View Full Version : Sky High Av gas **** you off?
SOS[_3_]
June 2nd 08, 02:36 PM
"The Saudi Sycophants"
Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent
robber baron era of the 1800's have "We the People"
been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being
perpetrated on the American people by the Bush
Administration is the greatest crime we have known in nearly
one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called
the Federal reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
It's been a nasty battle of slow strangulation. . . OPEC
along with the Bush Administration sycophants in Washington
vs. the oil-consuming world. So far, OPEC and the Bush
sycophants have been winning, inflating the price of crude
oil from just $12.28 a barrel back in 1998, to it's recent
high of $132, a staggering rise of 974% in just 10 years. In
the last year alone, The Bush Administration and OPEC have
driven up the price of crude some 112%, from $62 a barrel in
May 2007.
Wake up America. Each time you fill up your tank the
buildings in Dubai grow taller and the Saudi family grows
richer. All being controlled by Saudi sycophants
headquartered in Houston. It's time we told the "House of
Saud" to go ride a camel. It's time America returns to
energy independence. It's time we shine a high beam on
Houston and the hidden oil corridors of....."The Saudi
Sycophants".It's time we use our own oil.
Based upon seismic data acquired last winter, Kodiak Energy
announced plans to proceed with a multi-well drilling
program in its Grandview Hills-Little Chicago EL413.
Kodiak's Little-Chicago is part of an area in northern
Alberta that geologists estimate contains up to 40 billion
barrels of crude oil. NOTE: I said crude oil not oil sands!
This is the lower-cost stuff that's pumped right out of
the ground. And just to put it in perspective, 40 billion
barrels is about 15% of all the oil in Saudi Arabia, or a
third of all the oil in Iran!
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/10/ndoil/
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090500275.html
cavedweller
June 2nd 08, 03:01 PM
On Jun 2, 9:36 am, SOS > wrote:
> "The Saudi Sycophants"
>
> Wake up America. .................It's time we use our own oil.
>
> Based upon seismic data acquired last winter, Kodiak Energy
> announced plans to proceed with a multi-well drilling
> program in its Grandview Hills-Little Chicago EL413.
>
> Kodiak's Little-Chicago is part of an area in northern
> Alberta that geologists estimate contains up to 40 billion
> barrels of crude oil. NOTE: I said crude oil not oil sands!
> This is the lower-cost stuff that's pumped right out of
> the ground. And just to put it in perspective, 40 billion
> barrels is about 15% of all the oil in Saudi Arabia, or a
> third of all the oil in Iran!
>
And the formal occupation begins when?
Robert M. Gary
June 2nd 08, 06:25 PM
On Jun 2, 6:36*am, SOS > wrote:
> "The Saudi Sycophants"
>
> Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent
> robber baron era of the 1800's have "We the People"
> been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being
> perpetrated on the American people by the Bush
> Administration is the greatest crime we have known in nearly
> one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
> Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called
> the Federal reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
Some of these statements would seem pretty compelling. Unfortunately I
have a masters degree in finance so I know better. It’s amazing how an
education in economics and finance can affect one's political
leanings. Its probably why schools try to avoid teaching economics to
high school students. It creates too many Republicans.
-Robert
SOS[_3_]
June 2nd 08, 06:31 PM
Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 2, 6:36 am, SOS > wrote:
>> "The Saudi Sycophants"
>>
>> Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent
>> robber baron era of the 1800's have "We the People"
>> been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being
>> perpetrated on the American people by the Bush
>> Administration is the greatest crime we have known in nearly
>> one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
>> Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called
>> the Federal reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
>
> Some of these statements would seem pretty compelling. Unfortunately I
> have a masters degree in finance so I know better. It’s amazing how an
> education in economics and finance can affect one's political
> leanings. Its probably why schools try to avoid teaching economics to
> high school students. It creates too many Republicans.
>
> -Robert
If you can justify High Oil, the IRS and the Federal Reserve
with your finance degree then I am all ears.
It is all a SCAM. Supply side economics which I am sure you
will speak of is crap.
If that was the case then the oil right here in America
would be pumped not shipped half way around the world
out of the middle east.
I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
energy??
Does the word MONOPOLY ring a bell????
SOS > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 6:36 am, SOS > wrote:
> >> "The Saudi Sycophants"
> >>
> >> Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent
> >> robber baron era of the 1800's have "We the People"
> >> been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being
> >> perpetrated on the American people by the Bush
> >> Administration is the greatest crime we have known in nearly
> >> one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
> >> Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called
> >> the Federal reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
> >
> > Some of these statements would seem pretty compelling. Unfortunately I
> > have a masters degree in finance so I know better. It?s amazing how an
> > education in economics and finance can affect one's political
> > leanings. Its probably why schools try to avoid teaching economics to
> > high school students. It creates too many Republicans.
> >
> > -Robert
> If you can justify High Oil, the IRS and the Federal Reserve
> with your finance degree then I am all ears.
> It is all a SCAM. Supply side economics which I am sure you
> will speak of is crap.
> If that was the case then the oil right here in America
> would be pumped not shipped half way around the world
> out of the middle east.
> I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
> shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
> Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
> energy??
> Does the word MONOPOLY ring a bell????
In between rants, look up the terms "light sweet crude", "OPEC", and
"EPA".
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Gig 601Xl Builder
June 2nd 08, 07:11 PM
SOS wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 6:36 am, SOS > wrote:
>>> "The Saudi Sycophants"
>>>
>>> Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent
>>> robber baron era of the 1800's have "We the People"
>>> been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being
>>> perpetrated on the American people by the Bush
>>> Administration is the greatest crime we have known in nearly
>>> one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
>>> Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called
>>> the Federal reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
>>
>> Some of these statements would seem pretty compelling. Unfortunately I
>> have a masters degree in finance so I know better. It’s amazing how an
>> education in economics and finance can affect one's political
>> leanings. Its probably why schools try to avoid teaching economics to
>> high school students. It creates too many Republicans.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> If you can justify High Oil, the IRS and the Federal Reserve with your
> finance degree then I am all ears.
>
> It is all a SCAM. Supply side economics which I am sure you will speak
> of is crap.
>
> If that was the case then the oil right here in America would be pumped
> not shipped half way around the world
> out of the middle east.
>
> I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than shipping
> that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
> Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and energy??
>
> Does the word MONOPOLY ring a bell????
So now that you have proved you are a racist idiot with your anti FAA
rants you are branching out into another feild to prove that you don't
know ****. I'll bet your parents are proud.
Robert M. Gary
June 2nd 08, 07:26 PM
On Jun 2, 10:31*am, SOS > wrote:
> I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
> shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
> Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
> energy??
A little knowledge is dangerous apparently. A couple things you are
not considering. First, the price for oil today is affected by the
futures contracts that are outstanding on it. Second, oil is not oil.
There are lots of different types of oil, some is better for different
types of gas. Yes, OPEC does affect the price (which sucks) but they
don't have total control in the world market. No oil company in the US
is rich enough to affect the price of gas, they are price takers, not
price setter. I have no idea what you mean by bringing Bush into this.
The President does not set the price of oil or gas contracts.
-Robert
Birdog
June 2nd 08, 07:50 PM
"SOS" > wrote in message
...
> "The Saudi Sycophants"
>
> Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent robber baron
> era of the 1800's have "We the People"
> been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being perpetrated on the
> American people by the Bush Administration is the greatest crime we have
> known in nearly one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
> Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called the Federal
> reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
Being stupid is a good alternative if you don't want to bother to actually
learn the facts. As is being an environmentalist. The first is cerebial; the
second is political. Eithor way, the result is the same.
NW_Pilot
June 2nd 08, 08:08 PM
Bush already slipped he and now the news refers to.... Our Centeral Bank?
Centeral Banks are Bad!!!
NW_Pilot
June 2nd 08, 08:12 PM
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 2, 10:31 am, SOS > wrote:
> I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
> shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
> Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
> energy??
A little knowledge is dangerous apparently. A couple things you are
not considering. First, the price for oil today is affected by the
futures contracts that are outstanding on it. Second, oil is not oil.
There are lots of different types of oil, some is better for different
types of gas. Yes, OPEC does affect the price (which sucks) but they
don't have total control in the world market. No oil company in the US
is rich enough to affect the price of gas, they are price takers, not
price setter. I have no idea what you mean by bringing Bush into this.
The President does not set the price of oil or gas contracts.
-Robert
But can sure help make his friends in the middle east money by restricting
production, refining, and alternatives! Refer to the 80's with the synthetic
fuel exploration and experimentation caused large drop in price.
On Jun 2, 1:55 pm, wrote:
> SOS > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > On Jun 2, 6:36 am, SOS > wrote:
[Bobbit-ized]
> In between rants, look up the terms "light sweet crude", "OPEC", and
> "EPA".
But there's only 24 hours in a day... where WILL he find the time? ;)
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Larry Dighera
June 2nd 08, 08:37 PM
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:50:55 -0400, "Birdog" > wrote in
>:
>Being stupid is a good alternative if you don't want to bother to actually
>learn the facts. As is being an environmentalist.
Catering to environmentalists may be more financially rewarding than
it is political. I look for photo voltaics to be the next dot-com
investment vogue. It sure seems to be working for this enterprising
fellow:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/chinas_richest.php
China’s Richest Man: A Solar Magnate
by Alex Pasternack, Beijing, China on 11.14.06
Last month, we reported that China’s (and the world’s) richest
woman built her wealth on recycling. In another sign of the
country’s shift from red to green, its wealthiest man (by some
estimates) is making a windfall on solar energy. While Shi
Zhengrong, the founder and CEO of Wuxi-based Suntech Power, is
known as the richest man on the mainland or just China’s
wealthiest energy magnate, his Australian citizenship means he
cannot hold the title of the richest Chinese man according to
Forbes (that just went to Huang Guangyu, an electronics
entrepreneur). But that's a technicality, and who’s counting
anyway?
What counts more are the waves Shi’s making in China. Since 2005,
when Shi’s Suntech became the first hi-tech Chinese company to
make an initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange, on
the strength of his business savvy and commitment to innovation,
the company’s revenue has zoomed to $226 million last year from
just $14 million in 2003 (it’s made $218 million so far this
year). These days, analysts count Suntech as one of the world’s
top ten producers of photo-voltaic (PV) cells, with a new U.S.
subsidiary and a dramatic cost advantage: its high-efficiency
solar modules go for $3.78 a watt, well below the average global
market price of $4.30. Shi’s story is a nice healthy reminder for
China and everyone else of the link between green innovation and
green backs, and proof of how fast solar energy is bounding out
from the fringes and into the sunlight.
Currently, most of Suntech’s solar cells are sent to the global
solar market, where demand has reached 5 gigawatts (the world can
only supply enough silicon to supply between 2.2 and 2.4 gigawatts
currently). But Suntech is making over half of China’s solar
panels, which are sometimes the only feasible energy option ...
http://www.suntech-power.com/
http://www.suntech-power.com/products/monocrystalline.php
http://www.suntech-power.com/products/cost_performance.php
Cost Performance
On average around the world, sunlight delivers a barrel of oil of
energy on every square meter of land every year. At $100 a barrel,
a 100m2 roof is receiving $10,000/yr of energy - a quarter of a
million dollars over 25 years. With photovoltaic systems we can
convert up to 20% of this raw energy directly into electricity.
Unlike traditional power sources whose economics depends on the
ever changing price of fuel, solar energy systems come with a 25
year guaranteed free fuel supply direct from the Sun. While
electricity prices are increasing all around the world, once you
have invested in a solar system you will have little or no
additional costs to pay.
Our building integrated (BIPV) modules are unique building
materials that generate revenue. When compared to other high
quality glazing and cladding materials, a BIPV system is extremely
reasonable. Many other glazing options can be comparable in cost,
while materials such as granite and marble are more expensive (and
produce no income stream!).
Gig 601Xl Builder
June 2nd 08, 09:00 PM
NW_Pilot wrote:
> Bush already slipped he and now the news refers to.... Our Centeral Bank?
>
> Centeral Banks are Bad!!!
>
>
>
The Fed has always been considered a "Central Bank" and there is nothing
bad about them. They are pretty much required in any economy large
enough to matter.
Gig 601Xl Builder
June 2nd 08, 09:01 PM
NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jun 2, 10:31 am, SOS > wrote:
>
>> I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
>> shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
>> Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
>> energy??
>
> A little knowledge is dangerous apparently. A couple things you are
> not considering. First, the price for oil today is affected by the
> futures contracts that are outstanding on it. Second, oil is not oil.
> There are lots of different types of oil, some is better for different
> types of gas. Yes, OPEC does affect the price (which sucks) but they
> don't have total control in the world market. No oil company in the US
> is rich enough to affect the price of gas, they are price takers, not
> price setter. I have no idea what you mean by bringing Bush into this.
> The President does not set the price of oil or gas contracts.
>
> -Robert
>
> But can sure help make his friends in the middle east money by restricting
> production, refining, and alternatives! Refer to the 80's with the synthetic
> fuel exploration and experimentation caused large drop in price.
>
>
The problems is we have no more refining capacity now than we did in the
80's.
NW_Pilot > wrote:
> But can sure help make his friends in the middle east money by restricting
> production, refining, and alternatives! Refer to the 80's with the synthetic
> fuel exploration and experimentation caused large drop in price.
Well, other than US consumption is a minor factor in the world price,
refining has nothing to do with the price of crude and alternatives
for crude oil are non-existant, sure.
How you explore for synthetic fuel? Break into someone's lab at night?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Gig 601Xl Builder
June 2nd 08, 09:09 PM
Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:50:55 -0400, "Birdog" > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Being stupid is a good alternative if you don't want to bother to actually
>> learn the facts. As is being an environmentalist.
>
> Catering to environmentalists may be more financially rewarding than
> it is political. I look for photo voltaics to be the next dot-com
> investment vogue.
It is only financially rewarding because it was made politically correct
to be an environmentalist.
"next dot-com investment vogue" you may be right but a lot of folks lost
a lot of money when that bubble burst.
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On average around the world, sunlight delivers a barrel of oil of
> energy on every square meter of land every year. At $100 a barrel,
> a 100m2 roof is receiving $10,000/yr of energy - a quarter of a
> million dollars over 25 years. With photovoltaic systems we can
> convert up to 20% of this raw energy directly into electricity.
Electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
This is just apples and oranges arm waving.
The other minor problem no one cares to address is that contrary to
what most people think, peak electricity demand is typically after
sundown.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Steve Foley
June 2nd 08, 09:30 PM
> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > On average around the world, sunlight delivers a barrel of oil of
> > energy on every square meter of land every year. At $100 a barrel,
> > a 100m2 roof is receiving $10,000/yr of energy - a quarter of a
> > million dollars over 25 years. With photovoltaic systems we can
> > convert up to 20% of this raw energy directly into electricity.
>
> Electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
>
But it could.
Homes can be heated with electricity.
Vehicles can be propelled with electricity (including GA aircraft - check
Boeing's recent announcement)
I don't know what size battery is required to hold enough energy to heat a
home all winter, but I know they're getting smaller. The Helios used a
hydrogen fuel cell to store electricity for night flight. The photo cells
powered electrolysis to separate Hydrogen from Water during the day. At
night, they passed the Hydrogen through a fuel cell membrane to generate
electricity.
Larry Dighera
June 2nd 08, 09:53 PM
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:09:25 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Catering to environmentalists may be more financially rewarding than
>> it is political. I look for photo voltaics to be the next dot-com
>> investment vogue.
>
>
>It is only financially rewarding because it was made politically correct
> to be an environmentalist.
Perhaps. But with the current record market prices for crude oil, you
can bet photo voltaics will become a lot more popular and attractive
to the general public as solar electricity becomes more competitive
with coal/natural gas/oil. While that won't directly relieve the
financial burden on pilots, in the long run it could reduce our
nation's dependency on petroleum based energy. That's got to be a
good thing for US independence from the whims of foreign nations as
well as being more environmentally friendly.
>
>"next dot-com investment vogue" you may be right but a lot of folks lost
>a lot of money when that bubble burst.
Doesn't that usually occur at the end of most of these popular
investment cycles?
Personally, I don't see the demand for energy slacking any time soon,
so I foresee a much longer investment cycle in the solar and wind
power marketplace.
SOS[_3_]
June 2nd 08, 09:56 PM
wrote:
> SOS > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 6:36 am, SOS > wrote:
>>>> "The Saudi Sycophants"
>>>>
>>>> Not since the Vanderbilt's and Carnegie's and their opulent
>>>> robber baron era of the 1800's have "We the People"
>>>> been controlled by "We the Few". The oil SCAM being
>>>> perpetrated on the American people by the Bush
>>>> Administration is the greatest crime we have known in nearly
>>>> one hundred years. It may only be surpassed by the Woodrow
>>>> Wilson Administration and his freedom robbing scam called
>>>> the Federal reserve along with it's evil spawn the IRS.
>>> Some of these statements would seem pretty compelling. Unfortunately I
>>> have a masters degree in finance so I know better. It?s amazing how an
>>> education in economics and finance can affect one's political
>>> leanings. Its probably why schools try to avoid teaching economics to
>>> high school students. It creates too many Republicans.
>>>
>>> -Robert
>
>> If you can justify High Oil, the IRS and the Federal Reserve
>> with your finance degree then I am all ears.
>
>> It is all a SCAM. Supply side economics which I am sure you
>> will speak of is crap.
>
>> If that was the case then the oil right here in America
>> would be pumped not shipped half way around the world
>> out of the middle east.
>
>> I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
>> shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
>> Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
>> energy??
>
>> Does the word MONOPOLY ring a bell????
>
> In between rants, look up the terms "light sweet crude", "OPEC", and
> "EPA".
>
>
Democrats(EPA and the Greenie's) + (Republicans and OPEC and
Big Oil) = SCAM on the American people
The Democrats don't do ****. The Republicans don't do ****
Why? It's a millionaires club and they don't give a ****
Caught in the middle is the vast majority being screwed dry
with no reach around. Wake up you are being F&CKed can't you
feel it??
For that bonehead screaming I am racist
I don't like Obama. I think he is a media clown Marxist
idiot who speaks a good game because most people have been
conditioned to kiss the black ass and they are enamored by
his "Black Dome". It is all a SCAM
Colin Powell is black and light years beyond Obama. But, the
crooks in Washington could not tie strings to Colin and make
him jump.
So,,,,, I guess I am racist. Guess what? I don't give a ****
"The Emperor has no clothes"
If many of you are wondering what this has to do with flying
it has a lot to do with flying. If Obama is elected we will
all be so poor and av gas will be so high private flying
will go extinct. The "Guvment" will have all the money and
they will **** it all away like they always do. (See FAA waste)
Go over to Europe and see how many private planes are
buzzing around the skies. NOT VERY MANY
Like I said. WAKE UP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
gatt[_5_]
June 2nd 08, 10:15 PM
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
Larry Dighera
June 2nd 08, 10:24 PM
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:15:02 GMT, wrote in
>:
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On average around the world, sunlight delivers a barrel of oil of
>> energy on every square meter of land every year. At $100 a barrel,
>> a 100m2 roof is receiving $10,000/yr of energy - a quarter of a
>> million dollars over 25 years. With photovoltaic systems we can
>> convert up to 20% of this raw energy directly into electricity.
>
>Electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
>
Perhaps not directly, but if the GM Volt* (and hybrid autos) is(are)
successful, the replacement of the current crop of gas guzzling SUVs
with alternatively powered automobiles could eventually impact oil
consumption in the US due, not only to their not using (as much)
petroleum, but also due to their increased efficiency (MPG). Add to
that the use of solar energy to fuel them, thus replacing/reducing the
current requirement for petroleum.
>This is just apples and oranges arm waving.
You've got to look beyond the obvious to appreciate how solar power
can impact oil consumption. If hybrid automobiles provide higher MPG
ratings, and solar power spins electric meters backwards, I would
anticipate petroleum consumption to be reduced. Don't you agree?
>
>The other minor problem no one cares to address is that contrary to
>what most people think, peak electricity demand is typically after
>sundown.
We are both California residents. As I recall, the rolling
blackouts** of the beginning of this century occurred during the day
primarily due to air conditioning loads. Are you able to cite any
statistics that support your assertion that "peak electricity demand
is typically after sundown?" I can see where illumination loads might
increase, but other loads should be significantly reduced at night,
IMO.
* http://gm-volt.com/
Q: How many miles per gallon will the Chevy Volt get?
A: A bit of a trick question. For the first 40 miles it will get
infinite mpg, because no gas will be burned. When the generator
starts, the car will get an equivalent of 50 mpg thereafter. One
can calculate the average mpg per for any length drive starting
with a full battery: Total MPG = 50xM/(M-40)
Q: What is the cost of operation of the car
A: With current average U.S. electric rates of ~10 cents/kwh it
should cost 80 cents to drive for the first 40 miles, and then 50
mpg thereafter using gasoline (market rate).
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout#California
Gezellig
June 2nd 08, 11:46 PM
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:56:59 -0400, SOS wrote:
> Guess what? I don't give a ****
nEITHER DO i.
*plonk*
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.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:15:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:
> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >> On average around the world, sunlight delivers a barrel of oil of
> >> energy on every square meter of land every year. At $100 a barrel,
> >> a 100m2 roof is receiving $10,000/yr of energy - a quarter of a
> >> million dollars over 25 years. With photovoltaic systems we can
> >> convert up to 20% of this raw energy directly into electricity.
> >
> >Electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
> >
> Perhaps not directly, but if the GM Volt* (and hybrid autos) is(are)
> successful, the replacement of the current crop of gas guzzling SUVs
> with alternatively powered automobiles could eventually impact oil
> consumption in the US due, not only to their not using (as much)
> petroleum, but also due to their increased efficiency (MPG). Add to
> that the use of solar energy to fuel them, thus replacing/reducing the
> current requirement for petroleum.
If and eventually are a long way away.
Roughly 40% of US vehicles are over 10 years old; factor that into
the projection of how long it will take before electric cars make
a difference in anything once they actually exist.
> >This is just apples and oranges arm waving.
> You've got to look beyond the obvious to appreciate how solar power
> can impact oil consumption. If hybrid automobiles provide higher MPG
> ratings, and solar power spins electric meters backwards, I would
> anticipate petroleum consumption to be reduced. Don't you agree?
Once again, electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
Spinning electric meters backwards won't reduce oil consumption.
> >The other minor problem no one cares to address is that contrary to
> >what most people think, peak electricity demand is typically after
> >sundown.
> We are both California residents. As I recall, the rolling
> blackouts** of the beginning of this century occurred during the day
> primarily due to air conditioning loads. Are you able to cite any
> statistics that support your assertion that "peak electricity demand
> is typically after sundown?" I can see where illumination loads might
> increase, but other loads should be significantly reduced at night,
> IMO.
Like I said, the reality is contrary to what most people think.
For about 9 months out of the year, peak electric demand occurs at
about 9PM and DST doesn't change that fact.
For about 3 months out of the year, i.e. the hot part, you get two
peaks, one at mid afternoon and another at about 9 PM.
Here's the current demand for California:
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Here's some historical data:
http://mail.specsol.com/~jimp/caiso.php
When the weather starts hitting around 80, the daytime hump picks
up.
When the weather starts hitting the 90's, the hump gets huge and
the blackouts occur.
This is consistant for all power producers in the first world and not
unique to either California or the United States.
So, how many solar plants can one put up before you have idle plants
for 8 to 9 months out of the year and where do you get power at night?
And once again, electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Perhaps. But with the current record market prices for crude oil, you
> can bet photo voltaics will become a lot more popular and attractive
> to the general public as solar electricity becomes more competitive
> with coal/natural gas/oil. While that won't directly relieve the
> financial burden on pilots, in the long run it could reduce our
> nation's dependency on petroleum based energy. That's got to be a
> good thing for US independence from the whims of foreign nations as
> well as being more environmentally friendly.
Non sequitur.
Electricity doesn't compete with oil and one has nothing to do with
the other in the existing, real world.
Coal is not oil and US coal comes from the US.
Natural gas is not oil and US natural gas comes from the US and Canada.
> Personally, I don't see the demand for energy slacking any time soon,
> so I foresee a much longer investment cycle in the solar and wind
> power marketplace.
Until the subsidies run out like last time.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Steve Foley
June 3rd 08, 12:49 AM
> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Electricity doesn't compete with oil and one has nothing to do with
> the other in the existing, real world.
>
> Coal is not oil and US coal comes from the US.
>
> Natural gas is not oil and US natural gas comes from the US and Canada.
>
I can use all of the above to heat my house. In the last 12 months, I spent
$2200 on natural gas. My sister-in-law heats with electricity.
For this purpose, they're interchangable.
I forget - Kalifornia isn't the real world.
Larry Dighera
June 3rd 08, 01:23 AM
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?
Larry Dighera
June 3rd 08, 01:53 AM
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:25:03 GMT, wrote in
>:
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:15:02 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >
>> >This is just apples and oranges arm waving.
>
>> You've got to look beyond the obvious to appreciate how solar power
>> can impact oil consumption. If hybrid automobiles provide higher MPG
>> ratings, and solar power spins electric meters backwards, I would
>> anticipate petroleum consumption to be reduced. Don't you agree?
>
>Once again, electricity has little to nothing to do with oil.
>
>Spinning electric meters backwards won't reduce oil consumption.
>
To the extent solar energy is used to power automobiles, I would
expect it to displace gasoline.
>
>For about 9 months out of the year, peak electric demand occurs at
>about 9PM and DST doesn't change that fact.
>
>For about 3 months out of the year, i.e. the hot part, you get two
>peaks, one at mid afternoon and another at about 9 PM.
>
>Here's the current demand for California:
>
>http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
>
>Here's some historical data:
>
>http://mail.specsol.com/~jimp/caiso.php
Many thanks for that. Indeed it seems that a very significant
proportion of the energy consumed occurs in the evening as you stated.
>
>When the weather starts hitting around 80, the daytime hump picks
>up.
>
>When the weather starts hitting the 90's, the hump gets huge and
>the blackouts occur.
>
>This is consistant for all power producers in the first world and not
>unique to either California or the United States.
>
>So, how many solar plants can one put up before you have idle plants
>for 8 to 9 months out of the year
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:
http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2008/03/27/businesswire20080327005373r1.html
Southern California Edison Launches Nation's Largest Solar Panel
Installation
03.27.08, 3:02 AM ET
Southern California Edison (SCE) today launched the nation's
largest solar cell installation, a project that will place 250
megawatts of advanced photovoltaic generating technology on 65
million square feet of roofs of Southern California commercial
buildings - enough power to serve approximately 162,000 homes.
"These are the kinds of big ideas we need to meet California's
long-term energy and climate change goals," said Governor
Schwarzenegger. "I urge others to follow in their footsteps. If
commercial buildings statewide partnered with utilities to put
this solar technology on their rooftops, it would set off a huge
wave of renewable energy growth."
"This project will turn two square miles of unused commercial
rooftops into advanced solar generating stations," said John E.
Bryson, Edison International chairman and CEO. "We hope to have
the first solar rooftops in service by August. The sunlight power
will be available to meet our largest challenge - peak load
demands on the hottest days."
SCE's renewable energy project was prompted by recent advances in
solar technology that reduce the cost of installed photovoltaic
gen...
The utility plans to begin installation work immediately on
commercial roofs in Southern California's Inland Empire, San
Bernardino and Riverside counties, the nation's fastest growing
urban region.
"These new solar stations, which we will be installing at a rate
of one megawatt a week, will provide a new source of clean energy,
directly in the fast-growing regions where we need it most," said
Bryson.
SCE sees numerous customer benefits from its new solar program,
among them locating the new generation in areas of growing
customer demand. And the clusters of solar modules SCE plans to
install will be connected directly to the nearest neighborhood
circuit, eliminating the need to build new transmission lines to
bring the power to customers. Additionally, solar units produce
the most power when customer usage is at its highest.
>and where do you get power at night?
>
Wind, geothermal, hydro, and all the conventional sources, I suppose.
>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.
Steve Foley > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > Electricity doesn't compete with oil and one has nothing to do with
> > the other in the existing, real world.
> >
> > Coal is not oil and US coal comes from the US.
> >
> > Natural gas is not oil and US natural gas comes from the US and Canada.
> >
> I can use all of the above to heat my house. In the last 12 months, I spent
> $2200 on natural gas. My sister-in-law heats with electricity.
> For this purpose, they're interchangable.
Yeah, so what?
Most building heat on the West side of the US is natural gas and has
been for about a half century.
You will be hard pressed to find any new construction (or within the
past couple of decades) that uses anything other than gas for building
heat in an area with a gas distribution system.
Using electricity for heat is a dumb idea unless you are getting
your power from the TVA for essentially nothing.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
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.
Larry Dighera
June 3rd 08, 03:03 AM
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.
Gig 601Xl Builder
June 3rd 08, 02:15 PM
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.
Larry Dighera
June 3rd 08, 03:16 PM
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
Steve Foley
June 3rd 08, 03:25 PM
> 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/energy-news/half-of-the-national-oil-consumption-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/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_prod.htm
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> 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
How poetic and utterly useless.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Steve Foley > wrote:
> > 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/energy-news/half-of-the-national-oil-consumption-is-gasoline
Not in the US; total US stationary use, which is everything that burns
oil and doesn't move, is less than 20% and falling.
Start here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/heating_brochure/heatbro.htm
Then go here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm
Then here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_prod.htm
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
SOS[_3_]
June 3rd 08, 05:33 PM
wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> 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
>
> How poetic and utterly useless.
>
>
"If you get your dick caught in your zipper you will
never forget to wear underwear again"
Now that's useful
SOS > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > How poetic and utterly useless.
> >
> >
> "If you get your dick caught in your zipper you will
> never forget to wear underwear again"
> Now that's useful
Much more useful.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
B A R R Y
June 3rd 08, 08:07 PM
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> 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
>
>How poetic and utterly useless.
Sorry you missed the message.
B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:45:03 GMT, wrote:
> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >How poetic and utterly useless.
> Sorry you missed the message.
Sorry you missed mathematics.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Tman
June 4th 08, 02:29 AM
wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> "No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the flood."
>> http://www.despair.com/ir.html
>
> How poetic and utterly useless.
Perhaps, but heygiven the price inelasticity of demand (and supply) that
is causing the recent serious uptick in oil prices, a 1% decline in
demand ought to well have significant impact on prices.
When it comes to supply and demand in the oil market, take note that it
is not the supply (amount of oil in the ground, as if there were ever a
way to quantify that), but rather the rate of supply (the rate that oil
can be pumped, refined, and delivered (oil products) with the current
infrastructure). Both that, and the demand curve have tremedous
short-run elasticity. That's why a small decrease of the gap between
supply rate and demand rate has a tremendous impact on prices in the
free market, a result that many view as paradoxical.
Anyways there are two pieces of good news in this.
First, is a small increase in supply rate, or a small decrease in demand
rate, ought to have a significant impact on price.
Second, I believe, and it is perhaps becoming more apparent, that the
long-run supply and demand is MUCH more elastic. Now I am not one that
believes that speculators are driving the oil price up, but I do see
another government bailout when they all get burned because they
underestimate the long-run elasticity of both the supply and demand
curves...
T
Tman
June 4th 08, 02:44 AM
wrote:
>
> 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.
Not sure where you got that number from, but it's more like 2% -- USA.
T
On Jun 2, 12:12 pm, "NW_Pilot" >
wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> On Jun 2, 10:31 am, SOS > wrote:
>
> > I can't see how shipping a product 8000 miles is better than
> > shipping that same product 300 miles. I just don't get it.
> > Tell me? How many choices do your REALLY have for gas and
> > energy??
>
> A little knowledge is dangerous apparently. A couple things you are
> not considering. First, the price for oil today is affected by the
> futures contracts that are outstanding on it. Second, oil is not oil.
> There are lots of different types of oil, some is better for different
> types of gas. Yes, OPEC does affect the price (which sucks) but they
> don't have total control in the world market. No oil company in the US
> is rich enough to affect the price of gas, they are price takers, not
> price setter. I have no idea what you mean by bringing Bush into this.
> The President does not set the price of oil or gas contracts.
>
> -Robert
>
> But can sure help make his friends in the middle east money by restricting
> production, refining, and alternatives! Refer to the 80's with the synthetic
> fuel exploration and experimentation caused large drop in price.
First Bush gets in trouble because all he wants to do is drill.
(Think ANWAR).
Now he gets in trouble because he is restricting everything.
I wish the anti-Bush folks would just pick a side of the fence and
stay on it!
The price of oil isn't controlled by Bush.
There are plenty of other reasons to be dissatisfied with Bush, as
with all of Congress as well. But this particular story is just bad.
tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> wrote:
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >> "No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the flood."
> >> http://www.despair.com/ir.html
> >
> > How poetic and utterly useless.
> Perhaps, but heygiven the price inelasticity of demand (and supply) that
> is causing the recent serious uptick in oil prices, a 1% decline in
> demand ought to well have significant impact on prices.
If everyone in the US converted their oil heat to something else, I doubt
it would result in anywhere near a 1% world-wide drop in consumption, but
I'd have to do the numbers.
Besides summer is coming and people are starting to shut off the heat.
Do you see any decline in prices?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> Not sure where you got that number from, but it's more like 2% -- USA.
> T
The number is the guy's personal percentage of US oil usage for heat.
Read the post.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
On Jun 2, 1:15 pm, wrote:
> The other minor problem no one cares to address is that contrary to
> what most people think, peak electricity demand is typically after
> sundown.
That would depend on where you live, and the time of year. I suppose
one could take into account some sort of national average, but I don't
see the purpose there.
Here in Phoenix, the summer afternoons have the air conditioners all
running like mad, and they are a big hitter. I expect it's worst at
about 5PM, when everyone comes home and cranks the suckers to the max
(if they've reduced the requirement during the day on an empty
house). Lights come on as it gets dark, but people go to bed not
too long after that.
Now, if you're talking about coastal California, where AC isn't really
a big issue, I'd agree.
Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> From:
> >Have you any idea what the milage of an eighteen wheeler is?
> Yea, I do.
> And if you think one burns 500 gal in a day, you don't.
And local delivery, which what was being disussed is the worst possible
situation for mileage with most of the driving done in stop and start
traffic and lots of time spent at idle during deliveries.
It may be a bit more than 1 days worth of fuel for such a truck, but
not many more.
> >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.
> But 20% is a significant number.
What part of less than 20% and falling is TOTAL stationary are you
failing to grasp?
Residential heating is a small percentage of the 20%.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
wrote:
> On Jun 2, 1:15 pm, wrote:
> > The other minor problem no one cares to address is that contrary to
> > what most people think, peak electricity demand is typically after
> > sundown.
> That would depend on where you live, and the time of year. I suppose
> one could take into account some sort of national average, but I don't
> see the purpose there.
It depends on the time of year, but not where you live.
The pattern is the same in the State of California and the Province
of Ontario, and anywhere else you care to look.
I've already posted references for this elsewhere in the thread; read
them.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Jay Honeck[_2_]
June 4th 08, 02:44 PM
> Its probably why schools try to avoid teaching economics to
> high school students. It creates too many Republicans.
Good one!
:-)
Unfortunately, I haven't met too many Republican politicians lately who
understand anything about economics, either. Both parties now exist in a
never-never land of entitlements and wishful thinking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Cubdriver
June 7th 08, 10:57 PM
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:08:55 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote:
>Centeral Banks are Bad!!!
Your spelling is Worse.
(Or should that be Worser?)
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.