Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing. Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases. Do you
know that there is plenty of natural gas ? The
supply will last for many decades, probably for hundred years. A lot
of methane (natural gas) is found as shale gas,
a lot more will come from methane hidrates. Natural gas is causing
much less greenhouse gases and since it is found
locally, it will not cause any wars or terror. It will create jobs in
your own country and not in the middle east.
Do you know that by converting your car to natural gas, you can save a
lot of money ? It costs a lot lot less. You
may say that there are not enough gas stations, but you can fuel at
home* over night. You also should convert your
car to dual fuel, that means if your natural gas tank is empty you can
switch to petrol, until you find a gas station.
And the more people switch to natural gas, the more natural gas
stations will be built, otherwise they can not earn
money. Do you know that in Argentina there are almost 2 million CNG
(compressed natural gas vehicles), also in Pakistan
and Brazil there are more than 1,5 million CNG vehicles, whereas in
the US there are not even 200000 of them, although
most of the shale gas is found in the USA.

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...gas-usat_N.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
* http://www.tulsagastech.com/phill.html

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT), ".."
wrote:

Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing. Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases. Do you
know that there is plenty of natural gas ? The
supply will last for many decades, probably for hundred years.

Once oil runs out the need for fuel will not end so it will be the
only show in town and the demand will cause the price to jump as will
the demand. No NG is not THE solution. It may be part of it, but the
only solution will be a combination of changes on our part or new
technology we don't have yet.

... wrote:
Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing.

Well, no. The price of gasoline has risen less than inflation. The cost per
mile has decreased dramatically in the last 30 years. There are today
greater proven reserves than ever before.

Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases.

Again, no. Oil doesn't necessarily cause wars; people cause wars. And no
sane person cares about so-called "greenhouse gases."

HeyBub wrote:
.. wrote:
Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing.

Well, no. The price of gasoline has risen less than inflation. The cost per
mile has decreased dramatically in the last 30 years. There are today
greater proven reserves than ever before.

Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases.

Again, no. Oil doesn't necessarily cause wars; people cause wars. And no
sane person cares about so-called "greenhouse gases."


Hmmm,
That means you are insane?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

no flag-waving gun-toting texas republican cares about so-called
"greenhouse gases."

Some of the rest of us do, though.

On Jun 28, 4:23*pm, ".." wrote:
Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing. Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases. Do you
know that there is plenty of natural gas ? The
supply will last for many decades, probably for hundred years. A lot
of methane (natural gas) is found as shale gas,
a lot more will come from methane hidrates. Natural gas is causing
much less greenhouse gases and since it is found
locally, it will not cause any wars or terror. It will create jobs in
your own country and not in the middle east.
Do you know that by converting your car to natural gas, you can save a
lot of money ? It costs a lot lot less. You
may say that there are not enough gas stations, but you can fuel at
home* over night. You also should convert your
car to dual fuel, that means if your natural gas tank is empty you can
switch to petrol, until you find a gas station.
And the more people switch to natural gas, the more natural gas
stations will be built, otherwise they can not earn
money. Do you know that in Argentina there are almost 2 million CNG
(compressed natural gas vehicles), also in Pakistan
and Brazil there are more than 1,5 million CNG vehicles, whereas in
the US there are not even 200000 of them, although
most of the shale gas is found in the USA.

Sources:http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...al_gas_vehicle
* * *http://www.tulsagastech.com/phill.html

The cost of the home pump units and the cost of running the compressor
ruin any price advantage I would get. Until the gov wakes up and
subsidises it, it wont fly.

ransley wrote:
On Jun 28, 4:23 pm, ".." wrote:
Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing. Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases. Do you
know that there is plenty of natural gas ? The
supply will last for many decades, probably for hundred years. A lot
of methane (natural gas) is found as shale gas,
a lot more will come from methane hidrates. Natural gas is causing
much less greenhouse gases and since it is found
locally, it will not cause any wars or terror. It will create jobs in
your own country and not in the middle east.
Do you know that by converting your car to natural gas, you can save
a lot of money ? It costs a lot lot less. You
may say that there are not enough gas stations, but you can fuel at
home* over night. You also should convert your
car to dual fuel, that means if your natural gas tank is empty you
can switch to petrol, until you find a gas station.
And the more people switch to natural gas, the more natural gas
stations will be built, otherwise they can not earn
money. Do you know that in Argentina there are almost 2 million CNG
(compressed natural gas vehicles), also in Pakistan
and Brazil there are more than 1,5 million CNG vehicles, whereas in
the US there are not even 200000 of them, although
most of the shale gas is found in the USA.

Sources:http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...al_gas_vehicle
* http://www.tulsagastech.com/phill.html

The cost of the home pump units and the cost of running the compressor
ruin any price advantage I would get. Until the gov wakes up and
subsidises it, it wont fly.

"Government subsidizes it.."? That means, of course, that the bulk of the
population pays.

On Jun 29, 8:23*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Jun 28, 4:23 pm, ".." wrote:
Dear Everyone,
as you know the price of the Oil is more and more increasing, while
the oil supply is decreasing. Moreover Oil is
causing wars, terror, oil spills, a lot of greenhouse gases. Do you
know that there is plenty of natural gas ? The
supply will last for many decades, probably for hundred years. A lot
of methane (natural gas) is found as shale gas,
a lot more will come from methane hidrates. Natural gas is causing
much less greenhouse gases and since it is found
locally, it will not cause any wars or terror. It will create jobs in
your own country and not in the middle east.
Do you know that by converting your car to natural gas, you can save
a lot of money ? It costs a lot lot less. You
may say that there are not enough gas stations, but you can fuel at
home* over night. You also should convert your
car to dual fuel, that means if your natural gas tank is empty you
can switch to petrol, until you find a gas station.
And the more people switch to natural gas, the more natural gas
stations will be built, otherwise they can not earn
money. Do you know that in Argentina there are almost 2 million CNG
(compressed natural gas vehicles), also in Pakistan
and Brazil there are more than 1,5 million CNG vehicles, whereas in
the US there are not even 200000 of them, although
most of the shale gas is found in the USA.

Sources:http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...gas-usat_N.htm...
*http://www.tulsagastech.com/phill.html

The cost of the home pump units and the cost of running the compressor
ruin any price advantage I would get. Until the gov wakes up and
subsidises it, it wont fly.

"Government subsidizes it.."? That means, of course, that the bulk of the
population pays.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly. Just because the government hands out subsidies, it doesn't
change something that is economically unviable into something that
is. Take a look at what's going on with solar electric here in
NJ. With all the subsidies between the feds and state, a $50K
residential 6KW system can cost the homeowner only $25K to put in.
The rest of that comes from the taxpayers and a surcharge placed on
everyones electric bill. And after that, the power companies here
are being forced to buy clean energy credits to meet their clean
energy reqts, so you can get a few thousand a year in income on top of
it. The only problem is, it only works with small numbers of people
doing it. Which in turn means it can't amount to any substantial real
impact on generating electricity to change anything. If more people
did it, there would not be enough money to subsidize it. That is the
paradox.

As for NG, here in NJ, NJ Transit experimented with it for some of
their busses. They have given up on it as not being cost effective,
too much trouble, etc. And a bus fleet obviously has far less issues
than using it for passenger cars, especially since busses can refuel
at their own depots each visit, etc.

In article
,
wrote:

Exactly. Just because the government hands out subsidies, it doesn't
change something that is economically unviable into something that
is. Take a look at what's going on with solar electric here in
NJ. With all the subsidies between the feds and state, a $50K
residential 6KW system can cost the homeowner only $25K to put in.
The rest of that comes from the taxpayers and a surcharge placed on
everyones electric bill. And after that, the power companies here
are being forced to buy clean energy credits to meet their clean
energy reqts, so you can get a few thousand a year in income on top of
it. The only problem is, it only works with small numbers of people
doing it. Which in turn means it can't amount to any substantial real
impact on generating electricity to change anything. If more people
did it, there would not be enough money to subsidize it. That is the
paradox.

My take on this is that technology becomes substantially less expensive
(IOW more economically viable) with increases in volume. Economies of
scale, and continued refinement and improvement. So the gov't subsidies
are a way, hopefully, to kick-start the alternative energy R&D and help
to scale up production methods to the efficient level.

I think this is a good example of the principle: Not everyone is aware
that they have Apple to thank for low-cost LCD computer displays (and
now LCD TVs.) Apple committed to LCDs by discontinuing all CRT displays
a number of years ago. The first computer I bought for my son had a 17"
LCD display that cost $800. Apple created an instant demand for millions
of LCD displays, and single-handedly drove the cost down.

It takes a small but significant commitment to a technology to make it
economically viable. I think it's reasonable for the government to
subsidize that commitment.

On Jun 29, 10:40*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
Exactly. * Just because the government hands out subsidies, it doesn't
change something that is economically unviable into something that
is. * *Take a look at what's going on with solar electric here in
NJ. * With all the subsidies between the feds and state, a $50K
residential 6KW system can cost the homeowner only $25K to put in.
The rest of that comes from the taxpayers and a surcharge placed on
everyones electric bill. * *And after that, the power companies here
are being forced to buy clean energy credits to meet their clean
energy reqts, so you can get a few thousand a year in income on top of
it. * *The only problem is, it only works with small numbers of people
doing it. *Which in turn means it can't amount to any substantial real
impact on generating electricity to change anything. * If more people
did it, there would not be enough money to subsidize it. *That is the
paradox.

My take on this is that technology becomes substantially less expensive
(IOW more economically viable) with increases in volume. Economies of
scale, and continued refinement and improvement. So the gov't subsidies
are a way, hopefully, to kick-start the alternative energy R&D and help
to scale up production methods to the efficient level.

I think this is a good example of the principle: Not everyone is aware
that they have Apple to thank for low-cost LCD computer displays (and
now LCD TVs.) Apple committed to LCDs by discontinuing all CRT displays
a number of years ago. The first computer I bought for my son had a 17"
LCD display that cost $800. Apple created an instant demand for millions
of LCD displays, and single-handedly drove the cost down.

It takes a small but significant commitment to a technology to make it
economically viable. I think it's reasonable for the government to
subsidize that commitment.

I find it hard to believe that Apple had much at all to do with LCD
computer displays becoming widespread. There ain't no way Apple
could have used them had they not already been cost effective. If
they were not cost effective, Apple would have gone broke. Also,
Apple has an 8% PC market share. Just one in ten people buying any
other PC with an LCD monitor equals Apples LCD volume. LCD, like
similar technologies have been improving over time, they go into a
wide variety of application besides just computer screens, eg TVs,
cell phones, PDAs, and the cost has been coming down steadily.

The obvious problem here is that when the govt does pick a solution as
opposed to free markets, you typically do not wind up with an optimal
or even good solution. Take your LCD example. Would you have
relied on your typical Congressman in 1995 to have picked which
display technology was going to be best, which was viable, and which
would succeed? Suppose they funded projection CRT as the solution
for widescreen TVs. Where might we be now? One can envision them
trying to stick with it, force feed it down our throats, subsidize it
more , even as better solutions started to emerge.

On Jun 29, 10:40*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
Exactly. * Just because the government hands out subsidies, it doesn't
change something that is economically unviable into something that
is. * *Take a look at what's going on with solar electric here in
NJ. * With all the subsidies between the feds and state, a $50K
residential 6KW system can cost the homeowner only $25K to put in.
The rest of that comes from the taxpayers and a surcharge placed on
everyones electric bill. * *And after that, the power companies here
are being forced to buy clean energy credits to meet their clean
energy reqts, so you can get a few thousand a year in income on top of
it. * *The only problem is, it only works with small numbers of people
doing it. *Which in turn means it can't amount to any substantial real
impact on generating electricity to change anything. * If more people
did it, there would not be enough money to subsidize it. *That is the
paradox.

My take on this is that technology becomes substantially less expensive
(IOW more economically viable) with increases in volume. Economies of
scale, and continued refinement and improvement. So the gov't subsidies
are a way, hopefully, to kick-start the alternative energy R&D and help
to scale up production methods to the efficient level.

I think this is a good example of the principle: Not everyone is aware
that they have Apple to thank for low-cost LCD computer displays (and
now LCD TVs.) Apple committed to LCDs by discontinuing all CRT displays
a number of years ago. The first computer I bought for my son had a 17"
LCD display that cost $800. Apple created an instant demand for millions
of LCD displays, and single-handedly drove the cost down.


It's just nonsense that Apple single handedly drove down the cost of
LCD displays. That technology goes not only into computer displays,
but into TVs, cell phones, DVD players, and a boat load of similar
stuff. If the displays were not already competitive, there is no way
Apple could have bouth them and bundled them with a system and sold
them. At the time they first became more reasonably priced, you could
get one from any PC company, not just Apple. Why is it that LCDs are
so special and required Apples help, when in fact every other PC
component, whether a CPU, a hard drive, a flash drive, DVD drive, etc
has also followed a similar cost reduction curve?



It takes a small but significant commitment to a technology to make it
economically viable. I think it's reasonable for the government to
subsidize that commitment.

There is nothing small about investments in coming up with new
technology and then making it cost effective. Take that new fuel cell
startup that was on 60 mins. I think the total required is going to
be over $1/2bil. And for every 100 new technology ideas, how many
do you think eventually succeed? It's also a mistake to think that
the cost reductions associated with certain kind of technologies that
can scale tremendously can automatically be applied to all industries,
eg generating energy from coal or wind or God knows what. I fail to
see a reason why a windmill will ever scale down in cost like your LCD
or a semiconductor chip. There are certain obvious limitation on
physics that come into play here.

As for picking which technologies will succeed and are worthy of
devoting capital too, we already have a free market system for that.
It's called venture capital. It's what produced companies like Apple,
Intel and MSFT. If you have a sound idea, a good business plan, and
good managers, there are plenty of venture capitalist looking for the
next Ebay or Intel. And I'd put a lot more faith in them being able
to predict the winners and put the money in the right place, rather
than my Congressman or Obama. I find it strange that polls show the
approval rating of Congress at 18%, yet some people want them to run
more.