$98 per barrel oil

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
they doing it?

That's easy:

They are not so studpid as the US as to expect that it will never be
feasible, or that there will not be security challenges involving oil.
They want to have the tecnology and a few plants in their hands "just in
case". Their coal reservce is similar to that of the US; plenty. The
price of coal produced gasoline (also done by Germany in WWII after we
bombed the Ploesti Oil fields and refineries) is in today's economy
about $5/gallon. It rivals pure biodiesel, and probably unsupported (no
guv grants) ethanol as well.

The sheer size of China's population and their acceleration into the
industrial age almost guarantees a serious dependence on hyrdrocabon
fuels, and that will only increase with time. Same goes for India.

Ang. C.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
wrote in :

Because the US isn't a large number of people going to a small number
of places, it is small numbers of people going to a huge number of
places.

I think this is true everywhere.

There are no major hub sites.

The highway system is a giant web with an enourmous number of branches
and more than just freeways.

As a matter of fact, both the wife and I could take public
transportation to work. The only problem is the trip would be about 4
hours each way.

Maybe the transport system in your area has room for improvement.

Yep, we need more lanes on the freeways.

To work, public transportation has to go everywhere the public wants
to go, which means it has to stop a lot.

You can have fast routes (rail, underground, accelerated tram) with few
inbetween stops for the long distances, and slow routes (bus, ordinary
tram) for short ones.

Point totally and absolutely missed.

There are NO long distance routes with a large number of people
going from point A to point B.

There are thousands upon thousands of points with small numbers of
people (or goods) going between any given two and it is two dimensional,
not a one dimensional line.

Los Angeles does have light rail along the few high traffic corridors
where it makes some sort of sense.

For most of California, and most of the country, such a system makes
no sense.

For distances like 60 miles as you said, you want heavy rail of course.
Light rail makes sense within a city.

60 miles isn't concidered a long distance here.

Just because something works in one place does not mean it will work
in another.

I'm not convinced that is the difference. There are lots of ways a
public transport system can be laid out and meet demands of different
settlement structures. But there is a cultural bias towards preferences
of automobiles over rail (which is true here as well, just not as
pronounced), and AFAICT an unawareness of what public transport can do
because many Americans haven't ever seen an efficient system.

This is the problem with all the one-size-fits-all thinking by
people that are going to solve all the worlds problems if only
their pet scheme were implemented.

I could give you the "one size fits all" back, but let's not sink to
that level. The original discussion was about the necessity to get away
from oil because one day it'll be too expensive to run transport, and
we were discussing alternatives. Don't you think the basic assumption
is true, i.e. one day in the (hopefully distant) future oil will become
so expensive that the majority of people won't be able to afford to run
cars? If we agree on that, then it's a good idea to look for
alternatives as soon as possible, because the end will come inevitably,
and if we're not prepared for it we'll have major problems, perhaps
even an economic breakdown. Alternative car propulsion technologies are
one way, but many people seem to think they're not viable economically
and/or technically. Public transport with a heavy focus on rail is a
more realistic option. And now everyone screams "It won't ever work
here". Hmm.

Public transport with a heavy focus on rail is totally unrealistic,
at least in an area like southern California.

Public transportation works in the New York area, many parts of
the east coast, and in small areas of the west coast.

It doesn't in the majority of the country other than local, urban
buses.

But that is not so out of necessity, but because of conscious (or maybe
not so conscious) decisions not to invest in it.

No, it is because it doesn't work in spread out areas.

New York made conscious decisions to invest in transport and to keep it
running. Other places haven't. My experience of the US is very limited,
but I've been to Honolulu out of all places. I was told by the locals
that their public transport system is considered good compared to other
American places. I used it and I thought it was abysmal. It could
easily be improved to a much better service level. They have only
buses, nothing else. For a city that size that's already shameful. And
the buses run only every 30 mins at best (IIRC). And there's no
information at the bus stops, neither about time tables nor about the
network. If you want to navigate it, you need to get your information
beforehand from other sources.

Public transport works in New York because you have lots of people
going to the same small number of places.

Heavy rail works to get bulk cargo between major hubs. It doesn't
work to get all the stuff that needs to be transported everywhere.

Same thing

Nonsense.

Have you the slightest clue how many "places" to get things to there
are in a place like southern California?

Solar power works pretty well in Arizona, not for crap in North
Dakota.

Tidal power generation doesn't work in Colorado, though it might
in Alaska.


We agree there are technological and economical factors against most
forms of "green" energy. I never argued for those. I'm looking for
replacements which allow us to run existing machines, but at the same
time look for more economical uses where they can be avoided.

Regards

--
Push Pull Solutions f?r die Client Server Umgebung


http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 07-Nov-07 6:47, aluckyguess wrote:
The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.

Of course there is an end!

We have an intrepid president, who will intervene at once
and tell that we refuse to pay $98 for a $10 article.
The production will be bumped up, till normality will
return. He will of course send army, if negotiations
will not help. Finally, he lives from our taxes and has
our best interest at all times on his mind, even when he
is in the restroom.

I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...

Thomas


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.

Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
booming...)

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

ThomasH wrote:



I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...



Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
Quit your whining.

Newps wrote in news:-NudnYeFoZIo8KvanZ2dnUVZ_h-
:



ThomasH wrote:



I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...



Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
Quit your whining.


There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?


Bertie

"Newps" wrote in message
...


ThomasH wrote:



I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...



Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
Quit your whining.

And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
vengeance.

There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?

Nope.

Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

I say throw them all out, and start over.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses required
would result in decades of delays.

Can you imagine? The environmentalists would absolutely have a
bird! There wouldn't be ten miles of track laid before some snail
darter or frog or "wetland" was "endangered", and the whole project
would grind to a halt.

Our new (paving in progress) 800-foot runway extension in Iowa City
alone has been 40 years in the making and required three separate
(ever more stringent) EPA studies. We're talking millions of dollars
-- for 800 feet of concrete.

I'm afraid the time to build giant transportation networks in the US
is long past. We have surrendered our government to the special
interests, and the bureaucrats are in command.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?

Nope.

Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

I say throw them all out, and start over.

I'm game, but it will never happen. Remember the old quote about the
fatal flaw of democracy:

Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University
of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by dictatorship."

And I think we are in the next to last stage outlined he
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Articl...emocracies.htm

Nobody will vote out THEIR congress critter as then someone else would
get more of the money. Everyone wants someone else to vote out their
congress critter first.

Matt

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.

It has worked historically.