It's happening! Um... sort of.

On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
using progressively *less* our grandparents did).

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
individuals that are using the fossil fuel.

As I said, I'm not using any more fossil fuel than my grandfather.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:05:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 6:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2014 17:32:18 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/22/2014 6:28 AM, Duane wrote:

It's a weirdly run commodity though. I worked on NAV and data
processing systems for Seismic boats in the early 80s. Everything was
based on current price of crude. They would stop doing seismic testing
when it was below IIRC $85 a barrel. But this is looking for oil that
if found probably wouldn't be taken for quite some time. They would cap
producing wells when the current price of oil was low and not send it to
the refineries. Never really made sense to me.

A barrel of crude makes about 20 gallons of gasoline, 8 gallons of
diesel, and 3 gallons of kerosene.

The present price of crude is $102/barrel. That's an average cost of $3
per gallon just for the raw material (rounding down because there are
some other by-products made from the crude which have some value).
Refineries mark up about 75¢/gallon. There are significant distribution
costs, plus 10-20¢ per gallon of margin for the retailer. There are also
taxes. So the retail price of gasoline is not set by the daily world
price for oil, or it'd be over $5 right now. An oil company's is
"charging" it's own refineries a lot less for crude and selling it to
other refineries for less as well.

The problem is that your figures aren't correct. Yes, the average
gasoline production from a barrel of crude is about 19 gallons of
gasoline but a great many other things are made from that same barrel
of crude and in fact gasoline is less then half what is made from a
barrel of crude.

Look again. I included the diesel/heating oil and the kerosene/jet fuel
in the calculations (at the same cost as gasoline but the reality is
that both sell for far less per gallon so it proves the point even
more). That accounts for about 31 of the 42 gallons. And there's nothing
included there for overhead or cap costs which are significant.

We should all be glad that the price of gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel,
etc. isn't based on the daily commodity cost of crude oil.

I see that you so adroitly clipped the part of the message where I
told you that (1) gasoline only accounts for about 40% of the crude
used in the U.S. and that B.P realized only four dollars and something
a bbl from the oil that went through their refineries.

But rather than argue why don't you go look at
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money...n_N.htm?csp=15
who say that the crude coat about 70% of the pump price.
or
http://www.tfca.info/?q=node/27
who tell me that crude costs only 48% of the gasoline pump price
or
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=22&t=6
who strike a happy medium and tell us that crude costs are 67% of the
pump price.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Fri, 23 May 2014 21:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:10:39 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 24/05/14 08:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:





Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?







No, but we do have 3kW of solar electricity generation, and solar hot water.

That's cool.

I live in one of the cloudiest locations in the U.S. And from the
calculations I've done, an investment in solar energy wouldn't generate
economic payback until long after I'm dead.

Yet another way that getting old is hell.

- Frank Krygowski

When I was in Vietnam we had "solar water heating" but, the first guy
home got a warm shower and the rest of us had cold :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On 5/24/2014 4:12 PM, Joe Riel wrote:


While I live in a different clime, my heating bill while I was
single---a couple decades---totalled $0. And that's not because someone
else was paying it; there was no heat. Or air conditioning. It's still
pretty low, but the wife doesn't do so well at the extremes. There also
wasn't a fuel bill (no car). I think the largest combined gas and
electric bill I ever had was less than $12 for one month, though it
could have been higher when I had an old fridge that ran a bit too much.
The energy saver model made a noticeable difference.

My point, way back upthread, was that the anti-frackers I know, and
those I know of, live lifestyles barely different than any other
American. None that I personally know commutes by bike. All have
houses much larger than mine, doubtlessly with energy bills to match.
Their main contributions to the environment seem to be Toyota Priuses
(at least, for some), recycling, and perhaps membership in the Sierra
Club. Oh, and saying "We need to be cutting fossil fuel use."

They don't approve of natural gas use, or oil use, or nuclear power.
Yet they use all of them, through their electricity and their
transportation. I strongly suspect that their efforts at conservation
still leave them consuming far more than, say, the average German.

So if someone is going to telling us to use less fossil fuels, it would
be nice if they set an example. If someone's going to say we should use
less energy than our grandparents, it would be nice if they used less
energy than our grandparents. In the case of my grandparents, that
would be damned near zero.

I admire Dan for his extreme bike commute. I could never have done
that. But I don't think people should be telling us to do something
they themselves don't do.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/24/2014 4:12 PM, Joe Riel wrote:


While I live in a different clime, my heating bill while I was
single---a couple decades---totalled $0. And that's not because someone
else was paying it; there was no heat. Or air conditioning. It's still
pretty low, but the wife doesn't do so well at the extremes. There also
wasn't a fuel bill (no car). I think the largest combined gas and
electric bill I ever had was less than $12 for one month, though it
could have been higher when I had an old fridge that ran a bit too much.
The energy saver model made a noticeable difference.

My point, way back upthread, was that the anti-frackers I know, and
those I know of, live lifestyles barely different than any other
American. None that I personally know commutes by bike. All have
houses much larger than mine, doubtlessly with energy bills to
match. Their main contributions to the environment seem to be Toyota
Priuses (at least, for some), recycling, and perhaps membership in the
Sierra Club. Oh, and saying "We need to be cutting fossil fuel use."

They don't approve of natural gas use, or oil use, or nuclear
power. Yet they use all of them, through their electricity and their
transportation. I strongly suspect that their efforts at conservation
still leave them consuming far more than, say, the average German.

So if someone is going to telling us to use less fossil fuels, it
would be nice if they set an example. If someone's going to say we
should use less energy than our grandparents, it would be nice if they
used less energy than our grandparents. In the case of my
grandparents, that would be damned near zero.

They didn't have a wood stove and fireplace?

I admire Dan for his extreme bike commute. I could never have done
that. But I don't think people should be telling us to do something
they themselves don't do.

Dan wrote "we need to ...". Not "you need to." He also wasn't saying
we need to consume zero energy; if he had, your point would be relevant.
A person can own a car and drive it less---seems like Dan falls into
that category.

--
Joe Riel

On 5/24/2014 7:41 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

So if someone is going to telling us to use less fossil fuels, it
would be nice if they set an example. If someone's going to say we
should use less energy than our grandparents, it would be nice if they
used less energy than our grandparents. In the case of my
grandparents, that would be damned near zero.

They didn't have a wood stove and fireplace?

Well, wood isn't a fossil fuel. But I heard descriptions of life in the
old country, and eventually visited a skansen (or recreated village)
that matched the stories I'd heard. Over there, I think they probably
used zero fossil fuel. Heat was from a massive masonry wood-burning stove

Later, I saw a model made by one of my uncles of the house my father was
born in, here in the U.S. It was astonishingly small, and based on the
family stories, heated very poorly. That was heated by coal, a fossil
fuel - but apparently, they could afford very little of it.

My grandfathers walked to work, when they had work. My last remaining
grandmother walked almost everywhere she went on her own, except for
taking a bus to work. She never learned to drive, and generally stayed
very close to her own home. It was a very different life than the one
we lead.

I admire Dan for his extreme bike commute. I could never have done
that. But I don't think people should be telling us to do something
they themselves don't do.

Dan wrote "we need to ...". Not "you need to." He also wasn't saying
we need to consume zero energy; if he had, your point would be relevant.

He said we need to be using less fossil fuel than our grandparents did.
Again, in my case, that would be damned near zero.

And again, I'm also reacting to anti-frackers whose lifestyles don't
seem to match their proclamations. I've had long email debates with one
who works where I worked, and lives half a mile from where I live in a
house twice my house's size. He heats his house with more natural gas
than I do, and drives to work alone every day. He does have a Prius, at
least. (But our non-hybrids average over 40 mpg.)

A person can own a car and drive it less---seems like Dan falls into
that category.

I agree that it's possible to own a car yet drive it rather little, but
for most Americans, that's extremely difficult. Our society is designed
around cars. It's a rare person that can have a spouse and a kid and
not need a car.

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. wrote:
:On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
:wrote:

:On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
: On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
: wrote:
: On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
:
: We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
: ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
: And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
: about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
: carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
: theirs.
:
: Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?
:
: Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.
:
: What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
: my grandfather did.
:
:The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
:using progressively *less* our grandparents did).

:I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
:the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
:individuals that are using the fossil fuel.

:As I said, I'm not using any more fossil fuel than my grandfather.

You said that, I don't believe you.

--
sig 108

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 3:43:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
using progressively *less* our grandparents did).

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
individuals that are using the fossil fuel.

I am not missing that point at all. I am well aware of the
popclock http://www.census.gov/popclock/

*You* brought up individual use with the bit about your
grandfather. I addressed that with "grandparents" (i.e.
"we" collectively) - though it's really our grandchildren
that matter at this point.

snip

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 6:03:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2014 7:41 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

So if someone is going to telling us to use less fossil fuels, it
would be nice if they set an example. If someone's going to say we
should use less energy than our grandparents, it would be nice if they
used less energy than our grandparents. In the case of my
grandparents, that would be damned near zero.

(Sigh) *John* brought up grandparents. I don't see how they're
relevant, but I addressed his question - that he wasn't using any
*more* than his grandfather so what was my point - by telling him
the point was to use *less* (the grandparents part being a time
abstraction, not a literal reference to their lives vs. ours).


They didn't have a wood stove and fireplace?

Well, wood isn't a fossil fuel. But I heard descriptions of life in the
old country, and eventually visited a skansen (or recreated village)
that matched the stories I'd heard. Over there, I think they probably
used zero fossil fuel. Heat was from a massive masonry wood-burning stove

We still have *lots* of people heating with wood here in
Oregon. A little bit would be all tight, I think, but it
creates real air quality problems here in winter, and I
just don't think trees can keep up.

Later, I saw a model made by one of my uncles of the house my father was
born in, here in the U.S. It was astonishingly small, and based on the
family stories, heated very poorly. That was heated by coal, a fossil
fuel - but apparently, they could afford very little of it.

Oh for cripes sake! (You see what I mean about the
grandfather's irrelevance?)

My grandfathers walked to work, when they had work. My last remaining
grandmother walked almost everywhere she went on her own, except for
taking a bus to work. She never learned to drive, and generally stayed
very close to her own home. It was a very different life than the one
we lead.

What's your point?

I admire Dan for his extreme bike commute. I could never have done
that. But I don't think people should be telling us to do something
they themselves don't do.

Dan wrote "we need to ...". Not "you need to." He also wasn't saying
we need to consume zero energy; if he had, your point would be relevant.

He said we need to be using less fossil fuel than our grandparents did.
Again, in my case, that would be damned near zero

Actually, Phil wrote "we need to.. ", and John brought up
grandparents, and you brought up zero.

And again, I'm also reacting to anti-frackers whose lifestyles don't
seem to match their proclamations. I've had long email debates with one
who works where I worked, and lives half a mile from where I live in a
house twice my house's size. He heats his house with more natural gas
than I do, and drives to work alone every day. He does have a Prius, at
least. (But our non-hybrids average over 40 mpg.)

Frickin' Frank, Friend o' Frackers

(Sorry, couldn't not say it :-)

A person can own a car and drive it less---seems like Dan falls into
that category.

I agree that it's possible to own a car yet drive it rather little, but
for most Americans, that's extremely difficult. Our society is designed
around cars. It's a rare person that can have a spouse and a kid and
not need a car.

That's right, and your asking me if I owned a car or how
my home is heated was stupid. Of course I own a car, and
of course my home energy use affects markets that include
fossil fuel.

But "we" as a society can do things to move away from fossil
fuel use, and that will make it more feasible for individuals
to do the same. That is the point.

Yes, I use Microsoft software. Doesn't mean I can't say we
should use Free Software instead. And saying that doesn't
mean I'm telling *you* to use or not use anything.

On Sat, 24 May 2014 08:34:14 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/23/2014 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


Additional CO2 into the atmosphere cannot possibly be a
net benefit to
the environment.

One main reason I like fracking is that it produces economic
incentives to burn natural gas instead of coal. That
substitution greatly reduces CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...30751849503848


We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and
inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and
do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition
to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our
children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

I do have friends who claim that we must stop burning
natural gas, oil and coal. They're also against nuclear
power. Only one of them, AFAIK, has actually taken the step
of installing solar panels. None of them, AFAIK, use bikes
for transportation, even occasionally. They all seem to
burn fossil fuels to get to their anti-fracking protests.

I think it's an example showing "The perfect is the enemy of
the good."

Me, I'm green. I'm typing this on a pedal-powered Babbage
computer. ;-)


Before oil, we had firewood, slavery and draft animals with
their droppings in the streets. Green all around.

But it provided work for many. Stable lads, Overseers, Woodsmen and
last but not least, Crossing Sweepers who kept the road crossings
clean so they the gentry didn't get their footwear dirty :-)

Compared with the modern "bread and circus" some might feel it was a
better system. I've always thought that the old maxim "you don't work,
you don't eat" provided a lot of incentive :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)