Kirk,
We will always have problems with the US payback times. Look at Iraq,
According to the Geneva convention, US and UK have the responsibility to
create a safe environment for its inhabitants. Instead they created an
unsafe environment and by that allowed and encouraged their troops to
commit war crimes. They should have know better, since history proves that
if you occupy a country against its will, the methods to subdue resistance
from the population, will automatically lead to war crimes.
The whole pattern in Iraq, with minimizing costs and troops for security,
is a question of payback times. US thought that they could attack and
occupy Iraq and get the money back from oil production. Instead they
created an enormous financial problem for themselves, something that many,
including myself, warned about before the invasion.
US and UK have the responsibility, according to Geneva convention and
International law, the responsibility to rebuild Iraq. Instead we see US
propaganda, which is painting US as benevolent, when they on occasion
restore electricity and water for the population. They had no problems with
lack of it, before the invasion. US and UK have the financial
responsibility to do so, but instead they make it dependent on donations
from the rest of the world. It is a question of payback times for US and it
is a war crime.
The US quest for pay back times, resulted in the very large problems of
"terror attacks". Yes, US have moved their fight abroad, to Iraq, Spain and
UK.
Hakan
At 05:00 AM 7/22/2005, you wrote:
Biofuels are probably cheaper than petro. When you include the costs of
the military in a barrel of mideast oil the real cost is not the quoted one.
The environmental costs are real as well. Unfortunately they are paid in
sickness and reduced life -- and usually by the poorest members of humanity.
I think what I am trying to say is we are on this list because of the
costs of conventional technology and business paradigms. There has to be a
better way, especially if mankind is to prosper.
Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no argument here. but that wasn't the point.
yet at the same time, it was. i mean, if we were to let such considerations
determine our actions--let alone what we are willing to think or imagine--we
wouldn't all be on this list, would we? ;âº)
cheers,
-chris b.
on 7/21/05 6:21 PM, Kirk McLoren at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>The machine to harvest the energy is a capital investment and when you
>>consider the utilization factor the cost of the harvested energy is not
>> competitive.
>
>
>
>"Payback period is the most widely used measure for evaluating potential
>investments. Its use increases in tough economic times, when CIOs are apt
>to say things like, 'We won't even consider a project that has more than a
>24-month payback.' "
>
>Above from Comput! erworld. Any technology that has a payback period of,
say,
>10 years or more (fusion, hot or cold, tidal, deep ocean thermal) will
>never get off the ground. Easter Island: "take half their pay to plant
>more palms that won't make canoes for 10 years?? Off with your Head!!"
>
>Until the evaluation system changes, innovation suffers. -K
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
