# 19652 byCharles F. Radley on March 20, 2004, 9:07 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
It is now official, seafood is becoming unsafe because of Mercury
contamination from burning coal.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01038.html
http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/advice.html
Oil and Natural gas will be running out in a few decades and the
world will then rely essentially on coal for its primary source of
energy..
Seafood contamination will get worse.
We need Solar Power Satellites rather urgently, built from lunar
materials.
BTW, has anybody noticed how tiny the US Dept of Energy research
budget is ?
Out of a total budget of about $23 billion, less than half is for
energy research. This is less than the NASA budget.
Yet in a single year, the US spent over $100 billion on military
activities to defend sources of oil.
What is wrong with this picture ?
Cheers,
Charles F. Radley
# 19653 byJohn Kusumi on March 22, 2004, 8:16 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Is it still true that we really need lunar extraction to make SPS feasible?
the consistency of a kite.
With the mass requirement down (compared with late '70s expectations), can
we re-think SPS to be entirely an Earth-built thing, then to be hoisted by
brute force. Admittably, we still need the next generation of launch
vehicle, in sufficient quantity to hoist all of that capacity up.
But, I wonder in light of latest methods, can we get it from the ground to
GEO and cut the moon out of the loop?
In a technical feasibility assessment, more work with mature, known
technology is more feasible, as opposed to added complexities and new
development risk in what might be placed on the moon. If the SPS matter
could be lofted by brute force, I feel that is an easier sale to Washington.
To involve the moon is more nuanced and intricate, and a wad of technical
complexity that could be bypassed if my foregoing thought is feasible.
I will be interested to hear back your opinion(s). Best,
--John Kusumi
# 19654 byArthur P. Smith on March 22, 2004, 8:33 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> With the mass requirement down (compared with late '70s expectations),
> can
> we re-think SPS to be entirely an Earth-built thing, then to be
> hoisted by
> brute force.
Earth. The new Unisolar Ovonic thin film photovoltaics claim 1000-2000
Watts/kg, which is very exciting - almost enough to make it practical
with current-generation launch systems - but there's still a lot of R&D
work (I'd estimate at least a few billion dollars worth) before a
practical system can be launched.
The Moon makes sense later on as space manufacturing develops. It might
also make sense earlier if launch costs do not drop with volume, and we
get something like a trillion-dollar scale commitment...
Arthur
# 19655 byCombs, Mike on March 22, 2004, 8:37 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Is it still true that we really need lunar extraction to make SPS feasible?
the consistency of a kite.
With the mass requirement down (compared with late '70s expectations), can
we re-think SPS to be entirely an Earth-built thing, then to be hoisted by
brute force. Admittably, we still need the next generation of launch
vehicle, in sufficient quantity to hoist all of that capacity up.
But, I wonder in light of latest methods, can we get it from the ground to
GEO and cut the moon out of the loop? That's certainly the assumption of these people: http://www.powersat.com/ My opinion: I'd be delighted if SPS can get an economically-viable start without lunar resources. But long-term (i.e. trying to emplace sufficient SPS to make a significant contribution to global energy needs), I'd sure like to see ET resources come into play.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 19656 byHuebner, Jay on March 22, 2004, 8:43 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
RE: "Oil and Natural gas will be running out in a few decades and the world will then rely essentially on coal for its primary source of energy ... "
I have supported the SPS ideas since the mid 1970's, so don't miss-understand this. The Saudi's pump less than 1/2 % of their proven reserves per year, and they are not looking for more oil, but surely will find more when they do. That means they can keep pumping at the current rate for over 200 more years. We may run out of money to pay, but they will not soon be out of oil. There are many good reasons for SPS, so don't base your hopes for SPS on false premises. Jay Huebner
# 19657 byValens Agnitio on March 22, 2004, 3:38 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Actually, they have and are looking. It is likely that the bulk of the oil
reserves have been found, and any additional studies will be very monor by
comparison. Other methods of providing crude (such as the tar sands of
Athabasca) are costly for a variety of reasons, and won't become truly
viable until market pressures drive the proce up to a sufficiently high
level.
pressure, it is capped and they work off of other free flowing pumps. The
problem arises when this free flow advantage dissappears and added costs are
incurred in lifting the oil out of the ground. In addition, the present rate
of consumption, despite enormous increases in efficiency is rising quite
rapidly, not to mention the coming of age occuring in China and India. These
two alone will dwarf the US's consumption. Along with the many thrid world
countries bent on increasing their standards of living, this will vastly
increase demand and therefore price. And, of course, these reserves will
dwindle far faster than our current extrapolation indicates.
It is my opinion that these factors will conspire sooner rather than later
to necessitate SPS. Of course, in order to avoid the complications that will
result from the inevitable last minute competition for resources before SPS
is absolutely required, I hope that the powers that be will show some
foresight and get a head start. In fact, perhaps this could provide
developed countries a solution to the current losss of jobs to the third
world.
In an earlier posting exchange, TangoMan, Paul, and I spent some time
exploring this issue. A good deal of information was provided by Tango on
the economic outlook, and alternatives to mainstream power by Paul. Perhaps
a brief trawling will yield a more complete picture.
Val
# 19658 byBill on March 22, 2004, 4:38 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Perhaps I'm missed something here, but how exactly is SPS going to
decrease the use of petroleum?
--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"
> Actually, they have and are looking. It is likely that the bulk of
the oil
> reserves have been found, and any additional studies will be very
monor by
> comparison. Other methods of providing crude (such as the tar sands of
> Athabasca) are costly for a variety of reasons, and won't become truly
> viable until market pressures drive the proce up to a sufficiently high
> level.
>
> Presently in the Middle East, when a well stops freeflowing from
it's own
> pressure, it is capped and they work off of other free flowing
pumps. The
> problem arises when this free flow advantage dissappears and added
costs are
> incurred in lifting the oil out of the ground. In addition, the
present rate
> of consumption, despite enormous increases in efficiency is rising
quite
> rapidly, not to mention the coming of age occuring in China and
India. These
> two alone will dwarf the US's consumption. Along with the many thrid
world
> countries bent on increasing their standards of living, this will
vastly
> increase demand and therefore price. And, of course, these reserves
will
> dwindle far faster than our current extrapolation indicates.
>
> It is my opinion that these factors will conspire sooner rather than
later
> to necessitate SPS. Of course, in order to avoid the complications
that will
> result from the inevitable last minute competition for resources
before SPS
> is absolutely required, I hope that the powers that be will show some
> foresight and get a head start. In fact, perhaps this could provide
> developed countries a solution to the current losss of jobs to the
third
> world.
>
> In an earlier posting exchange, TangoMan, Paul, and I spent some time
> exploring this issue. A good deal of information was provided by
Tango on
> the economic outlook, and alternatives to mainstream power by Paul.
Perhaps
> a brief trawling will yield a more complete picture.
>
> Val
>
> >Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:41:34 -0500
> >
> >RE: "Oil and Natural gas will be running out in a few decades and
the
> >world will then rely essentially on coal for its primary source of
energy
> >... "
> > I have supported the SPS ideas since the mid 1970's, so don't
> >miss-understand this. The Saudi's pump less than 1/2 % of their
proven
> >reserves per year, and they are not looking for more oil, but
surely will
> >find more when they do. That means they can keep pumping at the
current
> >rate for over 200 more years. We may run out of money to pay, but
they
> >will not soon be out of oil. There are many good reasons for SPS,
so don't
> >base your hopes for SPS on false premises. Jay Huebner
>
Internet
# 19659 byArthur P. Smith on March 22, 2004, 8:23 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
All energy is, to one degree or another, interchangeable. If our major
energy source becomes SPS rather than oil and coal, electric cars will
likely have advantages; bio-fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel) fertilized by
electrically generated fertilizers could fill in for those still tied
to internal combustion. In principle eletrically generated hydrogen
could work, but in practice it looks like other options will be more
efficient and less expensive.
# 19660 byBill on March 23, 2004, 12:06 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
But this is the dream that nuclear power advocates preached in the 50s
and 60s. Electricity so cheap its not worth monitoring. The reality
was that there were cost in nuclear energy that were ignored.
than the present base load system. Even if it is, I see no reason why
an electricity cartel won't keep prices high enough for all the
players in the game.
Even if the prices decided to drop by an order of magnitude over night
(instead of over fifty years), the rest of the economy could easily
have a twenty to thirty year lag. It takes time and money to gear up
to produce a billion gallons of bio-fuel if it is even physically
possible. GM and Ford take five to ten years to go from design to the
first car coming off the assembly line and this is with a product that
they have decades of experience with not with something fundementally
different. Hydrogen if it became cheap enough has its own problems.
Add the cost for the infrastructure to distribute and store hydrogen.
This is one of the biggest problems I have seen on this list. People
assume that given the magic bullet (in this case ultra cheap
electricity) everything else will fall into place.
A similar discussion about lower launch costs has also occurred.
Historically the major technological revolution followed after the
industry was up and running and making money. In England it was only
after the cottage industry for spinning was profitable that the
spinning jenny showed up. In Germany only when demand for steel
raised the prices did the bessemer furnace showed up.
In America it was the electric light and later radio that gave
impetious to build the electrical network.
So what reason as a businessman would I have to invest in space? What
can be done cheaper better or faster there that will give me reason to
part with a billion or two of my money? What are the revenue streams
if any, what are th products (real products) or services.
These are the questions that have to be answered. Space
industrialization does not have to happen. It isn't something that
will spontenously form fully formed an functional like Athena from
Zues' head. It is something that must be built.
# 19661 byArthur P. Smith on March 23, 2004, 1:03 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I made no assumption of cheap electricity from SPS. The question is can
we replace coal and oil, without too much harm to the economy. The
answer is, we can, but it will take several decades. As far as
profitable business goes for space applications; some private companies
are ready to try things now - but more likely we'll need a few billion
dollars of federal investment first to prove out the technology and lay
the groundwork - as generally has happened in almost every other field
of technology in the past.
# 19662 byCharles F. Radley on March 23, 2004, 6:22 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> But this is the dream that nuclear power advocates preached in the
50s
> and 60s. Electricity so cheap its not worth monitoring. The reality
> was that there were cost in nuclear energy that were ignored.
>
> I see no reason to believe that SPS electricty will be any cheaper
> than the present base load system. Even if it is, I see no reason
why
> an electricity cartel won't keep prices high enough for all the
> players in the game.
>
Certainly not me !
Actually it depends on what you mean by "cheaper".
The price we pay for fuel and electricity ignores the enormous
military cost of safeguarding the sources of that energy.
And it also ignores the massive cost of collateral damage to the
environment, global warming, and Mercury poisining to our children,
and the huge health care cost which will result as well as reduced
life expectancy.
SPS will be more "expensive" than conventional sources in terms of
the direct retail cost to the consumer.
But SPS will be far "cheaper" in terms of dramatically reduced
collateral damage to health and the environment, and the military
cost of defending sources of energy will all but disappear.
And of course, quality of life will improve by making a more pleasant
and peaceful world - I am not sure how to measure that in terms of
cost. And I am not sure how to express the value of increased life
expectancy in terms of "cheapness".
Best regards,
Charles F. Radley
# 19663 byCharles F. Radley on March 23, 2004, 6:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> RE: "Oil and Natural gas will be running out in a few decades and
the world will then rely essentially on coal for its primary source
of energy ... "
> I have supported the SPS ideas since the mid 1970's, so don't
>miss-understand this. The Saudi's pump less than 1/2 % of their >
proven reserves per year, and they are not looking for more oil, but
> surely will find more when they do. That means they can keep
pumping
> at the current rate for over 200 more years. We may run out of
>money to pay, but they will not soon be out of oil. There are many
>good reasons for SPS, so don't base your hopes for SPS on false
>premises. Jay Huebner
That is certainly what the Saudis would like you to believe. And
more to the point, what they want their own people to believe. But
more critical accounts I have read question the accuracy of the
estimates eminating from Saudi Arabia. There is reason to believe
they are massively overstating their reserves.
You could be in for a nasty shock a lot sooner than you expect.
Cheers,
Charles R.
# 19664 byCharles F. Radley on March 23, 2004, 6:31 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> Perhaps I'm missed something here, but how exactly is SPS going to
> decrease the use of petroleum?
>
> Bill
>
SPS could reduce the consumption of coal.
As for petroleum, well, when it runs out, we'll have to start
snythesizing it from coal.
Then again, SPS could enable a hydrogen economy.
Cheers,
Charles R.
# 19665 byThor Olson on March 23, 2004, 8:21 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
The Saudi's have been advocating for a production cut
in the face of weakening ties with the Bush
administration. On the surface this is payback for
messing with Iraq. I don't buy this since the Saudi
govt is just as vulnerable to extremists as the US is
so they would be outwardly critical and privately
accomodating.
hide some problem? They also moved to switch to Euros
which would take some of the bit out of the dollar's
slide. The source strata is only 75 feet thick
leading me to believe they have less reserves than
they say.
At the point it is revealed that Saudi govt does not
have what it says it has, then there will be a panic
in the west to get off of oil and thus devalue the
remaining reserves. This would be the worst of
outcomes for Saudi Arabia as they want a nice
consistent rising cashflow to fund all of their social
programs.
Cheers, Thor
--- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> RE: "Oil and Natural gas will be running out in a
few decades and the world will then rely essentially
on coal for its primary source
of energy ... " I have supported the SPS ideas since
the mid 1970's, so don't
>miss-understand this. The Saudi's pump less than 1/2
% of their proven reserves per year, and they are not
looking for more oil, but
> surely will find more when they do. That means they
can keep
pumping
That is not what I hear.
> at the current rate for over 200 more years. We may
run out of
>money to pay, but they will not soon be out of oil.
There are many good reasons for SPS, so don't base
your hopes for SPS on false
>premises. Jay Huebner
That is certainly what the Saudis would like you to
believe. And more to the point, what they want their
own people to believe. But more critical accounts I
have read question the accuracy of the estimates
eminating from Saudi Arabia. There is reason to
believe they are massively overstating their reserves.
You could be in for a nasty shock a lot sooner than
you expect.
Cheers,
Charles R.
# 19666 byThor Olson on March 23, 2004, 8:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Let's see if I can address your concerns adequately...
those of nuclear power of the 50's and 60's. Notice
how nulcear power is comming back into consideration
as renuables have this unfortunate problem of
consistency. Nuclear is not going to go away and
neither are the costs associated with it. This makes
SPS look like a bargain if you figure out a way to use
lunar materials. Again the permission for this will
be decided at the governmental level with private
enterprise waiting without a mandate until then.
2) The fossil fuel energy supplies of the world are
questionable in the face of ever rising global demand.
This means that over time energy will become
progressively more expensive as competition heats up
for a scarce resource. SPS is something that grows
the supply and thus slows down or eliminates this
senario in the long run. In the end all of the oil
gets burnt unless it is outlawed to do so. The price
will always be a function of demand in some way or
another.
3) In a 30 year time window looking back, PC's were
barely though of let alone existant. By the same
logic SPS technology could be well worked out with
only a small investment over a long period of time.
More concerning is that the global climate has a risk
of being unstable (see the pentagon report) and any
significant deviation would demand massive outlays of
power and resources to accomodate. Being energy rich
is a very desirable strategic objective. Being
dependant on coal, nuclear is not so bad if you ignore
the pollution. Being addicted to low cost oil is the
worst.
4) During WW2 the US and european allies poured
immense sums into reseach and development. The
obvious results were the atom bomb, radar, rocket
technology, etc. This investement program continues
to this day in some form or another and the resultant
innovations trickle into industry. This model didn't
work very well prior to the information age as the
state was little interested in funding technology.
Now it is an essential part of the world economy and
has enabled a standard of living that was scarcely
immaginable when Bessemer was firing up his furnaces.
I realize that this is a very condensed view and
leaves out a lot of details. Still things are very
different now than they were 30 years ago.
5) Where does business fit in? I haven't figured this
out yet either so you have company. It is easier to
make money selling global warming abatement plans than
raising the hundreds of billions for SPS and then
putting it to work. China is much more dependent on
future energy sources so may go forth on an Lunar
Solar Panel like plan if I understand their strategy
right. They know it is dangerous to spend people in
to space so they will be busily perfecting the robots
that will be needed to get the cost down. Until there
are enough voters outraged that China is ahead of the
US in application of technology, little is going to
change. Still when it does there will be many
business opportunites to those that want to pursue
them.
Hope this helps...
Cheers, Thor
--- In ssi_list@... Bill
But this is the dream that nuclear power advocates
preached in the 50s and 60s. Electricity so cheap its
not worth monitoring. The reality
was that there were cost in nuclear energy that were
ignored.
I see no reason to believe that SPS electricty will be
any cheaper than the present base load system. Even if
it is, I see no reason why
an electricity cartel won't keep prices high enough
for all the players in the game.
Even if the prices decided to drop by an order of
magnitude over night (instead of over fifty years),
the rest of the economy could easily
have a twenty to thirty year lag. It takes time and
money to gear up to produce a billion gallons of
bio-fuel if it is even physically
possible. GM and Ford take five to ten years to go
from design to the first car coming off the assembly
line and this is with a product that
they have decades of experience with not with
something fundementally different. Hydrogen if it
became cheap enough has its own problems.
Add the cost for the infrastructure to distribute and
store hydrogen.
This is one of the biggest problems I have seen on
this list. People assume that given the magic bullet
(in this case ultra cheap
electricity) everything else will fall into place.
A similar discussion about lower launch costs has also
occurred.
Historically the major technological revolution
followed after the industry was up and running and
making money. In England it was only
after the cottage industry for spinning was profitable
that the spinning jenny showed up. In Germany only
when demand for steel
raised the prices did the bessemer furnace showed up.
In America it was the electric light and later radio
that gave
impetious to build the electrical network.
So what reason as a businessman would I have to invest
in space? What can be done cheaper better or faster
there that will give me reason to
part with a billion or two of my money? What are the
revenue streams if any, what are th products (real
products) or services.
These are the questions that have to be answered.
Space industrialization does not have to happen. It
isn't something that
will spontenously form fully formed an functional like
Athena from Zues' head. It is something that must be
built.
--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> All energy is, to one degree or another,
interchangeable. If our major
> energy source becomes SPS rather than oil and coal,
electric cars will
> likely have advantages; bio-fuels (ethanol,
bio-diesel) fertilized by
> electrically generated fertilizers could fill in for
those still tied
> to internal combustion. In principle eletrically
generated hydrogen
> could work, but in practice it looks like other
options will be more
> efficient and less expensive.
>
> Arthur
>
> > Perhaps I'm missed something here, but how exactly
is SPS going to
# 19667 byLúcio de Souza Coelho on March 24, 2004, 11:20 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Em Ter 23 Mar 2004 23:10, Thor Olson escreveu:
> 5) Where does business fit in? I haven't figured this
> out yet either so you have company. It is easier to
> make money selling global warming abatement plans than
> raising the hundreds of billions for SPS and then
> putting it to work. China is much more dependent on
> future energy sources so may go forth on an Lunar
> Solar Panel like plan if I understand their strategy
> right. They know it is dangerous to spend people in
> to space so they will be busily perfecting the robots
> that will be needed to get the cost down.
level of the Russians (which, by the way, have little or no research in space
robotics), so the purely economic cost of launching humans does not look much
of an issue to them. Second, the symbolic value of human life is probably not
much of an issue either, considering that we are talking about a country
where 10,000 executions a year are acceptable, smashing students with tanks
is acceptable and establishing penalties for couples with too much children
is acceptable.
# 19668 byClaudio on March 24, 2004, 12:30 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Actually establishing penalties for couples with too many children seems
quite a good idea to me too... :)
sending humans instead of robots could be an interesting approach, at least
at the beginning... Chinese are small and they don't eat much either
anyway... (except those who owns a restaurant in the west) :)
However if China was to embark in a massive space program I would imagine
that other Asian countries, primarily Japan but Korea could come a close
second, would be very interested in providing all the robotic technology
needed in exchange for cheap lift offs... especially considering Japan is
importing all the energy it doesn't produce with nuclear power stations and
is importing fuel even for those, facing a steep price raise SPS kind of
programs could become quickly very appealing... so much so as to make a
collaboration with China acceptable I can't say, nor if this would go down
well for Chinese either actually, but economic interest is known to have
made best friends out of yesterday deadly enemies before (and deadly enemies
out of best friends overnight, for that matter)...
One thing for sure anyway, if China, Japan, Russia, India, Europe and the US
all put up their own SPS the bill for military spending to protect energy
supply ain't going down... :)
Cheers,
Claudio
# 19669 byLúcio de Souza Coelho on March 24, 2004, 12:52 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Em Qua 24 Mar 2004 15:09, Claudio escreveu:
> Actually establishing penalties for couples with too many children seems
> quite a good idea to me too... :)
problem, those penalties were a necessity - and necessities always overcome
ethics.
However, there are places in the world (e.g., several European countries),
where population *shrinking* is a problem, and the inverse strategy - giving
incentives to couples that have "many" (more than one, in this case) children
- is applied.
I think that both sides would be happy if Chinese babies were mass-exported to
Europe. :-)
# 19670 byForDutyAndHumanity IAmSpacebearAICDA on March 24, 2004, 2:55 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
in response to the cheap amorous solar cells and china's need for energy, why not do what the japanese did with solar cells. They developed their technology by putting solar cells on small devices like calculators.
Can the chinese build a useful SPS prototype and pack it into the largest ship they can use to ship it out in low earth orbit. then can they lower the price of everything by manufqacturing improvements on the whole project.
best regards
pete
# 19671 byEd Minchau on March 24, 2004, 3:06 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> I made no assumption of cheap electricity from SPS. The question
is can
> we replace coal and oil, without too much harm to the economy. The
> answer is, we can, but it will take several decades. As far as
> profitable business goes for space applications; some private
companies
> are ready to try things now - but more likely we'll need a few
billion
> dollars of federal investment first to prove out the technology
and lay
> the groundwork - as generally has happened in almost every other
field
> of technology in the past.
>
> Arthur
>
began the discipline of aerodynamics. Government did not lay out
the groundwork for electric lights: that was Edison, with 10000
failures and one success. Government did not lay out the groundwork
for the telephone system; that was Bell. Government did not lay out
the groundwork for television: that was Phil T. Farnsworth.
Government did not lay out the groundwork for space either: that was
Goddard and Tsiolkovsky and von Braun.
And today the guys laying the groundwork for space are not named
Bush or Cheney or O'Keefe or Kerry: they are named Musk and Bezos
and Rutan and Carmack.
Ed
# 19672 byHuebner, Jay on March 24, 2004, 3:34 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
RE: "Government did not lay out the groundwork in ...."
I think you are wrong about many details on this, though I acknowledge the real world is probably more complex than I can envision.
The German, US and Soviet governments paid for the engineering (and on the job training) for those who made rockets go to space.
The Wright brothers sold their airplanes to the US government, which made improvements possible, and then the US government through military airplanes and then through US air mail contracts kept aviation going until other markets were developed.
Edison and Bell used government sanctioned monopolies to get their industries going.
Like it or not, mostly governments made aerospace happen.
Jay Huebner
# 19673 byArthur P. Smith on March 24, 2004, 8:50 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
[some examples from early in the last century, and]
> Government did not lay out the groundwork for space either: that was
> Goddard and Tsiolkovsky and von Braun.
sufficient to bring an invention to practical widespread use through,
generally, private R&D. Just because you've come up with a great
invention doesn't mean it's ready for prime time. Since WWII government
technology funding, mostly federal, has been key to bringing jet
propulsion, computing, the internet, a wide variety of medical
technologies, etc. out of the lab and into widespread practical use.
That's what I was referring to.
>
> And today the guys laying the groundwork for space are not named
> Bush or Cheney or O'Keefe or Kerry: they are named Musk and Bezos
> and Rutan and Carmack.
But Musk is likely to find one major market in federal Dept. of Defense
contracts; the others are, despite valiant efforts, not exactly
speeding ahead in the technology arena - what they're doing is great,
but cheap suborbital flight is not quite what we're looking for to open
up space. Maybe the NASA centennial challenge money will help go
further there.
Honestly, $50 million or whatever the X prize people are spending is
not a lot of money. The last generation of CATS (orbital vehicle)
people failed at a larger scale - several hundred million dollars spent
- why couldn't we keep that spending up until they succeeded? At least
Elon Musk is shooting for orbit from the start. Maybe Bezos is too,
haven't heard much about his project.
Arthur
# 19674 byValens Agnitio on March 25, 2004, 6:42 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Here's an interesting look at the world oil scene from a very qualified
individual:
>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:27:13 -0000
>
> > RE: "Oil and Natural gas will be running out in a few decades and
>the world will then rely essentially on coal for its primary source
>of energy ... "
> > I have supported the SPS ideas since the mid 1970's, so don't
> >miss-understand this. The Saudi's pump less than 1/2 % of their >
>proven reserves per year, and they are not looking for more oil, but
> > surely will find more when they do. That means they can keep
>pumping
>
>That is not what I hear.
>
> > at the current rate for over 200 more years. We may run out of
> >money to pay, but they will not soon be out of oil. There are many
> >good reasons for SPS, so don't base your hopes for SPS on false
> >premises. Jay Huebner
>
>That is certainly what the Saudis would like you to believe. And
>more to the point, what they want their own people to believe. But
>more critical accounts I have read question the accuracy of the
>estimates eminating from Saudi Arabia. There is reason to believe
>they are massively overstating their reserves.
>
>You could be in for a nasty shock a lot sooner than you expect.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Charles R.
>
(Limited-time offer)
# 19675 byvictoriatangoman on March 26, 2004, 12:56 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"
> Here's an interesting look at the world oil scene from a very
qualified
> individual:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_leuffer/leuffer200403230848.asp
from his article. He's throwing the kitchen sink and everything else
into the mix in order to reassure his audience but there are
internal contradictions and his time analysis is too short.
He concludes that "the decline in the dollar has had no impact on
oil supply, demand, or inventories," while earlier noting "China's
accelerated oil demand is at least partially offset by a *slowdown
in demand growth* rates in Japan, Europe, Russia, Latin America,
Africa, and the United States."
In economics, at the margin there is always a reaction to higher
prices if the demand curve is not inelastic. Oil is an elastic good.
If you go back 18 months and chart the price of oil in Europe
against that in the US, you'll see that prices have been rising much
faster in the US than in Europe. Coincidentally the dollar has also
been dropping. This increases the US inflation rate vis a vis Europe.
To factor in SPR is invalid unless it is a standard historical
procedure. Further, the market has no input on whether to release
the reserves, that is a national strategic decision made by the
President. SPR is not included in inventory calculations and for
Leuffer to imply that it is is dishonest.
It is worthless to conclude "For example, no producer has cut oil
production because the dollar value has declined." Why on Earth
would a producer cut production when they can raise prices?
He writes that the SPR "fill rate has averaged over 1 million
barrels a week, or about 1 percent of U.S. crude oil demand" and
then concludes that if "the administration should cease purchases
sometime in the first half of the year which would have the same
impact as a sudden 1 percent drop in crude oil demand." This is
schoolyard math at work for the market for oil, which is a
commodity, is global, and total global demand must be considered,
not just US demand. The 1% drop in US demand would translate into
about a 1/5 of 1% of global demand. This is too small to have much
noticable impact on oil prices.
He's asked if we're running out of oil and answers that we're not.
Of course we are because oil is a finite resource. Perhaps he meant
that supply is coming on stream faster than demand. Perhaps he meant
that proven reserves are increasing faster than field depletion. But
he offers nothing in the way of further explanation.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id$22858
Saudi Oil Fields
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/business/24OIL.html?
ex92958800&en=dc727c73cd688914&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Saudi Oil Fields
http://www.iht.com/articles/131016.html
Oil Producers responding to price signals
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/business/worldbusiness/24deep.html?
ex80709200&en=a3a4820685357860&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
More on Saudi
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/business/worldbusiness/25oil.html?
ex93131600&en9f1411775fbe13&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
This guy's whole analysis is shoddy and is certainly one of the
reason's I gave up on National Review a long time ago. It provides
good talking points but never offers analysis that deviates from the
party line. In this respect it is just as bad as its leftist
counterparts. Each needs to reassure its audience that their version
of the world is the right one, damn the facts.
The only way to parse accurate information from the disparate
sources is to be an analytical reader and apply a rigorous bullshit
detector. Hold the claims of doom and global climatic catastrophe to
a hard standard but also hold the claims of vested interests to the
same standards.
Here's my take: China's growth, not to mention India's, are going to
significantly increase the demand curves for oil. We've already run
into a slowdown in new field discovery and introduction of new
sources. Russia, the Caspian basin and Africa are probably the last
new fields to come online. Prices will increase and this will make
marginal fields profitable. The clear fact is that growth of demand
will grow faster than the growth of supply. We're behind the curve.
The increased oil prices will ripple through the economy and
decrease economic growth marginally.
Environmental regulations that limit the number of domestic oil
refineries have a severe impact on oil supply resilience. Further,
laws which mandate gas reformulation for the different seasons also
increase the price of gas and stockpiling. All of these regulations
are not cost free. If we want them we have to be prepared to pay for
them - that's what many leftists aren't understanding - there's no
free lunch. There will be market distortions when mandated
reformulations are seasonally implemented or when refineries break
down.
Dollar weakness has to be abated eventually or the dollar will lose
its status as an international currency. The Chinese and Japanese
have lost a boatload of money by holding dollar reserves in the
hundreds of billions while the dollar has been plummeting in value.
Because oil is priced in dollars we can buy many things in exchange
for greenpaper and not an exchange of value. If the fiscal situation
of the US isn't remedied soon, the dollar will lose it's appeal
versus the Euro and if oil is switched to being priced in Euros then
Europe will be able to exchange colored pieces of paper for goods
while the US will have to exchange value to get those Euros in order
to buy oil.
Also, for the conspiracy minded, here's a tidbit for you. Iraq was
going to switch from dollar pricing to Euro pricing in its sale of
oil to the UN Food-For-Oil program before the war. What the US
absolutely does not want to happen is to have the Euro become the
currency for oil transactions.
Lastly, I don't want to come off as too harsh on the National
Review. It is a good source for talking points and ideological
inspiratiion or insight, but I'd be leary of referring to it as an
authoritative source. I referenced them in the Law of the Sea post I
put up a few days ago in order to point out their view of things,
not as an unbiased source of information.
TangoMan