremely easy to go out anywhere and find vast amounts of oil.
OR
2) the process that creates oil is many orders of magnitude faster than what we think it is, and that we could go where oil fields have been depleted in the recent past and pump again at near historic maximiums.

Neither underlying assumption fits any industry report I have seen, making the possibility of 500 years supply at current levels (not considering certain growth in demand that would decrease that markedly). I assumed by your statement that you meant 500 years worth at current flat production. If you meant 500 years worth considering increasing demand, then you have assumed we have exploited less than a tiny fraction of 1%. I can ferret the rough % out in a spreadsheet to get a more exact fraction if you like.

Humanity has spent on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars to find and measure the amount of oil that exists and where that oil is located. We do not ultimately know the exact amount left, or exactly where it all is today, but we can get enough data to predict with reasonable certainty what is left, and where it is likely located.

Care to re-think that opinion?

[RandomGuy]

No more power lines?


Buried super-cooled electrical cables may replace towering transmission lines and carry solar and wind energy efficiently over long distances.

Abundant solar and wind power lies across America’s vast plains and deserts, but getting that distant renewable energy to cities without wrecking vistas and raising lawsuits over transmission lines is a sizable hurdle for green-leaning utility companies. Thousands of miles of towering electrical lines will be needed before big alternative-energy projects can take hold. Yet such power lines portend years of legal snarls over the not-in-my-backyard problem.

Into this fray comes Phil Harris and his pioneering plan to use underground superconducting cables that will be both hidden from view and more efficient than traditional lines. Mr. Harris wants to build a virtually invisible network that would create a national renewable-energy hub located in the Southwest.

These superconducting cables contain special materials chilled to superlow temperatures, allowing electricity to flow efficiently, with no resistance. The only lost energy goes toward refrigerating the cables. While Harris’s “hub” would run in a loop, it would demonstrate the potential for superconducting power lines that could travel long distances and eliminate the 7 percent of electricity wasted by ugly, above-ground transmission lines.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines

[Wild Cobra]

No more power lines?


http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines
Nice science fiction concept.

Any idea how impractical the cost would be?

[RandomGuy]

China's green leap forward

Facing dire pollution and wanting to be in on what may be the next industrial revolution, China positions itself to be a leader in green technology – with major implications for the rest of the world.

Beijing
Behind the notorious clouds of filth and greenhouse gases that China’s industrial behemoth spews into the atmosphere every day, a little-noticed revolution is under way. China is going green. And as the authorities here spur manufacturers of all kinds of alternative energy equipment to make more for less, “China price” and “China speed” are poised to snatch the lion’s share of the next multitrillion-dollar global industry – energy technology.

...

“[China] is installing a one-megawatt wind turbine every hour,” points out Dermot O’Gorman, head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in Beijing. “That is more encouraging than the one coal fired power station a week” that normally dominates foreign headlines.

...

Indeed, China is pushing ahead on renewable technologies with the fervor of a new space race. It wants to be in the forefront of what many believe will be the next industrial revolution. If it succeeds, it will hold far-reaching implications for the planet – affecting everything from Detroit’s competitiveness to global warming to the economic pecking order in the 21st century.

“The rest of the world doesn’t even realize that we are very likely ceding the next generation of energy technology to the Chinese,” says Todd Glass, an energy lawyer with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati in San Francisco

The country’s installed wind power capacity has doubled each of the past four years, and is likely to exceed the 2020 target next year, a decade ahead of schedule. A revised goal, expected to be more than three times higher than the current one, will be announced soon, officials say.

Beijing has deliberately stimulated the wind sector with an array of subsidies and tariffs and a rule obliging power companies to buy renewable energy similar to a law now before the US Congress. So fast have windmills been built that the national grid cannot handle all the energy they generate, and much is wasted.

...

Many energy experts are pinning their hopes on new ways of using an old technology, coal gasification. It cuts SO2 and NOx emissions and separates out CO2 so that it can be captured and then either used in industry, digested by biodiesel-producing algae, or stored permanently underground.

The US was meant to lead the way toward a near zero emissions coal-fired power plant by building one first while other countries, including China, waited for experimental data before constructing their own.

But the US Futuregen project ran into so many cost and political troubles that it was shelved. As a result, the Chinese government decided last year to move ahead with its own project. The Greengen plant, designed to be the most efficient and cleanest coal-fired power station ever built, should begin operations by the end of next year, officials here say.

In the meantime, two Chinese research centers, the East China University of Science and Technology and the Thermal Power Research Institute, have developed coal gasification techniques to challenge America’s lead in the field. Both recently licensed their inventions to American firms building power plants in the United States.

“The general thinking in the US is that we are 30 years ahead of China in technology,” says Ming Sung, a Chinese-born American who worked most of his career with Shell. “We think it’s a one-way transfer. China licensing technology to the United States is still very unusual. But it will become less and less unusual.”

...

“China cannot yet produce things with the credibility and quality behind the ‘Made in Germany’ label,” adds Jennifer Morgan, an analyst with E3G, a London-based environmental think tank. “They are not there yet.”

Still, the country has plenty of reasons to attempt to be the world’s next green-energy power. For one thing, it has few natural energy resources of its own. Plus, its pollution problems are so severe that it has little choice. The country’s outsized reliance on coal is literally a matter of life and death: 750,000 people in China die prematurely each year because of air pollution, a World Bank study in 2007 found (though the Chinese government insisted the bank cut that statistic from its final report). Only 1 percent of the population breathes air that would be considered safe in Europe.

Moreover, Beijing – just like US President Barack Obama – sees renewable energy as an economic boon. Building out a new global energy industry over the next half century will generate more business than any other sector, Chinese officials predict, and they want a hefty chunk of that business. “This gives us an opportunity to develop a new area for a new industry” says Professor Li. “It’s good for our long-term development.”

BUT THE QUESTION LOOMS: What does China’s rise as a green power mean for the rest of the world? Certainly it has its benefits. A China with more solar cells and electric cars will help reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases building up in the Earth’s atmosphere.

It could also reduce the competition for, and depletion of, dwindling natural resources – notably oil. If China rises as a green-technology manufacturing hub, it could supply the world with low-cost solar panels and wind turbines as it does now with toys and textiles.

Yet there are worries for the West, too. If green energy is the new industrial revolution, Beijing will be grabbing many of the jobs of tomorrow. That will likely hasten the day when China becomes the world’s No. 1 economic power.

“China sees [green technology] as an enormous market that is not claimed or controlled by any one nation, and there is an opportunity for them to do it,” says Carberry. “The combination of urgency; the enormous needs; a focused, systematic planned government; an army of engineers; and access to capital may define China as the platform for the green- technology industry globally.”

Mr. Westlake of Clearworld Now, echoing the 1980’s song by the American rock band Timbuk3, puts it more pithily: “The future’s so bright, you gotta wear shades.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/0810/china-s-green-leap-forward/(page)/1

---------------------------------------

As I have said before, we can either do this, or cede competitive advantages to someone who will.

[RandomGuy]

Nice science fiction concept.

Any idea how impractical the cost would be?

Some.

A vast amount of electicty is lost through resistance, some 25% of what is generated, if I remember the graphic from a few pages ago.

Even if you used 20% of your generating capacity to power the refridgeration units, you then get a 5% drop in losses, and an instant "bump" in capacity without building a single new power plant.

I think the 7% figure used by the guy in the article there is the net gain from this exchange, although the article wasn't clear.

[RandomGuy]

Regarding the costs of cooling superconductors:

Temeratures have been rising on materials that are capable of superconducting, as more research is done. That will likely continue with more research. Higher temperatures equal lower cooling costs. With research the costs will come down.

A lot of stuff is happening now and a lot of trends are starting to come together, such as "high" temperature superconductors. (high= around the point where nitrogen is a liquid, really really cold to us)

[RandomGuy]

Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

Coal/Gas/Oil depletion will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Some.

A vast amount of electicty is lost through resistance, some 25% of what is generated, if I remember the graphic from a few pages ago.

Even if you used 20% of your generating capacity to power the refridgeration units, you then get a 5% drop in losses, and an instant "bump" in capacity without building a single new power plant.

I think the 7% figure used by the guy in the article there is the net gain from this exchange, although the article wasn't clear.
Yes, but still. The cost would be immense. I doubt it would save enough energy waste to make it practical.

[Wild Cobra]

Regarding the costs of cooling superconductors:

Temeratures have been rising on materials that are capable of superconducting, as more research is done. That will likely continue with more research. Higher temperatures equal lower cooling costs. With research the costs will come down.

A lot of stuff is happening now and a lot of trends are starting to come together, such as "high" temperature superconductors. (high= around the point where nitrogen is a liquid, really really cold to us)
Yes, but we aren't there yet in my opinion.

It boils at -320 F.... freezes at -346 F...

[Wild Cobra]

Coal/Gas/Oil depletion will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?
Yes, but when.

Do we have a proven limit on these?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, but we aren't there yet in my opinion.

It boils at -320 F.... freezes at -346 F...


Cost, however, has long been a major issue. However, the price gap is closing, American Superconductor says. A 1,000-mile length of superconducting cable capable of carrying 5,000 megawatts would cost about $8 million to $13 million per mile, a recent company white paper says. That’s about on par with the 
$7 million to $10 million cost per mile for an equivalent conventional 765 kilovolt line.

Tres Amigas trading hub – which Harris says would be the world’s largest use of superconducting cable – is like an automobile traffic circle. It could bring into the loop up to 5,000 megawatts of power at any one moment from any or all of the three grids. The power would then be sent out to whichever grid needs the electricity.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines/(page)/2


The idea is to build some interconnections between the three main US Grids. That there would make a LOT of interesting possibilities open up, as the gentleman in the article notes.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines/(page)/2


The idea is to build some interconnections between the three main US Grids. That there would make a LOT of interesting possibilities open up, as the gentleman in the article notes.
I call bullshit to that. Where in hell do they get those numbers?

Do you have the faintest understanding of the materials involve, the digging involved, temperature expansion coefficients, etc?

How can the do this for just 30% or more in cost...

No way!

[RandomGuy]

Yes, but when.

Do we have a proven limit on these?

By proven limit, I take it you mean some idea as to what is left?

Yes, we have a fair idea, as I have stated previously. One has to discount "political" reserves in favor of engineering data, but we have enough data to do reasonable best/probable/worst case projections.

Most of those projections say that there are still decades more oil/gas/coal to extract. But the decreasing return on invested energy means that the supply curve for these forms of energy is sliding to the left, even if nominal production remains flat, which is not likely to happen. This is an interesting junction between physics and economics.

[Wild Cobra]

By proven limit, I take it you mean some idea as to what is left?

Yes, we have a fair idea, as I have stated previously. One has to discount "political" reserves in favor of engineering data, but we have enough data to do reasonable best/probable/worst case projections.

Most of those projections say that there are still decades more oil/gas/coal to extract. But the decreasing return on invested energy means that the supply curve for these forms of energy is sliding to the left, even if nominal production remains flat, which is not likely to happen. This is an interesting junction between physics and economics.
Bullshit.

proven reserves isn't anywhere close to calculating what the unproven reserves are.

Think about it, use a little common sense and logic.

We simply have no clue how much more we have.

[RandomGuy]

I call bullshit to that. Where in hell do they get those numbers?

Do you have the faintest understanding of the materials involve, the digging involved, temperature expansion coefficients, etc?

How can the do this for just 30% or more in cost...

No way!

I do have an idea as to the practicalities of the technology.

As for bullshit or not:

No idea. I think he is very likely being a tad over-optimistic though. The added costs would have to be weighed against the benefits of being able to shift electrical production around easily.

Such a shift would allow for the really sunny/windy interior where solar/wind is the most cost competitive (i.e. cheapest per kWh) to provide a lot of electricity.

The potential profits for companies who get in on the ground level for this are enticing no small amount of capital.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit.

proven reserves isn't anywhere close to calculating what the unproven reserves are.

Think about it, use a little common sense and logic.

We simply have no clue how much more we have.

Yes, we do.

Do you understand the concept of return on invested energy? I think I have explained that enough here for you to have seen it.

[Wild Cobra]

I do have an idea as to the practicalities of the technology.

As for bullshit or not:

No idea. I think he is very likely being a tad over-optimistic though. The added costs would have to be weighed against the benefits of being able to shift electrical production around easily.

Such a shift would allow for the really sunny/windy interior where solar/wind is the most cost competitive (i.e. cheapest per kWh) to provide a lot of electricity.

The potential profits for companies who get in on the ground level for this are enticing no small amount of capital.
Sorry, I don't buy it.

One thing not stated in the article is that to minimize the major losses for long distance, you have to use rectifiers to convert to DC, then use inverters to reconvert to AC. You cannot compare long distance costs to conventional power lines. Another expense and maintenance to be factored in. Unless the size of a solar or wind farm is in the gigawatts, the technology simply won't pay off.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, we do.

Do you understand the concept of return on invested energy? I think I have explained that enough here for you to have seen it.
OK genius. Tell me what proves how much oil, coal, etc. we don't have.

[RandomGuy]

Rather long article that goes over the strengths and weaknesses of predicting oil/gas supplies:

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_forecasting_production_using_discovery_laherre re505.htm

More data:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/blanchard/

Still more:
http://www.durangobill.com/Rollover.html
http://www.durangobill.com/RolloverPics/RolloverGap.jpg

Still more:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969

I think we have enough to make some solid decisions.
Read through the above links, if you doubt that. If you can find some data showing we are finding oil faster than we are using it, feel free to post that.

If you can't find that data, and I have quite a bit of data showing we are using/producing it faster than we are finding it, what should we conclude from that WC?

[Wild Cobra]

RG, you don't get it. We simply have no idea what the unproven reserves are, and there is no way of accurately predicting things not explored.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1366

[RandomGuy]

RG, you don't get it. We simply have no idea what the unproven reserves are, and there is no way of accurately predicting things not explored.

You just don't get it.

There is a way of accurately predicting things not explored.

Read the links, or find data that shows we are finding it faster than we are using it.

If the data we do have suggests depletion, and there is no conflicting data, what should we conclude?

[Wild Cobra]

Discoveries don't matter. It still doesn't prove what we haven't discovered yet.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969

Much more detail, including economic effects. I think their overall predictions are more dire than is warranted given technological advances, but they draw some fairly reasonable conclusions from oil and economic data.


Oil Production is Reaching its Limit: The Basics of What This Means
Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 16, 2009 - 5:35pm
Topic: Economics/Finance
Tags: oil production, overview, peak oil [list all tags]

I decided to write another rather basic level article because there are so many people I meet who have heard a bit about the oil situation, and it is hard to point to one single article to give an overview of some of the current issues. Regular readers will find many repeats of graphs. There are some new ones, as well, from the Denver ASPO-USA conference. Because there is so much to tell, the story gets a little long.

[RandomGuy]

Discoveries don't matter. It still doesn't prove what we haven't discovered yet.

This, like AGW, is where you want perfect data with everything known before you want to make a decision.

That is not possible, nor is it feasible in all cases.

Real world CEOs and leaders have to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete data.

You did not answer my question, though.

What is reasonable to conclude, based on what data we *do* have, i.e. discoveries have tapered off and are less than annual production?

[RandomGuy]

Discoveries don't matter. It still doesn't prove what we haven't discovered yet.

Let's think about it logically then.

Is the Earth finite?

[CosmicCowboy]

Let's think about it logically then.

Is the Earth finite?

From an energy standpoint? Not until the sun burns out.

[Wild Cobra]

You did not answer my question, though.

What is reasonable to conclude, based on what data we *do* have, i.e. discoveries have tapered off and are less than annual production?
The reasonable assumption is that we cannot know if there is more oil or not. You, however, have a closed mind. You appear not to accept the possibility that the trend may not hold.

[RandomGuy]

Is the earth finite?

Yes.

Since it is finite it can be explored for oil.

If you explore a given geographical area for oil, and find none, you can eliminate that area as not having oil, or at the very least strongly reduce the possibility of a massive unknown reserve.

Once you start eliminating areas, you reduce the area of the earth where reserves are unknown.

As time progresses the area of the earth that has not been explored can ONLY go down, further reducing the area that has unknown reserves.

As time passes and more exploration is done, then you have more and more certainty as to what can be eventually exploited.

The odds that we will find a massive field somewhere are virtually certain. It should surprise no one when that happends.

BUT

Remember, we must find oil faster than it is being depleted AND provide for more growth to maintain steady or increasing production.

The odds of finding massive undiscovered amounts of oil in an ever shinking area goes down, simply because you have less unexplored area.

[RandomGuy]

The reasonable assumption is that we cannot know if there is more oil or not. You, however, have a closed mind. You appear not to accept the possibility that the trend may not hold.

It pleases you to think that because you disagree with me on many issues.

The trend may not hold, indeed.

What data do you have to support that we will suddenly find vast amounts of new oil?

[RandomGuy]

The reasonable assumption is that we cannot know if there is more oil or not. You, however, have a closed mind. You appear not to accept the possibility that the trend may not hold.

What is reasonable to conclude, based on what data we *do* have, i.e. discoveries have tapered off and are less than annual production?

I know you well enough to know that you will not answer this question, because the answer fully contradicts your view point.

Who is being closed minded?

[Wild Cobra]

It pleases you to think that because you disagree with me on many issues.

The trend may not hold, indeed.
Good. just keep that in mind, little is certain.

What data do you have to support that we will suddenly find vast amounts of new oil?
I don't have such data. I do believe the oil companies know more than they let us know however.

[Wild Cobra]

Who is being closed minded?
You are.

[RandomGuy]

Good. just keep that in mind, little is certain.

I don't have such data [that says we will suddenly find massive amounts of new oil]. I do believe the oil companies know more than they let us know however.

So... we should base our policy decisions on your lack of data? or your conspiracy theory?

The oil companies themselves, if you read their annual statements, talk rather openly about this ongoing depletion, as the graph posted earlier suggests. If there were as much oil as you suggest, it would be VERY VERY hard to hide that fact from independent auditors, investors, and other stakeholders, just as it would be nearly impossible to fake a moon landing and hide the fact that it was faked.

Being "open-minded" in your world means taking your novice's understanding of the subject, with no supporting data and using that to base policy decisions on, over people who literally study it for a living and base multibillion dollar decisions on the reams of available data and readily available analysis of that data. :bang

In the regard that I trust a host of expert analysis backed by solid data over you, yes, I am closed-minded. :rolleyes

You asked for data, you got it, and promptly ignored it. Anybody who reads that can draw their own conclusions. You didn't even bother reading any of it, and we all know it.

We will see a fairly bumpy plateau in production for a few years, followed by inevitable declines in production. We will see some price elasticity due to price rises as we get "demand destruction" from shifts to the alternative, renewable, forms of energy.

That will moderate price increases, but not eliminate them, as energy gets more expensive at a faster rate over time.

At some point, you will realize I was right about coal/gas/oil depletion. I am less certain about the economic effects, but I am absolutely certain about the fact that we face some near-term depletion problems.

I will save this thread, as I have saved others, and if you are still here in 5 to 10 years, we will see what happens.

[Wild Cobra]

So... we should base our policy decisions on your lack of data? or your conspiracy theory?

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.


The oil companies themselves, if you read their annual statements, talk rather openly about this ongoing depletion, as the graph posted earlier suggests. If there were as much oil as you suggest, it would be VERY VERY hard to hide that fact from independent auditors, investors, and other stakeholders, just as it would be nearly impossible to fake a moon landing and hide the fact that it was faked.

I didn't know the mud log data wasn't proprietary any more. When did public disclosure start on them?


Being "open-minded" in your world means taking your novice's understanding of the subject, with no supporting data and using that to base policy decisions on, over people who literally study it for a living and base multibillion dollar decisions on the reams of available data and readily available analysis of that data. :bang

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.


In the regard that I trust a host of expert analysis backed by solid data over you, yes, I am closed-minded. :rolleyes

Yes, you are.


You asked for data, you got it, and promptly ignored it. Anybody who reads that can draw their own conclusions. You didn't even bother reading any of it, and we all know it.

It was projections. not proof.


We will see a fairly bumpy plateau in production for a few years, followed by inevitable declines in production. We will see some price elasticity due to price rises as we get "demand destruction" from shifts to the alternative, renewable, forms of energy.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.


At some point, you will realize I was right about coal/gas/oil depletion. I am less certain about the economic effects, but I am absolutely certain about the fact that we face some near-term depletion problems.

Where can I buy a crystal ball like yours?


I will save this thread, as I have saved others, and if you are still here in 5 to 10 years, we will see what happens.

Cool....

Have you done the same with my threads on global warming? love to see you eat crow on them.

[Drachen]

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.



Actually, he wants to base policy decisions on the best available data. You are wanting to make policy based on a hunch that the status quo will continue.

He admitted that CEOs and leaders never have access to all of the perfectly researched data because it is impossible to ever know all variables which are pertinent to any given situation. They make decisions based on the best available data, THEN fill in the holes with their gut (experience, risk tolerance, whatever you want to call it). Data, not "wanting/hoping to believe" is the basis.

[RandomGuy]

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.

I didn't know the mud log data wasn't proprietary any more. When did public disclosure start on them?

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.

Yes, you are.

It was projections. not proof.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

Where can I buy a crystal ball like yours?

Cool....

Have you done the same with my threads on global warming? love to see you eat crow on them.

Would you bet everything you own on one poker hand?

or alternately:

We can bet on one die throw. Everything you own versus everything I own.
I win if the die shows a one through 5, you win if it shows a six.

Is that a good bet?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, he wants to base policy decisions on the best available data. You are wanting to make policy based on a hunch that the status quo will continue.

He admitted that CEOs and leaders never have access to all of the perfectly researched data because it is impossible to ever know all variables which are pertinent to any given situation. They make decisions based on the best available data, THEN fill in the holes with their gut (experience, risk tolerance, whatever you want to call it). Data, not "wanting/hoping to believe" is the basis.
What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data? Now I know that the data suggests we are running out. Seriously, I do. It most certainly isn't enough to warrant government mandates that picks winners and losers. Those who hold the information in the energy companies are the best to determine this particular truth. If they saw information suggesting it was time to start building large scale solar or wind, they would. Maybe the suggestion of government subsidies are actually holding up progress, as they hold out for subsidies?

Trust me. When alternate sources look good to the bottom line, the energy companies need no subsidies to take that path.

[Wild Cobra]

Would you bet everything you own on one poker hand?

or alternately:

We can bet on one die throw. Everything you own versus everything I own.
I win if the die shows a one through 5, you win if it shows a six.

Is that a good bet?
I'll place my bet with the free market.

[Drachen]

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data? Now I know that the data suggests we are running out. Seriously, I do. It most certainly isn't enough to warrant government mandates that picks winners and losers. Those who hold the information in the energy companies are the best to determine this particular truth. If they saw information suggesting it was time to start building large scale solar or wind, they would. Maybe the suggestion of government subsidies are actually holding up progress, as they hold out for subsidies?

Trust me. When alternate sources look good to the bottom line, the energy companies need no subsidies to take that path.

If the best known data is the best known data, then it is the best known data. This is where you start.

The rest of the post seems like advocation only of reactive policy decisions. These are far more costly than proactive decisions. Look at Ford v GM for example. Ford's strategic plan changed in about 2004/5 timeframe. They were going to focus on quality, gas mileage and efficiency. The goal was to get the company to a point where it could not only squeeze a decent profit out of a small/efficient car, but also make profit if the total amount of cars sold in a year dropped to 10.5 million (in the US). GM did not start this process until the market began turning. GM needs bailout/goes bankrupt, costs a lot of money (which was then moved to us). Ford doesn't need bailout, garners consumer goodwill because of this gains market share and is very profitable in a market which is still near a low for annual sales.

Did Ford's way cost money, hell yes it did. They borrowed a lot of money in 06 to get this plan off of the ground. Fortunately, though, by the time the market was turning, their cars had already won some accolades, and people were starting to get used to the idea of a Ford being a quality automobile. They started selling more, then the bottom fell out, and they prospered because they were proactive.

GM cost a whole lot more in taxpayer money, and collateral damage from their bankrupcy.

I personally prefer proactive policy decisions based on the best available data.

[Wild Cobra]

If the best known data is the best known data, then it is the best known data. This is where you start.

The rest of the post seems like advocation only of reactive policy decisions. These are far more costly than proactive decisions. Look at Ford v GM for example. Ford's strategic plan changed in about 2004/5 timeframe. They were going to focus on quality, gas mileage and efficiency. The goal was to get the company to a point where it could not only squeeze a decent profit out of a small/efficient car, but also make profit if the total amount of cars sold in a year dropped to 10.5 million (in the US). GM did not start this process until the market began turning. GM needs bailout/goes bankrupt, costs a lot of money (which was then moved to us). Ford doesn't need bailout, garners consumer goodwill because of this gains market share and is very profitable in a market which is still near a low for annual sales.

Did Ford's way cost money, hell yes it did. They borrowed a lot of money in 06 to get this plan off of the ground. Fortunately, though, by the time the market was turning, their cars had already won some accolades, and people were starting to get used to the idea of a Ford being a quality automobile. They started selling more, then the bottom fell out, and they prospered because they were proactive.

GM cost a whole lot more in taxpayer money, and collateral damage from their bankrupcy.

I personally prefer proactive policy decisions based on the best available data.
Don't you think energy companies would be proactive if they thought they needed to be? maybe not all, but at least one?

[RandomGuy]

I'll place my bet with the free market.

Changing the subject does not answer my question.

We can bet on one die throw. Everything you own versus everything I own.
I win if the die shows a one through 5, you win if it shows a six.

Is that a good bet for you?

Simple yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data? Now I know that the data suggests we are running out. Seriously, I do. It most certainly isn't enough to warrant government mandates that picks winners and losers. Those who hold the information in the energy companies are the best to determine this particular truth. If they saw information suggesting it was time to start building large scale solar or wind, they would. Maybe the suggestion of government subsidies are actually holding up progress, as they hold out for subsidies?

Trust me. When alternate sources look good to the bottom line, the energy companies need no subsidies to take that path.

That is indeed what we are getting pretty close to now, and there is a lot of capital starting to flow into these companies.

I simply want some push towards renewables along the lines of general research, some higher taxes for oil/gas/coal to accelerate the process. Nothing drastic mind you, just some modest increases.

I am perfectly happy to let free markets figure out which renewable technologies should be developed, and what efficiency gains are most profitable.

We may need some solid governmental investments in infrastructure, such as transmission lines though. I am ok with that as well.

All of this offers higher costs in the short term, with the long-term benefit of avoiding the worst shocks down the road.

If we fail to do so, we simply cede competitive advantage to those who do.

[Drachen]

Don't you think energy companies would be proactive if they thought they needed to be? maybe not all, but at least one?


History has proven otherwise. Protect the status quo. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. It's not their fault, its human nature to find a comfort zone and exploit it as long as possible. If the comfort zone moves, then so moves the human/corp.

[RandomGuy]

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data?

The best data is the best data.

The problem with the argument that you are attempting to make though, is that the degree of certainty as to oil depletion is much higher than 10% likely.

It is 100% certain that oil will deplete. The only question is how fast.

The best data suggests it is extremely probable that will happen for all practical purposes, within 40 years.

That is good enough for me to want to get started on converting our economy now. Not converted overnight, that would be silly and overly costly, just get started.

[Drachen]

Besides, data with 10% certainty is better than nothing with 0% certainty.

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, data with 10% certainty is better than nothing with 0% certainty.
Is it enough to pick winners and losers with subsidies, or tax breaks?

[RandomGuy]

Is it enough to pick winners and losers with subsidies, or tax breaks?

10% certainty would not be enough for me to want to do that, no.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_forecasting_production_using_discovery_laherre re505.htm

How good do you think his estimate is?

As noted before we are in a position to have a much greater confidence level for ultimate reserves.

How much certainty would it take for you to want to act?

[Drachen]

Is it enough to pick winners and losers with subsidies, or tax breaks?

First of all Yes, picking renewables over oil is absolutely what I am advocating. Additionally, I would actually call it a leveling of the playing field. Take the subsidies from the winners until now (oil), and shower these on renewables. Oil is mature, needs no subsidies, tax breaks or otherwise. We need renewables it is young, subsidies and tax breaks allow these industries to mature at a faster clip than otherwise possible. Spend the money on research to try to make up for all of the years that oil has been receiving tax breaks and subsidies and allow the field to tip at least toward equality, but better in the favor of renewables.

[Wild Cobra]

First of all Yes, picking renewables over oil is absolutely what I am advocating. Additionally, I would actually call it a leveling of the playing field. Take the subsidies from the winners until now (oil), and shower these on renewables. Oil is mature, needs no subsidies, tax breaks or otherwise. We need renewables it is young, subsidies and tax breaks allow these industries to mature at a faster clip than otherwise possible. Spend the money on research to try to make up for all of the years that oil has been receiving tax breaks and subsidies and allow the field to tip at least toward equality, but better in the favor of renewables.
I agree oil needs no subsidies. If there are any, take them away. however, i will not advocate subsidies for other forms of energy. When they are profitable, they will be used. Why are people so afraid of the free market?

Portland General Electric (PGE) allows you to pay a little more by saying what mix of your power you want as green sourced. Do they do that where you are from? If you want to create an early demand for it, let the market choose, and let people put their money where their mouth is.

[Drachen]

I agree oil needs no subsidies. If there are any, take them away. however, i will not advocate subsidies for other forms of energy. When they are profitable, they will be used. Why are people so afraid of the free market?

Portland General Electric (PGE) allows you to pay a little more by saying what mix of your power you want as green sourced. Do they do that where you are from? If you want to create an early demand for it, let the market choose, and let people put their money where their mouth is.

Windtricity - 30% here. Its killing me right now. LOL.

And if you want to truly level the playing field, cut off the oil subsidies, give renewables a few decades of subsidies then cut them off too. I also don't see a problem, in general, with government funded science. I realize that what I am advocating here is directed science with an immediate purpose, but I am all for funding of basic science as well (science to know more, that doesn't necessarily have an immediately marketable product at its conclusion, like what CERN is doing). I agree with the idea that we could get together an Energy "manhattan project", as well though.

(I know I went a little OT there, and I apologize, hopefully the post wasn't too distracting).


Windtricity is CPS's (our power company) name for paying more to get wind energy. I believe they are coming out with Solaricity soon as well.

[Wild Cobra]

No tax payer subsidies. We cannot afford it, especially with this administrations run-away spending.

If you want to help an energy company develop green energy, then give them some of your money. If you feel you cannot contribute enough to matter, get like minded people together, and you can all donate to the cause you all believe in. just keep tax dollars out of it, and put you money where your mouth is.

[RandomGuy]

No tax payer subsidies. We cannot afford it, especially with this administrations run-away spending.

If you want to help an energy company develop green energy, then give them some of your money. If you feel you cannot contribute enough to matter, get like minded people together, and you can all donate to the cause you all believe in. just keep tax dollars out of it, and put you money where your mouth is.

This switchover will happen whether we do something or not.
The only question is when we incur the costs of switching over.
I am almost certain that energy costs, and therefore conversion costs, will be MUCH higher in the future.


Cost of doing nothing, no government intervention, i.e. total free-market solution
2010-2020
5

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
50

Total cost of switchover
75



Cost of doing something, minor government intervention
2010-2020
15

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
20

Total costs of switchover
55

The first scenario is what I think will likely happen. You will get your way for the most part.

The second scenario is what I think should happen, as I am fairly sure that the costs will be lower simply due to energy cost.

Here are the drivers for energy demand:
US economic growth (likely fairly flat)
European economic growth (likely fairly flat)
Asian economic growth (rapid rise, remember "asia" includes China AND India)
African econoimc growth (rapid rise)

China has rapidly overcome Japan as the worlds second largest consumer of oil. If its oil consumption grows roughly as fast as its economy, as does that of the US, and assuming supply keeps pace, China will surpass the US as the worlds largest consumer of oil by 2023. India will surpass that of the US in 2037.

Given depletion, this will likely be next to impossible to achieve in terms of supply.

BUT

The underlying aggregate demand will remain unchanged. Aggregate demand in China will surpass that of the US shortly, and India not too far behind.

THAT will result in a bidding war, simultaineously with demand destruction, as we convert to renewables and nuclear.

Do you want to wait to convert until the 3 billion people in China and India are competing for the same energy supplies that we are?

[RandomGuy]

Cost of doing nothing, no government intervention, i.e. total free-market solution
2010-2020
5

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
50

Total cost of switchover
75



Cost of doing something, minor government intervention
2010-2020
15

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
20

Total costs of switchover
55
To be clear and honest:

This is meant to be more indicative of what I think the cost structures will be between the alternatives than any attempt to quantify actual costs 10-30 years in the future. It is more meant to illustrate my viewpoint, than to be an actual projection.

As I have said here, and elsewhere: we will get to see either way.

[RandomGuy]

Portland General Electric (PGE) allows you to pay a little more by saying what mix of your power you want as green sourced. Do they do that where you are from? If you want to create an early demand for it, let the market choose, and let people put their money where their mouth is.

Yes, we have similar here in Texas in Austin, although I haven't checked about my local utility. I think I should.

I would be happy to do so and subsidize what I think should happen.

Heh, you and the rest of the "do nothings" can thank me later. :p:

[Wild Cobra]

This switchover will happen whether we do something or not.

blah blah blah...
Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the price will go up as time goes by. It's called inflation. However, technological improvements makes it cheaper, as a percentage of peoples money.

I see you explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, we have similar here in Texas in Austin, although I haven't checked about my local utility. I think I should.

I would be happy to do so and subsidize what I think should happen.

Heh, you and the rest of the "do nothings" can thank me later. :p:
Hey, I do applaud you if you are one that will, put your own money where your mouth is.

[boutons_deux]

"This administrations run-away spending"

You Lie

Most of the deficit is due to dubya's tax cuts, his wars, and the conservatives' unregulated Banksters' Great Depression. Tarp and stimulus are trivial in comparison.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boutons, how old are you? Are you in school?

[RandomGuy]

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the price will go up as time goes by. It's called inflation. However, technological improvements makes it cheaper, as a percentage of peoples money.

I see you explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

... which is pretty much how I view your proclamations regarding global warming.

I guess we are even in that regard.

The fact that you have been unable or unwilling to challenge any of the underlying assumptions I have made, nor the logical arguments based on those assumptions, says all we need to know about your opinion.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the price will go up as time goes by. It's called inflation. However, technological improvements makes it cheaper, as a percentage of peoples money.

I see you explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

By the way, I understand inflation and that things generally get a bit more expensive over time.

My assertion here is that the cost of oil will start going up faster than inflation, and will actually be an underlying source of inflation. This problem will actually suck a larger and larger portion of disposable income from people's pockets as time goes on.

This is the primary reason for my assertion that it will never be cheaper economically do start the switchover than it is now.

You do understand that if the demand curve goes to the right while the supply curve shifts left, that makes the price point climb fairly quickly, right? (not sure how familiar you are with the supply/demand curves)

[Wild Cobra]

The fact that you have been unable or unwilling to challenge any of the underlying assumptions I have made, nor the logical arguments based on those assumptions, says all we need to know about your opinion.
I don't have to challenge them. They are assumptions. Not proven. i am pointing that out.

Are you saying I'm wrong and that they are fact?

[RandomGuy]

I don't have to challenge them. They are assumptions. Not proven. i am pointing that out.

Are you saying I'm wrong and that they are fact?

I have made your case. If the only thing you can say is "but you haven't completely proven your case, because you don't know everything", you are making the same argument about this that creationists make about the theory of evolution.

Are you making that argument in your dimissal of this data?

[Wild Cobra]

I have made your case. If the only thing you can say is "but you haven't completely proven your case, because you don't know everything", you are making the same argument about this that creationists make about the theory of evolution.

Are you making that argument in your dimissal of this data?
No, I am only pointing out that none of us really know. To stick to the notion of the Hubbard curve is ridiculous when we constantly find more and more. We simply don't know where the peak is.

[Parker2112]

No, I am only pointing out that none of us really know. To stick to the notion of the Hubbard curve is ridiculous when we constantly find more and more. We simply don't know where the peak is.

You may not. But the fact is, many, many educated people in the field do. Just ask T Boone Pickens.

[Parker2112]

you have gotta to quite with the confusion of the issues. When it comes to anything credible, typical repub response is to try to shake confidence in the voter public. Thats the easiest way to defeat the opposition...confuse the issues.

Actually, come to think of it, arguing with someone who pushes so hard to confuse the issues is probably the biggest waste of time I can think of. It means less time spent trying to claryify for those minds that still possess the ability to reason.

[Wild Cobra]

You may not. But the fact is, many, many educated people in the field do. Just ask T Boone Pickens.
LOL...

You want me to believe a man who needs that to be real to make money on wind and solar?

My point is, we already have decent technology for alternate power. Why do you and others think we can just magically change, before we are ready in a real market supply and demand?

It will happen. just wait, and let the natural laws take effect.

[Wild Cobra]

you have gotta to quite with the confusion of the issues. When it comes to anything credible, typical repub response is to try to shake confidence in the voter public. Thats the easiest way to defeat the opposition...confuse the issues.

Actually, come to think of it, arguing with someone who pushes so hard to confuse the issues is probably the biggest waste of time I can think of. It means less time spent trying to claryify for those minds that still possess the ability to reason.
I try to look at things from a realistic point of view. The free market actually works, if you are cautions with regulation. You don't want to try to control free market activities, just abuses in it.

[RandomGuy]

No, I am only pointing out that none of us really know. To stick to the notion of the Hubbard curve is ridiculous when we constantly find more and more. We simply don't know where the peak is.

One of the embedded assumptions of the Hubbert curve is that there will be new discoveries.

As for not knowing where the peak is, let's examine that a little.

Do manufacturing companies need to know the precise number of units sold in a year to plan for expansions or contractions in capacity?

[RandomGuy]

I try to look at things from a realistic point of view. The free market actually works, if you are cautions with regulation. You don't want to try to control free market activities, just abuses in it.

What if waiting to let the free market handle it costs more in the long run?

[Wild Cobra]

Do manufacturing companies need to know the precise number of units sold in a year to plan for expansions or contractions in capacity?
No, but they work with best estimates. They sometimes profit from such decisions, and they sometimes go bankrupt.

What risks are you willing to take?

I was in an interesting meeting once with Leo Yau. He explained when and how they decide to do their risk taking. It was extremely interesting.

[Parker2112]

I try to look at things from a realistic point of view. The free market actually works, if you are cautions with regulation. You don't want to try to control free market activities, just abuses in it.

The market IS ALREADY CONTROLLED. BIG CORPS DONT ALLOW A FREE MARKET. THE LOBBY INFLUENCE HAS SWAMPED ANY HOPES OF A FREE MARKET.

[Parker2112]

big business in bed with big government. the worst of all worlds.

[RandomGuy]

Because it is relevant:
The Economist has a series of debates on various topics of interest.

Their most recent one was whether it is good for governments to pick winners and losers.
The house has taken the position that this is never a good idea, and both a supporting essay and a contrary essay taking on this statement have been published.

So far the consensus is running 20% for the statement, and 80% against the statement.

Here is the opposing viewpoint that has garnered the overwhelming support of readers:


Since Karl Popper, every student of scientific method knows that a statement such as "all swans are white" can be proved wrong, but it cannot be proved right. So I start with a natural advantage vis-à-vis my colleague, Josh Lerner, who is stuck in a rather unenviable position in this debate. Industrial policy "fails most of the time", or "fails more often than it succeeds"—these are at least plausible arguments. But industrial policy fails always?

My advantage is greatly heightened by the fact that Mr Lerner is a scholar who is as reasonable as he is knowledgeable. So it is in his book "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" (2009) that we find one of the most effective ripostes directed at the market-fundamentalist account of American technological prowess. "The public sector", Lerner writes, referring especially to the role of the Department of Defense, "proved a critical catalyst to growth in Silicon Valley." And what is true of America is true worldwide as well: "Public programs played an important role in triggering the explosive growth of every other major venture market around the globe." With this said, what is left for me to add?

The white swans of this debate are known as "white elephants"—those colossal projects spawned by industrial policies that never fulfil their architects' dreams and end up bleeding their national treasuries dry. As we know, the landscape is strewn with such white elephants—Concorde, the Proton and the countless factories in the developing world operating at half capacity and at great loss.

But there are black elephants too, and in truth they are far more pervasive than the Tasmanian black swans that adorn the flag of the state of Western Australia. Beyond Mr Lerner's Silicon Valley and venture capital examples, we might mention South Korea's POSCO, possibly the world's most productive steel firm, and Dubai's Jebel Ali port, one of the world's largest and most successful ports—both established by public money and widely derided as uneconomic at the outset. Or we might mention the Chilean salmon industry—the creation of a public venture fund (Fundación Chile)—which stands in sharp contrast to the free-market brush with which Chile's economic success is so frequently (and so misleadingly) painted. If pressed further, we might add to the list Brazil's aircraft industry, Taiwan's and Singapore's electronics industries, China's auto and auto components industries, and many others.

Anyone who thinks failure is the norm in industrial policy should consider this factoid. Latin America experienced far more rapid productivity growth during the early post-war decades when it was heavily subsidising and protecting its "infant" industries than it has since the 1990s when those policies were chucked overboard. I would not wish to go back to those old policies—we can certainly do better. But despite its evident excesses, it is surely telling that "import substitution", as Latin America's earlier economic strategy was called, outperformed anything the region has experienced since (or before).

The essence of economic development is structural transformation, the rise of new industries to replace traditional ones. But this is not an easy or automatic process. It requires a mix of market forces and government support. If the government is too heavy-handed, it kills private entrepreneurship. If it is too standoffish, markets keep doing what they know how to do best, confining the country to its specialisation in traditional, low-productivity products.

Economists understand well the role that industrial policy plays in successful cases. New industries require lots of capital that private entrepreneurs may not have. They require co-ordinated investments in related industries that individual entrepreneurs cannot organise by themselves. They generate demonstration effects and technological spillovers that raise social returns way above private incentives. All these are valid reasons for governments to give private investors a nudge.

The critic responds that all these ideas are fine, but the problem is in practice. Fixing these "market failures" is difficult and governments can just as easily mess it up. Once you open up the door to intervention, all kinds of special interests are likely to get into the act and try to divert policy to their own, selfish ends.

Quite true. But then again this is not that different from what happens when governments engage in, say, education policy, health policy, or tax policy. In each of these areas, governments are driven by economic and social goals that are often articulated loosely and targeted imperfectly. In each of them the policy process can be hijacked by special interests. Few but libertarians draw the conclusion from this that government departments should be abolished and schooling, health, or social insurance should be left completely to markets. We debate how best to provide these public services, not whether they should be provided at all.

So it should be with industrial policy. Fostering structural transformation and innovation is a central public purpose. Governments cannot evade the challenge. The only debatable question about industrial policy is not "whether" but "how."

Main debate page, for those interested:
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/177

As I have said before, I am not for a complete killing of the oil/gas/coal industry. That is silly.

I am for some fairly solid R & D funding, together with some added financial subsidies for renewables and taxes onoil/gas/coal.

[RandomGuy]

No, but they work with best estimates. They sometimes profit from such decisions, and they sometimes go bankrupt.

What risks are you willing to take?

I was in an interesting meeting once with Leo Yau. He explained when and how they decide to do their risk taking. It was extremely interesting.

I am willing to take the risk that we switch over prematurely. I see this risk as lesser in magnitude and impact than that of switching over too late.

The problem with the point you are trying to make is that we have a very good idea as to how much oil is left to discover. We do not know exactly, but we have a very high degree of confidence what the range is.

We do not know "exactly" how much oil there, but we don't have to, do we?

[Wild Cobra]

I am willing to take the risk that we switch over prematurely. I see this risk as lesser in magnitude and impact than that of switching over too late.

How can you justify that? We don't know how long it will be before wind, solar, etc. are marketable. How much money in tax payer subsidies might such a project use? Unknown, right? Now combine the


The problem with the point you are trying to make is that we have a very good idea as to how much oil is left to discover. We do not know exactly, but we have a very high degree of confidence what the range is.

We do not know "exactly" how much oil there, but we don't have to, do we?

Too fucking dangerous. Let's assume you decide to subsidize solar and wind to make it a primary power source for electricity to convert water to hydrogen. This would probably require in the high hundreds of billions annually to subsidize. What if you still lasts 50 years. How do you subsidize for so long?

[Parker2112]

How can you justify that? We don't know how long it will be before wind, solar, etc. are marketable. How much money in tax payer subsidies might such a project use? Unknown, right? Now combine the

Too fucking dangerous. Let's assume you decide to subsidize solar and wind to make it a primary power source for electricity to convert water to hydrogen. This would probably require in the high hundreds of billions annually to subsidize. What if you still lasts 50 years. How do you subsidize for so long?

Way to side step the argument which blows holes in your free market propoganda:
The market IS ALREADY CONTROLLED. BIG CORPS DONT ALLOW A FREE MARKET. THE LOBBY INFLUENCE HAS SWAMPED ANY HOPES OF A FREE MARKET.

If you are as smart as you say you are, you already know that the true cost of oil is never counted, because govt favors big contributors, and govt actively aids big oil and others in keeping thier grip on the market.

Free market is nonexistent in the US. We already have what the communists used to drain the life out of thier own countries: government control of markets.

[Parker2112]

If the true cost of burning hydrocarbons was factored in, the cheap price of oil wouldnt be so damn cheap. coal either.

count the destructive affect on the environment. sickness and lost wages. loss of personal wealth every time gas prices fluctuate wildly.

government is in bed with the industry, and actively hides all these things. government is on the take.

[Wild Cobra]

Way to side step the argument which blows holes in your free market propoganda:
The market IS ALREADY CONTROLLED.
Yes, bu the government.

BIG CORPS DONT ALLOW A FREE MARKET.
You mean like the friends of democrats.... the bankers?

THE LOBBY INFLUENCE HAS SWAMPED ANY HOPES OF A FREE MARKET.

You're right They have lobbied for deadbeat dads and mothers, Subsidies to push ethanol. The environmental groups recently proved power over the government by getting drilling rigs shut down.


If you are as smart as you say you are, you already know that the true cost of oil is never counted, because govt favors big contributors, and govt actively aids big oil and others in keeping thier grip on the market.

Maybe lawmakers are extorting them not to enact harsher regulation?

Can you prove they are paying for the politicians?


Free market is nonexistent in the US. We already have what the communists used to drain the life out of thier own countries: government control of markets.
So why do you want more?

[Parker2112]

Yes, bu the government.

[quote=Wild Cobra;4501840]You mean like the friends of democrats.... the bankers?

abso-fuggin-lutely. draining the blood of the american people.


You're right They have lobbied for deadbeat dads and mothers, Subsidies to push ethanol. The environmental groups recently proved power over the government by getting drilling rigs shut down.

they throw the public a bone while the real story never sees the light of day.


Maybe lawmakers are extorting them not to enact harsher regulation?

Can you prove they are paying for the politicians?

Rick Perry, Joe Barton and others already did.


So why do you want more?

Maybe we just need to repeal the subsidies and legal protections we have given to big oil, let them be raped in the courts...oh wait, they are much too powerful to ever be held accountable in a court of law...so maybe as much as govt sucks, regulation is the only means to protect the people here, from the destruction of thier country by those who would drain it dry...big bankers and big oil.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe we just need to repeal the subsidies and legal protections we have given to big oil, let them be raped in the courts...oh wait, they are much too powerful to ever be held accountable in a court of law...so maybe as much as govt sucks, regulation is the only means to protect the people here, from the destruction of thier country by those who would drain it dry...big bankers and big oil.
What subsidies?

[Parker2112]

What subsidies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

"the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg284.htm) by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs."

[Parker2112]

free market economy argument = joke.

[Parker2112]

So let me get this straight Wild Cobra...you would leave the subsidized industry in place, flying in the face of our obvious need for alternatives, in the name of free market economy? losing argument all day every day. I see your bloomers

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

"the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg284.htm) by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs."
LOL...

With "tax break."

LOL...

You call those subsidies?......

NEXT!

[Wild Cobra]

So let me get this straight Wild Cobra...you would leave the subsidized industry in place, flying in the face of our obvious need for alternatives, in the name of free market economy? losing argument all day every day. I see your bloomers
I'm for no subsidies. I'm for tax breaks.

[Parker2112]

So tax breaks cant steer our economy and cripple the competition, by putting big oil in favor? your really squirming to avoid the kill shot here...

Im done here. go ahead and take the last word, but your arguments have been completely discredited.

[Wild Cobra]

So tax breaks cant steer our economy and cripple the competition, by putting big oil in favor? your really squirming to avoid the kill shot here...

Im done here. go ahead and take the last word, but your arguments have been completely discredited.
LOL...

My god, what a joke you are. It's some of these 'green' companies that are getting actual subsidies, and not paying those big taxes. You want to blame the oil companies?

get real man.

[Parker2112]

way to muddle the issue with off-topic discussion. If those green companies were running the gulf into hell, making people sick, and pushing us into ENDLESS conflicts overseas big enough to send the American economy into bankrupcty, I guess you might have a point.

And thats fucking REAL MAN.

[Wild Cobra]

way to muddle the issue with off-topic discussion. If those green companies were running the gulf into hell, making people sick, and pushing us into ENDLESS conflicts overseas big enough to send the American economy into bankrupcty, I guess you might have a point.

And thats fucking REAL MAN.
Idiot. I mean the green companies that have made solar collectors, wind mills, etc.

[Parker2112]

What about the subsidies we have alowed big oil in the way of AMERICAN SOLDIERS LIVES? lost so that they can get thier hands on what used to be Saddam's. What about the war funding in the way of nearly 1/10 of our total national debt? you dont think oil execs were sporting maximum erections when we declared war in iraq? you dont think the administration did that to pad thier stock interests?

You know the truth, you are smart enough to know the truth, yet you continue to cloud the real issues. I dont know when your allegiances were bought, but that fact is no longer in doubt.

[Wild Cobra]

What about the subsidies we have alowed big oil in the way of AMERICAN SOLDIERS LIVES? lost so that they can get thier hands on what used to be Saddam's. What about the war funding in the way of nearly 1/10 of our total national debt? you dont think oil execs were sporting maximum erections when we declared war in iraq? you dont think the administration did that to pad thier stock interests?

You know the truth, you are smart enough to know the truth, yet you continue to cloud the real issues. I dont know when your allegiances were bought, but that fact is no longer in doubt.
The war wasn't over oil.

You can take that tin hat off any time.

[Parker2112]

That war was predicted in the 70's man...even then top level conservative policymakers knew that the resources in the middle east would result in war there. and when our dependence got out of control and China began to move in on some of our supply, we used what we had...military might...to get what we didnt...the richest oil reserves in the world.

Its common knowledge to anyone who does thier homework.

[boutons_deux]

"war wasn't over oil."

You Lie

dickhead's National Energy Task Force in early 2001 was all about the maps of Iraq showing where the oil fields. dubya was talking about Iraq in his first cabinet meeting. Invading Iraq was primary PNAC objective in the late 1990s.

Only dumbfucks still believe the lies that invading Iraq was for WMD, UN resolutions, AQ, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, or Saddam as threat to USA. I repeat the truth for 1000th time, to match your lies.

[Wild Cobra]

That war was predicted in the 70's man...even then top level conservative policymakers knew that the resources in the middle east would result in war there. and when our dependence got out of control and China began to move in on some of our supply, we used what we had...military might...to get what we didnt...the richest oil reserves in the world.

Its common knowledge to anyone who does thier homework.
Whatever.

Now you're just doing a dance around a tin sombrero.

[Parker2112]

your not as smart as i thought...I'll cite it for you in a bit...

[Wild Cobra]

your not as smart as i thought...I'll cite it for you in a bit...
And the world will end in 2012.

That's always been a hot region. Why should any documented prediction be surprising?

[Parker2112]

Following the Oil shocks of the 70s, top level administration in Nixon's white house advocated that we physically invade an OPEC nation to get our hands on the easy stuff. The threat of a counter strike by Russia was all that diverted us then. Coincidentally, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were all involved in that administration.

Years later they would go on to fulfill those aspirations in the Bush Admin.

I cant find the cite, but this is history that a smart mofo like yourself should know. And I think you do know.

[Parker2112]

the specific cite I wanted was Wolfowitz's reference, inside work he did in a conservative think tank in the 70s, saying that America would invade a middle-eastern country within the next 25 years

[Parker2112]

And the world will end in 2012.

That's always been a hot region. Why should any documented prediction be surprising?

why is it hot? tell me that, and Ill tell you why we invaded iraq.

[Parker2112]

your either bought, or your dumber than you give yourself credit for.

[spursncowboys]

12 un resolutions violated. being the 4th largest military in the world and creating a chaotic environment in the middle east. believed to have nukes. aided and funded terrorist organization and al qeda. shot at american planes. committed war crimes. was a commie dictator who starved his own people to death while he lived luxuriously.

[Parker2112]

12 un resolutions violated. being the 4th largest military in the world and creating a chaotic environment in the middle east. believed to have nukes. aided and funded terrorist organization and al qeda. shot at american planes. committed war crimes. was a commie dictator who starved his own people to death while he lived luxuriously.

he had no nukes. he had no chemical weapons. his country had been operating under sanctions and embargos for years, Iraq was in shambles. Shot at US planes for years, never hit one due to the lack of anti-aircraft weaponry. no threat to anyone in the US. Never confirmed any ties to al-queda. committed war crimes, lived luxuriously, starved his own people as a dictator, WHO WAS PROPPED UP BY THE US GOV UNTIL HE TRIED TO OVERSTEP HIS BOUNDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND BECAME A THREAT TO OUR OIL SUPPLY.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE TEXAS TEA.

Try again, brother.

[Parker2112]

12 un resolutions violated. being the 4th largest military in the world and creating a chaotic environment in the middle east. believed to have nukes. aided and funded terrorist organization and al qeda. shot at american planes. committed war crimes. was a commie dictator who starved his own people to death while he lived luxuriously.

read that stuff above, man...how can you just side-step all that circumstantial evidence?

[spursncowboys]

he had no nukes. he had no chemical weapons. his country had been operating under sanctions and embargos for years, Iraq was in shambles. Shot at US planes for years, never hit one due to the lack of anti-aircraft weaponry. no threat to anyone in the US. Never confirmed any ties to al-queda. committed war crimes, lived luxuriously, starved his own people as a dictator, WHO WAS PROPPED UP BY THE US GOV UNTIL HE TRIED TO OVERSTEP HIS BOUNDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND BECAME A THREAT TO OUR OIL SUPPLY.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE TEXAS TEA.

Try again, brother. we never propped up saddam. in fact we propped up the shah in iran to counter saddam and his ties to the soviets.
he had no nukes, but no one (besides sean penn) knew that. since he booted the weapons inspectors, we never found out he didn't have one. there are confirmed ties to al quaeda and saddam. saddam did shoot down planes. iraq the country was in shambles but he still had a huge army.

[boutons_deux]

"he booted the weapons inspectors"

You Lie

dubya pulled out the WMD hunters with only a few weeks remaining before dubya's invasion-for-oil.

St Ronnie and his MIC accomplices very definitely supplied and supported Saddam in the 80s against Iran. Remember, Iran's oil has been on the Repug/conservative menu for 30+ years, as has Iraq's. So befriending Iraq to destroy the Iranian embassy-violating Iran would give US access to Iraq's and Iran's oil.

[RandomGuy]

How can you justify that? We don't know how long it will be before wind, solar, etc. are marketable. How much money in tax payer subsidies might such a project use? Unknown, right? Now combine the

Too fucking dangerous. Let's assume you decide to subsidize solar and wind to make it a primary power source for electricity to convert water to hydrogen. This would probably require in the high hundreds of billions annually to subsidize. What if you still lasts 50 years. How do you subsidize for so long?

Again, you seem to want a level of data and certainty that is simply not possible, nor desirable to attempt to obtain due to cost.

We have lots of data on the cost "marketability" of various forms of renewable energy.

Both solar and wind have been narrowing the gap, even without subsidies for decades. Most financial analysts who study this have noted that the better sites for wind have come into very close cost competition to new coal power plants, and look to hit the holy grail of renewables "grid parity" fairly soon.

Costs for various forms of solar have come down as well, and both efficiency gains and cost gains from efficiency of scale will continue.

The free market is going to pick these forms of energy as time goes by.

Do you want to cede a competitive advantage to countries that recognize this?

You say that it will cost "hundreds of billions of dollars for 50+ years".

Can you support that with any actual estimates?

You criticise me for not knowing everything for certain and wanting to base decisions on that, but you JUST DID THE EXACT SAME THING.

You assumed it would take too long and cost too much, then used that as the basis for not doing anything. You not only did the exact same thing you accuse me of, you did it on the basis of no real world data.

How is that a recipe for good policy?


Since Karl Popper, every student of scientific method knows that a statement such as "all swans are white" can be proved wrong, but it cannot be proved right. So I start with a natural advantage vis-à-vis my colleague, Josh Lerner, who is stuck in a rather unenviable position in this debate. Industrial policy "fails most of the time", or "fails more often than it succeeds"—these are at least plausible arguments. But industrial policy fails always?

My advantage is greatly heightened by the fact that Mr Lerner is a scholar who is as reasonable as he is knowledgeable. So it is in his book "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" (2009) that we find one of the most effective ripostes directed at the market-fundamentalist account of American technological prowess. "The public sector", Lerner writes, referring especially to the role of the Department of Defense, "proved a critical catalyst to growth in Silicon Valley." And what is true of America is true worldwide as well: "Public programs played an important role in triggering the explosive growth of every other major venture market around the globe." With this said, what is left for me to add?

The white swans of this debate are known as "white elephants"—those colossal projects spawned by industrial policies that never fulfil their architects' dreams and end up bleeding their national treasuries dry. As we know, the landscape is strewn with such white elephants—Concorde, the Proton and the countless factories in the developing world operating at half capacity and at great loss.

But there are black elephants too, and in truth they are far more pervasive than the Tasmanian black swans that adorn the flag of the state of Western Australia. Beyond Mr Lerner's Silicon Valley and venture capital examples, we might mention South Korea's POSCO, possibly the world's most productive steel firm, and Dubai's Jebel Ali port, one of the world's largest and most successful ports—both established by public money and widely derided as uneconomic at the outset. Or we might mention the Chilean salmon industry—the creation of a public venture fund (Fundación Chile)—which stands in sharp contrast to the free-market brush with which Chile's economic success is so frequently (and so misleadingly) painted. If pressed further, we might add to the list Brazil's aircraft industry, Taiwan's and Singapore's electronics industries, China's auto and auto components industries, and many others.

Anyone who thinks failure is the norm in industrial policy should consider this factoid. Latin America experienced far more rapid productivity growth during the early post-war decades when it was heavily subsidising and protecting its "infant" industries than it has since the 1990s when those policies were chucked overboard. I would not wish to go back to those old policies—we can certainly do better. But despite its evident excesses, it is surely telling that "import substitution", as Latin America's earlier economic strategy was called, outperformed anything the region has experienced since (or before).

The essence of economic development is structural transformation, the rise of new industries to replace traditional ones. But this is not an easy or automatic process. It requires a mix of market forces and government support. If the government is too heavy-handed, it kills private entrepreneurship. If it is too standoffish, markets keep doing what they know how to do best, confining the country to its specialisation in traditional, low-productivity products.

Economists understand well the role that industrial policy plays in successful cases. New industries require lots of capital that private entrepreneurs may not have. They require co-ordinated investments in related industries that individual entrepreneurs cannot organise by themselves. They generate demonstration effects and technological spillovers that raise social returns way above private incentives. All these are valid reasons for governments to give private investors a nudge.

The critic responds that all these ideas are fine, but the problem is in practice. Fixing these "market failures" is difficult and governments can just as easily mess it up. Once you open up the door to intervention, all kinds of special interests are likely to get into the act and try to divert policy to their own, selfish ends.

Quite true. But then again this is not that different from what happens when governments engage in, say, education policy, health policy, or tax policy. In each of these areas, governments are driven by economic and social goals that are often articulated loosely and targeted imperfectly. In each of them the policy process can be hijacked by special interests. Few but libertarians draw the conclusion from this that government departments should be abolished and schooling, health, or social insurance should be left completely to markets. We debate how best to provide these public services, not whether they should be provided at all.

So it should be with industrial policy. Fostering structural transformation and innovation is a central public purpose. Governments cannot evade the challenge. The only debatable question about industrial policy is not "whether" but "how."