I wonder if Obama has stock in these companies he's pushing government-backed loans to. That would be insider training and a conflict of interest. Surely he wouldn't do that.
@CollinMaessen No we cannot, because develeopment and rresearch has ended decades ago because of the stupid ecofaschists. We only know that North America holds enough oil for at least a century for the entire world under current technology. That's what "proven oil reserves" say. But that's a technical term to restrict the ability to blow up a companies balance sheet. We know there is a miltiplicity of that available in the future in NA alone.
@scepticsteve What? Please cite your source for the claim "that North America holds enough oil for at least a century for the entire world under current technology". As the proven reserves you are talking about are just a bit over 20 billion barrels of oil. Which doesn't even come close to a decade worth of oil at current usage.
Not to mention that technically recoverable resources aren't even that much higher.
@CollinMaessen I just send you a link that shows Alberta tar sands alone hold as minimum 175 gigabarrels "2003 estimates, there's more). I said the proven reserves are irrelevant outside of accounting. They reflect only a fraction of the total amount available under current technology. Now that I have proven you talked crap, why don't you cite your source for the 20 gigabarrels, I have a feeling it's some political propaganda outlet.
@scepticsteve Ah wait, I read over the word north. I was talking about the reserves in the United States.
However with the tar sands you still have the problem of the impact it has on the environment, something that is a lot smaller with conventional oil sources. As with tar sand a lot of it is recovered by strip mining the surface. Not to mention all the waste products you have to deal with.
And here's my source for the oil reserves: bit. ly/ozaZpx
@CollinMaessen There is much more. As I said, proven reserved are a legalistic term to keep companies from overestimating their balance sheets. Remember how they tols us natural gas is running out? Now we have likely centuries of supply. Nice try. The peak oil balony exists in one form or another since crude oil repalced whale oil. We haven't even searched most of the earth for it. As soon as Brazil searched they discoverd huge fields easy to drill. Same would be true for the US.
@scepticsteve Peak oil isn't baloney, it will run out eventually, the question is when exactly will we peak.
In the US they are searching for oil. There is even a show on the discovery channel where they show this. Not to mention there is a steady increase of oil rigs in the gulf of mexico.
@CollinMaessen Peak oil is a politcal agenda to claim that we will run out of oil soon. It was claimed that we will run out in 10, 20 or 50 years multiple times, for many decades now. Every time we discovered more. I just demonstrated that the 20 year bs you brought up is ridiculous (even for the US it's not true)! There is no question that the US lacks behind in exploration and development. And the reason why the US drill in the gulf is precisely because the land mass is tabu for the most part!
@scepticsteve What I said was that the current reserves aren't enough for a decade. And that was me being generous, if you run the numbers it's only for 3 years. Even if you include what still might be undiscovered you would have oil for 18 years.
And that's all the easy oil you can get, after that you are left with shale oil. If all of that is there and recoverable, you would have oil for just over 100 years.
Strangely enough, the oil executives say peak oil is real: bit. ly/qe1yRn
@CollinMaessen And that's balony. You will see it. Just another scare. We will have oil for more than a hundred years for sure, probably for several centuries. SOME oil executives (there are others who say it's balony as well) ride on the scare because it pushes prices? Surprise! We can -and will- rely on oil for a long time. Like coal and animal crap, it will be replaced with something much better -thorium-, the tech is already there. Just stop the government and green scams pushing bs.
@scepticsteve Your response to me when I use the actual numbers on the available oil, and our best estimates what might still be out there, is that that's just baloney? And then you just assert we will have enough oil for centuries, have anything to back that up with?
@CollinMaessen Yes actually I do have done a lot of research over this. Unfortunately there is a lot of propaganda out there. You can easily google "the other side" if you want to. I don't see a point in citing one thing, then you cite another guy...
Let's just settle it with this: Oil will be around for decades. We will stop to use it when we have something better, not because we run out of it. I'll send you a link. All you argued so far was argued before and oil reserves increased steadily.
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.
It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.
Loan to huge corporations and let the little man suffer! Obama failed! The only person I will vote for is Ron Paul. He can bring our country back from the brink of destruction.
@im1greatman Are they? In my country they have given tax credits to buy solar panels. A short bubble boom followed. Guess what companies are going bankrupt now? It's economically pretty much the same it's just semantics in the legislation. Furthermore it's picking winners and losers (you incentivise to prefer one product over the other) which is unconstitutional in the US (equal protection, limitations to the feds).
"Don't ask anything from the government", yeah, except subsidies for green scams
@scepticsteve Ron Paul's stance on tax credits are better left for him to debate. I personally think we need to get off of foreign oil so we can be dependent on ourselves. But hey, that's just my thought on the subject.
@im1greatman That's actually a good idea. That's why I'm for free domestic drilling, free trade, and market solutions (if other sources of fuel are viable, we should get them without artificial gov programs).
I'm just trying to tell people: don't make it a personal cult, it's about the common issues we have. ron Paul is strong on many, but he also has weaknesses (and some of them are ko-criteria to me).
I know only one thing: Oil will be around for some time, not only as fuel. We better produce.
The GREEN MOVEMENT IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OUR BIG GREEDY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENTS TAKES AWAY OUR RIGHTS,CHOICES,AND FREEDOMS!! I like my old style light bulbs, but no the government is forcing all of us to now buy mercury filled pieces of crap made in China that catch fire, pollute our enviroment, cost more are not only not safe but they now have shifted jobs that were once in the U.S. and Europe to China. The GREEN MOVEMENT IS A SCAM!!!!! VOTE OUT OBAMA!!!! VOTE OUT THE LIBERALS IN ALL PARTIES!!!!
@goldsilverandiamonds All great points. I would just like to add that these "light emitting devices" don't save any energy. The production of complex electronics, chemicals and a curiously formed glas body, not to mention shipping from China and diasassembling them to take care of the hazardous materials inside, certainly cost more energy than they could ever safe during use. It's an obvious scam and as you pointed out this is a pattern in the green religion.
@goldsilverandiamonds The lightbulb efficiency standards you are referring to doesn't ban incandescents. You are just repeating a talking point that has been debunked over and over.
Btw, CFLs rarely catch fire. I hadn't even heard of that occurring before WUWT mentioned it. And that's from someone living in a country where these bulbs are the norm.
And if properly disposed of the mercury doesn't enter the environment. Even if you didn't do that, it would mean less mercury: watch?v=cA2E14uKyZY
@CollinMaessen That's pure propaganda. First of all the energy standards only measure energy use during operation. Look at these bulbs and what they are made of. The electronics, the glas body, the chemicals. All these were made using a lot of energy, so will the disassemblation and transport from China. More than they can ever save during lifetime (and the price indicates this). This energy is created in China -> dirty. It's another "green" scam. and the 10x lifetime is a lie. I tried it.
@scepticsteve Did you actually search what the embodied energy of a CFL is? As a CFL just has to be on for 50 hours to offset those costs with the savings. bit. ly/rlybpv
I have no idea what kind of CFL you bought, but a simple and cheap CFL here lasts for years. I still have one that has been in use for 8 years. The current one in my living room has been in use for 4 years. And this isn't just anecdotal, report after report shows this.
@CollinMaessen the embodied energy is irrelevant. You have to calculate all the energy that has been used to produce all parts of the lamp, transportation of all raw materials, etc.... It's doesn't even get close im comparison with the normal bulbs. I bought over 100 CFLs from various manufacturers to light my entire house. It doesn't work, it highly depends on how often the switch is turned -leaving no choice but to let the lamp be on for a longer time. It doesn't add up.No anecdote, experiment
@scepticsteve The embodied energy is relevant, as you mention it as part of your argument. Secondly you are not taking in consideration that also your incandescents come predominantly from china.
Yes that's anecdotal evidence, as it's from your personal experience. Also I find it hard to believe you bought over 100 CFLs and not one worked properly.
Why do you keep repeating this when studies show they last longer and save you money? bit. ly/pJLAyW
@CollinMaessen Because "studies" are paid for by political bodies and companies and serve a purpose. "Embodied energy" doesn't even mean anything this vaguely. If I use the same energy to form one liter of gold and one liter of gold, this energy isn't "embodied" in it (it's out the smoke stack), transportation energy isn't considered... But clearly, since a given volume of au and arg holds a different mass the embdied energy is different... it's bs.Energy use raises exponentially with complexity
@CollinMaessen The embodied energy comparison is illogical. That's like saying "yes, your truck can transport halt a ton of goods, but my motorcycle uses only two wheels for the same distance". You hurt the environment on net by switching to CFLs. Of course some of the over 100 worked better than others, but nowhere close to the laboratory conditions. Some incandescent bulbs worked for decades! But the average is relevant. And many of my ic-bulbs live more than 1-2 years. It doesn't work for me
@CollinMaessen I never said embodied energy is relevant, stop making up what I said, please, it doesn't serve to debate.The energy used to mine, transport, etc... raw materials for example is NOT embodied in the product. But it makes up the mojority of energy input to create it! And the energy to create is raises EXPONENTIALLY with the complexity of the product. That a Chinese manufacturer pays only a fraction in money for the energy im comparison to your end user pwer doesn't change the amounts
@scepticsteve Embodied energy means, among other things, how much energy was used in the production and transport of the product. This is explained on the very page I linked you to.
So when you say that "You have to calculate all the energy that has been used to produce all parts of the lamp, transportation of all raw materials, etc..." you are talking about embodied energy. Look up the definition, you are now accusing me of making stuff up just because I used the term for what you described.
@CollinMaessen Please search under lightr bulb ban the Huffington Post has an artical on the ban. The Federal government is banning the most popular styles of incadesant lights and States also are more extensive bans such as in California. There is many reports of these harmful and poorly made Chinese light bulbs catching fire and even exploding you need to do a little more reasearch. As far as properly disposing light blubs you know and I know the vast majority will not. Government FAIL!
I wonder if Obama has stock in these companies he's pushing government-backed loans to. That would be insider training and a conflict of interest. Surely he wouldn't do that.
eurohim 6 months ago
@eurohim that would be too obvious. it's cash or future favors
capgains 6 months ago
I like cock from big black men
cyberweirdo2001 6 months ago
As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
im1greatman 6 months ago
@im1greatman Vast amounts? Could you please state how much oil your country has?
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen No we cannot, because develeopment and rresearch has ended decades ago because of the stupid ecofaschists. We only know that North America holds enough oil for at least a century for the entire world under current technology. That's what "proven oil reserves" say. But that's a technical term to restrict the ability to blow up a companies balance sheet. We know there is a miltiplicity of that available in the future in NA alone.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve What? Please cite your source for the claim "that North America holds enough oil for at least a century for the entire world under current technology". As the proven reserves you are talking about are just a bit over 20 billion barrels of oil. Which doesn't even come close to a decade worth of oil at current usage.
Not to mention that technically recoverable resources aren't even that much higher.
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen I just send you a link that shows Alberta tar sands alone hold as minimum 175 gigabarrels "2003 estimates, there's more). I said the proven reserves are irrelevant outside of accounting. They reflect only a fraction of the total amount available under current technology. Now that I have proven you talked crap, why don't you cite your source for the 20 gigabarrels, I have a feeling it's some political propaganda outlet.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve Ah wait, I read over the word north. I was talking about the reserves in the United States.
However with the tar sands you still have the problem of the impact it has on the environment, something that is a lot smaller with conventional oil sources. As with tar sand a lot of it is recovered by strip mining the surface. Not to mention all the waste products you have to deal with.
And here's my source for the oil reserves: bit. ly/ozaZpx
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen There is much more. As I said, proven reserved are a legalistic term to keep companies from overestimating their balance sheets. Remember how they tols us natural gas is running out? Now we have likely centuries of supply. Nice try. The peak oil balony exists in one form or another since crude oil repalced whale oil. We haven't even searched most of the earth for it. As soon as Brazil searched they discoverd huge fields easy to drill. Same would be true for the US.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve Peak oil isn't baloney, it will run out eventually, the question is when exactly will we peak.
In the US they are searching for oil. There is even a show on the discovery channel where they show this. Not to mention there is a steady increase of oil rigs in the gulf of mexico.
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen Peak oil is a politcal agenda to claim that we will run out of oil soon. It was claimed that we will run out in 10, 20 or 50 years multiple times, for many decades now. Every time we discovered more. I just demonstrated that the 20 year bs you brought up is ridiculous (even for the US it's not true)! There is no question that the US lacks behind in exploration and development. And the reason why the US drill in the gulf is precisely because the land mass is tabu for the most part!
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve What I said was that the current reserves aren't enough for a decade. And that was me being generous, if you run the numbers it's only for 3 years. Even if you include what still might be undiscovered you would have oil for 18 years.
And that's all the easy oil you can get, after that you are left with shale oil. If all of that is there and recoverable, you would have oil for just over 100 years.
Strangely enough, the oil executives say peak oil is real: bit. ly/qe1yRn
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen And that's balony. You will see it. Just another scare. We will have oil for more than a hundred years for sure, probably for several centuries. SOME oil executives (there are others who say it's balony as well) ride on the scare because it pushes prices? Surprise! We can -and will- rely on oil for a long time. Like coal and animal crap, it will be replaced with something much better -thorium-, the tech is already there. Just stop the government and green scams pushing bs.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve Your response to me when I use the actual numbers on the available oil, and our best estimates what might still be out there, is that that's just baloney? And then you just assert we will have enough oil for centuries, have anything to back that up with?
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen Yes actually I do have done a lot of research over this. Unfortunately there is a lot of propaganda out there. You can easily google "the other side" if you want to. I don't see a point in citing one thing, then you cite another guy...
Let's just settle it with this: Oil will be around for decades. We will stop to use it when we have something better, not because we run out of it. I'll send you a link. All you argued so far was argued before and oil reserves increased steadily.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.
It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.
im1greatman 6 months ago
Loan to huge corporations and let the little man suffer! Obama failed! The only person I will vote for is Ron Paul. He can bring our country back from the brink of destruction.
im1greatman 6 months ago
@im1greatman
"Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies."
- Ron Paul's website
He's also advocating subsidies for the green scam.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve Tax credits are completely different than giving a corporation money to make temp jobs and then go bankrupt.
im1greatman 6 months ago
@im1greatman Are they? In my country they have given tax credits to buy solar panels. A short bubble boom followed. Guess what companies are going bankrupt now? It's economically pretty much the same it's just semantics in the legislation. Furthermore it's picking winners and losers (you incentivise to prefer one product over the other) which is unconstitutional in the US (equal protection, limitations to the feds).
"Don't ask anything from the government", yeah, except subsidies for green scams
scepticsteve 6 months ago 4
@scepticsteve Ron Paul's stance on tax credits are better left for him to debate. I personally think we need to get off of foreign oil so we can be dependent on ourselves. But hey, that's just my thought on the subject.
im1greatman 6 months ago
@im1greatman That's actually a good idea. That's why I'm for free domestic drilling, free trade, and market solutions (if other sources of fuel are viable, we should get them without artificial gov programs).
I'm just trying to tell people: don't make it a personal cult, it's about the common issues we have. ron Paul is strong on many, but he also has weaknesses (and some of them are ko-criteria to me).
I know only one thing: Oil will be around for some time, not only as fuel. We better produce.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
Come on they do not want to make Jobs .no want to take them. money in pockes.
iwalkjesuswaymommy7 6 months ago
The GREEN MOVEMENT IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OUR BIG GREEDY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENTS TAKES AWAY OUR RIGHTS,CHOICES,AND FREEDOMS!! I like my old style light bulbs, but no the government is forcing all of us to now buy mercury filled pieces of crap made in China that catch fire, pollute our enviroment, cost more are not only not safe but they now have shifted jobs that were once in the U.S. and Europe to China. The GREEN MOVEMENT IS A SCAM!!!!! VOTE OUT OBAMA!!!! VOTE OUT THE LIBERALS IN ALL PARTIES!!!!
goldsilverandiamonds 6 months ago 7
@goldsilverandiamonds All great points. I would just like to add that these "light emitting devices" don't save any energy. The production of complex electronics, chemicals and a curiously formed glas body, not to mention shipping from China and diasassembling them to take care of the hazardous materials inside, certainly cost more energy than they could ever safe during use. It's an obvious scam and as you pointed out this is a pattern in the green religion.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@goldsilverandiamonds The lightbulb efficiency standards you are referring to doesn't ban incandescents. You are just repeating a talking point that has been debunked over and over.
Btw, CFLs rarely catch fire. I hadn't even heard of that occurring before WUWT mentioned it. And that's from someone living in a country where these bulbs are the norm.
And if properly disposed of the mercury doesn't enter the environment. Even if you didn't do that, it would mean less mercury: watch?v=cA2E14uKyZY
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen That's pure propaganda. First of all the energy standards only measure energy use during operation. Look at these bulbs and what they are made of. The electronics, the glas body, the chemicals. All these were made using a lot of energy, so will the disassemblation and transport from China. More than they can ever save during lifetime (and the price indicates this). This energy is created in China -> dirty. It's another "green" scam. and the 10x lifetime is a lie. I tried it.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve Did you actually search what the embodied energy of a CFL is? As a CFL just has to be on for 50 hours to offset those costs with the savings. bit. ly/rlybpv
I have no idea what kind of CFL you bought, but a simple and cheap CFL here lasts for years. I still have one that has been in use for 8 years. The current one in my living room has been in use for 4 years. And this isn't just anecdotal, report after report shows this.
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen the embodied energy is irrelevant. You have to calculate all the energy that has been used to produce all parts of the lamp, transportation of all raw materials, etc.... It's doesn't even get close im comparison with the normal bulbs. I bought over 100 CFLs from various manufacturers to light my entire house. It doesn't work, it highly depends on how often the switch is turned -leaving no choice but to let the lamp be on for a longer time. It doesn't add up.No anecdote, experiment
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve The embodied energy is relevant, as you mention it as part of your argument. Secondly you are not taking in consideration that also your incandescents come predominantly from china.
Yes that's anecdotal evidence, as it's from your personal experience. Also I find it hard to believe you bought over 100 CFLs and not one worked properly.
Why do you keep repeating this when studies show they last longer and save you money? bit. ly/pJLAyW
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen Because "studies" are paid for by political bodies and companies and serve a purpose. "Embodied energy" doesn't even mean anything this vaguely. If I use the same energy to form one liter of gold and one liter of gold, this energy isn't "embodied" in it (it's out the smoke stack), transportation energy isn't considered... But clearly, since a given volume of au and arg holds a different mass the embdied energy is different... it's bs.Energy use raises exponentially with complexity
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen The embodied energy comparison is illogical. That's like saying "yes, your truck can transport halt a ton of goods, but my motorcycle uses only two wheels for the same distance". You hurt the environment on net by switching to CFLs. Of course some of the over 100 worked better than others, but nowhere close to the laboratory conditions. Some incandescent bulbs worked for decades! But the average is relevant. And many of my ic-bulbs live more than 1-2 years. It doesn't work for me
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen I never said embodied energy is relevant, stop making up what I said, please, it doesn't serve to debate.The energy used to mine, transport, etc... raw materials for example is NOT embodied in the product. But it makes up the mojority of energy input to create it! And the energy to create is raises EXPONENTIALLY with the complexity of the product. That a Chinese manufacturer pays only a fraction in money for the energy im comparison to your end user pwer doesn't change the amounts
scepticsteve 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scepticsteve Embodied energy means, among other things, how much energy was used in the production and transport of the product. This is explained on the very page I linked you to.
So when you say that "You have to calculate all the energy that has been used to produce all parts of the lamp, transportation of all raw materials, etc..." you are talking about embodied energy. Look up the definition, you are now accusing me of making stuff up just because I used the term for what you described.
CollinMaessen 6 months ago
@CollinMaessen Please search under lightr bulb ban the Huffington Post has an artical on the ban. The Federal government is banning the most popular styles of incadesant lights and States also are more extensive bans such as in California. There is many reports of these harmful and poorly made Chinese light bulbs catching fire and even exploding you need to do a little more reasearch. As far as properly disposing light blubs you know and I know the vast majority will not. Government FAIL!
goldsilverandiamonds 6 months ago