Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I'd much rather see Newt elected. He's the "Contract with
America" guy. I think he's much more conservative than the
Massacussets liberal who pushed national health care in the
liberal state of Mass.

From your point of view (if I understand it), you're probably right.
We'll find out soon (by June) what the SCOTUS thinks. As far as the
"Contract with America" is concerned, politics when done right,
should allow compromise. Since that abomination of a contract is
mostly used as a straightjacket or as blackmail to stick to a far
right of center point of view, you're **** out of luck to get
governance. Wouldn't it be better to compromise and get the budget
deficit under control?

Uh, no, of course not. The Republicans have plans for budget and deficit
control. We've seen the Democrats plan in action.

Solar and wind and other alternative energy is not going to ramp up as
fast as we all would want it too.. *I think *it might be a good idea
to keep some of the "good stuff" in reserve until the alternates are
workable.

As to "holding it in reserve," that's like the secretary who's in charge of
the supply cabinet saying "No, you can't have a pencil. There's only one
left. If I gave it to you, then I'd be out."



so you think pencils that are cheap and can be ordered anytime you
need more make a good analogy to a valuable natural resource like oil?

I happen to think we SHOULD build the Keystone pipeline and drill in
the US for oil, because we ARE going to need every drop we can get.
But by the same token we need to find a way to get folks to stop
wasting it.. and the only way I see to do that is raise the price.

I also agree alternatives are not ready yet.

It's going to get really ugly if the tank runs dry and have no
altenatives ready to go.

I'd say the world supply tank is at 1/2 now and that includes all the
new places you want to drill.

Lets just keep going with the A/C cranked at full and cruising at 85?

Mark

Mark wrote:
But by the same token we need to find a way to get folks to stop
wasting it.. and the only way I see to do that is raise the price.

I also agree alternatives are not ready yet.

It's going to get really ugly if the tank runs dry and have no
altenatives ready to go.

I'd say the world supply tank is at 1/2 now and that includes all the
new places you want to drill.

Lets just keep going with the A/C cranked at full and cruising at 85?


So, then, the difference between your position and that of a die-hard
Luddite is not great.

Put on a sweater. Drive 55. Better yet, get back to nature. Live as God
intended, at one with the beasts of the field and the lilies of the valley.
Have a life that is brutal and short, but filled with contentment.

Explain why you say "we ("we" who?) need to find a way to get folks to stop
wasting [energy]..."

Look, the Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for wood to
make charcoal. When Europeans ran out of wood, they used coal. When coal
became too expensive to mine and transport, oil came to the fore. The known
world was ruled by charcoal, industrial revolution was run by coal, space
was conquered during the reign of oil.

We have 200 years worth of (known) oil in the U.S., 400 years worth of coal,
and way beyond both of those in natural gas. It is way premature to get all
exercised about "running out."

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
. ..
I've been rather unimpressed by a certain Kenyan, who
prohibits drilling, shuts down wells, and then says it's the
American peoples fault for not inflating our tires. How
about if we drill for oil, and you can inflate your black
lips?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
My, my Christopher your blatant bigotry and racism are showing.
For shame, a pox on thee,

"George" wrote in message
...
On 3/18/2012 2:09 PM, Charlie wrote:



What can YOU do to cut back on plastics, thus cutting back on oil usage?

So far it seems as if a course in Economics 101 might be in order.

Among every thing else, cost is a function of supply and demand.
Saudi Arabia et al. says there is a good supply oil.
But how about demand?
Forget the plastics impact. Look at foreign consumers of oil.
Consider China. Their economy is doing very well because American
manufacturing is going down the tubes.
So lots of Chinese are buying cars with the money we send them. Look at
where we spend our money.
Wal-Mart, Harbor Freight, Home Depot and similar. Look at Radio Shack and
Best Buy.


But look at all of the neat stuff China has now because of that money we
send them through walmart and harbor freight. Here is an example:

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/10/aw...ealth-fighter/

Of course they don't buy everything. Some of it they simply steal. They
never saw a copyright that they respected.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:26:19 -0400, "
wrote:

Why are you libs so damn dumb?

16 years of public education, followed by a career working for the government.

Careful there.

I have no GED, retired at 50 from the government.

Yes, I fought the left wing idiots. -- but survived.

Look, the Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for wood to
make charcoal. When Europeans ran out of wood, they used coal. When coal
became too expensive to mine and transport, oil came to the fore. The known
world was ruled by charcoal, industrial revolution was run by coal, space
was conquered during the reign of oil.

We have 200 years worth of (known) oil in the U.S., 400 years worth of coal,
and way beyond both of those in natural gas. It is way premature to get all
exercised about "running out."


i've got nothing against USING oil but we don't have enough to WASTE
it.

There is not 200 years worth of recoverable oil.

we were talking about oil, not coal or gas... there are already good
alternatives to coal and gas, use coal and gas all you want, no
problem

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

Mark

Mark wrote:
Look, the Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for
wood to make charcoal. When Europeans ran out of wood, they used
coal. When coal became too expensive to mine and transport, oil came
to the fore. The known world was ruled by charcoal, industrial
revolution was run by coal, space was conquered during the reign of
oil.

We have 200 years worth of (known) oil in the U.S., 400 years worth
of coal, and way beyond both of those in natural gas. It is way
premature to get all exercised about "running out."


i've got nothing against USING oil but we don't have enough to WASTE
it.

There is not 200 years worth of recoverable oil.

we were talking about oil, not coal or gas... there are already good
alternatives to coal and gas, use coal and gas all you want, no
problem

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.


"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels
of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."

Oil Shale Reserves
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-...#ixzz1penlmFCg

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of
oil..."
http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/fun...nsumption.html

Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:

1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days
75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years

That's just for shale oil.

I agree with you about minimizing waste, but definitions of "waste" vary. I
view driving 85 instead of 55 as better use of my productive time while
others (you?) would claim I was wasting gasoline!

Mark wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG. It's just missing infrastructure,
something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's. Another good
(but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or Explorer
(taxis in NY City). If NY taxi drivers really had problems with them they
would have said so, and I have asked.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Maybe Republicans can use the same logic to block B. Hussein from giving
more speeches? Think of the yellow bellied snail darters, man!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
the route of the pipeline as proposed, related to the rather sensitive
ecology of the areas through which this thing was going to go. That's
the main argument to negotiate another route.

That's always the excuse the radical environmentalists use
to block everything whether it;s a pipeline, windmill, or solar
farm.

On Mar 20, 8:11*am, Han wrote:
Mark wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG.


That's a good one after one of your excuses for blocking the
Keystone pipeline was over CO2. Which of course is totally
bogus because that Canadian oil is going to be developed and
burned somewhere, be it here or China.


*It's just missing infrastructure,

Better take that up with NJ transit. They were using it in some of
their busses and gave it up for reasons that had nothing to do
with infrastructure.


something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's.

Not many vehicles on the roads there using it either.



*Another good
(but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or Explorer
(taxis in NY City). *If NY taxi drivers really had problems with them they
would have said so, and I have asked.

--

CBS News, not exactly a conservative organization, ran a story
about a week ago showing how it takes 17 years of average
driving to make a hybrid pay off and what a joke they are.

On 3/20/2012 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Mark wrote:
Look, the Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for
wood to make charcoal. When Europeans ran out of wood, they used
coal. When coal became too expensive to mine and transport, oil came
to the fore. The known world was ruled by charcoal, industrial
revolution was run by coal, space was conquered during the reign of
oil.

We have 200 years worth of (known) oil in the U.S., 400 years worth
of coal, and way beyond both of those in natural gas. It is way
premature to get all exercised about "running out."


i've got nothing against USING oil but we don't have enough to WASTE
it.

There is not 200 years worth of recoverable oil.

we were talking about oil, not coal or gas... there are already good
alternatives to coal and gas, use coal and gas all you want, no
problem

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.


"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels
of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."

Oil Shale Reserves
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-...#ixzz1penlmFCg

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of
oil..."
http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/fun...nsumption.html

Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:

1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days
75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years

That's just for shale oil.

I agree with you about minimizing waste, but definitions of "waste" vary. I
view driving 85 instead of 55 as better use of my productive time while
others (you?) would claim I was wasting gasoline!



Time is money. ^_^

TDD

On 3/18/2012 4:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Gee, and all this time I thought it was cause B. Hussein was denying permits
to drill and process oil.

Nope.

Here's some links you can go to to understand the facts:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2109474,00.html

Time too liberal for you? Try the ultra-right-wing Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204624204577177092687939480.html

Of course you might want to let Fox News explain the reasons for high
oil prices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o&feature=player_embedded.

But historically you've never let the facts confuse you.

On 3/19/2012 5:45 PM, Charlie wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
. ..
I've been rather unimpressed by a certain Kenyan, who
prohibits drilling, shuts down wells, and then says it's the
American peoples fault for not inflating our tires. How
about if we drill for oil, and you can inflate your black
lips?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
My, my Christopher your blatant bigotry and racism are showing.
For shame, a pox on thee,

He must have missed the revelation.

Learn more about Jesus
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng

" wrote in news:1f871806-
:

On Mar 20, 8:11*am, Han wrote:
Mark wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG.


That's a good one after one of your excuses for blocking the
Keystone pipeline was over CO2. Which of course is totally
bogus because that Canadian oil is going to be developed and
burned somewhere, be it here or China.

The shorter the hydrocarbon chain, the greater the ration of H2O to CO2,
and the greater the energy yield. Therefore there is less CO2 produced
per unit of energy produced, or natural gas produces less CO2 than oil.
That's simple chemistry. And you're right - if the Chinese want the oil,
the Canadians may very well sell it to them. It's just that before that
shale oil is even burned, it takes heat (something burned and CO2
generated) to get it out of the rocks. Plus the energy required to make
it clean enough to transport and distill.

*It's just missing infrastructure,

Better take that up with NJ transit. They were using it in some of
their busses and gave it up for reasons that had nothing to do
with infrastructure.

LNG/CNG engines were not that powerfull in torque. I think that has
improved since. But, indeed the old buses weren't too good. In NYCity
they seem to still run last I looked.

something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's.

Not many vehicles on the roads there using it either.

It has gone up and down. Mostly because of taxation schemes, I think.

*Another good
(but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or Explorer
(taxis in NY City). *If NY taxi drivers really had problems with them
they would have said so, and I have asked.

CBS News, not exactly a conservative organization, ran a story
about a week ago showing how it takes 17 years of average
driving to make a hybrid pay off and what a joke they are.

Perhaps. But the taxi drivers didn't complain, in fact they liked the
dependability compared to their last favorite, the Crown Vic. I think in
heavy use a hybrid may pay off faster than in my tye of 10K miles/year.
Of course, it would depend on the price of gas ... grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

So, you're responsible for the high prices?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 3/20/2012 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:

I agree with you about minimizing waste, but definitions of "waste" vary.
I
view driving 85 instead of 55 as better use of my productive time while
others (you?) would claim I was wasting gasoline!



Time is money. ^_^

TDD

Yep, and won't start now.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"SMS" wrote in message
...

But historically you've never let the facts confuse you.

Actually, the restoration was a bit before I was born. However, I've heard
of it, and benefitted greatly from it.

So, how does that relate to a foreign born election stealing Chicago thug,
who has ordered the government to deny drilling permits, for oil?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"SMS" wrote in message
...
.
My, my Christopher your blatant bigotry and racism are showing.
For shame, a pox on thee,

He must have missed the revelation.

Learn more about Jesus
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng

Where, in the Constitution, does it give any branch of government power to
spend tax payer money to keep any bank, or industry from collapsing?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"SMS" wrote in message
...
This required spending to prevent banks and key industries from collapsing.

"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels
of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."

*Oil Shale Reserveshttp://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/#ixzz1penlmFCg

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of
oil..."http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html

Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:

1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days
75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years

That's just for shale oil.



you need to understand the difference between reserves and
economically recoverable. Reserves are recoverable but not at todays
price. so there is 200 years of oil there, but not recoverable AT
TODAY's PRICE. As the price goes up, more of that oil becomes
economically recoverable.

So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price
needs to go up.

Mark

On 3/20/12 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG. It's just missing infrastructure,
something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's. Another good
(but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or Explorer
(taxis in NY City). If NY taxi drivers really had problems with them they
would have said so, and I have asked.


One of the problems with CNG is the storage and fill up. Heavier
tanks and hoses are needed to handle the pressure. It just isn't as
handy as good old gasoline. One couldn't dump five gallons in a car's
tank along the roadside.

Might I suggest an alternative answer?

To get more oil, more drillers need to get permission
from Der Fuehr^h^h^h^h Der Prezident.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mark" wrote in message
...

So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price
needs to go up.

Mark

Mark wrote:
"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion
barrels of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."

Oil Shale
Reserveshttp://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/#ixzz1penlmFCg

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day,
of
oil..."http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html

Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:

1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days
75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years

That's just for shale oil.



you need to understand the difference between reserves and
economically recoverable. Reserves are recoverable but not at todays
price. so there is 200 years of oil there, but not recoverable AT
TODAY's PRICE. As the price goes up, more of that oil becomes
economically recoverable.

So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price
needs to go up.


Nope. Consider "fracking" for the recovery of natural gas. The price of such
gas has fallen through the floor.

Using newer methods does NOT automatically mean higher prices.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:57:37 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:



"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels
of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."

*Oil Shale Reserveshttp://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/#ixzz1penlmFCg

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of
oil..."http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html

Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:

1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days
75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years

That's just for shale oil.



you need to understand the difference between reserves and
economically recoverable. Reserves are recoverable but not at todays
price. so there is 200 years of oil there, but not recoverable AT
TODAY's PRICE. As the price goes up, more of that oil becomes
economically recoverable.

So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price
needs to go up.

Go back and study Econ-101 again. As long as there are artificial controls
(see: OPEC and Komrad O'Hussein) on production, such simplistic a analysis as
you attempt is meaningless propaganda. These artificial barriers leave a
*lot* of room for technology to sneak "more expensive" oil into the market,
keeping prices *DOWN*. If another barrier is broken down (I suggest that
Komrad O'Hussein is the easiest for us to control) the price will fall even
lower.

IOW, bull****.

In article ,
Han wrote:

They don't work all the time, but they do work. And natural gas-fired
old-fashioned power plants will be needed for peak loads, because you
just can't stop industry to back up that.

The other studiously ignored problem, even greater than peak loads, is
that many of our base load plants are reaching the end of their lives.
This is an area where solar and wind are particularly useless.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

They don't work all the time, but they do work. And natural gas-fired
old-fashioned power plants will be needed for peak loads, because you
just can't stop industry to back up that.

The other studiously ignored problem, even greater than peak loads, is
that many of our base load plants are reaching the end of their lives.
This is an area where solar and wind are particularly useless.

I like your "studiously ignored problem". In fact, it's just that problem
that should be solved with new technology rather than old technology coal
and oil generating plants. I'm not /totally/ excluding the fuels, but
there needs to be cleaner and more efficient burning taking place if those
old fuels are used. I believe that for baseload, nuclear should be good
enough, if properly constructed (a real big if).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:02:31 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Mark wrote:
Look, the Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for
wood to make charcoal. When Europeans ran out of wood, they used
coal. When coal became too expensive to mine and transport, oil came
to the fore. The known world was ruled by charcoal, industrial
revolution was run by coal, space was conquered during the reign of
oil.

We have 200 years worth of (known) oil in the U.S., 400 years worth
of coal, and way beyond both of those in natural gas. It is way
premature to get all exercised about "running out."


i've got nothing against USING oil but we don't have enough to WASTE
it.

There is not 200 years worth of recoverable oil.

we were talking about oil, not coal or gas... there are already good
alternatives to coal and gas, use coal and gas all you want, no
problem

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.


"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels
of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."

Oil Shale Reserves
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-...#ixzz1penlmFCg

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of
oil..."
http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/fun...nsumption.html

Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:

1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days
75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years

That's just for shale oil.

I agree with you about minimizing waste, but definitions of "waste" vary. I
view driving 85 instead of 55 as better use of my productive time while
others (you?) would claim I was wasting gasoline!

If you're in front of me on I85 at 5:00AM Monday morning or 5:00PM Friday
afternoon, you're going to get an earful as I blow your ass off the road!
;-)

On 20 Mar 2012 12:11:25 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG. It's just missing infrastructure,
something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's. Another good
(but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or Explorer
(taxis in NY City). If NY taxi drivers really had problems with them they
would have said so, and I have asked.

LNG is not a good solution at all. It doesn't liquefy at normal temperatures
and must be vented. Talk about GHGs! CNG isn't dense enough to be useful
(and the container too heavy). If it were just a matter of delivery
infrastructure you'd be seeing it now. It's not. ...and if it were, you'd be
fighting that too.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:01:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:26:19 -0400, "
wrote:

Why are you libs so damn dumb?

16 years of public education, followed by a career working for the government.

Careful there.

I have no GED, retired at 50 from the government.

Yes, I fought the left wing idiots. -- but survived.

You were in an area where it was only management, though.

" wrote in
:

On 20 Mar 2012 12:11:25 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG. It's just missing infrastructure,
something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's. Another
good (but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or
Explorer (taxis in NY City). If NY taxi drivers really had problems
with them they would have said so, and I have asked.

LNG is not a good solution at all. It doesn't liquefy at normal
temperatures and must be vented. Talk about GHGs! CNG isn't dense
enough to be useful (and the container too heavy). If it were just a
matter of delivery infrastructure you'd be seeing it now. It's not.
...and if it were, you'd be fighting that too.

I agree that there are definite drawbacks to CNG. However, whether it is
partly because of taxation policies or not, Europe is still as full of
autogas fueling stations as it was 50 years ago, so in some circumstances
it is economical. Caveat: Taxation policies do play an important role.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 22 Mar 2012 15:44:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 20 Mar 2012 12:11:25 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark wrote in news:99a0851b-d791-44eb-a518-
:

There is no good alternative to oil for transportation that we have
yet...., it should not be wasted.

One good alternative is LNG/CNG. It's just missing infrastructure,
something that has existed in Europe at least since the 70's. Another
good (but expensive) alternative is hybrids such as the Prius, or
Explorer (taxis in NY City). If NY taxi drivers really had problems
with them they would have said so, and I have asked.

LNG is not a good solution at all. It doesn't liquefy at normal
temperatures and must be vented. Talk about GHGs! CNG isn't dense
enough to be useful (and the container too heavy). If it were just a
matter of delivery infrastructure you'd be seeing it now. It's not.
...and if it were, you'd be fighting that too.

I agree that there are definite drawbacks to CNG. However, whether it is
partly because of taxation policies or not, Europe is still as full of
autogas fueling stations as it was 50 years ago, so in some circumstances
it is economical. Caveat: Taxation policies do play an important role.

A role, sure. OTOH, taxation policies are trying to raise wind and solar from
the dead, without much success. They're still dead.

" wrote in
:

On 22 Mar 2012 15:44:39 GMT, Han wrote:

snip
I agree that there are definite drawbacks to CNG. However, whether it
is partly because of taxation policies or not, Europe is still as full
of autogas fueling stations as it was 50 years ago, so in some
circumstances it is economical. Caveat: Taxation policies do play an
important role.

A role, sure. OTOH, taxation policies are trying to raise wind and
solar from the dead, without much success. They're still dead.

I'll try to stay alive for 10 or 15 years. Then we'll see who's been
right. In the mean time, I'm going to stop wasting electrons.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 22 Mar 2012 17:14:54 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 22 Mar 2012 15:44:39 GMT, Han wrote:

snip
I agree that there are definite drawbacks to CNG. However, whether it
is partly because of taxation policies or not, Europe is still as full
of autogas fueling stations as it was 50 years ago, so in some
circumstances it is economical. Caveat: Taxation policies do play an
important role.

A role, sure. OTOH, taxation policies are trying to raise wind and
solar from the dead, without much success. They're still dead.

I'll try to stay alive for 10 or 15 years. Then we'll see who's been
right. In the mean time, I'm going to stop wasting electrons.

Physics doesn't lie. Only an ex-government worker would have to waif 15 years
to see the obvious.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 4:58 pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 18, 4:35 am, "Stormin Mormon"





wrote:
Gee, and all this time I thought it was cause B. Hussein was denying
permits
to drill and process oil.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

.. .
Did you know that everytime you buy anything in a plastic package, buy
plastic trash bags, accept a plastic store bag, buy your kids plastic
toys, and the list goes on......
*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices!!!

What can YOU do to cut back on plastics, thus cutting back on oil
usage?

Gasoline prices are per demand of posting from parent companies.
outlets adhere at the risk of losing franchise license.

Why has NO one seriously pointed out that during the worst economic
downtown in years and what is reported as 'shrinking' supply, all
players in the oil industry posted the highest profits in corporate
history? Somehow that seems contradictory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Speculators are the main problem.


Stupid scapegoat for the useful idiots on the left



Also the Iran affair doesn't help.
I believe the Iran affair was deliberately started to keep oil prices
up.

Naturally
It's a BIG CONSPIRACY..
what a maroon

In article ,
" wrote:

Absolute bull****. Without Hugh subsidies it'll fall faster than gravity.
Watch Europe crumble as the subsidies become unaffordable.

Who is this Hugh fellow and why is he given people subsidies?? (Sorry
but my ability to ignore high, hanging curveballs has never been very
good--grin)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:jkfoke$u4g$1
@dont-email.me:

Germany is screwing up big time by shutting down their nuclear power
plants. o_O

I'm afraid they are indeed. I also think that by their drastic squeeze on
spending, they will achieve the opposite of what they desire in the
financial markets, but that is hopefully just a scary nightmare.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Speculators are effectively the insurance agents of markets

Farmer wants to reduce the risk of whether he'll have a good crop
He sells a grain future to a speculator who in return accepts the
risk that the crop will come up short, and in return gets payment if
the crop is good No different from an insurer, with respect to you
car, house or even life.

Indeed. In an ideal world where everyone takes into account the
welfare of all others, yes, there speculators would hedge natural
disasters etc.

In the real world, there are always some, be they bankers,
charlatans, or confidence men, who try to "corner the market". Just
one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday

Regrettably, an occasional excess (the one you reference happened thirty-two
years ago next Tuesday) is the price we must pay for a market more stable
than one without speculators.

Han wrote:

I'd like to see one solar electric project here in the USA that is
cost effective without subsidies. A project producing power
for general use, not a specialty application, say at a remote
site where the grid is not available.

Ok, not quite yet perhaps, but here is a link:
http://www.solarplan.org/Research/F-...20Plan_Energy%
20Policy_2009.pdf

He said "*IS* cost effective without subsidies".

That means NOW. Not some project that may be cost effective in the nebulous
future.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:37:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Absolute bull****. Without Hugh subsidies it'll fall faster than gravity.
Watch Europe crumble as the subsidies become unaffordable.

Who is this Hugh fellow and why is he given people subsidies?? (Sorry
but my ability to ignore high, hanging curveballs has never been very
good--grin)

Nah, the poor slob lives in the crumbs at the bottom of my laptop's keyboard.

" wrote in
:

So what? How many dummies went long on tulips?

Now you are really going back centuries. But it is a good example of
speculators suckering people.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid