HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:19:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.134910.10093@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>In <1992Aug11.170148.12395@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>In <1992Aug8.122014.4052@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org writes:
>>>The U.S. imports half its Oil.  At this rate we would run out in 8 years,
>>>hence we run out this decade.  We will probably import more oil and
>>>use our own reserves more slowly as we run out, but it is clear that
>>>oil will get much more expensive as we become more dependent on imports.
>>
>>Hm, if imported oil is more expensive, then domestic oil must be
>>cheaper. Where can I fill up my car with domestic gasoline?
>>
>Phil, imported oil is no more expensive than domestic oil.
>The price of oil is affected by what economists call "the law
>of supply and demand".  

I think you missed that the 'sarcasm bit' was set on Phil's posting...;-)

>Let me refrain from taxing your brain 
>with the most simplistic economic theories, but instead
>let us just say that in importing half our oil, our contribution 
>to world demand is 3.1 billion barrels per year.  When we run out 
>we will increase world demand by another 3.1 billion barrels per year.  
>This is a huge increase in world demand.  The increased demand will
>drive the oil price up.

Only if you ignore the fact that the oil market is not a case of pure
competition but is in fact a case of Oligopoly with significant
Monopoly pricing behaviour instituted by a highly organized formal
organ, i.e. OPEC.  To imply that it will follow the 'simplistic
economic theories' of simple supply/demand curve elasticities near 
unity is, indead, taxing ...

The Saudis can turn on a BIG valve for 3 billion bbl/year and not
notice much other than more money for toys.  Again:  Why do you
think Bush is being so cozy with Saudi, Kuwait, UAR, ...

Simple supply and demand elasticity models WILL give the wrong
answer here.  Look to Oligopoly, Monopoly, and Monopsony, Oligopsony
models of pricing structure.  Then ask yourself two questions:
1)  Who has the best Army in the world that money can buy?
2)  Who wants to buy that Army to keep themselves safe, powerful, and rich?

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:24:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

In article <viking.713513182@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <14176@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

>	As I remember, there was an article many years ago concerning the
>fuel consumption of various highway patrol cars.  The article said that the
>cars with the AC running got better milage than those with a window opened
>due to the decreased aerodynamic drag.  While I know that this will not be
>true in all cases, it does point to a trade-off that should be explored on
>a model-by-model basis.

As driving goes, I have relatively the same type/speed of driving week-in and
week out.  I have a light yellow station wagon with a 82 HP diesel 5 cylinder.
If I put that A/C on, I will eat 3 MPG.  This is compared to 2 windows down
2 half down.  Both routine highway/local driving.  Compressor is a rotary
design (~quasi efficient).

Guess what I trade off when it's 100% humidity and 100degrees out??

I wouldn't ever have another car without A/C.  Luxury or no luxury.  Besides,
the engine temp is lower with it own -- guess it dissipates some heat from the
radiator into the condenser (don't ask me, I don't understand it either...)

-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:48:59 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug12.041139.8827@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug10.183441.20237@spdc.ti.com> burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris) writes:
>>
>>1. You must be kidding about the 150 hp garden tractors and 400-600 hp street
>>vehicles. And you have the gall to call others "econazis"?

>Indeed. The SOTA for garden tractors is 800-900 hp out of a blown, nitro
>burning 350 Chevy. Coupling the power to the ground in a tractor that
>must weigh under 2000 pounds is the tricky part. Love those garden tractor
>pulling contests. :-)


I would like to know were you guys shop.  I work part time at Sears, the
lawn and garden department to be precise.  The *largest* "garden" tractor
that we sell has only 18 hp.  The majority of them are only 10hp to 12hp.

>Gary
-- 
--Mark

From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:47:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |jgd@dixie.com writes:
 |
 |>John de Armond is a flaming asshole who believes, possibly
 |>because of difficulties with early toilet training, that that
 |>is a Good Thing To 
 |
 |From Bo, what higher compliment is possible?
 |

I knew you'd see it like that.

 |>P.S. I have never had air conditioning in my car, even during
 |>the 7+ years I lived in and about Atlanta. The claim that A/C
 |>is a "necessity" is, quite simply, wrong.
 |
 |What was that about tenuous grasp on reality?
 |
 |let's try this one on for size.  I don't get cold.  Period.  Not in
 |the winter, not even in New Hampshire with it -20.  At most I wear
 |a light windbreaker in the winter.  Suppose, based on this personal
 |experince, which represents a sample of one, I claimed that heat
 |is a luxury and not by any means a necessity?  I'd sound like an 
 |idiot, whouldn't I?  Just like you, in fact.
 |
 |John
 |-- 

You're qualifying the original claim, no? Change it to:
"For those persons who insist on remaining in the kitchen,
although they can't stand the heat, A/C is a necessity".
I fully agree with this modified claim.


 |hinz@picard.med.ge.com (Dave Hinz) writes:
 |
 |Bo Curry (curry@hplred.HP.COM) wrote:
 |
 |: P.S. I have never had air conditioning in my car, even during
 |: the 7+ years I lived in and about Atlanta. The claim that A/C
 |: is a "necessity" is, quite simply, wrong.
 |
 |In other words, you have been _harming_ the environment by wasting more
 |gasoline, due to the parasitic drag induced by having your car's windows
  ^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 |open.  
 |
 |Ah, the misguided do-gooder.  Perhaps the worst kind.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Careful Dave, your agenda is showing. Since you know nothing about what
car(s) I was driving, or at what speeds, you have no idea whether your
factual claim is true. You don't even know whether my car *had* windows.
Since you know nothing about my motivations, you have no idea whether your
personal characterization is true. In other words, you're talking through
your hat.

Bo Curry
Eco-Nazis for Jesus
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3971 sci.environment:10639
From: pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:23:57 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <1992Aug8.122014.4052@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>Ten countries with largest Oil Reserves in billions of barrels
>Saudi Arabia			255.0
>Iraq				100.0
>United Arab Emirates		98.1
[etc.]

Don't confuse reserves and resources.  (I don't know
which you are reoprting here.)

Normally, the figures that get into the press are not
"How much oil is in the ground",
but instead are
"How much oil can be extracted for a profit at the current
market price".

As the price goes up, it becomes more economic to get
more out of the ground, so the "ammount left" actually
goes up.  That's why we didn't run out in the early 80's.

Paul
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  Opinions expressed are mine! (Yours for a small fee) +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:09:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA


 |jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) propounds:
 |
 |Yeah, right!  You simply wanted to hear yourself type.  Your 15 minutes of
 |fame is over now.  go away.
 |
 | <etc, ad nauseum>

John de Armond is a flaming asshole who believes, possibly
because of difficulties with early toilet training, that that
is a Good Thing To Be. Although sometimes entertaining, this
style of "debate" tends to alienate all except True Believers,
and seriously detracts from the persuasiveness of arguments (if any).
For example, many of us in the (relatively) silent majority,
who have few fundamental concerns about nuclear power
as a technology, nonetheless have serious concerns about it
as a political agenda promoted by persons with such a tenuous
grasp on reality.

Bo Curry
Eco-Nazis for Tax Justice

P.S. I have never had air conditioning in my car, even during
the 7+ years I lived in and about Atlanta. The claim that A/C
is a "necessity" is, quite simply, wrong.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:26:57 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug15.150240.14375@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
>
>Questions:
>1. Do we have common quality information about: remaining
>reserves, environmental costs, alternatives,...

Yes, partially, and yes.

>2. How does the DOE's fixation on nuclear fission and fusion
>relate to a free market in the development of alternatives.

It doesn't relate at all. The free market and government are two
completely separate things. In a free market the government would
not be investing in development of *any* energy sources. Government
has been using spin offs from it's weapons program to fuel a civilian
power cycle, but it's competitiveness seems non-existant. Therefore
it is not distorting the free market for alternatives at all. That's
not to say that fission *couldn't* be a viable alternative to fossil
fuels, just that it currently isn't.

>3. Do we have the right to use up most of the accessible
>reserves of fossil resources, and leave little for our
>grandchildren?

Yes. Our grandparents used up most of the accessible sources of sperm
whale oil. We don't really care. If history's lessons hold true, our
grandchildren will be exploiting some other resource entirely.

>4. Are fossil fuels just another commodity, or a basic
>natural capital that we are wasting more than reinvesting?

Just another commodity. There's nothing unique in crude oil that
can't be synthesized from other sources.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3966 misc.consumers.house:10736
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Power CoGeneration ... Lets start over.
Date: 11 Aug 92 14:15:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:

>It follows that it's cheaper to fire up what is essentially a big car
>engine to create the electricity to charge up a car than it would be to
>use that same engine to drive the car in the first place. This seems to
>fly in the face of conventional physics. One can only assume that there's
>a flaw in either your figures or in those of the electric car proponents.

There is no problem with this if the product of

(efficiency diesel fuel--> electricity)*(efficiency electricity -->
car motive force)  

is greater than

(efficiency gasoline --> car motive force )


Electric motors are much more efficient than automobile engines, and
power plants use the heat generated by burning fuel fairly efficiently
(about 40%).  

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: A little more Tax ->This Decade<-
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:15:22 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug12.015119.8444@swift.cs.tcd.ie> mahonj@swift.cs.tcd.ie writes:
>Hello,
>	Why doesn't the US government increase tax on petrol (gas)
>	by a stated 10c / year for 10 years at least.

Because there would be lynch mobs in Washington before breakfast.
The economic cascade effects caused by this would be awesome. One
quarter of the US economy is directly related to automobiles and
their infrastructure. Nearly everything else indirectly depends 
on cheap transport and cheap energy. That's not true in Europe
or Japan, but it certainly is here. Therefore draconian taxes that 
would be acceptable there would not be here.

Of course we pay the costs in other ways, but that's beside the point.
The *perception* of the need for cheap energy is the political reality.
Taxation as a social engineering force is strongly suspect in the 
political reality of the US. People are doing everything in their 
power to *reduce* the amount of money taken out of the economy by
government at all levels. They aren't succeeding to any great degree,
but that's the dominant political ideology.

Gary
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:18:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |(James W. Swonger)
 | (re Bo Curry's dissection of John DeArmond's DRAM parable)
 |
 | I took it as an illustration of the continued wrongness of the Authorities
                                       ^^^^^^^^^
 |Of Gloom, a proud lineage which has brought us a litany of 'x will never
 |happen' and 'y is inevitable' pronouncements which continually turn out to
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
 |be entirely wrong.
 
Actually, predictions by real authorities are usually more or less right.
The exceptions tend to make the news. Predictions of time scales are
more uncertain than of basic trends. Do you remember the widespread
predictions that deregulation of S&L's, combined with deposit insurance,
would lead inevitably to disaster?

 | Bo appears to construe it as a logical statement of the
 |form
 |
 | 'They' said that 256K DRAMs were the limit; larger DRAMs were developed;
 |therefore oil will not run out.
 |
 |while I believe the formulation is
 |
 | 'They' said that 256K DRAMs were the limit; larger DRAMs were developed;
 |therefore 'They' are not necessarily correct when 'They' base technology-  
 |dependent predictions on the premise of no future technology advances.
 |
 | <Uncontroversial facts omitted>

I have no problems with your formulation. However, to say that
"'They' are not necessarily correct ...",
which is certainly true, is not the same as to say that
"'They' are necessarily incorrect ...", as jgd seems to be claiming.

The probabilities of "them" being correct depend on the facts of the
individual case. Cassandra is often right, after all. Depending on one's
cost functions, to carry out business as usual while waiting for the
next breakthrough may be a prudent strategy, or it might be the height
of foolishness.

Cost functions are largely political, but probabilities are "sci.".

Bo Curry
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:36:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug11.192934.5921@seanews.akita.com> finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney) writes:


>If I remember correctly, running air conditioning consumes less
>energy (at speeds of over about 50 mph) than the increased drag
>resulting from leaving the windows down.

Actually this figure is a little old.  Newer cars, more aerodynamic, and
new air conditioners, even more efficient, have lowered the break even
point dramatically.

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 15:02:40 GMT


In all this discussion, I have yet to see a reference to economic 
distortions that arise from not including all the "external 
costs" in the pricing of our resources. If the costs arising 
from climate change (due to carbon loading) were included 
(difficult as this may be to determine), the price of oil would
probably already not be competitive with some of the potential
alternative sustainable sources. 

Our energy situation currently approaches that of a farmer who
instead of "investing" his/her excess capital in making the 
farm more sustainable ( planting windbreaks, buying conservation
tillage equipment, developing a good crop rotation,...), wastes
all the profits on personal consumption. Once the soil is depleted,
the farmer then figures out that it would be wise to proceed in
a more sustainable matter. However, now that the topsoil is gone,
it is too late and too expensive to do so and the farmer goes
bankrupt. What lead time is needed to convert to a sustainable
energy economy? I have seen estimates of 20 to 100 years. When
the price of oil shoots up to 40 or 80 dollars a barrel, will
there still be time to convert without major social dislocations?
The classical laws of supply and demand were deemed to yield
the best market allocations based on the following assumptions:
1. open access to quality information
2. all costs included
3. no monopolies
4. short-term R and D. In Adam Smith's time, there was no concept
of the long-term, capital intensive developments that we have now.

Questions:
1. Do we have common quality information about: remaining
reserves, environmental costs, alternatives,...
2. How does the DOE's fixation on nuclear fission and fusion
relate to a free market in the development of alternatives.
3. Do we have the right to use up most of the accessible
reserves of fossil resources, and leave little for our
grandchildren?
4. Are fossil fuels just another commodity, or a basic
natural capital that we are wasting more than reinvesting?

Chow!
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4050 sci.environment:10746
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-.
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:18:23 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

I'm getting pretty sick of this thread.  Petroleum *IS* a renewable
resource.  So what if we run out this decade, in another few 
million years there will be plenty to go around again.  So what's
the hurry.  In the mean time we can all just spend some time at
home and relax from all the hectic commuting in traffic, get to
bed early and save a whole lot of money on automobile maintenance.  
I sure could use the vacation.  Sheesh!

;-)  <-------   For the humor impaired.

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:10:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug11.202823.14351@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>: 
>: There *are* environmental problems, of course.  You can't live without
>: having *some* kind of effect on the environment (whether it's detrimental
>: or not depends on your point of view.  For instance, I doubt I would be
>: too heartbroken if mankind did something to rid the universe of mosquitos).
>
>Not to get too pedantic, but if you rid the Earth of mosquitos, you will have
>quite an impact on many species, including frogs, bats, fish (big time),
>birds, etc.  Too many people ignore the fact that there is such a thing as
>a food chain.

On the other hand ... a bio-sci major friend at UCD once commented to 
me that, after studying it for a while, they had found no animal that
DEPENDED on mosquitos and saw no reason that they could not be eliminated
from the Earth ...  

Now this was an undergrad talking off the cuff, but it IS important to 
remember that there are not just food chains but also food WEBS and much
can be done to knock holes in them without having the whole thing fall 
apart...  

I, for one, would be quite happy to have performed the experment of 
extinction of the mosquito.
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:53:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.165457.5065@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.200146.8958@nap.amoco.com> pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel) writes:
>
>>So when you cite petroleum reserves, are you citing those that can can be 
>>produced by primary recovery?  Secondary?  Tertiary?  And at what price?  
>>Today's $20-22/barrel?  How much are you willing to pay for oil?  That will, 
>>in part, determine how much oil is available.
>
>	This is a very good point.  As we deplete our oil reserves,  the
>remaining oil will be harder to recover and the price will go up.  (Also,
>the more dispersed that newly discovered reserves will be and the more
>effort required in exploration.)  In the simplest economic analysis,  sooner
>or later the price of motor fuel (or any other petroleum product) will
>rise above the price of alternatives (i.e. methanol from coal or biomass,
>electric cars powered by wind/solar/coal/nuclear,  whatever.)  In reality,
>external costs and costs related to infrastructure change complicate this,
>but the idea is that sooner or later oil becomes uneconomic.
>
>
>-- 

The various posts about the price of oil rising usually assume some form
of supply and demand leading to a relatively gradual increase in price.
It seems to me that with a large percentage of the reserves in a
relatively unstable region that politics will have the largest effect
and supply and demand curves will be a second order effect.  Saudi Arabia
has been able to keep prices low even though both Kuwait and Iraq are
out of the picture.  I assume this is a thank-you note for our efforts
in the Gulf War but that is another issue.  The smooth curve assumed
for supply/demand models would provide time for alternatives to replace
oil but I think large discontinuities in the curve is more likely.  The
large rises will increase economic dislocation and the large drops will
make the development of alternatives more difficult for the marketplace.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.energy