Not to beat a dead aardvark, but the oil dudes knocked it out of the park with shale gas and bakken oil. I was completely unexpected by myself, who is normally a pessimist and a Libertarian as well. I wish solar of microbial biomass was leading the parade in 2014-15, but it hasn't. To quote Bill Clinton "We play the hand we're dealt." So we must play this hand. BHO did not want this at all, but the capitalists (crony?) went around the democrats and their prez. I am the sort of Libertarian who likes creative ideas that are not necessarily, the first thing we choose to solve economic and social problems. If you are a progressive, its the first thing to choose. If libertarianism doesn't work, let us say in reducing employment, for example, then fine, back to Keynesianism and regulations. We can always to Regulations and Gov control, if Freedom fails and we have nothing to relieve the pain. I am all for being practical-minded and would use anything that works best.
My guess is that solar will Boom, and I mean really, Boom, as soon as electricity storage and transmission gets the right boost, technically<--- Similar innovations that sparked up shale gas, could believable spark up solar storage. -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Jan 2, 2015 2:25 pm Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > The big gusher oil wells in Texas, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico had EROI of > better than 100:1. The EROI most certainly was not 100, not if you include the internal energy of the crude oil as part of the cost of investment, it would ALWAYS be less than one; of course only a fool or a liar would include the internal energy of the crude oil as part of the cost of the investment, but you and your environmental buddies do it for Kerogen so why not do it for crude oil too? There are only 2 reasons I can think of for not doing that, integrity and brains. > you libertarian moron. Opinions differ on the moron part but I am certainly a libertarian. Do you have a problem with that? >> And there is also something called the second law of thermodynamics and if >> you use that too you can ensure that the EROI never even gets as high as 1, >> it's always less, and so nothing, absolutely positively nothing, is worth >> doing. That's all you need to come up with EROI numbers that are always as >> low as you want them to be. Well.., you need one other thing, a desire to >> deceive. > Show me an actual commercially producing shale oil operation? I will just as soon as you show me a place where oil can be sold for more than $120 a barrel. I don't dispute that with oil selling as cheaply as it is today it's not economical with existing technology, but to say as you do that it will never be economical no matter how high oil sells for flies in the face of reality. > Screw those BS numbers. Yes screw Wikipedia and everybody else, believe in Chris de Morsella's prejudices. > In 1982 Exxon threw in the towel after dumping some $5 billion down the > shale oil money pit. In 1837 Charles Babbage used 1837 technology to try to make the first fully programmable digital computer, but after dumping the equivalent of many millions of dollars into that money pit he threw in the towel. In 2015 people use 2015 technology and can make computers successfully. In 1982 Exxon was using 1982 technology, today they use 2015 technology. > John I don’t think you understand how EROI numbers are produced I understand it one hell of a lot better than you do. First you say the true EROI numbers are 2.5:1 but that was inconsistent with everything you were saying, when I pointed this out you correct that to 1:2.5, but nobody familiar with EROI would state it that way, they'd say .4:1. Never mind that even your room temperature IQ environmental buddies would say it's 2 not .4, my point is that even your erroneous information is stated in a ignorant manner. > or what they seek to measure. When you or environmental morons generate EROI numbers they don't measure anything at all except the magnitude of the desire to deceive, the lower the number the greater the deception. > I suggest you read Charles Hall’s seminal work on EROI to get a more in depth > understanding. Why on earth would I follow a recommendation of yours about EROI when you've demonstrated not just ignorance but dishonesty on this subject? By now we both know that a EROI figure of .4 for Kerogen is bullshit, and yet you continue to try to convince people of it. >> ive seconds is all it takes to prove that you're dead wrong. I was wrong a >> while back and when it became clear to me that I had made a mistake I >> admitted it, do you have the intellectual courage to do the same thing? > Yeah right LOL -- Mr. Wikipedia. You have not proved anything. Well I've certainly proved one thing, I've proved that Mr. Chris de Morsella is a intellectual coward incapable of admitting he's wrong even when it's clear as a bell that he is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
