$98 per barrel oil

wrote in :

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are
incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the
borrowing involved.


Bertie

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Gig,

So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater

Jeeze, guys, I thought you came from the land of the free and all.
Can't we have an interesting discussion about this without throwing
personal insults? Kind of degrades your arguments if you start doing
that as soon as someone ventures a different opinion.

You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement
above. And it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of
you, too ;-)



I don't know you at all except for what you have wrtitten here. Your posts
when they are aviation related are ususally right on. But give you the
slight opening for a chance to make a negative comment about the US and you
jump on it every time. That is my definition of knee-jerk.



...the Interior Ministry said on
Monday.

Gee, I guess that's a truly objective and trustworthy source who
would have nothing to gain from coming to that conclusion, right?

Reuters is anti-american enough for you? How about this.

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Gig,

Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.


Oh?

Let's see:

a) number of nukes dropped by nuclear-armed, (considered by some to
be) radical christian states
b) number of nukes dropped by nuclear-armed, (considered by others to
be) radical islamic states

This is fun!

A] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical christian states when
there isn't a military target to be seen?

B] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical islamic states when
there isn't a military target to be seen?

You're right it is.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are
incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the
borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.

The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total
life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly
derived.

The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making
the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include
the borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.



The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total
life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly
derived.


Nope.



The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.


But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it.


Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you
can keep them.


Bertie

Jay Honeck writes:

The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
fights an international, religiously-driven war.

There isn't any such war.

The rules of war, so
cut and dried when everyone agrees to wear different-colored uniforms,
behind a flag, get pretty fuzzy when one side hides behind women and
children, and doesn't identify themselves until they pop up holding an
RPG.

The safety of democracy, when the rules of war are cut and dried, is put in
grave danger when the rules become fuzzy and indistinct and demogogues claim
to be the only individuals qualified to recognize war when they see it.

This war is quite different from past wars.

Yes: It's imaginary, and the illusion exists only to serve the ends of
political leaders.

Thanks to instant worldwide communication national boundaries mean little. Radical
Islamicists span the globe, and carry on the fight without regard to
nationality.

Radical Muslims are such a small percentage of the world population that they
do not merit a mention. And there are equal numbers of other radicals
carrying out their aggression in the name of other religions.

For the first time in history, an enemy is capable
(thanks to this wonderful internet) of carrying on a global war
without any kind of traditional force structure.

There is no global war.

This means that the enemy can be literally *anywhere* -- truly a
chilling thought.

Especially when you consider how this is the method used again and again by
political leaders throughout history to convert free societies into
dictatorships. Remember what Göring said at Nuremburg?

Gitmo is a POW camp, and POWs are released when the war ends.

It's a concentration camp, and there is no war.

With one side so diffuse, and no one empowered to sign surrender papers,
how do you tell when the war is "over"? Your guess is as good as
mine.

You don't. You pretend that the "war" continues forever, as an excuse to
maintain and augment an ever-growing police state. One day you're "at war"
with Eurasia, and the next you're "at war" with Eastasia.

The "enemy" seems diffuse because it doesn't exist. But the advantage of
having a diffuse "enemy" is that nobody can prove that it doesn't exist, and
so "wars" can be continued forever.

How can we address the diffuse nature of the enemy?

We can't. We should instead insist on a clear identification of the "enemy,"
and a formal declaration of war, if required, with criteria that will
unambiguously identify a win or loss of that war. It has worked throughout
history, and it still works today.

Aside from the removal of Saddam, one of the main purposes of the
invasion of Iraq was to concentrate the opposition in one place,
under the "flag" of Jihad.

The main motivation for the invasion of Iraq was a child's desire to take
revenge for embarrassment of his father.

Like flies to ****,
the terrorists squandered their one true advantage by geographically
concentrating themselves so that a traditional military could defeat
them.

The U.S. has practiced some of the worst foreign policy in history since Bush
was elected. As a result, it is creating "terrorists" where none existed
before. Almost all the goodwill that the U.S. has ever accumulated has been
destroyed by the current President's egregiously incompetent management of
foreign affairs.

It also may illustrate that the enemy has finally realized that all
they really have to do is wait till November 2008, and they will be
able to march into the Green Zone unopposed. Much like the Viet Cong
in 1974, all they have to do is wait for the US to retreat.

The sooner, the better. The U.S. has no place in Iraq, and has many problems
that it needs to solve at home.

Not that I would expect you to appreciate or understand the often
subtle nature of this worldwide conflict, but you really need to think
a LITTLE before you post. The issues are never as cut and dried as
you apparently believe.

What I see is that Göring was right.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.

Really? How? The Inquisition?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

A] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical christian states when
there isn't a military target to be seen?

About 250,000.

B] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical islamic states when
there isn't a military target to be seen?

About fifty times less.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
fights an international, religiously-driven war.

There isn't any such war.



What's it matter to you? You'll never leave your bedroom


bertie

Back on topic, the future of the USA is coal as the main source of
energy... WIth some 200 years supply on hand, once oil hits some
magic figure, say $300/bbl, those who's main concern is global
warming, pollution and environmental protection will find themselves
shouted down in the halls of congress by the majority (it is a
representational democracy after all) who want warm houses and their
porn movies at an affordable price...
Cars will become electric for town with 300 miles being the norm for
range
(attainable right now in very small/light vehicles, much as 300 is
the normal range for my 4X4 truck)
and only use big vehicles burning expensive hydrocarbon fuels for the
vacation and special events - with these big cars being rented or time
share owned -
We will begin small steps back into light electric rail in the heavily
populated urban corridors sorrounding the big cities...
It is good we have the highway system as we let the railroad right of
ways get away... The rail systems will begin using the turn pike
centers as the new rail system... And it is efficient because the
turnpikes now go where we want to go, whereas the old rail right of
ways no longer go where the population wants...
House will begin shrinking after the bloat of the past 30 years...
And on....


A few years back, roughly 3, I said in these forums that oil would be
$100 within 5 years and I was snickered at... I now admit I was
wrong .... it is sooner...

denny