Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 5:57 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 3 hrs 33 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Frontline Ltd. Message Board

barbershores 308 posts  |  Last Activity: 12 hours ago Member since: Oct 15, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    OT BS We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere

    by barbershores Sep 10, 2014 10:27 AM
    barbershores barbershores 12 hours ago Flag

    Hi Mr. Rott,

    Excerpted from your point C): "This is one those cases where I'm going to believe people who study this as their lifes work "
    ---------------------------
    I am with you on this one buddy. However, one must be careful whom they learn from. Al Gore has made this his life's work. However, his rhetoric is inconsistent with the science. He science when it is consistent to his goals, then ignores it when it suits him.

    This is where differentiating between the followers of GWS, Global Warming "Science", vs GWA CW, Global Warming Alarmists' Conventional Wisdom is so critical.

    My being technology oriented, and well versed in statistics, I prefer to see the studies and draw my own conclusions.

    Most without these tools will have to choose someone to listen to. That is where the problem lies. The ones working within and building GWA CW, have agendas. The names Al Gore, and Barrack Obama come to mind. They stress the "alarmist" component, and stretch the science to suit their personal, ideological, and party agenda.

    So, I wish you luck in finding someone to listen to and follow that isn't using you as a tool to further their personal goals.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • forbesDOTKOM/sites/kathryndill/2014/09/16/the-most-and-least-educated-cities-in-america/

    The 10 Most Educated Cities In America

    1. Ann Arbor, Michigan
    2. Raleigh, North Carolina
    3. Durham, North Carolina
    4. Provo, Utah
    5. Manchester, New Hampshire
    6. Seattle, Washington
    7. San Jose, California
    8. Colorado Springs, Colorado
    9. Baltimore, Maryland
    10. Boston, Massachusetts

    The 10 Least Educated Cities In America

    1. Beaumont, Texas
    2. Salinas, California
    3. Rockford, Illinois
    4. Brownsville, Texas
    5. Modesto, California
    6. Visalia, California
    7. Bakersfield, California
    8. Lakeland, Florida
    9. McAllen, Texas
    10. Fresno, California
    ----------------------------------------
    A couple of points here:

    1. New Hampshire was on the most educated list, while Hawaii was not.
    2. Manchester New Hampshire was well up the list, while Boston barely made the list this year.
    3. California had fully half of the 10 least educated cities.
    4. All the 5 low education cities in California border each other in the lower area of the central valley known as San Joaquin valley. It is a region a little larger than Connecticut. I understand it to be the most densely agricultural area in the country if not the world.

    Most all my family lives just north of there in the Sacramento valley part of central valley in and around Redding.

    I was raised in San Jose California on the most educated list. I went to college in Fresno on the least educated list. So, I lived in both places at least a few years.

    From my experience, all those California towns "do" belong on the least educated list. lol

    But, where is Mississippi and Alabama?

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores 17 hours ago Flag

    Here is an article with charts that partially explain some of what we have been discussing on this string.

    energyclub.stanfordDOTEDU/journalitem/deploying-battery-storage-in-commercial-buildings-opportunities-and-challenges-kavousian/

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores 17 hours ago Flag

    Hi Mr. Dan,

    I stumbled upon your post here. I have Mr. Lakeed on permanent ignore. Why anyone would want to listen to such a goofball is beyond me.

    On Hal Turner, your post said regarding Mr. Lakeed's post: "You say he quoted Hal Turner",

    That is an untruth. I have never quoted Hal Turner.

    What I did was link an article, very early in the morning, about Hal Turner's statements without making any remarks myself.

    The article had to do with Hal Turner claiming he had in his hands an internal memo of the federal reserve which he claimed caught them in a lie regarding banks not passing the stress testing.

    I posted it because it was "the" financial news item of the day that would be responsible for tanking the market a bit. At the time, I had no idea of whom Hal Turner even was. I had never heard of him before that day.

    Alan Greenspan responded publicly to the announcement that very day. It was talked about constantly that day on CNBC.

    So, here is another case of one of these people of such low moral character, that they will lie, slander, and misrepresent what anyone else has said.

    When Mr. Lakeed posts on the web about other people, he tells a much more telling story of himself than he does of those he denigrates.

    I can't imagine what life must be like for such a person.

    He is perhaps the sorriest person I have ever had the misfortune of communicating with on the internet.

    That's my take anyway.

    Keep your eyes and ears open for the truth.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores 17 hours ago Flag

    This article had some interesting charts which show some of what is being discussed on demand and wind and solar power generation in California.

    nergyclub.stanfordDOTEDU/journalitem/deploying-battery-storage-in-commercial-buildings-opportunities-and-challenges-kavousian/

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores Sep 15, 2014 6:35 PM Flag

    Yeah Mr. Grumpy,

    Though California did get some new plants built, my understanding is that they are still tight with supply today and are not self sufficient. They have to buy from out of state.

    When there are peak demand conditions, everybody is tight, and whomever has to buy has to pay through the nose.

    It's actually a good fit for solar because it works best when the conditions that stimulate highest demand are in play.

    It's one of those niche situations where it actually works.

    I don't know at what percent it stops making sense.

    We would need to see a chart illustrating California's plant supply potential, show solar production capabilities by time of day, and overlay that with demand over various seasons, add to that excess production available from neighbors.

    It could be that California has enough plant power round the clock October through April. Then in May, they have to buy a little, and as time moves into the peak of summer they are screaming for more power during the hottest working hours, just when their neighbors have the least to sell.

    I am sure there is a government entity in California that has just such a chart.

    So, for a few months, just for a few hours per day, solar actually makes economic sense.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores Sep 15, 2014 6:23 PM Flag

    Yeah. There are a lot of problems with coal. You can come up with a lot of reasons not to burn coal. But replacing them with natural gas fired plants wont get you much closer to a zero carbon footprint. So, justifying new natural gas plants as part of a program to get to zero carbon, and zero global warming doesn't make it. It's a bad allocations of resources.

    I read an article once about coal plants built in Texas before they had any emissions regulations. Nothing would grow for a couple of miles down wind. Before I post this, lets see if I can find it.

    Couldn't find it.

    Coal sucks.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • Reply to

    Brent dropping sharply

    by msnapp82 Sep 14, 2014 11:01 PM
    barbershores barbershores Sep 15, 2014 4:59 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Napp,

    From your post: "Should oil remain in this deflationary spiral, FRO is toast."
    ----------------------
    Should oil continue it's current mini trend downwards in price, I expect it will have a short term positive impact on crude oil transport demand due to storage, followed by a short term negative when the contango ends. But, near as I can tell, this drop is driven by supply, not so much demand. Demand is still growing, though a bit slower. But supply is growing a lot faster. As the price of oil falls, the cost of refined products such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, polymer monomers, and a host of others will fall, stimulating demand.

    So, I expect to see longer term an increase in demand for crude "because" the price is falling.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores.

  • Electric Utilities: Good Bye Coal, Hello Natural Gas

    seekingalphaDOTKOM/article/294527-electric-utilities-good-bye-coal-hello-natural-gas

    For electric generating utility owners, the ongoing seismic shift in fuels used for power generation will alter the utility investment landscape. In short: Coal is out, Natural Gas is in. Not only is the government and media pushing this addenda, but so is simple current economics.

    As most electric utility investors already know, the EPA has proposed higher restrictions on coal-fired plant emissions. When implemented by 2016, upwards of 20% of electric generation by coal could be shuttered as uneconomical for emission upgrades. In 2010, coal-fired plants produced 340,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity, or 45 percent of total U.S. electricity production. At-risk plants that may be uneconomical to upgrade represent about 70,000 megawatts of generating capacity. These at-risk plants provide about 9.3% of total US electric power generation. On the positive side, about 17,000 MW of new coal-fired capacity is due to come on-stream by 2017.
    ----------------------------------------
    So, all this capital will be spent, to make the old investments in coal worthless, just to reduce our generation of carbon-dioxide a bit. Instead of investing in technologies that don't generate carbon in the first place.

    To switch to NG for economic reasons would make sense. But as a means to end global warming, not so much.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores Sep 15, 2014 1:30 PM Flag

    I will weigh in on this issue-Continued

    So, Californians were stuck with super high bills. But with all the pressure of high bills, the state and local power companies were able to overcome the environmentalist's pressures, and Calpine, and perhaps others, was/were able to install some dedicated capacity. I can't remember now, but it was like 2 or 3 major plants to sell power to the local utility companies was quickly approved.

    Not enough to suit all of California's needs, but enough to take most of the pressure off. California still needed to purchase extremely high cost electrical power from their neighbors during periods of extremely high demand. 1:00 to 5:00 in the summer on extremely hot sunny days. Supply and demand dictated super high rates for this period. It all gets averaged out in the bills, and the consumer doesn't usually see the super high demand costs.

    Okay then, back to the issue. 1:00 to 5:00 on extremely sunny days is the sweet spot for solar power generation. Also for wind power.

    Over half of new electrical energy generation for the last couple of years in California is solar or wind. This new generation aligns up well with the peak demand period during the peak demand season, and displaces a whole lot of extremely high cost electrical energy that without it would have to be purchased from their neighbors. .

    So, in this economic environment, the alternative energy sources, are "not" competing with regular standard local electrical costs. They are competing with super high rates from California's neighbors during high peak demand.

    So, in reality, truthfully, solar and wind power "is" reducing energy costs to Californians.

    It's not a particularly large percentage of energy usage, but, it does coincide nicely with the high demand period, during the high demand season.

    It's a niche, and it's working here.

    Just my take from following this for the last 4 decades or so. lol

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores Sep 15, 2014 1:06 PM Flag

    Hi Mr Grumpy,

    I will weigh in on this issue. I am originally from California. All my family on my fathers side still lives there. A few years ago, Hell, probably 10 or 15 years ago now, California got caught with not having enough electrical power capacity. The reason was two fold, that the environmentalists shut down most new plant construction, and, the government adopted a policy of purchasing excess power generated by their neighbors. This policy worked for quite awhile. In Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and even Washington, the communities and power companies followed a policy of anticipating their own growing needs, and installing new plant and grid out ahead of the growth, This caused each plant to have excess power production capabilities. They were more than happy to sell their excess power to California at a price just above cash flow break even. It did not include plant depreciation, debt, insurance, or the myriad of other expenses they were charging their local customers. So, California's utilities for quite awhile took advantage of that, giving their local customers the cheapest electric prices in the West. Then, the growth curve dropped off for the neighbors, and they stopped their rapid electrical generation build out, and the amount of excess power they had to sell to neighbors dropped year after year. Until that excess power was lower than the California demand for it.

    Then, one year, California found that they could not get enough electrical power to suit their needs. That old super cheap price they were buying it for disappeared, and was replaced with a super high price. Prices might have tripled in one year. Everybody in California was complaining how they were getting shafted. Of course, not a one of my family appreciated that the supply and demand relationship of old was the reason they had been paying a super low price for electricity for decades. All they wanted was their cheap power.

    I will weigh in on this issue-Continued

  • Rules of thumb for climate change turned upside down

    physDOTORG/news/2014-09-thumb-climate-upside.html

    With a new analysis of land regions, ETH climate researcher are challenging the general climate change paradigm that dry regions are getting drier and wet regions are getting wetter. In some regions they are encountering divergent trends.

    Based on models and observations, climate scientists have devised a simplified formula to describe one of the consequences of climate change: regions already marked by droughts will continue to dry out in the future climate. Regions that already have a moist climate will experience additional rainfall. In short: dry gets drier; wet gets wetter (DDWW).
    However, this formula is less universally valid than previously assumed. This was demonstrated by a team of ETH climate researchers led by Peter Greve, lead author of a study recently published in Nature Geoscience. Traditional analyses use metrics that can comprehensively describe climate characteristics above the ocean, but is problematic over land. While this fact was mentioned in said studies, scientific and public discourse has overlooked this aspect so far. In their new study, the ETH researchers in the group headed by Sonia Seneviratne's, professor for land-climate dynamics, take into account the specific climatic properties of land surfaces, where the amount of available water is limited when compared with the ocean.
    -----------------------------
    We are not very good at this modeling.

    But once we cross the tipping point, all these models will finally start working.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • foolDOTKOM/investing/general/2014/09/14/how-solar-energy-is-making-electricity-cheaper-for.aspx

    How solar energy can make your electricity cheaper
    The reason solar energy can lead to lower costs is that electricity from the sun displaces mid-day peaking electricity plants, which can be the highest cost plants in the grid. For example, a residential solar system could turn a Southern California home with air conditioning from a high-demand point to an electricity supplier, having a huge impact on end market demand.

    The impact on the grid can be seen by falling wholesale electricity prices at California's wholesale hubs. The NP-15 and SP-15_2 hubs in particular saw the highest wholesale prices in a decade last year. But this year costs have fallen, in part because of the addition of solar to the grid.

    Solar energy will continue to put pressure on the grid
    The fact is that solar energy is the only energy source that has seen costs consistently fall over the past decade. This dynamic will continue, and as residential and commercial solar grow it will continue to displace demand on the grid, putting pressure on wholesale electricity prices.

    Solar energy may get a lot of negative headlines nationwide, but it may not have the impact on energy prices that you think. In fact, it could lower costs for you and your neighbors.
    -----------------------------------------
    We shall see.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • Sad about the state of our planet

    letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnewsDOTKOM/2014/09/sad-about-the-state-of-our-planet.html/

    "The electricity generated in my home country, Sweden, is almost entirely free of fossil fuels as a result of a carbon tax, a high gasoline tax, and a push for renewable energy sources and nuclear power."
    ----------------------------
    So, Sweden has decided to attempt to go zero carbon in electricity production. They use lots of renewable energy sources, which we know, don't produce constantly. So, what do they do? They have back up of nuclear power for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

    Hmmmmm! Where have we heard this before?

    A few observations here on this approach:

    1. If the goal is to produce an electrical grid which produces zero carbon, why use renewable energy resources at all?

    2. When the grid power, and at near point of use power, is totally from renewable and nuclear, all the renewable energy sources will only reduce the amount of nuclear plant capital that is needed, and the amount of nuclear fuel which is used.

    3. In this case, the renewable energy sources will not offset carbon-dioxide generation at all.

    4. However, the use of renewable energy resources "will" reduce the generation of water vapor caused by the cooling towers required for nuclear power production. So a partial reduction in :capital, nuclear fuel, and water vapor would be the only advantages. But, nuclear will be needed, just reduced some.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • barbershores barbershores Sep 14, 2014 3:50 PM Flag

    Wisconsin weighs in on fixed charges and net metering.
    --------------------------------

    thinkprogressDOTORG/climate/2014/09/14/3567244/utility-fees-end-wisconsin-solar/

    Push To Impose Extra Fees On Solar Customers Draws Outrage In Wisconsin

    A recent move by Wisconsin utility We Energies to not only raise electricity rates on all consumers but also to add an additional charge on those who produce their own energy and sell it back to the grid has sparked outrage within the state and beyond. The plan would raise the “fixed charge” on all customers’ electric bills from $9 to $16 a month, as well as reduce net metering — a policy that enables customers with solar panels or other forms of distributed generation to sell their excess electricity back to the grid — and add a new charge on these electricity-generating customers.
    The result of such a policy, said Matt Neumann, owner of Wisconsin-based SunVest, would be dramatic: “It would not only end solar but remove the economic viability for any renewable energy in Wisconsin.” Neuman, whose company is the largest solar installer in the state, said the demand charge of $3.80 per kilowatt (kW) per month works out to about $220 per year for a 5 kW system, a deterrent for potential solar customers and an unfair penalty for those who have already chosen to go solar.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • Reply to

    OT BS We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere

    by barbershores Sep 10, 2014 10:27 AM
    barbershores barbershores Sep 13, 2014 4:26 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Rott,

    From your post: "if you take a peek on this board you'll find many people still don't believe that a change is taking place."
    -------------------------------------------------
    We need to get on the same page. On the far right is the group of GWS, Global Warming Deniers.

    On the left are the GWA, Global Warming Alarmists.

    The beliefs of both groups are inconsistent with reality.

    That's not to say that we all need to meet in the middle. There is no middle. There is only reality.

    Also from your post: " I'm certain that you're sincere in what you believe. What you call an "Alarmist" is merely someone pointing out the problem."
    --------------------------
    "I" am pointing out the problem. But, I am not a Global Warming Alarmist. To me, a GWA, is a highly emotional individual that has been been sucked into believing the GWA CW mantras, being perpetuated by the likes of Al Gore and Mr. Obama.

    Concepts of what global warming can be stopped by including but not limited to:

    1. recycling
    2. turning down your thermostat
    3. over inflating your tires
    4. driving a prius
    5. buying local produce
    6. buying organic produce
    7. not eating meat
    8. switching from coal to NG
    9. over insulating your attic
    10. adding 10% alcohol to gasoline
    11. installing a bank of solar panels on your home

    If each and every person on the planet, did every single one of these, plus all the others suggested, it wouldn't hardly put a dent in our generation of greenhouse gases.

    We need to get real about the problem. Get away from the touchy feely stuff. It's time to get pragmatic. We need to watch out for Mr. Obama and others that are using this issue to further their personal, ideological, and party agenda.

    I personally do 1,2,3,5,9, and 10. Also, I heat my home with wood. I get wood from local contractors that clear or clean up sites. The wood is not useful for lumber. It's use is limited to fibres, or wood to energy. I am more efficient.

    JMT

    BOL

    BS

  • Reply to

    OT BS We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere

    by barbershores Sep 10, 2014 10:27 AM
    barbershores barbershores Sep 13, 2014 3:59 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Dan,

    I think you are right. I wrote and read and re-read this several times, with and without the plurality, and with and without the apostrophe, and it didn't seem right with the apostrophe. So, I took it out and left it out. After seeing it in print from your post, I now think I was in error and should have left it in.

    I shall try to be consistent and make it plural with that apostrophe there from now on.

    Thank you. Please feel free to smack me should I vacillate.

    All my best,

    Barbershores

  • Reply to

    OT BS We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere

    by barbershores Sep 10, 2014 10:27 AM
    barbershores barbershores Sep 13, 2014 11:47 AM Flag

    Hi Mr. Rott,

    I would like to make a point on one of your statements: "No. After generations of the eco-system being able to counter emissions, "
    ---------------------------------
    For roughly 2 million years, the eco-system "has" been able to counter the emissions of mankind. This ended around the year 1800 according to GWA CW. It was then that carbon-dioxide levels started their steep ascent. So, we have not been able to counter those emissions effectively since that time. The current rate of emissions relative to the amount that the eco-system can counter, is over 1000 times as much.

    Until we reduce our generation of greenhouse gases by over 99.9%, the globe shall continue warming according to the current models of GWS, Global Warming Science. A generation is roughly 20 years. So it has been roughly 11 generations since the eco-system has been able to counter the emissions of mankind.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • Reply to

    OT BS We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere

    by barbershores Sep 10, 2014 10:27 AM
    barbershores barbershores Sep 13, 2014 11:35 AM Flag

    Hi Mr. Grumpy,

    From your post: "You're missing the point. Climate change is not a "problem". It is a condition of existence. "
    -------------------------------------------------
    I found your statement rather profound. I had not gotten to the same point of logicizing that you have.

    That's probably the healthiest way of looking at it.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • Reply to

    OT BS We are pumping carbon into the atmosphere

    by barbershores Sep 10, 2014 10:27 AM
    barbershores barbershores Sep 13, 2014 11:13 AM Flag

    Hi Mr. Rogere,

    From your post: "Mr. BS what amazes me about this post and others that you have made about Global warming is how much authority and absolute correctness you see in what you believe and what total disbelief you put on others point of view."
    ----------------------------
    Just guessing here, but this must be the 11th or 12th time you acknowledged that I amaze you. I find that humorous.

    To the practical on the real issue, there is this thing called global warming science. Or climate change science. Or some other moniker.

    There is real science here. Based on numbers. The models may not have been very accurate, but there is an evolving scientific basis for it. I have a lot of respect for the work done in this area.

    Then, there is another thing which is a totally different beast. I call it GWA CV. Global Warming Alarmist Conventional Wisdom.

    This is a body of "knowledge?", which purports to be supported by science, but really isn't. Quite a bit of the content is inconsistent with fact. A lot of liberals subscribe to this. It is based on "chicken little emotions". It is devoid of a logical train of thought using science. It is easy to tell whom follows this, they are highly emotional on the subject, and in that they like to use terms coined by so called experts which use their power in this space to further their personal, ideological, and party agenda.

    To the personalized issue you bring up of me being authoritative in my beliefs, and discounting the beliefs of others. This due to my beliefs coming from the body of science, and the others are purely from emotion. So, I take the emotional followers of GWA CV, and attempt to drag them back screaming to the real science.

    I am attempting to get those in the screaming emotional mode, to calm down, and see the science. Yes, away from the manipulations of Mr. Obama and Mr. Gore, and into the understanding of reality.

    Science is really tough for many.

    Just my take.

    BOL

    BS

FRO
1.56+0.07(+4.70%)Sep 16 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.