BoatBanter.com - Why we can't have good things

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:01:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:10:44 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:20:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:39:22 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:20:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:52:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:32:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:17:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote:

So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per
year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help
the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what
you're claiming? Nice try.

When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy"
like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be
spending that money anyway.
The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct
payments or tax credits

So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable.

The problem with these "oil subsidies" is that the detractors are
calling a lot of things a subsidy that are clearly not. "Defending
shipping lanes"? Get real.

Feel free to identify those costs that are specificially targeted
toward big oil. Those can be eliminated??

So you think the US would allow terrorists to close a major shipping
lane important to the US if there was no oil?

Huh? What does this have to do with subsidies to big oil?

It has everything to do with it when people start expanding the scope
of an oil subsidy out to the pentagon budget.

Ok. So, where do YOU think it should end? Why shouldn't part of the
subsidy that includes pentagon expenses be a factor? Don't they count
for something? Wouldn't the price to the pentagon be less if we
weren't being charged more than we needed to be?

The pentagon is not an oil subsidy any more than the pentagon
subsidizes Kias and Samsung..

Please show me where I said the pentagon was an oil subsidy. I said
pentagon expenses for oil is above what it would be without oil
subsidies. Try again.

When you look at the subsidies for wind and solar you also need to
look at how much electricity is actually being produced per subsidy
dollar. That is when the numbers really start to soar.

No, that's not necessarily correct. When oil first came around, not
much in the way of electricity was being generated. It takes a while.
Are you disputing that wind/solar can cover a lot of our energy needs?
If so, try doing some research.

Solar only works in the day and wind only works when and where the
wind is blowing. We need power 24x7 so you still need a 24x7
infrastructure. The only thing you are saving is fuel cost.

Clearly, you know very little about the technology or how it would be
used. Being deliberately stupid again?

Do you know of a solar panel that works at night or a wind turbine
that works when the wing isn't blowing? Nobody has a working storage
scheme for power on the grid scale. They even abandoned the idea of
storage in residential systems if the grid is available.

Germany is such a failure. And, they have so much sunshine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Do you seriously believe that our energy use can't be significantly
enhanced and our oil consumption reduced by wind/solar????

Yup and the Germans pay about 60 euro cents per KWH. What do you pay?

Well, that's an amazingly good question!

http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/...-of-crude/2730

There is an interesting article in this month's Scientific American
(Apr 2013) about the EROI on the tar sands. It says the tar sands are
not really that efficient because of all of the processing costs but
when you actually look at these "costs" it is mostly "jobs" for people
in North America. I can see why Canada is pushing it. They also
stretch this cost thing to the limit, even including roads, food and
the schools for the worker's kids in the price of the oil.
At a certain point, isn't that the definition of an economy?

Canadian jobs? Not much in the way of US jobs. Is it worth the spill
and pollution potential? No. How long will it take? Years.

The Keystone will create some jobs and the refineries in the South
will have a lot of jobs.

Untrue. Citation please and don't quote a big oil funded think tank.

That pipeline is going to build itself? Those refineries are run by
robots? The oil ports where we will be exporting this oil will not
have any longshoremen?
OK.

And, when it's done being build? What refineries? We already have the
refineries. How many more do we need? How long will it take to get
everything running? Years. Longshoreman? Union workers? Oh ****!
How many more are required to have oil piped onto ships?

More than there are now.

Yes. How many more? Thousands, tens of thousands, or maybe a couple of
hundred. Still waiting for your brilliance to shine through the
bull****.