Mine is bigger than yours

[rabbit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=550548&in_page_id=1811


Mile-high tower: Saudi prince promises £5bn desert spire TWICE as tall as nearest rival being built

On a clear day, the view from the top will take in the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian Ocean - providing you've a head for heights.

Plans for a mile-high tower in the Saudi Arabian desert have been unveiled by the billionaire owner of London's Savoy Hotel.

At 5,250ft, the £5billion project, masterminded by two British engineering consultancies, will be twice as high as its nearest rivals, skyscrapers under construction in Dubai and Kuwait, and almost seven times as high as the Canary Wharf tower in London's Docklands.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_01/21graphicDM3003_468x301.jpg

[Don Quixote]

Why not add 30 feet and really make it a mile high? :laugh:

[Andrew Longman]

Is this what $108/barrel oil is buying?

We really need a unified, rationalized energy policy. :shakehead

[nrc]

Is this what $108/barrel oil is buying?

We really need a unified, rationalized energy policy. :shakehead

"Absolutely. As long as it doesn't impact my ability to drive a 2 and half ton vehicle all by my lonesome on my one hour commute." - the American public

[Andrew Longman]

"Absolutely. As long as it doesn't impact my ability to drive a 2 and half ton vehicle all by my lonesome on my one hour commute." - the American public

See http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/03/25/1/a-conversation-with-john-hofmeister

Hofmeister is a thoughtful guy even if there are things to debate in his message. Lots to think about here.

Can't say who smashed Charlie's face.

Meanwhile, I see a certain something, I can't say what, that unnerves me about Middle Eastern countries using petrodollars to build mile high towers when Saudi terrorists knocked down two of our own.

[dando]

Meanwhile, I see a certain something, I can't say what, that unnerves me about Middle Eastern countries using petrodollars to build mile high towers when Saudi terrorists knocked down two of our own.

How about :flame:?

:( :saywhat:

-Kevin

[Andrew Longman]

How about :flame:?


True, but there are at least a billion Muslims and millions of Saudis. 19 got on four planes on 9/11, backed by perhaps many thousands.

I don't want to get all political, but it is a complex issue. And going back to the Pyramids to the Eiffel Tower to the towers in KL, mankind likes to build big tall things as a symbol of power and influence. Its a phallic thing I guess. ;)

I'm not willing to fight human nature, but somehow I don't see a lot of sensitivity on the Saudi's part with this. Then again maybe the Saudi's are just feeling a little insecure because their reserves are shrinking, not growing. Their time is beginning to pass and perhaps they no it.

[TravelGal]

Tower of Babel, anyone?

[dando]

Tower of Babel, anyone?

Speaking of which, here's the for this Drudge tag line:


TOWER OF BABEL: Saudi Prince plans mile-high skyscraper!

:saywhat:

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Did a science fair project on this in 8th or 9th grade. Biggest impediment to how high a skyscraper can go is the use/logistics. Things like plumbing and elevators. Be interesting to see how they address those things.

[SteveH]

I hope it attracts UFOs.

[manic mechanic]

Did a science fair project on this in 8th or 9th grade. Biggest impediment to how high a skyscraper can go is the use/logistics. Things like plumbing and elevators. Be interesting to see how they address those things.


Plumbing is the easy part... **** flows downhill! :laugh:

manic

[Cam]

Plumbing is the easy part... **** flows downhill! :laugh:

manic

That is the problem with something that tall. Too much hydraulic head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_(hydraulic)).


Get yer minds outta the gutter! :gomer:

[Dirk Diggler]

"Sure, we can build anything. The technology is endless. We can demonstrate the progress and advancements of this region. Just tell us what you would like."

"Could you make something that looks like a giant scud missile?"

[Ankf00]

if the pictograph is any kind of reprsentative, it looks like a soviet era dildo

[oddlycalm]

Can't say who smashed Charlie's face. It was Charlie. Face plant on the sidewalk. Very terse explanation followed by "and that's all I'm going to say about it."

Speaking of Charlie, one of his periodic guests has been Avory Lovins who is the guy that is helping the military and a a bunch of large corporations drastically reduce energy use with elegantly simply solutions. Not only is Lovins a genius, but he's been studying the problem for the last 30yrs and has the solutions all worked out.

He's the one that helped TI design enough energy savings into their new fab so it could be located in the US. He also helped Walmart design it's new pilot stores that save 25% of the energy cost over their conventional stores. Doesn't even cost more to build them. Perhaps the most important project was helping the military design energy self-sufficient command centers for Iraq. Hauling fuel to the front lines to power command centers is a tactical nightmare so if you don't need to the benefit is huge. :thumbup:

Winning The Oil Endgame (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1881071103/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance)

The thing I like about Lovins is that he's so upbeat and confident about saving enough energy to be self sufficient because he knows that the metrics make it easily done. It doesn't take new technology, all it takes is creative use of what we have and the desire to do apply it.

Shut off the massive US wealth transfer to the Middle East, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela, etc. and geopolitics snap back into focus nicely. ;)

oc

[Napoleon]

He's the one that helped TI design enough energy savings into their new fab so it could be located in the US. He also helped Walmart design it's new pilot stores that save 25% of the energy cost over their conventional stores. Doesn't even cost more to build them. Perhaps the most important project was helping the military design energy self-sufficient command centers for Iraq. Hauling fuel to the front lines to power command centers is a tactical nightmare so if you don't need to the benefit is huge. :thumbup:

. . . .
Shut off the massive US wealth transfer to the Middle East, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela, etc. and geopolitics snap back into focus nicely. ;)

oc

One thing that has endlessly left me perplexed (at least since I was in high school during the 70's oil shocks) is why this country doesn't take the easy steps to save energy. It is so self evidently a bad idea to waste it when it is going to the worst parts of the world (and any climate change just gives you another reason not to do what is a bad idea anyways).

[gjc2]

Is this what $108/barrel oil is buying?

We really need a unified, rationalized energy policy. :shakehead

The only energy policy that would have any meaningful effect on the cost of fuel is a policy that includes drilling for oil wherever it is in the US, building refineries around the country so we never have to import refined product, building deep water ports and pipelines wherever necessary so we can move the product cheaply and using coal and nuclear power to produce electricity.

This will not happen.

Eventually the guy who commutes to work in a two ton SUV an hour each way all by himself will get a more fuel efficient vehicle, move closer to work, get a job closer to home or convince other people to move/get new jobs so they can car pool. He will not be doing any of those things for any political reason, just to save money. The price of oil is not his our faults. Blame the people who will not allow the things in the first paragraph to happen.

George

[Andrew Longman]

Domestic oil production and refinement certainly needs to go up and as with most things, when it gets to a real pain point it might actually happen.

But as OC pointed out, conservation is, has, and always be the key. A rational energy policy would tax energy at levels that reflect their true social cost and keep prices high enough so that conservation makes economic sense. There is a firm here in Jersey that is building and converting 150,000 sq ft warehouses to be almost totally energy self sufficient. It can be done, for little money with existing technology.

Lovins is a genius and I've followed his work for years. He has led the way to practical applications to the groundbreaking policy thinking of Daniel Yergin and Robert Stobaugh in the late 70s -- Thinking that is more relevant today than ever

[Ankf00]

short of nationalizing our oil industry, which would be monumental folly considering our massive global advantage on the intellectual and R&D side, any extra drop of oil that comes out will be selling for maket price.

you're not going to magically double domestic production overnight to the point of meanginfully affecting OPEC's market control. And these high prices are the only way big oil is going to focus greater R&D resources on the stuff in western CO, canadian tar sands, bitumine, hydrates, etc...

the price of energy may not be the fault of the guy w/ the Escalade or Excursion, but the market is what it is and his choices are what they are. If someone can afford a pricey guzzler that they're not using on the ranch or on a work site or wherever, I'm sure they're doing well enough.

[cameraman]

Shut off the massive US wealth transfer to the Middle East, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela, etc. and geopolitics snap back into focus nicely. ;)

oc

You do realize Canada is our #1 supplier and Mexico is #3.


Total Imports of Petroleum, Thousand Barrels per Day, Jan-08
2,586 CANADA
1,503 SAUDI ARABIA
1,307 MEXICO
1,290 VENEZUELA
1,191 NIGERIA
636 ALGERIA
578 ANGOLA
543 IRAQ
392 RUSSIA
380 VIRGIN ISLANDS
260 ECUADOR
239 KUWAIT
225 BRAZIL
213 UNITED KINGDOM
92 NETHERLANDS

[Andrew Longman]

short of nationalizing our oil industry, which would be monumental folly considering our massive global advantage on the intellectual and R&D side, any extra drop of oil that comes out will be selling for maket price.

you're not going to magically double domestic production overnight to the point of meanginfully affecting OPEC's market control. And these high prices are the only way big oil is going to focus greater R&D resources on the stuff in western CO, canadian tar sands, bitumine, hydrates, etc...
the price of energy may not be the fault of the guy w/ the Escalade or Excursion, but the market is what it is and his choices are what they are. If someone can afford a pricey guzzler that they're not using on the ranch or on a work site or wherever, I'm sure they're doing well enough.

I haven't heard anyone call for nationalizing the oil industry. It wouldn't work anyway.

What might make sense is to tax gasoline to cover the cost of maintaining existing roadways and better subsidize mass transit. Generally, about 40% of the cost of running mass transit is not covered by fares. In NYC this year that shortfall comes to about $700MM. By 2011 it will be $2.07 billion. Because that difference is not sufficiently made up from gas or other transportation tax, it is made up by bonds and other dept.

Meanwhile, relatively cheap gas still keeps people on the road, tearing them up, but we aren't collecting enough to keep them safe and efficient either. In NJ, because we collect $0.12/gallon less than the already low national average out transportation trust fund, used to fund highway repairs is underfunded by $1.1 billion annually, which is made up with more debt.

These are scenarios played out again and again in every region and none of it is really coordinated with a mind toward either conservation or working together in an integrated transportation system.

At the federal level, gas mileage today of the US fleet is almost exactly that of the Model T. CAFE standards have barely gone up in decades and in effect went down in the last ten years because most SUVs are exempt from the standards because, well, they not cars they are "light trucks".

So yes the market is what it is and the guy commuting 100 miles/day in a Suburban will do so if he can afford it. The much smart question is what do you want the market to be tomorrow? What things are we doing now to manipulate the market to our favor today and at our peril tomorrow? Because we are doing many shortsighted things now that will bite us badly later.

Since WWII people have known that when it comes to energy and natural resources in general a conservation first policy to managing the market is the smartest approach. Unfortunately, The feds have also done nothing to more level the playing field for various forms of energy. That is not to say certain fuels have to be used. That's generally a really bad idea (see ethanol, unintended consequences).

Far better to have a rational system of taxes and subsidies that reflect the true social cost of the fuel, and encourage conservation and investment in new energy. This is important because people don't want oil, gas, ethanol, electricity, or whatever. They want heat, cooling, lighting and transportation. Policy should reflect that, rather than the needs and lobbying ability of oil companies and farmers.

What was this thread about? :gomer:

[Ankf00]

I haven't heard anyone call for nationalizing the oil industry.

in essence that's what people are whining for. claiming oil's a social necessity, a staple, etc. that oil co's owe their existence to tax payers and families over their share holders, how 8% profit is "windfall" and needs to be taken and given back to americans (nevermind MS profiting something like 30 points, or that XOM reaped the far majority of that profit overseas in exploration, not at the US gas pump, or the ridiculous R&D costs and exploration costs, etc etc etc). most whiners basically want policy that treats oil co's as state entities, and not as any other normal market/commodity

[cameraman]

Now that would be communism. See you're getting the hang of it.

[emjaya]

What was this thread about? :gomer:

How one man is compensating for his lack of height or, more likely, length. :shakehead

O/T. We have just purchased a second car. Had this (http://en.think.no/think/content/view/full/290) been available, I would have seriously thought about buying one.

[Napoleon]

The only energy policy that would have any meaningful effect on the cost of fuel is a policy that includes drilling for oil wherever it is in the US,


Which of course would only make 1% or so differnce in the supply in this country since we are WAY past peak production which hit in the 68 through 72 period.




you're not going to magically double domestic production overnight . . .

In fact you can not ever even increase the amount in the US for any sustained period, IF EVER, since, you know, we are way past peak production, and actually there is strong evidence even the Saudis are past peak production at this point since they have been unable to increase production since (I am going from memory) 1980, and all the technical papers that they have filed with the SPE tends to indicate they have to use extreme secondary recovery methods to maintain the level of production they currently have.

[cameraman]

Not really.

If fully developed the North Slope region could produce somewhere around 8 billion barrels of oil. (That is a middle of the road, relatively high percentage estimate). They would be doing very well if they managed a second Trans-Alaska pipeline so say its output would be 2 million barrels a day. That could totally substitute for our daily imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The known reserves would last about 10 years at that production level.

Only drawback would be the area would be totally trashed for essentially forever in exchange for a decade of reduced oil imports.

It isn't enough production to lower the price of crude to any great extent, it will sell at whatever the current market rate might be. The trade imbalance change would be noticeable, as for the price of gas, not so much.

[oddlycalm]

You do realize Canada is our #1 supplier and Mexico is #3. Sure, but the transfer to those less friendly is quite significant.

oc

[gjc2]

check this out

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

[dando]

check this out

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

More 411 on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

And of course there's the Peak Oil theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

-Kevin

[cameraman]

check this out

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

You have to figure that at $100+ per barrel there must be some serious technical hurdles involved with horizontal drilling a mere two miles down:rolleyes: :eek: :cry: . Especially since the majority of that land is private land not protected Wilderness Areas.

[anait]

I LOVE this place. :) A thread entitled 'Mine is bigger than yours' contains not only the double entendres and dry wit one expects and loves, but also informed discussion and debate on global oil production and consumption. :cool:

Here's hopin' for continued real-friendly-like trading b/t us and our closest neighbours...

[datachicane]

in essence that's what people are whining for. claiming oil's a social necessity, a staple, etc. that oil co's owe their existence to tax payers and families over their share holders, how 8% profit is "windfall" and needs to be taken and given back to americans (nevermind MS profiting something like 30 points, or that XOM reaped the far majority of that profit overseas in exploration, not at the US gas pump, or the ridiculous R&D costs and exploration costs, etc etc etc). most whiners basically want policy that treats oil co's as state entities, and not as any other normal market/commodity

I'm not saying I agree with the aforementioned whiners, but it seems like the industry sets itself up for that sort of thinking by insisting on the necessity of continued federal subsidies despite those substantial profits. Then again, one could argue that the primary function of our current form of government is to provide an efficient conduit for public dollars to private entities, at public risk.

[Insomniac]

in essence that's what people are whining for. claiming oil's a social necessity, a staple, etc. that oil co's owe their existence to tax payers and families over their share holders, how 8% profit is "windfall" and needs to be taken and given back to americans (nevermind MS profiting something like 30 points, or that XOM reaped the far majority of that profit overseas in exploration, not at the US gas pump, or the ridiculous R&D costs and exploration costs, etc etc etc). most whiners basically want policy that treats oil co's as state entities, and not as any other normal market/commodity

I don't argue that. They should be allowed to charge whatever they want. They certainly don't need any subsidies for exploring. Their ability to charge what they want more than makes up for it. Besides, they basically do charge whatever they want anyway. We've seen these gas prices when oil was $60/barrel. Prices jump very fast on the slightest speculation they may go up and go down slowly afterwards (long after the panic is gone). The price of gas isn't that tied to the cost per barrel of oil.

[Ankf00]

They certainly don't need any subsidies for exploring.

8% profit margin as an all time record when compared to the astronomical capital costs these companies pay every year is not exactly as profitable as google stock. the subsidies made deepwater drilling and experimental projects like western CO economically feasible in the first place when the market wasn't at record highs due to speculators. Increasing the quantity of crude we suck out of the ground is a national interest, and the subsidies in large part aid in that.


Their ability to charge what they want more than makes up for it. Besides, they basically do charge whatever they want anyway. We've seen these gas prices when oil was $60/barrel. Prices jump very fast on the slightest speculation they may go up and go down slowly afterwards (long after the panic is gone). The price of gas isn't that tied to the cost per barrel of oil.

they charge what the public is willing to play, in the end XOM, CVX, and COP are making jack **** on their gasoline sales. The blame for pricing goes to regulators for allowing so much consolidation in refining and EPA's regional fuel compositions, both together severely limit any independent refinery's ability to reach a big enough market to justify undercutting the rest of the indstry. XOM, CVX, COP, et al have been selling refineries for some time.

Downstream operations are nothing but a headache for O&G b/c of all the gas whining, the reason downstream exists is so they can ensure a reliable market for their crude.

What these guys should do is keep downstream chemical operations, and sell refining operations since that's nothing but grief and not much margin. They've sold many refineries in the past 20 years already, make the conversion 100%. Become solely a company that explores, since that's where they make all their profit anyway.

Now that they've solved that headache, decide whether or not to spin off the American part of the corporation and relocate to Switzerland or some such where they're not subject to the 2nd highest corporate tax burden in the world (short of Japan). After all, they're not doing any business in the US anymore anyway, they're just employing a bunch of geeks from Texas, LSU, and A&M to look at maps and find where the oil is. Upstream operations are where the money is, and comes with 0 political hassle. HAL has a 2nd HQ in arabia now and SLB has a HQ in france and technology centers in both aberdeen and I believe singapore. Similar for Baker In-teq. So now the companies are overseas. They no longer have subsidies but that means they're not pursuing the riskiest and most experimental enterprises when it doesn't make economic sense.

They're able to profit on overseas exploration without ridiculous US corp tax burden, they maintain their R&D and intellectual advantage, they don't have to deal w/ any of the demagoguery and political BS associated with refining, XOM will lose 10B in US production value, but w/ tax burden they have a net gain of 20B

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/2/5/exxonprofitsandtaxes.jpg

In turn the US has a non-guaranteed crude supply aside from PDVSA/Citgo since O&G has all relocated, and now Chavez has us by the balls, so we're now buying our oil on open market from whomever will sell, oil prices go up because domestic production has decreased, the mom & pop operations don't have the capital to invest in capital equipment for the deepwater, western CO, and hydrates type of stuff, since O&G is all relocated the Saudis no longer demand that oil be valuated in USD, they choose to go Euros now, so the USD plummets even further since the entire world is no longer forced to buy USD to buy oil, China decides to call in their loads of US debt since the USD now just any other currency, and so on and so forth.

O&G isn't any more ethical than any other major industry, O&G isn't any more evil than any other industry. **** BP for what they're trying to pull w/ the Texas City plant explosion. **** XOM for dragging out the Valdez punitive damages suit for 19 years. Their business model, however, isn't any more twisted than any other giant industry.

[Insomniac]

8% profit margin as an all time record when compared to the astronomical capital costs these companies pay every year is not exactly as profitable as google stock. the subsidies made deepwater drilling and experimental projects like western CO economically feasible in the first place when the market wasn't at record highs due to speculators. Increasing the quantity of crude we suck out of the ground is a national interest, and the subsidies in large part aid in that.



they charge what the public is willing to play, in the end XOM, CVX, and COP are making jack **** on their gasoline sales. The blame for pricing goes to regulators for allowing so much consolidation in refining and EPA's regional fuel compositions, both together severely limit any independent refinery's ability to reach a big enough market to justify undercutting the rest of the indstry. XOM, CVX, COP, et al have been selling refineries for some time.

Downstream operations are nothing but a headache for O&G b/c of all the gas whining, the reason downstream exists is so they can ensure a reliable market for their crude.

What these guys should do is keep downstream chemical operations, and sell refining operations since that's nothing but grief and not much margin. They've sold many refineries in the past 20 years already, make the conversion 100%. Become solely a company that explores, since that's where they make all their profit anyway.

Now that they've solved that headache, decide whether or not to spin off the American part of the corporation and relocate to Switzerland or some such where they're not subject to the 2nd highest corporate tax burden in the world (short of Japan). After all, they're not doing any business in the US anymore anyway, they're just employing a bunch of geeks from Texas, LSU, and A&M to look at maps and find where the oil is. Upstream operations are where the money is, and comes with 0 political hassle. HAL has a 2nd HQ in arabia now and SLB has a HQ in france and technology centers in both aberdeen and I believe singapore. Similar for Baker In-teq. So now the companies are overseas. They no longer have subsidies but that means they're not pursuing the riskiest and most experimental enterprises when it doesn't make economic sense.

They're able to profit on overseas exploration without ridiculous US corp tax burden, they maintain their R&D and intellectual advantage, they don't have to deal w/ any of the demagoguery and political BS associated with refining, XOM will lose 10B in US production value, but w/ tax burden they have a net gain of 20B

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/2/5/exxonprofitsandtaxes.jpg

In turn the US has a non-guaranteed crude supply aside from PDVSA/Citgo since O&G has all relocated, and now Chavez has us by the balls, so we're now buying our oil on open market from whomever will sell, oil prices go up because domestic production has decreased, the mom & pop operations don't have the capital to invest in capital equipment for the deepwater, western CO, and hydrates type of stuff, since O&G is all relocated the Saudis no longer demand that oil be valuated in USD, they choose to go Euros now, so the USD plummets even further since the entire world is no longer forced to buy USD to buy oil, China decides to call in their loads of US debt since the USD now just any other currency, and so on and so forth.

O&G isn't any more ethical than any other major industry, O&G isn't any more evil than any other industry. **** BP for what they're trying to pull w/ the Texas City plant explosion. **** XOM for dragging out the Valdez punitive damages suit for 19 years. Their business model, however, isn't any more twisted than any other giant industry.

I won't pretend to know as much as you do, but my main point is that if you are making $40B a year, you don't need, $3B in subsidies as an incentive to take risk to make money. Those subsidies could be better spent in other fuel technology exploration in my opinion. When I say charge whatever they want, I mean to maximize profits, and a component of that is how much people are willing to pay for it. The willingness pf people to pay for it is partially based on the perception that it's because of the cost of a barrel of oil.

[Ankf00]

I won't pretend to know as much as you do, but my main point is that if you are making $40B a year, you don't need, $3B in subsidies as an incentive to take risk to make money. Those subsidies could be better spent in other fuel technology exploration in my opinion.

I wont defend subsidies on their face, because subsidies for subsidies' sake are just handouts imo. But what industry doesn't have subsidies? They own our politicians and they all get handouts as a result. When compared to agribiz, pharmaco, etc. I just don't see where things are so unbalanced when it comes to O&G. At least w/ oil the market does have a large affect on the price. The market for milk is all kinds of convoluted, crop prices are at an all time high yet we're trying to pass the biggest farm bill ever, and pharmaco doesn't even have market forces dictating their prices. The airlines are quasi-nationalized and our govt's picked up some new pension plans recently as well, the Fed took Bear Stearns' riskiest assets as collateral on their bailout, etc..

Now regarding alternative energy, I'm all for that, and I think that's something the smaller energy firms can and should pursue to strengthen their market position.

[Insomniac]

I wont defend subsidies on their face, because subsidies for subsidies' sake are just handouts imo. But what industry doesn't have subsidies? They own our politicians and they all get handouts as a result. When compared to agribiz, pharmaco, etc. I just don't see where things are so unbalanced when it comes to O&G. At least w/ oil the market does have a large affect on the price. The market for milk is all kinds of convoluted, crop prices are at an all time high yet we're trying to pass the biggest farm bill ever, and pharmaco doesn't even have market forces dictating their prices. The airlines are quasi-nationalized and our govt's picked up some new pension plans recently as well, the Fed took Bear Stearns' riskiest assets as collateral on their bailout, etc..

Now regarding alternative energy, I'm all for that, and I think that's something the smaller energy firms can and should pursue to strengthen their market position.

Yeah, it's a contest over who can squeeze what they can out of the government while the average person gets the tax burden. You have to start somewhere though. :)

[oddlycalm]

A separate issue is how long it's going to take for the alternative / conservation side of the equation to ramp up. Wind generators are back ordered for years at this point and thin film photovoltaic technology isn't quite rolling out yet. When it does it will be capacity limited for the initial few years.

City building conversion programs can save big, with a net savings potential of 30%-50% and a 5-7yr payback, but we are barely at the pilot program stage. Cambridge, MA has the only fully implemented program I'm aware of and it's in it's infancy. It's a good blueprint for what to do though. They have an audit team that identifies the savings and makes a recommendation, contractors that know how to do the work and low interest financing with a simple one page application.

Waiting for the Feds to magically fix things isn't going to happen, but communities and industry have big incentives at these prices. That's generally what it takes. We certainly have plenty of underused plant a labor capacity to take this on. Green industries are going to be quite profitable and employ a lot of people, both of which are welcome. We're already seeing some evidence of this a gear grinder sales have exploded due to wind generator demand. Given that each costs north of $1 million it's quite a profitable explosion...:D

oc

[gjc2]

I LOVE this place. :) A thread entitled 'Mine is bigger than yours' contains not only the double entendres and dry wit one expects and loves, but also informed discussion and debate on global oil production and consumption.

I like to watch a thread morph from one subject to another.