alt.energy.renewable

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:50:30 -0700 (PDT), bill
wrote:

>On Mar 12, 2:17 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>> > On Mar 12, 5:42 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> >> Fran wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 11, 5:13 pm, bill wrote:
>> >>>> We do not have the luxury of "wanting" to do things in a "friendly"
>> >>>> manner, we're gonna die if we don't fix this, starting right now and
>> >>>> on a truly massive scale
>> >>> We can be friendly, but firm...
>> >> Who is this 'we' Fran?
>>
>> > The same 'we' introduced by Bill, adopted for the sake of simplicity
>> > of argument, and perhaps to prompt him to say something that would
>> > elucidate whom it encompassed.
>>
>> You did not answer the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> They aren't contradictions. Hardly
>> >>> anyone opposes this stuff, the noise from the global polluters club to
>> >>> the contrary.
>> >> You really should quit blaming the boogy man. The habits of Americans
>> >> have lead to our using 5 times the energy per capita than the rest of
>> >> the world. And that does not count the East Asian labor and energy
>> >> consumption that we exploit.
>>
>> > Passing over the figure -- I'm not sure it's correct but it's not that
>> > important because Americans (and Australians) emit a lot more GHGs per
>> > person that East Asians, or ewen South and West Asians -- the real
>> > point here is that US and Australian society is tructured very much
>> > around profligate consumption of hitherto relatively cheap energy,
>> > which is largely so cheap because the downstream costs are counted as
>> > intangibles and fall relatively randomly on people who aren't that
>> > wealthy or in a position to complain. The main beneficiaries are the
>> > people holding the equity in energy assets -- i.e. the global
>> > polluters' club.
>>
>> You really should read what you wrote, especially in the context of 'we
>> exploit' and who is the boogy man....
>>
>> >> And if some guy comes along and points out that we may damage the
>> >> world's food supply by burning it in gas tanks, maybe he should not be
>> >> called names and discounted out of hand.
>>
>> > Well if he's essentially lying or misrepresenting the problem to the
>> > advantage of the global polluters' club.
>>
>> Your interpretation. Will you bare the starvation of African countries?
>> Some idiot on sci.econ says there is no demand destruction. He has no
>> concept of death. How about you?
>>
>> > -- and that is the most
>> > obvious consequence of his position -- then I think that should be
>> > pointed out. His "thesis" if one may so dignify his ranting, is utter
>> > bunkum. Nobody is proposing to burn the world's food supply in gas
>> > tanks.
>>
>> Look at the world around you. Not your beliefs.
>>
>> > Some (*not I*) propose to use monocrops like corn or soybeans
>> > to make biofuels. But if they did that, the quantum of land used would
>> > be constrained by the increasing profits to be made using land to
>> > raise food. As I've noted a number of times, right now, the principal
>> > barriers to the food trade are institutional -- tariffs and so forth.
>> > That couldn't happen if food were on the verge of becoming scarce.
>>
>> Do you deny that there are those that starve in this world?
>>
>> > A
>> > secondary and longer term threat arises from climate change, as now
>> > arable lands become less climatically suited, or as inundation of
>> > coastal lands makes them unfit, or as various plant diseases are moved
>> > about the world by moving people and small fauna or other crops, or as
>> > civil conflict breaks out or ... well you get my drift.
>>
>> Ahh, yes. The adorned will survive. They will save the earth.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As I've also noted, much of the land under tillage is not used to feed
>> > humans at all, but to raise food for livestock, or to agist it, or to
>> > produce non-staples like alcohol and convenience foods, or cosmetic
>> > feedstock.
>>
>> So, welcome to the real world.
>>
>> But "calderhome" is not at all interested in these far more
>>
>> > significant impositions or on the threat to existing arable land
>> > consequenct upon climate change -- no no. Instead, he prattles on
>> > about something he calls 'the nuclear hydrogen economy' knowing full
>> > well that this is simply a figleaf for the business-as-usual case. He
>> > won't listen to reason. He just keeps spamming the same tired old GPC
>> > red herrings.
>>
>> Sorry, but how does your 'business as usual', trump his? That I missed
>> this 'hydrogen' thing you speak of... But then you lift crop fuels to
>> the same insanity as hydrogen. No numbers, you know what I mean......
>>
>> > So IMO, his opinions should be seen in this light and dismissed.
>>
>> You miss the point. Opinion is irrelevant. Show me your numbers....
>
>Dan...The REALLY bad news is that no numbers exist that are even
>remotely hopeful. Near as I can tell, there is exactly *1* nation on
>this planet that can reasonably be expected to increase its oil
>exports in the next 5 years, that is Iran... Any odds on that? What
>with it being ruled by prez "nuke israel" Ahmamadman, and the US being
>currently governed by lame duck shrub? Not good gambling odds if you
>ask me.
>
>At the same time, the north sea, mexico, North america and saudi
>arabia are already in proven precipitous declines...
>
>Everything that we "try" to solve the mess is so blatantly obviously
>wrong as to be difficult to believe that it isn't deliberate
>sabotage. Hydrogen?!? Ethanol?!? WTF???
>
>And in this climate, when the world is facing a problem that makes the
>great depression look like a cakewalk, we have our hordes blathering
>about global warming and holding up drilling in the arctic. There is
>no fixing this, we're going to die (the "we" that I am using here and
>before is technological civilization as a whole). My best
>recommendation is to either move to france (Quite probably the last
>nation on the planet that will have a functioning electric grid) or
>start investing in ammunition.
>
>I can see *exactly* 1 vague hint of hope, that is if we set aside ALL
>regulations on oil exploitation, and drill hell for leather to stave
>off the precipitous declines that have already started in most of the
>producing world, while simultaeneously setting aside *all*
>restrictions on development density in urban centers, and providing an
>"x prize" of 200 million dollars for the first company to sell on the
>open market 100,000 PHEV automobiles with nominal fuel mileage in
>excess of 100 MPG for for 40 mile trips. At the same time, the
>addition to the electric grid of all those PHEVs will involve building
>several hundred nuclear power plants. At the *same* time, starting
>construction on several million barrels per day worth of coal
>liquefaction plants (again, a few hundred nuclear plants to free up
>the coal). And we need to start on all of this NOW! any odds of that
>happening? didn't think so. bye everyone, it was nice knowing you, I
>will look forward to meeting most of you in hell.
>
>Dan, I know you know all this, Hell, you taught me most of it. So,
>what's your survival plan?


One thing that puzzles me , if one assumes that the world is running
out of oil and maybe it is , then why are the countries with the oil,
namely the members of OPEC continuing to sell it to the rest of the
world.
Wouldnt it make a hell of a lot more sense to simply keep it for
themselves.
Then they wouldnt run out.
Lets face it , Countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE are already rich
beyond belief, they dont need the oil income.