|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > August 2005 > Power to the masses
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Power to the masses
|
|
| Sniper8052(L96A1) 2005-07-24, 9:06 pm |
| Does any one know who else might be interested in publishing this idea,
I have sent it to the PM's office but it will probably get buried there
so if you can giveme some names emails etc I would be very interested to
send it on and see what reactions I get.
Thanks all
Sniper8052
Message to PM:
Whilst driving on holiday and using the Motorway and A road systems it
occured to me that the same infrastructure which is being used to light
the roads could also be used to generate power.
By fixing compact wind turbines to the tops or sides of suitable lamp
standards a large amount of power could easily and cheaply be generated.
Such turbines are already used to provide alternative domestic power
supplies and are readily available.
The advantages that I see with this approach are:
1) The basic support is already available and in place.
2) The same wiring can be used to transmit the power into the national
grid as is used to power the light when in use.
3) The turbine units are simple to install and replace.
4) There would be very little if any opposition as the land is:
a)Already owned by the government.
b)Already being used.
c)Any noise would be very minimal and would more likely be masked by
traffic - at night the turbines could be feathered as they would not be
generating power.
5)Cost - Using existing land and structures the only outlay would be on
the support fixing, turbine and switching.
6)The technology is availabe now.
7)A recent study showed that micro-generation has the capability of
producing more power, more efficiently, more cheaply and in a more
environmentally friendly way than any other source.
Clearly there will be issues which I am not qualified to address here
but this idea has, I feel, very much to recommend it above those
approaches being pursued at present.
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2005-07-24, 9:06 pm |
| "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>By fixing compact wind turbines to the tops or sides of suitable lamp
>standards a large amount of power could easily and cheaply be generated.
> Such turbines are already used to provide alternative domestic power
>supplies and are readily available.
Interesting idea and application for a small mass-produced savonius
system, especially in an area with regular winds and tall lightpoles.
It could be a bolt-on replacement for the entire light head assy. I
don't think large amounts of power could be consistent enough to be
cost-effectively added to the grid, but there is no reason why at
least some lamp poles couldn't be energy sufficient. There are areas
of the U.S. where roadway lamps are kept lit all day to discourage
theft of the feeder wiring. Larger commercial towers in the median
buffer strip would seem to make sense as well, but could raise
interesting havoc with radio and cell-phone reception unless non-metal
blades were used.
| |
|
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e4fdea.40319768@localhost...
> "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting idea and application for a small mass-produced savonius
> system, especially in an area with regular winds and tall lightpoles.
> It could be a bolt-on replacement for the entire light head assy. I
> don't think large amounts of power could be consistent enough to be
> cost-effectively added to the grid, but there is no reason why at
> least some lamp poles couldn't be energy sufficient. There are areas
> of the U.S. where roadway Llamps are kept lit all day to discourage
> theft of the feeder wiring.
People steal the street light wiring? That is new one on me.
> Larger commercial towers in the median
> buffer strip would seem to make sense as well, but could raise
> interesting havoc with radio and cell-phone reception unless non-metal
> blades were used.
They would be used as cell phone towers too.
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2005-07-25, 1:21 am |
| "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
>People steal the street light wiring? That is new one on me.
Yep. One location that was brought to my attention was Miami along
the Dolphin and other expressways. IIRC, a few years back one of the
idjuts that did this got turned into a pop tart while scrounging for
"scrap metal" wire to sell for drug money.
| |
|
|
|
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e95bb0.64329132@localhost...
> "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yep. One location that was brought to my attention was Miami along
> the Dolphin and other expressways. IIRC, a few years back one of the
> idjuts that did this got turned into a pop tart while scrounging for
> "scrap metal" wire to sell for drug money.
>///////////////////////
Why go this route when we have untold sites on streams rivers even from
water dams that are not used for generation and therefore go to waste, these
days low maintenance compact units could be placed anywhere and fed into the
nearest power system.
My conclusion is that we are not serious about saving the planet if we were
these projects would be on going using no extra carbon fuels in the long
term and would certainly pay for themselves in a short period.
| |
|
| Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> Does any one know who else might be interested in publishing this idea,
> I have sent it to the PM's office but it will probably get buried there
> so if you can giveme some names emails etc I would be very interested to
> send it on and see what reactions I get.
>
> Thanks all
>
> Sniper8052
>
> Message to PM:
>
> Whilst driving on holiday and using the Motorway and A road systems it
> occured to me that the same infrastructure which is being used to light
> the roads could also be used to generate power.
>
> By fixing compact wind turbines to the tops or sides of suitable lamp
> standards a large amount of power could easily and cheaply be generated.
> Such turbines are already used to provide alternative domestic power
> supplies and are readily available.
>
> The advantages that I see with this approach are:
>
> 1) The basic support is already available and in place.
> 2) The same wiring can be used to transmit the power into the national
> grid as is used to power the light when in use.
> 3) The turbine units are simple to install and replace.
> 4) There would be very little if any opposition as the land is:
> a)Already owned by the government.
> b)Already being used.
> c)Any noise would be very minimal and would more likely be masked by
> traffic - at night the turbines could be feathered as they would not be
> generating power.
> 5)Cost - Using existing land and structures the only outlay would be on
> the support fixing, turbine and switching.
> 6)The technology is availabe now.
> 7)A recent study showed that micro-generation has the capability of
> producing more power, more efficiently, more cheaply and in a more
> environmentally friendly way than any other source.
>
> Clearly there will be issues which I am not qualified to address here
> but this idea has, I feel, very much to recommend it above those
> approaches being pursued at present.
some one correct me if I am wrong but traffic on the m way would create
lotts of turbuelence . I am not saying it would not work but will need
very high towers .
p.s. has anyone seen those wind gens sat on top of speed check matrix
sighns in the uk ?
| |
|
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e4fdea.40319768@localhost...
> "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting idea and application for a small mass-produced savonius
> system, especially in an area with regular winds and tall lightpoles.
> It could be a bolt-on replacement for the entire light head assy. I
> don't think large amounts of power could be consistent enough to be
> cost-effectively added to the grid, but there is no reason why at
> least some lamp poles couldn't be energy sufficient.
An Mway running through open countryside could well have a small turbine on
top of every other standard. The total produced would be substantial. The
only problem I see if a high wind blows over a turbine, or one or two shed a
blade, then 70-80mph traffic is under it.
| |
| daestrom 2005-07-25, 6:21 pm |
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e4fdea.40319768@localhost...
> "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting idea and application for a small mass-produced savonius
> system, especially in an area with regular winds and tall lightpoles.
> It could be a bolt-on replacement for the entire light head assy. I
> don't think large amounts of power could be consistent enough to be
> cost-effectively added to the grid, but there is no reason why at
> least some lamp poles couldn't be energy sufficient. There are areas
> of the U.S. where roadway lamps are kept lit all day to discourage
> theft of the feeder wiring.
Hmmm.... All of the street lighting we have around here is always energized
and use individual photo-cells to control the on/off of the lamps. Anyone
trying to steal the supply wiring during the day thinking they are
deenergized just because the lamps are off is in for a shock.
daestrom
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2005-07-26, 12:21 am |
| News,
I think you may have hit on the real problem with this idea. Lamp
standards were not designed to withstand the additional side thrust
that a wind turbine would impose upon them.
In addition, think about the cost, in terms of material and labour, to
retrofit turbines to thousands of existing lamps standards. Would that
cost ever be recouped?
OTOH, designing and using NEW lamp standards with wind and/or PV
generation built-in might be cost-effective.
Gordon Richmond
| |
| Ulysses 2005-07-26, 12:21 am |
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:42e41912$0$7500$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42e4fdea.40319768@localhost...
generated.[color=darkred]
>
> People steal the street light wiring? That is new one on me.
I've hear about people going out into the desert (South California) and
cutting down hundreds of yards of wire from the power lines. They would sit
around stripping wire while drinking beer and watching TV and sell it as
copper scrap.
>
>
> They would be used as cell phone towers too.
>
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-07-26, 1:21 am |
|
Gordon Richmond wrote:
> News,
>
> I think you may have hit on the real problem with this idea. Lamp
> standards were not designed to withstand the additional side thrust
> that a wind turbine would impose upon them.
>
> In addition, think about the cost, in terms of material and labour, to
> retrofit turbines to thousands of existing lamps standards. Would that
> cost ever be recouped?
>
> OTOH, designing and using NEW lamp standards with wind and/or PV
> generation built-in might be cost-effective.
>
> Gordon Richmond
A small genny is not going to subject a concrete pole to much side
thrust ;~) Lets say you have a 500 watt genny on each pole, the total
power out put per mile ( a pole every 100 feet)would have to be about
264,000 watts?
| |
| wmbjk 2005-07-26, 12:21 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:14:14 -0700, "Ulysses"
<therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I've hear about people going out into the desert (South California) and
>cutting down hundreds of yards of wire from the power lines. They would sit
>around stripping wire while drinking beer and watching TV and sell it as
>copper scrap.
Yup. Two related stories - 1. A telco engineer told me about a
many-miles long rural telephone line that served a single user. The
user didn't need the line anymore, so the telco wanted to abandon it
because wire theft had proven to be a continuing problem. 2. One of my
uh, rustic neighbors had a double-garage sized pit full of salvaged
wire, which he set on fire in order to get rid of the insulation. I
don't think it was a very practical method, especially since the goo
overflowed the pit, and set one of his hundred junk cars on fire.
Wayne
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2005-07-27, 12:21 am |
| Not all lamp standards are concrete. Metal ones are typically used
here in Canada. I'm sure, that whatever construction material is used,
that they were engineered to sustain the thrust caused by the wind on
the standard itself plus the lamp(s) carried, and plus a reasonable
safety margin. Is that safety margin enough to sustain the thrust of
the wind acting against a rotor which is MEANT to have wind
resistance?
Not to mention that cost, in both materials and labour, of
retrofitting wind generators to existing lamp standards would be
considerable.
Somehow, though, I see this as the kind of idea that might find favor
with politicians, as they would be very seen to be "doing something"
about energy scarcity, even if the effort was in fact
counterproductive. But I'm not a cynic, nope not at all.
Gordon Richmond
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-07-27, 6:21 pm |
|
Gordon Richmond wrote:
> Not all lamp standards are concrete. Metal ones are typically used
> here in Canada. I'm sure, that whatever construction material is used,
> that they were engineered to sustain the thrust caused by the wind on
> the standard itself plus the lamp(s) carried, and plus a reasonable
> safety margin. Is that safety margin enough to sustain the thrust of
> the wind acting against a rotor which is MEANT to have wind
> resistance?
>
> Not to mention that cost, in both materials and labour, of
> retrofitting wind generators to existing lamp standards would be
> considerable.
>
> Somehow, though, I see this as the kind of idea that might find favor
> with politicians, as they would be very seen to be "doing something"
> about energy scarcity, even if the effort was in fact
> counterproductive. But I'm not a cynic, nope not at all.
>
> Gordon Richmond
The side thrust is not an issue, we have small boats in our local
harbour with 300 watt wind gennys mounted on the roofs and railings
and masts spinning like mad . Many of our light standards here in
Belleville Ontario are metal, already fitted with two foot by 8 foot
banners for special events catching strong winds off Lake Ontario. Right
now we are putting new hydro generators in existing dams along the Moira
river, just one will power 200 houses. The thing that pisses me off most
of all is the fact we should have half a dozen of those monsters like
the mill in front of Pickering stuck in the Bay of Quinte.
| |
| Mr Clarke 2005-08-01, 5:21 pm |
| There have been attempts to make being "green" fashionable. It seems to
have tailed-off
more recently with the Public Relations and advertising. Of course vandalism
has always
been fashionable throughout every society, maybe they could do something
with this approach?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
"rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote in message
news:42e4c7a6$1_4@alt.athenanews.com...
>
> "Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42e95bb0.64329132@localhost...
> Why go this route when we have untold sites on streams rivers even from
> water dams that are not used for generation and therefore go to waste,
these
> days low maintenance compact units could be placed anywhere and fed into
the
> nearest power system.
> My conclusion is that we are not serious about saving the planet if we
were
> these projects would be on going using no extra carbon fuels in the long
> term and would certainly pay for themselves in a short period.
>
>
| |
| John Gilmer 2005-08-07, 9:21 am |
|
[color=darkred]
> these
> the
Apparently, "they" just don't think that "small" scale hydro plants are
worth the trouble at all.
I live in the "newspaper" zone of Fredericksburg, VA.
With GREAT fanfare, the environmental wackos got the Federal government to
pay for the cost of removing 100 year old concrete dam across the local
river. Why? so the little fish can swim a little higher up stream.
The nature of the dam construction and its height guaranteed that it would
never have a failure that could cause serious problems downstream (a section
or two in theory might suddenly fail but that would not be a threat.)
The dam was built to divert water to a canal than went to a power plant.
But "they" walked away from the entire investment some 20 (plus) years ago.
"They" let they canal dry up (and when it was filled later for recreation
purposes it "leaked" and folks started complaining about wet basements.
The environmental wackos didn't care one bit about all that "wasted" power.
They didn't even look into using the drop right at the dam (about 15') to
generate power.
In fact, most of the environmental wackos want to tear down the power dams
we now have and NEVER build new ones.
| |
| Mr Clarke 2005-08-07, 6:21 pm |
| What will "they" think when "we" start building free energy devices in
our own homes?
(I mean aside from Alternatives such as Solar Power).
Just about all utilities will be self-contained and we can almost forget
about the wildlife
around us!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
"John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:42f5f10e$0$20389@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
>
from[color=darkred]
into[color=darkred]
>
> Apparently, "they" just don't think that "small" scale hydro plants are
> worth the trouble at all.
>
> I live in the "newspaper" zone of Fredericksburg, VA.
>
> With GREAT fanfare, the environmental wackos got the Federal government to
> pay for the cost of removing 100 year old concrete dam across the local
> river. Why? so the little fish can swim a little higher up stream.
>
> The nature of the dam construction and its height guaranteed that it would
> never have a failure that could cause serious problems downstream (a
section
> or two in theory might suddenly fail but that would not be a threat.)
>
> The dam was built to divert water to a canal than went to a power plant.
> But "they" walked away from the entire investment some 20 (plus) years
ago.
> "They" let they canal dry up (and when it was filled later for recreation
> purposes it "leaked" and folks started complaining about wet basements.
>
> The environmental wackos didn't care one bit about all that "wasted"
power.
> They didn't even look into using the drop right at the dam (about 15') to
> generate power.
>
> In fact, most of the environmental wackos want to tear down the power dams
> we now have and NEVER build new ones.
>
>
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-08-07, 9:21 pm |
|
"Mr Clarke" <news@ashley-clarke.com> wrote in message
news:1123449433.a3d0247b9d36b8dd25dd0ca3f4a31cd2@teranews...
> What will "they" think when "we" start building free energy devices in
> our own homes?
> (I mean aside from Alternatives such as Solar Power).
> Just about all utilities will be self-contained and we can almost
forget
> about the wildlife
> around us!
They will think someone has finally deliveryed a system at 10% of present
free energy cost.
Free scams are a dime a dozen these days.....
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ashley Clarke
> -------------------------------------------------------
> "John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message
> news:42f5f10e$0$20389@dingus.crosslink.net...
> from
waste,[color=darkred]
> into
to[color=darkred]
would[color=darkred]
> section
> ago.
recreation[color=darkred]
> power.
to[color=darkred]
dams[color=darkred]
>
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-08-08, 2:21 am |
|
John Gilmer wrote:
>
>
> Apparently, "they" just don't think that "small" scale hydro plants are
> worth the trouble at all.
>
> I live in the "newspaper" zone of Fredericksburg, VA.
>
> With GREAT fanfare, the environmental wackos got the Federal government to
> pay for the cost of removing 100 year old concrete dam across the local
> river. Why? so the little fish can swim a little higher up stream.
>
> The nature of the dam construction and its height guaranteed that it would
> never have a failure that could cause serious problems downstream (a section
> or two in theory might suddenly fail but that would not be a threat.)
>
> The dam was built to divert water to a canal than went to a power plant.
> But "they" walked away from the entire investment some 20 (plus) years ago.
> "They" let they canal dry up (and when it was filled later for recreation
> purposes it "leaked" and folks started complaining about wet basements.
>
> The environmental wackos didn't care one bit about all that "wasted" power.
> They didn't even look into using the drop right at the dam (about 15') to
> generate power.
>
> In fact, most of the environmental wackos want to tear down the power dams
> we now have and NEVER build new ones.
>
>
I hate it when the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads try and tar everyone with
simplistic one size fits all labels. The "Environmental wackos" in my
city are putting hydro generators IN every existing damn in the area and
are talking of putting up big wind gennys after doing some wind studies.
| |
| John Gilmer 2005-08-08, 2:21 am |
|
>
> I hate it when the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads try and tar everyone with
> simplistic one size fits all labels. The "Environmental wackos" in my
> city are putting hydro generators IN every existing damn in the area and
> are talking of putting up big wind gennys after doing some wind studies.
Un huh.
And WHEN was the last "power dam" buit in your area?
EMWTK
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-08-08, 4:21 pm |
| On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:08:33 -0400, Ford Prefect <paintmeblue@pagan.org>
wrote:
>I hate it when the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads try and tar everyone with
>simplistic one size fits all labels. The "Environmental wackos" in my
>city are putting hydro generators IN every existing damn in the area and
>are talking of putting up big wind gennys after doing some wind studies.
No, environmentalists are not all wacko. However, wacko's are far more
likely to be militant environmentalists than the general population.
--
Bob
| |
| phlegmatico@yahoo.com 2005-08-09, 6:21 am |
| > My conclusion is that we are not serious about saving the planet if
not to paraphrase Goering (or was it Himmler?), but whenever I hear
anyone talk about "saving the planet", i want to get my pistol out.
| |
|
| >> The environmental wackos didn't care one bit about all that "wasted"
>
> I hate it when the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads try and tar everyone with
> simplistic one size fits all labels.
They don't differentiate between the truly irrational wackos and the
rational people trying to make the world better because they live there.
There are also rational conservatives who are trying to conserve, pushing
for high milage cars and a reduction in oil imports as a matter of national
security, as opposed to the "conservative wackos" who want to enjoy their
big gas guzzler cars and party away their extravigantly wasteful lifestyle.
> The "Environmental wackos" in my city are putting hydro generators IN
> every existing damn in the area and are talking of putting up big wind
> gennys after doing some wind studies.
Those aren't the "wackos", obviously.
CM
| |
|
|
<phlegmatico@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123577033.339404.234930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> not to paraphrase Goering (or was it Himmler?), but whenever I hear
> anyone talk about "saving the planet", i want to get my pistol out.
You don't want the planet saved?
| |
|
|
"CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote in message
news:219Ke.3661$RS.2703@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
(about[color=darkred]
>
> They don't differentiate between the truly irrational wackos and the
> rational people trying to make the world better because they live there.
The UK is short of about 4 million homes and there is a programme to build
these homes. Some will naturally have to be built on green field sites of
course. Many whakos don't want any building whatsoever on any green field.
Yet, only 7.5% of the UK is built on, with much of the fields paid to lay
idle by European Union subsidies - our tax money. The countryside has been
loosing people at a rapid rate, and all studies say more people should be
encouraged back into the countryside, by creating industries there. The
whakos don't want any building whatsoever.
These whakos have no idea of reality and would rather people be homeless
than use the land for the benefit of people. What amazes me, is that the
media give them an outlet.
> There are also rational conservatives who are trying to conserve, pushing
> for high milage cars and a reduction in oil imports as a matter of
national
> security, as opposed to the "conservative wackos" who want to enjoy their
> big gas guzzler cars and party away their extravigantly wasteful
lifestyle.
Those who drive guzzlers on imported Middle Eastern oil are usually the
first to decry terrorists. Yet they indirectly feed them.
>
> Those aren't the "wackos", obviously.
They sound very senibble people.
| |
| John Gilmer 2005-08-09, 8:21 pm |
|
>
> Those who drive guzzlers on imported Middle Eastern oil are usually the
> first to decry terrorists. Yet they indirectly feed them.
Maybe. They also pay a lot more than their "fair share" in taxes used to
maintain the roads.
The reality is, of course, was that if demand went down, the low cost
producer (guess who) would completely dominate the market.
The best thing for conservation and for increased domestic production of oil
would be for oil prices to continue to SLOWLY go up. The "slow" part is
necessary because it help assure the money people that the price increase is
permanent and that they can recovered their exploration and oil field
development and recovery costs.
>
>
> They sound very senibble people.
Depends! If they "invest," say, $1million to produce enough power to just
keep a few homes supplied then they are just as wacko as the folks who tear
down perfectly good dams.
That's been the problem with a lot of these "good ideas:" they just don't
make economic sense.
If the wackos REALLY wanted to "protect the environment" they would be
pushing for nukes.
>
>
>
| |
| John Gilmer 2005-08-09, 8:21 pm |
|
>
> You don't want the planet saved?
Save it from what? The sun exploding? Good luck!
Another warming cycle? Maybe, but the geological records show that "global
warming" comes and goes without much help from people.
| |
| phlegmatico@yahoo.com 2005-08-10, 5:21 am |
| John Gilmer wrote:
> The reality is, of course, was that if demand went down, the low cost
> producer (guess who) would completely dominate the market.
i'm not understanding why that worries you. if the price (it's not
all that high now, relative to the *current buying power* of a USD)
went down it's because demand went down. If demand went down, the
low-cost producers (Saudi & Kuwait, maybe Iraq or or Iran in the
second tier) wouldn't hold much economic lockout power. They can't
drink the oil. They are irretrievably committed to a
western-consumerist lifestyle. They need to sell as much as we need to
buy.
OPEC has never been able to control pumped-output of its members. The
small boys will make a public commitment to cut back.... then cheat.
Notwithstanding the tendencies of the Wahhabi peasantry to run around
with Crusaders-vs-Saladin fantasies, the folks in Saudi who know the
difference between up and down, are not interested in sacrificing their
mortgage payments to actually empower Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad.
Don't pay attention to their rhetoric.... pay attention to what they
*do*.
It's many years now that the Qataris are quietly having a defacto
Israel Embassy in their country. This tells me a lot about what the
Gulf ruling classes think are the priorities. And no, they won't be
overthrown, they're the only folks who know how to keep the
supermarkets stocked and the hospitals open! Also, they're rather
skilled at playing divide-and-conquer politics against the clans and
tribes. The working classes in the Gulf are pretty well informed about
how the economy of Iran went to shit when the Mullahs took over the
control-knobs of the economy. If you think that everyone in Saudi is
wealthy, you're badly out of touch with reality of the Arab world.
The world supply of cocoa IS totally dominated by the vagaries of civil
war in the low-cost producer: Ivory Coast, a typical African shit-hole.
It hasn't stopped anyone, anywhere, from doing anything,
chocolate-wise. Oil is the same. They can't drink it. They will never
be part of industrial world.... they need to keep a million filipinos
in the kingdom, just to be able to function in an
western-infrastructural kind of way.
Last time I saw The Petroleum Minister of Saudi being quoted in the
Asian Wall Street Journal, he was publicly fretting that the price of
oil has gone *too high*. And it's not because he wants to make it
easier for the american peasantry to enjoy NASCAR.
When the western world started complaining about the Saudi middle
classes being allowed to send contributions to Islamic militants, the
ruling classes hemmed and hawed about it. When the Islamists started
making poopy INSIDE Saudi, the rulers clamped down very hard, very fast.
| |
| John Gilmer 2005-08-10, 9:21 am |
|
>
>
> i'm not understanding why that worries you.
Frankly, the so-called "energy crisis" doesn't worry me at all. I am just
bringing some economic reality into the picture. The simple fact is that
so long as oil is available for a relatively low cost then it's silly to
"conserve" it. When the oil becomes hard to find, prices will go up and
provide an HONEST incentive to conserve or find out means to get the job
done.
> if the price (it's not
> all that high now, relative to the *current buying power* of a USD)
> went down it's because demand went down.
Supply is being manipulated by the smarter Arabs (i.e.: the Saudis.) They
are doing all they can be expected to do to keept prices from rising too
quickly or falling much. That's smart becuase a reliable fuel source has
a higher value than an unreliable fuel source. That's why most "wind
farms" should be considered a demonstration of wishful thinking rather than
a serious addressing of the problems.
>If demand went down, the
> low-cost producers (Saudi & Kuwait, maybe Iraq or or Iran in the
> second tier) wouldn't hold much economic lockout power. They can't
> drink the oil. They are irretrievably committed to a
> western-consumerist lifestyle. They need to sell as much as we need to
> buy.
Remember, I said they were smart. The Sautis have $money to maintain their
startand of living if they found it necessary to cut back production to keep
prices from falling too much. Were the US to launch a SERIOUS attack on
oil imports, the Saudis would let prices drop to the point that private
producers will stop spending money for future oil and would likely put
present production facilities into a "deferred maintenance" mode.
>
> OPEC has never been able to control pumped-output of its members. The
> small boys will make a public commitment to cut back.... then cheat.
The Saudis are well aware that their OPEC "partners" might cheat. But so
what? When prices are LOW the "leaders" don't sell much oil; when prices
are HIGH they sell all they can pump. The "cheaters" have the effect of
keeping the Saudis in the catbird seat for a longer time.
>
> Notwithstanding the tendencies of the Wahhabi peasantry to run around
> with Crusaders-vs-Saladin fantasies, the folks in Saudi who know the
> difference between up and down, are not interested in sacrificing their
> mortgage payments to actually empower Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad.
> Don't pay attention to their rhetoric.... pay attention to what they
> *do*.
I do!
Sending money to crazy muslims is an expensive hobby for them. Sometimes
their hobby bites them (there have been terror attacks in Saudi Arabia.)
Frankly, one solution would be for the US military to "pretend" to build up
the military in Iraq an then just take over Saudi Arabia including the "Holy
Cities."
I'm not sure that the US would do a better job of regulating production than
the Saudis. It's known that the "W" administration thinks that
stable/rising oil prices are good. When when this comes out, they get a
lot of negative ink.
>
> It's many years now that the Qataris are quietly having a defacto
> Israel Embassy in their country. This tells me a lot about what the
> Gulf ruling classes think are the priorities. And no, they won't be
> overthrown, they're the only folks who know how to keep the
> supermarkets stocked and the hospitals open!
Don't ever forget what happend in Iran.
> Also, they're rather
> skilled at playing divide-and-conquer politics against the clans and
> tribes. The working classes in the Gulf are pretty well informed about
> how the economy of Iran went to shit when the Mullahs took over the
> control-knobs of the economy.
Again, remember what happened in Iran.
>If you think that everyone in Saudi is
> wealthy, you're badly out of touch with reality of the Arab world.
Oh, the Saudi citizens are all wealthy by most standards. The poor folks
are the "guest workers."
>
> The world supply of cocoa IS totally dominated by the vagaries of civil
> war in the low-cost producer: Ivory Coast, a typical African shit-hole.
> It hasn't stopped anyone, anywhere, from doing anything,
> chocolate-wise. Oil is the same. They can't drink it. They will never
> be part of industrial world.... they need to keep a million filipinos
> in the kingdom, just to be able to function in an
> western-infrastructural kind of way.
What's your point? That the Saudis are rich and don't want to get their
hands dirty?
>
> Last time I saw The Petroleum Minister of Saudi being quoted in the
> Asian Wall Street Journal, he was publicly fretting that the price of
> oil has gone *too high*. And it's not because he wants to make it
> easier for the american peasantry to enjoy NASCAR.
I guess we agree that they are smart.
>
> When the western world started complaining about the Saudi middle
> classes being allowed to send contributions to Islamic militants, the
> ruling classes hemmed and hawed about it. When the Islamists started
> making poopy INSIDE Saudi, the rulers clamped down very hard, very fast.
Yep! Like I said, up to a point, supporting the crazy muslims was an
expensive hobby. When things get too close to home ...
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-08-10, 11:21 am |
| John Gilmer wrote:
>
> Save it from what? The sun exploding? Good luck!
>
> Another warming cycle? Maybe, but the geological records show that
> "global warming" comes and goes without much help from people.
Fine. So people have nothing to do with the current warming cycle. That'll
be so reassuring to the future generations who'll have to endure it. In
previous warm cycles people have been able to migrate out of the tropics to
the temperate zone. Are you prepared to let them do that this time?
--
derek
| |
| John Gilmer 2005-08-10, 1:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:hvaps2-237.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> John Gilmer wrote:
>
>
> Fine. So people have nothing to do with the current warming cycle.
Nothing? Maybe, maybe not.
> That'll
> be so reassuring to the future generations who'll have to endure it. In
> previous warm cycles people have been able to migrate out of the tropics
to
> the temperate zone. Are you prepared to let them do that this time?
Sure. What's to stop us? The Canadian military?
BTW: whatever happened to "nuclear winter?"
> --
> derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-08-10, 2:21 pm |
| John Gilmer wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:hvaps2-237.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
>
> Nothing? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> to
>
> Sure. What's to stop us? The Canadian military?
Well, you won't find us a push-over like Iraq or Vietnam. However, I was
thinking more about 100 million South and Central Americans trying to get
into _your_ country.
--
derek
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-08-10, 3:21 pm |
| On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:14:38 GMT, "CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote:
>as opposed to the "conservative wackos" who want to enjoy their
>big gas guzzler cars and party away their extravigantly wasteful lifestyle.
HAAAAA!!!! <ROFLOL!>
Where? Please! Show me JUST ONE!
That's a total myth CM. It's just a stereotype cooked up by the wacky
Leftist-Socialists to fool people. I may be wrong, but I think you bit on
it.
I guess I talk to 100 conservatives on a regular basis, and not 1 of them is
unconcerned about oil import dependence and waste. You want to talk about
"extravagantly wasteful lifestyles"? Look at the Hollywood crowd, just about
all Leftist-Socialists.
I'm just about as conservative as you can get. I'm also just about as
serious about conservation as you can get... short of burning SUV's and
sitting in trees.
--
Bob
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-08-10, 3:21 pm |
| Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:14:38 GMT, "CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote:
>
>
> HAAAAA!!!! <ROFLOL!>
>
> Where? Please! Show me JUST ONE!
Since you ask... How about the Governator in California?
It's not a matter of left or right whether you have an extravagant wasteful
lifestyle - there's all kinds.
--
derek
| |
| no_child_left_unleashed@yahoo.com.sg 2005-08-11, 10:21 am |
| > people have been able to migrate out of the tropics to
> the temperate zone. Are you prepared to let them do that this time?
they have the right to not try to adapt to the change (ie, by
migrating), and we have the right to put up better fences.
All of those folks are the ones who are the loudest whiners about the
sacredness of their national sovereignty. Ok, let them enjoy their
homeland, in their homeland.
The Mexicans are fairly ruthless with people who try to sneak through
*their* southern border....
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-08-12, 4:21 am |
|
<no_child_left_unleashed@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:1123762804.608173.272480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> they have the right to not try to adapt to the change (ie, by
> migrating), and we have the right to put up better fences.
>
> All of those folks are the ones who are the loudest whiners about the
> sacredness of their national sovereignty. Ok, let them enjoy their
> homeland, in their homeland.
>
> The Mexicans are fairly ruthless with people who try to sneak through
> *their* southern border..
Two military camps patroling the Southern border with shoot first- ask
questions later.
Jail what is left for 20 years at hard labor.
8 years in jail if your Visa/Passport is over 6mos. expired.
Had a friend ,whose husband had a heartattack while on vacation down there.
After 3months was beginning to wander if she was going to live down there.
Before they released the body.....
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-08-12, 12:21 pm |
| On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:53:38 -0300, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:
>Since you ask... How about the Governator in California?
What about him? I bet I burn more fuel in my Toyota than Schwartzenegger
burns in his Hummers. I'm sure that his job demands dictates that he must
fly much more than drive. Do you know what kind of mileage a private jet
gets?
Would you have Arnold quit his Governors job to save fuel? That would be an
extremist view.
Would you have a 6-2 240# man in a suit ride all scrunched up in a Prias?
That would be a bit extremist too.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. rides all over the country in a private jet giving talks
on saving resources. Is that hypocritical? Would you put him on a bus? I say
"no" to both questions. Instead, I say make airplanes more efficient and use
alternative fuels wherever we can. We can't run jets on corn cobs, but we
can use them wherever it *is practical.
--
Bob
| |
| Jim Baber 2005-08-12, 7:21 pm |
| Jim Baber replies:
Bob Adkins wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:53:38 -0300, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>What about him? I bet I burn more fuel in my Toyota than Schwartzenegger
>burns in his Hummers. I'm sure that his job demands dictates that he must
>fly much more than drive. Do you know what kind of mileage a private jet
>gets?
>
>Would you have Arnold quit his Governors job to save fuel? That would be an
>extremist view.
>
>Would you have a 6-2 240# man in a suit ride all scrunched up in a Prias?
>That would be a bit extremist too.
>
>
I am 6' 4" and 300 pounds. I found the Prius surprisingly comfortable,
more comfortable in fact than a mid-sized GM that I rented recently. I
think a private jet is a bit hypocritical for anyone purporting to be
sensitive to the environment if the flight is not filled.
>Bobby Kennedy Jr. rides all over the country in a private jet giving talks
>on saving resources. Is that hypocritical? Would you put him on a bus? I say
>"no" to both questions. Instead, I say make airplanes more efficient and use
>alternative fuels wherever we can. We can't run jets on corn cobs, but we
>can use them wherever it *is practical.
>
>
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-08-14, 9:21 pm |
| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:54:33 -0700, Jim Baber <jim@baber.org> wrote:
>I am 6' 4" and 300 pounds. I found the Prius surprisingly comfortable,
>more comfortable in fact than a mid-sized GM that I rented recently. I
>think a private jet is a bit hypocritical for anyone purporting to be
>sensitive to the environment if the flight is not filled.
Don't misread me. I am by no means a Robert Kennedy Jr. fan. However, you
can get the word out about conservation much more efficiently when taking a
jet. Now, it there's only 3 or 4 people at the rally's, that's another
matter. 
--
Bob
| |
| phlegmatico@yahoo.com 2005-08-15, 3:21 am |
| > now, it there's only 3 or 4 people at the rally
as long as they are 20-something gushing babes, the rally served
its intended purpose
|
|
|
|
|