... OIL has Doubled in One Year! $120 bbl While NASA Dreams of Moon Rocks!

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
They still are about that, or were before
the butt fell off the dollar.

See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!

I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
I was a kid.

Casady

On May 11, 7:19 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"

wrote:

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
They still are about that, or were before
the butt fell off the dollar.

See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!

I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
I was a kid.

Casady

It's all a fun game, isn't it. Doesn't matter how much grief and
death comes to others. Isn't Usenet/Groups so warm and fuzzy, and
without every a speck of remorse.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:

On May 11, 7:19 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"

wrote:

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
They still are about that, or were before
the butt fell off the dollar.

See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!

I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
I was a kid.

Casady

It's all a fun game, isn't it. Doesn't matter how much grief and
death comes to others. Isn't Usenet/Groups so warm and fuzzy, and
without every a speck of remorse.
. - Brad Guth


Can you say just what the hell you are talking about, is there
anybody in the world that doesn't care what happens to others.

But how many people can actually do anything to avoid or
prevent others from grief and death?

The terrorists could if they stopped killing people.

People could be more aware of the weather and seek shelter
in time and be safe.

Other than that, just what the hell _are_ you talking about,
in a stupid newsgroup about a myth being used by scammers of all
kinds to make money and distort political views?

Totorkon wrote:
Dubai.

One thing space solar power does have is a fairly good energy return
on energy investment. Even with losses of close to 60% from the
electrolysis and liquification of H2, a power satellite could put its
twin in orbit in under two years.


We could make amazing strides in energy savings for transporting goods
via electrically driven trains that ride on new, wider, tracks laid
across the US.
Are we going to do this?
No, of course not.
The initial investment would be too high - especially when it came to
increasing the size of the railway tunnels that run through the
mountains, and adding the the electrical power supply towers that the
trains run under and draw their energy from.
In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
to require.
There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
billions of dollars by the time they are done.
Then there's the whole infrastructure cost for launching and servicing
them; that's what really killed of the 1930's passenger dirigibles...the
dirigibles themselves weren't all that expensive...but the hangers,
mooring masts, and ground crew needed at anywhere they were going to
operate from nailed the whole concept from a monetary point of view.
In the case of the SPS concept, you can launch them all up into GEO from
the same place and have them return to it somewhere near the equator.
But all the microwave antennas needed to get the power down, and use it
in the US, are complex and expensive due to our limited ability to
transmit power over very long distances without excessive losses during
transmission.

A Gw year (Gwyr?) is worth about $1G, or will be soon. That works out
to about half the cost of delivery at the going rate, about $20000/Kg
for a 25yr lifespan, 25000 ton 5Gw sps. At $2000/Kg to leo the sps
option merits serious study.

The developement of space solar to power ion drives and hall thrusters
for robotic missions and equipment transport would have independant
merit, but so much the better if this ties into what should be NASA's
ultimate pie pan in the sky purpose. Absurd, possibly; audacious...
well that was part of the job discription that resulted in tranquility
base.


As I said, it's the initial capital investment needed to get it done
that's going to be the killer.
No company on the planet has that much money to throw at the project,
despite the profits to be realized once it's completed.
Therefore, it must be a project done by either one or more governments.
And who gets the profits from it once it's completed at public expense?
I frankly wouldn't want to throw hundreds or thousands of my tax dollars
at it on a yearly basis over a decade or so ...so that Lockheed and
Exxon can reap the profits from it as they sell the electrical power
generated by it to me till the day I die.
If you are going to do something like that, then make it publicly funded
and owned...as well as run on a non-profit basis like the TVA's
hydroelectric dams from the 1930's..

Pat

On May 11, 10:07 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 11, 7:19 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"

wrote:

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
They still are about that, or were before
the butt fell off the dollar.

See? I told ya to save all them Canadian quarters!

I like the dime, but then I built a plastic model of the Bluenose when
I was a kid.

Casady

It's all a fun game, isn't it. Doesn't matter how much grief and
death comes to others. Isn't Usenet/Groups so warm and fuzzy, and
without every a speck of remorse.
. -BradGuth

Can you say just what the hell you are talking about, is there
anybody in the world that doesn't care what happens to others.

Obviously you don't care.

What part of Usenet/newsgroups honestly cares about humanity, our
frail environment and the truth about physics and science? (you
certainly don't)

These supposedly smart folks are off on some other planet, where being
a liar and a born-again rusemaster is their status quo.


But how many people can actually do anything to avoid or
prevent others from grief and death?

Anyone can simply stop lying to themselves and others.

Anyone can accept the regular laws of physics.

Anyone can accept the best available science.

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.


The terrorists could if they stopped killing people.

I agree that our GW Bush and company of brown-nosed minions (plus
those before his time in office) should stop causing the likes of cold
wars and 911, and especially stop killing those mostly innocent
Muslims, all because of his bogus wars that were intended to inflate
the global cost of energy, and otherwise to control as much of that
Muslim oil as he and his oily friends could muster.

I agree that we should stop allowing our AGW and natural GW process to
be killing off innocent folks and otherwise causing so much collateral
damage, because such has nearly always been technically doable.


People could be more aware of the weather and seek shelter
in time and be safe.

You have to be minimal educated (I'm talking basic 5th grader), and of
course your state and federal government has to actually give a
tinkers damn.


Other than that, just what the hell _are_ you talking about,
in a stupid newsgroup about a myth being used by scammers of all
kinds to make money and distort political views?

99.9% of newsgroups is bogus, including most of what the likes of
yourself and others think is the truth.

How much of whatever is government infowar/infomercial hype is
actually truth worthy?

The public via newsgroups is being continually lied to, as well as
having evidence excluded on a fairly regular basis, and apparently you
think that's perfectly OK.

You do realize that our mutually perpetrated cold-war was also
entirely bogus, and that we have not walked on our moon. (why of
course you don't, because you are either an idiot or one of them)
.. - Brad Guth

On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.

O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
quit good enough?

The automation and technology of delivering fossil energy has more
than cut their man-hours/barrel to something far less than 10% of what
it used to take.

Even coal gasification is nearly all automated, at perhaps not 1% of
the original man-hours/barrel in the 1940's (such as what Germany had
to cope with).

By this time next year we'll be at or above the 64:1 inflation mark of
such energy cost, and most of everything else catching up by
unavoidably following suit at perhaps as great as 32:1 per 64 year
span.

In the 1940's the fossil fuel consumption average per individual
wasn't hardly anything to speak of (in many developing nations it was
nothing) and even next to nothing in China, so it's not exactly a fair
example of true global inflation, because if we'd been using as much
fossil energy per individual back in the 1940's would only make this
energy inflation seem much greater.

Playing games with words or numbers isn't making life any better or
more affordable, but then what our faith-based puppet government does
best is to snooker and dumbfound as many of us village idiots as they
can muster.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.

O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. – Brad Guth

On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.

O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation within 64
years quit good enough?

The automation and technology of delivering fossil energy has more
than cut their man-hours/barrel to something far less than 10% of what
it used to take (if not as little as 1%).

Even coal gasification is nearly all automated, at perhaps not 1% of
the original man-hours/barrel in the 1940's (such as what Germany and
Hitler had to cope with).

By this time next year we'll likely be soaring at or above the 64:1
inflation mark of such energy cost, and most of everything else
catching up by unavoidably following suit at perhaps as great as 32:1
per 64 year span.
In the 1940's the fossil fuel consumption average per individual
wasn't hardly anything to speak of (in many developing nations it
_was_ nothing) and even next to nothing in China, so it's not exactly
a fair and square example of true global inflation, because if we'd
been using as much fossil energy per individual back in the 1940's
would only make this energy inflation seem much greater.

Playing those silly damage-control games with words or numbers isn't
making our lives any better or more affordable, but then what our
faith-based puppet government does best is to snooker and dumbfound as
many of us village idiots as they can muster.

If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly be any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by
on that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month after federal
tax, in personal loot (same as $156.25/mo as of 64 years ago).

How much were you earning (take home pay) as of 64 years ago?
. – Brad Guth

On May 12, 2:43 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. – Brad Guth

We have established that you can't read
now you prove that you cant multiply

the inflation correction for 156.25 in 1944 is $1,840.38 at the present
time

http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/

Vincent M Brannigan

U of Maryland Consumer Economics Program
Assistant Prof 1977-83
Associate Prof 1983-1991
Professor 1991-92

have a nice day

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-003.pdf
“i n 1946 and resided in nonfarm areas was about $2,100 as compared
with $1,000 for women”

Divide that average income roughly in half for the typical nonwhite or
farm worker (this only applies to the nonfamily employed worker
because, the bulk of whatever the local/farm family member received
was paid via room and board).

Since I would have been much higher paid than average, by at least
twice that average of $175/month, makes my 1946 earnings worth $350/
month. Now multiply that by 64 = $22,400/month.

As I’d said, no problem with spending $5/gallon, as long as I had the
after tax take-home loot of $22,400/month to spend.

Of course that still doesn't fix a damn thing for most other places on
Earth, that are simply getting summarily screwed left and right as
well as top to bottom by the fossil fuel sucking and global inflation
likes of yourself. And here you sit and wonder, as to why Muslims and
a few too many other nice and low carbon footprint kind of folks are a
little ****ed.

Do you even know the meaning of _duh_?
. – Brad Guth

On May 12, 2:36 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that

Just a question

how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?

64 years ago was 1944.

For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426....

$2.28 in 2005 dollars

Vince

What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
quit good enough?

I can inflate balloons or prices or currency

But the laws of thermodynamics preclude inflating energy

The automation and technology of delivering fossil energy has more
than cut their man-hours/barrel to something far less than 10% of what
it used to take.

Even coal gasification is nearly all automated, at perhaps not 1% of
the original man-hours/barrel in the 1940's (such as what Germany had
to cope with).

By this time next year we'll be at or above the 64:1 inflation mark of
such energy cost, and most of everything else catching up by
unavoidably following suit at perhaps as great as 32:1 per 64 year
span.

In the 1940's the fossil fuel consumption average per individual
wasn't hardly anything to speak of (in many developing nations it was
nothing) and even next to nothing in China, so it's not exactly a fair
example of true global inflation, because if we'd been using as much
fossil energy per individual back in the 1940's would only make this
energy inflation seem much greater.

Playing games with words or numbers isn't making life any better or
more affordable, but then what our faith-based puppet government does
best is to snooker and dumbfound as many of us village idiots as they
can muster.
. - Brad Guth

You know exactly what I'd meant. Proves who you really are, doesn't
it.
.. - BG