Sky High Av gas **** you off?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:55:02 GMT, wrote in
:

Steve Foley wrote:
wrote in message
...

Electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.


But it could.

And if frogs had built in parachutes they could land softly instead of
banging their butts so hard when they land, but they don't.

So you are unable to mount a factual rebuttal argument?

The fact is that right now in the real world electricity has little to
nothing to do with oil.

The fact is that right now in the real world there is nothing generally
available to replace hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.

If, could, should, might, and someday don't count in the real here
and now.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:55:02 GMT, wrote in
:

If, could, should, might, and someday don't count in the real here
and now.

Change is inevitable.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:25:03 GMT, wrote in
:


To the extent solar energy is used to power automobiles, I would
expect it to displace gasoline.

You can expect it all you want, but since there is no generally
available such thing in the real world right now, spinning electric
meters backwards won't reduce oil consumption.


I see no reason for idle solar generating facilities located in the
Mojave Desert during any part of the year. However, it appears that
SoCal Edison prefers solar generation occur a little closer to where
its needed:

If you build more capacity than the annual daily average, the facility
will be idle.

What do you do with electricity for which there is no demand?

Electricity in large amounts doesn't store that well. The only thing
that works is to pump water uphill when you have an excess and run
it back downhill through turbines later.

That takes lots of land that is significantly uphill to pull off.

And of course Edison is going to avoid the enourmous expense of
installing and maintaining transmission lines while they suck the
well of subsidies dry if they can.

Wind, geothermal, hydro, and all the conventional sources, I suppose.

The conventional sources are hydro, coal, nuclear, and natural gas
in no particular order.

And once again, electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.

To the extent it can be made to replace petroleum products, I believe
it does.

That extent in today's real world is basically zero.

Wish all you want.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:55:02 GMT, wrote in
:

If, could, should, might, and someday don't count in the real here
and now.

Change is inevitable.

True, but you may not like which direction it goes nor does that
have anything to do with here and now today.

Inevitably the sun will burn out.

It is not inevitable that we will ever be able to store electricity
with the same energy density as hydrocarbons (in either volume or
weight) and quite likely to prove to be impossible.

And don't waste my time babbling about "super capacitors".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From:

Once again, electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.

Well, If I heated my house with electricity, I'd be buying roughly
500 gal less #2 oil each year. (#2 oil and diesel are virtually identical)

That's .0000066% of US oil usage; that's going to make a big dent.

The truck that delivered the carrots to your grocery store uses more
than that every day.

Only a small segment of the US uses "oil" for heating these days.

Once again, electricity has LITTLE to nothing to do with oil.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

gatt wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

It is only financially rewarding because it was made politically
correct to be an environmentalist.

Depends on where you live and the specific issues. There are more types
and degrees of environmentalists out here as there are states in the union.

-c

I have to disagree with you here. Pretty much everywhere in the US,
including the oil producing and processing states it is politically
correct to be an environmentalist right now.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:15:02 GMT, wrote in
:

That's .0000066% of US oil usage; that's going to make a big dent.

"No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the flood."
http://www.despair.com/ir.html

wrote in message
...


Only a small segment of the US uses "oil" for heating these days.


Ths only reference I found said home heating oil accounts for 25% of the
crude consumption. see
http://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/e...on-is-gasoline

On Jun 3, 1:40 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From:

That's .0000066% of US oil usage; that's going to make a big dent.

Now, multiply that by (roughly) 65% of the homes in Mass.

The truck that delivered the carrots to your grocery store uses more
than that every day.

Then that truck REALLY needs a tune-up.

Only a small segment of the US uses "oil" for heating these days.

But those that do, live where it's kinda cold.
Miami, FL has 173 degree-days.
Pittsfield, MA (the town closest to me that I have quickly available data for)
has 7694 degree-days.

I'd bet you'll find a LOT more oil burners in Pittsfield.

A fellow Masshole

I rent in "MALDY" and we had some nasty days, but it could have been a
lot worse. Oil was out of control this past winter at around
$380/100gals., up from the low 200's the prior year. WI just don't
know if it's going to be worth another season, if prices keep rising.
Just one bad winter is all it would take...

Keyspan has some kind of rebate going if you convert to Gas, so I'm
trying to sell the landlord on going for it, given there's already a
feed for the stove.

In a related story, I saw an interesting article on Plasma
Gasification (Refuse In - Syngas Out) An artist's rendition of the
unit reminded of Back To The Future There's a ton of links out
there, but here's a quickie:

http://www.recoveredenergy.com/d_plasma.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBSET/y5MoscYxZNI5AQEChQQAhRwkZqxhqYaUnMwzlvKSWTiZOQVKQe Xv
KVhwLDZSAxVl3fuINbD7vSE+GVC0qzWk5mbGHBKjZA0PHFdmhz avl7ucL2pUg2vh
jQWBT/ITbeN27zGb8FK7HVs/gNnDOKVr2f8OP8X20xOINJ7pIwgs+y1NpreawrNO
BOpqA/Oj/m8=
=MmTJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Regards,
Jon

Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From:

That's .0000066% of US oil usage; that's going to make a big dent.

Now, multiply that by (roughly) 65% of the homes in Mass.

OK, that shaves off a zero or two.

The truck that delivered the carrots to your grocery store uses more
than that every day.

Then that truck REALLY needs a tune-up.

Have you any idea what the milage of an eighteen wheeler is?

Only a small segment of the US uses "oil" for heating these days.

But those that do, live where it's kinda cold.
Miami, FL has 173 degree-days.
Pittsfield, MA (the town closest to me that I have quickly available data for)
has 7694 degree-days.

I'd bet you'll find a LOT more oil burners in Pittsfield.

Yeah, there is still a lot of it in the North East.

I'm not arguing that, I'm argueing that when you look at the US as whole,
oil burners are in the minority.

According to DOE, about 7.5% of US homes use heating oil.

In the US, the percentage of oil used for stationary uses, which includes
residential, commercial, industrial, and electricity generation, is
less than 20% of the total and falling every year.

See this graph:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p..._cons_prod.htm



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.