All Hank, all the time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
solar, wind, and hydro.

Hydro is more problematic from, e.g., Indian rights and endangered species protections issues, than it might seem. Not all that "clean."

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
solar, wind, and hydro.

Forget about wind. Too many birds smashing into the blades on wind farms.

aV

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by andViolins
Forget about wind. Too many birds smashing into the blades on wind farms.

aV

and here's what fucked up about solar- at first because the ozone is depleted and greenhouse effect there'll be plenty sunshine BUT once we switch over pollution is solved then the ozone rebuilds and greenhouse effect goes away and then there's not enough sunshine anymore. catch 22,

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you mean 9/11? yeah, that will be his legacy. but higher gas prices are cool. it'll force alternative energy cars, and we'll be beyond all this by the time your grandkids are taking driving lessons.

Serious question, Hank.

You believe that Clinton should have done something more to attack al Qaeda, and that because he didn't 9/11 is his fault -- right?

What do you think he should have done?

Were any Republicans calling for him to do whatever that is?

Did Bush propose that during the 2000 campaign?

And if the threat was so clear and so obvious as you seem to think, why didn't Bush do anything about it during his first 8 months in office?

I mean these as serious questions, though I doubt you'll give straight answers.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think we mess with this natural feedback loop at our own peril.

Right now, if you listen to the global warming crew, we're using too much fossil fuel. We spew too many combustion byproducts into the air.

But, when fuel oil and natural gas start to hit the equivalent of $8/gallon, and we see what it takes to heat our homes and factories, global warming is going to start looking good.

But the price will keep usage down, thus impeding the beneficial effects of the global warming.

So, economists are going to have to figure out the optimum price for fossil fuels - the price at which we will be able to afford fuel, and will be able to generate sufficient global warming such that overall downward fuel consumption results from the decreased heating needs, but that takes into account the increased fuel needs for increased water transportation along the coasts (Manhattan water taxis?), but that won't allow the cycle to swing too far to the warming side such that the increased AC needs in the south wipe out the heat savings. It's a vicious cycle that I think is too complex to trust to politicians.

Saudi Arabia has long been aware that if oil prices get too high, there will be more pressure for efficiency and alternatives that will be detrimental to oil prices in the future. Since Saudi is one of the few countries that is likely to continue pumping at current volumes for a long period of time, this is their particular concern, and so they have long worked to manipulate prices to find the right balance point.

In other words, you already trust this process to politicians -- but to Saudi politicians, who are likely serving a different constituency with different concerns.

I'll leave the comment about the entire community of non-oil financed climate scientists (what you call "the global warming crowd").

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Let's say we move away from fossil fuels and towards the hybrid or electric model. Isn't that going to put a tremendous demand on non-fossil fuel electricity? It wasn't that long ago in CA that we were experiencing rolling electricity blackouts, and I have to believe that would only be exasperated.

So we shouldn't use fossil fuels and we shouldn't build new nuclear plants. How exactly are we going to meet our electricity needs?

We should use nuclear, as well as developing other alternatives.

But these are long-term proposals, as are things like fuel efficiency standards. Right now we are trying to fix the leaky roof while the raining, which leads to stupid and desperate proposals like the $100 check to everyone....

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
Forget about wind. Too many birds smashing into the blades on wind farms.

aV

Aren't Kennedy and Keary trying to stop wind proposals?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
We should use nuclear, as well as developing other alternatives.

But these are long-term proposals, as are things like fuel efficiency standards. Right now we are trying to fix the leaky roof while the raining, which leads to stupid and desperate proposals like the $100 check to everyone....

Agreed, but the same crowd that is kooing about global warming and oil dependency is also blocking new nuke building.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Aren't Kennedy and Keary trying to stop wind proposals?

yes, and blocking nuke proposals.

i blame fringe.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Hydro is more problematic from, e.g., Indian rights and endangered species protections issues, than it might seem. Not all that "clean."

indian rights? what are those? they lost.

what about human rights to clean air?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed, but the same crowd that is kooing about global warming and oil dependency is also blocking new nuke building.

Those are three different crowds. They each have some of the same people. But the fact that irrational people agree with rational people on some items does not make those items irrational.


ETA: "kooing"? Is it your view that things are going just swimmingly, and that we don't need to be concerned with oil dependency or global warming or anything else? That we should just continue eliminating government interference in the energy markets* by, say, eliminating the CAFE standards instead of making them more rigorous?


*I mean US government. The governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. will stay plenty involved, of course.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Saudi Arabia has long been aware that if oil prices get too high, there will be more pressure for efficiency and alternatives that will be detrimental to oil prices in the future. Since Saudi is one of the few countries that is likely to continue pumping at current volumes for a long period of time, this is their particular concern, and so they have long worked to manipulate prices to find the right balance point.

In other words, you already trust this process to politicians -- but to Saudi politicians, who are likely serving a different constituency with different concerns.

I'll leave the comment about the entire community of non-oil financed climate scientists (what you call "the global warming crowd").

A. Interesting note, that many petrologists are giving serious credence to the thesis that the Saudis have far smaller reserves than we think. They may no longer have the ability to throttle down the price by seriously bumping production.

B. You do realize that this was all tongue in cheek, right? I just figured that, if we're all dumb enough to take seriously politicians whose response to rising gasoline prices is "let's send them a $100 check", then this would also count as serious discourse.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Aren't Kennedy and Keary trying to stop wind proposals?

Mostly Kennedy. They would be unsightly from his compound.

Seriously.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Isn't Citgo owned by the Venezuelan national petro company? Making it effectively an integrated operation.

Isn't Marathon owned by Ashland Oil? Or vice versa?

Too lazy to google.

Citgo is owned by PDVSA. However, PDVSA is not fully integrated. It has production in Venezuela and it markets in the US through Citgo. However, its refining capacity is minimal, and conducted mostly through joint ventures.

I don't recall offhand if Marathon is now owned by Ashland or not, but if you're too lazy to google, I'm too lazy to argue.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Let's say we move away from fossil fuels and towards the hybrid or electric model. Isn't that going to put a tremendous demand on non-fossil fuel electricity? It wasn't that long ago in CA that we were experiencing rolling electricity blackouts, and I have to believe that would only be exasperated.

So we shouldn't use fossil fuels and we shouldn't build new nuclear plants. How exactly are we going to meet our electricity needs?

Hydrogen cells work off of water. Their emissions are called "steam." Solar is too expensive and cumbersome to make the effort to power vehicles with it. However, anybodywho has ever had a solar calculator should be able to intuit that the technology can be made to work on a small scale. Maybe at $8/gallon, it will become cost-efficient to finally get serious with solar.

I don't think we're ever going to be able to comletely wean ourselves from hydrocarbons. But as the resource becomes more expensive (and more dangerous to obtain) we will see more applications of renewaable resource technology. And the majors will probably be at the forefront of bringing them to us.