Article

2007-08-07 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2007-08-07 13:13|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Neither would be better.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2007-08-07 14:14|| 2007-08-07 14:14|| Front Page Top

#2 "Neither would be better." Nice sentiment, but we have no choice. The price I pay for natural gas to heat my home has gone up from $2 per 1000cubic feet to $13 since 1980. Everyone knows what has happened to the price of motor fuel. The current situation is not due to either mandates or taxes, but mostly from supply/demand imbalances. The cash we pay to import petro products is funding most of the Jihad.
The price the US pays for energy, both in cash and lives, will continue to rise over the next 20 years, regardless of what our esteemed and honourable representatives do. Measures taken now can lessen the pain a great deal, but the vast majority of the electorate is just not interested. One major question is, will the US economy, submerged in vast debts, survive?

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-07 14:32|| 2007-08-07 14:32|| Front Page Top

#3 > The price I pay for natural gas to heat my home has gone up from $2 per 1000cubic feet to $13 since 1980

shouldn't have printed so many dollars and devalue your own currency.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2007-08-07 14:48|| 2007-08-07 14:48|| Front Page Top

#4 One of the biggest drawbacks with government mandates is there is a rush to get out a product that meets government standards but is less efficient. Right now there is a big push on to eliminate standard light bulbs with "snowcone" type flourescent bulbs. I have tohose type of bulbs and they are not as bright as a standard bulb so I wound up putting in more lamps. The same can be said for the "water-saving" toilets. They don't really save water as people flush more. Shower heads are another bad idea. Less flow means more time in the shower. No water saved. What is really happening here is we either pay willingly to get more energy efficient appliances or the government will force it on us. I prefer to let the free market decide. As demand for more efficient stuff grows there is more incentive to produce them. The government providing subsidies is an invitation for scams and rip-offs.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-08-07 14:50|| 2007-08-07 14:50|| Front Page Top

#5 The government providing subsidies is an invitation for scams and rip-offs.

Exactly, Deacon. I can't think of a single such govt. ~~swindle~~subsidy that had the actual desired effect - ethanol, anyone? The last thing we need is any more govt. involvement in energy policies and incentives.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-08-07 15:31|| 2007-08-07 15:31|| Front Page Top

#6 Pebbles - that's one of the issues in the US economy. I recently saw a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, measured in both $ and euros, it looks really bad as measured in euros. Part of the escalating price of oil to the USA is an implicit devaluation of the dollar, the price in other countries' currency isn't nearly as bad. The $ is being devalued as we speak. Much larger devaluations of the $ are probably inevitable.
Deac - Agree with you on energy-efficient appliances & such. They don't do their jobs very well. In June 2007 Consumers Reports had this to say:

Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, youll have to spend $900 or more.

No, thanks.
The energy market is not a free market. Texas was one of the first places where oil production was regulated by legal manipulation, to prevent excessive production and ridiculously low prices. The US government has been subsidizing the extravagant use of petroleum since automobiles became popular, mostly by paying for highway construction. Oil fields have been nationalized in many parts of the world. OPEC is a cartel. Etc.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-07 15:51|| 2007-08-07 15:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Deacon,
Regarding those compact fluorescent bulbs, they have a warm-up curve, unlike incandescent bulbs. The seem to me to be about as bright as advertised once they warm up. That makes them best used in places where they stay on for extended periods (eg. front door light) or don't care much how bright they are (eg. closets), and not places where you turn them off in 10 minutes (eg. bathrooms).
I figure they are a temporary phenomenon anyway - the cost-capability function of LED arrays is improving in giant steps and should end up with better energy efficiency, lower cost and cleaner environmental performance before too many years. They are already moving into certain niches (stage lights, traffic lights).

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-08-07 15:56|| 2007-08-07 15:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Just for kicks I have run compact fluorescents in open fixtures along with incandescent lights of (supposedly) the same light output. The fluorescents have always appeared dimmer than the incandescents, and this gets worse as the bulbs age.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-07 16:11|| 2007-08-07 16:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Click here for a comparison of the Dow Jones Industrial Average figured in dollars vs. euros, as of 30 July 2007.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-07 16:12|| 2007-08-07 16:12|| Front Page Top

#10 Part of the escalating price of oil to the USA is an implicit devaluation of the dollar, the price in other countries' currency isn't nearly as bad.

Say what? The price of gasoline in England is roughly about $5 to $7 bucks depending on which part of England you're talking bout, higher prices as you're nearer London. Hell worldwide we're close to the bottom of the range of prices.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2653

Posted by Valentine 2007-08-07 16:16|| 2007-08-07 16:16|| Front Page Top

#11 I was not referring to the price at the pump, the upper limit of which is under the control of the taxing authorities. It doesn't matter if England charges the equivalent of $100 a gallon to its motorists, the price of imported petroleum has roughly the same price worldwide. England will pay less for what little they import since the value of the British pound has been improving with respect to the US $, the same has been happening with the Euro. The US will suffer more because it imports such a large share of the worldwide export market.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-08-07 20:33|| 2007-08-07 20:33|| Front Page Top

23:35 twobyfour
23:27 gromgoru
23:26 Anonymoose
23:23 gromgoru
23:23 gromgoru
23:15 Anonymoose
23:10 gromgoru
23:05 gromgoru
22:59 gromgoru
22:32 trailing wife on vacation
22:10 3dc
22:09 Zenster
22:03 Pappy
21:48 Pappy
21:42 twobyfour
21:39 lotp
21:38 OldSpook
21:36 OldSpook
21:31 OldSpook
21:29 Pappy
21:15 Pappy
21:04 Pappy
20:50 Jonathan
20:42 mrp