On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:57:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
gmail.com> wrote:
>Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Unless you are in a state of denial the hard reality
>>>> is that the cost of oil has been spiraling 30%% a year
>
>>> No it hasnt.
>
>> Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
>
>> What do you think it's been?
>
>> -10%%?
>
>YOU made that claim.
>
>YOU get to provide the real data.
>
>THATS how it works.
>
>>>> and there is little reason to believe that 30%% rate will drop over the next 6 - 8 years,
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> If we _wait_ and see then it's guaranteed that our
>> only option will be to pay $25/gallon in 6 years.
>
>Wrong again. We waited in the 70s and saw the price drop to reasonable levels again.
>
>>>> either by drilling, converting to another hydrocarbon fuel or by any other strategy.
>
>>> Wrong again.
>
>> Angels going to descend from heaven with an endless supply of oil?
>
>Nope, we use other sources of hydrocarbons than oil, and even when
>all of that has been used, and that wont be for a very long time, we can
>move on to using nukes to make hydrogen and use that as a transport fuel.
>
>>>> Retrofitting all of one nation's trucks and buses to natural gas
>>>> will simply not have a significant impact on world oil markets
>
>>> Doesnt need to. Its one way of reducing the dependance on oil from out of the country.
>
>> But that hardly changes the fact that we'll be paying $25/gallon in 6 years.
>
>Thats just a number you have plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
>
>And even if that is the price then, I'll just yawn because I had enough of a clue
>to choose a car thats uses it very economically and it will be completely trivial
>to only use that car in a way that will see that completely affordable.
>
>>>> and, if many other countries followed suit, the coupling of fuel
>>>> prices would simply drag up the price of natural gas like a rag doll.
>
>>> But its a lot cheaper than gasoline.
>
>> In most states it's already over $2.50 / gallon gasoline equivalent.
>
>Still a lot cheaper than gasoline.
>
>>>> Decreasing supply is only a part of the problem. ?The bigger effect is the
>>>> demand caused by the industrialization of China, India and other nations.
>
>>> The biggest effect on price is actually speculation currently.
>
>> Over any length of time more than a few months the
>> biggestest effect is the industrialization of other nations.
>
>But its the few months price rise that you are mindlessly hyperventilating about.
>
>>> As can clearly be seen from the current drop in price,
>
>> Which has lasted all of one week.
>
>We'll see...
>
>>> when there hasnt been an increase in supply or a decrease in demand by china.
>
>>>> China's double digit growth rate is akin to the American steel industry
>
>>> Nope, nothing like it.
>
>> Just keep repeating "nope nope nope" and the problem will go away.
>
>You havent established that there is a problem that we dont have perfectly viable solutions for.
>
>>>> which increased in size by a factor of ten every decade
>>>> for 3 straight decades during the industrial revolution.
>
>>> That wasnt the growth rate for the entire country.
>
>> But it's akin to the growth rate for China.
>
>You cant compare apples and oranges.
>
>>>> The 19th Century growth rate of that industry was not fueled
>>>> by sales to a richer nation so a U. S. recession now cannot
>>>> be expected to have much impact on China's growth rate.
>
>>> Thats completely silly when chinas exports are to richer countrys.
>
>> China is already going high tech. The Chinese can, like the American steel
>> industry, switch to selling domestically and keep the same high growth rate.
>
>Nope, they wont see the same high growth rate if their exports are decimated.
>
>>>> If current trends continue, in as little as 6 years China's economy will be larger than ours.
>
>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>
>> A denialist will keep repeating over and over, "nope nope nope"
>> and "ain't gonna happen" with no rational basis whatsoever.
>
>You dont have any rational basis for your mindless hyperventilation and silly claims about prices.
>
>>> Living standards in spades.
>
>> I'm not concerned how the Chinese live compared with Americans.
>
>You should be when you make such silly claims about their growth rate.
>
>> My only concern is how most Americans will be living
>> when the Chinese economy allows China to chomp off
>> a great deal of the American slice of the world oil pie.
>
>It wont, just like Japan never did either.
>
>> We know the rich arn't going to give up their use of hydrocarbons.
>
>Corse they wont, and they wont need to either.
>
>And neither will the non rich that have enough of a clue either.
>
>>>> In sharp contrast to the bleak oil situation, the cost of solar has been plummeting.
>
>>> Nope, just dropping a bit.
>
>> "A bit" being 75%% in a half dozen years.
>
>Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
>
>And its STILL not economically viable when grid power is available ANYWAY.
>
>>>> When Bell Labs developed the first photo voltaic cell decades
>>>> ago, the unit cost/watt was well into the thousands of dollars.
>
>>> Irrelevant. What matters is how much its dropped
>>> since it was a commonly used commercial product.
>
>> 75%% in a few years.
>
>Another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
>
>And its STILL not economically viable when grid power is available ANYWAY.
>
>>>> Now the uncontested claims of printed PV are $1/watt or,
>
>>> Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
>
>> The American steel industry didn't increase a thousandfold over night.
>
>> It took 30 years.
>
>Irrelevant to what will happen with photovoltaic which is a different technology entirely.
>
>>>> inverted to AC, less than 8 cents/kW-hr over a 10 year life span.
>
>>> Pity you cant actually buy them at anything like that.
>
>> They built a GW / year plant in a couple years.
>> The price of electricity can be forced to actually _drop_.
>
>Irrelevant to a completely different technology, photovoltaic.
>
>>>> Californians now pay 50%% more than that for grid power. ?No one
>>>> in academia or industry will deny that the advances will continue.
>
>>> But at nothing like the same rate.
>
>> The positive spiral in oil costs => no future.
>
>Wrong again. Its just a different future.
>
>> The collapsing cost of solar => a future.
>
>You aint established any collapsing price of solar.
>
>And if you dont like the use of hydrocarbons for power generation,
>the obvious MUCH more viable alternative is nukes, not solar.
>
>>>> Up until now electrical energy storage has been prohibitively expensive
>
>>> Wrong, most obviously with pumped water in hydro systems.
>
>> Not portable,
>
>Doesnt need to be, we invented the grid that fixed that.
>
>> limited to topography
>
>Doesnt matter, we invented the grid that fixed that.
>
>> and wastes over 1/3rd of the energy.
>
>Irrelevant to your stupid lie about prohibitively expensive.
>
>>>> and Europeans have astutely favored conventional drive train
>>>> diesels over hybrids. ?This cannot be expected to last.
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> Are you planning to _wait_ and see?
>
>Yep. I can handle hydrocarbon prices of 10 times the current price fine.
>
>And realise that nukes will be very viable indeed at those prices.
>
>>> And plenty use LPG and CNG for cars etc now too.
>
>> All that does is couple HC fuel costs.
>
>Wrong. It also dramatically reduces the dependancy on imported oil.
>
>> High HC fuel costs aren't so much an issue for Europeans as
>> they have public transportation, cycle and only drive infrequently.
>
>That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
>
>>>> Batteries have been improving rapidly
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> and no one in academia or industry will deny that more advances are guaranteed.
>
>>> How significant those advances are is a different matter entirely.
>
>> At least the _sign_ is correct.
>
>No news tho.
>
>>> And pity about the metals that those advances use too.
>
>> Part of the advances is reducing the metals.
>
>Pity that involves much more expensive metals.
>
>>>> It's a hard fact to accept but extracting and
>>>> burning hydrocarbons will soon be only for the rich.
>
>>> Just claiming its a hard fact doesnt make it so.
>
>> In 6 years fuel will be $25/gallon gas.
>
>You plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
>
>> You think this is affordable?
>
>Yep, I can afford that fine.
>
>>>> For the majority of Americans to survive with any quality of
>>>> life either short term or long term the grid is the only hope
>
>>> Wrong again. Pity about hydrogen from nukes.
>
>> The grid may include nuclear but H2 is the most dubious of all _proposed_ technology.
>
>Wrong again. And it isnt a proposed technology, its being used RIGHT NOW.
>
>>>> but it's a reliable hope.
>
>>> Nope, not for the sort of long distance commutes that so many are stupid enough to engage in in cars.
>
>> "Any quality of life" might not include "long distance commutes" by cars.
>
>Nothing like the majority are actually that stupid. And its completely trivial to stop doing it in cars anyway.
>
>>>> Any concern about polar bears or tropical frogs is another issue altogether.
>
>>> Easily fixed by changing to nukes.
>
>> Regardless of how it's powered, the grid is the only hope.
>
>Wrong again. Hydrogen from nukes is very viable.
>
>> Either short term or long term.
>
>Wrong, as always.
>
