an interesting article about our economy and the war

[thebigriddle]

He is non linear thinker. I think you need to visit www.constitution.org.

[135711]

upscale taliban!.tourism.com

pkt, i feel that you're a bit conventional, and still crossing everyone's t's for them, this is interesting conversation, let's kick up! i jostled around today on the mass transit with a bunch of tourists and taliban and local upscale taliban, it was sort of incredible, i found a porcelean husband and wife having tea for $30. it was kicking around on a shelf amongst the other stuff, the propietor mentioned that it was 'left over' merchandise. it's amazing, i felt propelled [new term] into buying it from the dear lady, whose husband from india plans to move out as quickly as possible and settle elsewhere.

The biggest problem with oil is that it is presently coming out of other people's countries, and they don't feel like selling it to us anymore, it just may be time to think of alternatives.

Use electric, water or the sun or the wind, those things are in abundance all over and we won't have to go to war for it, at least not for another 10 billion years.

[Catal]

Beggin' the Capn's pardon ma'am... but, what are you talking about?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by thebigriddle
The key here is learned how to think and to think critically. I don't need to memorize someone elses works to prove how smart I am.

This is true in many fields, but I think you will admit that some technical disciplines require a great deal of plain old information and theory which would not occur to a layman just trying to "think critically". Engineering, for instance. Chemistry. Mathematics. Biology. Computer science. Astronomy. Geology. Etc. And yes, economics, hardest of the "soft"sciences. One needs a basic grounding in the field in order to be able to speak cogently about the issues which spring therefrom.

Alot of times when you go through school ie a university or college, you are not there to think, but to memorize so you can do a job in the work force.

Truer words were never spoken! In fact there is a theory which treats a college education as nothing more than a device by which one proves to future employers that one can work hard, meet deadlines, handle pressure and not throw up ones hands and walk away, etc. ( Not coincidentally, the theory was born in the research of economists. )

However, the mere ability to think without a grounding of information will get you little farther than a mind full of facts and the inability to think about them properly. the two need to be combined, especially as the issues of human praxeology grow ever more and more complex. One needs both a strong intellect and its native fuel, information.

Unless you get a degree in philosophy and then you might be better off studying in your own so you don't have to learn someone elses dogma.

Except that you will then run the risk of spending much of your life "reinventing the wheel", ie covering ground long since plowed by other minds---and reaping only the same crop that you could have had with far less gruelling work elsewhere...

I have talked with lawyers and have battled policians and have won many arguments because I did the research and used logic and reasoning. If the author's argument are backed up by research and based in reason I will listen.

The point is that a strong basic education in the basic theory of the discipline---and I do not mean a couple of freshman-level undergrad survey courses---is part and parcel of that research when it comes to fields such as economics. This the author of the article does not appear to have done. Nor does he seem to have done his formal, documentary research anywhere except way out in left field...

I think you have been disrespectful and dishonor both to the person who brought up the article as well as the author himself.

Sorry you feel that way.

You must be an elitist and perhaps you need a to do some reading about the founding of america.

I must, eh?

You are aware I am sure that the men who "founded" America were in the main highly erudite and educated men, conversant with the important disciplines and theories of their day? Unlike the author, they were not amateurs struggling in waters over their heads to come up with theories to justify their preexisting beliefs, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you need to put on rucksack and carry a rifle into battle to defend free. Or perhaps you think so highly of yourself and you see yourself as the superior and all of just as the inferior, a master slave mentality. Have a good day.

Think that six years in the US Army, 11B ( including a stint in a Ranger battalion ) and 11h might qualify?

[135711]

Part of our being able to think critically, is the ability to take in new information with an open mind. I like to hear people out a bit first, then think on it for a few days, and then, if I disagree with something, I'll state my case, using information at my disposal. Then wait for a rebuttal, which should include further elaboration or additional information. It's the hallmark of negotiations and good conversation. Men or women worth their salt are not only imaginative, but can produce something respectworthy. So it may take the world many many centuries to develop the kinds of energy alternatives we're dreaming of here on the board. In centuries past, the automobile was looked at as being 'nothing but a fad', today, no-one seems to be able to live without this "fad".



George Sands

[thebigriddle]

Well I beg your pardon. I jump the gun. I get a little hot. My passion over comes my reasoning sometimes. Bottomline, is that you can learn about a lot of things and read theory without having to take one class. I learned this as well in the army. I had to be motivated learned a lot on my own including test out of several classes in the process. Right now what I see is destruction of the most important document the constitution. I think many bury their heads in the sand and don't want to know what reality is. I learned most of what I know about by having mentors who put my on the path of learning. I started reading a lot of books on law, to include a lot of law books, as well as book on legal theory. It help when you have a several website on this. The bottom line is the weight of law much measure up to the standard which is the constitution. When you joined you took an oath of office which state that you will uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Right now our country is moving into a dark age as well as the world. I learned a lot on economics again from mentors who have been studying for several years to include a friend who studied for twenty year how the economy works. He figure some interesting things out. I could show you, but you would have to email me the files are too big. We talked last night about the Federal Reserve. He told me about 40 trillion dollars in security had been removed from the market. Too bad for the folks who wanted to retire, I guess they might have to go back to work. Consumption without production equals inflation. Well the fed. doesn't want that. You produced, your production stays at work. It is taxed. Then you take paper money which is worth almost nothing to buy real wealth with and then that is taxed. While the boys on top do not work and collect all the production and real wealth for free. Does the idea of being a slave sound like a bad thing. With paper you get gold and with gold you get more paper. My point is I am not trying to start a debate or an argument. I am just trying to warn you. I have been reading that the red alert will be reality at some point in the near future. I remember back in 1984 the question was are we close to the book 1984. Well ask yourself the question is the constitution being followed. The fact of the matter is that our population is uneducated about our history, they know nothing of the constitution. Just remember soldier you took the oath, and know that you never forgot what you were taught. Once they have the population locked down, gun collecting, controlling the population will become that much easier. I remember lock down and total control, a basic concept in the army. Our government is no different then any other government. Why work to produce, when you can get the production for free. God bless the republic and liberty or death!

[135711]

don't worry, not talking about you specifically, education has nothing to do with anything actually, sometimes my friends and I talk about what an "educated fool" is, a person with a lot of credentials, but not much to the wise. I agree with most of what you say, except the dark ages part, I don't think we're going there, yet. If we can hang in there, it might be okay. I worked also, for 30 years, nothing much to show for it. It doesn't look real good out there, but we all knew this was going to happen. They were working on this thing for a long time. Today I talked with what appeared to be a nice regular lady, but you can't believe what she said, i'll omit it for now. Can you believe it? Not a "young" radical student out there on strike against the war, but a nice, middle age grandmother, on her way home from work. She hates this administration. Then we had to think back, who used to be pres? It was Bill, and then we decided together, we miss Bill, the man had talent. He played the saxaphone, got along with people, wasn't all tensed up like a republican and didn't wear starched shirts unless absolutely necessary.

Bring back the democratic party. Or even better, next election I'd like to see Colin Powel as president at least, it's long overdue.

[Gav]

Hydrogen, as a fuel, will certainly be cleaner than Hydrocarbons however there will be an environmental impact. Burning Hydrogen (H2) produces Water as a product. This water will be released as steam in to atmosphere. So far so good. What happens to that water? Well it rises as steam into the lower atmosphere where it condences and falls to the ground as rain. Water is also a greenhouse gas albeit not as effiecient as Methane or C02 but it is important to realise that , like all solutions, there will be compromises that will have to be lived with. The price for H2 fuelled equipment, particulalry personal transport, might be Humid wet citeies where it rains every evening as all of the cooled water falls basj to earth. Heavy. possibly constant, rain will also contribute to soid erosion and local flooding. Wil H2 ccars be less polluting than their Hydrocarbaon couterparts? Certainly. Will there be an environmental effect that must be considered? Oh yes. Looking after the environment is more than touchy-feely 'lets do the right thing' action. It's about looking at trade-offs. It's deciding what sacrifices are desirable in return for whatever effect you are trying to achieve.

I for one dislike the current environmentalist lobby. Although there a lot of sincere people doing sincere work with sincere beliefs there is lot of 'noise' polluting the debate.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Catal
Oh, you called me a name. Help, help... My feelings... (When will people learn that name calling is utterly useless on the Internet?)

ALSO Originally posted by Catal
Anyway, I truly hope you were joking with this because if you are as uninformed as your response makes you look, then perhaps the world is right about all Americans being fat, lazy and stupid. And, as an American, you would make me sick.

Just liked the juxtaposition of these two statements. Not technically name calling, but about the same level and effect.



-m

[Catal]

Just liked the juxtaposition of these two statements. Not technically name calling, but about the same level and effect.




Fat, lazy and stupid are adjectives. Names are noun/pro-noun, Mr. Smartypants.

[edew]

I guess "smarty" is just the qualifier part, and you're really calling him "pants".

[edew]

An OPEC oil minister once mentioned that the stone age died out not because of the lack of available rocks. And so, he claimed, the oil age will die out not because of the lack of available oil.

The fact is, all natural resources, with the exception of the sun, is infinite on an economic scale. It matters little to measure the amount of a resource via a physical metric (such as liters or kilometers or grams).

Resources need to be viewed as a service. We don't need oil because oil itself is valuable. We need oil because of the services derived from it: transportation, heat, lubrication, plastics, whatever. Ultimately, we don't really care how we are transported, just as long as we are transported. We don't care how we warm our homes, as long as it's warm. We don't care how our, uh, things are lubricated, as long as it's lubricated. And so on.

At the moment, gasoline is the cheapest way to move people around, in the 2-250 mile range of transportation. Anything more and diesel or kerosene (jet fuel) is more economical. Anything less than .75 miles, say, walking or scootering or biking (complex and simple carbohydrates, proteins, etc., being the fuel) is more efficient.

These resources are usually commodity resources, meaning that the price is mostly determined by the supply and demand. There is hardly any boutique oil. The price of oil has been dropping, although the uncertainty during the recent Iraq war crisis has made speculation in oil more volatile. But energy sources, on the whole, has been dropping, relative to CPI or median salary.

The main theory behind while resources are infinite is the following theorem:

More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves (hopefully -- if free market does indeed work, but that's another issue). But eventually, solutions are found. And in the long run, the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred. -- Julian Simon

In the mid-1800s, fuel for steam engines and home heating was almost entirely supplied in the form of wood. Wood then (and now) is not cheap. There was substantial effort to chop the wood, make tinder, clean the soot, dispose of the ash, and maintain the fire. But, because of the short-run scarcity in wood, solutions arose: coal, oil, electricity.

If one were to extrapolate then the amount of wood used for fuel, assuming the rate of growth the occurred then (or using the actual rate of growth that did occur), one would probably see that by early 1900s, there would not be enough wood in all of the US land to supply fuel for the populace.

But we didn't die out because of that. We continued on, and the amount of forested land (with trees and such) in the US is now much greater than it was in the 1800s. No one now use wood for fuel. Indeed, wood has become a boutique fuel. Wood has moved from being a commodity to being a boutique item. People use wood in their fireplace not because they need heat; but because it makes them feel cozy to sit by a blazing fireplace. To really keep warm, they turn on the heater, which uses natural gas or electricity (which in turn uses oil or natural gas or coal or nuclear or wind or hydro or geothermal or solar sources).

Fifty or maybe 100 years from now, oil will also become boutique, for those who wish to play with their antique transportation devices called automobiles. 100 years from now, no one would normally transport themselves by contemporary gasoline powered cars.

When will that happen? Well, according to the theorem, you need more people, increasing congestion and headaches (and available people to do the problem solving), and a short-run increase in prices. I think if gasoline prices at the pump jump up to about $7.00/gallon and stays there for several years, you will see a lot of new solutions. What will those solutions be? The theorem doesn't say. Just that there will be solutions. Just as there was a solution to the apparent shortage of wood for fuel. From that solution will be differently shaped vehicles (no large space up front for the engine block; no space on the chassis to hold a gas tank).

When that time occurs, the price of oil will drop precipitiously. Maybe down to $8.00/barrel or lower. The number of refineries will decrease, while the number of whatever other energy source plants will increase. The price for this new source will be low because it is plentiful.

Over time, the price of boutique gasoline for those antique cars may be equal to $1.00/gallon (current $ value), which is cheaper than what it is today, but much more expensive the commodity value of gasoline then, which may be down to $0.10/gallon, because the demand for gasoline will have dried up by then.

This cyclic turmoil has occurred time and again throughout the history of mankind. Coal was calculated to run out in Britain by 1900s via the extrapolation of its use by britain for the factories and transportation. Coal is now being exported by britain, as its use has decreased so much so.

What will science create next? I just read an article about a new development in Japan that will generate fresh water from sea water AND at the same time generate energy, using the difference in temperature between the deep sea water and surface sea water. The difference can be around 40 degrees F. That little difference is enough to generate energy and in the process, create fresh water. The price of oil has suddenly taken a hit because its use, its SERVICE, as a source to generate electricity is being usurped by basically a free energy source. That source is, ultimately, the sun, as that is the cause of temperature gradient between deep and surface-level sea water.

Now, you might ask, what about the physical limits? Can't oil physically run out, like the water bottles in a refrigerator? Yes and no. You could make the estimate, assume the earth is a hollow ball. How much oil can be filled into this volume? That may be a physical upper bound for the amount of oil. But that's not necessarily true. Oil can be recycled. What is oil, or say, gasoline? It's a hydrocarbon. It's a string of C's, H's, and O's. Chemists know the chemical structure of these molecules. If it can be drawn on a blackboard, it can be synthesized and created in a lab. If it can be created in a lab, it can be produced in quantities in a factory.

There is work now on creating genetically altered plants (potatoes, soy) that will decompose into a fuel-type liquid. Already, corn is used to create ethanol, which can be used as a fuel. If and when that becomes cheap enough, people will use that instead. Since corn is renewable in the sense that we can always grow it, that source of fuel is essentially limitless.

So will we run out of oil? No. When the cost per BTU from oil exceeds other sources, we will move to those other sources. Oil will still be around, and hardly near infinitesimal quantities.
Then, the new source will become better utilized and oil's commodity price will drop significantly.

[thebigriddle]

Most not all depend on oil or electicity for heat some still use wood even in the US. It just depends. I have a friend and even lived in house for a while which used wood as a fuel. You can use solid fuel burning stoves that are high efficient. Oil burns more efficient then does coal or wood. Although coal and wood if you are using an efficient stove can work very well. Wood does not burn as clean as oil nor does coal. You also have to be very careful about using them as well. But they heat a house very nicely. I also still believe that if the combustion engine had been invented a while after the steam engine then we would have much more efficient steam engines.

[Catal]

An OPEC oil minister once mentioned that the stone age died out not because of the lack of available rocks. And so, he claimed, the oil age will die out not because of the lack of available oil. The fact is, all natural resources, with the exception of the sun, is infinite on an economic scale.

Sneaky... Very sneaky. I am familiar with that quote, and when Sheikh Yamani made it, he didn't mean it to say that oil is never going to run out, he was refering to the new technologies that will eliminate our need for oil: "Technology is a real enemy for OPEC. Technology will reduce consumption and increase production from areas outside OPEC."

Here is the full interview:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8</a>


Resources need to be viewed as a service. We don't need oil because oil itself is valuable.

That is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. There is no evidence in it.


At the moment, gasoline is the cheapest way to move people around, in the 2-250 mile range of transportation. Anything more and diesel or kerosene (jet fuel) is more economical.

You're supposed to be proving that oil is an infinite resource that will never run out.... remember?


Anything less than .75 miles, say, walking or scootering or biking (complex and simple carbohydrates, proteins, etc., being the fuel) is more efficient.

I see you don't supply any links verifying your assertion. Again, you lack evidence.


The main theory behind while resources are infinite is the following theorem:

I'm not going to quote your entire "the main theory," which I suspect was made by you and not by any scientist on this planet, because it would waste more bandwidth than it already has- suffice to say, the whole point of the debate was that on the 20th of March, you said "Oil and coal will never run out. It is, actually, a renewable source." Instead of trying to prove that oil and coal are renewable, you completely circumvent the argument with this frivolous attempt to appear educated. Show us the evidence that oil and coal are renewable, or stay silent until someone whacks you with a clue-by-four.


Oil can be recycled.

Based on what evidence- the voices in your head?!


If it can be drawn on a blackboard, it can be synthesized and created in a lab. If it can be created in a lab, it can be produced in quantities in a factory.

This isn't Star Trek:TNG- we live in the 21st century. And, since you clearly don't watch the glowing magic tube we call a "television," I shall inform you that Castrol already has a synthetic motor oil for engine parts. http://www.castrolusa.com/products/alloils/ Visit the link; it even has a little history page for the mentally retarded. But, understand that you won't find recycled fuel oil, because gasoline isn't like paper. Once the gasoline has expended it energy via combustion, that's it. You'd have as much luck recycling gasoline as spent firewood.


Already, corn is used to create ethanol, which can be used as a fuel. If and when that becomes cheap enough, people will use that instead.

Your lack of intelligence has no bounds, does it? I'll explain:

Average price of gasoline this month: $1.690
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/

Average price of ethanol this month: $1.460
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/gr..._18-month.html

As you can see from the graphs, also known as "evidence," ethanol is already less expensive, and has been for a while. Here's a theory for you:

E+D+E+W = MORON! I call it my "fencer who should keep his stinking pie hole shut" theorum. Essentially, the moronitude of said subject, EDEW, will expand infinitely until it collapses upon its own weight, curving time and space thus creating a blackhole from which nothing can escape.


When the cost per BTU from oil exceeds other sources, we will move to those other sources.

You don't even know what a BTU is, do you? Stay away from the keyboard, you have nothing intelligent or informed to say.

[edew]

Originally posted by Catal
An OPEC oil minister once mentioned that the stone age died out not because of the lack of available rocks. And so, he claimed, the oil age will die out not because of the lack of available oil. The fact is, all natural resources, with the exception of the sun, is infinite on an economic scale.

Sneaky... Very sneaky. I am familiar with that quote, and when Sheikh Yamani made it, he didn't mean it to say that oil is never going to run out, he was refering to the new technologies that will eliminate our need for oil: "Technology is a real enemy for OPEC. Technology will reduce consumption and increase production from areas outside OPEC."

Which is my point: new technology, new solutions will make oil obsolete. The need for oil will disappear long before the physical quantity of oil will disappear.

Here is the full interview:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8</a>


Resources need to be viewed as a service. We don't need oil because oil itself is valuable.

That is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. There is no evidence in it.

No, it's a scientific and economic one. What exactly do you need oil for? For the sake of having oil, or for the utility inherent in it? Suppose we find a substitute for it that is a tenth the cost. Will you still value oil in the same way? The resource is only as useful as its utility. When its utility drops, the quantity of the resource will go up, as measured the only reasonable way: by the price it commands.

At the moment, gasoline is the cheapest way to move people around, in the 2-250 mile range of transportation. Anything more and diesel or kerosene (jet fuel) is more economical.

You're supposed to be proving that oil is an infinite resource that will never run out.... remember?

Read on before making accusations...

Anything less than .75 miles, say, walking or scootering or biking (complex and simple carbohydrates, proteins, etc., being the fuel) is more efficient.

I see you don't supply any links verifying your assertion. Again, you lack evidence.

I don't think I have to supply a detailed study to show people that it's a helluva lot easier to walk to corner grocery store than to pull out your car to drive the one and a half-block. I used to live in Philadelphia. Having a car there is a waste of money: your car can be towed, broken into, ran into, vandalized, all for the benefit of having something that you really can't use within the city limits. Few people who lived in the city owned cars. And the reason is simple: it's more efficient to get around on foot or by public transportation. You choose the method that's easiest for you.

I think it's pretty clear that if you want to go from your first floor to the second floor, you'll walk up the onr flight of stairs and not try to ride a bicycle up the stairs (although you can do it). I don't think I need to supply any URLs or scientific research to back up this claim. Do you?

The main theory behind while resources are infinite is the following theorem:

I'm not going to quote your entire "the main theory," which I suspect was made by you and not by any scientist on this planet, because it would waste more bandwidth than it already has- suffice to say, the whole point of the debate was that on the 20th of March, you said "Oil and coal will never run out. It is, actually, a renewable source." Instead of trying to prove that oil and coal are renewable, you completely circumvent the argument with this frivolous attempt to appear educated. Show us the evidence that oil and coal are renewable, or stay silent until someone whacks you with a clue-by-four.

Actually, it's a paraphrase (I added some side comments) of Julian Simon's main thesis. That's why I quoted him.

Oil can be recycled.

Based on what evidence- the voices in your head?!

Certainly we are not recycling oil at the moment. Otherwise, we'd be doing it. But that's not the point. The point is, the raw crude oil itself is not the resource of value. The resource of value are the different hydrocarbons in it: gasoline, kerosene, ethanol, methanol, etc. Those hydrocarbons can be created by man. Indeed, if you pour enough money into the effort, we currently do have the technology to create any of the main hydrocarbons. The question is whether it's worth the effort. Not at the current cheap oil supply it isn't.

If it can be drawn on a blackboard, it can be synthesized and created in a lab. If it can be created in a lab, it can be produced in quantities in a factory.

This isn't Star Trek:TNG- we live in the 21st century. And, since you clearly don't watch the glowing magic tube we call a "television," I shall inform you that Castrol already has a synthetic motor oil for engine parts. http://www.castrolusa.com/products/alloils/ Visit the link; it even has a little history page for the mentally retarded. But, understand that you won't find recycled fuel oil, because gasoline isn't like paper. Once the gasoline has expended it energy via combustion, that's it. You'd have as much luck recycling gasoline as spent firewood.

Actually, firewood is recycled: wood that is burned in forest fires provide the nutrients and ground for the next generation of trees that grow. So recycling naturally occurs. Star Trek deals with physical impossibilities: travelling faster than the speed of light, going back in time, going forward in time (ok, some scientists believe these may actually be possible).

Creating hydrocarbons is not dealing in impossibilities. It's not impossible to create it. Indeed, it has been created. By nature. On its own.

Already, corn is used to create ethanol, which can be used as a fuel. If and when that becomes cheap enough, people will use that instead.

Your lack of intelligence has no bounds, does it? I'll explain:

Average price of gasoline this month: $1.690
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/

Average price of ethanol this month: $1.460
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/gr..._18-month.html

As you can see from the graphs, also known as "evidence," ethanol is already less expensive, and has been for a while. Here's a theory for you:

But ethanol doesn't produce as much power as gasoline. It's the bang for the bucks, babe. Also, most cars can't use ethanol. Lastly, gas prices surging has only one reason behind it: pure profit for the oil companies. A recent article showed that each penny increase in gas price at the pump during the recent run up on prices (since mid February) equals a penny increase in the profit margin. That is, there is no associated cost at all to the increase in price. Why did the oil companies do that? Because they can. The see they have a technical monopoly over the consumer, that the the demand is inelastic: increase in price is not reflected in decrease in consumption. So they gouge. It's not because we're running low on fuel.

E+D+E+W = MORON! I call it my "fencer who should keep his stinking pie hole shut" theorum. Essentially, the moronitude of said subject, EDEW, will expand infinitely until it collapses upon its own weight, curving time and space thus creating a blackhole from which nothing can escape.

Thank you for breaking down first to start ad hominem attacks and calling names. I guess I shouldn't bother explaining something more sophisticated than 2+2 to you from here on.

When the cost per BTU from oil exceeds other sources, we will move to those other sources.

You don't even know what a BTU is, do you? Stay away from the keyboard, you have nothing intelligent or informed to say.

British thermal unit. A measure of energy. 1 BTU = 251.98 calories. Did I manage to tick you off with some pointed comments? I don't understand the vociferousness of your defense. It makes perfect sense to me (and probably to many others who read this thread) that if the cost per BTU (or calories or whatever your choice of units for energy) is monumentally higher for one source of energy, you'd go with the cheaper one.

This is one reason why solar power isn't yet feasible. It's not because we don't have the technology. It's because it costs about $20,000 for a solar panel system on one's roof that can generate about 1 kW of power, the level where one can sustain oneself for 24 hours with batteries and even provide a return to the grid. But for $20,000 you can pay 41 year's worth of current electricity (at around $40/month for electricity, which is what my latest electricity portion of my utility bill is). That means it will take far longer than 60 years to make the solar panels pay off for itself.

It is also a reason why there has not been any new nuclear power plants built: the total cost to build and maintain a nuclear power plant is quite a bit more expensive per MW-hour of energy produced for the lifetime of a nuclear power plant. The cheapest at the moment is coal-fired plants. Until the cost to dig out coal increases, it makes no sense to use a more expensive source of energy.

When solar panels go down to $2000 or less, you will see people buy solar panels for their homes. (Of course, it's still a discriminatory deal, as the rich people are the ones with homes that have a large roof surface; poorer people live in multi-unit buildings and the surface area of the roof per tenant makes solar panels unfeasible for the whole building.)

[Catal]

I don't think I have to supply a detailed study to show people that it's a helluva lot easier to walk to corner grocery store than to pull out your car to drive the one and a half-block.

Without evidence, your assertions can not be verified. Supply evidence or find someone who can.


I used to live in Philadelphia. Having a car there is a waste of money

That is one person's experience, in one city on the entire planet. Your experiences can not account for the whole of our species. Either proof that humans waste less units of energy by walking than by driving, or stop making assertions that can not be verified by science.


I don't think I need to supply any URLs or scientific research to back up this claim. Do you?

Yes, I do. Stop being lazy and do research. You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence for anything you've said.


Certainly we are not recycling oil at the moment.

Yes, we are. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/9510/uoil2.htm Do research, or stop typing.


The question is whether it's worth the effort. Not at the current cheap oil supply it isn't.

No, the question is why you've yet to prove that oil and coal are renewable and infinite. Stop ignoring it, stop dancing around the subject and offer scientific proof that oil and coal are renewable and infinite. Stop using loop-holes in philosophy of energy usage, and offer scientific evidence that oil and coal can spontaneously be recreated from the earth. These arguments that if we use oil/coal less, it will guarantee its infinite presence don't count. You said that oil and coal are renewable and infinite, now prove it. If you can't, admit it then be quiet.


Actually, firewood is recycled: wood that is burned in forest fires provide the nutrients and ground for the next generation of trees that grow.

My analogy between firewood and gasoline was clearly demonstrating that firewood can not be reused as firewood; not that it couldn't be used to provide nutrients for plants. Do you have any analytical/comparative skills at all?


So recycling naturally occurs. Star Trek deals with physical impossibilities:

Do I have to spell out everything for you? Here is your original quote: "If it can be drawn on a blackboard, it can be synthesized and created in a lab." Now, on Star Trek:TNG, in just about every episode, what do we see: synthesizers. If they weren't synthesizing food, they were synthesizing whatever else they needed. I was refering to a simple, basic component of the TV show, and you can't even grasp that concept. "Tea... Earl Gray... Hot." And, then you try to come off as though you know what Star Trek is about yet you can't make the association regarding sythesizers? Shut up, man- your IQ doesn't meet the minimum height restrictions to ride this rollercoaster.


Creating hydrocarbons is not dealing in impossibilities. It's not impossible to create it.

I just gave you the link, so why are you telling me this? Do you read or just see my name in the post and randomly type words?


But ethanol doesn't produce as much power as gasoline.

Ethanol is 1.37 times more powerful than regular gasoline.
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/is.../08_22_01a.htm

Research, do research. It took me all of twenty seconds to find that evidence; it's all over the Interent and in libraries. It really isn't difficult to understand why you don't know what you're talking about when you take the time look at all the evidence.


Did I manage to tick you off with some pointed comments?

You're inane and arrogant, so don't try to make yourself important because you can be a pest. If anything, you've demonstrated to the people on this board that you speak without knowing, assume without research, and twist ideas to hide your ignorance.


I don't understand the vociferousness of your defense.

You're the kind of person who tells people that putting your hand in gasoline will cure arthritis. It's a terrible thing, and people like you should be silenced because you do harm.


It makes perfect sense to me (and probably to many others who read this thread)

If I were psychopath, like yourself, the castles in the sky would make sense to me too.