| ??? 07/29/06 07:02 Read: times |
#121301 - Still disagree Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Craig said:
So? Wine isn't gas. Wine is a luxury, and $10k wine is an excessive luxury. No-one disputes that rich people have money to spend on things most people wouldn't. That doesn't have much to do with gas costing $100k/gallon, though. Richard Erlacher said:
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. So? If I ask any Frenchman if he pays $10k for a bottle of wine, I think we'll find that even the French believe that a $10k wine is a luxury and not a necessity. What do you think will happen when the gas supply goes to nearly zero? What will the last gallon cost? Simple economics guarantees that before we consume the last drop of gas, we'll have other alternative fuels. This is already happening. The cost of gas is only $3/gallon and already people are going nuts, buying more efficienct cars, and talking about alternative fuel. As the cost of gas continues to increase, this trend will only increase. By the time we consume the last drop of gas, no-one will care (at least from an energy perspective) because the scarcity of gas will have further driven up the price of the product and driven consumers to other options... which will become available due to the incentive of high-priced energy. Craig said:
No argument there. But that (in the case of the rich, not in the case of the government, hopefully) is their choice. Everyone is free to spend money on what they want; and if someone has so much money that they are inclined to buy cases of $10k wine, hey, I'm happy they have that much money to blow. I hope to be that rich someday, too (though I'll never spend $10k on wine). Richard Erlacher said:
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. Oh, so that was misuse of corporate funds? That's an entirely different issue. If the company thinks it was excessive or outside of their guidelines, they should fire and/or prosecute the person. If it's not worth firing/prosecuting him, they must value what he brings to the company more than the $10k. Again, simple economics. Craig said:
This does not mean that those same people are stupid and are intentionally working to make the middle-class poor and the poor people extinct. Richard Erlacher said:
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. Which is equally absurd. Richard Erlacher said:
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. Trust me, I've seen it all before. I'm not going down that road again. I'm not surprised that there are people that believe in a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm disappointed that some people here believe in those theories, though. Craig said:
Ok, you lost me there. So most of the investment in alternative energies is being made by the "bad guys" (the oil industry), and yet that's somehow proof that they're not interested in alternatives and are trying to keep people on petroleum??? Richard Erlacher said:
My point is that they've taken control of this alternative so that persons who have less-corrupt motives can't. How? If they're investing mone in wind or solar, what prevents me from doing the same and making it work? Richard Erlacher said:
The key to truly efficient energy production is to eliminate the "large" producer/distributor. Production and distribution inefficiencies waste more than they deliver. Nonsense. If it isn't nonsense, I'd like to see some supporting evidence. Richard Erlacher said:
Once we stop using oil, natural gas, and grid-distributed electricity in our homes, they go under. We never will stop using grid-distributed electricity unless there's some wireless electrical transmission that comes to be. And even then someone will be sending it. It will never be efficient to produce wind or solar energy at most sites, especially in dense urban areas. Richard Erlacher said:
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. I can see that happening if you have a few acres of land in the middle of a field. It certainly isn't the case for those living in most downtown areas where you might have 10,000 sq. feet of roof for hundreds of tenants. Even a typical house in the suburbs doesn't have enough roof space. Again, I'd like to see some supporting evidence. Richard Erlacher said:
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. So? If they don't want your friend's excess energy, so be it. If this "off the grid" approach is truly independent, why does your friend even want to be on the grid to start with? It seems to me that this is tacit admission that we do not have functioning technology that allows a single home to effectively be energy independent. Richard Erlacher said:
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. First, that was 30 years ago. Second, it very well may have been against the public interest. If a lot (but not everyone) installs wind turbines, it becomes very, very expensive to serve the remaining customers in the middle of nowhere that don't have wind turbines. It sounds like they were protecting economies of scale that could lead to higher rates for other neighbors that still used the grid. That said, I wonder if it's still that hard to get a wind turbine permit in the middle of nowhere? Richard Erlacher said:
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. Again, it's their money and they can spend it on whatever they want. I agree there are more productive uses, but every person and every company is free to decide what they spend it on. I disagree that a disinformation campaign will have a long-term effect on scientists. You might stifle government funding by undercutting support, but a true entrepreneur isn't going to need government funding. And if gas costs $10/gallon, someone that is able to produce an alternative for $4/gallon and sell it for $8 is going to make a huge profit and help our energy needs at the same time. Win/win. Big oil can't stop that. Craig said:
That's a popular conspiracy theory. I don't think it can be proven. But there's certainly nothing stopping other people from making progress on hydrogen whether big oil wants to or not. Heck, a good start would be if the environmental wackos spent their money encouraging a hydrogen economy rather than trying to stall development to protect some cricket. Richard Erlacher said:
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. None of that last paragraph has anything to do with the paragraph you were responding to. Richard Erlacher said:
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. Who cares? It's a gradual shift. Sounds quite intelligent, really: Appease the big oil supporters so that they don't see the move to hydrogen as an immediate threat to their product. But once you have cars running on hydrogen, it doesn't matter what is used to generate that energy. Switching to nuclear-generated energy would then be possible with absolutely no impact on the end-user. In fact, that's the best of both worlds. Then you'll have nuclear companies offering hydrogen and gas companies offering hydrogen. COMPETITION. The consumer wins in the end. Richard Erlacher said:
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. I agree Ethanol makes no sense. I also don't like wind generation because it generates far too much visual pollution. You need only drive throug Southern California and a certain part of southwestern Texas to see hill after hill covered with ugly wind turbines. It turns a perfectly remote, pristine hillside into an ugly scar of development. We have a solution: Nuclear. No pollution in the air, no visual pollution, no dependence on foreign sources. And we have the technology now. Richard Erlacher said:
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. They pretty much already have that, Richard. Stop watching the Simpsons. Richard Erlacher said:
I'm not as worried about faulty engineering as I am about the corruption resulting in faulty construction or inspection. I have no problem with concentrating all the nuclear power into a nuclear city right outside of Yucca Mountain in the middle of the desert in Nevada. There's no need for a nuclear plant in every backyard. Regardless of safety, who wants any power plant in their backyard. I say we stick it all in Nevada. Perhaps also have one somwhere in Nebraska or South Dakota. Very remote so people that don't know the reality of the safety of nuclear don't have anythig to complain about. Richard Erlacher said:
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. It is generally accepted that it's more than a year of U.S. consumption. And, as I said, you can't actually get it all out in 12 months. It'd be more like eliminating the need for oil from a shakey South American dictator over the course of 30 years. Which is a very good idea. And I'd rather ruin pristine wildlife near the north pole than have an ugly windfarm on every other hill in the continental U.S. Of course, the assertion that we have to destroy that wildlife in order to extract the oil is completely bogus, too. Craig said:
As for Alaska, the economically feasible reserves located there could eliminate our need to import oil from a certain South American country for 30 years. Not a bad idea. Richard Erlacher said:
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. Huh? They've been wanting to exploit those reserves for YEARS. The higher the price goes, yes, the lower the risk. Great. But it's not like they just started wanting to do this yesterday when the prices went up. And if big oil is willing to invest money to extract those reserves, let them. It's their money to gamble and I think it's safe to say they're not going to gamble the money if they don't have a reasonable expectation that that investment will turn a profit. Richard Erlacher said:
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. The USGS cites an amount of approximately 10.36 billion barrels of oil. This is the generally accepted estimate on this topic. The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. At that rate, the wildlife reserve actually offers 518 days of U.S. consumption. Again, it's a flawed way of looking at it because we can't extract 20 million barrels per day. We can, however, replace a certain South American country with oil extracted from Alaska. Craig said:
I don't deny that our government (not just the current administration, but all administrations) are very unimaginative when it comes to energy. There is comfort in the status quo, and not just because of big oil. The worldwide impact of our energy independence would be massive. It'd be huge. Countries would go bankrupt, we could very easily withdrawl from areas of the world that would become even more unstable than they already are leading to a power vaccum. I can understand a certain reluctance to rocking the boat for reasons that go far beyond contributions from big oil. Richard Erlacher said:
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. If every square foot of every roof in a typical American city had wall-to-wall solar panels, it would not produce enough energy to be self-sufficient. We're not slaves to big energy. Don't like big energy? Stop consuming it! Craig said:
Oh, come on. You don't really believe that rationing and price controls is an effective solution in a capitalistic economy? Sheesh. Richard Erlacher said:
If you use 10 gallons per week, you could buy those ten gallons at a subsidized price, say, $2 per gallon. Richard Erlacher said:
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. I didn't leave it out, I just mocked it elsewhere so that I could individually mock your ideas of rationing and subsidies. Richard Erlacher said:
Similar to what Kyoto recommends be done with pollution, isn't it? Kyoto is 100% political with no net benefit for the environment on a worldwide basis. Anyone that believes otherwise is naive. Richard Erlacher said:
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. 1. They would not do so happily. In fact, they couldn't afford it. Which probably means they could not provide whatever service they're providing because, believe it or not, companies don't buy 10,000 vehicles if they only need 100. So they'd either have to stop providing the service or they'd have to fire people to be able to pay for the artificially high cost of energy. 2. The subsidy would be paid for not just by companies but by anyone that wanted to use more energy than permitted by some arbitrary standard set by some bueracrat that probably doesn't even understand the economics he's meddling with. Richard Erlacher said:
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. So you're saying that I should pay an artificially high price if I want to use 40-50 gallons so that you can get rich doing nothing? Sorry, I'd rather pay the going price of energy than paying some artifically manipulated price. If you want to use a bike instead of a car, great, you've effectively taken yourself out of the gas economy. But don't expect ME to pay a higher price for gas so that someone can pay you for gas you aren't using. The money, after all, would come out of the usage tax paid by the guys who won't walk down to the street corner. Those guys are already paying for their gas. There's no reason they should pay you for their gas. That's an even worse racket than big oil! At least you're paying big oil for something you're actually using. Now you're suggesting we fix that by having people pay money to people that have absolutely nothing to do with the transaction? Sorry, no can do. Richard Erlacher said:
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. I completely agree. All subsidies should be eliminated. And no new ones should be created, including on people that don't use much gas. Regards, Craig Steiner |
