 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
On Aug 2, 7:44 am, "NapalmHeart" <o...@i...net> wrote:
> "saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
>
> news:71e35f0c-b51f-4837-ab80-afec49fca7c9@f36g2000hs
a.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 9:09 pm, "NapalmHeart" <o...@i...net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <w...@y...com> wrote in message
>
> >news:oep494di9a6kvcg5aqitg51sb3vb501qb9@4ax.com...
>
> > > "Drill, drill, drill", shouts Pudlow daily on his
> > > financial show.
> > > If I here any more of these greedy, short-sighted,
> > > bastards
> > > repeating that idiotic mantra I might have to vote
> > > Democrat.
>
> > > ted
>
> > No doubt that there needs to be more domestic drilling for
> > oil. Along with that is development of non-petroleum forms
> > of energy. It isn't one or the other.
>
> Won't do a bit of good unless they build more refineries.
> How about
> one in your backyard?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> My backyard isn't big enough.
Well then chip in with your neighbors.
> I'm also not in a good
> location for such an operation. Why not one off Cape Cod
> next to the windmills that Ted Kennedy nixed?
Probably get a lot more bang for the buck from wave energy on the
coasts.
"saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
news:ca87928b-e941-4007-9ee9-72a9c81280e6@j22g2000hs
f.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 1:01 am, "John Galt" <k...@g...com> wrote:
> "saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
>
> news:71e35f0c-b51f-4837-ab80-afec49fca7c9@f36g2000hs
a.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 9:09 pm, "NapalmHeart" <o...@i...net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <w...@y...com> wrote in message
>
> >news:oep494di9a6kvcg5aqitg51sb3vb501qb9@4ax.com...
>
> > > "Drill, drill, drill", shouts Pudlow daily on his
> > > financial show.
> > > If I here any more of these greedy, short-sighted,
> > > bastards
> > > repeating that idiotic mantra I might have to vote
> > > Democrat.
>
> > > ted
>
> > No doubt that there needs to be more domestic drilling for
> > oil. Along with that is development of non-petroleum forms
> > of energy. It isn't one or the other.
>
> Won't do a bit of good unless they build more refineries. How about
> one in your backyard?
>
> [JG] Fine with me, but there's no water access.
>
> Looking at the big picture, through, I find it interesting that some
> people
> complain about all the high paying blue collar jobs going overseas, and
> then
> when somebody suggests building a place that provides high paying blue
> collar jobs, the same people get all NIMBY.
Losing our ability to be self sufficient or even an adequate trading
partner is a separate issue. The few jobs created by a refinery or
two is hardly a strong argument to build them.
[JG] It's one reason. The better one is that standard of living is tied to
energy consumption. You want to improve society's standard of living, you
accept an increase in consumption. You want to lower society's standard of
living, by all means, lower consumption.
You could liken our addiction to oil to a heroin addict. We hate what
we have to endure to get our fix and know if we want to survive we are
going to have to get off the smack, but we'd rather rationalize that
if we could just find a better supplier everything would be ok.
[JG] Well.....whatever analogy floats your boat. The larger issue is that
demand for BTU's is going to keep increasing in the US, and the rate of
increase will, for at least a half a century, be greater than the ability of
green alternatives to keep up with. So, we can either lower our standard of
living, OR drill, OR use traditional alternatives to oil, which is coal.
The problem, as I see it, is that certain Americans have become BOTH myopic
AND farsighted on this issue, and forget what's in between. You say "drill",
and the myopic response is "that's 10 years off", followed by the farsighted
(50 years +) observation "We need green alternatives."
Well, that's dandy. What's going to bridge the gap between the two, if they
don't want to develop alternatives? The real risk here is that the myopics
win (Congress being current run by the Queen of the Myopics), fuel goes to
$10 a gallon, and absorbs such a large % of our corporate and governmental
budgets that R&D gets cut, and we never get to the alternatives.
If people don't want to drill, that's fine -- but it's madness to be against
drilling AND expansion of coal plants AND coal. The cost of a BTU will
skyrocket, and that's a receipe for disaster.
> The Texas Gulf Coast has no issue with more refineries.
Must be an issue somewhere or they'd be getting built.
[JG] They are. You should see what's under construction in Beaumont.
Biggest in the world.
> The Texas Gulf Coast
> also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and their
> real
> estate prices haven't dropped a dime over the last few years.
>
> There's a lesson there.
Yeah, oil's gotten expensive and Texans have oil and are cashing in.
[JG] Absolutely. The Californians could be too, but..........well, I guess
they prefer scads of unsold homes and government workers making minimum
wage. Their call.
JG
On Aug 2, 9:34 am, "John Galt" <k...@g...com> wrote:
> "saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca87928b-e941-4007-9ee9-72a9c81280e6@j22g2000hs
f.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 1:01 am, "John Galt" <k...@g...com> wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that certain Americans have become BOTH myopic
> AND farsighted on this issue, and forget what's in between. You say "drill",
> and the myopic response is "that's 10 years off", followed by the farsighted
> (50 years +) observation "We need green alternatives."
Brazil is virtually oil independent today using renewable sugarcane.
They not only refine it for their cars, but they use the fuel to power
their refineries.
The point is that until gas and vehicles became so cheap and abundant,
people lived in cities where they worked. Within cities there is
plenty of low consumption public transportation available. High fuel
prices will likely begin to bring people back in from the country.
Maybe that's a lower standard of living, maybe not, but it's a hell of
a lot cheaper and more efficient for sure.
> Well, that's dandy. What's going to bridge the gap between the two, if they
> don't want to develop alternatives? The real risk here is that the myopics
> win (Congress being current run by the Queen of the Myopics), fuel goes to
> $10 a gallon, and absorbs such a large % of our corporate and governmental
> budgets that R&D gets cut, and we never get to the alternatives.
This sounds like the thought process of a typical right winger: "We
need tax cuts...but let's not spend any less and try not to notice the
little things like the deficit that is devaluing our currency." Only
not it's "We need more drilling...don't mind little things like
destroying pristine ecological habitats that I have no need for...or
that our limited quantities wouldn't put a dent in world supply or
prices...or that changing our gluttonous behavior could have as large
an effect on energy prices as raping the landscape in search of that
last drop of black gold..."
> If people don't want to drill, that's fine -- but it's madness to be against
> drilling AND expansion of coal plants AND coal. The cost of a BTU will
> skyrocket, and that's a receipe for disaster.
Personally, I'm for limiting the production of people. The fewer of
them there are, the longer the resources will last. Then again, does
it really matter if we doom ourselves in 50 or 500 years?
> Yeah, oil's gotten expensive and Texans have oil and are cashing in.
>
> [JG] Absolutely. The Californians could be too, but..........well, I guess
> they prefer scads of unsold homes and government workers making minimum
> wage. Their call.
Hell, last I heard, cops were retiring on six figure salaries in
Kalifornica.
saddlebag <s...@a...com> wrote:
> Brazil is virtually oil independent today using renewable sugarcane.
Nonsense.
> They not only refine it for their cars, but they use the fuel to power
> their refineries.
Yes, they do. And their run on gasohol, or are dual-fuel. Flex-fuel, as
they call it. Guess what the other fuel is?
And what fuels their power stations? And their aircraft? And their
plastics industry? And their diesel trucks? And their diesel buses?
Oh, and Brazil has oil of its own, too.
Brazil has probably got the most widely-used vehicle biofuel system on
the planet, but if you think that makes the country "virtually
oil-independent" you're very wrong.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
On Aug 2, 2:25 pm, t...@y...co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> saddlebag <s...@a...com> wrote:
> > Brazil is virtually oil independent today using renewable sugarcane.
>
> Nonsense.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
"Over the past three decades Brazil has worked to create a viable
alternative to gasoline. With its sugarcane-based fuel, the nation may
become energy independent this year. Brazil's ethanol program, which
originated in the 1970s in response to the uncertainties of the oil
market, has enjoyed intermittent success. Still, many Brazilians are
driving "flexible fuel" cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline
and allow the consumer to fill up with whichever option is cheaper -
often ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China
are following Brazil's progress closely. The US is taking small steps
towards the use of ethanol, but its process, relying on corn, is
lengthier and more expensive. In addition, countries such as Japan and
Sweden are importing ethanol from Brazil to help fulfill their
environmental obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Running cars on
carbohydrates instead of fossil fuels may not be a new idea, and
ethanol has drawbacks, but the fuel offers an attractive alternative
as oil prices climb. - YaleGlobal"
> > They not only refine it for their cars, but they use the fuel to power
> > their refineries.
>
> Yes, they do. And their run on gasohol, or are dual-fuel. Flex-fuel, as
> they call it. Guess what the other fuel is?
What Petrobras sells?
> And what fuels their power stations? And their aircraft? And their
> plastics industry? And their diesel trucks? And their diesel buses?
>
> Oh, and Brazil has oil of its own, too.
Ahh yeah. So do we, just not enough to be a complete solution for
more than a couple years.
> Brazil has probably got the most widely-used vehicle biofuel system on
> the planet, but if you think that makes the country "virtually
> oil-independent" you're very wrong.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=5358623
saddlebag <s...@a...com> wrote:
> > > Brazil is virtually oil independent today using renewable sugarcane.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
>
> "Over the past three decades Brazil has worked to create a viable
> alternative to gasoline. With its sugarcane-based fuel, the nation may
> become energy independent this year. Brazil's ethanol program, which
> originated in the 1970s in response to the uncertainties of the oil
> market, has enjoyed intermittent success. Still, many Brazilians are
> driving "flexible fuel" cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline
> and allow the consumer to fill up with whichever option is cheaper -
> often ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China
> are following Brazil's progress closely. The US is taking small steps
> towards the use of ethanol, but its process, relying on corn, is
> lengthier and more expensive. In addition, countries such as Japan and
> Sweden are importing ethanol from Brazil to help fulfill their
> environmental obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Running cars on
> carbohydrates instead of fossil fuels may not be a new idea, and
> ethanol has drawbacks, but the fuel offers an attractive alternative
> as oil prices climb. - YaleGlobal"
Thank you for confirming what I posted.
In other words, gasoline (petrol, to me) is not the only use of oil. And
just because Brazil is using more ethanol-based fuel for its vehicles
*does not* make it "virtually oil independent".
I notice you snipped my listing of other oil uses. This does you no
credit.
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyI
d=5358623
"The new rig is expected to end decades of Brazilian dependence on
foreign oil"
That is *not* the same as "oil-independent".
I think you should leave it there, don't you?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:02:39 -0700, saddlebag wrote:
> On Aug 2, 1:01 am, "John Galt" <k...@g...com> wrote:
>> "saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:71e35f0c-b51f-4837-ab80-afec49fca7c9@f36g2000hs
a.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 1, 9:09 pm, "NapalmHeart" <o...@i...net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <w...@y...com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:oep494di9a6kvcg5aqitg51sb3vb501qb9@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > "Drill, drill, drill", shouts Pudlow daily on his
>> > > financial show.
>> > > If I here any more of these greedy, short-sighted,
>> > > bastards
>> > > repeating that idiotic mantra I might have to vote
>> > > Democrat.
>>
>> > > ted
>>
>> > No doubt that there needs to be more domestic drilling for
>> > oil. Along with that is development of non-petroleum forms
>> > of energy. It isn't one or the other.
>>
>> Won't do a bit of good unless they build more refineries. How about
>> one in your backyard?
>>
>> [JG] Fine with me, but there's no water access.
>>
>> Looking at the big picture, through, I find it interesting that some people
>> complain about all the high paying blue collar jobs going overseas, and then
>> when somebody suggests building a place that provides high paying blue
>> collar jobs, the same people get all NIMBY.
>
> Losing our ability to be self sufficient or even an adequate trading
> partner is a separate issue. The few jobs created by a refinery or
> two is hardly a strong argument to build them.
So build a different kind of plant in Sonora and then send the stuff here.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/2/113746/5214/1
31/561247
> You could liken our addiction to oil to a heroin addict. We hate what
> we have to endure to get our fix and know if we want to survive we are
> going to have to get off the smack, but we'd rather rationalize that
> if we could just find a better supplier everything would be ok.
>
>> The Texas Gulf Coast has no issue with more refineries.
>
> Must be an issue somewhere or they'd be getting built.
>
>> The Texas Gulf Coast
>> also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and their real
>> estate prices haven't dropped a dime over the last few years.
>>
>> There's a lesson there.
>
> Yeah, oil's gotten expensive and Texans have oil and are cashing in.
We need a BETTER solution and there is not JUST ONE. There are two that
work right away and they will produce more oil SOONER than drilling. The
second one of these is cellulose. The objective is __**NOT**__ to totally
replace foreign oil in the next few years, but to mitigate prices and
provide a path to hybrids and nuclear.
This is a doable realistic solution to the current problem.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:34:27 +0800, John Galt wrote:
>
> "saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
> news:ca87928b-e941-4007-9ee9-72a9c81280e6@j22g2000hs
f.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 1:01 am, "John Galt" <k...@g...com> wrote:
>> "saddlebag" <s...@a...com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:71e35f0c-b51f-4837-ab80-afec49fca7c9@f36g2000hs
a.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 1, 9:09 pm, "NapalmHeart" <o...@i...net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <w...@y...com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:oep494di9a6kvcg5aqitg51sb3vb501qb9@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > "Drill, drill, drill", shouts Pudlow daily on his
>> > > financial show.
>> > > If I here any more of these greedy, short-sighted,
>> > > bastards
>> > > repeating that idiotic mantra I might have to vote
>> > > Democrat.
>>
>> > > ted
>>
>> > No doubt that there needs to be more domestic drilling for
>> > oil. Along with that is development of non-petroleum forms
>> > of energy. It isn't one or the other.
>>
>> Won't do a bit of good unless they build more refineries. How about
>> one in your backyard?
>>
>> [JG] Fine with me, but there's no water access.
>>
>> Looking at the big picture, through, I find it interesting that some
>> people
>> complain about all the high paying blue collar jobs going overseas, and
>> then
>> when somebody suggests building a place that provides high paying blue
>> collar jobs, the same people get all NIMBY.
>
> Losing our ability to be self sufficient or even an adequate trading
> partner is a separate issue. The few jobs created by a refinery or
> two is hardly a strong argument to build them.
>
> [JG] It's one reason. The better one is that standard of living is tied to
> energy consumption. You want to improve society's standard of living, you
> accept an increase in consumption. You want to lower society's standard of
> living, by all means, lower consumption.
>
> You could liken our addiction to oil to a heroin addict. We hate what
> we have to endure to get our fix and know if we want to survive we are
> going to have to get off the smack, but we'd rather rationalize that
> if we could just find a better supplier everything would be ok.
>
> [JG] Well.....whatever analogy floats your boat. The larger issue is that
> demand for BTU's is going to keep increasing in the US, and the rate of
> increase will, for at least a half a century, be greater than the ability of
> green alternatives to keep up with. So, we can either lower our standard of
> living, OR drill, OR use traditional alternatives to oil, which is coal.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that certain Americans have become BOTH myopic
> AND farsighted on this issue, and forget what's in between. You say "drill",
> and the myopic response is "that's 10 years off", followed by the farsighted
> (50 years +) observation "We need green alternatives."
>
> Well, that's dandy. What's going to bridge the gap between the two, if they
> don't want to develop alternatives? The real risk here is that the myopics
> win (Congress being current run by the Queen of the Myopics), fuel goes to
> $10 a gallon, and absorbs such a large % of our corporate and governmental
> budgets that R&D gets cut, and we never get to the alternatives.
>
> If people don't want to drill, that's fine -- but it's madness to be against
> drilling AND expansion of coal plants AND coal. The cost of a BTU will
> skyrocket, and that's a receipe for disaster.
It ain't that hard:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/2/113746/5214/1
31/561247
>> The Texas Gulf Coast has no issue with more refineries.
>
> Must be an issue somewhere or they'd be getting built.
>
> [JG] They are. You should see what's under construction in Beaumont.
> Biggest in the world.
Well... There ya go...
>> The Texas Gulf Coast
>> also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and their
>> real
>> estate prices haven't dropped a dime over the last few years.
>>
>> There's a lesson there.
>
> Yeah, oil's gotten expensive and Texans have oil and are cashing in.
>
> [JG] Absolutely. The Californians could be too, but..........well, I guess
> they prefer scads of unsold homes and government workers making minimum
> wage. Their call.
Nothing like tying some stuff together that really doesn't fit. I am
almost certain that given the recent Supreme Court decision to allow Exxon
to walk away from its Valdez disaster serves as ample proof that ONLY
government can be held responsible for offshore production problems. The
"free market" is a failure when it comes to insurance against such
disasters.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
On Aug 2, 4:28 pm, t...@y...co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> saddlebag <s...@a...com> wrote:
> > > > Brazil is virtually oil independent today using renewable sugarcane.
>
> > > Nonsense.
>
> >http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
>
> > "Over the past three decades Brazil has worked to create a viable
> > alternative to gasoline. With its sugarcane-based fuel, the nation may
> > become energy independent this year. Brazil's ethanol program, which
> > originated in the 1970s in response to the uncertainties of the oil
> > market, has enjoyed intermittent success. Still, many Brazilians are
> > driving "flexible fuel" cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline
> > and allow the consumer to fill up with whichever option is cheaper -
> > often ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China
> > are following Brazil's progress closely. The US is taking small steps
> > towards the use of ethanol, but its process, relying on corn, is
> > lengthier and more expensive. In addition, countries such as Japan and
> > Sweden are importing ethanol from Brazil to help fulfill their
> > environmental obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Running cars on
> > carbohydrates instead of fossil fuels may not be a new idea, and
> > ethanol has drawbacks, but the fuel offers an attractive alternative
> > as oil prices climb. - YaleGlobal"
>
> Thank you for confirming what I posted.
>
> In other words, gasoline (petrol, to me) is not the only use of oil. And
> just because Brazil is using more ethanol-based fuel for its vehicles
> *does not* make it "virtually oil independent".
>
> I notice you snipped my listing of other oil uses. This does you no
> credit.
>
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyI
d=5358623
>
> "The new rig is expected to end decades of Brazilian dependence on
> foreign oil"
>
> That is *not* the same as "oil-independent".
>
> I think you should leave it there, don't you?
No, you're right. I should have said independent of foreign oil.
Either way, arguing semantics kinda overlooks the point dontcha think?
saddlebag <s...@a...com> wrote:
> I should have said independent of foreign oil.
I only realised that this was what you on about after I'd posted :-/
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Re: JEWS CHALLENGE MISTREATMENT AND DEPORTATIONS OF WORKERS AT IOWA KOSHER PLANT
Need Help with your S&P Index Trades?
"DOW drops 200 as investors fret over slowing economy" - Hilarious!
Capital One (COF) Turning BEARISH
Up