Well, we'll have to disagree on that. Ask any Frenchman, and you'll quickly learn that wine is a necessity of life, and, in keeping with the addage, "driving is a privilege," gasoline is a luxury. If it weren't, the government would be handing out "fuel stamps" as well as food stamps. The gov doesn't agree with the Frenchman, though.

What do you think will happen when the gas supply goes to nearly zero? What will the last gallon cost?




Now, the "real" point is that the wine wasn't paid for by the individuals who decided to buy and serve it. It was bought by the shareholders in this company, now defunct. The guy who bought it still drives his BMW, though at least one of the shareholders took her own life when the stock tanked, as it held the bulk of her investment as she'd followed the advice of the company management. This is not a unique story, BTW.


Now, I didn't say they wanted to make the poor people extinct. They just want to make the "middle class" poor, so they'll be easy to enslave.

First of all, though, I'd recommend that you look into the background of G.W. Bush, G.H.W. Bush, Herbert Walker (that's the H. W.) and maybe search in the context of "eugenics." Maybe that will give you a little more information.





My point is that they've taken control of this alternative so that persons who have less-corrupt motives can't. The key to truly efficient energy production is to eliminate the "large" producer/distributor. Production and distribution inefficiencies waste more than they deliver. However, that's how "big energy" makes its money. Once we stop using oil, natural gas, and grid-distributed electricity in our homes, they go under. Manufacturers then would have to pay their fair share of the production/distribution cost, most of which is borne by the "little guy" right now. Just ask yourself, "Why would I charge someone LESS for using MORE of a scarce resource?" That's what "big energy" does with big industry. It would be different, perhaps, if the resource were abundant, but it's clearly not.

In the meantime, numerous universities throughout the country have demonstrated that it's not only possible, but economically feasible to construct a comfortable house with the "usual" conveniences, e.g. multiple TV's, dishwasher, washer, dryer, toaster, microwave oven, heating/cooling, etc, completely independent of the grid. Moreover, they've shown that it can be connected to the grid at a profit, in that they produce more electricity than they need and can "run the meter backwards" and get a check from the utility company.

Power companies, however, are already taking steps to avoid the latter. A close friend of mine is currently building a retirement home. His power company in extreme southern Colorado has specific provisions in their contract that not only refuse to pay for power contributed by the customer, but preventing the customer from contributing his excess to the grid at no cost. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't get the legislature to permit them to outlaw producing your own power in general. Using your own surplus to offset the apparently short supply on the grid shall not be an option, according to them.

When I lived on my little farm, back in the '70's, I endeavored to obtain permits to install a wind turbine to generate electricity. Though I was not even a customer of theirs, the Public Service Company of Colorado enagaged a lawyer to prevent me from doing just that, claiming that it was against the public interest. That was not what stopped me, but it surely gave me pause. I was served by the Rural Electric Association.

They (big energy) are the ones who are making sure the oil and coal are all gone before anyone makes reasonable progress in the U.S. toward a hydrogen-based or bio-fuel based economy. The spend billions annually on promoting disinformation about the relative costs of various modes of energy production. They spend a fortune on lobbyists to prevent the government from going down that road. Those same billions could be used to reduce pollution, increase efficiency, and lower costs to their customers.



If you've been watching this since the '50's it's quite observable that it's not just a theory. It's very clear that the energy producers have colluded to shift the burden for the bulk of energy production to the small user. They discount for large volume, yet most of the costs are associated with the large-volume users. When the grid goes down because of excessive energy demand, it's not because of MY air conditioner. It's the dozens of large-volume users that bring it down. Nevertheless, they campaign, as Colorado's Excel Energy has done, by offering a one-time payment of $25 to let them turn off your A/C during high demand, yet they don't do that to their large-volume users. They simply let them drop into a higher-discount price class because they've used more energy.

Just look at how the Bush administration proposes they should generate the hydrogen for their "hydrogen economy!" They want to use oil and/or natural gas. It therefore offers no relief from the fossil-fuel shortage, nor does it offer relief from the greenhouse gas emissions from using fossil-fuels.

They're the ones who are dragging their feet in the wind generation efforts. They're the ones who want to promote ethanol, which uses more petroleum than it saves us, yet costs more, agricultural subsidies aside.

As for the environmental wackos, well, I'm not sure where I stand on that, but until they figure out a way to build a nuclear plant in some way that absolutely ensures that they won't pollute MY air, water, thermal environment, or soil resources, due to some corrupt guy taking a bottle of whiskey to overlook a faulty this-or-that, not to mention guaranteeing that there isn't some teensy mistake that causes a Chernobyl sort of event, or worse, I'll side with the wackos. I'm not as worried about faulty engineering as I am about the corruption resulting in faulty construction or inspection.



That's not their competitor. It once was, but they've taken it over. Keep in mind who THEY are. It's not just coal and petroleum, but it's also generation and distribution. They're just trying to monopolize it now while they can do that on the cheap.

They're also the same guys who buy those 43-thousand square foot houses that waste more energy than ever before, and they're the ones who want to ruin the last pristine wildlife refuge in the north slope just to gain, and ultimately export, about three months' U.S. supply of petroleum.



Nobody knows whether the reserves there are economically feasible. The higher the price goes, though, the more it tips the balance in big-oil's favor. Some people spout off about 30 years' supply, while others, just as reputable but not employed by oil companies, claim it is, at most, an equivalent of 90-days' imports. Some say, in response to the risks inherent in transporting the oil by sea, it won't even be used in the U.S. but will be exported. I wouldn't know about that, though.




Now there's a good excuse for skipping over elimination of the biggest drag on the planet since the evolution of man!


What? You'd leave the entire population enslaved to the big-energy (It's not just "big oil.") industry just because you don't think solar panels are pretty? Why not just fly somewhere else? People in town don't appreciate the noise anyway.







You left out the significant portion of my initial comment, namely that only the thrifty ones get the subsidy, and the rest can, if they want buy the thrify guys' excess at an elevated price. Similar to what Kyoto recommends be done with pollution, isn't it? THe subsidy would have to be paid for by the 10x, 100x, 1000x, and so on, penalties for using too much gas. I'd be that a company, with 10000 vehicles in its fleet, faced with only a 10 gallon per week ration for their entire corporation, would happily buy that excess ration for $100 per gallon.

Why not? The government subsidizes the oil production and distribution, or, rather, the taxpayers do, at great cost. What's more, the scheme would work more like the energy trading market, wherein guys like me, who use less than 10 gallons per week, could sell their excess ration to guys who need 40-50 gallons per week. I'd be richer, and they'd be able to drive. The money, after all, would come out of the usage tax paid by the guys who won't walk down to the street corner.

It's not only the outrageous short-sightedness of the big-energy interests that I'm complaining about, you know. It's the fact that we also have to pay for all this stuff twice. Our farmers can't compete without government supports. Our energy industry would founder if not for the government handouts, and the coal and petroleum industries would both die off, too, but for the 5-cent per acre 99-year leases of land that would otherwise be useful and productive, and produce income for the government that it now has to extract from that shrinking middle-class.

There's more to this, but it's getting too small to manage in this environment. I think this is probably plenty to chew on.

RE