Re: "The Only Thing They Learn" -- does anyone else find it irritating?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:48:38 -0400, lathamr@xxxxxxxxxx (Richard D. Latham)
wrote:

John Schilling <schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:16:50 -0400, lathamr@xxxxxxxxxx (Richard D. Latham)
wrote:

veritas <khogantwo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

William, one of the problems with nuclear plants is if you try to
build one you get about 300 lawsuits filed to stop it. If no one
objected that would be one thing, but because of the lawsuits, it
takes years. Ken Hogan

If it only took years, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat
without hitting one.

It would take _decades_ given the current legal and regulatory
environment.

I suspect $5 / gallon (and heading for 10) gasoline will fix that
little problem in the bye and bye.

If gasoline could reasonably be used to generate electricity, or
nuclear power to run automobiles, perhaps.

The reality is, even if we had retro-futuristic too-cheap-to-meter
nuclear power, you'd *still* be driving a car that burns $4/gallon
gasoline. Two completely different markets, now and for years to
come.

I don't know/remember enough chemistry to really have an opinion, but
I do have a _suspicion_ that if we had retro-futuristic
too-cheap-to-meter nuclear power, a variety of someones would be
queueing up to sell me gasoline at $3.00 a gallon, with the raw
materials mostly sucked right out of the atmosphere.

At the end of the day, gasoline is just hydrogen and carbon, after a
shotgun wedding, right ?

That still requires that one pony up for the cost of a shotgun.

Or, more precisely, for the big chunk of machinery that takes in
water and air and electricity and spews out gasoline or some other
suitable liquid fuel.

Even assuming the water and air and electricity are available in
absolutely unlimited quantities at absolutely no cost, that
machinery is going to be expensive enough to kill the whole
deal - at least, it will if you have to compete against people
who can just suck oil out of the ground and refine it at the
traditional rates.

If something happens to make that impossible, if the supply and/or
demand for oil are permanently altered such that the traditional
price structure is gone forever, then sure. But the present
bubble will have collapsed long before the first electrosynfuel
plant comes on line, so nobody's going to be breaking ground on
that bit of infrastructure until they have a better feel for what
the post-bubble liquid fuel market looks like.


Also, the investers are going to want to actually see some of that
too-cheap-to-meter electric power before they commit. But as I
said, even if we'd had that part all along, the massive up-front
investment and dubious return in the near-term market would have
the investors sitting on the sidelines for now.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *



--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.

Loading