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 06/29/10 10:36 am, ransley wrote:

Ng conversion of cars and gasolene trucks is a better option, now it
just has to be done so the pumps and extra power to run them are
somehow compensated to those that convert. As to other samples of Ngs
longer life attributes in gas engines just research Ng generators and
conversions. alt.energy.homepower is where alot of off grid folk know
how Ng will make a gas generator last longer. Honda was selling Ng
civic vehicles, I dont know if they still do but their reliability is
great and used they still get thousands in premiums for them.

Ng is a fuel for the future, now the gov just has to make it cost
effective somehow.

My guess is that if natural gas (or propane, for that matter) catches on
as a motor fuel gubbermints will start taxing it like other motor fuels.
Gotta pay for those roads somehow.

Perce

ransley wrote:

Ng is a fuel for the future, now the gov just has to make it cost
effective somehow.

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction, or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or subsidizing
NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar to the government
genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a classic book whose title rhymes
with "Mattress Bugged."

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or subsidizing
NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar to the government
genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a classic book whose title rhymes
with "Mattress Bugged."

Few seem to realize that government mandating, encouraging and
subsidizing oil-related products and services is pretty much what got us
into this in the first place. So, it is all of a sudden supposed to work
this time?

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Jun 29, 11:43*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
ransley wrote:

*Ng is a fuel for the future, now the gov just has to make it cost
effective somehow.

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction, or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or subsidizing
NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar to the government
genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a classic book whose title rhymes
with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

On Jun 29, 11:43*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

snip

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction, or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or subsidizing
NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar to the government
genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a classic book whose title rhymes
with "Mattress Bugged."

Does the author rhyme with 'Pain Band'?

Joe

NG is safer than gasoline. NG is lighter than air and disipates fast
in a leak, gasoline pools hangs around and burns easily. NG needs a
EXACT MIXTURE of air and NG or it wouldnt burn at all;.

its a little less powerful than gasoline, so vehicles have less pep,
but it burns super clean.

ideally and easily NG vehicles are dual fuel gasoline or NG.

The main problem is lack of filling stations

government needs to mandate gas stations add NG, and car companies
sell a percentage of dual fuel gasoline and NG vehicles.

a NG vehicle has a range of about 100 miles between refueling, larger
tanks get more range but cut into cargo capacity.........

my best friend has run NG vehicles since the early 70s first gasoline
crisis....

ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

Yes I recall as child (aged 10 when WWII ended) in the UK 'coal gas'
from the mains in a large bladder in a frame on top of a car; so it
must have been at atmospheric pressure! And apparently worked? But not
sure what modifications had been made.
Also recall some of the buses towing a trailer mounted generator/
boiler that somehow made gas that was fed to the bus engine. Probably
fueled by coal that was mined locally in the UK while otherwise
depending on Lend Lease convoys form the USA and Canada.
BTW thank you USA for the help during those desperate days of the
1940s. Also for the postwar US Marshall Plan tha helped rebuild
shattered nations.
USA, at that time showed great statesmanship. Not so sure about the
last 40 to 50 years!
If someone can design a really efficient battery system hydro power/
recharging, *especially with increased rain due to global warming (our
Canadian climate has definitely changed during the last 50 to 60
years) is obviously the way to go. Here we have been at over 90% and
are approaching 100% hydro power.
The following is quick and rough calcs.
A US gallon of gas has about 90,000 BTUs of energy? Used rather
inefficiently? And costs you about *$2.00?
It cost us the eqivalent of about twice that in terms of US dollars
btw! Mainly higher taxes and a smaller market I think.
While 90,000 BTUs of electrcity costs us (domestically) about $2.70.
So on that basis US fuel is pretty cheap! and it may be a while for it
to change. It may be food and further water shortages that will
trigger change.
Please correct or add to this estimate as anyone sees fit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The trailers behind cars/buses were producer gas generators. They made
carbon monoxide gas from coke. The coke mass inside had to be heated
to red heat to initiate production. Only the desperate had them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer_gas

On Jun 29, 4:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........

can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket

wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:23 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000
gas stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to
meet the demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG,
Propane, electric, nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the
government can't create a demand without penalizing the majority of
folks - even if it IS for our own good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's
a war in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in
1900 what would transportation be like in a 100 years when the
population increased twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get
all the horses? and 2) What would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have
a way of working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........

can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket

Been there, done that. Remember the Carter years?

Still, even then, there was no shortage of gasoline - only a shortage of
CHEAP gasoline.

On Jun 30, 7:20*am, " wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:





ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........


can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

Mr. Optimism speaks again. I can foresee a situation with a mid
east military action, eg Israel bombs Iran's nukes and does what the
UN and Obama, despite his apollogy tour, obviously can't. But would
that result in a wider war? Probably not, because most of the Arab
countries don't want Iran to have nukes either. Would it result in
an oil embargo? Unlikely. The Arab oil countries are like junkies
and need our money just as bad as we need their oil. They need cash
flow to support all their construction, industrialization, and govt
projects. Also, they are heavily invested in the West and the
resultant hair cut in their investment value would in effect be like
punishing themselves




this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food prices already skyrocketed because the government subsidies
diverted grains to ethanol production. The prices of corn, soybeans,
tripled. That didn't cause the world to come to an end. It hardly
even had any effect on overall inflation.

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 30, 11:25*am, wrote:
On Jun 30, 7:20*am, " wrote:





On Jun 29, 4:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........

can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

Mr. Optimism speaks again. * *I can foresee a situation with a mid
east military action, eg Israel bombs Iran's nukes and does what the
UN and Obama, despite his apollogy tour, obviously can't. * But would
that result in a wider war? * Probably not, because most of the Arab
countries don't want Iran to have nukes either. * Would it result in
an oil embargo? * Unlikely. *The Arab oil countries are like junkies
and need our money just as bad as we need their oil. *They need cash
flow to support all their construction, industrialization, and govt
projects. Also, they are heavily invested in the West and the
resultant hair cut in their investment value would in effect be like
punishing themselves



this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food prices already skyrocketed because the government subsidies
diverted grains to ethanol production. * The prices of corn, soybeans,
tripled. *That didn't cause the world to come to an end. * It hardly
even had any effect on overall inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Corn is about 3.60 a bushel I remeber in 1980s when it was around
3.20, its averaged 2.30-3.00 since 02 with only recent records years
ago, its not 300% higher now than average long term prices its not
near 7.50 like in 08. 3.60 is dirt cheap compared to long term
inflation.

On Jun 30, 1:08*pm, ransley wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:25*am, wrote:





On Jun 30, 7:20*am, " wrote:

On Jun 29, 4:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........

can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

Mr. Optimism speaks again. * *I can foresee a situation with a mid
east military action, eg Israel bombs Iran's nukes and does what the
UN and Obama, despite his apollogy tour, obviously can't. * But would
that result in a wider war? * Probably not, because most of the Arab
countries don't want Iran to have nukes either. * Would it result in
an oil embargo? * Unlikely. *The Arab oil countries are like junkies
and need our money just as bad as we need their oil. *They need cash
flow to support all their construction, industrialization, and govt
projects. Also, they are heavily invested in the West and the
resultant hair cut in their investment value would in effect be like
punishing themselves

this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food prices already skyrocketed because the government subsidies
diverted grains to ethanol production. * The prices of corn, soybeans,
tripled. *That didn't cause the world to come to an end. * It hardly
even had any effect on overall inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Corn is about 3.60 a bushel I remeber in 1980s when it was around
3.20, its averaged 2.30-3.00 since 02 with only recent records years
ago, its not 300% higher now than average long term prices its not
near 7.50 like in 08. 3.60 is dirt cheap compared to long term
inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's the monthly price charts of corn and soybeans:

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/SB/M

From 2001 to 2006 corn averaged under $2.50 a bushel. When the
subsidies for biofuels kicked in, it rose to $7.50 by 2008. For the
last year and a a half, it's averaged $3.75, which is 50% higher than
it was before the ethanol subsidies. Soybeans averaged around $6.25
from 2001 to 2006. They skyrocketed to $16 in 2008 as the biofuel
subsidies increased demand. Currently, they are averaging around
$10. Besides the fact that both the ethanol and the biodiesel
produced from these crops costs more than either gasoline or diesel,
how much has the increase in these grain prices cost consumers from
increased prices of everything from beef to cornflakes?

This price impact and the effects it has had is not something
theoretical. Even charity organizations delivering food to third
world countries have been very public about the impact it is having on
less food being available.

And those price increases and money poured down the drain is in
addition to all the Govt subsidies that someone will have to pay for
somday. We're not paying for it now, because Obama is simply running
up $1Tril deficits for the next decade. The question is, for the
small benefit, it is worth the total cost in terms of higher food
prices, higher fuel prices, bigger deficits, rising food prices, and
less food so more people will starve in poor countries.

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.

On Jun 30, 3:31*pm, wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:08*pm, ransley wrote:





On Jun 30, 11:25*am, wrote:

On Jun 30, 7:20*am, " wrote:

On Jun 29, 4:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........

can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

Mr. Optimism speaks again. * *I can foresee a situation with a mid
east military action, eg Israel bombs Iran's nukes and does what the
UN and Obama, despite his apollogy tour, obviously can't. * But would
that result in a wider war? * Probably not, because most of the Arab
countries don't want Iran to have nukes either. * Would it result in
an oil embargo? * Unlikely. *The Arab oil countries are like junkies
and need our money just as bad as we need their oil. *They need cash
flow to support all their construction, industrialization, and govt
projects. Also, they are heavily invested in the West and the
resultant hair cut in their investment value would in effect be like
punishing themselves

this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food prices already skyrocketed because the government subsidies
diverted grains to ethanol production. * The prices of corn, soybeans,
tripled. *That didn't cause the world to come to an end. * It hardly
even had any effect on overall inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Corn is about 3.60 a bushel I remeber in 1980s when it was around
3.20, its averaged 2.30-3.00 since 02 with only recent records years
ago, its not 300% higher now than average long term prices its not
near 7.50 like in 08. 3.60 is dirt cheap compared to long term
inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's the monthly price charts of corn and soybeans:

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/cha...com/chart/SB/M

From 2001 to 2006 corn averaged under $2.50 a bushel. *When the
subsidies for biofuels kicked in, it rose to $7.50 by 2008. * For the
last year and a a half, it's averaged $3.75, which is 50% higher than
it was before the ethanol subsidies. * Soybeans averaged around $6.25
from 2001 to 2006. * They skyrocketed to $16 in 2008 as the biofuel
subsidies increased demand. * Currently, they are averaging around
$10. * Besides the fact that both the ethanol and the biodiesel
produced from these crops costs more than either gasoline or diesel,
how much has the increase in these grain prices cost consumers from
increased prices of everything from beef to cornflakes?

This price impact and the effects it has had is not something
theoretical. *Even charity organizations delivering food to third
world countries have been very public about the impact it is having on
less food being available.

And those price increases and money poured down the drain is in
addition to all the Govt subsidies that someone will have to pay for
somday. *We're not paying for it now, because Obama is simply running
up $1Tril deficits for the next decade. *The question is, for the
small benefit, it is worth the total cost in terms of higher food
prices, higher fuel prices, bigger deficits, rising food prices, and
less food so more people will starve in poor countries.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Beans went way up in 08, but look back 40 years about every 5 years
or so they hit 9$, you didnt take any inflation into account over 40
years or costs to run a farm on fuel and fuel based fertiliser, its
isnt all alcohol related. Alot of alcohol plants are bust and closed
that I know of.

On Jun 30, 5:23*pm, ransley wrote:
On Jun 30, 3:31*pm, wrote:





On Jun 30, 1:08*pm, ransley wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:25*am, wrote:

On Jun 30, 7:20*am, " wrote:

On Jun 29, 4:23*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

ransley wrote:

Every time, EVERY TIME, the government interferes in the general
marketplace, one of two things happens:

1. The general marketplace flows around the government obstruction,
or
2. The general marketplace is FUBAR.

In the instant case, the government mandating, encouraging, or
subsidizing NG, solar power, or foot-pedaled cars is eerily similar
to the government genuflecting over our soy-bean saviors in a
classic book whose title rhymes with "Mattress Bugged."

What is the alternative.

In my view, the government should step back from the energy business.
Consider the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 50,000 gas
stations didn't spring up overnight; they were constructed to meet the
demand. It would be likewise for other vehicle fuels: NG, Propane, electric,
nuclear, whatever. The simple fact is that the government can't create a
demand without penalizing the majority of folks - even if it IS for our own
good (according to our betters).

As for the moaning about what will happen when oil runs out, there's a war
in the middle east, etc., if you had asked a New Yorker in 1900 what would
transportation be like in a 100 years when the population increased
twenty-fold, he'd ask: 1) Where would we get all the horses? and 2) What
would we do with all the horse ****?

These potential problems, most problems, indeed, all problems, have a way of
working themselves out.

well the coming miid east war will crash and burn our economy thats
already very ill.........

can you imagine mid east oil cut off and gasoline at 10 or 12 bucks a
gallon?

people will be forced to buy gas to go to work and cut discretionary
spending to the bone, economic dump.

we have already seen this, as gasoline crept near 5 bucks a gallon our
current economic dump began.

well just imagine twice that or no gasoline at all.

Mr. Optimism speaks again. * *I can foresee a situation with a mid
east military action, eg Israel bombs Iran's nukes and does what the
UN and Obama, despite his apollogy tour, obviously can't. * But would
that result in a wider war? * Probably not, because most of the Arab
countries don't want Iran to have nukes either. * Would it result in
an oil embargo? * Unlikely. *The Arab oil countries are like junkies
and need our money just as bad as we need their oil. *They need cash
flow to support all their construction, industrialization, and govt
projects. Also, they are heavily invested in the West and the
resultant hair cut in their investment value would in effect be like
punishing themselves

this situation is yet another government failure brough to us by our
incompetent congress thats bought and sold by lobbyists.........

most farming is mechanized, in a crude oil shortage food prices will
skyrocket- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Food prices already skyrocketed because the government subsidies
diverted grains to ethanol production. * The prices of corn, soybeans,
tripled. *That didn't cause the world to come to an end. * It hardly
even had any effect on overall inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Corn is about 3.60 a bushel I remeber in 1980s when it was around
3.20, its averaged 2.30-3.00 since 02 with only recent records years
ago, its not 300% higher now than average long term prices its not
near 7.50 like in 08. 3.60 is dirt cheap compared to long term
inflation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's the monthly price charts of corn and soybeans:

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/cha...es.tradingchar...

From 2001 to 2006 corn averaged under $2.50 a bushel. *When the
subsidies for biofuels kicked in, it rose to $7.50 by 2008. * For the
last year and a a half, it's averaged $3.75, which is 50% higher than
it was before the ethanol subsidies. * Soybeans averaged around $6.25
from 2001 to 2006. * They skyrocketed to $16 in 2008 as the biofuel
subsidies increased demand. * Currently, they are averaging around
$10. * Besides the fact that both the ethanol and the biodiesel
produced from these crops costs more than either gasoline or diesel,
how much has the increase in these grain prices cost consumers from
increased prices of everything from beef to cornflakes?

This price impact and the effects it has had is not something
theoretical. *Even charity organizations delivering food to third
world countries have been very public about the impact it is having on
less food being available.

And those price increases and money poured down the drain is in
addition to all the Govt subsidies that someone will have to pay for
somday. *We're not paying for it now, because Obama is simply running
up $1Tril deficits for the next decade. *The question is, for the
small benefit, it is worth the total cost in terms of higher food
prices, higher fuel prices, bigger deficits, rising food prices, and
less food so more people will starve in poor countries.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Beans went way up in 08, but look back 40 years *about every 5 years
or so they hit 9$, you didnt take any inflation into account over 40
years or costs to run a farm on fuel and fuel based fertiliser, its
isnt all alcohol related. Alot of alcohol plants are bust and closed
that I know of.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

alcohol can be made from biomass, think lawn clippings etc.

far better choice

In article
,
wrote:

It's just nonsense that Apple single handedly drove down the cost of
LCD displays.

So do the research yourself. You said they had an 8% market share. Do
you know how many displays are sold every year? A number of years ago,
Apple discontinued CRTs completely. Therefore, if you bought a mac, you
bought an LCD, period. Like I said, shortly after this transition I
bought a mac for my son and the 17" LCD display (puny by today's
standards) was $800.

Apple made the commitment to the technology, and it is their commitment
and resulting demand for millions of displays that drove down the cost.
I'm not stating my opinion, I'm relating history.