"Pete C." wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

that still leaves government nuclear plants,reactors that make nuclear
medical isotopes,and the secret enrichment facilities like Iran and
N.Korea's.


Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."

The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a
scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and
nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides
"nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.


I suspect that one could take spent fuel rods from a light water reactor
and separate the PU from it to make warheads.

You could also use the spent rods for "dirty bombs",another sort of
"nuclear weapon".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Tim Smith wrote in
:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.

Idiot. That bill came from the Democrat-controlled *Congress*, not
from the President.

The Democrat-controlled Congress that doesn't have enough votes to
override a veto, thereby meaning NOTHING that comes out of that
Congress becomes law without the President's agreement and signature?
Is that the one you are talking about?


when the bill is riddled with extra items that MUST be enacted,then stuff
like the light bulb crap gets enacted along with it.That's politics.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Pete C." wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

that still leaves government nuclear plants,reactors that make nuclear
medical isotopes,and the secret enrichment facilities like Iran and
N.Korea's.


Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."

The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a
scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and
nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides
"nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.


I suspect that one could take spent fuel rods from a light water reactor
and separate the PU from it to make warheads.

Jim Yanik


You figured that out?

"A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the
nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of
Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium
per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram
per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39
kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the
actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms.
Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass,
this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3
nuclear warheads could be extracted."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

Pete C. wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
You'll never change the overall quality of drivers in this country.
There's no point in even discussing it. "The system" is not and
never will be equipped to do what needs to be done.

Probably true, but not an excuse for blaming the vehicle for the
driver's failings.

A very high percentage of people who purchase SUVs do so for reasons of fashion
and fad. Denying that is delusional.

About the time I got married the minivan was king. Everyone was buying them and
loving them. Then they got the reputation of being a soccer-mom vehicle and
after that every buyer that makes decisions with his penis had to switch to
something more "manly".

A few years prior to that the big three couldn't give SUVs away. That was the
time when people who bought Broncos, Blazers, and Suburbans actually did have
some legitimate use for them, but the industry considered them fringe products
that did not make them any money.

When asked, most SUV drivers will not say they bought them for any usage that
actually requires the attributes of an SUV. They will say it was for "safety"
which is a joke as they are about the most likely vehicle to kill you there is.
Or it was because they like the visibility of the higher seating position when
minivans give pretty much that same advantage with better mileage and safety.

I have no problem with the worker, hunter, or guy that needs to tow a boat
buying an SUV, but that is a very small percentage of SUV owners. For most,
SUVs are the "pet rock" of the last decade or so. Eventually their attention
will be moved to some other segment of the vehicle market and all of us will be
better off for it.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than
the typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers
some sort of incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand
for them. He's found 3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from
people wondering if he wanted to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy
one of the needs fulfilled by SUVs: Carrying lots of stuff without
crowding the passengers.

One of the many indications that the major law passed by Congress is
the Law of Unintended Consequences is the demise of the station wagon.
When they first issued the CAFE regs, they covered wagons as cars but
not vans and SUVs as trucks. The rest is history.

the newer SUVs are now "crossover" vehicles,just a jacked-up station
wagon,of course weighing more than the station wagons of the past.
Many of the newer SUVs cannot tow anything,and are narrow,less stable(less
SAFE),and prone to rollover accidents.Their extra height is a hazard to
other vehicles,too.


There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without
any change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is
in unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel
prices are already improving the situation by triggering more
carpooling and more telecommuting.

There's a limit to how much of that can take place. Twice a week, I
pass by a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years.

That's because once you get to the OTHER END,you have to either
walk(often in inclement weather) or pay for another form of transport to
get to your end destination.

But that is as much of an indication of how we have failed to
develop anything at the other end. The demand for public
transportation options should grow if they would ever be available.


I wonder how many people here have taken a bus daily to get to their
school,job or do their shopping?
(and not the school busses that drop you off and pick up right at the
school)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as there
is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no way depends
on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are now well
aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned into fuel
suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal" civilian facility
eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel source.

Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look silly.

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use of
nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two more
legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big impact
on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be about the
US using more nuclear power.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


They would actually just sell to China instead.

But at what price? In order for us to become less dependent
on foreign oil, we either have to use less oil or increase out
supplies. The first lessens demand and thus lowers the price, the second
increases supply and thus lowers the price.
Of course we have been talking about lowering our dependence
on foreign oil since at least the 70's with no change (at least for the
better) so I think we are probably arguing a moot point in real life.

Well, in the 70s we did have that little oil embargo and folks in the US
did start looking at conservation and alternate energy. Problem is that
the OPEC folks figured out the embargo was bad for their profits and
started shipping cheap oil again, and the US consumers promptly forgot
all about conservation and alternate energy.

Today, many of those alternate energy technologies have greatly improved
and should we have another oil embargo type event the US consumer may
actually implement some alternates and cause a lasting effect on demand.
The ultimate problem is the short attention span and memory of the US
consumer. They forget all about oil embargoes, 9/11 and other problem
events and the reasons they should look at doing things a bit
differently. Even worse, in this age of the Internet and instant
propaganda the failing memory of the US consumer makes it very easy for
the propagandists to manipulate the uninformed public opinion.

On Dec 24, 2:53*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 1:23 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Heh! Adam Smith postulated the concept in the late 18th Century. You,
evidently, are the only person in 230 years to disagree with the idea..

That's correct.

No, actually, it's not. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also disagreed.

Good company you're in there, Kanter.

--

Well, it's not unexpected is it?
+++++++++++++++++++

When car makers began dealing with emissions problems, what made them do so?

Excuse, me but let's not change the subject. The discussion was
someone made the commnet:


It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own best
interests, the overall good is magnified.

To which you replied:


Nonsense.


That shows a shocking ignorance of free market economies. One of the
basic principles of basic free market micro-economics is that everyone
acts in their own interest to maximize profits. Do all players have
to operate under govt regulation, yes. Is some govt regulation a good
thing, like clean air standards? Of course. But anyone that
dismisses what was said as nonsense, clearly doesn't understand basic
economics and how free makets work. Adam Smith figured it out
hundreds of years ago and it's what powers free market economies
today.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as there
is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no way depends
on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are now well
aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned into fuel
suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal" civilian facility
eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel source.

Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look silly.

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use of
nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two more
legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big impact
on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be about the
US using more nuclear power.

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily pollution
from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of 30 years from
now when we might have some of the renewable energy sources improved
enough to make a real impact.

On Dec 23, 10:57*pm, CJT wrote:
Buck Turgidson wrote:
If the idiot suits in Detroit can't design and market a decent car, then
they should be fired.

They _can_ make a decent car (I like my Saturn, for instance), but as
long as there's more money in the behemoth vehicles, that's what they'll
build.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .

All they have to do is like the Japanese and exercise some clever
marketing. First hire a bunch of engineers and designers in the
orient to design one. Then contact companies in the orient to make
the parts. Ship the parts here jamming parts for hundreds of cars on
container ships. Then moved those containers directly to factories
that use Japanese (or other orient designed) robots that assemble the
vehicles while being watched by a union representative. Then
advertise them as "Made in America by American Union Labor".
Need to get that international highway built so they can unload in
Mexico and use Mexican trucks so they don't have to pay the
"outrageous salaries" earned by American dock workers and truck
drivers.


Impossible to compete with companies that don't have to pay taxes
(about half the price of an American made product). If the US imposes
import taxes those countries scream about free trade. Those
countries have consumption tax (sales tax) so they don't tax exports
but tax imports from the U.S..

wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 2:53 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 1:23 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Heh! Adam Smith postulated the concept in the late 18th Century. You,
evidently, are the only person in 230 years to disagree with the
idea.

That's correct.

No, actually, it's not. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also disagreed.

Good company you're in there, Kanter.

--

Well, it's not unexpected is it?
+++++++++++++++++++

When car makers began dealing with emissions problems, what made them do
so?

Excuse, me but let's not change the subject. The discussion was
someone made the commnet:


+++++++++++++++++++


It's not a change of subject. We're talking about free markets making the
right decision without a kick in the ass from the government. So:

When car makers began dealing with emissions problems, what made them do so?

If you don't answer the question, I'll assume that you either don't know the
answer, or you're afraid the correct answer will let all the air out of the
theory about free markets.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Today, many of those alternate energy technologies have greatly improved
and should we have another oil embargo type event the US consumer may
actually implement some alternates and cause a lasting effect on demand.
Maybe. I'd doubt it though. As you mention below our short attention
span. Also pretty much no matter what we do, there will a LONG time
before it kicks in. You have to go through the regular life cycle of
cars, power plants, etc., you have ramp up whatever alternatives you
come up with. We can decide we want to energy independent tomorrow and
it would still be better than 10 (probably coming up on 20) before any
real savings would occur. By then...


The ultimate problem is the short attention span and memory of the US
consumer. They forget all about oil embargoes, 9/11 and other problem
events and the reasons they should look at doing things a bit
differently. Even worse, in this age of the Internet and instant
propaganda the failing memory of the US consumer makes it very easy for
the propagandists to manipulate the uninformed public opinion.

On both sides of an issue.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily pollution
from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of 30 years from
now when we might have some of the renewable energy sources improved
enough to make a real impact.

I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke
plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it
online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off
line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year
thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license nuke
plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact statement can
take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily pollution
from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of 30 years from
now when we might have some of the renewable energy sources improved
enough to make a real impact.

I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke
plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it
online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off
line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year
thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license nuke
plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact statement can
take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.

We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like an
executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years with the
weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to prevent it.

What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new nukes to
allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop all that
pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and plug in hybrid
cars and electric commuter rail and busses and home heating and cooling.
Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation going
without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as possible. Get
realistic renewable sources, including distributed solar and wind
generation online (again quashing NIBMY and Eco-Loon nonsense) over a
reasonable period of time so that in 30 years when those nukes are
reaching retirement they can be retires and we can by on entirely
renewables.

Something sensible like that will never happen of course...

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like an
executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years with the
weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to prevent it.

Good luck. Little of that would be constitutionally valid to overturn
as an EO since it is based on laws passed by Congress, at the minimum
bringing up sepatation of powers.



What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new nukes to
allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop all that
pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and plug in hybrid
cars and electric commuter rail and busses and home heating and cooling.
Which brings up the rather creative accounting for "clean" electric
cars where they look at tailpipe admissions and studiously ignore the
extra electricity that has to be generated.


But I digress (g)

Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation going
without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as possible. Get
realistic renewable sources, including distributed solar and wind
generation online (again quashing NIBMY and Eco-Loon nonsense) over a
reasonable period of time so that in 30 years when those nukes are
reaching retirement they can be retires and we can by on entirely
renewables.
I am not all that sanguine about real life solar and wind generation
as a viable major contributor. The solar cells have to too big and wind
generation takes too much space and both are fairly polluting on the
making of the cells or turbines. Might be useful at the margins, but I
am not all that sold for large scale applications.
Although even the marginal stuff would keep the growing part of
the demand at bay, as it were.



Something sensible like that will never happen of course...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like an
executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years with the
weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to prevent it.

Good luck. Little of that would be constitutionally valid to overturn
as an EO since it is based on laws passed by Congress, at the minimum
bringing up sepatation of powers.

Well, since something like that will never happen, the exact logistics
don't really matter.



What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new nukes to
allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop all that
pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and plug in hybrid
cars and electric commuter rail and busses and home heating and cooling.
Which brings up the rather creative accounting for "clean" electric
cars where they look at tailpipe admissions and studiously ignore the
extra electricity that has to be generated.

But I digress (g)

On my various business visits to San Francisco, I've note the fraudulent
claim of "Zero emissions vehicle" on the electric busses, which are in
fact "Remote emissions vehicles".


Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation going
without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as possible. Get
realistic renewable sources, including distributed solar and wind
generation online (again quashing NIBMY and Eco-Loon nonsense) over a
reasonable period of time so that in 30 years when those nukes are
reaching retirement they can be retires and we can by on entirely
renewables.

I am not all that sanguine about real life solar and wind generation
as a viable major contributor. The solar cells have to too big and wind
generation takes too much space and both are fairly polluting on the
making of the cells or turbines. Might be useful at the margins, but I
am not all that sold for large scale applications.
Although even the marginal stuff would keep the growing part of
the demand at bay, as it were.

This is why I specified "distributed solar" (and wind where applicable),
i.e. panels installed on existing rooftops. Basically something like a
utility supplied and maintained battery less grid tie system. Trying to
do utility scale solar any other way just isn't practical and has huge
environmental impact. Distributed across customer's rooftops it uses no
new space and also greatly extends the service life of the already
overtaxed grid by producing a good portion of the power locally.



Something sensible like that will never happen of course...

On Dec 24, 3:54*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 2:53 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 1:23 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Heh! Adam Smith postulated the concept in the late 18th Century. You,
evidently, are the only person in 230 years to disagree with the
idea.

That's correct.

No, actually, it's not. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also disagreed.

Good company you're in there, Kanter.

--

Well, it's not unexpected is it?
+++++++++++++++++++

When car makers began dealing with emissions problems, what made them do
so?

Excuse, me but let's not change the subject. *The discussion was
someone made the commnet:

+++++++++++++++++++

It's not a change of subject. We're talking about free markets making the
right decision without a kick in the ass from the government. So:

When car makers began dealing with emissions problems, what made them do so?

If you don't answer the question, I'll assume that you either don't know the
answer, or you're afraid the correct answer will let all the air out of the
theory about free markets.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think most people can see I already answered your question, when I
said:

"Do all players have to operate under govt regulation, yes. Is some
govt regulation a good
thing, like clean air standards? Of course."


Saying there are exceptions to one of the basic principles of micro-
economics and dismissing it as nonsense, are two very different
things. Try taking a course or two in economics.

On Dec 24, 3:07*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

We could also reduce the price by eliminating speculators who are not
directly connected with the oil business. There's no sane reason for
players
to be fiddling with the price of a commodity that's so important to the
country. Let the oil companies hedge. Keep mutual fund managers out of the
game. Too much emotion (and bull****) involved.

Another populist opinion based on ignorance. * You obviously don't
understand how the futures markets work, the purpose they serve and
who the players are.

++++++++++++++++++++=

For some speculators, the purpose is nothing but to turn a quick profit, no
different than flipping stocks.

Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself? FYI, it's not just
some speculators that are there to turn a quick profit. It's ALL
SPECULATORS. And it's a very good thing.

Neither you nor I know what percentage of
the daily oil trades are done by people like that.

Actually, you don't but I do. And anyone that cares to find out
can. All they need to do is look at the CFTC committment of traders
report, where all players who hold positions of any significant size
in all the exchange traded futures have to report it to the CFTC.




However, there is some noise being made about the problem by some
governments, because what I taught you was absolutely true.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/...ss/08nymex.php

Yeah, noise is a good term. But then you use that, where some
politician in Indai is bitching as a reference?. They know so much
about economics and how to run a country, look where it got them.
And if we listened to you, that's where the US would soon be too.
Here's some real gems from your article:

"Analysts say the market has gone from a small group of oil users and
producers to a full-fledged investment arena in recent years, like
stocks or bonds. Prices can move according to intangible factors like
fear, just as they do in the equity markets, the analysts say. "

Wow, did they figure that out all by themselves? You mean if there
is fear of a hurricane or a war affecting supplies of oil, it can
actually change the price? What a break through in economics! And
since when is it better to have a market with a small group involved,
than a broad full-fledged market? Economics 101, hello?


"But voices as varied as those of Mohammad Alipour-Jeddi, the head of
market analysis for OPEC, and William Galvin, the secretary of state
in Massachusetts, have blamed speculators for rising prices. "There is
enough crude in the markets," Alipour-Jeddi said Monday. Bottlenecks
in refining and "speculative activities" are forcing prices higher, he
said."

Hmmm, why should anyone doubt that OPEC putting the blame on
speculators is a credible source? If OPEC wanted to bring down the
price of oil and teach all the "speculators" a lesson, they could do
it tomorrow morning. Announce a sharp increase in OPEC production
and watch the price go down to $50 a barrel. You think maybe it's
cheaper thought to give flippant BS excuses, that could only fool
perhaps you and some politicians, instead?

On Dec 24, 12:17*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

* * *There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,

it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to steal
the food from the mouths of children.

That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If
the
business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other business,
then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the result
would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish
spending
for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as
presidential libraries.

You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.

They would actually just sell to China instead.

I keep hearing that. Do you think the Chinese come looking for oil, and the
Saudis tell them "Sorry - we have none for you. We're selling it to
America"? *Maybe that's the case, but I don't recall having read it
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep hearing that, but does it ever sink in? There is a
worldwide market for oil and it's going to be there, with some ups and
downs for decades to come. If the USA developed alternate sources of
energy, it would take many years to reduce the amount of oil that we
import. At the same time, worldwide demand, from places like China,
will continue to grow.

So, the notion that by not importing oil you're somehow going to
really screw some middle eastern countries is silly. Yes, they may
wind up with less revenue, but in the grand scheme of things it
doesn't mean squat. They have a valuable resource that will have
worldwide demand for decades to come.

And what exactly is this supposed to do to middle eastern countries
anyway? All the terrorism in the world could be financed by maybe .
01% of the mideast oil revenue. So, unless you think you're going to
put them out of the oil business altogether, it ain't gonna work.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Rick Brandt wrote:

A very high percentage of people who purchase SUVs do so for reasons
of fashion and fad. Denying that is delusional.

Heck, it applies to a lot of things. These same mindsets also buy
'commercial-style' kitchen equipment when they can't even boil water.
And most of said kitchens cost more than that sparkling SUV parked in
the driveway.


except that a commercial kitchen stove is not going to kill others.
(unless they don't handle food safely....)
SUVs are out on the roads,rolling over with some frequency,climbing over
other smaller cars,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article 8ZQbj.9254$vd4.2426@pd7urf1no, Tony Hwang
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article ,

wrote:


Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.


Idiot. That bill came from the Democrat-controlled *Congress*, not
from the President.

[snip]

To say it exactly the way I feel. Bush and his whole corrupt
political party can go straight to hell. If he wants to send his
goon squad to my home to inspect my lightbulbs, this old man still
knows how to kill, courtesy of the Republican party's very own Nixon
sending me to Nam, to fight another useless Republican inspired war.



Idiot. Nixon the Republican *ended* that war, which Kennedy the
Democrat started, and Johnson the Democrat escalated far out of
control.

Hmmm,
I can see there are many many idiots in America down on from
president, LOL!

Care to elaborate on that, Tony?

OTOH,Bush graduated from Yale,passed jet fighter training along with SERE
training,flew F-102 jets,NOT easy tasks,and impossible for outsiders to
influence his passing them. They don't let incompetents through those
schools.

Passing military flight school requires math along with the physical stuff.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 3:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

We could also reduce the price by eliminating speculators who are not
directly connected with the oil business. There's no sane reason for
players
to be fiddling with the price of a commodity that's so important to the
country. Let the oil companies hedge. Keep mutual fund managers out of
the
game. Too much emotion (and bull****) involved.

Another populist opinion based on ignorance. You obviously don't
understand how the futures markets work, the purpose they serve and
who the players are.

++++++++++++++++++++=

For some speculators, the purpose is nothing but to turn a quick profit,
no
different than flipping stocks.

Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself? FYI, it's not just
some speculators that are there to turn a quick profit. It's ALL
SPECULATORS. And it's a very good thing.

Neither you nor I know what percentage of
the daily oil trades are done by people like that.

Actually, you don't but I do. And anyone that cares to find out
can. All they need to do is look at the CFTC committment of traders
report, where all players who hold positions of any significant size
in all the exchange traded futures have to report it to the CFTC.




However, there is some noise being made about the problem by some
governments, because what I taught you was absolutely true.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/...ss/08nymex.php

Yeah, noise is a good term. But then you use that, where some
politician in Indai is bitching as a reference?. They know so much
about economics and how to run a country, look where it got them.
And if we listened to you, that's where the US would soon be too.
Here's some real gems from your article:

"Analysts say the market has gone from a small group of oil users and
producers to a full-fledged investment arena in recent years, like
stocks or bonds. Prices can move according to intangible factors like
fear, just as they do in the equity markets, the analysts say. "

Wow, did they figure that out all by themselves? You mean if there
is fear of a hurricane or a war affecting supplies of oil, it can
actually change the price? What a break through in economics!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hey Einstein....it's WRONG when you hear this on the news:

"Oil jumped $2.00 a barrel today on concerns about renewed violence in
Baghdad".

I heard that two years ago, while listening with my son, who was 16 at the
time. His comment: "Baghdad's *always* violent, and Iraq produces pretty
much zero oil. What a stupid reason for the price to go up".

He was right. Some of the price swings are due to the fears of emotional
investors who are no better at understanding the oil markets than the oil
companies themselves. Anyone who's not an employee of an oil-related company
should be barred from meddling.

"Pete C." wrote in :

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Pete C." wrote in
:

Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from
coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp.


Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as there
is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no way depends
on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


Many if not most states that developed nuclear weapons did it with
government-owned reactors;there's no such animal as a "civilian" nuclear
power plant in Russia,China or North Korea.I suspect Israel's Dimona
reactor is gov't owned,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might
not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,

it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get
starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to
steal
the food from the mouths of children.

That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If
the
business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other
business,
then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the
result
would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish
spending
for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as
presidential libraries.

You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.

They would actually just sell to China instead.

I keep hearing that. Do you think the Chinese come looking for oil, and
the
Saudis tell them "Sorry - we have none for you. We're selling it to
America"? Maybe that's the case, but I don't recall having read it
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep hearing that, but does it ever sink in?

++++++++++++++++++++++


I've only heard it from people in newsgroups. I've never seen data which
says we absorb so much volume in oil that it's causing problems for China.
If you've seen it, please post links.

In your text message, be sure you don't respond to something I didn't say.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Pete C." wrote in :

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Pete C." wrote in
:

Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from
coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp.


Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as there
is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no way depends
on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


Many if not most states that developed nuclear weapons did it with
government-owned reactors;there's no such animal as a "civilian" nuclear
power plant in Russia,China or North Korea.I suspect Israel's Dimona
reactor is gov't owned,too.

--
Jim Yanik


Oh fer crissake....you know exactly what I meant when I used the word
"civilian".

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury
emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control
experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop
"rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons:
Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as
there is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no
way depends on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are
now well aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned
into fuel suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal"
civilian facility eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel
source.

Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look
silly.

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use
of
nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two
more legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big
impact on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be
about the US using more nuclear power.

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily
pollution from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of
30 years from now when we might have some of the renewable energy
sources improved enough to make a real impact.


I wonder if we could somehow use nuclear power plants to make the coal-
gasoline conversion process more economical and practical?
Then we could employ our vast coal deposits to run our autos.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:


I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke
plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it
online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off
line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year
thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license nuke
plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact statement can
take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.

there was something in the news recently about the 1st new license being
issued for a new nucelar power plant.
IIRC,they have streamlined the process considerably.

also,that new pebble-bed reactor technology really looks promising.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like an
executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years with
the weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to prevent
it.

Good luck. Little of that would be constitutionally valid to
overturn
as an EO since it is based on laws passed by Congress, at the minimum
bringing up sepatation of powers.

Well, since something like that will never happen, the exact logistics
don't really matter.



What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new nukes
to allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop all that
pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and plug in
hybrid cars and electric commuter rail and busses and home heating
and cooling.
Which brings up the rather creative accounting for "clean"
electric
cars where they look at tailpipe admissions and studiously ignore the
extra electricity that has to be generated.

But I digress (g)

On my various business visits to San Francisco, I've note the
fraudulent claim of "Zero emissions vehicle" on the electric busses,
which are in fact "Remote emissions vehicles".


Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation
going without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as
possible. Get realistic renewable sources, including distributed
solar and wind generation online (again quashing NIBMY and Eco-Loon
nonsense) over a reasonable period of time so that in 30 years when
those nukes are reaching retirement they can be retires and we can
by on entirely renewables.

I am not all that sanguine about real life solar and wind
generation
as a viable major contributor. The solar cells have to too big and
wind generation takes too much space and both are fairly polluting on
the making of the cells or turbines. Might be useful at the margins,
but I am not all that sold for large scale applications.
Although even the marginal stuff would keep the growing part of
the demand at bay, as it were.

This is why I specified "distributed solar" (and wind where
applicable), i.e. panels installed on existing rooftops. Basically
something like a utility supplied and maintained battery less grid tie
system. Trying to do utility scale solar any other way just isn't
practical and has huge environmental impact. Distributed across
customer's rooftops it uses no new space and also greatly extends the
service life of the already overtaxed grid by producing a good portion
of the power locally.

how do you supply power when the sun goes down,if there are no batteries to
store the excess power generated by the solar panels?
Wind generators typically go quiet at night,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Dec 24, 5:48*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"Pete C." wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might
not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,

it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get
starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to
steal
the food from the mouths of children.

That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If
the
business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other
business,
then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the
result
would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish
spending
for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as
presidential libraries.

You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.

They would actually just sell to China instead.

I keep hearing that. Do you think the Chinese come looking for oil, and
the
Saudis tell them "Sorry - we have none for you. We're selling it to
America"? Maybe that's the case, but I don't recall having read it
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep hearing that, but does it ever sink in?

++++++++++++++++++++++

I've only heard it from people in newsgroups. I've never seen data which
says we absorb so much volume in oil that it's causing problems for China.
If you've seen it, please post links.

In your text message, be sure you don't respond to something I didn't say.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who said it's causing problems for China? Not me. You took issue
with someone's response that told you if the USA didn't buy Arab oil,
China would.

And, in response, what I said was the idea that somehow the US can
eliminate or drastically reduce our foreign oil consumption to the
point that it punishes mid-east oil producers, is silly. The market
for oil is worldwide. It's not a US-Arab only market. Demand from
countries like China is growing as they industrialize more and their
populations grow each year. So, if we were embark on any reasonable
program to reduce US oil imports, there is still plenty of demand for
mid east oil in the decades ahead and they will indeed sell it
elsewhere, like China. You might lower the revenue to the mid-east
countries. But it isn't going to really screw them. They were
doing OK a few years ago when oil was $30, weren't they? But you
could screw a lot of US companies, by forcing them to pay more for new
alternative energy sources, while their competition in China and India
continues to use oil.

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Rick Brandt wrote:

A very high percentage of people who purchase SUVs do so for reasons
of fashion and fad. Denying that is delusional.

Heck, it applies to a lot of things. These same mindsets also buy
'commercial-style' kitchen equipment when they can't even boil water.
And most of said kitchens cost more than that sparkling SUV parked in
the driveway.


except that a commercial kitchen stove is not going to kill others.
(unless they don't handle food safely....)
SUVs are out on the roads,rolling over with some frequency,climbing
over other smaller cars,too.

Never was implying that such was the case, Jim. Just merely pointing out
that, regardless of the toys involved, there are yuppies who always purchase
the 'status symbol'.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Getting a hard on" is just a fringe benefit.

Killing the mopes is where it's at. It's in the Book.



You should join your retarded cousin George in the White House.

Nah, been there, done that.

I was an administrative assistant to a U.S. Senator who was on the Armed
Services Committee. Been to the White House more than once (three times,
actually). Those people work too hard.

Bush is hardly a retard - he has an MBA from Harvard.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


there was something in the news recently about the 1st new license being
issued for a new nucelar power plant.
IIRC,they have streamlined the process considerably.

Interesting. Actually issued or just applied for? Did not see that.
Streamline is a relative term (g)

also,that new pebble-bed reactor technology really looks promising.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Bush is hardly a retard - he has an MBA from Harvard.

Of course if Bush is indeed a retard, what does that make those to whom
he has handed their own ass???

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Getting a hard on" is just a fringe benefit.

Killing the mopes is where it's at. It's in the Book.



You should join your retarded cousin George in the White House.

Nah, been there, done that.

I was an administrative assistant to a U.S. Senator who was on the Armed
Services Committee. Been to the White House more than once (three times,
actually). Those people work too hard.

Bush is hardly a retard - he has an MBA from Harvard.



I'm talking about this Bush:

"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by
the way, unless I say it."—Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007

You must be talking about a different person.

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because
it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."—Austin, Texas, Dec.
20, 2000

"She's just trying to make sure Anthony gets a good meal—Antonio."—On Laura
Bush inviting Justice Antonin Scalia to dinner at the White House. NBC
Nightly News With Tom Brokaw, Jan. 14, 2001

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the
difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute
them."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times."—Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002

In article , Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:


Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

About half the USA's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants.
CFLs actually reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
...

Again more hype. Power reactors don't produce material useful for bomb
making, and while conceptually building a bomb is simple, the devil is
in the details and building one that actually functions is very
difficult. The only potential from a power reactor is as a source of
material for a "dirty bomb" and those are very overhyped.

According to ALL experts, power plant fuel *can* be refined for weapon use,
not just for dirty bombs. The problem with power plants in questionable
countries is that there is now fuel where there was none before, unless
illegally obtained.

"A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the
nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of
Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium
per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram
per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39
kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the
actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms.
Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass,
this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3
nuclear warheads could be extracted."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

Plutonium comes from breeder reactors. Most nuclear power plants are
not breeder reactors.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , larry wrote:
In a year or two, all of your CFL complaints and CFLs will
be history too. In the past two months, I've seen a big
rise in local office space being finished out in ALL LED
lighting. It's instant on, it dims, it can change color
from red to violet, and it makes CF look like a real energy
hog.

The very most efficient LEDs that I have been able to buy are slightly
less efficient than T8 fluorescents. And ones that efficient only come in
an icy cold shade of white and in green.

LEDs are advancing gradually and their cost is coming down gradually.
It's going to be more than a couple years before they become the main
light source in homes or offices.

LED's aren't at CFL prices, yet, unless you average in the 10-20 year
life.

White ones mostly have rated life of 50,000 hours.

- Don Klipstein )

On Dec 24, 5:45*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 24, 3:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...

We could also reduce the price by eliminating speculators who are not
directly connected with the oil business. There's no sane reason for
players
to be fiddling with the price of a commodity that's so important to the
country. Let the oil companies hedge. Keep mutual fund managers out of
the
game. Too much emotion (and bull****) involved.

Another populist opinion based on ignorance. You obviously don't
understand how the futures markets work, the purpose they serve and
who the players are.

++++++++++++++++++++=

For some speculators, the purpose is nothing but to turn a quick profit,
no
different than flipping stocks.

Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself? * FYI, it's not just
some speculators that are there to turn a quick profit. * It's ALL
SPECULATORS. * And it's a very good thing.

Neither you nor I know what percentage of

the daily oil trades are done by people like that.

Actually, you don't but I do. * And anyone that cares to find out
can. * All they need to do is look at the CFTC committment of traders
report, where all players who hold positions of any significant size
in all the exchange traded futures have to report it to the CFTC.



However, there is some noise being made about the problem by some
governments, because what I taught you was absolutely true.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/...ss/08nymex.php

Yeah, noise is a good term. *But then you use that, where some
politician in Indai is bitching as a reference?. * They know so much
about economics and how to run a country, look where it got them.
And if we listened to you, that's where the US would soon be too.
Here's some real gems from your article:

"Analysts say the market has gone from a small group of oil users and
producers to a full-fledged investment arena in recent years, like
stocks or bonds. Prices can move according to intangible factors like
fear, just as they do in the equity markets, the analysts say. "

Wow, did they figure that out all by themselves? * You mean if there
is fear of a hurricane or a war affecting supplies of oil, it can
actually change the price? *What a break through in economics!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey Einstein....it's WRONG *when you hear this on the news:

"Oil jumped $2.00 a barrel today on concerns about renewed violence in
Baghdad".

I heard that two years ago, while listening with my son, who was 16 at the
time. His comment: "Baghdad's *always* violent, and Iraq produces pretty
much zero oil. What a stupid reason for the price to go up".

Did you figure that out all by yourself too? Of course it's wrong
and no one here, certainly not me, suggested renewed violence in Iraq
has affected oil prices. My sarcasm above referred to a hurricane or
war affecting oil prices, not violence in Iraq. A hurricane moving
into the Gulf of Mexico drives up the price of oil and energy products
because of the possibility of it damaging oil production there or Gulf
coast refineries. Remember Katrina? Energy prices moved up BEFORE
the hurricane even damaged anything.

And the prospect of a war in the mideast, like perhaps the USA or
Israel striking Iran, would drive up the price too, because of the new
uncertainty and fear of possible supply disruption.

What do you think happens to corn and soybean futures in July, when
the national weather forecast changes from normal to hot and dry with
no rain? They go up. Is that some market manipulation? No, it's
just everyone in the market reacting to the new market information and
acting accordingly. You want to ban that and close those future
markets too, because you don't understand it?

Welcome to economics 101.


He was right. Some of the price swings are due to the fears of emotional
investors who are no better at understanding the oil markets than the oil
companies themselves. Anyone who's not an employee of an oil-related company
should be barred from meddling.- Hide quoted text -


Have you ever taken any economics courses? Your ignorance is
overwhelming. Future markets serve a valuable purpose, unless
perhaps you're a Marxist. They go back over a hundred years. They
transfer risk from one party to another. Hedgers transfer risk to
speculators, who take the opposite sides of many of their trades and
provide liquidity. And speculators are on both sides of the
market. They don't just go long, they also go short. If you looked
at reality, instead of listening to political hacks, stupid Indian
bureaucrats and OPEC, you'd find out that plenty of speculators LOST
money, because they thought oil was topping out at $80 a barrel and
they shorted it.

And you must have completely failed to see the message in my earlier
little story about the guy who keeps buying stock driving it from
25cents to $5 then goes to sell it. How exactly do you think
speculators can manage to buy futures to drive up the price of oil and
then manage to sell it without driving it back down again? And keep
in mind, there are a whole host of speculators out there, each as
greedy as the next, they are located not just in the USA, but around
the world. How are you gonna accomplish this alleged operation?

What about my question about the OPEC mouthpiece, who says speculators
are the cause of high oil prices, in that silly article you cited?
Why doesn't OPEC put out a press release tomorrow morning saying they
are increasing production? That would drive the price down and teach
those speculators a lesson, wouldn't it? Hmmm? Or could it be that
action would cost OPEC billions, while shooting their mouths off to
mislead guys like you is free?

I see you didn't comment on my pointing out that you didn't know what
the hell you were talking about when you said there is no way to know
what percent of the market speculators are in oil futures. Did you
find the CFTC COT report? I guess we smashed that fallacy. Next!

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like an
executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years with
the weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to prevent
it.

Good luck. Little of that would be constitutionally valid to
overturn
as an EO since it is based on laws passed by Congress, at the minimum
bringing up sepatation of powers.

Well, since something like that will never happen, the exact logistics
don't really matter.



What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new nukes
to allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop all that
pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and plug in
hybrid cars and electric commuter rail and busses and home heating
and cooling.
Which brings up the rather creative accounting for "clean"
electric
cars where they look at tailpipe admissions and studiously ignore the
extra electricity that has to be generated.

But I digress (g)

On my various business visits to San Francisco, I've note the
fraudulent claim of "Zero emissions vehicle" on the electric busses,
which are in fact "Remote emissions vehicles".


Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation
going without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as
possible. Get realistic renewable sources, including distributed
solar and wind generation online (again quashing NIBMY and Eco-Loon
nonsense) over a reasonable period of time so that in 30 years when
those nukes are reaching retirement they can be retires and we can
by on entirely renewables.

I am not all that sanguine about real life solar and wind
generation
as a viable major contributor. The solar cells have to too big and
wind generation takes too much space and both are fairly polluting on
the making of the cells or turbines. Might be useful at the margins,
but I am not all that sold for large scale applications.
Although even the marginal stuff would keep the growing part of
the demand at bay, as it were.

This is why I specified "distributed solar" (and wind where
applicable), i.e. panels installed on existing rooftops. Basically
something like a utility supplied and maintained battery less grid tie
system. Trying to do utility scale solar any other way just isn't
practical and has huge environmental impact. Distributed across
customer's rooftops it uses no new space and also greatly extends the
service life of the already overtaxed grid by producing a good portion
of the power locally.

how do you supply power when the sun goes down,if there are no batteries to
store the excess power generated by the solar panels?
Wind generators typically go quiet at night,too.

The (continental) US spans a few time zones so that gives some spread,
and hydro and tidal should go a long way towards filling in the night.
Add in locally viable items like biomass in big farm / ranch areas,
geothermal in the few areas where that works, some storage such as
pumped hydro and CAS to store surplus production during peak times and
you'll be in better shape. Some time of day rate breaks can also help
encourage utilization during off peak times and local energy storage as
appropriate.

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury
emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control
experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop
"rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons:
Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as
there is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no
way depends on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are
now well aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned
into fuel suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal"
civilian facility eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel
source.

Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look
silly.

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use
of
nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two
more legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big
impact on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be
about the US using more nuclear power.

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily
pollution from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of
30 years from now when we might have some of the renewable energy
sources improved enough to make a real impact.


I wonder if we could somehow use nuclear power plants to make the coal-
gasoline conversion process more economical and practical?
Then we could employ our vast coal deposits to run our autos.

It would be better if we could utilize the nuclear generated electricity
in a more environmentally friendly way such as providing charging power
for electric cars and plug in hybrids, and producing hydrogen for the
combustion side of the hybrids and for non hybrid vehicles. And of
course eventually transition from nuclear generated electricity and onto
renewable generated electricity once the renewable are viable in large
scale.