On Feb 28, 10:09*pm, JosephKK wrote:
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:
[...]

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. *That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).
Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. *So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.
Cheers,
James Arthur
What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap real
estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just transport
problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn it into
methane gas.
-Bill
Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. *Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? *Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* *That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. *;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100 MPG.
But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the busses ran
every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably reduce the
traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if there's a lot to
carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill

So, do you ride a motorcycle? *Or use buses or trains? *How often?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, I walk most everywhere I have to go. I used to ride a
bicycle to work about a mile away and I rode busses to school, but it
took over an hour to get there. And I rode busses for about 3 months
when my van broke down while I was shopping for a new truck. Also rode
a motorcycle for a couple years when I was younger and car insurance
was expensive. Nowadays, I drive about 5000 miles a year on two oil
changes.

-Bill

JosephKK wrote:

[snip]

You sure as heck don't know the real Jim Thompson do you

They are really difficult to tell apart by the content alone.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and
then to make sure it's still there.

On Feb 28, 6:17 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:15 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:



On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:

[...]

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

Cheers,
James Arthur

What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap real
estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just transport
problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn it into
methane gas.

-Bill

Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. ;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100 MPG.
But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the busses ran
every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably reduce the
traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if there's a lot to
carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Opps, that should have been Kiloliters.

-Bill


Thanks for the link. I'm skeptical, for the reasons mentioned. This
quote also raises my eyebrows:

"In the tests to date, one ton of seaweed has been processed per
day, allowing the collection
of 20 kiloliters of methane gas. In order to boost efficiency, this
is blended with natural gas
and converted into 10 kilowatts of electricity per hour."

How much natural gas is added? What's the blend?

If we take the entire 10kWhr as due to the seaweed, that's $1.40 worth
of electricity per ton. Seems like a pretty low yield, and one
wonders whether more than that was spent processing the stuff.
Grinding up, pumping, collecting...

Alas, there are no easy answers.

Cheers,
James

On Feb 29, 8:04*pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:17 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:





On Feb 28, 6:15 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:

[...]

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. *That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. *So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

Cheers,
James Arthur

What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap real
estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just transport
problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn it into
methane gas.

-Bill

Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. *Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? *Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* *That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. *;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100 MPG.
But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the busses ran
every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably reduce the
traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if there's a lot to
carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Opps, that should have been Kiloliters.

-Bill

Thanks for the link. *I'm skeptical, for the reasons mentioned. *This
quote also raises my eyebrows:

* "In the tests to date, one ton of seaweed has been processed per
day, allowing the collection
* *of 20 kiloliters of methane gas. In order to boost efficiency, this
is blended with natural gas
* *and converted into 10 kilowatts of electricity per hour."

How much natural gas is added? *What's the blend?

If we take the entire 10kWhr as due to the seaweed, that's $1.40 worth
of electricity per ton. *Seems like a pretty low yield, and one
wonders whether more than that was spent processing the stuff.
Grinding up, pumping, collecting...

Alas, there are no easy answers.

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure if these numbers are right, but from this website it looks
like giant kelp is worth 5K to 8K BTU per pound, or maybe 2KwH which
would be 28 cents. So, a ton of seeweed would be worth 2000 * 0.28 =
$560 ???

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6868993

"Examples of biomass that may prove to be optimum crops include land
crops of Sudangrass, napiergrass, sorghum, sugarcane, and the
unicellular algae Chlorella and Scenedesmus, and seawater crops of
Macrocystis pyrifera (giant kelp).^Several of these crops could yield
20 to 30 tons of dry organic matter/acre/y, some others up to 60 tons/
acre/y.^These crops are estimated to range in fuel value from 5000 to
8000 Btu/dry lb "

-Bill

MooseFET wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message
et...
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:
[...]





The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).
Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.
Cheers,
James Arthur
What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap real
estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just transport
problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn it into
methane gas.
-Bill
Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. ;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100 MPG.
But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the busses ran
every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably reduce the
traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if there's a lot to
carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill
So, do you ride a motorcycle? Or use buses or trains? How often?


Don't warn him, let him get hurt and let him find the truth the hard way. I
already checked with the motorcyclists. They said they're getting 28-30MPG
on highway. There is no such thing 100MPG motorcycle.

America loves to jump to conclusion on everything from Economy to WDM's.
This time you're going to get hurt badly.



You have not talked with a sufficient quantity of motorcyclists. Over
time i have rode units giving anywhere from 22 mpg to 85 mpg. My
current ride gives about 32 to 35 mpg commuting, but it is overpowered
and very quick and fun to ride. (110 HP on 800 Lbs curb, full tank.)

Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.
So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.


But those prices are not the news with which you can manipulate the sheeple.

MooseFET wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
Jim Thompson wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...%7D&siteid=rss

Feb. 26, 2008

.................................................. ................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

Or, the dollar drops to $101.11 per barrel. That's about 66.96 EU/
barrel. There's a good change that if you offered to settle in Euros,
most oil producers would quote you a better rate than that.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like an analogy.
That's the right way to look at the transition. In 2003 the EURO makers
said they will beat US because they hated Bush's arrogant act on Iraq,
Too paranoid. Put the aluminum foil hat back on.

The EU simply never allowed itself from being distracted from running
its economies and industries based on sound fiscal principles.


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time's fun when you're having flies. -- Kermit the Frog

they pushed to Arabic countries to use EURO as their standard currency.


Wrong. OPEC will still take dollars, or a number of other currencies.
You just get quoted a different price, depending on what the demand for
your particular currency is.


Look up a dictionary for a term "Standard" Is the Dollar right now the
standard Currency of the world Dummy ? Go to Ebay, check out HongKong
items, they require EURO or Austrilian Dollar. Don't make a **** out of
yourself Stupid.





Is little baby upset that her US dollars do not buy the same amount of
HK trash that they used to. Poseur. Impostor.

MooseFET wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:33 pm, (Nico Coesel) wrote:
"Jim Thompson" wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...
Feb. 26, 2008
.................................................. ................................................
As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.
Some people think the imminent downfall of the US economy is going be
a much bigger problem. The mortgage crisis is just the beginning. I
sure hope the next president has more sense. China and other countries
have huge amounts of dollars.
Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. (with apologies
to Mark Twain)

If the dollar is sinking deeper, they
will eventually cut their loss and dump their dollars at any price.
Not likely. Old saying: "If you owe the bank $100k and can't pay,
you've got a problem. If you owe the bank $100M and can't pay, the
_bank_ has a problem."
Or just wait a while and $100M USD won't be that big a deal any more.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupidity kills. But not nearly often enough.



Right now $500 is no big deal. At a restaurant I paid a $100 for dinner
for 3. It used to be $35. You stupid kid have no experience in life, don't
try to be an expert ****ing Jerk.









Oh look, the impostor child lies again.

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:39:50 +0000, JosephKK wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message
et...
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:
[...]





The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown
here has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere
else, generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn
(shudder) or just otherwise less efficiently).
Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes
in tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in
efficiency results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's
authors, anyhow.
Cheers,
James Arthur
What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap
real estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just
transport problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn
it into methane gas.
-Bill
Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. ;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100 MPG.
But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the busses ran
every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably reduce the
traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if there's a lot to
carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill
So, do you ride a motorcycle? Or use buses or trains? How often?


Don't warn him, let him get hurt and let him find the truth the hard
way. I already checked with the motorcyclists. They said they're
getting 28-30MPG on highway. There is no such thing 100MPG motorcycle.

America loves to jump to conclusion on everything from Economy to
WDM's. This time you're going to get hurt badly.



You have not talked with a sufficient quantity of motorcyclists. Over
time i have rode units giving anywhere from 22 mpg to 85 mpg. My
current ride gives about 32 to 35 mpg commuting, but it is overpowered
and very quick and fun to ride. (110 HP on 800 Lbs curb, full tank.)

I drive a Jetta TDI, it gets over 50mpg on average driving. Since it
runs diesel and prices have been so absurd, I have been in the process of
building a small biodiesel refinery. It's a pretty simple solution and
as I'm calculating it, parts should pay for themselves in about 6 months,
after which I should be able to produce BD well under $2.00/gal easily.

I live in the US (go figure) where really only two manufacturers produce
cars using this technology (no domestic producers). The country has made
serious mistakes on their alternative fuel planning:

1. For instance, tax credits are given to those who drive hybrid cars
WHICH still burn gas (or at best 85% ethanol), and are hardly as
efficient on highways as their diesel competitors (which can run 100%
biodiesel). No tax credits are given to those who drive TDI's which are
more efficient outside of cities and can run on pure biodiesel.

2. Biodiesel is shown to produce cleaner emissions, with the exception of
more NOx production (which by the way can be controlled due to the lack
of sulfur in BD). Unlike ULSD diesel, BD protects the engine better. It
also benefits farmers in the country and slows the the bleed that
continues (and will continue) in the US economy due to its reliance on
foreign exports. The only real downside with BD is that it does not have
a high tolerance for extreme cold, but most of the country could still be
shifted to it (the rest could have smaller amounts blended in).

3. Ethanol on the other hand has been shown to have a short shelf life,
is extremely corrosive to many materials, and has poor efficiency. And
yet the government mandates it get added to fuel to decrease efficiency
some more and increase the demand for imports.

4. The EPA has made it nearly impossible to produce diesel engined cars
in the US, rather then trying to mandate a shift to BD blends and
encouraging the production of more efficient cars, it continues to block
them out of the market citing emissions. Consider if a diesel car puts
out 20% more emissions, but gets nearly 40% more fuel efficiency, isn't
there actually a net loss of 20% emissions. No, the EPA has not planned
a shift to an alternative fuel which works, it still is promoting
ethanol, of which not much good is coming of it.

The net fact remains, aside from some mass transport vehicles and
fortunate rural areas in the west, most of the US relies solely on
petroleum imports, and with current government policy, that's not about
to change.

Joe

On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, Joe Kappus wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:39:50 +0000, JosephKK wrote:
MooseFET wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message
.net...
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:
[...]

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown
here has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere
else, generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn
(shudder) or just otherwise less efficiently).
Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes
in tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in
efficiency results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's
authors, anyhow.
Cheers,
James Arthur
What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap
real estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just
transport problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn
it into methane gas.
-Bill
Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. ;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100 MPG.
But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the busses ran
every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably reduce the
traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if there's a lot to
carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill
So, do you ride a motorcycle? Or use buses or trains? How often?

Don't warn him, let him get hurt and let him find the truth the hard
way. I already checked with the motorcyclists. They said they're
getting 28-30MPG on highway. There is no such thing 100MPG motorcycle.

America loves to jump to conclusion on everything from Economy to
WDM's. This time you're going to get hurt badly.

You have not talked with a sufficient quantity of motorcyclists. Over
time i have rode units giving anywhere from 22 mpg to 85 mpg. My
current ride gives about 32 to 35 mpg commuting, but it is overpowered
and very quick and fun to ride. (110 HP on 800 Lbs curb, full tank.)

I drive a Jetta TDI, it gets over 50mpg on average driving. Since it
runs diesel and prices have been so absurd, I have been in the process of
building a small biodiesel refinery. It's a pretty simple solution and
as I'm calculating it, parts should pay for themselves in about 6 months,
after which I should be able to produce BD well under $2.00/gal easily.

I live in the US (go figure) where really only two manufacturers produce
cars using this technology (no domestic producers). The country has made
serious mistakes on their alternative fuel planning:

1. For instance, tax credits are given to those who drive hybrid cars
WHICH still burn gas (or at best 85% ethanol), and are hardly as
efficient on highways as their diesel competitors (which can run 100%
biodiesel). No tax credits are given to those who drive TDI's which are
more efficient outside of cities and can run on pure biodiesel.

For a great many drivers highway milage doesn't matter. Stop and go
driving milage matters a lot for them since that is how the car is
operated nearly 100% of the time.

For many people a plugin hybrid would be the best answer.


2. Biodiesel is shown to produce cleaner emissions, with the exception of
more NOx production (which by the way can be controlled due to the lack
of sulfur in BD).

You can control NOx in with sulfur in the fuel. It isn't easy and it
isn't cheap.

Unlike ULSD diesel, BD protects the engine better. It
also benefits farmers in the country and slows the the bleed that
continues (and will continue) in the US economy due to its reliance on
foreign exports. The only real downside with BD is that it does not have
a high tolerance for extreme cold, but most of the country could still be
shifted to it (the rest could have smaller amounts blended in).

As soon as you start planting crops just to make biodiesel, its
advantage is lost. Biodiesel from waste products adds value to the
economy. Biodiesel from crops doesn't because it is all from seed
oils which takes a lot of energy inputs to make.


3. Ethanol on the other hand has been shown to have a short shelf life,
is extremely corrosive to many materials,

Biodiesel also attacks many materials.

On Feb 29, 11:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth as much as the
price on the spot market because they have the option of refining it
or selling it raw. The spot market is a good but nervous indicator of
the price of oil. The long term contracts will all end some day and a
new contract be written at the new higher price. The trend is
smoothened by that effect but the average rate of increase is not
reduced.

On Mar 2, 10:03*am, MooseFET wrote:
On Feb 29, 11:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:





On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the *news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth as much as the
price on the spot market because they have the option of refining it
or selling it raw. *The spot market is a good but nervous indicator of
the price of oil. *The long term contracts will all end some day and a
new contract be written at the new higher price. *The trend is
smoothened by that effect but the average rate of increase is not
reduced.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth what it can be
sold for. Introducing large stocks into the open market will reduce
the spot price.

Long term contracts are set at a price point where both the buyer and
seller think they will make money over the term of the contract.

On Mar 2, 1:25 pm, Richard Henry wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:03 am, MooseFET wrote:



On Feb 29, 11:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:

On Feb 27, 5:47 pm, "David L. Jones" wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:33 pm, "Jerry G." wrote:

It is very likely, the crude oil price per barrel may get up to about
$120 to $140 by the mid or end of the summer. The reasons are many.
This means that the price of fuel will most likely rise by at least
another 20%.

So why didn't the petrol price go up 700% since oil was $15 back in
1999?
As you say, the reasons are many, but one thing is for sure, petrol
prices have had very little in the way of linear correlation with oil
price.

Dave.

The popular price per barrel quoted in the news is the spot market
price, and ignores the oil refined within vertically-integrated
companies and oil delivered under long-term, fixed-price contracts.

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth as much as the
price on the spot market because they have the option of refining it
or selling it raw. The spot market is a good but nervous indicator of
the price of oil. The long term contracts will all end some day and a
new contract be written at the new higher price. The trend is
smoothened by that effect but the average rate of increase is not
reduced.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The oil within a vertically integrated company is worth what it can be
sold for. Introducing large stocks into the open market will reduce
the spot price.

I don't think it really would or at least not by very much. If a
vertically integrated company sells its crude oil into the market, it
won't be refining it into finished products and selling those. Others
will be making that finished product from the crude oil instead. The
net effect won't be anything like putting new oil from a well onto the
market.


Long term contracts are set at a price point where both the buyer and
seller think they will make money over the term of the contract.

Yes and those predictions are based on the conditions at the time the
contract is made. The next batch of contracts will be written in a
very different environment.

In article , Martin Brown wrote:
In message , Don Klipstein
writes
In ,
James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation

You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

Only if you don't slash and burn pristine rain forest to grow your new
fuel and food which is what is happening in many places at present.

Forest destruction is a one-time event for a given area. Having the
land replace petroleum consumption with biomass burning will be replacement
of ongoing carbon desequestration with neutral carbon impact.

You lose on both sides of the equation, burning the forest and no
longer having it there to do photosynthesis. By comparison the crops
don't fix as much CO2

Where do you get that? A steady-state forest has zero carbon impact
both locally and globally - the biomass content in a natural forest is not
steadily increasing long term, but constant on a long term. Cropland
sequesters carbon locally and if the crop is eaten, burned, decomposed or
any combination of these, has zero carbon impact globally.

and the poor soil quickly degrades without the forest canopy.

That is a separate problem, to be solved by growing sustainable crops or
growing crops where they can be sustained.

The USA has a fair amount of farmland that could not be sustained until
crop rotation including legumes was implemented.

The economics of biofuel are questionable at best - some schemes
actually use more energy from fossil fuel to cultivate and process the
crop it than is yielded by the final product. You might as well not
bother.

What about the schemes that produce more energy than consumed? They do
exist and are used!

When we can turn straw and wood waste into alcohol for fuel then we will
have something useful, but turning grain into fuel is certifiable.

Impact on food prices is a remaining argument to consider. Meanwhile,
corn is now $5.21-$5.28 a bushel, 9.3 to 9.4 cents per pound.

With petroleum costing about 30 cents per pound and having much more
energy per unit weight than corn probably by a factor of more than 3.2 or
so, I would go along with arguments against government mandates to get
corn to get used that way unless there is a benefit, such a likelihood
that biofuel ethanol will be cheaper (even per unit energy) than petroleum
in the foreseeable future.

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:59:17 -0800, MooseFET wrote:

On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, Joe Kappus wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:39:50 +0000, JosephKK wrote:
MooseFET wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message
.net...
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur
wrote:
[...]

The problem not previously considered is that any food not
grown here has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown
somewhere else, generally under more primitive conditions (e.g.
slash & burn (shudder) or just otherwise less efficiently).
Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it
consumes in tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss
in efficiency results in net increased emissions. So say the
paper's authors, anyhow.
Cheers,
James Arthur
What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap
real estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just
transport problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and
turn it into methane gas.
-Bill
Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive
them *less!* That works with zero technical risk, current
technology, saves money and saves the planet. ;-)

Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.

Here's a link:

http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html

As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100
MPG. But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the
busses ran every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably
reduce the traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if
there's a lot to carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.

-Bill
So, do you ride a motorcycle? Or use buses or trains? How often?

Don't warn him, let him get hurt and let him find the truth the hard
way. I already checked with the motorcyclists. They said they're
getting 28-30MPG on highway. There is no such thing 100MPG
motorcycle.

America loves to jump to conclusion on everything from Economy to
WDM's. This time you're going to get hurt badly.

You have not talked with a sufficient quantity of motorcyclists.
Over time i have rode units giving anywhere from 22 mpg to 85 mpg.
My current ride gives about 32 to 35 mpg commuting, but it is
overpowered and very quick and fun to ride. (110 HP on 800 Lbs curb,
full tank.)

I drive a Jetta TDI, it gets over 50mpg on average driving. Since it
runs diesel and prices have been so absurd, I have been in the process
of building a small biodiesel refinery. It's a pretty simple solution
and as I'm calculating it, parts should pay for themselves in about 6
months, after which I should be able to produce BD well under $2.00/gal
easily.

I live in the US (go figure) where really only two manufacturers
produce cars using this technology (no domestic producers). The
country has made serious mistakes on their alternative fuel planning:

1. For instance, tax credits are given to those who drive hybrid cars
WHICH still burn gas (or at best 85% ethanol), and are hardly as
efficient on highways as their diesel competitors (which can run 100%
biodiesel). No tax credits are given to those who drive TDI's which
are more efficient outside of cities and can run on pure biodiesel.

For a great many drivers highway milage doesn't matter. Stop and go
driving milage matters a lot for them since that is how the car is
operated nearly 100% of the time.

For many people a plugin hybrid would be the best answer.

People who live in cities will benefit. But why have a car in the first
place if you live in a major city? Why not use mass transit? I can tell
you most of my driving is not constant stop and go, and I still live in
the most densely populated state.

2. Biodiesel is shown to produce cleaner emissions, with the exception
of more NOx production (which by the way can be controlled due to the
lack of sulfur in BD).

You can control NOx in with sulfur in the fuel. It isn't easy and it
isn't cheap.

Yeah, which is why the government went hellbent on mandating ULSD so
cheaper systems could be implemented.

Unlike ULSD diesel, BD protects the engine better. It
also benefits farmers in the country and slows the the bleed that
continues (and will continue) in the US economy due to its reliance on
foreign exports. The only real downside with BD is that it does not
have a high tolerance for extreme cold, but most of the country could
still be shifted to it (the rest could have smaller amounts blended
in).

As soon as you start planting crops just to make biodiesel, its
advantage is lost. Biodiesel from waste products adds value to the
economy. Biodiesel from crops doesn't because it is all from seed oils
which takes a lot of energy inputs to make.

It keeps the money in the country and benefits farmers, the negative side
is it increases some crop prices. I don't see how planting more crops
for biodiesel spells a loss, I think if anything it would create a new
industry in the US. The country has plenty of farmland, it might even be
able to export if it can build the facilities.


3. Ethanol on the other hand has been shown to have a short shelf life,
is extremely corrosive to many materials,

Biodiesel also attacks many materials.

True about that, I forgot it myself :P

"Joe Kappus" skrev i en meddelelse
...

I drive a Jetta TDI, it gets over 50mpg on average driving. Since it
runs diesel and prices have been so absurd, I have been in the process of
building a small biodiesel refinery. It's a pretty simple solution and
as I'm calculating it, parts should pay for themselves in about 6 months,
after which I should be able to produce BD well under $2.00/gal easily.

I live in the US (go figure) where really only two manufacturers produce
cars using this technology (no domestic producers). The country has made
serious mistakes on their alternative fuel planning:

No mistake here ;-0

The net fact remains, aside from some mass transport vehicles and
fortunate rural areas in the west, most of the US relies solely on
petroleum imports, and with current government policy, that's not about
to change.

Exactly - Governments are not about change, but about preventing any!
Governments are society's parasites adopted perfectly to the prevailing
system so change is very risky to them because it creates a window of
opportunity for a *different* set of leeches.

I.O.W: Any energy scheme that reduces government income will not be
supported in any way whatsoever and even sabotaged whenever possible. This
applies in Denmark too!


Joe

On Mar 2, 9:40 pm, Joe Kappus wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:59:17 -0800, MooseFET wrote:
[....]
For a great many drivers highway milage doesn't matter. Stop and go
driving milage matters a lot for them since that is how the car is
operated nearly 100% of the time.

For many people a plugin hybrid would be the best answer.

People who live in cities will benefit. But why have a car in the first
place if you live in a major city? Why not use mass transit? I can tell
you most of my driving is not constant stop and go, and I still live in
the most densely populated state.

In many places, it is quicker to walk than take transit. If you need
to carry packages etc, transit may not be an option at all.



2. Biodiesel is shown to produce cleaner emissions, with the exception
of more NOx production (which by the way can be controlled due to the
lack of sulfur in BD).

You can control NOx in with sulfur in the fuel. It isn't easy and it
isn't cheap.

Yeah, which is why the government went hellbent on mandating ULSD so
cheaper systems could be implemented.

The sulfur is its own problem. That rotten egg smell isn't just
umpleasant.


Unlike ULSD diesel, BD protects the engine better. It
also benefits farmers in the country and slows the the bleed that
continues (and will continue) in the US economy due to its reliance on
foreign exports. The only real downside with BD is that it does not
have a high tolerance for extreme cold, but most of the country could
still be shifted to it (the rest could have smaller amounts blended
in).

As soon as you start planting crops just to make biodiesel, its
advantage is lost. Biodiesel from waste products adds value to the
economy. Biodiesel from crops doesn't because it is all from seed oils
which takes a lot of energy inputs to make.

It keeps the money in the country and benefits farmers,

Maybe not. If there is a free market in such things some countries
nearer the tropics will have an advantage. Farmers rarely benefit
from such things anyway. Folk like ADM get most of the benefit.


the negative side
is it increases some crop prices. I don't see how planting more crops
for biodiesel spells a loss,

If it takes more energy to product the biodiesel than you can get out
of it, you certainly have a loss. Short of that you can end up
forcing crops into land that is less suited to its growth and where
more inputs are needed to produce the same food. The result can be
more total energy.


I think if anything it would create a new
industry in the US. The country has plenty of farmland, it might even be
able to export if it can build the facilities.

If you look at the really good farm land vs just the farm land, you
will see that the US doesn't really have a huge amount. A lot of the
farm land in the US requires significant inputs to produce a crop.




3. Ethanol on the other hand has been shown to have a short shelf life,
is extremely corrosive to many materials,

Biodiesel also attacks many materials.

True about that, I forgot it myself :P

"James Arthur" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Feb 28, 1:33 pm, (Nico Coesel) wrote:
"Jim Thompson" wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

................................................. .................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

Some people think the imminent downfall of the US economy is going be
a much bigger problem. The mortgage crisis is just the beginning. I
sure hope the next president has more sense. China and other countries
have huge amounts of dollars.

Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. (with apologies
to Mark Twain)

If the dollar is sinking deeper, they
will eventually cut their loss and dump their dollars at any price.

Not likely. Old saying: "If you owe the bank $100k and can't pay,
you've got a problem. If you owe the bank $100M and can't pay, the
_bank_ has a problem."

Cheers,
James Arthur

It is happening right now. The dumping of USD is what is driving the boom in
commodities and gold: Chinese and Arabs discretely lightening up on the USD
and buying "things of value".

The EUR is not safe a safe buy either because the ECB should have increased
rates already and they haven't - people are betting that the ECB do not dare
to let the Euro rise too much above the USD and will lower rates too
possibly in June. If the ECB does the right thing by *not* cutting rates in
June it is "all over" for the USD.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:34:53 +0100, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:


"James Arthur" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Feb 28, 1:33 pm, (Nico Coesel) wrote:
"Jim Thompson" wrote:

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...7B40D68525%2DB...

Feb. 26, 2008

................................................. .................................................

As the broader market began to regain lost ground, crude prices for
April delivery gained 2.3% to a new high of $101.11 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing crude's last record of
$100.65 hit last week.

Some people think the imminent downfall of the US economy is going be
a much bigger problem. The mortgage crisis is just the beginning. I
sure hope the next president has more sense. China and other countries
have huge amounts of dollars.

Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. (with apologies
to Mark Twain)

If the dollar is sinking deeper, they
will eventually cut their loss and dump their dollars at any price.

Not likely. Old saying: "If you owe the bank $100k and can't pay,
you've got a problem. If you owe the bank $100M and can't pay, the
_bank_ has a problem."

Cheers,
James Arthur

It is happening right now. The dumping of USD is what is driving the boom in
commodities and gold: Chinese and Arabs discretely lightening up on the USD
and buying "things of value".

The EUR is not safe a safe buy either because the ECB should have increased
rates already and they haven't - people are betting that the ECB do not dare
to let the Euro rise too much above the USD and will lower rates too
possibly in June. If the ECB does the right thing by *not* cutting rates in
June it is "all over" for the USD.



How long does "All over" last? This is mostly the usual market
psychology positive feedback nonsense, stupid money following smart
money. There's no fundamental reason for the Euro to keep climbing
against the dollar. This is just a bit of noise and ringing in the
system.

As far as I'm concerned, if a bunch of Arabs and Chinese enjoy buying
dollars when they're high, and selling them when they're low, why
should we interfere with their fun? We had similar fun with the
Japanese a while back, selling them buildings and golf courses for
gigabucks a pop and buying them back later for a fraction.

But should I raise my european pricing, and make more money now, or
keep it the same and swipe market share, which might be better in the
long term?

John

"John Larkin" skrev i en
meddelelse ...
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:34:53 +0100, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:

How long does "All over" last?

Forever - Until a new fiat currency is created, which will eventually
implode too. Destruction through lack of confidence, fraud or oversupply of
money is part of the natural life cycle of currencies.

This is mostly the usual market
psychology positive feedback nonsense, stupid money following smart
money. There's no fundamental reason for the Euro to keep climbing
against the dollar. This is just a bit of noise and ringing in the
system.

Interest rates in EUR are higher than in USD. That's pretty fundamental. The
EUR will climb to at least the level where one gets the same returns - and
of course the EUR will continue higher as long as Bernanke is spamming the
world with US paper.

As far as I'm concerned, if a bunch of Arabs and Chinese enjoy buying
dollars when they're high, and selling them when they're low, why
should we interfere with their fun? We had similar fun with the
Japanese a while back, selling them buildings and golf courses for
gigabucks a pop and buying them back later for a fraction.

Eventually even people as stupid and inbred as the Chinese central bankers
and Arab "investors" obviously are will grow tired of that particular game
.... and who will then be the buyer of US denominated paper? Anyone *more*
stupid around?? Normally one runs out of stupid buyers on the end of an
upcycle - doing it on the downswing is not so good.

But should I raise my european pricing, and make more money now, or
keep it the same and swipe market share, which might be better in the
long term?

Does any of all that matter if all you happen to "produce" is rebranded
chink stuff and the Chinese decide to cut out the American middle man and
get paid directly to EUR? The native US manufacturers, you might be among
them, are doing Ok but they are too few to stem the bleeding!

John

On Mar 27, 3:28 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
[....]
Interest rates in EUR are higher than in USD. That's pretty fundamental. The
EUR will climb to at least the level where one gets the same returns - and
of course the EUR will continue higher as long as Bernanke is spamming the
world with US paper.

It isn't just Bernanke. The government is borrowing money to buy
bombs to drop in Iraq. At the end of the day, the US is left with the
debt and nothing to show for it. It would be a different matter if
the US was buying production equipment, infrastructure or even
education with the money. That would mean that there would be assets
to cover the debt so the paper would have a little more backing.

[....]

Eventually even people as stupid and inbred as the Chinese central bankers

I don't see the Chinese central bank as stupid. They have made the
best investments they could given the situation. China is running a
surplus.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:24:38 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
wrote:

On Mar 27, 3:28 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
[....]
Interest rates in EUR are higher than in USD. That's pretty fundamental. The
EUR will climb to at least the level where one gets the same returns - and
of course the EUR will continue higher as long as Bernanke is spamming the
world with US paper.

It isn't just Bernanke. The government is borrowing money to buy
bombs to drop in Iraq. At the end of the day, the US is left with the
debt and nothing to show for it. It would be a different matter if
the US was buying production equipment, infrastructure or even
education with the money. That would mean that there would be assets
to cover the debt so the paper would have a little more backing.

[....]

Eventually even people as stupid and inbred as the Chinese central bankers

I don't see the Chinese central bank as stupid. They have made the
best investments they could given the situation. China is running a
surplus.


You should put "investment" in quotes- a T-bill denominated in USD
drops faster in value than the interest it returns.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Mar 27, 7:25 am, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:24:38 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:28 am, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
[....]
Interest rates in EUR are higher than in USD. That's pretty fundamental. The
EUR will climb to at least the level where one gets the same returns - and
of course the EUR will continue higher as long as Bernanke is spamming the
world with US paper.

It isn't just Bernanke. The government is borrowing money to buy
bombs to drop in Iraq. At the end of the day, the US is left with the
debt and nothing to show for it. It would be a different matter if
the US was buying production equipment, infrastructure or even
education with the money. That would mean that there would be assets
to cover the debt so the paper would have a little more backing.

[....]

Eventually even people as stupid and inbred as the Chinese central bankers

I don't see the Chinese central bank as stupid. They have made the
best investments they could given the situation. China is running a
surplus.

You should put "investment" in quotes- a T-bill denominated in USD
drops faster in value than the interest it returns.

Yes, but they were still making the best bets they thought they
could. Making the US dependent on them, I'm sure they saw as a value
beyond the value of the T-bills. China is likely to make moves
counter to the US interest in africa etc and the US's ability to react
is now reduced.