On Nov 17, 2:49*am, Hawke wrote:

I knew I could count on old "Buggy Whip" Johnson to oppose green
technology and stand tall to keep 19th century forms of energy number
one on America's energy menu. But sadly for him and the old tech, the
modern people are moving away from burning things to make energy. Maybe
in a couple of decades Buggy Whip will see you don't have to burn stuff
to make energy like he always thought. But he's not going to see that
for a long, long time. Like all right wingers he's got his head firmly
set...to look to the past.

Hawke

I am all for green energy, but only when it is cost effective. I have
been adding insulation to our house because it decreases the amount of
energy I need to live comfortably.

But right now natural gas is cheaper than it has been for years and we
have about a hundred years supply at our current rate of use. Solar
energy is not competitive with natural gas. It takes too much energy
to make the solar cells. So all the trendy people are going to things
like electric cars that either use gasoline to generate the
electricity or use power generated mostly by burning coal.

At the rate solar energy is developing, you will be using power from
burning things until you die. It sure is not going to be here in a
couple of decades. Meanwhile the Keystone pipeline would be
transporting 590,000 barrels per day. Have you any idea of how much
energy that is? And how long it will be before solar energy will be
supplying that amount of energy?


Dan

On 11/17/2011 4:34 AM, wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:49 am, wrote:

I knew I could count on old "Buggy Whip" Johnson to oppose green
technology and stand tall to keep 19th century forms of energy number
one on America's energy menu. But sadly for him and the old tech, the
modern people are moving away from burning things to make energy. Maybe
in a couple of decades Buggy Whip will see you don't have to burn stuff
to make energy like he always thought. But he's not going to see that
for a long, long time. Like all right wingers he's got his head firmly
set...to look to the past.

Hawke

I am all for green energy, but only when it is cost effective. I have
been adding insulation to our house because it decreases the amount of
energy I need to live comfortably.

But right now natural gas is cheaper than it has been for years and we
have about a hundred years supply at our current rate of use. Solar
energy is not competitive with natural gas. It takes too much energy
to make the solar cells. So all the trendy people are going to things
like electric cars that either use gasoline to generate the
electricity or use power generated mostly by burning coal.

At the rate solar energy is developing, you will be using power from
burning things until you die. It sure is not going to be here in a
couple of decades. Meanwhile the Keystone pipeline would be
transporting 590,000 barrels per day. Have you any idea of how much
energy that is? And how long it will be before solar energy will be
supplying that amount of energy?


If you would watch that interview with Clinton I told you about on Book
TV you would have a much better idea of how soon solar would be cheaper
than oil.

I'm only paraphrasing but he was saying that every time we put in
another solar energy farm the cost goes down 30%. He said that in five
years it'll be as cheap as oil. He said Solyndra went down because new
technology changed so fast that it made them unprofitable. Every year
oil is going to keep going up in price because it's getting harder and
harder to get it. All the easy oil is gone. Oil tar sand is profitable
when the price gets to around 10 bucks a gallon. By the time we reach
that level solar and wind will be cheaper.

Clinton also said in North Dakota alone there is enough wind power to
provide something like 24% of our energy needs. What we need is a modern
electrical grid to make it happen. So what do you want to do? Stick with
trying to get more fossil fuels, which gets harder and more expensive
all the time or just go for the newer cleaner fuels. If you choose to go
the clean route all the old energy industries and their allies call you
every name in the book. I can understand why. They're going the way of
the buggy whip.

Hawke

On Nov 17, 8:48*pm, Hawke wrote:


If you would watch that interview with Clinton I told you about on Book
TV you would have a much better idea of how soon solar would be cheaper
than oil.

You want me to take the word of a politician about the future of
solar energy. You do realize the government has no good idea. If
they did they would not have loaned money to Solyndra.

I'm only paraphrasing but he was saying that every time we put in
another solar energy farm the cost goes down 30%. He said that in five
years it'll be as cheap as oil. He said Solyndra went down because new
technology changed so fast that it made them unprofitable. Every year
oil is going to keep going up in price because it's getting harder and
harder to get it. All the easy oil is gone. Oil tar sand is profitable
when the price gets to around 10 bucks a gallon. By the time we reach
that level solar and wind will be cheaper.


Solar has been just five years away from being cheaper than oil since
about 1972. And I expect it to be just five years away when I die.
Oil and natural gas have been getting cheaper not more expensive. The
drilling techniques have improved so that oil and natural gas in shale
is now profitable. Oil from tar sand is profitable when crude is
about $80 a barrel. So oil from tar sand is profitable right now.
That is why they want to build the keystone pipeline. Have you not
been paying attention. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons so you are off
by a factor of 5. The other problem with solar is of course the power
goes away at night and when it is cloudy. So solar power is not
economically feasible in a lot of states. You can build solar farms
in desert regions, but then you need transmission lines. And
transporting electricity long distances means significant power
losses. You lose about half the power in transmission lines. So you
need twice as much power if you locate the solar farms in Arizona and
send the power to Texas.

When I was in grade school ,the known oil reserves were good for about
15 years. Now some 60 years later the known oil reserves are more. I
can find places on the internet that say the oil reserves are good for
140 years. I am not sure I believe that, but it is closer to being
right than "solar power will be cheaper than oil in five years"

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/

"To begin with, one of the most revealing speeches about world oil
reserves went unremarked in 2006. The head of the world's largest oil
company, Saudi Aramco, said:

“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of
potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of
oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the
world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil
potential. That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil
is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol
supplies.” "



Clinton also said in North Dakota alone there is enough wind power to
provide something like 24% of our energy needs. What we need is a modern
electrical grid to make it happen. So what do you want to do? Stick with
trying to get more fossil fuels, which gets harder and more expensive
all the time or just go for the newer cleaner fuels. If you choose to go
the clean route all the old energy industries and their allies call you
every name in the book. I can understand why. They're going the way of
the buggy whip.

Hawke

What I want to do is let oil, natural gas , solar , and wind power to
compete. There is certainly no need to rush into solar or wind power.
There is no need to have government programs to subsidize any of the
energy sources. There certainly is no need to help companies as
Solyndra. The cheapest source of energy will change over time, but
right now it is natural gas and it looks like it will stay that way
for another thirty or more years.


Dan

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:48:45 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 4:34 AM, wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:49 am, wrote:

I knew I could count on old "Buggy Whip" Johnson to oppose green
technology and stand tall to keep 19th century forms of energy number
one on America's energy menu. But sadly for him and the old tech, the
modern people are moving away from burning things to make energy. Maybe
in a couple of decades Buggy Whip will see you don't have to burn stuff
to make energy like he always thought. But he's not going to see that
for a long, long time. Like all right wingers he's got his head firmly
set...to look to the past.

Hawke

I am all for green energy, but only when it is cost effective. I have
been adding insulation to our house because it decreases the amount of
energy I need to live comfortably.

But right now natural gas is cheaper than it has been for years and we
have about a hundred years supply at our current rate of use. Solar
energy is not competitive with natural gas. It takes too much energy
to make the solar cells. So all the trendy people are going to things
like electric cars that either use gasoline to generate the
electricity or use power generated mostly by burning coal.

At the rate solar energy is developing, you will be using power from
burning things until you die. It sure is not going to be here in a
couple of decades. Meanwhile the Keystone pipeline would be
transporting 590,000 barrels per day. Have you any idea of how much
energy that is? And how long it will be before solar energy will be
supplying that amount of energy?


If you would watch that interview with Clinton I told you about on Book
TV you would have a much better idea of how soon solar would be cheaper
than oil.

I'm only paraphrasing but he was saying that every time we put in
another solar energy farm the cost goes down 30%. He said that in five
years it'll be as cheap as oil. He said Solyndra went down because new
technology changed so fast that it made them unprofitable. Every year
oil is going to keep going up in price because it's getting harder and
harder to get it. All the easy oil is gone. Oil tar sand is profitable
when the price gets to around 10 bucks a gallon. By the time we reach
that level solar and wind will be cheaper.

Clinton also said in North Dakota alone there is enough wind power to
provide something like 24% of our energy needs. What we need is a modern
electrical grid to make it happen. So what do you want to do? Stick with
trying to get more fossil fuels, which gets harder and more expensive
all the time or just go for the newer cleaner fuels. If you choose to go
the clean route all the old energy industries and their allies call you
every name in the book. I can understand why. They're going the way of
the buggy whip.

Hawke

Hawke, if you want to know how well these "green" energy sources work
talk to some sailing cruisers, the people who are making open ocean
crossings. They all use solar panels and nearly all use a wind
generator. And 99% of them carry a internal combustion generator set
and have big alternators on their auxiliary engines.

Look at all the people living "off grid". A zillion dollars of solar
power and a diesel gen-set out the back.

People who are in circumstances where they must depend on electricity
seem rather reluctant to rely solely on the green stuff.


--
John B.

On 11/17/2011 6:47 PM, wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:48 pm, wrote:


If you would watch that interview with Clinton I told you about on Book
TV you would have a much better idea of how soon solar would be cheaper
than oil.

You want me to take the word of a politician about the future of
solar energy.

That's former politician Bill Clinton.

You do realize the government has no good idea.
if they did they would not have loaned money to Solyndra.

Apply that logic to business. Why would people loan money to any
business when they go bankrupt so often? Do they have no good ideas or
why would they waste money on a bad idea? Could it be you have to take
some chances to get ahead and if you do you will incur losses whether
you are a government or a business.



I'm only paraphrasing but he was saying that every time we put in
another solar energy farm the cost goes down 30%. He said that in five
years it'll be as cheap as oil. He said Solyndra went down because new
technology changed so fast that it made them unprofitable. Every year
oil is going to keep going up in price because it's getting harder and
harder to get it. All the easy oil is gone. Oil tar sand is profitable
when the price gets to around 10 bucks a gallon. By the time we reach
that level solar and wind will be cheaper.


Solar has been just five years away from being cheaper than oil since
about 1972. And I expect it to be just five years away when I die.
Oil and natural gas have been getting cheaper not more expensive. The
drilling techniques have improved so that oil and natural gas in shale
is now profitable. Oil from tar sand is profitable when crude is
about $80 a barrel. So oil from tar sand is profitable right now.
That is why they want to build the keystone pipeline. Have you not
been paying attention. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons so you are off
by a factor of 5. The other problem with solar is of course the power
goes away at night and when it is cloudy. So solar power is not
economically feasible in a lot of states. You can build solar farms
in desert regions, but then you need transmission lines. And
transporting electricity long distances means significant power
losses. You lose about half the power in transmission lines. So you
need twice as much power if you locate the solar farms in Arizona and
send the power to Texas.

So to get solar power to work all over you need a new high tech grid.
Yeah, I thought I said that. The point is that aside from the price
there are a lot of other things wrong with fossil fuels. Knowing this a
smart man would want to change to clean renewable energy sources as
quick as possible.



When I was in grade school ,the known oil reserves were good for about
15 years. Now some 60 years later the known oil reserves are more. I
can find places on the internet that say the oil reserves are good for
140 years. I am not sure I believe that, but it is closer to being
right than "solar power will be cheaper than oil in five years"

I wouldn't stake my life on that if I were you. Besides that don't you
understand that world's demand for energy is growing at an exponential
rate? What do you think the world would be like if we amped up
production of fossil fuel use to keep up with that? In addition, the oil
that is cheap and easy to get has been found and is declining. What we
age getting now and in the future is going to be harder to get and will
be more expensive. As a businessman wouldn't it be wise to see that and
plan to switch to other fuel sources ASAP?




http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/

"To begin with, one of the most revealing speeches about world oil
reserves went unremarked in 2006. The head of the world's largest oil
company, Saudi Aramco, said:

“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of
potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of
oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the
world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil
potential. That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil
is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol
supplies.” "

The Saudis have been lying about their oil reserves for years. You trust
them? Be my guest, and if they have so much oil how come the countries
in the Middle East are trying to get nuclear power? Could they know
their oil is running out and don't want us to know that?



Clinton also said in North Dakota alone there is enough wind power to
provide something like 24% of our energy needs. What we need is a modern
electrical grid to make it happen. So what do you want to do? Stick with
trying to get more fossil fuels, which gets harder and more expensive
all the time or just go for the newer cleaner fuels. If you choose to go
the clean route all the old energy industries and their allies call you
every name in the book. I can understand why. They're going the way of
the buggy whip.

Hawke

What I want to do is let oil, natural gas , solar , and wind power to
compete. There is certainly no need to rush into solar or wind power.
There is no need to have government programs to subsidize any of the
energy sources. There certainly is no need to help companies as
Solyndra. The cheapest source of energy will change over time, but
right now it is natural gas and it looks like it will stay that way
for another thirty or more years.


What a crock. You can hide your head in the sand and pretend there is no
damage done by using fossil fuels but the science says otherwise. The
need to switch to clean fuels is critical. It must be done immediately.
Hence the reason the government has to get involved. If it were left to
the market place there is not telling how much it will cost us down the
road. Better to bite the bullet now and change over to clean energy.

I just heard the navy did a test run on a ship using a combination of
diesel fuel and bio fuel and it was a success. They are in the process
of changing too. You just want to leave everything to the market. I
don't. It can't wait. The market can't solve all our problems. Didn't
you learn that from when Bush was in office?

Hawke

On Nov 18, 4:08*pm, Hawke wrote:



So to get solar power to work all over you need a new high tech grid.
Yeah, I thought I said that. The point is that aside from the price
there are a lot of other things wrong with fossil fuels. Knowing this a
smart man would want to change to clean renewable energy sources as
quick as possible.


Please explain how a new high tech grid is going to have less power
losses.





The Saudis have been lying about their oil reserves for years. You trust
them? Be my guest, and if they have so much oil how come the countries
in the Middle East are trying to get nuclear power? Could they know
their oil is running out and don't want us to know that?

So what about the vast amount of oil in Canada?





What a crock. You can hide your head in the sand and pretend there is no
damage done by using fossil fuels but the science says otherwise. The
need to switch to clean fuels is critical. It must be done immediately.

There is no doubt that CO2 in the atmosphere is a green house gas.
But did you know that without CO2 in the air, the earth would be too
cold? And did you know that a significant amount of the CO2 going
into the atmosphere is coming from underground coal fires. So if
getting rid of CO2 sources needs to be done immediately, why is no one
extinguishing the underground coal fires. That would be a relatively
cheap way to cut the CO2 going into the atmosphere by about 40%.


I just heard the navy did a test run on a ship using a combination of
diesel fuel and bio fuel and it was a success. They are in the process
of changing too.

BFD. Burning a barrel of biofuel puts the same amount of CO2 in the
air as burning a barrel of regular diesel fuel.


Dan

Hawke