If 25% of a commodity is removed, will the consumers' cost go up?

[BlindBoo]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

The first one was is 73 and had nothing to do with Carter. Think Israel.

Iran was one of our main suppliers in 78. The crisis had nothing to do with the theory of Peak Oil.

"The Iranian revolution sparked the world’s second oil shock in five years. Strikes began in Iran’s oil fields in the autumn 1978 and by January 1979, crude oil production declined by 4.8 million barrels per day, or about 7 percent of world production at the time."

Endless lines at gasoline stations are the overwhelming image in the minds of Americans who lived through the oil shocks. There was a genuine shortage of gasoline in the United States for a while, as refineries geared to run Iranian crude oil could not produce as much gasoline from other types. However, government policies that regulated the petroleum industry made the situation much worse.

Price controls on gasoline exacerbated shortages, by not allowing rising prices to curb demand. The controls allowed refiners to raise gasoline prices each month based on the previous month’s crude oil price.

What Iran’s 1979 revolution meant for US and global oil markets | Brookings

The Iranian revolution and the oil price shocks that followed catalyzed a number of important changes in petroleum markets that remain in place today.

www.brookings.edu

In the Weekend Interview in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ editor Rob Pollock interviews George Shultz), Shultz says the following:

And one thing you know from experience is when you control the price of something, you end up getting less of it. So if you control the price of health-care providers, you will have fewer of them and that’s gonna wind up as a crisis. The most vivid expression of that . . . was Jimmy Carter’s gas lines.

There’s nothing incorrect about this statement. But it gives the reader the impression that Jimmy Carter was the president who introduced price controls. Shultz knows better. It was his boss, Richard Nixon, who introduced price controls on everything and kept them on gasoline. Shultz, as Secretary of the Treasury at the time, was intimately involved with the details. It’s true that Carter kept the controls and didn’t try to get rid of them until early 1980, when he made a compromise with Congress–giving them their “windfall profits tax” on oil, which was really a graduated excise tax on oil, in return for phasing out the controls. But Nixon is the one who imposed them. So there were “Richard Nixon’s gas lines” just as there were “Jimmy Carter’s gas lines.”

A Short History of Gasoline Price Controls - Econlib

In the Weekend Interview in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ editor Rob Pollock interviews George Shultz), Shultz says the following: And one thing you know from experience is when you control the price of something, you end up getting less of it. So if you control the price of health-care...

www.econlib.org

Love you.. So happy you actually know the history.

I feel very old. I remember those events.

 

[NightFox]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

 

[kaz]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

Apparently Jimmy Carter has become the default scapegoat for any negative event that occurred in the 1970's, even for nationwide events that occurred while he was still the Governor of Georgia.

Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Watergate and the North Vietnamese overrunning Saigon.

Poor Jimmy, he just can't catch a break.

Anyone who remembers or knows about the Seventies knows the leftists are right on this one. The oil embargo was punishment for our support of Israel, it wasn't because of Carter. Facts are facts. I'm not like leftists, I don't only acknowledge facts based on which party they support

 

[kaz]

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

You haven’t posted a single link to back up your wild assertions on nuclear power and windmills. Everything you post is a right wing lie.

All across the world the first world, nations are closing down nuclear plants in favour of wind power. But keep shilling for the oil companies. God knows they need more fools like you to promote this bullshit.

kaz

Trump's issues with windmills and his idiotic claims come from a fight with Scotland over windmills and his failed golf resort. He had to pay a whopping huge fine.

When Trump is wrong, you shouldn't back him up. Pick and choose like an adult..

WTF? I didn't say anything about Trump or Scotland, stupid fuck. The guy just lives in your brain

 

[BlindBoo]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking each other away and giggling like crazy.

The point is that when they suspend new leases, that means the 25% is frozen and as Heath said will "eventually" be eliminated. I'm not like you, I actually read his OP.

And we both know Biden would never have approved the end of the "pause" in leases. Stop lying

It was the drilling permits that would have endangered production much sooner. But that ended months ago. It's was always doubtful that Joe would be able to abolish oil production on federal lands through his pause on lease sales.

So Joe's not responsible because he should have knows the courts would stop them. So you only support Joe TRYING to fund despotic governments and drill and drill and ship oil from overseas because you think that doesn't affect our environment.

A standard you applied to Trump ... never ...

Or in your native language, slap, slap, giggle, giggle.

Joe is responsible for both pauses and neither one cause a big spike in prices at the pump. Speaking of Trumpybear, he proudly protected the oil in Syria after stabbing our allies against ISIS in the back.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking and giggling away, you're just ranting. You hate Trump to the point of total irrationality. I got it

You brought up the old Trumpyberra.

You still lack credibility.

Right, I pointed out that your standard's totally changed when the President switched from Trump to Biden. It's called hypocrisy.

But then you are just one of the girls in the Democrat locker room poking each other and giggling. You're not even engaged in anything real. Just Trump is bad, Biden is good. Justify whatever Biden does.

But it is a fact that you're supporting funding despotic governments and actually believe that drilling overseas and shipping oil in little boats across big oceans is better than drilling domestically. That's just wrong for a lot of reasons. But you aren't going to process them. It contradicts Trump bad, Biden good, as deep as you get

You didn't point out anything. You just make more and more wild claims that you never back up.

Carter championed energy independence from the ME 45 years ago. RayGun hooked us up.

Carter was lying manipulative a-hole. He created the fake oil crisis.....as soon as Reagan got in, Reagan calling the sauds lie about oil extinct bullshit, the gas lines went away permanently.

Hahahahaha....um History! MAGA style!

If it fits the moment! Maga_Nut.

What Iran’s 1979 revolution meant for US and global oil markets | Brookings

The Iranian revolution and the oil price shocks that followed catalyzed a number of important changes in petroleum markets that remain in place today.

www.brookings.edu

A Short History of Gasoline Price Controls - Econlib

In the Weekend Interview in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ editor Rob Pollock interviews George Shultz), Shultz says the following: And one thing you know from experience is when you control the price of something, you end up getting less of it. So if you control the price of health-care...

www.econlib.org

My gawd Blind you are clueless.....

Your article is a joke and you don't even know it.

I'll help you out.......some basics .....

Carter was the president in the late 70's for one term, then REAGAN was elected in 1980. There was no oil crisis until 1979 when POS CARTER was in office. It's called the 1979 OIL CRISIS In fact. In 1978, Carter let the Iran or more likely helped them overthrow their ruler and wife and install the atoyallah leading to Iran having production problems lowering the worlds output slightly. Opec, well more specifically the greedy corrupt Sauds love this as it raised oil prices around the world claiming that this was massive shortage of oil that there never was. Carter claimed to believe their BS and did the socialist/marxist/communist thing and instigated price control------creating a major shortage of gasoline especially for americans leading to massive gas lines. I was an exceptional bright child before puberty-----I remember the gas lines and the circumstances surrounding them. With the higher prices and well muslim leaders having less morals than well even our current pols, would up their production lie to their brothers in OPEC and selling making a killing for themselves and likely bribing Carter like the chinese do Biden. Reagan called bullshit on the made nonsense of a shortage of oil, he reverse Carters scam and like Magic----plenty of oil.

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

You haven’t posted a single link to back up your wild assertions on nuclear power and windmills. Everything you post is a right wing lie.

All across the world the first world, nations are closing down nuclear plants in favour of wind power. But keep shilling for the oil companies. God knows they need more fools like you to promote this bullshit.

kaz

Trump's issues with windmills and his idiotic claims come from a fight with Scotland over windmills and his failed golf resort. He had to pay a whopping huge fine.

When Trump is wrong, you shouldn't back him up. Pick and choose like an adult..

Bullshit. Trump opposes green energy because the Republican party is bought and paid for by big oil.

In regards to his property in Scotland, Trump’s issues with the locals and with the Scottish government started long before the approval of the wind farm near his property.

Trump fought for years to get the locals to approve his plan for the golf club. They fought him every step of the way, On on the basis that his development we’re in endangering wildlife along the coast of Scotland.

Then he threatened to pull the development completely if the wind farms were allowed to go ahead. He thought tooth and claw, lied through his teeth, filed endless appeals when he lost his cases, and basically offended every living Scot in the world.

Trumps golf resorts in Scotland are failing because the Scottish people will not patronize his golf courses. The government will not advertised as a tourist attraction in Scotland, and the locals will cheer the day he is forced to sell the courses.

Trump was opposed to the windmills before they were ever constructed. And he opposed him using the language that the oil companies and those who oppose green energy have been using since day one of their construction.

The same very same bullshit you’re posting here.

Oil companies have been investing in emmissions reductions research and hy-solar for more than 3 decades. They are not as partisan as you might think, . Its ignorant conservatives who think fossil fuel is the only way forward.

KEN LAY of Enron FAME------------helped invent the carbon credits. OIL companies stand and are making billions $$$$ off the green energy hype.

A history lesson from Professor Blutouski I presume.

 

[BlindBoo]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

Apparently Jimmy Carter has become the default scapegoat for any negative event that occurred in the 1970's, even for nationwide events that occurred while he was still the Governor of Georgia.

Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Watergate and the North Vietnamese overrunning Saigon.

Poor Jimmy, he just can't catch a break.

Anyone who remembers or knows about the Seventies knows the leftists are right on this one. The oil embargo was punishment for our support of Israel, it wasn't because of Carter. Facts are facts. I'm not like leftists, I don't only acknowledge facts based on which party they support

The second was over Iran.

 

[kaz]

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

Apparently Jimmy Carter has become the default scapegoat for any negative event that occurred in the 1970's, even for nationwide events that occurred while he was still the Governor of Georgia.

Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Watergate and the North Vietnamese overrunning Saigon.

Poor Jimmy, he just can't catch a break.

Carter, being a nuclear engineer, and one of the most scientifically astute presidents you’ve ever had, was the guy who green-lit the development all of the “smart bomb” technology and advanced weaponry that made the US military look so overwhelming strong in the Gulf War.

Too bad he was completely inept as a politician on the national level.

He was too principled and too honest to be an effective politician. He was the voters’ knee jerk response to the dishonesty and corruption in Washington in the Republican Party. The first attempt to “drain the swamp”.

Republicans painted Carter as “weak” and “inept” in foreign policy. Not unlike their portrayal of Joe Biden. They politicized the Iranian hostage crisis as a sign that a “strong” leader was needed.

Old Jell-O Knees proved that having principles doesn't necessarily mean you have the moral character to use them effectively

 

[Turtlesoup]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

There was more than ONE oil crisis (well not really crisis---crisis didn't start to Carter played his ignorant games) in that time frame.....they weren't issues till dipshit peanut brains carter with his rationing and price controls made them so.

Oil crisis of 1979---was different than the earlier ones.

1979 oil crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kaz]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

"I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand."

Seriously? I've explained it a bunch of times. The potential for wind to replace fossil fuels is a tiny portion of replacing coal with even natural gas or clean coal. They aren't zero emissions, but they can produce way, way more energy than wind.

I'm saying would you rather cut coal in half in a large way (save 50% of $1,000) or get higher percent on a far smaller portion of energy (save 100% of $50)? Do you get it now?

 

[kaz]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

There is no wind without government involvement, that's just not true. Government is heavily subsidizing it. The ROI would never work for companies without the subsidies.

Natural gas, nuclear and clean coal don't require subsidies. Democrats keep repeating their mantra we are subsidizing them, but they can't explain how other than they can write off their expenses, which isn't called by anyone else a subsidy since our system taxes profits not revenue

 

[Turtlesoup]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

Apparently Jimmy Carter has become the default scapegoat for any negative event that occurred in the 1970's, even for nationwide events that occurred while he was still the Governor of Georgia.

Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Watergate and the North Vietnamese overrunning Saigon.

Poor Jimmy, he just can't catch a break.

Anyone who remembers or knows about the Seventies knows the leftists are right on this one. The oil embargo was punishment for our support of Israel, it wasn't because of Carter. Facts are facts. I'm not like leftists, I don't only acknowledge facts based on which party they support

I don't like the leftists and I know that all the muslims hated us and still do over Israel (well they don't like infidels to begin with).....they justified their their hate and actions often over Israel. This is true-----but deep down it was the sauds pushing the myth about a shortage of oil, pushing opec to cut output, while they secretly up theirs making a killing. Of course, pretty much all the muslim nations were secretly selling. Carters price controls and rationing further aggravated the shortage pushing up the profits for the Sauds and others-------these didn't end till Reagan got in with reagan running on on screaming the oil shortage was actual bullshit as were Carters rationing bs making it worse.

 

[kaz]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

Apparently Jimmy Carter has become the default scapegoat for any negative event that occurred in the 1970's, even for nationwide events that occurred while he was still the Governor of Georgia.

Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Watergate and the North Vietnamese overrunning Saigon.

Poor Jimmy, he just can't catch a break.

Anyone who remembers or knows about the Seventies knows the leftists are right on this one. The oil embargo was punishment for our support of Israel, it wasn't because of Carter. Facts are facts. I'm not like leftists, I don't only acknowledge facts based on which party they support

The second was over Iran.

That was entirely different. That wasn't an "embargo," and it was caused more by market fear than actual production drops by Iran. That one actually could be blamed on Carter.

When people talk about the Seventies oil embargo, that really wasn't one

 

[NightFox]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

"I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand."

Seriously? I've explained it a bunch of times. The potential for wind to replace fossil fuels is a tiny portion of replacing coal with even natural gas or clean coal. They aren't zero emissions, but they can produce way, way more energy than wind.

I'm saying would you rather cut coal in half in a large way (save 50% of $1,000) or get higher percent on a far smaller portion of energy (save 100% of $50)? Do you get it now?

Why does it have to be an either-or proposition? Can't we cut "coal in half in a large way" using a combination of all the available alternatives using whatever makes the most business sense on a case-by-case basis? After all last year in the U.S. wind produced 337.51 billion KwH which is more than Hydroelectric, Geothermal, BioMass and Solar, that makes wind the largest single source of electricity generation falling under the category of renewables (20% of the total electricity generated) which appears to demonstrate that private enterprise views it as a worthwhile investment.

 

[kaz]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

Nope. The oil embargo was a direct result of Nixon bailing Israel out during the Yom Kippur war. Had NOTHING to do with Carter.

Apparently Jimmy Carter has become the default scapegoat for any negative event that occurred in the 1970's, even for nationwide events that occurred while he was still the Governor of Georgia.

Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Watergate and the North Vietnamese overrunning Saigon.

Poor Jimmy, he just can't catch a break.

Anyone who remembers or knows about the Seventies knows the leftists are right on this one. The oil embargo was punishment for our support of Israel, it wasn't because of Carter. Facts are facts. I'm not like leftists, I don't only acknowledge facts based on which party they support

I don't like the leftists and I know that all the muslims hated us and still do over Israel (well they don't like infidels to begin with).....they justified their their hate and actions often over Israel. This is true-----but deep down it was the sauds pushing the myth about a shortage of oil, pushing opec to cut output, while they secretly up theirs making a killing. Of course, pretty much all the muslim nations were secretly selling. Carters price controls and rationing further aggravated the shortage pushing up the profits for the Sauds and others-------these didn't end till Reagan got in with reagan running on on screaming the oil shortage was actual bullshit as were Carters rationing bs making it worse.

Really the objective of the Muslim governments is that they were despotic governments and they took pressure off themselves by giving the people others (Israel and us) more than they hate their own governments. They still do it, it works.

Muslim's aren't friends of the Palestinians, they say they are worse than dogs. The Palestinians widely supported terrorism long before Israel. Jordan killed many of them, but that was Muslims killing Muslims and no one cared.

I don't know about the Saudi's pushing that they were running out of oil, but that wasn't their major justification for the oil embargo, that was Israel. The running out of oil thing is true, we always heard that. But they were very clear on the embargo that is was Israel

 

[kaz]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

"I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand."

Seriously? I've explained it a bunch of times. The potential for wind to replace fossil fuels is a tiny portion of replacing coal with even natural gas or clean coal. They aren't zero emissions, but they can produce way, way more energy than wind.

I'm saying would you rather cut coal in half in a large way (save 50% of $1,000) or get higher percent on a far smaller portion of energy (save 100% of $50)? Do you get it now?

Why does it have to be an either-or proposition? Can't we cut "coal in half in a large way" using a combination of all the available alternatives using whatever makes the most business sense on a case-by-case basis? After all last year in the U.S. wind produced 337.51 billion KwH which is more than Hydroelectric, Geothermal, BioMass and Solar, that makes wind the largest single source of electricity generation falling under the category of renewables (20% of the total electricity generated) which appears to demonstrate that private enterprise views it as a worthwhile investment.

That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me

 

[NightFox]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

"I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand."

Seriously? I've explained it a bunch of times. The potential for wind to replace fossil fuels is a tiny portion of replacing coal with even natural gas or clean coal. They aren't zero emissions, but they can produce way, way more energy than wind.

I'm saying would you rather cut coal in half in a large way (save 50% of $1,000) or get higher percent on a far smaller portion of energy (save 100% of $50)? Do you get it now?

Why does it have to be an either-or proposition? Can't we cut "coal in half in a large way" using a combination of all the available alternatives using whatever makes the most business sense on a case-by-case basis? After all last year in the U.S. wind produced 337.51 billion KwH which is more than Hydroelectric, Geothermal, BioMass and Solar, that makes wind the largest single source of electricity generation falling under the category of renewables (20% of the total electricity generated) which appears to demonstrate that private enterprise views it as a worthwhile investment.

That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me

It IS a choice and it’s one that is being made by private enterprise on a case by case basis using ROI and accounting for externalities. You seem to want to dictate investment decisions to energy companies based on something other than what their own expertise tells them do,I’m for letting the market operate freely. After all who knows the energy business better than the companies that are actually in the energy business? Government’s only role is to make sure externalities are accounted for, reward positive ones (subsidy) punish negative ones (levies).

 

[kaz]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

"I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand."

Seriously? I've explained it a bunch of times. The potential for wind to replace fossil fuels is a tiny portion of replacing coal with even natural gas or clean coal. They aren't zero emissions, but they can produce way, way more energy than wind.

I'm saying would you rather cut coal in half in a large way (save 50% of $1,000) or get higher percent on a far smaller portion of energy (save 100% of $50)? Do you get it now?

Why does it have to be an either-or proposition? Can't we cut "coal in half in a large way" using a combination of all the available alternatives using whatever makes the most business sense on a case-by-case basis? After all last year in the U.S. wind produced 337.51 billion KwH which is more than Hydroelectric, Geothermal, BioMass and Solar, that makes wind the largest single source of electricity generation falling under the category of renewables (20% of the total electricity generated) which appears to demonstrate that private enterprise views it as a worthwhile investment.

That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me

It IS a choice and it’s one that is being made by private enterprise on a case by case basis using ROI and accounting for externalities. You seem to want to dictate investment decisions to energy companies based on something other than what their own expertise tells them do,I’m for letting the market operate freely. After all who knows the energy business better than the companies that are actually in the energy business? Government’s only role is to make sure externalities are accounted for, reward positive ones (subsidy) punish negative ones (levies).

Do you seriously not understand how government subsidies affect ROI for a private company? I said it IS a rational investment decisions for companies BECAUSE of the government subsidies. That does not make it a rational choice for the country to make.

When I went to business school, we had a meeting with Ford management. They told us how they had started a program to expand plastic recycling in cars at the end of their life rather than putting the plastic all in landfills. It was expensive, but they did it as a community service. They learned as they got good at it, that they were able to actually save money. Then they started putting a bunch more money on our own.

It was so sad, when a leftist in the group realized what they were doing, he almost cried, but you're making money! Poor guy. The rest of us were all that is GREAT, you are making money and it's good for the environment! Liberals WANT it to hurt.

You're arguing the well intentioned but poorly designed leftist part. Let's spend government money so society pays! I'm saying if we design it right, companies will spend the money on their own.

Isn't that good? Or do we want to do less good but just feel more pain so we feel smug about it?

 

[NightFox]

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.

1) And again, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand.

2) We are doing all the wind we can now. That is irrelevant to nuclear replacing fossil fuels. There is no choice between wind and solar. Even if you want to keep wasting our effort on wind, that doesn't change the equation since there is no choice between wind and solar

There is no "our effort", the decision is in the hands of private enterprise and those decisions are made on the basis of ROI, I'm for whatever makes the best business sense after all externalities are accounted for, so far it seems that private enterprise has concluded that wind makes good business sense under certain conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it.

"I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of your question to the discussion at hand."

Seriously? I've explained it a bunch of times. The potential for wind to replace fossil fuels is a tiny portion of replacing coal with even natural gas or clean coal. They aren't zero emissions, but they can produce way, way more energy than wind.

I'm saying would you rather cut coal in half in a large way (save 50% of $1,000) or get higher percent on a far smaller portion of energy (save 100% of $50)? Do you get it now?

Why does it have to be an either-or proposition? Can't we cut "coal in half in a large way" using a combination of all the available alternatives using whatever makes the most business sense on a case-by-case basis? After all last year in the U.S. wind produced 337.51 billion KwH which is more than Hydroelectric, Geothermal, BioMass and Solar, that makes wind the largest single source of electricity generation falling under the category of renewables (20% of the total electricity generated) which appears to demonstrate that private enterprise views it as a worthwhile investment.

That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me

It IS a choice and it’s one that is being made by private enterprise on a case by case basis using ROI and accounting for externalities. You seem to want to dictate investment decisions to energy companies based on something other than what their own expertise tells them do,I’m for letting the market operate freely. After all who knows the energy business better than the companies that are actually in the energy business? Government’s only role is to make sure externalities are accounted for, reward positive ones (subsidy) punish negative ones (levies).

Do you seriously not understand how government subsidies affect ROI for a private company? I said it IS a rational investment decisions for companies BECAUSE of the government subsidies. That does not make it a rational choice for the country to make.

Do you seriously not understand that subsidies (and levies) ARE THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES?

Society benefits from positive externalities (in the case of wind, it's electricity delivered without the pollution and environmental destruction of the alternatives), do you think the market deserves those benefits FOR FREE? If that's the case, then you're expecting the energy company to SUBSIDIZE THE MARKET along with all of its COMPETITORS. How does that promote market freedom?

If you don't like government subsidies and levies, what's your suggested method for accounting for externalities?

 

[kaz]

That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me

It IS a choice and it’s one that is being made by private enterprise on a case by case basis using ROI and accounting for externalities. You seem to want to dictate investment decisions to energy companies based on something other than what their own expertise tells them do,I’m for letting the market operate freely. After all who knows the energy business better than the companies that are actually in the energy business? Government’s only role is to make sure externalities are accounted for, reward positive ones (subsidy) punish negative ones (levies).

Do you seriously not understand how government subsidies affect ROI for a private company? I said it IS a rational investment decisions for companies BECAUSE of the government subsidies. That does not make it a rational choice for the country to make.

Do you seriously not understand that subsidies (and levies) ARE THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES?

Society benefits from positive externalities (in the case of wind, it's electricity delivered without the pollution and environmental destruction of the alternatives), do you think the market deserves those benefits FOR FREE? If that's the case, then you're expecting the energy company to SUBSIDIZE THE MARKET along with all of its COMPETITORS. How does that promote market freedom?

If you don't like government subsidies and levies, what's your suggested method for accounting for externalities?

I keep arguing the "positive externalities" ARE NOT WORTH IT. The cost is too high, the payback is too long, the potential is too low, we have already used the best locations and there are massive negative externalizes like they are butt ugly.

That I don't agree with your claim positive externalities make it worth it does not support your claim that I don't understand positive externalities need to be funded by government. What you are arguing is a non-sequitur

 

[NightFox]

That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me

It IS a choice and it’s one that is being made by private enterprise on a case by case basis using ROI and accounting for externalities. You seem to want to dictate investment decisions to energy companies based on something other than what their own expertise tells them do,I’m for letting the market operate freely. After all who knows the energy business better than the companies that are actually in the energy business? Government’s only role is to make sure externalities are accounted for, reward positive ones (subsidy) punish negative ones (levies).

Do you seriously not understand how government subsidies affect ROI for a private company? I said it IS a rational investment decisions for companies BECAUSE of the government subsidies. That does not make it a rational choice for the country to make.

Do you seriously not understand that subsidies (and levies) ARE THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES?

Society benefits from positive externalities (in the case of wind, it's electricity delivered without the pollution and environmental destruction of the alternatives), do you think the market deserves those benefits FOR FREE? If that's the case, then you're expecting the energy company to SUBSIDIZE THE MARKET along with all of its COMPETITORS. How does that promote market freedom?

If you don't like government subsidies and levies, what's your suggested method for accounting for externalities?

I keep arguing the "positive externalities" ARE NOT WORTH IT. The cost is too high, the payback is too long, the potential is too low, we have already used the best locations and there are massive negative externalizes like they are butt ugly.

Not worth it to whom? The market disagrees with you since its buying wind generated electricity at the price offered and thus is discounting your subjective evaluation of the value proposition offered by wind power.

Not sure why you're so opposed to the market operating the way it's supposed to, other than maybe the fact that it's not making the particular investment decisions that you think it should be making. I suppose you could take that up with the directors of the Energy Companies, I'm sure they'd love to hear your ideas on improving their decision cycle outcomes.

That I don't agree with your claim positive externalities make it worth it does not support your claim that I don't understand positive externalities need to be funded by government. What you are arguing is a non-sequitur

So far, you don't appear to understand the market mechanics of externalities, which would explain why you didn't understand how they factor into ROI.

This is Econ 101 stuff.