From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Richard has a gripe (was Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change)
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:10:55 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <51792@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.221336.3232@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>:> This is God Awful long, and mostly just rebuts Richards points, but
>:> I've tried to make it entertaining along the way... Give it a try
>:> before you give up and hit 'n' ...
>:> 
>:> >> >If you take a small producer, for example, incentives and long term
>:> >> >reductions in energy costs may not offset his cost to convert, particularly
>:> >> >if downtime during conversion is included.  
>:> >> 
>:> >> There will be a full spectrum of players with the full range of
>:> >> marginal costs.  By definition, most of them will be near the 
>:> >> mean difficulty to converst and your example of a small producer
>:> >
>:> >Why?  How can you say this is by definition?  
>:> 
>:> Yes, it is true, the middle is the middle by definition.
>
>You recommend to "Give it a try".  I just did.  You were dishonest right at
>the start here by selectively quoting my challenge 

The original paragraph was:

*** STUFF FROM ORIGINAL ***

Why?  How can you say this is by definition?  I was responding to a post that
claimed current technology would permit 54% savings if all equipment was
100% converted.  In no way can you assume from that, that by definition
most will be near the mean - when you then assume that "mean" means able
to profitably and easily convert.  I could propose technology that would
cost $1 million/ kW-h to convert.  Then how many industries could convert?
You can't just assume that only a few exotic cases will not be able to convert.

*** END STUFF ***

I accurately quoted THE question that pertains to my posting..  I also 
trimmed out the long statement of your position, much of which is 
directed at someone elses post about 100% conversion.  (I presume that 
folks who want the whole text can go back and re-read it.  Heck, my 
posting ran to 447 lines as it was, largely due to over-inclusion of 
quotes. You want me to quote everything you post?...)   I see no dishonesty.  

I can say it is by definition since I see it as a question of looking
at a large sample space (ALL the economy) and looking for the (mean/
modal point).  You see it as being some issue of pre-defining 'mean'
as 'profitably and easily converted'.  That is your problem, not mine.
When you ask me to clarify MY position, please do not pre-suppose 
that I must do so in the context of YOUR pre-conceptions of it.

The question of 'how many industries could convert' was not addressed
for two reasons.  First, it was predicated on a position that I do
not hold (note that the sentence starts with 'Then' and points to
a preposterous premise of $1M/kW-h).  You wanted me to respond to 
a scenario of $1m/kW-h ?  Second, I don't see it as an issue of
industries converting, I see it as an issue of energy USES being
converted without regard to the particular industry.

>and distorting the question

Where is the distortion?  The QUESTION was quoted fully.  It asked
for MY reasons for being able to claim that most players will be
near the mean difficulty to convert by definition.  I have not
advocated that this must mean 'easy to convert', only that this
indicates that YOUR example was flawed in that it was pre-suposing
a difficult to convert case was typical.  Note please:  I clearly
stated that *I* believe that there will be a full range of players
with a full range of difficulties.  *I* also stated that I believe
that these will be converted, easiest first.  I have made no
representation about where the equlibrium will be struck on conversion
(what percent of 'difficulty to convert' will be the cutoff).

>and then ridiculing me in the answer to your distortion.  

If you feel ridiculed, that is something that you have brought to
the debate.  Please don't blame me for your emotional responses.

>Time to hit 'n',
>and consider adding you to a kill file.

Feel free.  I will respond as I see fit to topics, you may chose to
participate or not.  It is an open forum. 

-- 

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy