Reply With Quote
Thats not what conservation is about. Hey, if you want to run your AC at 50 degrees with the windows open, go ahead. It's your bill.
Name them. Oh yeah, other hydrocarbons.Separating hydrogen from other elements takes energy, ie, the hydrogen is "charged up" with that energy, the energy that is released in fuel cells. Natural gas is not the only source of hydrogen.
Yes, energy is "stored" in the hydrogen that is in the fuel cells. But you will dam up a river or burn coal/fossil fuels to generate the energy required to break the extremely strong and stable bonds that hold water together to get "clean" hydrogen. And then never get the amount of energy that you put in back out of the process.
That is why fossil fuels are so attractive. The hard work has already been done for us when it comes out of the ground.
Don't even get me started on the beef comments, did you ever say you were from Texas? What are you going to eat if you don't eat beef/pork/chicken/corn? Do you realize that those products are the backbone of our existence as a free market economy?
It's good to know that agriculture is appreciated.
Thats not what conservation is about. Hey, if you want to run your AC at 50 degrees with the windows open, go ahead. It's your bill.
Beef costs what it costs. If the cost goes up because a lack of subsidizing then it hasnt' really gone up. The cost has simply been applied to the appropriate people as opposed to spreading it out through the tax base.
Yeah, I just collect all the subsidy checks that I've received from the government for my lifetime, oh, wait, I don't have any.
What most people don't realize is that other than grain producers, government assistance to agriculture is just like everything else it's involved with: a joke.
Agribusiness companies are getting subsidies to produce ethanol from corn and diesel from soybeans, which is really wasteful as anything other than a fuel additive.
Last edited by SWC Bonfire; 10-12-2005 at 01:59 PM.
Now this is what I like. A liberal, being a liberal. If our enviromentalist had their way they would have you all riding horses and driving horse and buggies. Of course they would be griping about the residue from those animals. Like in California, right now, as we speak, only it is dairy cattle. This good old USA has more than enough resources to take care of our own, if the people who drill, could. Bye the way, it is not just the BIG oild compaies that drill for oil you know. There are many independents who wish to invest in oil exploration. Research will go on on alternative fuels, no matter what happens. But give some serious thought to the fact that most shortages of energy, water and other essential items were caused by people who want to protect our air, water and poor animals we are killing. Of course the caribu have increased in numbers with the pipeline from Alaska, but dont talk about that. And boutons, who are you to worry about someone's weight. Peole do make concious decisions about themselves, you don't have to worry about them yourself. Take care of your own business and I am sure they will take care of theirs. Of course over my many years I have found people like you get very excited if someone tries to tell you your business. What is wrong with corn syrup? Of course I can think of one other thing to do with corn, but again that is only my idea and I can purchase it, so long as I have the money. No government handout there.
If the most extreme environmentalists had their way, they would sterilize the vast majority of the world's human population so there wouldn't be as many people to impact the environment.
Bull . For how long? 10 years, maybe? At what cost? US oil production peaked in 1970 -- not because of environmental regulations, mind you, but because that's when we reached roughly the halfway point of resource depletion. Are there untapped fields still? Yes. Are they plentiful? No. Are they easy to get to? No. Are they inexpensive to exploit? No.This good old USA has more than enough resources to take care of our own, if the people who drill, could.
True. At the current energy prices, there is economic incentive to do that.Research will go on on alternative fuels, no matter what happens.
Bull . We had energy shortages in the 1970's because OPEC was socking it to us for our support of Israel. There were no supply issues. The most recent oil shocks have to do with demand increases in Asia with which existing suppliers could not keep up. It's not as if oil companies can just new rigs when demand es. The most recent gasoline es have to do with natural disasters -- which to some degree can be blamed on enviros. While it's true that limousine liberals on the East Coast sniff at the notion of having refineries near them, the big reasons oil companies put so much of their infrastructure on the Gulf Coast are 1) that's where the oil is, and 2) that's where the ports are. Good luck getting that supertanker up to Alberta.But give some serious thought to the fact that most shortages of energy, water and other essential items were caused by people who want to protect our air, water and poor animals we are killing.
Also, we have less refining capacity than we did 25 years ago, because: 1) demand has been largely flat over that period, 2) the big oil companies have shut down their less profitable facilities, and 3) they've done a good job of forcing the smaller independent players out of business. Environmental NIMBYism has determined pretty much where the refineries go, not how many there are.
The United States has a statistically unusually high rate of obesity, both compared to affluent and to underdeveloped countries. The reasons why have more to do with the quality of our food supply than they do with personal decisions.And boutons, who are you to worry about someone's weight. Peole do make concious decisions about themselves, you don't have to worry about them yourself.
The human body cannot digest it properly, that's what's wrong with it. It causes sudden es and drops in blood sugar, which causes diabetes, and, through the damage it does to arterial walls, contributes to atherosclerosis, cholesterol plaques, blood clots, and heart disease.What is wrong with corn syrup?
Corn syrup, without government subsidies, would be considerably more expensive as a sweetener than beet or cane sugar.
So, it's dangerously unhealthy, expensive, requires lots of tax money to make it appear economical to the food industry, and through the diseases it causes, leads to lots of unnecessary deaths and jacks up everybody's health insurance rates in the meantime -- if they can afford it at all. That's what's wrong with corn syrup.
I'm betting all of that is new information to you. It makes it difficult for you to make the best decisions for yourself when there is such asymmetry of information. Now, having learned this, if you shrug your shoulders and go guzzle a 1-liter Coke every day, then yeah, it's your own damn fault when doctors have to amputate your legs at the knee from your bloated 350-pound body at age 55 because of complications from diabetes.
Well, your purchase of the ear of corn would be the first and only economic step in its entire life cycle that was not brought about by a government handout.Of course I can think of one other thing to do with corn, but again that is only my idea and I can purchase it, so long as I have the money. No government handout there.
By the way, the handouts aren't going to family farmers. They're going to ConAgra, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland, at the expense of family farmers.
That's how the government really works. And both parties are in the corporations' pockets.
Coal costs a LOT more than you might think in terms of environmental damage, both in burning and mining.
Extra pollution aside, keep in mind that you have to spend energy to mine it and transport it as well. It all boils down to return on invested energy, and the fact that coal is as depletable as oil. Investing in it now only puts off investing in renewables later.
Solar cells have no moving parts, and you only really have to make them once every couple of decades, and transport them once or twice.
Here is a good website on energy issues.
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/rep...ssil_fuels.htm
You don't have to recieve a check to be recieving a savings benefit because of the way they spend tax dollars. I'm sure you don't get a check directly, but you do - as do other people - reap the benefit for their protecting your source of gasoline, correct?Yeah, I just collect all the subsidy checks that I've received from the government for my lifetime, oh, wait, I don't have any.
What most people don't realize is that other than grain producers, government assistance to agriculture is just like everything else it's involved with: a joke.
Agribusiness companies are getting subsidies to produce ethanol from corn and diesel from soybeans, which is really wasteful as anything other than a fuel additive.
You countered that above with a point that the price of beef would go up if there were a higher gas tax to pay. That may very well be the case, but there would also be a place to free tax dollars that are being taken from income to pay for the protection of that oil. Those tax dollars are indirectly subsidizing the the production of beef.
The price of beef or any other product is what it is. It will not go up with a change it will simply be distrbuted to the consuming party.
And as for American agriculture being subsidized, there is no reason the government should be preaching free trade abroad and implmenting protectionist measures here. It makes absolutey no sense and it is a very sore spot to foreign producers who see the hypocrisy for what it is.
good post ES.
Out ing standing. A whole post with clarity, scientific data, and level-headedness.
Gotta be a liberal...
Libs are in favor of free markets? That's a new one.
Gotta be a liberal...
If he is, I believe that would be a very recent occurance.
If the reference is to classical liberalism, then perhaps.
Surprise. RG is a liberal and in favor of free markets.
Again, classical liberalism.
Under my leadership, we will one day be able to turn beef into high quality crude oil.
Vote Scott in 2016
Not really... but I'm a right-winger who recognizes that corporatism and capitalism are not the same thing.Out ing standing. A whole post with clarity, scientific data, and level-headedness.
Gotta be a liberal...
I had a neighbor who spent big money on a wind generator; he even "sold" energy back to the power company... never even came close to paying for the thing after about 10-15 years when the thing broke down and it cost too much to fix it.
I would invite anyone to purchase enough solar cells for to power their own home, install them, and tell me if you can recooperate the capital and maintenance expense in 10, 15, 20 or 30 years... at current levels you probably can't. Mind you, you will still have an energy bill on cloudy days or days when demand overcomes the output of the panels. In 10 years, maybe someone will have a more reliable and efficient panel, but even then it will take many years for the cost benefit to be seen. The cost benefit to the consumer is what will drive this technology, not benevolent intentions (unless it is purchased by those with a lot of disposable income). Tax breaks may be an incentive, but the bottom line is that this will take many years to be a proven, cost-effective technology. That is all I'm saying.
Now, if any of you want to be the guinea pig and cover your house with them, go ahead. I would venture to say that a lot of you live in apartments or rental properties. When it comes down to a new coat of paint and remodeled kitchen vs. solar panels, solar panels will get the shaft 99% of the time. Home Depot is betting on it.
Question: What money spent on coal is going to see results in 10 years??
Yes, it is going to take some more time to make these measures cost effective, but using solar panels to help suplement a bulidings power supply is not nearly as far off as you think. And when I say buildings I don't mean homes I mean larger structures that are draw much larger amounts of power where a roof of solar cells would be very cost effective.
There are currently items that can utilize solar power to make homes more energy efficent as well. They now sell a fan that runs off of a roof solar panel which you place in the attic. The fan cools the attic which in turn makes cooling the house with the AC unit much easier. It'll cost you about 250 I believe, which will probably be made back in one or two months considering South Texas summers. Hail? The panel is guarnteed up to baseball sized hail which is more than I can say for most roofs.
If CPS were to provide a credit on their bills for a purchase of such a unit, they would see demand drop on their systems in the summer months. This is an example of how conservation methods are more much cleaner and cost effective than adding another souce of pollution at Calaveras.
You don't need solar panels to completely replace the current energy supply in order to them to make a significant impact.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 10-13-2005 at 09:49 AM.
Heh, I am a left-winger who recognizes the same.
Actually wind generators have come a LONG way.
BUT
Your points are very valid.
I think energy is about to get a LOT more expensive. The more expensive it gets the better renewables are at paying for themselves.
You are right about the photovoltaic cells. It is better to simply have a more energy efficient design for a house at the moment with good insulation.
There are plenty of good, cheap, cost effective ways of making houses more energy efficient, and this is where we will go first in terms of energy.
As naturally occurring hydrocarbon fuels get more expensive due to depletion, I think we will see renewables really taking off.
One last bit is that solar cells, like anything else benefit from economies of scale. As we get to producing more of them, the costs go down, and therefore so will the "payback" period.
It's all good.
Prices are slowly falling in NW Ohio. Cost per barrel is dropping and refining capacity has to be picking up. Prices at the station nearest me;
Unleaded Regular $2.47
Diesel $3.19
Marlboro $3.68 (plus tax)
Brent (barrel)
8/26 $66.23
9/02 $65.95
9/09 $62.62
9/16 $60.48
9/23 $62.17
9/30 $61.70
10/7 $57.29
One year ago $49.41
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html
Contrast that with what it was in nov-03, at apporoximately $30.
Still relatively cheap when adjusted for inflation and compared to the es in the '70s, but that will change in 5-10 years. Crude oil price increases will outpace inflation for the next 10 years or so by ever-inreasing margins. After about 10 years, my guess is that rate of crude price increases will be multiples of the inflation rate. Your grandchildren will not be driving cars powered by internal combustion engines that burn oil distillates.
Just one note, you want to keep an eye on West Texas Intermediate, not Brent. Brent is a North Sea crude that acts as the benchmark for most European and African production - but is suseptable to wild fluctionations. WTI is a better indicator in the US.
Edit: want to point out on the fluctuations I mentioned... I meant to say fluctuations relative to WTI.
Last edited by scott; 10-16-2005 at 08:36 PM.
Good to know, thanks scott.
I wanted to go with the lower of the two.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
