Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 12, 8:30 am, Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-12, Andy Hall wrote:





On 2007-12-11 14:13:18 +0000, Huge said:
On 2007-12-11, Frank Erskine wrote:
Is it really just a question of payback? I thought the whole idea was
to save dwindling resources of gas and oil.
Oh, dear. The price of a commodity is information about the availability of
that commodity, as well as the means of exchange. If oil/gas/WHY is so cheap
that it isn't worth seeking alternatives, then it simply isn't worth doing.
Obviously, in the long term, the price of fossil fuel will rise and seeking
alternatives will become economic, at which point it will be done.
This is (one of the reasons) why markets are superior to command economies; the
flow of information conveyed by the prices of things.
I was just on a flight lasting 3hrs and there was nothing in English to
read apart from today's copy of the Guardian.
Oh, you poor thing. I flew back from Delhi on Saturday (Jet Airlines Business
Premium - fabulous.) They ran out of proper newspapers before they got to me,
but even I couldn't bring myself to read the Guardian. It makes me want to
vomit. Or punch people. Or something.

- Shell and BP quietly selling off their alternative energy assets
because they can't be made to pay in less than geological time.
That one I didn't know...

Perhaps because it's not correct?

Headline in today's Torygraph "Shell plans to produce fuel from
algae", quote "The pilot project, announced yesterday, continues
Shell's efforts to develop new-generation fuels".

Of course shell are quietly selling off the neverwazzas and trumpeting
every new 'give a bloke in a white coat a salary for a year, you never
know' initiative.



Not quite the same as "Shell and BP quietly selling off their
alternative energy assets because they can't be made to pay in less
than geological time", is it?


Actually it is. Due the the triumph of marketing spin.

MBQ