On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:06:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:39:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:58:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:51:08 -0400, wrote:


It is running a $85 billion dollar deficit and no plan to fix it,. How
is that not an immediate problem?


$85B? Why does that number sound familiar? I know, I know. It's the
big oil subsidy. Eliminate that, and we're good to go. What's more
important, big oil getting money it doesn't need or people getting
their Social Security? Hmmmm....

Cite that.

I lied. $52B in direct subsidized costs, plus $1.6T in related costs
of the fossil fuel industry.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

... or $10B

"In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel
subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually,"

Nice cherry picking tho.



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.

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

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:52:45 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:06:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:39:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:58:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:51:08 -0400, wrote:


It is running a $85 billion dollar deficit and no plan to fix it,. How
is that not an immediate problem?


$85B? Why does that number sound familiar? I know, I know. It's the
big oil subsidy. Eliminate that, and we're good to go. What's more
important, big oil getting money it doesn't need or people getting
their Social Security? Hmmmm....

Cite that.

I lied. $52B in direct subsidized costs, plus $1.6T in related costs
of the fossil fuel industry.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

... or $10B

"In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel
subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually,"

Nice cherry picking tho.



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. Good god you're
so amazingly either right wing crazy or deliberately stupid just so
you can "win" the argument in your little brain (because you can't
"win" the argument with anyone who spends more than five minutes
looking up the actual facts).

On 4/4/2013 2:00 AM, wrote:


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.

Complete bull****... Solar pollutes way more than fraking. Look at
China, near the manufacturing plants.

In article ,
says...

On 4/4/2013 2:00 AM, wrote:


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.

Complete bull****... Solar pollutes way more than fraking. Look at
China, near the manufacturing plants.

Prove that statement, idiot. You really shouldn't get your science from
FOX.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:23:40 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 4/4/2013 2:00 AM, wrote:


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.

Complete bull****... Solar pollutes way more than fraking. Look at
China, near the manufacturing plants.

You are an ignoramus. And, I'm being generous. I used a big word.

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??

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.

The actual solar panel is not producing pollution but the process of
making them is very dirty, labor intensive and expensive. We don't see
a lot of that because they are polluting China to build most of them
with cheap Chinese labor.

Depends on the technology being used. Is oil dirty? What's the cost of
producing it.... oh yeah, the Gulf oil spill.

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.

For electricity generation
The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being
worse.
Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are
blowing them up.

The numbers are
Hydro 40+
Wind 20
Coal 18
Nat gas 7
Solar 6
Nukes 5

We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from
coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar.

Looking at liquid fuels
It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an
arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an
industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil
from California at 4.

They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the
ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and
burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on
carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems
that exist nowhere else on earth.
In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow
and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or
the bayou where most of our sugar comes from)

Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about
billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try.

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?


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?


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.


How come nobody talks about how long it will take to build a renewable
energy system?

I thought such a think couldn't work because solar only works during
the day and wind only when it blows? Oh yeah, you're just bsing again.

For electricity generation
The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being
worse.
Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are
blowing them up.

The numbers are
Hydro 40+
Wind 20
Coal 18
Nat gas 7
Solar 6
Nukes 5

We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from
coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar.

Looking at liquid fuels
It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an
arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an
industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil
from California at 4.

They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the
ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and
burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on
carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems
that exist nowhere else on earth.
In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow
and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or
the bayou where most of our sugar comes from)

Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about
billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try.

I am in favor of dropping ALL of the energy subsidies but that would
be the end of the renewables.
Oil and gas still get a tiny part of it

http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...-Subsidies.png

Thus, you didn't read what I wrote. Oil got subsidies in the
beginning, as should wind/solar. Oil doesn't need it any more.

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?


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????


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?


How come nobody talks about how long it will take to build a renewable
energy system?

I thought such a think couldn't work because solar only works during
the day and wind only when it blows? Oh yeah, you're just bsing again.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. You are talking about how
long it will take to get Canadian oil online and I asked how long it
will take to get any significant amount of wind and solar online.

How long will it take to get Canadian oil online? Can't answer the
question? The answer is years.


http://www.gizmag.com/us-solar-produ...icture/123000/
http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_sol...rgy_production
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/w...d_capacity.asp


For electricity generation
The EROI on solar PV is second to last, only having nuclear being
worse.
Best is hydro but you can't build a dam in this country. We are
blowing them up.

The numbers are
Hydro 40+
Wind 20
Coal 18
Nat gas 7
Solar 6
Nukes 5

We get 160 times as much power from gas and 290 times as much from
coal as we do solar. Wind is about 10x solar.

Looking at liquid fuels
It really gets ugly when you look at corn ethanol. They set an
arbitrary EROI of 5-9 "required for the basic functions of an
industrial society" and ethanol comes in at 1.4, far behind heavy oil
from California at 4.

They seem to like sugar cane ethanol (9) but they ignore the
ecological cost of that. The Brazilians are filling wet lands and
burning the rain forest to grow sugar. That has a worse effect on
carbon than just about anything man does and it destroys ecosystems
that exist nowhere else on earth.
In the US we really do not have that many places where sugar will grow
and most of them are environmentally sensitive (like the Everglades or
the bayou where most of our sugar comes from)

Blah, blah... stats that don't mean anything. We're talking about
billions in subsidies to oil companies that don't need them. nice try.

I am in favor of dropping ALL of the energy subsidies but that would
be the end of the renewables.
Oil and gas still get a tiny part of it

http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...-Subsidies.png

Thus, you didn't read what I wrote. Oil got subsidies in the
beginning, as should wind/solar. Oil doesn't need it any more.

I read what you wrote, you said oil was getting massive subsidies.

I would be OK with cutting them out totally. That still does not mean
the Iranians should be able to shut down the straights of Hormuz.

Huh? Iran the boogie man? Sort of like McCain's bomb, bomb, bomb iran
only catchyier

The reality is, subsidies had nothing to do with the development of
oil in the beginning. Rockefeller and Carnegie did just fine without
the government.

Nope. Read up:
http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-...215500548.html

Most of the subsidies came about to make US developed oil more
competitive with middle east oil. The Nixon, Ford and Carter
administration were the driving force behind this after we had the
supply troubles in the 70s.
They traded direction subsidies on new production for tougher rules
that virtually eliminated the old oil depletion allowance as they knew
it. (Ford)

What the **** does this have to do with removing them? Nothing. You're
just blowing the same smoke.

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****.