Who To $hore Up And Why..

Nice Pidgey. When your argument falls flat, resort to snide condescention.

You can buy them on your own and then install your own system, haven't you yet? So what are you complaining about? It's there, it's available, go get yourself some and be FREE, FREE, FREE!!! What are you waiting for?
It's not me buying the expensive panels for home installation, it's the masses...you know, the masses of people on the coal/oil/nuke grid right now that are the issue. Not everyone can afford to plunk down $15K for a home solar system when they're having trouble feeding the little ones and getting shoes on their feet.

Wow, what a spin you have!

We're worried, en masse about dependance on fuels that are irresponsible to be using on the scale we are. We're worried about dependance on foreign powers to eek out our oil and get us into situations like the one we're in today.

But of course, you know all this. Sometimes though people know things and keep them hidden in the interest of profiteering. Right BigOil?
:rolleyes:
 
Werbung:
I don't like the prices either which is why I'm trying to engineer a far more economical system. I'm not BigOil and for a lot of years felt like you do. It's virtually pure coincidence that I currently project for a company that sells equipment for gas processing. We don't have some big whoppin' margins and barely got by for a lot of years. However, "the devil is always in the details" and when you start getting into it with the other companies, you start realizing a lot of what's really going on.

Who created "The Masses"? Who brought each individual person into existence and forced them into energy dependence? The reason I'm giving you attitude is because... well... because you asked for it. If you're going to dish it out then be prepared to get it right back. I'm not a big executive, nor do I live extravagantly. I do a lot of shopping at estate sales and the like. My better half is Pennsylvania Dutch and can pinch a penny so flat you can't see it if it's turned sideways. We buy our own green beans, corn, peaches and several other fruits and vegetables and put 'em up ourselves. We also pick our own blackberries, blueberries, persimmons and whatever else we can in order to do it the old-fashioned way.

The dark and dirty little reality is that the more abundance there is, the more people procreate. Successfully. And the more people there are, the more demand there is. Period. End of story. For those of you who believe that we're way past the carrying capacity of the earth, then you're going to have to feel bitterness towards those companies and individuals who have created and provided the technologies that diminish mortality due to every cause under the sun.

And if you want more of those very innovations and think that they're some kind of entitlement, then be prepared for even greater exponential growth in the population.

THINK, D@MMIT!!!
 
Hey, I'm all for contraception. Always have been.

The masses are the overwhelming majority of people who cannot afford to set up their own alternative system. The initial expense is prohibitive. Many alternative contracters I know have run into that brick wall trying to market their systems to residences. Certainly industry can afford it. They use so much power they cannot not afford it. That's why smart companies are going green. It isn't groovy, it's a matter of number-crunching intelligence that gets them going green.

What we need are solar farms and other centralized producers of alternatives. That's what part of the budget Obama is proposing..a grid system for those very things. Code word "infrastructure"...lol..

And that, incidentally is also known to the GOP/BigOil and is why they recently voted down "infrastructure" funding in Congress...they know where that money will actually wind up going...putting their gravy-train back on equal footing in the world of competitive business..

And you know how monopolies like competition...:cool:
 
I've been a conspiracy-theorist for most of my life. But of late, I've done a lot more study into energy and "all that stuff". Let me share with you my most horrible fear due to the conclusions that I've come to: yes, there are some malignant people in charge, always have been, always will be, BUT... it's simply all out of control. Frankly, I think it'd be a h*lluva' lot better for us IF there was some greedy cabal sitting on "all the money" that we could raid and redistribute. But in reality, no, I don't think it's going to play out that way.

Here's how we estimate a piece of equipment: we figure out what it will basically take to complete the job and estimate our costs from past experience and quotes from vendors; multiply that cost buildup by a multiplier (or divide by a divider, same thing) that will effect a gross margin between 5 and 15 percent; and give the company the quote. If, after the sale is made and completed, we've realized a net profit of ~5%, we figure that we're doing pretty good. That's very common in this industry.

There are an awful lot of things that can go wrong to make that money essentially evaporate. They have before and they will again. For instance, making payroll during a severe downturn when you're trying not to layoff workers and staff. I'm all too sure that for the bulk of the economy, the numbers are like that. Yes, there are definitely some fatcats that are raking in the dough that shouldn't be, but I really do believe (and this is the truly scary part) that that money isn't a significant enough percentage of the entire GDP to save us from the mayhem that's already beginning.

And money isn't really everything, you know... it's only a scorecard of sorts. The valuation of that money can change radically as has been evidenced in places like Argentina and Zimbabwe recently.

It would actually be good if companies (like ConocoPhillips, PG&E, Dominion, BP, ad nauseum) kept vaults full of money to deal with crises but they don't: they either reinvest the bulk of it in their own operations (necessary in their kind of game) or in other companies and funds. As such, they can be destroyed by a severe economic upset as well. That's our biggest problem--it's all interconnected too much anymore and we're (globally speaking) too big of a population and too dependent upon our technology for major interruptions.

Way back when, a lot of families considered it an imperative to get their kids a college education so that they could get off the farms. Now, it looks like the best thing to do would be to move back to them. I remember the seemingly endless days bucking hay, herding cattle (yes, I've done that on horseback), catching chickens (layers too old to be economic anymore)... and that kind of stuff. I've even milked cows the hard way and shot the cat with a stream (she liked it).

But I digress...

I'm not sure that I can quite go with the idea of the oil companies being a monopoly since there are so many of them around the world. There used to be more but they're cannibalizing themselves. That's actually a very bad sign, by the way, as in a world with increasing demand and virtually infinite supply it should work the opposite way.

I suppose I could program a spreadsheet (do you have Excel?) to basically provide real numbers for the investment in wind and solar based on what we know about the costs. The assumptions that you'd have to make are pretty complex, though, like programming what the population is going to do. I never had any kids because I saw this coming mathematically way back in the early '70s (Hubbert's Peak in the US) and knew that there was going to be a bloodbath-from-h*ll within my lifetime.
 
Kurt Cobain right?

I'm not sure that I can quite go with the idea of the oil companies being a monopoly since there are so many of them around the world. There used to be more but they're cannibalizing themselves. That's actually a very bad sign, by the way, as in a world with increasing demand and virtually infinite supply it should work the opposite way.~ Pidgey
Virtually infinite supply? Okee dokey..

*tiptoes out backwards from the padded cell*
 
Probably didn't come across too well, huh? Try it this way: assume that energy availability was virtually limitless, which could allow for a lot more expansion of our population and economy. According to standard economic principles, oil companies would proliferate. Kenneth Deffeyes tells a lot about this very thing in his writings. If you'd like, I could go find a reference but you can google him. He was Professor Emeritus of Geology at Princeton and grew up in the oil patch.
 
Kurt Cobain right?


Virtually infinite supply? Okee dokey..

*tiptoes out backwards from the padded cell*

I would have to agree that there is not a virtually endless supply of fossil fuels. But there is enough to last us long enough to make a gradual and relatively painless transition to other fuels with supply and demand being the normal driver of change.

The fact that we are not using our own, giving profits to ourselves, and that we are buying from unfriendly nations and giving profits to them is a problem that could be remedied overnight.

If we stopped buying oil from unfriendly foreigners right now we could provide our own oil, it would cost a little more but would also stimulate our own economy and give jobs to us, and it would speed and facilitate the change to alternatives for a worthy reason rather than for a bs reason.
 
I would have to agree that there is not a virtually endless supply of fossil fuels.
There most certainly isn't. Cornucopians insist that we have enough to carry us for far longer than... well, for a long time still to come.
But there is enough to last us long enough to make a gradual and relatively painless transition to other fuels with supply and demand being the normal driver of change.
Based on what? You might want to review this one:

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/subpages/hubbertmaths/hubbertmaths.html

...where the Hubbert math is applied first to the United States and then to the world. Yes, folks, we don't recover all the oil that's down there, not by a long shot. The real grief comes in where the economics of the activity interact with the activity itself, limiting what ultimate reality occurs.

The fact that we are not using our own, giving profits to ourselves, and that we are buying from unfriendly nations and giving profits to them is a problem that could be remedied overnight.

If we stopped buying oil from unfriendly foreigners right now we could provide our own oil, it would cost a little more but would also stimulate our own economy and give jobs to us, and it would speed and facilitate the change to alternatives for a worthy reason rather than for a bs reason.
I'm going to guess that you might be talking about drilling in the places that are currently locked out as well as oil shales. You might want to expand that thought a little bit with some specificity.
 
Sihouette has pretty good credibility with me, and even if his answers to the current financial crisis are sometimes lacking, his assessment of where we are heading seems to be accurate. Massive inflation and weakening, if not total collapse, of the currency appear to be quite likely scenarios.
 
Werbung:
There most certainly isn't. Cornucopians insist that we have enough to carry us for far longer than... well, for a long time still to come.
Based on what? You might want to review this one:

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/subpages/hubbertmaths/hubbertmaths.html

...where the Hubbert math is applied first to the United States and then to the world. Yes, folks, we don't recover all the oil that's down there, not by a long shot. The real grief comes in where the economics of the activity interact with the activity itself, limiting what ultimate reality occurs.

I'm going to guess that you might be talking about drilling in the places that are currently locked out as well as oil shales. You might want to expand that thought a little bit with some specificity.


It's nice on paper but in practice there is no natural resource that has ever run out and not been replaced by something else.

Surely one could have calculated the peak for the production of whale oil in the 1900's and determined that we were going to run out. They could have proposed all sorts of conservation measures, and limits, and rules and taxes. But in the end they needed to do none of that. As the oil got scarcer we simply got more efficient in our use of energy and switched to other sources of energy. We are much better off for it too. Now we don't even need to kill whales at all -though some do.

So yes, if we simply use the oil we have (instead of from our enemies), get better at using it (compact light bulbs are just one example), get better at finding and extracting it (shale - sure, Alaska - sure), and replace it with other technologies (nuclear) and sources of energy (wind and whatever will be invented tomorrow) AS NEEDED (driven by market forces). It will last long enough for us to transition. In fact we will transition before it is gone so it will last forever.
 
Back
Top