"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think
the Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter
what, so let McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good"
candidate?

As far as I can see, it was the survival of one old white guy with old
white guy ideas over a bunch of other old white guys with old white
guy ideas.

SFWIW, I qualify as one of those old white guys, so save you're knee
jerk responses to "old white guy"

The republican party has allowed itself to be taken over by a group of
hard line radicals whose only modus operandi seems to be confortation.

If nothing else, the last 8 years have proven the fallacy of that
approach.

It has also caused me to distance myself from them even though I've
been a registered Republican most of my voting life.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner.
So did she and she let Obama get too good a start.

As much as I am convinced that Hillary is truly dedicated to the
issues she supports, especially the social issues, she failed to
recognise the sense of unrest at the grass roots level that is taking
place in the country.

The majority of the people have been screwed into the wall without
vasoline or even a kiss and they are ticked.

And yes, I'm one of them.

She failed to translate out of the last centuries politics and it cost
her.

Lew

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a
government paid position of food taster.

You are one sick puppy.

Lew

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:47:01 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Paul Franklin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

snip

As (gas) prices
rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
taxation entities.

snip

The federal gasoline tax and most if not all state gas taxes are per
gallon, not percentage. Gas tax revenue has declined since prices
have risen dramatically because folks are using less gasoline and
diesel.

We are foolish to consider using whatever reserves of US oil we have
now. Far better to wait until we've used up all the rest of the
world's oil, and then we will have some left. Why it's the strategic
reserve in grand style! (Not really my point of view, but makes more
sense than most of the opinions being floated out there.)

Of course the oil companies want more offshore leases now, even though
they aren't drilling the ones they have now and don't have the crews
and equipment to drill them all anyway. They can get the leases for a
song now, compared to what they will cost them in 10 or 20 years when
they will start to get serious about using them.

Paul F.

What about the local and state taxing bodies? The sales taxes in various
flavors that are levied are certainly not per gallon, but a percentage.
The government has gotten far more out of this blip in gas prices
than have the eeeeeevil oil companies. Oh, and if those aforementioned
oil companies are not profitable, just who do you propose will:

a) Get new oil for consumption (The TSA, perhaps?)
b) Repair the consequent damage done to institutional investments
like 401Ks and union retirements funds -funds that depend in part
to a solvent and profitable oil industry.

State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied
on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased
revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost
for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military
fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some
cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.

Most people, myself included, do not begrudge the oil companies a
healthy profit. It is the American way and the companies and their
investors deserve it provided the companies are well run. If they were
to take the lead and plow a significant portion of their increased
revenue back into their business by supporting R&D for alternative
fuels, they would be demonstrating good business savvy. They would be
doing the right thing to grow their business long term and thus ensure
their stockholders good long term value, And they would gain the
respect and support of US citizens who understand they are acting to
advance both corporate and US interests.

But they haven't done this to any real degree. Now, no one expects
the local pizza shop to worry about what's right for the US when they
make their business plans and decide what to do with their profits.
But Oil is a natural resource and of fundamental national importance.
The failure (so far) of the oil business to acknowledge this and take
action is why there is appropriate outrage from many citizens at their
failure to demonstrate leadership.

Certainly there is no really short term replacement for Oil as a
transportation fuel. But failing to actively and aggressively seek
alternatives for the future is (IMO) a worse failing than drilling
everywhere we can right now in an attempt to increase supply for a
short while to temper prices.

Paul F.

Paul Franklin wrote:


State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied
on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased
revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost
for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military
fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some
cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.

New York State imposes a 4% sales tax on gasoline with my county adding
another 4.75% sales tax to the cost of each gallon. Most states apply
sales tax to fuels.

See:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/245.html


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
...


Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants?

Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.

Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller
facilities.


And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?"

It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only
*two* people who ask that question.

*Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Generally speaking the economies of scale make
pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant
more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands
of small engines.

I think.

--

FF

On Sep 11, 8:11*pm, "todd" wrote:

...

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. *But I know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.


That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.

Ditto if you reply to this.

--

FF

On Sep 12, 4:31*pm, Charlie Self wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:48*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"todd" wrote:
So which is it? *Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

He's 9% different. He is 91% the same. At least that's how he's voted
in the past 7-1/2 years.

I'd be happy to have the John McCain who ran in 2000.

I tend to think that his positions since have been:

1) Loyalty to the President who won the election and
to the direction his party has taken.

2) Deference to the decisions made by the commander-
in-chief during wartime.

3) Positioning himself to gain the support of the voters
who defeated him in favor of Bush in 2000.
(e.g. If you can't beat them, join them.)

So I don't know if he took the positions he did in
2000 to gain support of that part of the Republican
Party that could be swayed away from Bush, or if
those positions reflected his true principles and
he is only pandering now or, and this I consider to
be most likely he, like most politicians, has always
pandered and has no genuine loyalty to any, or
at most only a preciously small set, of principles.

It is all too easy to believe that a person who tells
me what I want to hear, actually believes it himself.

--

FF

On Sep 13, 2:09*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
*Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? *If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.

They did.

It takes time to implement a plan.

http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm

Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.

Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:

http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html


They have started to go down now,
with the Democrats still controlling the Congress.


The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
energy and it's impact on the world economy.

Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
person's mentality to address the problem.

Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
leader.

Drill baby drill was their solution.

There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.

We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
extracting, to solve the problem.

Half of the continental shelf is currently open for exploration
and extraction, and has been for years. I don't see why the
Petroleum would be more inclined to explore an drill in the
remaining half. I suppose that would open up the market
for speculation, an 'industry' that neither produces nor
contributes anything value.


BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
but they did on everything else.

That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.

If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
lb drum of epoxy lately?)

There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
...

Carter had one. But he never sold even his own party on
it. That's because it was a long term plan, planning for the
next generation. Which, BTW, IMHO is the only sort of plan
that could work without major political/social. economic
disruption.

Now that I mentioned his name, probably one or more persons
will feel obliged to tell us they think he was a terrible President,
but for completely different reasons, thus distracting the reader
from considering where we might be had we followed his lead
on energy issues.

--

FF

On Sep 13, 2:09*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

...

IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
President.
...

Left shoe or right?

--

FF

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:19:43 GMT, Nova wrote:

Paul Franklin wrote:


State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied
on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased
revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost
for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military
fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some
cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.

New York State imposes a 4% sales tax on gasoline with my county adding
another 4.75% sales tax to the cost of each gallon. Most states apply
sales tax to fuels.

See:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/245.html

Thanks for the correction. You're correct that there are a few states
that apply sales tax to fuels. But your link just lists general state
sales tax rates (and gas, alcohol, and cigarette tax rates).

The link below lists states that have state and/or local taxes that
are levied on gasoline or diesel. It's from 2002, but at that time
there were only 5 states with state sales taxes on fuel, and 6 states
that have some local sales taxes on fuels (Georgia has both). With
the exception of those, federal, state and local governments fuel
taxes are per gallon. So the federal government and 45 state
governments have not seen any tax revenue increase due to the rise in
gasoline/diesel prices.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/gastax.pdf

Paul F.

On Sep 13, 10:02*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:


...

Drill baby drill was their solution.

There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.

Nonsense. *"Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling.

Sure. And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
would lead to more drilling. It would lead to more speculation
I suppose.



is the other major problem it has created, global warming.

You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
as facts. *...



Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.

They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. **Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.

I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

That offer still stands.

--

FF

On Sep 11, 2:20*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

...

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.
...


No kidding. If actual people were the object of the pejorative,
then the pig is Bush and the pig with the lipstick is McCain.

Palin is no Cheney.

--

FF

Paul Franklin wrote:
SNIP

Certainly there is no really short term replacement for Oil as a
transportation fuel. But failing to actively and aggressively seek
alternatives for the future is (IMO) a worse failing than drilling
everywhere we can right now in an attempt to increase supply for a
short while to temper prices.

Paul F.

That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. We cannot have it both ways. Either
the oil companies must be profitable without constantly having to
defend themselves from every drooling cause in the country, or they
will take what they have, sit on it and make no significant new
capital investments.

As to their "responsibility" to pursue alternative fuels - I rather
think that the market will solve this problem if allowed to. There
isn't an "alternative" out there today that is currently economically
rational. In order to see investment in things like hydrogen, there is
going to have to be a reason for someone to do it - the belief that it
will show a return on investment within some reasonable time.

But our genius politicians and populist sheeple leaders use government
to distort the price of oil to try and keep prices "fair". I their
every wheezing we hear how the big eeeeeeevil oil companies are making
too much money so the government needs to "step in" by dropping fuel
taxes, increasing regulation, and so forth. When the price of
something is artificially depressed, there is less and less motivation
for someone to find its alternative.

"Laissez Faire", I say - let the *market* set the price. The reason,
of course, the Usual Suspects don't want to let this happen is because:

1) It takes the slimy politicians out of the equation thereby further
exposing how unimportant they are.

2) A good many of the screech owls in the environmentalist left who
whine about the lack of oil in the future, don't really believe it.
They are terrified that - under real market conditions - there would
be increased economic incentives to drill, refine, and explore more
efficiently, thereby keeping crude and gasoline as energy staples
at reasonable prices. They want to use government force to do
what is economically irrational at the moment - make a huge forward
investment in alternative technologies - many of which have no
real future.

P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
mentality today?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:09 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
...

IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
President.
...

Left shoe or right?

--

FF

Does that make him a heel?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:02 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...

Drill baby drill was their solution.
There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.
Nonsense. "Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling.

Sure. And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
would lead to more drilling. It would lead to more speculation
I suppose.


is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
as facts. ...



Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.

I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

That offer still stands.

--

FF

Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article 344df6a9-b7e6-448c-8275-cfec659f8d43
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
...


Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants?

Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.

Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller
facilities.

Mostly at "peaking" plants, AIUI. Small/cheap plants needed for
quick availability (on line in minutes) to offset peak loads. It
takes time to start a bioler or nuke.

And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?"

It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only
*two* people who ask that question.

What about; where are the batteries going to come from? Oil has a
pretty impressive energy content.

*Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Generally speaking the economies of scale make
pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant
more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands
of small engines.

I think.

Automobile engines are pretty clean, these days. If it's CO2 that
is the worry (stupid), nothing short of caves will help. Indeed,
that's the point of the eco-nazis.

--
Keith

On Sep 14, 11:51*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 13, 10:02 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...

Drill baby drill was their solution.
There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.
Nonsense. *"Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling.

Sure. *And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
*I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
would lead to more drilling. * It would lead to more speculation
I suppose.

is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
as facts. *...

Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. **Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.

I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

That offer still stands.
...

Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?


That offer still stands.

--

FF

On Sep 14, 12:42*pm, krw wrote:
In article 344df6a9-b7e6-448c-8275-cfec659f8d43
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...



On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
...

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants?

Hopefully. *Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
*to ignite their primary fuel, coal. * Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.

Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. *Most of that is at smaller
facilities.

Sorry, that should have been 20%.


Mostly at "peaking" plants, AIUI. *Small/cheap plants needed for
quick availability (on line in minutes) to offset peak loads. *It
takes time to start a bioler or nuke.
..

Yes.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP

Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.
That offer still stands.
...

Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?


That offer still stands.


Fred, if it were that simple or obvious, it would have been
demonstrated and verified by the scientific method long ago.
It's not that simple. Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like. You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 14, 11:38*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. ...

You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
the raw material itself.

Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
expand its production and capture more the market, then some
other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.

Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
significant period of time.

...
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
* * *Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
* * *out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
* * *cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
* * *that can no longer be recycled. *I'd like to wish the whole bunch
* * *of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
* * *lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
* * *mentality today?
...

Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.

Don't let that stop you from picketing.

--

FF

On Sep 14, 1:36*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. **Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.
That offer still stands.
...

Fred, if it were that simple or obvious, it would have been
demonstrated and verified by the scientific method long ago.

It was.

It's not that simple.

No, it is that simple.

*Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? *Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like. *

What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.

You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.


--

FF

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny
example of a specific example of your point.

Time out.

I made a statement, you chose to challenge it.

No problem; however, the burden of proof of your challenge is in your
court, not mine.

Lew

You apparently misconstrued my intent...I did not intend nor did I
particularly challenge any of your statements..... but rather I simply asked
for the basis of your general sweeping rhetorical comments. If you have no
foundation fell free to enjoy your time out. Rod

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. ...

You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
the raw material itself.

Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
expand its production and capture more the market, then some
other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.

Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
significant period of time.

...
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
mentality today?
...

Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.

Don't let that stop you from picketing.



Really? That surprises me. Cars like the Prius use what? Alkaline
cells? Lithium-Ion? (Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more
earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused
often/ever as compared to L-A.) If you have references on this,
I'd like to read them ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like.

What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.

You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.


Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
warmiing?" That question is only of interest if you worship
the earth and think humans are pox upon it. The questions
of interest a

1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?

2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
to mankind?

3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
consequences?

At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
and may change) these answers:

1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. There
does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. If you
you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
you like.

2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
climates as a rule. Water rising in the ocean could
contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
of the planet. However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.

3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
mankind has the resources to do all that much about. In this
worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
best: adapt. The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".

Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
socialist/Marxist political ideology. They are not credible witnesses
to the questions or their remediation.

The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
they too have agendas. Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
the people who do science are not. They are driven by their desire
for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
GW boogeman. Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
the doomsayers:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9619



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 14, 2:18*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. ...

You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
*the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
the raw material itself.

Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
more of the market. *A company with more refineries could not
do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
them to buy more petroleum. *But even if one oil company did
expand its *production and capture more the market, then some
other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.

Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
significant period of time.

...
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
* * *Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
* * *out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
* * *cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
* * *that can no longer be recycled. *I'd like to wish the whole bunch
* * *of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
* * *lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
* * *mentality today?
...

Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.

Don't let that stop you from picketing.

Really? *That surprises me. *Cars like the Prius use what? *Alkaline
cells? *Lithium-Ion? *(Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more
earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused
often/ever as compared to L-A.) *If you have references on this,
I'd like to read them ...
..

Having just checked that, some do use lead--those are
recyclable.

Lead-acid batteries are being phased out in favor of the nickel
(nicad?) and lithium-ion batteries.

I'm not familiar with the lithium-ion technology though I am
pretty sure that lithium is much less toxic than lead and
nickel and not prone to biomultiplication.

--

FF

On Sep 14, 2:33*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

*Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? *Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like. *

What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.

You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.

Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
warmiing?" *That question is only of interest if you worship
the earth and think humans are pox upon it. *The questions
of interest a

I disagree.

I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.

I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
with the fundamentals.


1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?

2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
* *to mankind?

3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
* *do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
* *consequences?

At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
and may change) these answers:

1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. *There
* *does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
* *how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. *If you
* *you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
* *you like.

2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
* *climates as a rule. * Water rising in the ocean could
* *contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
* *of the planet. *However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
* *if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
* *sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.

3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
* *(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
* *mankind has the resources to do all that much about. *In this
* *worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
* *best: adapt. *The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
* *than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
* *deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
* *(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".

Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
socialist/Marxist political ideology. *They are not credible witnesses
to the questions or their remediation.

The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
they too have agendas. *Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
the people who do science are not. *They are driven by their desire
for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
GW boogeman. *Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
the doomsayers:


Perhaps you didn't understand.

I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
language such as scaremongers, Peace Prize Boy, earth
worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
scientific sages, and drone followers because those
and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
such discussion from taking place.

--

FF

wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:18 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. ...
You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
the raw material itself.
Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
expand its production and capture more the market, then some
other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
significant period of time.
...
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
mentality today?
...
Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
Don't let that stop you from picketing.
Really? That surprises me. Cars like the Prius use what? Alkaline
cells? Lithium-Ion? (Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more
earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused
often/ever as compared to L-A.) If you have references on this,
I'd like to read them ...
..

Having just checked that, some do use lead--those are
recyclable.

Lead-acid batteries are being phased out in favor of the nickel
(nicad?) and lithium-ion batteries.

I'm not familiar with the lithium-ion technology though I am
pretty sure that lithium is much less toxic than lead and
nickel and not prone to biomultiplication.

--

FF

Lead-Acid can be recycled up to a point, but at some point they
are done. Today, as best I know, they just get tossed at that point.

NiCad has the problem having Cadmium in them - another not very nice
heavy metal.

I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
problem with the remaining Li when things are done.

The point is that all engineering is the art of tradeoff. There
is no free lunch in science just as there is none in economics
(or personal relationships or work or ...). This doesn't stop
the chowderheaded environmentalist fanatics from finding magic
solutions (to often ill formed or even bogus problems) on some
regular basis...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like.
What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.
You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
warmiing?" That question is only of interest if you worship
the earth and think humans are pox upon it. The questions
of interest a

I disagree.

I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.

I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
with the fundamentals.

1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?

2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
to mankind?

3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
consequences?

At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
and may change) these answers:

1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. There
does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. If you
you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
you like.

2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
climates as a rule. Water rising in the ocean could
contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
of the planet. However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.

3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
mankind has the resources to do all that much about. In this
worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
best: adapt. The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".

Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
socialist/Marxist political ideology. They are not credible witnesses
to the questions or their remediation.

The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
they too have agendas. Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
the people who do science are not. They are driven by their desire
for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
GW boogeman. Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
the doomsayers:


Perhaps you didn't understand.

I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
language such as scaremongers, Peace Prize Boy, earth
worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
scientific sages, and drone followers because those
and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
such discussion from taking place.

--

FF



I'm fascinated to hear your explanation of causality. Because ...
if you actually have one that holds up, you will have done something
the finest scientists on the planet have yet to do and you will
be famous.

As to the surrounding socio-political discussion. You may wish
to limit yourself to science for purpose of trying to show
causality ... and I will listen honestly. But you need to
be honest and acknowledge that this is *not* the conversation
taking place in the larger culture. The larger discussion is
*all* about the social, political, ideological, and theological
and almost entirely absent any real science. Witness for
instance, almost any of Gore's pontifications. He takes a
small kernel of science, distorts it, extrapolates wildly
and then aggrandizes himself by becoming the instrument of
our salvation. It's all very High Church.

As I say, we can have the science chat, but it almost
doesn't matter - that's not the discussion that actually
matters at the moment...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

You apparently misconstrued my intent...

I don't think so.

I did not intend nor did I particularly challenge any of your
statements.....

You could have surprised me.

but rather I simply asked for the basis of your general sweeping
rhetorical comments.

Sweeping?

Really?

Lew

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 8:11 pm, "todd" wrote:

...

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already,
but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I
know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.


That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.

Ditto if you reply to this.
FF

I'll give you a hint. The website has the name "johnmccain" in it. The
rest is left as a exercise for the reader.

todd

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. ...

You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
the raw material itself.

Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
expand its production and capture more the market, then some
other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.

Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
significant period of time.

...
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
mentality today?
...

Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.

Don't let that stop you from picketing.

--

FF

Let the industry shut down one of the refineries for maintenance and see
what happens. Look at Texas right now. The industry down there is almost
completely off line due to IKE. Prices are going through the roof.
Supply almost exactly equals demand with little for storage.

DN

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 13, 2:09Â*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? Â*If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.

They did.

It takes time to implement a plan.

http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm

Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.

Note the word above, "drastically". Even using your link, there were a
number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.


Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:

http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html


Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
saying that the market was prescient? The prices didn't start rising until
2002.


They have started to go down now,
with the Democrats still controlling the Congress.


The information in your link stops at 2006. This is the first year that
prices have played with $4 per gallon levels. The fact that prices are
coming down right now is due to a couple of factors 1) the summer driving
season is ending and prices traditionally come down following that event,
and 2) the market could not sustain the levels of price that were seen
throughout the summer. Even so, gas prices are still at their highest
levels ever following the post-summer season.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
problem with the remaining Li when things are done.



The Chevy Volt (Electric car) scheduled for late 2010 release will use a
LiIon battery pack (currently under extensive testing). The battery pack has
a expected life of 10 years and a battery cost of $10,000. The car has a
40-50 mile range (under the typical work day commute) with a onboard gas
powered generator for a overall 600 mile range.... The car is a interesting
concept that if successful will likely turn the auto industry on its ear.
Rod

On Sep 14, 5:02*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

*Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? *Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like. *
What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.
You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
warmiing?" *That question is only of interest if you worship
the earth and think humans are pox upon it. *The questions
of interest a

I disagree.

I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.

I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
with the fundamentals.

1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?

2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
* *to mankind?

3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
* *do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
* *consequences?

At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
and may change) these answers:

1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. *There
* *does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
* *how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. *If you
* *you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
* *you like.

2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
* *climates as a rule. * Water rising in the ocean could
* *contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
* *of the planet. *However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
* *if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
* *sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.

3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
* *(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
* *mankind has the resources to do all that much about. *In this
* *worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
* *best: adapt. *The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
* *than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
* *deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
* *(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".

Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
socialist/Marxist political ideology. *They are not credible witnesses
to the questions or their remediation.

The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
they too have agendas. *Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
the people who do science are not. *They are driven by their desire
for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
GW boogeman. *Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
the doomsayers:

Perhaps you didn't understand.

I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
language such as scaremongers, *Peace Prize Boy, earth
worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
scientific *sages, and *drone followers because those
and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
such discussion from taking place.

...

I'm fascinated to hear your explanation of causality. *Because ...
if you actually have one that holds up, you will have done something
the finest scientists on the planet have yet to do and you will
be famous.

That is incorrect.


As to the surrounding socio-political discussion. You may wish
to limit yourself to science for purpose of trying to show
causality ... and I will listen honestly. * But you need to
be honest and acknowledge that this is *not* the conversation
taking place in the larger culture.

Indeed, that is a major problem.

*The larger discussion is
*all* about the social, political, ideological, and theological
and almost entirely absent any real science. *Witness for
instance, almost any of Gore's pontifications.

No.

Was I unclear? Socio/Political/Religious/Ideologial
considerations can be separated from the scientific
discussion. IMHO, only persons who do not under-
stand, or wish to understand, or perhaps more accurately,
do not wish OTHERS to understand the science, who
insist on redirecting and scientific discussion away
from science and into the Socio/Political/Religious/Ideologial
arena.
*
He takes a
small kernel of science, distorts it, extrapolates wildly
and then aggrandizes himself by becoming the instrument of
our salvation. *It's all very High Church.

As I say, we can have the science chat, but it almost
doesn't matter - that's not the discussion that actually
matters at the moment...
...

I think you may want to reconsider that last. Don't
facts always matter?

THIS (above) is not the start of that discussion. Barring
adverse circumstances, I will start it soon.

---

FF

On Sep 14, 7:45*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 13, 2:09*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? *If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.

They did.

It takes time to implement a plan.

http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm

Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.

* Note the word above, "drastically". *Even using your link, there were a
number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.


Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.



Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:

http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html

* Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
saying that the market was prescient? *

That's odd.

When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
that preceded it.

But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
today's prices on Carter.

--

FF

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps
they've
come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
problem with the remaining Li when things are done.



The Chevy Volt (Electric car) scheduled for late 2010 release will
use a LiIon battery pack (currently under extensive testing). The
battery pack has a expected life of 10 years and a battery cost of
$10,000. The car has a 40-50 mile range (under the typical work day
commute) with a onboard gas powered generator for a overall 600 mile
range.... The car is a interesting concept that if successful will
likely turn the auto industry on its ear. Rod

Tim really needs to get out from under his rock once in a while.
Lithium ion has very high energy density, which is why they are being
used in laptops and other applications where a lot of power is needed
in a small space. Meanwhile, you can lease a fuel-cell Honda right
now, today, and drive it home (assuming that they haven't already
leased them all out).

As for "a problem with the remaining Li", I'd like to see a statement
from a reputable source (read something other than Tim's bunghole) of
the nature of that "problem".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sep 14, 4:57*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Lead-Acid can be recycled up to a point, but at some point they
are done. *Today, as best I know, they just get tossed at that point.

The whole car gets tossed at some point. Lead/Nickel/Cadmium in
the car may be the most critical disposal recycling issue.


NiCad has the problem having Cadmium in them - another not very nice
heavy metal.


The nickel; batteries in question appear to be Nickel-Zinc, not nicad.
The nickel is still an issue, but not as bad as cadmium or lead.

I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
come far enough to do that too. *In any case, you do have some
problem with the remaining Li when things are done.

You can recycle it into thermonuclear weapons.

Seriously:

Lead, cadmium, and nickel are toxic heavy metals that
biomultiply in the food chain. Lithium is a 1-A metal, a
nutrient, an essential trace mineral. Of course you could
OD on it and chronic exposure to much higher than normal
levels in your diet would cause long term health problems
but it is huge improvement over the others. Low levels
of lithium contamination in the environment are about
as damaging as low level contamination with sodium,
potassium or calcium. The anion would probably merit
closer controls.


The point is that all engineering is the art of tradeoff. *

My point is that facts matter.

Expressing concern over something that is not
happening, or concerns about disposal of a benign
material used to replace a very toxic one is not
condusive to a constructive discussion.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 14, 7:45Â*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 13, 2:09Â*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? Â*If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.

They did.

It takes time to implement a plan.

http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm

Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.

Note the word above, "drastically". Â*Even using your link, there were a
number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.


Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.


Let's keep it simple for you Fred. Were gasoline prices at or above $4
per gallon before or after the 2006 election?




Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:

http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html

Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
saying that the market was prescient?

That's odd.

When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
that preceded it.


But Fred, in the paragraph above to which I was responding, you asserted
that the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as
Bush/Cheney took office, "as if the companies anticipated the rise in crude
prices". IIRC, they took office in 2001, now you are asserting that the
plot shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. Prices started rising
after 2001 due some rather significant world events.

But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
today's prices on Carter.

... and it is comments like these with which you have attained the title
of master debater.

/I'm done, I've got better things to do with my time.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 14, 7:45 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 13, 2:09 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.

They did.

It takes time to implement a plan.

http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm

Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.

Note the word above, "drastically". Even using your link, there were a
number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.


Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.


Let's keep it simple for you Fred. Were gasoline prices at or above $4
per gallon before or after the 2006 election?




Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:

http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html

Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
saying that the market was prescient?

That's odd.

When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
that preceded it.


But Fred, in the paragraph above to which I was responding, you asserted
that the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as
Bush/Cheney took office, "as if the companies anticipated the rise in
crude
prices". IIRC, they took office in 2001, now you are asserting that the
plot shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. Prices started rising
after 2001 due some rather significant world events.

But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
today's prices on Carter.

... and it is comments like these with which you have attained the title
of master debater.

/I'm done, I've got better things to do with my time.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

What you people forget in your criticisms is that things i.e. gas prices
didn't go down the pooper until the democrats took control of both houses of
Congress. Why don't you liberals admit that??? Since they took control
everything has stalled and went down the drain. The democratic controlled
Congress now has less that a ten percent approval rating. Are you liberals
proud of that record? The lowest approval rating in history.