How much longer?

Move the pain up sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the
collapse to happen sooner?

you'll die without oil?

I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The affect
on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. The recent
run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
media-enhanced) recession.

Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now being
spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
translating into terrible hardship for common folks.

An example close to home: Our employees have been hit terribly hard by the
decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.
Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay exceptionally
well in the best of times, and no one has received a raise to "make up" for
the sudden doubling of energy costs. EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air
conditioning, (and, thus, rent, food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost
dramatically, causing them extreme hardship. I see and hear about it every
day.

Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match, because
no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an economic downturn.
As business drops, there is LESS money with which to pay employees, and the
downward spiral can really get wound up tightly.

And it's only just begun. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we haven't developed
our Alaskan oil reserves. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who fear marring the beauty of the Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we
have not developed our Colorado oil reserves. And the Canadian oil shale
reserves. And the off-shore reserves.

The list goes on and on. My father was in the energy business his whole
life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago. He called it
the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although he predicted the
collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a decade or so.

You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a backlash,
sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,
slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake up
to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think like
*you*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck schrieb:
Move the pain up sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the
collapse to happen sooner?
you'll die without oil?

I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The affect
on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. The recent
run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
media-enhanced) recession.

your current economic situation is not (only) due to the current oil
price. We have the same oil price, thoug, we have some advantages
because of the weak dollar.

Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now being
spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
translating into terrible hardship for common folks.

An example close to home: Our employees have been hit terribly hard by the
decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.

What will you do with your reserves? You'll move a problem to a later
time (when the reserves are consumed).

Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay exceptionally
well in the best of times, and no one has received a raise to "make up" for
the sudden doubling of energy costs. EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air
conditioning, (and, thus, rent, food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost
dramatically, causing them extreme hardship.

well, maybe your heat.
My costs haven't doubles. This winter we had heating costs of about
300EUR. For a house with 2 families and 1 single person, alltogether
maybe 250m2 (please do your own conversion into your odd values *g*).

Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match, because
no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an economic downturn.
As business drops, there is LESS money with which to pay employees, and the
downward spiral can really get wound up tightly.

recession.

And it's only just begun. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we haven't developed
our Alaskan oil reserves. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who fear marring the beauty of the Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we
have not developed our Colorado oil reserves. And the Canadian oil shale
reserves. And the off-shore reserves.

and what will you do after that?

The list goes on and on. My father was in the energy business his whole
life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago. He called it
the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although he predicted the
collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a decade or so.

I'd call it stupidity. Sorry.

You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a backlash,
sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,

do you think that we here receive our oil from our government? or that
we fill our tanks and the government picks up the tab?

slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake up
to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think like
*you*.

well, I believe that I am doing OK. One of the next things (in a few
years) will be throwing out the oil out of the house and heat with wood,
combined with producing energy, this will make the house about 50%
independent of electricity prices (not calculating some ecologic values)
and 100% idenpendent of oil prices. By mid of this year I will buy a new
car powered with natural gas and save about 30 to 50% money per
kilometer. Solar power right now is too expensive, heating water with
solar is a working alternative, but it won't be a practical idea for the
house.

#m

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:%_JKj.57911$TT4.27145@attbi_s22:

Move the pain up sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the
collapse to happen sooner?

you'll die without oil?

I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The
affect on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering.
The recent run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major
(if media-enhanced) recession.

Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now
being spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or
fully, translating into terrible hardship for common folks.

An example close to home: Our employees have been hit terribly hard
by the decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.
Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay
exceptionally well in the best of times, and no one has received a
raise to "make up" for the sudden doubling of energy costs.
EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air conditioning, (and, thus, rent,
food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost dramatically, causing them
extreme hardship. I see and hear about it every day.

Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match,
because no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an
economic downturn. As business drops, there is LESS money with which
to pay employees, and the downward spiral can really get wound up
tightly.

And it's only just begun. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of
people who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we
haven't developed our Alaskan oil reserves. Thanks to the
short-sighted policies of people who fear marring the beauty of the
Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we have not developed our Colorado
oil reserves. And the Canadian oil shale reserves. And the
off-shore reserves.

The list goes on and on. My father was in the energy business his
whole life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago.
He called it the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although
he predicted the collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a
decade or so.

You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a
backlash, sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the
world -- stupid, slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods
-- are going to wake up to the fact that their economic hard times are
due to people who think like *you*.


Good grief.


Bertie

On Apr 8, 7:59*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Move the pain up sooner? *Leave the oil in the ground and force the
collapse to happen sooner?

you'll die without oil?

I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. *The affect
on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. * The recent
run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
media-enhanced) recession.

Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now being
spent on oil. *The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
translating into terrible hardship for common folks.

An example close to home: *Our employees have been hit terribly hard by the
decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.
Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay exceptionally
well in the best of times, and no one has received a raise to "make up" for
the sudden doubling of energy costs. * EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air
conditioning, (and, thus, rent, food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost
dramatically, causing them extreme hardship. * I see and hear about it every
day.

Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match, because
no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an economic downturn..
As business drops, there is LESS money with which to pay employees, and the
downward spiral can really get wound up tightly.

And it's only just begun. *Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we haven't developed
our Alaskan oil reserves. *Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who fear marring the beauty of the Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we
have not developed our Colorado oil reserves. * And the Canadian oil shale
reserves. *And the off-shore reserves.

The list goes on and on. *My father was in the energy business his whole
life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago. * He called it
the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although he predicted the
collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a decade or so.

You may wish to ponder this, Martin. *You're well protected from a backlash,
sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,
slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake up
to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think like
*you*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So I guess the huge increases in demand for oil from China and India
aren't responsible for the high price of oil? It's all because of
environmentalists? What happened to supply and demand?

If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to
supply 5% of the U.S. demand, they would last about 12 years. That's
hardly a real solution to the problem. The oil shale in Colorado
would be expensive to extract and refine. It's not going to yield
fuel that is cheaper than what we have today. Same goes for the
Canadian oil sands. They will yield oil, but not cheap oil.

And what about the problem of refining? That's the real bottleneck
on the fuel supply We have far fewer refineries now than we used to.
In 1982 we had 263 refineries in this country with a capacity of 17
million barrels a day. In 2002, we had only 159 refineries with a
capacity of about 17 million barrels a day. Same capacity, but higher
demand. As a result, we import a lot more refined fuel now, and when
one refinery goes down, it has a much larger impact. These were
existing, approved refineries that had regulatory approval that were
shut down. Most of this was due to consolidation in the oil industry,
leaving a total of only five large integrated oil companies. In 1993,
the largest five oil refiners controlled one-third of the U.S. market,
while the largest 10 had 56 percent. By 2005, the largest five
controlled 55 percent of the market, and the largest 10 refiners
dominate the market with over 80 percent market share. Consolidation
leads to a decrease in competition. Competition, according to most
conservatives I know, is supposed to be a good thing. Yet most
conservatives don't seem to be bothered at all by this wave of
consolidation in the oil industry.

I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Phil

"Phil J" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 7:59 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The affect
on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. The recent
run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
media-enhanced) recession.

Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now
being
spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
translating into terrible hardship for common folks.
snip
You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a
backlash,
sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,
slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake
up
to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think
like
*you*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So I guess the huge increases in demand for oil from China and India
aren't responsible for the high price of oil? It's all because of
environmentalists? What happened to supply and demand?

If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to
supply 5% of the U.S. demand, they would last about 12 years. That's
hardly a real solution to the problem. The oil shale in Colorado
would be expensive to extract and refine. It's not going to yield
fuel that is cheaper than what we have today. Same goes for the
Canadian oil sands. They will yield oil, but not cheap oil.
snip


I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Phil


Nicely said.

Happy landings

I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. They are all,
however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that are
abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.

Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of environmental red
tape that must be overcome. Now imagine building an OIL REFINERY. Ain't
gonna happen with the current set of rules.

If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":

1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental rules
prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all environmental
restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.

2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules prevent
new oil fields from being developed. As of now all environmental
restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all environmental
restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are lifted.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. From
this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial capacity of the
United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen distribution system to
replace our current gasoline distribution system, and all cars will be
powered by hydrogen. Source: http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our problems.
Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake our system
enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions that make
resolving our energy problems impossible.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":

1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all
environmental restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.

It's probably cheaper to "outsource" refining and ship only the refined
product into the country. Not sure why it matters that the refineries are
in the country where the refined products are consumed - you may as well
decree that some of the international oil fields be moved into the country
too since it makes about as much sense. ;-)

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
lifted.

Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...n6xZeeLKqBXnLg

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.

Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.

In article Jim Logajan writes:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
lifted.

Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...n6xZeeLKqBXnLg

2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably
be building 20 - 30 in California alone.

However:
California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
facilities.
Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html

We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.

[ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ]

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.

Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density
for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely.

Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.

Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
aircraft.

All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have
seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.

Alan

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article Jim Logajan
writes:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
lifted.

Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...n6xZeeLKqBXnLg

2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably
be building 20 - 30 in California alone.

However:
California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
facilities.
Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html

We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.

Very true. I don't know how much of the energy we are currently using from
out nuclear fuel, but there is certainly a tremendous resource remaining and
we should be using it as fully as we are able.

[ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ]

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.

Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density
for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely.

Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.

Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
aircraft.

All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have
seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.

Alan

My only dissagreement here is that I wonder whether extracting carbon from
the atmosphere is really necessary, or even usefull. There seems to be
evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increased plant
growth--and that means that plants will extract the CO2 for us, with no
polution nor industrial effort, and will yeild food and other products in
the process.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article Jim Logajan
writes:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants
are lifted.

Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...n6xZeeLKqBXnLg

2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should
probably
be building 20 - 30 in California alone.

However:
California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
facilities.
Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html

We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.

Very true. I don't know how much of the energy we are currently using
from out nuclear fuel, but there is certainly a tremendous resource
remaining and we should be using it as fully as we are able.

[ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses.
]

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the
hydrogen has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks
anyway on several counts - and your last decree will essentially
ground all small aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your
ultimate goal, I assume.

Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy
density
for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport
safely.

Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small
enough volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by
_lightly_ binding the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A
hydrocarbon.

Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
aircraft.

All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I
have
seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.

Alan

My only dissagreement here is that I wonder whether extracting carbon
from the atmosphere is really necessary, or even usefull. There seems
to be evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in
increased plant growth--and that means that plants will extract the
CO2 for us, with no polution nor industrial effort, and will yeild
food and other products in the process.

Yes, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere does lend itself to increased
plant growth. In fact,it's a bit of a mystery, or at least it has been a
bit of a mystery that all the CO2 we've produced over the last 200 years
hasn['t increased the carbon in the atmosphere as much as it should
have. The explanation is the rainforests. The increased CO2 in the
atmosphere has partly been absorbed by the rainforests, particularly the
Amazon. Sounds like a good thing, eh? Not neccesarily. The problem is
twofold. First, we're still cutting it down to beat the the band, lately
one of the main culpriots has been the thirst for biofuels. Indonesia
has been decimating its rainforests for land to grow crops for fuel for
the industrialised world. At the current rate, their forest will be
completely gone in a few more years. And of course, we're still chopping
it down for hardwoods and grazing lands as well. the bigger problem is,
the rainforests have had a fairly steady diet of CO2 for millenia and an
increase upsets the balance and may well result in a forst that grows so
quickly that it outstrips the nutrients in the soil and the result could
be desertification of the region or, at least a modification to
scrubland. Either way, no more rain forest and no more CO2 accumulator.





Bertie

Bertie