All Hank, all the time.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
ETA: "kooing"? Is it your view that things are going just swimmingly, and that we don't need to be concerned with oil dependency or global warming or anything else? That we should just continue eliminating government interference in the energy markets* by, say, eliminating the CAFE standards instead of making them more rigorous?

oil dependence - no
global warming - I'm still not sold (a) that 's it's happening outside normal fluctuations that have appeared from time to time in the earth's history and (b) that the magnitude of the problem if it is happening is as scarry as we are being told - (see year 2000 problem, eg)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
........However, ................. However,...........

However. In the meaning nevertheless, not to come first in its sentence or clause.


Poor:

• The roads were almost impassable. However, we at last succeeded in reaching camp.

Better:

• The roads were almost impassable. At last, however, we succeeded in reaching camp.

When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent.

• However you advise him, he will probably do as he thinks best.
  However discouraging the prospect, he never lost heart.

http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk3.html

I just think a reader might be more inclined to believe you are aware of ownership of multi-national petroleum companies if you evidence a basic understanding of traditional rules of grammar.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed, but the same crowd that is kooing about global warming and oil dependency is also blocking new nuke building.

Isn't that what Iran is advocating?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. Interesting note, that many petrologists are giving serious credence to the thesis that the Saudis have far smaller reserves than we think. They may no longer have the ability to throttle down the price by seriously bumping production.

B. You do realize that this was all tongue in cheek, right? I just figured that, if we're all dumb enough to take seriously politicians whose response to rising gasoline prices is "let's send them a $100 check", then this would also count as serious discourse.

A. Yes, I'm aware of that. Saudi has been incredibly secretive about its reserves so it's all guesswork. But there is certainly cause for concern about the accuracy of their statements.

Reserves and production capacity are not really the same thing, though. Even if Saudi reserves are as high as they claim, they are producing at close to full capacity right now, because of the surge in demand over the past couple of years. So their ability to cut prices is pretty low right now.

B. I don't take the "C-Note for everyone" pander as serious energy policy and didn't think you did either. I thought you were talking more generally. Next time add some emoticons as a helpful guide?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hydrogen cells work off of water. Their emissions are called "steam." Solar is too expensive and cumbersome to make the effort to power vehicles with it. However, anybodywho has ever had a solar calculator should be able to intuit that the technology can be made to work on a small scale. Maybe at $8/gallon, it will become cost-efficient to finally get serious with solar.

I don't think we're ever going to be able to comletely wean ourselves from hydrocarbons. But as the resource becomes more expensive (and more dangerous to obtain) we will see more applications of renewaable resource technology. And the majors will probably be at the forefront of bringing them to us.

Solar power for producing electricity, which may be used to charge a car battery, is completely different than solar power used on an actual car. The latter is fantasy. The former is developing and, I believe, may be viable in the next decade. It requires two developments:

1. Plug-in hybrids, rather than the current form. Hybrid cars now charge their battery from the car itself (from the motion of the wheels, or some such... I forget.) You don't plug a hybrid in, and they don't give you that option. (Though there are people who will alter a hybrid for you to allow for this.... the mfrs don't recommend it.)

2. Cheaper solar power. This is happening and has been for some time. The hope is that we get to the "Moore's law" point of doubling power every 18 months.

no, I don't have a hybrid car; I tested one but at the time they didn't have enough power to deal with SF hills. I am considering solar power, which I think would be a cost-benefit for my home given our electricity use and sun exposure.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hydrogen cells work off of water. Their emissions are called "steam."

Actually, their emissions are usually just liquid water. Which can be recycled into more hydrogen. Hydrogen cells make great batteries, essentially, but you still have to have an original source of energy to create the hydrogen.

Solar could be one of those sources, with no real need to miniturize (but definitely the need to make more efficient).

One advantage of hydrogen is that it can potentially be generated out in the middle of nowhere (assuming you can find water) - which happens to be some of the best places to put solar and wind facilities.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

I just think a reader might be more inclined to believe you are aware of ownership of multi-national petroleum companies if you evidence a basic understand of traditinoal rules of grammar.

<eom>

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Serious question, Hank.

You believe that Clinton should have done something more to attack al Qaeda, and that because he didn't 9/11 is his fault -- right?

I will ignore your typical attack-slur, and attempt to answer your laundry list of questions.

I believe clinton is at least more at fault than bush, but I feel casting blame at either is unfair- it was too unpredictible. My post was in response to a post from numbskull that showed gas prices rising sharply since 9/11. ole no brains then made the conclusion that Clinton sure could manage gas prices. i was simply pointing out that it seems 9/11 might well have been the cause of change in gas price, although certainly including the President's responses.

What do you think he should have done?

Were any Republicans calling for him to do whatever that is?

I don't know that he could possibly have envisioned what would happen, and i think we were all lazy and comfortable- sure embassies were blown up- but they were over there. i do think he should have killed/taken OBL BEFORE he left Africa, but of course Ty can cite a blog that will say that was never offered, so probably bill did not have that opportunity.

i think once we knew AQ was involved in the Embassy bombings AND that they were in partnership with the Taliban he should have exercised extreme arm twisting to outright helping the various rebels fighting the Taliban. He did see fit to blow up a hill- why not do something that might be more effective?

As to whether republican senators were calling for more, just remember the President knows more than them- you can't make your Bush lied argument otherwise.

Did Bush propose that during the 2000 campaign?

And if the threat was so clear and so obvious as you seem to think, why didn't Bush do anything about it during his first 8 months in office?

Takes time to get going, but I thought the basic structure of helping the rebels that was used was in a plan on Rice's desk just before 9/11.

I mean these as serious questions, though I doubt you'll give straight answers.

in the 4 years or so i have been reading your posts i have not once seen you benefit from this hate you toss about so lightly. why not try to engage in discourse at a higher level?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My post was in response to a post from numbskull that showed gas prices rising sharply since 9/11. ole no brains then made the conclusion that Clinton sure could manage gas prices. i was simply pointing out that it seems 9/11 might well have been the cause of change in gas price, although certainly including the President's responses.

For you to have a chance with Eva, you need to learn to read a graph.

The price actually dipped after 9/11. It then rose in the run-up to the invasion, dipped after it appeared we were "successful" and has more or less been rising steadily since it became apparent we were not as successful as we had thought. Worldwide demand has been relatively constant (despite what we here about India and China drinking all our oil), and supply has not changed. Regional instability boosts the futures prices for oil, which are reflected immediately in the price you pay at the pump. W has increased regional instability in a region that has never been all that stable in the first place.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
For you to have a chance with Eva, you need to learn to read a graph.

The price actually dipped after 9/11. It then rose in the run-up to the invasion, dipped after it appeared we were "successful" and has more or less been rising steadily since it became apparent we were not as successful as we had thought. Worldwide demand has been relatively constant (despite what we here about India and China drinking all our oil), and supply has not changed. Regional instability boosts the futures prices for oil, which are reflected immediately in the price you pay at the pump. W has increased regional instability in a region that has never been all that stable in the first place.

ummm no. it appears it dipped for a few months right after 9/11 but has been rising steadily since. a short term anomaly like the 2 month dip is irrelevant- unless you can point to something in 11/01 that might otherwise explain the rise.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm no. it appears it dipped for a few months right after 9/11

It's almost as if fuel use due to travel was drastically curtailed for a period of time, or something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's almost as if fuel use due to travel was drastically curtailed for a period of time, or something.

great thing about 9/11? we had an addition put on our house- it was quoted 10/01- the builder, afraid that we'd be cautious given all the economic uncertainty, underbid. so we got it done for about 60% of what it should have cost. I mean i know 9/11 sucked for a lot of people but there are silver linings if you look.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
great thing about 9/11? we had an addition put on our house- it was quoted 10/01- the builder, afraid that we'd be cautious given all the economic uncertainty, underbid. so we got it done for about 60% of what it should have cost. I mean i know 9/11 sucked for a lot of people but there are silver linings if you look.

Good thing about 9/11 for me was that it reminded me how much I need to tell the people that I love that I love them, and everyone was very nice to one another for a good period of time afterwards.

I'm glad you got to take something positive away from that awful awful day, too.

[baltassoc]

Because I know you'll really, really like it.

Educating our children is important:

http://www.justaplant.com/story/index.html

Originally posted by baltassoc
Because I know you'll really, really like it.

Educating our children is important:

http://www.justaplant.com/story/index.html

It's a little bit tacky and underhanded to promote PLF's first childrens' book on the boards without some kind of disclosure. How much is he cutting you in for?