Well I guess the oil companies have raped our wallets
And yet you have taken full advantage of every car ride, airplane trip, rubber tire, medicine, food product, fertilizer, plastic product, clothing, ink pen, computer disk, utensil, computer, television, candle, boat, sports equipment, billfold, movie disc, paint product, roofing product, vacation destination, credit card, milk carton, photograph, concert, road trip, warm house and a million other things all brought to you by the miracle compound called crude oil and dutifully prospected for, transported, refined and sold to you at every street corner in America by someone whose skill set vastly exceeds yours.
You have moved from the polluted, disease-filled, short-on-creature-comforts of the cellulose age to the age of 'everything' safe, healthy, life-extending and personally gratifying because of oil.
And you spout hypocritically of how you have been 'raped'...
I'm not confused in the least. Every one of those items uses oil to produce raw materials, refine them, manufacture the intermediate products, manufacture the end product, ship the end product, market the end product and recycle the waste products. Take off the blinders and do a product lifecycle analysis...you can't avoid oil/oil products being used every step of the way.
You can't just keep saying 'BAD OIL!' without showing total ignorance and hypocrisy about just how many aspects of life you willingly use oil for and willingly pay for it.
Oh, since you are a newcomer to the board, I am long BLDP shares for over 12 years though I am down about 75% from my max holdings, now. I have never shorted the stock either. I am a big fan of AE's, recycling and efficient energy usage and expect hydrogen fuel cell transportation to eventually gain a decent market share. The big difference between us may be that I am more a realist and you more of a dreamer. So please take your amateurish psychological assessment of me and put it in the trash where it belongs.
Oh yeah, in case you haven't heard, I am an avid outdoorsman and I actually DO rub two sticks together and use flint to start a fire when in the wild. It's a skill that has actually come in handy more than a few times. It's sort of a lost art for many though...
Wow. Yes, redshoe, you did miss something. There are a number of reactions that can polymerize methanol to make long chain hydrocarbons and synthesize a great number of motive fuels...including gasoline. It's not pollution 'free', but then neither is making hydrogen pollution 'free'.
We dig those expensive wells because it is still more profitable to do that than make hydrogen. Besides oil has vastly more potential than hydrogen to make all the myriad of other compounds and precursors you use daily.
Oil doesn't take 'millions of years to make'. It is being made continuously. It just takes a long time to make lots of it.
Oh, BTW, look it up yourself.
I am not talking about coal. Only you are. Where do you come up with this stuff? Methanol can be made from a variety of sources. Surely you know that, right? Coal, too. Oil takes millions of years to make...from start to finish. That is true. I never said it wasn't. I said it is being continuously made as long as there is organic matter and heat and carbonates and water available. And there is a bunch of that still beneath the surface. Without organic matter the reaction is skewed toward C1 hydrocarbons, but even longer chain hydrocarbons are being created at lower proportions.
The creation of oil didn't stop millions of years ago, you know. You find hydrocarbons at all stages of development when we drill or dig. Last week I was digging up leaves in 7000 year old clays that were still separable from the substrate though heavily decayed. They would likely turn into some fossil fuel category if they were buried deeper and had more time to chemically change. Natural gas can be synthesized in hours with calcium carbonate, water, pressure and heat in the laboratory. What makes you think that isn't happening naturally, continuously as we speak?
Heavy decay, carbonization, methanes, NGL's, lignites bitumens, anthracites, oils...they are all fossil fuels in different stages of the process based on conditions. We mine and use all of them for their utility. Fourty years ago many people said we would run out of oil before 2000. Now look... It's 2015 and we are actually in a glut situation because we are mining more than we can consume even at vastly higher rates of consumption. It won't last, of course, but it won't run out soon either.
I wonder how much the drop in miles driven has been compensated by the increase in miles flown? The cost to fly is nearly at historic lows adjusted for inflation. Air travel has risen almost consistently for several decades. Hotel rooms occupied correlate similarly. So are those who might have driven to family/vacation/business spots now flying more?
Last week I traveled on family business by air and ground transport. NC to NV to UT to WA to CA to NC. I estimated my fuel consumption to be about 400 gallons for the trip. Had I driven, the gasoline consumption would have been closer to 240 gallons. But driving would have been much less desirable and taken a lot more time, so I opted to burn more fuel for convenience.
Still fuel consumption is down in the US and I do believe that is a good thing overall. however, fuel consumption is rising rapidly around the world excl. Europe and this is not such a good thing. When Fuel costs get to the $6 range, in my opinion, the rise of the EV and FCV will begin in earnest.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics Table 1-40 Passenger-Miles and Table 4-5 Fuel Consumption have some good statistics. It does show the significant hit to travel the occurred as a result of the recent recession, but it shows that we are returning to pre-recession levels overall. It doesn't easily compare this data to GDP, however.
Interestingly, It does show intra-city alternate transit traffic increasing, but not inter-city alternate transit. I used to travel cross-country by train every year as a child...
I don't do any shopping or pay bills on-line after having my credit card information lifted five times in the past several years. Too much risk for me. On the other hand, my wife does it all the time...even after having some of her info stolen as well. Even this week a fraudulent charge showed up on a card I have never used, but got as a by-product of purchasing an appliance over two years ago. So I still pay in person or by mail and shop off-line.
I'm glad you don't seem to have had any problems.
Unfortunately you are wrong, yet again, about me. Your record of correct assumptions is still dragging the ground at about 0%. There must be others that get a little tired of your childish digs, too.
Yes, wrong again. You said I was one that gave you a thumbs down and I did not. Don't try to change the subject of your post to something else do deflect your error.
And yes, I see that six years later more and more papers are showing that CO2 is only very slightly tied to global temperatures. The CO2 climate models continue to be more and more wrong with each passing day showing an incorrect relationship between CO2 and warming. Even the modelers themselves are reducing the factors they place on CO2 forcing in the models to meet the numbers determined experimentally...and each passing year the models are still over-predicting the temperatures...but coming closer. You still cling to the extremism of catastrophic global warming which has utterly failed to come to pass. You still can't find a single scientist that can prove or not prove that we still aren't warming from the LIA...
Humans tend to cling to extreme emotionalism as it relates to their primitive fears of the unknown. You are no exception to the rule. Yet when the fears don't have any sound mathematical basis to support them will you dispose of the irrational fears and accept reality? Some do. Many don't.
William is referring to a cross-nation study published in the Journal of Quaternary Science that shows no warming, but cooling, over the past 2000 years. It shows that todays temperatures have not even reached the levels of the Medieval or Roman periods. In fact it shows almost no warming at all the past century that can be deemed significant. There is no evidence of a 'hockey stick'. No runaway warming. No unusual warming of any kind.
It is just one more study that shows there is nothing unusual is happening and that there is very little evidence that ties CO2 levels to planetary temperatures...higher or lower.
The media probably isn't much interested in the new study because it negates the headlines they are trying to stir up the public opinion with. Nonetheless, it is one more data point that shows AGW is not a fact, but only an increasingly battered theory. Whether you want to believe facts or not is your call...
I understand now...
For a measured data point, a collection of measured data points, a careful review of factual observations, a massive collection of carefully calibrated satellite observations, a comparison with similar databases to reveal discrepancies and careful, public critiques of such data...you find these false and misleading.
But emotional innuendos, political commentary, Club of Rome global manifestos, unsupported claims, carefully hidden raw data, exploding 'denier' head videos, model outputs, unfortunate reveals of adjusted data and embarrassing lack of real world correlation to such data...you find as truthful and settled?
But in the interest of keeping this season as relevant as it should be, I am wishing you and yours a joyous, meaningful and reflective Christmas with friends and family and wish you well as we enter the new year in this troubled world.
This is the kind of stuff that gives science a bad name.
A researcher who has spent a full career in the ocean science field was concerned that recently published data showing 'ocean acidification' did not seem right or complete in the paper. When the author of the paper was asked for the raw data set he worked with and why it didn't include the larger history of 2 million other data points he responded...
Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.”
But it turns out that the latest data was a model output that did not include real data or the actual complete database and portrayed a highly questionable result. When the real data was tabulated, the papers results were contradicted. So what is more correct? The entire body of data for the last century? Or the modeled data generated by a computer in a cherry-picked time frame? I am not sure that anyone really knows, but hiding data, misrepresentation of data, and intimidation of those who question data...is not science, but manipulative fraud.
I think you have really missed the point(s), but reading the article and links about this issue found on WUWT should help.
I said or implied nothing about the greenhouse effect and neither does the article. I have no idea where you came up with that...
Have a great Christmas with your family and friends.
With free hydrogen being about 0.00005% by volume in the atmosphere, do they say just how much air needs to be filtered by a graphene membrane at 100% efficiency to gather 1 kg of hydrogen? Do they say how they will extract it from the graphene?
I commented on this issue of the Chinese having a history of stealing IP and not paying for it way back when this deal was mentioned and was roundly criticized for my view. I, too, have experienced this with some earlier investments and work related IP. Now the Chinese have what they want and Ballard won't be able to do anything about it. They can try to sue, but it will cost them a lot more than the 4.5 million and there is a good chance they will lose. China will just change the tech a little bit and claim it was their own idea and IP.
It is a huge risk to do any work with the Chinese system working 100% against you...
Small, but significant, in light of the carnage in the fossil fuel sector. Implies TGP is not suffering needlessly due to the overall psychology of depressed crude oil prices...
Hopefully you all will have some cash to invest when the current economic cycle bottoms out...
I am feeling that the 'current economic cycle' you speak of is the time between now and ~2020 and will be relatively weak in terms of economic prosperity and spending...so another 5-6 years of 'flat to down' is ahead. Come early the next decade will be an upsurge in spending as the current 30-something generation (baby-boomlet) enters their high spending years.
2015 may have some growth ahead for the US because unemployment is trending down and therefore some new money available to spend. We still have a large percentage of the population that will be in continuous lower middle class status, though, and this does not bode well for long term growth. Accumulating cash is not a bad idea in any case as better opportunities lie ahead.
The JJ family will be hard at work spending money on new real estate in the mountains this year helping keep the local CMEP group employed. It's a shame that the natural resource sector portion of the portfolio has taken such a hit, but that will eventually rebound.
GLTY this new year!