A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Power Satellite Economics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 19th 17, 12:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,151
Default Power Satellite Economics

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:

On 6/9/2017 5:24 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Terrestrial solar and wind drive UP prices unless they are heavily
subsidized.


Oh no argument from me. And if heavily subsidized the cost is shifted
from direct payment of an electric bill to the indirect payment through
higher taxes so you could have removed the "...unless" part of that.


Just trying to keep anyone from leaping on 'consumer cost' and making
claims that don't stand up.


If the Middle East didn't contain copious amounts of oil, the US
wouldn't have literally spent trillions of our tax dollars invading
Iraq... twice. So this "renewables aren't fair because they're
subsidized" is b.s. of the first order. If it wasn't for oil, the only
involvement we'd have in the Middle East would be to make sure Israel
can defend itself (which it can).

You can counter my argument when the US has subsidized renewable energy
to the same amount of tax dollars that we've spend on wars in the Middle
East since the first Gulf War.


You understand that the United States gets little to no oil from Iraq
and the 'war for oil' meme is bull****, don't you? We also don't get
all that much from Kuwait. Looking at all US petroleum imports (both
crude oil and other petroleum products) from the top 15 importers to
the US (which includes both Iraq and Kuwait) for 2016 comes out to
around 9,061,000 barrels per day. Iraq's share of that comes to a
little over 3%. Kuwait's contribution is around 2.25%. Hell, we get
more petroleum from RUSSIA than we get from either Iraq or Kuwait.
What do you think Iraq would have done with the oil barring US
military action there? You think they're going to drink it, perhaps?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #12  
Old June 19th 17, 02:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,286
Default Power Satellite Economics

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:

On 6/9/2017 5:24 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Terrestrial solar and wind drive UP prices unless they are heavily
subsidized.


Oh no argument from me. And if heavily subsidized the cost is shifted
from direct payment of an electric bill to the indirect payment through
higher taxes so you could have removed the "...unless" part of that.


Just trying to keep anyone from leaping on 'consumer cost' and making
claims that don't stand up.


If the Middle East didn't contain copious amounts of oil, the US
wouldn't have literally spent trillions of our tax dollars invading
Iraq... twice. So this "renewables aren't fair because they're
subsidized" is b.s. of the first order. If it wasn't for oil, the only
involvement we'd have in the Middle East would be to make sure Israel
can defend itself (which it can).

You can counter my argument when the US has subsidized renewable energy
to the same amount of tax dollars that we've spend on wars in the Middle
East since the first Gulf War.


You understand that the United States gets little to no oil from Iraq
and the 'war for oil' meme is bull****, don't you?


You do know petroleum is a global commodity, right? Remember the oil
crisis of 1973?

We also don't get all that much from Kuwait.


Correct, but we didn't want Iraq to go further and destabilize the
entire Middle East.

Looking at all US petroleum imports (both
crude oil and other petroleum products) from the top 15 importers to
the US (which includes both Iraq and Kuwait) for 2016 comes out to
around 9,061,000 barrels per day. Iraq's share of that comes to a
little over 3%. Kuwait's contribution is around 2.25%. Hell, we get
more petroleum from RUSSIA than we get from either Iraq or Kuwait.
What do you think Iraq would have done with the oil barring US
military action there? You think they're going to drink it, perhaps?


Again, petroleum is a global commodity. Choke off supply from the
entire Middle East and global supply would have suffered. The leaders
in charge at the time pretty much all remembered 1973.

Of course the two gulf wars were before large scale fracking became the
technology of the day, which changes the equation somewhat. That and
OPEC can't seem to get its members to reduce production, even when they
all agree to do so. Again, this is because petroleum is a global
commodity and today's lower prices are hurting many oil exporting
nations. Today, OPEC member nations are not about to hurt themselves
even more by reducing oil production.

If it weren't for oil, the US wouldn't have given a rat's ass that Iraq
invaded Kuwait.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #13  
Old June 19th 17, 04:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,151
Default Power Satellite Economics

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:

On 6/9/2017 5:24 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Terrestrial solar and wind drive UP prices unless they are heavily
subsidized.


Oh no argument from me. And if heavily subsidized the cost is shifted
from direct payment of an electric bill to the indirect payment through
higher taxes so you could have removed the "...unless" part of that.


Just trying to keep anyone from leaping on 'consumer cost' and making
claims that don't stand up.

If the Middle East didn't contain copious amounts of oil, the US
wouldn't have literally spent trillions of our tax dollars invading
Iraq... twice. So this "renewables aren't fair because they're
subsidized" is b.s. of the first order. If it wasn't for oil, the only
involvement we'd have in the Middle East would be to make sure Israel
can defend itself (which it can).

You can counter my argument when the US has subsidized renewable energy
to the same amount of tax dollars that we've spend on wars in the Middle
East since the first Gulf War.


You understand that the United States gets little to no oil from Iraq
and the 'war for oil' meme is bull****, don't you?


You do know petroleum is a global commodity, right? Remember the oil
crisis of 1973?


Yes, I do, but you do not appear to.


We also don't get all that much from Kuwait.


Correct, but we didn't want Iraq to go further and destabilize the
entire Middle East.


Do you think they would take up drinking their oil? If not, as you
say, petroleum is a global commodity. Saudi Arabia, which was largely
behind the oil crisis of 1973, learned a lesson from that. It's why
you don't see them trying to use the 'oil weapon' anymore.

Looking at all US petroleum imports (both
crude oil and other petroleum products) from the top 15 importers to
the US (which includes both Iraq and Kuwait) for 2016 comes out to
around 9,061,000 barrels per day. Iraq's share of that comes to a
little over 3%. Kuwait's contribution is around 2.25%. Hell, we get
more petroleum from RUSSIA than we get from either Iraq or Kuwait.
What do you think Iraq would have done with the oil barring US
military action there? You think they're going to drink it, perhaps?


Again, petroleum is a global commodity. Choke off supply from the
entire Middle East and global supply would have suffered. The leaders
in charge at the time pretty much all remembered 1973.


And the entire Middle East is going to take up drinking oil? Never
happen. They want to sell that ****. As you say, petroleum is a
global commodity.


Of course the two gulf wars were before large scale fracking became the
technology of the day, which changes the equation somewhat. That and
OPEC can't seem to get its members to reduce production, even when they
all agree to do so. Again, this is because petroleum is a global
commodity and today's lower prices are hurting many oil exporting
nations. Today, OPEC member nations are not about to hurt themselves
even more by reducing oil production.


Like I said, they're not going to start drinking that ****. They want
to sell it. You're living in a very simplistic world. Study up on
what happens with cartels like OPEC. I would expect any reasonable
economics text to have a treatment of the subject.


If it weren't for oil, the US wouldn't have given a rat's ass that Iraq
invaded Kuwait.


Perhaps not, but a lot of First World countries gave a hell of a lot
more than a rat's ass about the Middle East long, long before oil was
an issue. Just why do you think that is?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Solar Power Satellite Concept William Mook[_2_] Policy 267 October 5th 10 05:39 AM
Europe's Largest Space Corp to launch Solar Power Satellite Jonathan Policy 8 March 13th 10 08:05 PM
latest solar power satellite designs [email protected] Technology 1 March 25th 06 09:51 AM
Satellite Solar Power Debris risk Alex Terrell Policy 2 November 10th 04 06:58 PM
"Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite" paper Geoffrey A. Landis Technology 17 June 24th 04 09:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.