Re: OT: Price gouging?

In article <4324DA0A.8A1402B7@xxxxxxxx>, GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Travelinman wrote:
> >
> > In article <43235BE3.C488B78B@xxxxxxxx>, GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Travelinman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's not correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, BioDiesel is already being used in some locations. It can't
> > > > > > replace all of our energy (or even a large percentage), but every
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > bit helps.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Biodiesel is an energy loss to produce. You'd use more to
> > > > > make it than to supply any needs... you'd only be using more
> > > > > to get the same energy.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > Bull***. Where do you think the energy comes from??
> > > For starters, they have to use regular oil.
> > > Secondly, there isn't enough biomass for the short term
> > > energy useage.
> > > This was proven by another poster in another usenet group.
> >
> > And you didn't understand a word of it, but that didn't stop you from
> > making things up.
>
> Guffaw!! You are just a proven bull*** artist that has no
> concept of logistics involved with manufacturing biodiesel.

I can guarantee beyond any doubt that I know more about it than you do.

>
> >
> > Why don't you explain in detail the energy used in producing biodiesel
> > fuel?
>
> Simple, clueless. It takes more energy to produce than
> you'll ever receive.

You keep saying that. So far, you haven't supported it.

> It is not efficient for one, and there isn't enough biomass
> to meet the demands.

Once again, there's no rule that says it has to meet ALL the demand.
Every little bit helps.

> And don't forget that part of agriculture goes to feed the
> people.

Except that we produce far more then people in this country can eat.

> So far, all we've been doing is pumping oil out of the
> ground.
> There is minor energy losses in the overall process, so oil
> that is refined is still a gain.

Yes, that is your incorrect assertion.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to document your claim, though.
> > >
> > > Feel free to show that there is enough biomass diesel to go
> > > around for the demand.
> >
> > I never said that there was enough for demand.
> >
>
> Then why bring it up?

YOU are the idiot who thinks that unless an energy source can meet ALL
our demand that we shouldn't consider it.

I've been saying all along that an alternative energy source that meets
even a modest percentage of our demand is still useful.

>
> > You did, OTOH, claim that it took more fossil fuels to produce biodiesel
> > than the amount of energy produced. And you STILL Haven't provided any
> > evidence to back that up.
>
> It doesn't take much... how do you get biodiesel??
> You have to have a large agricultural base... a large farm
> to produce a viable crop that takes oil for starters. This
> is a loss. Then you have to have something to heat up this

So if they use 10 gallons of fuel to produce 1000 gallons of biodiesel,
it's a loss?

> biomass, after time allowed for fermentation or squeezing in
> the case of soybeans. Another loss of energy. Then you
> need to transport the biodiesel. Here is another loss. The
> last step eats up some of your biodiesel. The first steps
> need oil in the beginning. Later you can use biodiesel, but
> by then your losses are too great for a profit. Otherwise,
> it would be big business by now.

Actually, it's now becoming big business.

>
> About all you can do is take whats left from the restaurants
> that throw away vegetable oils.

Which is only marginally less practical.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Solar and Wind are being adopted quite rapidly in some areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > It don't power cars and trucks tho.
> > > >
> > > > Sure it does. Ever hear of electric vehicles? Or generation of hydrogen
> > > > for fuel cells?
> > >
> > > Guffaw!! Only if you can afford $500k for that hydrogen
> > > powered car.
> >
> > We're talking about alternatives. If fuel prices stay high enough for
> > any length of time, that hydrogen or electric car won't cost $500 K.
> >
>
> But no one yet knows that price. And how much will it cost
> for hydrogen??
> No one knows that either. So it isn't a proven source yet.

Of course people know what hydrogen costs. Since you STILL haven't found
a topic that you're bright enough to discuss, let me fill you in.
Hydrogen is produced in immense quantities for use in many industrial
processes. It is a known commodity.

>
> > > For practical matters it doesn't exist.
> >
> > Not today. That doesn't mean that it can't exist.
>
> That I can agree on if the price is right. Otherwise, it
> will fall by the wayside like other tried alternatives.

That's exactly the point. If we allow energy prices to float, either
they will remain low enough that alternatives won't catch on or they
will rise enough that alternatives WILL catch on. Either way, the free
market is a much better way for that to happen than nationalizing the
oil companies - which is what you proposed.

>
> >
> > > The power grid isn't big enough to charge up all those
> > > electric cars.
> >
> > Sure it is.
>
> No it isn't. When the summer season is on, air-conditioners
> just about cause brown outs.

Except that the A/C power usage drops dramatically after dark - which is
when those electric cars would be charged.

> By putting battery chargers on the grid as well, the grid
> will collapse. The current required for a battery charge of
> significant size will haul the grid down.

Only because you're too stupid to understand that power consumption is
not constant for the entire 24 hours.

> This was covered back in the early 70s. It was estimated
> that the grid conductors would need to be 100x their size to
> deliver the necessary charging current for the then
> populace.

You're good at making things up. I have to give you that.

>
> >
> > > The main grid would have to be at least 10 times the current
> > > capacity.
> >
> > Another of your absurd claims.
>
> But you can't disprove it can you.
> You'd rather just blather away like some screwball that
> thinks he knows something.

I see you're incapable of responding to to may data.

> Guffaw.

The kind of moronic laughing you keep showing is often a sign of mental
illness. Seek help.

>
> >
> > > Not practical.
> >
> > It takes about 5-10 amps to charge an electric car overnight. Since most
> > homes use about 10 amps less at night than during the day (at least in
> > the summer), the current system is quite capable of handling it. There
> > would just be less drop in demand at night than there is today.
> >
>
> Uh... it takes more than 50 amps to charge an electric
> vehicle. Where have you been??

Really? Did it ever occur to you to look something up rather than making
up silly numbers?

Try this:
http://www.eaaev.org/eaawhatisanev.html

"Charging time on 120VAC 20 amp outlet (an ordinary household outlet) is
usually 10-12 hours (over night). A 96-volt car charging on a 110-volt
outlet will take 10-12 hours if it has been completely discharged."

Now, consider:

1. Every home has 240 V - which cuts the amperage in half. Since math is
probably another thing you don't understand, half of 20 is 10 amps -
which is exactly what I said. Since most homes have 100-200 amp service,
that doesn't look like you need to make any major changes.

2. They're talking about plugging it into a 110 V outlet - which isn't
the most efficient way to do it.

3. It fully charges overnight even if fully discharged. Very few people
would fully discharge their vehicles regularly.

4. This is based on older technology. Newer technology is even more
efficient.

> Even the electric forklifts have huge conductors to plug in
> to the batteries... and the main line ain't 110VAC either.

Every home I know has 220 V. Many could easily have 430.

>
> > I guess electricity is another topic you don't understand.
>
> Guffaw! I'm an automated electronics test engineer.

Then you're a pretty stupid one since you can't follow the facts
presented above.

>
> Obviously, you are spitting into the wind again.

Your inability to come up with an intelligent response is noted.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >The total
> > > > > > cost has dropped enough that it's getting competitive - even before
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > factor in the pollution savings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And most importantly, higher prices encourage conservation - which
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > certainly is viable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Conservation is a losing game at this point. Eventually,
> > > > > you will still run out.
> > > >
> > > > Baloney. Conservation is the BEST way to reduce our dependence on
> > > > foreign oil. If practiced properly, it saves you money at the same
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bull***. All it does is put people into crappier and more
> > > unsafe cars.
> > > In the long haul, the oil runs out. Then what??
> >
> > Driving less puts you into a crappier car?
>
> I didn't say driving less... show me where I said that.
> I said that it will force people into smaller cars that are
> less safe... hence crappy cars.

I said that conservation is the best way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. Your response was "All it does is put people into crappier
and more unsafe cars".

Seems pretty clear that you WERE claiming that.

>
> >
> > Putting a 300 HP engine into a Mustang instead of 350 makes it a
> > crappier, unsafe car?
> >
>
> No, putting a 70Hp engine into a Mustang makes it a crappy
> unsafe car.
> But to get what people want the weight has to be reduced...
> making it less safe for fender benders.

Who's talking about putting a 70 HP engine into a Mustang?

>
> > Driving a 5,000 lb SUV instead of an 8,000 pound Hummer makes it a
> > crappy, unsafe car?
> >
> > Driving a hybrid RX400 instead of a standard RX330 makes it a crappy,
> > unsafe car?
> >
> > You really are strange.
>
> No, you are strange... I never made those delusional claims
> you just made up.

Yes you did. I said that conservation was good. Those things are all
examples of conservations. You said that "All it does is put people into
crappier and more unsafe cars" - which means that doing those things
would put people into unsafe cars - if your delusions were correct.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > Sure, you're going to run out, but not as quickly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But the end is still in sight. By not conserving you'll
> > > force real innovation to become oil independent.
> >
> > I see. But allowing the price to increase won't do the same thing?
>
> Only the rich will be able to afford it.

That's the way free markets work. As prices rise, people find
alternatives.

Just how do you think nationalizing the oil companies is going to do a
better job of encouraging people to switch to something else?

> The price went up due to OPEC and greedy SOBS like you.

Sorry to inform you, but I haven't done anything to increase the price
of oil - your delusions notwithstanding.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Better to find a real alternative or new way of powering
> > > > > cars and trucks.
> > > >
> > > > Like solar and wind power converted to electricity or hydrogen?
> > >
> > > These have never been proven practical or cost effective or
> > > affordable.
> >
> > You're wrong there, too. Solar and wind are both used quite extensively.
>
> Show me a solar powered car or wind powered car for sale.

I didn't say that they were. I said that solar and wind power are both
used extensively - to produce electricity. The same electricity that can
be used to power cars.

>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!!


The kind of moronic laughing you keep showing is often a sign of mental
illness. Seek help.
.

Loading