Thursday, January 26, 2012

Chart of the Day: Energy Shares Through 2030

The chart above is from the "BP Energy Outlook 2030" (p. 18) and shows the historical and estimated future mix of world energy sources through 2030.  Some key points:

1. In the future, natural gas usage as a share of total energy will increase, oil usage will decrease, and coal's share of energy consumption will be about the same, and those three hydrocarbons will converge in 2030 at about a 28% share for each energy source.

2. Renewables (including biofuels) will increase in importance as a source of energy, but by 2030 will only represent about 5% of total world energy consumption. 

3. Hydro, nuclear and renewables will converge at about a 5% share of energy usage for each source.

Bottom Line: BP's projections for energy shares through 2030 is more evidence that a new world energy map is emerging thanks to advances in drilling technologies like fracking and the abundance of natural gas, and the new energy map will be increasingly centered not on the Middle East but on the Western Hemisphere as Daniel Yergin pointed out recently in the Washington Post.  The projections also demonstrate that renewable energy will continue to play a very minor role as a future energy source over the next several decades, and even massive taxpayer subsidies won't change that reality. 

93 Comments:

At 1/26/2012 11:38 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Peak Oil may be better understood as Peak Demand.

Thanks to private-sector innovation, fresh supplies of energy are flooding markets.

The public sector, as best characterized by federal agencies such as Commerce, USDA Defense, Homeland Security and the VA, just consumes more to produce less every year.

The private sector can solve the USA's energy "problems."

We don;t need the mandated GOP ethanol program, a rural sop. We don't need Obama's Solyndra, which was crony capitalism.

We need free markets.

 
At 1/26/2012 11:48 AM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

Benjamin: "We don't need the mandated GOP ethanol program ...We don't need Obama's Solyndra ...We need free markets."

Furthermore, the government doesn't have to do anything. Free markets will emerge as soon as governments stop preventing them from emerging.

 
At 1/26/2012 11:48 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Of course, it would be wise to remember that this is an "all else being equal" type scenario. The shares could easily change if a technological breakthrough came along and suddenly solar energy became cheaper and more efficient than gas and oil.

 
At 1/26/2012 11:50 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

"Furthermore, the government doesn't have to do anything."

This is what I find amazing. You'd think the free market would be the government's great boon. Think about it: you don't have to do anything, don't have to spend a penny, and everything happens as it should and everyone is made better off. Than the politician could say "See? Look what I did without spending a penny!"

 
At 1/26/2012 12:04 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

BP "predicts" about as well as they drill.

Europe is in Recession, Japan is Contracting, The U.S. is tottering on the brink, and Gasoline is $0.27/gal Above the Year Ago Price, which, itself, was the All-Time High for this time of year.

Call it "peak oil," peak demand, or call it a pickle; We're in a World of Trouble.

 
At 1/26/2012 12:31 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Rufus II

Are we in a world of hurt? Have you gone to cngvehicles.net?

You can buy a CNG van, right now, today, off the lot for under $15k. And drive around on natural gas.

Oh, such a world of hurt---except we get cleaner air and lower costs.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:00 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:05 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

That's right, Benji, I could.

But 320 Million other Amercans couldn't.

We have "sufficient" nat gas, right now, for present uses. But, how would it look if we were trying to run 10% of our automobiles on it (as we are, presently, with ethanol?)

What would a "Nation-wide" NG Fueling Infrastructure cost?

What do those people that have spent $4,500.00 to convert their vehicles do when nat gas spikes again, thise time to $20.00/kcuft, or higher?

That's the kind of silly, magical thinking that will keep us immobilized as the natural devolution of energy supplies in a "Non-OECD Spike in Demand World" kicks us dead in the butt.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Jon Murphy: "Than the politician could say "See? Look what I did without spending a penny!"

Ah, but there's the rub. The voters would say "See? All this happened without you doing anything. It seems that you, and the job you do, are unnecessary.

The free market makes most government unnecessary. Politicians hate it. That's why Keynesian policies are so popular with government - not because they make sense, but because they require those in government to "do something".

 
At 1/26/2012 1:09 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"We don;t need the mandated GOP ethanol program..."...

On what planet did this happen pseudo benny?

There's more of split at the GOP on ethanol...

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal: GOP group wants curbs on ethanol

Senators tie production to increases in food prices

By Joel Dresang and Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
May 6, 2008

New YorK Times, June 14, 2011: Most Democrats banded together with farm-state Republicans to defeat the effort by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who along with his allies charged that federal ethanol supports are wasteful and unnecessary and are increasing the cost of food by inflating the price being paid for corn...

 
At 1/26/2012 1:10 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"We don;t need the mandated GOP ethanol program, a rural sop." -- "Benji"

The ethanol program was initiated by the Democrats - Jimmy Carter and a majority Democrat congress. Here's a tip, if you think that you actually know something, you don't. Look it up.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:16 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Bush sets goal for US of 75% cut in Middle East oil imports
· Ethanol as substitute fuel to end gasoline 'addiction'

Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday 31 January 2006

President George Bush has admitted the US is "addicted to oil" but pledged to reduce its dependence on Middle East imports by three quarters by 2025, largely through the development of ethanol fuel for cars derived from wood chips, vegetable matter and grass.
"By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past," Mr Bush declared in his state of the union address to Congress early today.

The president named the ambitious scheme "the Advanced Energy Initiative" and said it would involve a 22% increase in federal research into clean fuels. The research would also aim at developing "zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy", Mr Bush said.

But the most important goal was changing the fuel that powers America's cars, which account of 75% of all oil production according to administration figures. "It is the elephant in the room when it comes to the energy issue," Dan Bartlett, the president's media adviser, said in a briefing before the speech.

Successive administrations have promoted the use of corn ethanol as a subsidised fuel additive, in part as a means of support to American farmers. But President Bush said the ethanol US scientists were exploring would come from "wood chips, stalks, or switch grass [a tall, tough grass mostly found in marshes]". "Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years," he declared.

"Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."


Jeez, this sounds like Obama today, minus the boner for ethanol. The ethanol program is a rural subsidy and thus primarily a GOP lard bucket.

You guys think Bush was a socialist Muslim too? After all, he made a point of attending a mosque after 9/11--and wanted government programs to solve the "energy crisis."

 
At 1/26/2012 1:30 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Europe is in Recession, Japan is Contracting, The U.S. is tottering on the brink.

Actually, none of that is true. Europe is not in a recession, just experiencing slower growth. Japan, however, is in a recession but about to return to pre-recession levels. The US is not tottering on the brink: our economy expanded 4.2% in 2011 (I'm using US Industrial Production as a benchmark. It's revised less often than GDP, comes out monthly, and correlates perfectly with GDP). Faster growth will occur in 2012. The USLI is growing, the PMI is over 50.0, bond yields are sending positive signs, construction is rebounding, a whole host of industries are above their pre-recession levels of productivity, the US economy added over 1.5MM jobs in 2011, and consumer default rates are at their lowest level since 1995.

All due respect, Rufus II, I think I'd trust BP right now over you since you failed to notice these rather key facts.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:33 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

The entire Democrat/environmentalist project is focused on needlessly raising the cost of energy for the average consumer:

Already weary of high gas prices and 9.1 percent unemployment, many Americans are about to get another kick in the wallet thanks to large increases in their electricity bills.

From Alaska to Georgia and Wyoming to Florida, utilities are seeking permission to pass on hundreds of millions of dollars in new charges to customers to help upgrade aging infrastructure and build new or retrofitted power plants that comply with tougher environmental regulations, a Daily Beast review of regulatory filings has found. …

The Beast’s review of regulatory filings found at least 16 utilities covering 6.1 million customers are seeking rate hikes of 5 percent or more. Almost half of those want increases of 10 percent or more. ...

[M]ore than half the states have imposed new clean-energy standards that require utilities to feed in renewable sources. Older systems can’t handle variable power sources such as wind and solar, and therefore require significant upgrades. …

Utilities also are facing more stringent environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a variety of new rules that would affect electricity generation, essentially forcing utility companies to shutter their coal plants or invest hundreds of millions in scrubbers that remove toxins from the air. [Yes, they are calling CO2 a "toxin"] -- The Daily Beast

Of course, the media will make sure that most Americans never understand why their energy costs are increasing, other than to suggest that the problem lies with greedy energy companies.

Funny, we never here leftists, like "Benji" complaining about "green energy" subsidies, a sop to Democrat Party cronies.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:35 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Like I said pseudo benny, the GOP was split on ethanol...

New York Times, February 2, 2006: Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives...

 
At 1/26/2012 1:40 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Of course, the media will make sure that most Americans never understand why their energy costs are increasing, other than to suggest that the problem lies with greedy energy companies"...

Good point che...

Networks Barely Criticize Obama's Disastrous 'Green Jobs' Policies

Criticism excluded from 92 percent of network news reports, despite bankruptcies of federally subsidized companies.

By Julia A. Seymour Monday, August 22, 2011 10:25 AM EDT

 
At 1/26/2012 1:44 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

She is Dead-

I am a mostly a free marketeer libertarian type. The fact that I revile the GOP as a refuge for poltroons and hypocritical grifters does not mean I am liberal.

I just commented that Obama's Solyndra fiasco was "crony capitalism." Ergo, I criticize Dems as well.

I wish for 33 percent cutbacks in every federal agency, excepting Defense, Homeland Security and the VA, which should take larger cuts.

I like Ron Paul. How "liberal" is that?

Make of that what you will, but you strike me as an abject GOP apologist, who wears partisan blinders over rose-colored glasses, seeking to make Utopia with infinite Ben Franklins in Afghanistan or Eatcrapistan or wherever GOP warmongers want us next.

 
At 1/26/2012 1:53 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Benjamin.. it does not matter...once you criticize the GOP, right-wingers, you are, by definition a "liberal".

;-)

here's something that caught my attention in that report:

" Non-OECD energy consumption is 68% higher by 2030, averaging 2.6% p.a. growth from 2010, and accounts for 93% of global energy growth."

more demand.....

 
At 1/26/2012 1:58 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Benji",

Ethanol subsidies are not a "sop to rural voters". Inflated U.S. corn prices, the result of ethanol subsidies, undercut the competitiveness of U.S. cattle, hog and poultry producers. The increased demand for fertilizer by corporate farms growing crops for ethanol drives up prices, increasing costs for small farmers. So, what the government gives with one hand it takes away with the other. What's more, almost all farm subsidies go to large corporate producers whose shareholders live, overwhelmingly, in urban areas of the country. You could eliminate almost all farm subsidies tomorrow and 90 plus percent of farmers would not even notice. Like I said, if you think that you know something, you don't. Look it up.

 
At 1/26/2012 2:00 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

"The fact that I revile the GOP as a refuge for poltroons and hypocritical grifters does not mean I am liberal."

He's right here. Many Libertarins (myself included) hate both political parties with equal rancor.

 
At 1/26/2012 2:08 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"I am a mostly a free marketeer libertarian type. Blah, blah, blah ..." -- "Benji"

That little tantrum would mean much more if we didn't have years of your sycophantic pro-Obama, pro-national health care posts.

Here's just one example:

I wonder if profits and health care mix that well.

If we go all-private care, your insurer will basically say that elder insurance will either cost $100k a year or more, or they can use private-sector death panels.

Or your deductible is $110k a year.

Might be time to throw in the towel, and go the top-down Euro route, and cut our health bills in half, btw.

-- "Benji"

Carpe Diem has a search function. Or did you forget that?

So, please no more bullshit.

 
At 1/26/2012 2:12 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

We'll plant about 4 to 5 Million Acres More corn this year, and

we'll Still be paying landowners Not to Plant 30,000,000 Acres.


But, maybe we'll have a nice "War for Oil" going in Iran by Fall. That'll help, eh?

 
At 1/26/2012 2:26 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

She is Dead-

What I write about private-sector health care is true. When I speak of top-down Euro care, I am thinking about what will actually happen in the USA, except probably worse.

Without subsidy, families will not be able to keep elderly alive. Ergo, euthanasia. I face up to that fact, and I accept it.

If the GOP cannot face up to that--and they can't-- then we might as well go to the less costly Euro model.

The most-expensive model is the one we have now.
You keep Grandma alive several months past her expiration date, and I (taxpayer and ratepayer) pick the table for $250k.

Yes, give me the Euro model over the current USA model.

That said, I prefer free markets as the solution.

 
At 1/26/2012 2:54 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Here some news today, and I hear no GOP temper tantrums over this one.

Biofuel maker ZeaChem lines up $232M loan award from USDA
By Ucilia Wang Jan. 26, 2012, 9:00am

The long-promised but perpetually fledging biofuel industry still remains a big focus of government support. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Thursday that it’s made a conditional commitment for a $232.5 million loan guarantee to ZeaChem to build the company’s first commercial-scale refinery to turn plants into fuels and other chemical products.

This is the same USDA program loan guarantee program that delivered a loan guarantee to now defunct biofuel maker Range Fuels. To date none of the next-gen biofuel companies have produced advanced biofuels at any commercial scale, despite hundreds of millions of funding in venture capital and government funds.

The loan guarantee will enable ZeaChem to build a plant in Boardman, Ore., which could produce 25 million gallons per year of products. At least 51 percent of the plant’s production will be cellulosic biofuel (including ethanol) and the rest will be chemicals such as acetic acid and ethyl acetate, the USDA said. The total cost of the project is around $390.5 million, the USDA added.

When this one busts, we will not hear a peep from She is Dead. Actually, She is Dead won't even criticize this loan--it's okay, it's going to a rural, GOP area.

 
At 1/26/2012 3:22 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Thursday that it’s made a conditional commitment for a $232.5 million loan guarantee to ZeaChem ..." -- "Benji"


Remind us all again, "Benji", who is currently in control of the Department of Agriculture? Ooops. When this one busts we will have the same group of morons in the Obama administration to thank who pissed away more than $1.2 trillion in a failed economic stimulus.

Here's just one of your "free market", "libertarian" remarks concerning that travesty:

True, adding regs onto an industry, or mandating renewable energy, does not by itself create jobs.

On the other hand, when we reach a state that even interest rates at zero will not stimulate job growth, then government stimulus pending can create jobs.

"Benji"

As for the rest of your nonsense, I am not in favor of government subsidies of any kind, period. But then you knew that because I've been consistently clear about where I stand.

 
At 1/26/2012 4:44 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Well pseudo benny and larry g your point man on the "venture socialism' track yet again proved the old saw that 'liberals want someone else's money to finance their stupid ideas'...

From the Hill: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

Who cares if another $118 million extorted tax dollars goes down the crapper, eh?

 
At 1/26/2012 4:59 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Is the chart in Dollars or Therms?

 
At 1/26/2012 8:02 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

let me know when the green subsidies reach the scale of ethanol and sugar.

 
At 1/26/2012 10:30 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

BP's projections for energy shares through 2030 is more evidence....

Since when are projections evidence of anything? And if BP was off by 50% when stating the depletion rate for existing oil fields why should we accept these projections as credible?

My own guess is that nuclear and coal will go up far more than projected while renewables will turn out to be uneconomic.

 
At 1/27/2012 12:07 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Try this one on for size larry g and isn't ethanol one of those 'green energy' thingies?

From Casey Research: Green Energy Is a Financial Parasite

(1st paragraph)

Any politician who talks of a green, utopian US – where wind and solar produce most of our energy, electric cars put power back into the grid, green fields of corn produce clean fuels, and millions of Americans work in green technology factories – is creating a fanciful vision so far detached from reality it should really be called a lie. Such tales are designed to encourage a public that is increasingly despondent about the future, but the policy moves that have been made in support of these fantasies have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Much of it is money that will not be repaid, because a whole whack of the companies and industries that accepted green grants, loan guarantees, and tax credits have turned out to be complete failures...

 
At 1/27/2012 11:48 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

I'm willing to bet that the chart vastly overrates the future of renewables.

>>> if a technological breakthrough came along and suddenly solar energy became cheaper and more efficient than gas and oil.

Or if a dimensional rift opened up, allowed a million pixies riding unicorns to come through, and sparkled pixie dust all o'er the land, we'd all be able to eat cheese and crackers anytime we wanted!!!

The latter is only slightly more likely than the former. There is no future in solar, no magic tech breakthrough, no possible way it will ever be anything more than a niche market, and even that mostly only through heavy subsidy.

That's obvious from the physics, not from wishful thinking about how wonderful it would be if only... if only things worked the way Green Idiots WANTED it to!!

In the Real World, such pixie dust fantasies remain... fantasies.

 
At 1/27/2012 11:52 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> Here's a tip, if you think that you actually know something, you don't. Look it up.

Dude, in order for Benny to look at anything, he'd have to get his head out of his ass.

And he and Rufus both applied superglue before they they stuck them up there, so that just ain't happening.

Jus' Sayin'...

 
At 1/27/2012 12:01 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

No, benny we think bush was just as deluded as anyone else about the future possibility of ethanol.

HOWEVER -- the idea THERE was to use essentially waste products for ethanol, not food stocks.

And yeah, it was crony capitalism, and lots of people complained about it just as much THEN as you are now. So your attempt at making anyone supporting the GOP sound hypocritical is, as usual, driven by severe cranio-rectal insertion syndrome.

The primary beneficiary of it was Archer-Daniels-Midland and several wealthy supporters.

 
At 1/27/2012 1:30 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> let me know when the green subsidies reach the scale of ethanol and sugar.

Not to suggest being in favor of those, but... let me know when you can eat a solar panel or burn a windmill in your car.

At least those subsidies actually produce something of some semblance of worth.

Solar panels produce lots of toxic waste, and, most critically, are net energy sinks, while windmills require lots of expensive materials found only in foreign countries and kill bats and various endangered raptors in droves, while being ugly and loud.

 
At 1/27/2012 1:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: bird kills from wind turbines

liar liar pants on fire:

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

solar has "lots" of toxic waste compared to... coal or nukes?

ha ha ha... bzzzzt try again...

using sugar for ethanol makes sense but look at our policy.

we subsidize corn-produced ethanol and we put tariff barriers not onl on sugar but ethanol imports.

if you did a comparison of the harm that various options cause - you'd find that wind/solar are far less than coal/nukes/corn ethanol - hands down.

those "fuels" have long-standing, status-quo built-in environmental and financial subsidies.

Nukes would not operate at all if the govt did not subsidize the insurance/liability.

If coal was judged in terms of toxic discharges compared to solar.. solar would win hands down.

ditto for wind. power lines, cars and cats easily kill 10 times more birds than turbines.

 
At 1/27/2012 2:15 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"solar has "lots" of toxic waste compared to... coal or nukes?

ha ha ha... bzzzzt try again...
"...

Per his usual style larry g gets it wrong again...

The problem is that the prodution of solar panels is toxic now but just how toxic depends on which method is being used to manufacture them...

Consider what your fellow travelers have to say at the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition...

From the BBC: China solar panel factory shut after protest

 
At 1/27/2012 2:25 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Juanos... want to COMPARE solar, coal, nukes?

also - comparing what they do in China in terms of dumping waste compared to what they do here is apples and oranges.

compare wind, solar, nukes, cola in the USA please and rank them according to damage.

the only way that coal and nukes win is that we grant them built-in environmental and financial subsides while holding wind/solar to a higher standard.

how about apples to apples?

 
At 1/27/2012 2:39 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"also - comparing what they do in China in terms of dumping waste compared to what they do here is apples and oranges."

Damaging the environment in China isn't the same as damaging the environment in the US?

Making people sick and killing them in China is different from making them sick and killing them in the US?

Be careful how you answer.

 
At 1/27/2012 2:57 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

it's the same but what they dump in China for coal, solar, wind, nuke is different than what we dump here.

rank them.. in China and rank them here.. for an honest comparison between the sources.

if you rank the 4 in China will the ranking be any different than ranking the 4 in the US?

 
At 1/27/2012 4:45 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"it's the same but what they dump in China for coal, solar, wind, nuke is different than what we dump here."

Well, that was a good non-answer. at least you didn't dig yourself in any deeper.

The topic is solar power. You laughed at juandos's comment about toxic solar waste, so I can only assume that you're not aware that manufacturing solar panels produces large amounts of hazardous waste. And, of course you didn't read his link, as the BBC is a right wing blather-butt site.

Most solar wafers and panels are made in China, which has a serious problem with wastes, but of course that's not a problem for green energy lovers in the US.

When large numbers of panels reach end of life and are replaced in large numbers, the e-waste produced will become a problem here also.

If there's a point you wish to make about ranking or comparing hazardous waste from various energy sources in the US vs China, just make it. Include numbers if you think supporting your contentions is important.

 
At 1/27/2012 5:55 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The topic is solar power. You laughed at juandos's comment about toxic solar wast"

no source of power is without impacts.

accusing solar of having toxic waste while ignoring the same impacts from other sources misses the point entirely.

coal and nukes generate far more toxic waste.

then he compares the environmental standards in China with the US and claims that things made in China are the standard for ranking toxic waste for solar.

Not true.

solar is made around the world.

the cheapest is made in China - like a lot of other things but if you want to HONESTLY compare the amount of pollution each source generates you need to do it in one place not cross compare.

Is solar made in Europe more toxic than solar made in the US than solar made in Asia?

in all locations where does solar RANK when compared to the others?

Virtually any source has waste - the question is how much in comparison to other sources.

 
At 1/27/2012 7:33 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"accusing solar of having toxic waste while ignoring the same impacts from other sources misses the point entirely.

Okay, I see this is going nowhere as I expected.

 
At 1/27/2012 7:43 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

well...it's going nowhere because ya'll don't really want an honest comparison.

the "toxic" waste from Solar ought to be compared to the toxic waste from the competing energy sources rather than , as you guys would, us it in isolation to "prove" that solar is not "clean".

No one really said solar is "clean".

They said solar is "cleanER".

and the reason it is more expensive is because the energy technologies that it competes against - coal and nukes have built-in environmental and financial subsidies.

If you really wanted an true comparison - you'd account for all of these things in one country... or another but not a cross comparison where you pick the worst aspects for solar as "proof" that it is "dirty".

in other words.. no dice for the RWEC view.

 
At 1/27/2012 10:29 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Okay, I see this is going nowhere as I expected.

Larry is either one of the dumbest and most ignorant people here or he is playing a game trying to get a response from you. The more I think about it the more I believe that it is the former.

The man is clueless. He thinks that solar panels come from some store and are little more than glass and a bit of hardware. He has never seen the way the rare earths are mined or refined and has never looked at the environmental impact.

 
At 1/28/2012 1:15 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Both sides in this debate are mistaken. Larry does not understand how energy intensive the production of solar plants and wind turbines is, or is he accounting for the energy that will be required to travel to and maintain these far flung installations, and yes, ultimate disposal costs have to be considered.

That said, to make a fair comparison, you would need an equally rigorous cradle to grave life cycle and full system analysis for non renewables.

I cannot prove it, but I suspect a complete analysis would show that the actual different es are small. Non-rewable advocates wont be able to claim wind and solar are non economic, and wind and solar advocates wont be able to claim huge savings.

I do not see any point in the argument. We should put up whatever system works best in a location, diversification is a good thing.

In India Mittal is converting his factories from diesel to solar - to save money.

Just as Larry has not recognized the cost of storage or back up for wind and solar, the fossils have not included the subsidies or externalized costs of conventional energy.

 
At 1/28/2012 3:27 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Larry is either one of the dumbest and most ignorant people here or he is playing a game trying to get a response from you. The more I think about it the more I believe that it is the former. "

I too am convinced it's the former. Otherwise, it would be a herculean feat to consistently demonstrate such cluelessness and lack of logic.

I just don't plan to spend much time with him any more unless there are points that others might appreciate, but on this thread he hasn't written anything coherent.

 
At 1/28/2012 5:34 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

actually Larry was merely reacting to the claim that Solar generates toxic waste without putting that reasonable context with the impacts of other energy.

getting called ignorant and dumb by the Beavis and Butthead Everything is a World Conspiracy Twins is amusing.

But Hydra touches on the issue when he says cradle to grave analysis.

But the real point here is that these right wing pinheads don't care about the facts to begin with.

They are committed to their own troglodyte jihad against science and common sense.

I strongly suspect that LED screens have similar issues but neither of these two dumbasses would see that either.

With regard to storage/backup - it's no more or less an issue than ANY source of power on the grid in terms of the grid being able to dynamically load balance multiple ...perhaps thousands of source inputs because coal/nukes do not ramp up and done quickly enough to respond to fast changing dynamics.

The advent of natural gas turbines and plentiful supply of nat gas combined with a modernizing grid will accommodate these improvements.

but the basic premise that solar is "dirty" or that turbines "kill birds" is an ignorant as the butt twins are in understanding but more than that -a self-imposed neanderthal-like ignorance to believe that fossil fuels are the only viable fuels.

the amount of mercury spewed out by coal and the amount of acreage destroyed by mountaintop mining far, far exceeds what solar generates.

the amount of toxic waste - so toxic that grams of it can make millions of acres so contaminated that humans cannot live there tha comes from Nukes makes the toxic waste that comes from solar a joke.

these two idiots liken themselves as "smart". My view is that as soon as I found out that they explain the world in terms of grand conspiracies.. I knew pretty much that "smart" is not an accurate description. Smart-ass as in Beavis and Buthead "smart" is the proper term.

 
At 1/28/2012 9:34 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

actually Larry was merely reacting to the claim that Solar generates toxic waste without putting that reasonable context with the impacts of other energy.

Yes, you reacted without understanding what is going on. That is what you usually do. You write based on what you feel rather than the actual facts. Solar panels use rare earths. For the record, the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California was closed because of a leak of heavy metal and radioactive fluids from a tailings pond.

Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for Environment?

Solar panels also use polycrystalline silicon. Their manufacturing process is very energy intensive and uses many toxic chemicals that are a danger to local communities if not properly handled.

The ugly side of solar panels

Solar energy's darker side stirs concern

The point is that the BS arguments about carbon intensity that are used to justify solar cannot support the manufacturing and use of solar in the first place. Idiots like you fail to consider what it takes to make, install, repair, and replace/recycle solar panels and only look at the very expensive output that they create. If you paid attention to the facts you would know that the points made by Ron and others are correct and that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 
At 1/28/2012 9:42 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

more neanderthal blather from the troglodyte...

show me how solar production COMPARES to OTHER waste streams that make up modern life from mercury from coal plants to mountaintop clearing, to uranium mining to pesticide production, etc, etc, etc.

All this is - is yet another "hit" piece for a technology that is no better, no worse than other comparative technologies because this fool basically opposes renewables in general and favors fossil fuels in general.

this guy gives the word "ignorant" a bad name..

he believes that when a majority of world scientists agree in general about something - it signifies a worldwide conspiracy.

this is the kind of "logic" he uses.

blather on fool.

 
At 1/28/2012 10:04 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

To make clear my position on dialogue.

I will always strive to be as polite as I can and to stick to the issue but I will not tolerate bad behavior on others part.

It's a two way street.

If you want to be nasty, snarky, condescending, etc.. I'll give it right back to you - every time - no exceptions.

We don't have to agree and likely never will but you will be polite or you will get back every insult with interest if you can't be.

this goes for your Beavis-butthead sidekick also - and for that matter anyhow else who cannot behave.

Be polite. Don't use Ad Hominems and hateful language if you do't want it back in your face.

 
At 1/28/2012 10:10 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

show me how solar production COMPARES to OTHER waste streams that make up modern life from mercury from coal plants to mountaintop clearing, to uranium mining to pesticide production, etc, etc, etc.

It is much lower than solar you idiot. When you use energy derived from coal to make the solar panels you have to count that pollution as part of the solar stream. The same is true of the radium, thorium, and heavy metals that are toxic to humans at high doses. (There are no high dose discharges from coal and the linear no-threshold models used to scare little children and imbeciles like you are not exactly valid.)

The point is that the energy that goes into making, transporting, installing, and maintaining solar panels is greater than the energy produced from solar panels. That makes solar worse.

Of course, as has been pointed out to you many times before, critical thinking and logic have never been your strong suit. If it were you would know that the amount of pollution per unit of energy produced is higher for solar than for coal, hydro, or nuclear. And no, I will not give you all of the numbers again. They are readily available for anyone who takes the time to do the research. And they have been given to you before. The fact that you are too biased to look or too stupid to understand is your problem, not mine.

 
At 1/28/2012 10:32 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I will always strive to be as polite as I can and to stick to the issue but I will not tolerate bad behavior on others part.

When you give opinions but are ignorant of the actual facts you are a fool. So calling you a fool is not bad beheaviour on anyone's part. Let me remind you that most people have treated you well the first dozen or so times they pointed to your errors. You are free to refuse to learn and stick to opinion that cannot be supported by the facts. But when you continue to post and keep showing your ignorance others free to point out that ignorance, your inability to think logically, and evidence of your stupidity.

 
At 1/28/2012 11:40 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

you have an opinion dumbass just like anyone else. your opinion does not entitle you to use Ad Hominem attacks on others, I can assure you.

If you continue - you'll get it right back in your face.

you are an ignorant dumbass who "thinks' he is smart and believe me you are anything but.

and the bad part is you are bringing up kids to be like yourself.

 
At 1/28/2012 11:43 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Most blogs have simple rules - no matter your opinion keep to the issue and do not engage in insulting behavior or Ad Hominem attacks.

Unfortunately in Carpe Diem there is a small cadre of idiots like you who seem to think that its just fine to insult and belittle those you disagree with.

It's not something to be proud of.

I am but one that you idiots seem to think you can abuse but I can assure you that your are wrong.

and every time you or any other fool thinks you can - you will find out that it is going to come right back at you.

the only way to deal with fools like you is to come right back at you.. been there ..done that...

behave or get it back - every time.

 
At 1/28/2012 2:27 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"and every time you or any other fool thinks you can - you will find out that it is going to come right back at you"...

Ahhh yes, repetitive stupidity syndrome...

 
At 1/28/2012 2:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

and you too Juandos.. keep it up and you too will receive your just desserts on this.

be polite. disagree all you want but do not insult or engage in ad hominems unless of course you want the favor returned.

you boys are going to learn to be polite or else.

got that dumbass?

 
At 1/28/2012 4:12 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"you boys are going to learn to be polite or else.

got that dumbass?
"...

Ooh! Ooh! Quaking in my socks I am...

 
At 1/28/2012 4:13 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

it'll get old after awhile... dude...but it's your choice..remember that

 
At 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos: "Ooh! Ooh! Quaking in my socks I am..."

Well, I can tell you, I'm pretty upset. Apparently if we're not polite, Larry will use potty mouth to say unkind things about us. That's got to sting!

 
At 1/28/2012 9:18 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

you have an opinion dumbass just like anyone else. your opinion does not entitle you to use Ad Hominem attacks on others, I can assure you.

That is your problem dumdum. Others use logic and facts while you use opinion and narrative. The fact that you don't understand the difference is your problem, not ours.

And let me remind you that you have often admitted to be ignorant of an issue that you are fighting so hard about. You often ask for support of facts that are general knowledge to anyone interested in the issue in question and are not actually interested in supporting your OPINION with facts.

 
At 1/29/2012 5:47 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

let me "remind" you screwball that I pointed out that we ALL are ignorant and we all need to learn and that folks like you think that a disagreement never means it is YOU that might be wrong and further that it then entitles you to ABUSE others ... insult others, attack with Ad Homenems, etc.

let me assure you fool - you are not correct on a wide variety of issues including your delusional ideas about how the world works but I urge you to keep in mind that you do not have the right to abuse others no matter what.

that's is the thinking of a coward and a bully and we know about your kind of person.

and your type tends to like to group up with others so you can then gang attack victims.

this -you are teaching your kids.

congratulations for not only being an idiot but showing others how to and taking credit for being a "responsible" parent.

grow up.

 
At 1/29/2012 10:07 AM, Blogger VangelV said...


let me "remind" you screwball that I pointed out that we ALL are ignorant and we all need to learn and that folks like you think that a disagreement never means it is YOU that might be wrong and further that it then entitles you to ABUSE others ... insult others, attack with Ad Homenems, etc.


Most people who are ignorant of a subject do not keep posting their uninformed opinion over and over again dumdum. Have you noticed that most of us actually provide links to credible sources when we are trying to make a point that is not common knowledge?

The problem is not your ignorance but your insistence that your uninformed OPINION has the same merit as the arguments of people who are far more knowledgeable of the facts than you do.

 
At 1/29/2012 11:11 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

your "idea" of ignorant give you NO right to abuse others and attack them personally.

you are bringing your kids up to learn that behavior that you are modelling.

shame on you.

you can DISAGREE all you want.

you can mock the argument.

you can ridicule the logic.

but you do not abuse and attack others personally unless you want it back.

and I will guarantee you that if you persist you WILL get it back.

learn that or stay stupid.

 
At 1/29/2012 11:40 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

your "idea" of ignorant give you NO right to abuse others and attack them personally.

Stop pretending that unsupported OPINIONS are an acceptable argument against facts and logic and I would be happy not to call you an ignorant fool. But until you do you are fair game.

you are bringing your kids up to learn that behavior that you are modelling.

I am bringing up my kids to value facts and logic and to run from emotional arguments made by ignorant fools. If they pay attention they may wind up doing OK. Given the fact that my 13-year old has managed to turn $16K into a $95K education fund over the past four years I would say that he learned well.

you can DISAGREE all you want.

you can mock the argument.

you can ridicule the logic.


That is your problem. You confuse unsupported opinion with a logical argument. That may be fine for a teenager who has not had enough experience to learn about the real world but not for an adult who should know better. Grow up. Learn. Use logic. If you do, nobody will make fun of your ignorance.

 
At 1/29/2012 11:52 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

someone else's opinion that differs from yours gives you NO RIGHT to abuse them and attack them with Ad Hominems.

Your kid might make good on money but if he is like you he is not a good addition to the world.

you need to learn to differentiate between opinions and people my friend.

you are, in fact, one of the most ignorant, Luddite types I've even run into to, to be honest.

a person who deals with the world in terms of believing in grand conspiracies is disconnected from realities.. who then questions others logic.. is comical.

that's fine you do your thing but if you want to attack others, rest assured it will be answered.

 
At 1/29/2012 1:35 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"someone else's opinion that differs from yours gives you NO RIGHT to abuse them and attack them with Ad Hominems"....

Hmmm, you hate the 1st amendment now?!?!

ROFLMAO!

 
At 1/29/2012 1:49 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

someone else's opinion that differs from yours gives you NO RIGHT to abuse them and attack them with Ad Hominems.

I don't 'abuse' people for their opinions. I abuse them for thinking that they are substitutes for facts and logic in serious debates. You my friend are not very serious. Your positions are those of a simpleton who elevates emotion above logic and fact. Yours is an intellectual position that is based on faith and narrative, not logic, theory, or empirical data. As such you can't be taken seriously and are considered a waste of time by the rational people who try to debate serious issues on this thread.

That said, I like your presence here because it is a constant reminder that ignorant people will fight hard to protect their baseless opinions from the unpleasant facts.

you need to learn to differentiate between opinions and people my friend.

I do. I simply point out that you need to differentiate between ignorance and knowledge.

you are, in fact, one of the most ignorant, Luddite types I've even run into to, to be honest.

Luddite? I suggest that you get a dictionary and shed some of your ignorance.

a person who deals with the world in terms of believing in grand conspiracies is disconnected from realities.. who then questions others logic.. is comical.

Grand conspiracies? Which grand conspiracies have I been pushing? And since when are predictions that come true less real than imagined conditions that do not exist?

that's fine you do your thing but if you want to attack others, rest assured it will be answered.

Frankly, I don't care about hurt feelings here. I care about the facts and the issues. The problem I have with you is your willingness to fight hard for positions even though you admit that you are ignorant of the facts. That is what little kids do and beneath serious adults.

 
At 1/29/2012 4:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I abuse them for thinking that they are substitutes for facts and logic in serious debates."

you do not have a right to insult and use ad hominems.

your opinion is more ignorant than mine many times but you are so flippin arrogant and smug that you do not realize or understand it.

believe me dude - you ARE ignorant.

if we want to continue to trade insults and Ad Hominems that's fine - it's your choice.

rest assured that every time you play, I will too.

behave yourself are be prepared to trade punches every time.

 
At 1/29/2012 4:08 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

truth is fool that we ARE ALL IGNORANT and you will not admit it.

I'm here to learn..to trade ideas.. to debate.. and to sometimes change my views based on what others say.

I am not here to listen to your CRAP.

anyone who believes in worldwide conspiracies and says others are ignorant has a load of guano to digest...

grow up you idiot.

learn to be a GOOD role model for your kids.

stop being such a arrogant puff bag.

 
At 1/29/2012 8:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos: "Hmmm, you hate the 1st amendment now?!?!"

Constitution? What Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution.

 
At 1/29/2012 8:09 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

you do not have a right to insult and use ad hominems.

Your ignorance is showing up again. I do not use the fact that you are an idiot to refute your unsupported opinions. I use facts and logic.

And I have every right to call it the way I see it even if you don't like it. Had your parents and teachers been more honest with you you may not have turned out the way that you did. Perhaps you would have learned the difference between emotion and logic, would not be so eager to show your ignorance in public, and would have learned that opinions do not trump logic and facts.

 
At 1/29/2012 8:12 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

truth is fool that we ARE ALL IGNORANT and you will not admit it.

Truth is fool that when most people are ignorant of a subject they don't argue with those that aren't. Someone who does not understand the difference between cash based and accrual accounting would not be debating budget deficits with finance people who do. Someone who does not understand the concept of energy returns on energy invested would not be as eager to debate the merits of alternative energy subsidies as you do.

Do yourself a favour and shed some of that ignorance by doing some reading. Or simply stick to subject in which you have some competence and knowledge.

 
At 1/29/2012 8:20 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I'm here to learn..to trade ideas.. to debate.. and to sometimes change my views based on what others say.

You are here to trade opinions. To debate ideas you need facts, not ignorance of the facts. You need logic, not narrative and emotion.

 
At 1/29/2012 10:12 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I'm going to continue to remind you - NOTHING gives you the right to be insulting and use Ad Hominems least of all your self-centered idiocy of what you think facts are.

in most blogs - you'd be gone

in this one - you are allowed to run loose but I can assure you it will not be without consequences.

straight up dumbass

 
At 1/29/2012 10:20 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I'm going to continue to remind you - NOTHING gives you the right to be insulting and use Ad Hominems least of all your self-centered idiocy of what you think facts are.

What I find insulting is your consistent pestering of rational people who use facts and logic with an opinion based on ignorance. My attacks on your positions have always been based on logic. It is only after you ignore the facts and logic that I point out that you are one of the most ignorant and illogical people on any blog.

in most blogs - you'd be gone

Mark has every right to ban anyone he wishes. Frankly, I am surprised that he has allowed your ignorance for as long as he has. He is probably amused that so many of us have tried to teach you even though you have demonstrated no evidence that you are capable of learning or any desire to learn.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:03 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"pestering" does not give you the right to use Ad Hominems


dumbass

 
At 1/30/2012 7:06 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

anyone who explains the world in terms of worldwide conspiracies and claims to understand logic and reason is downright comical.

the fact that you are indeed a wacko when it comes to these things make it even worse that you have the arrogance to judge others much less to dialogue in the childish terms that you do.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:55 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" My attacks on your positions have always been based on logic. It is only after you ignore the facts and logic that I point out that you are one of the most ignorant and illogical people on any blog. "

this is purely your opinion fool.

you do not get to be the arbiter of facts and logic much less decide the penalties for violating them and this coming from a world conspiracy fool is hypocritical as hell.

you get to have an opinion and to argue it.

you do not get to decide who is right.

people like you end up in jail when the insist that it's their version of what is right that is correct.

you're not in jail yet so I assume you actually have half a brain - at least enough to know when to shut you trap and not get yourself incarcerated.

and I bet no matter where you work - you keep your trap shut when told to do something you disagree with also.

and what do you do when your kids disagree with your version of what is right - smack them around?

 
At 1/30/2012 9:30 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

anyone who explains the world in terms of worldwide conspiracies and claims to understand logic and reason is downright comical.

Learn how to read dumdum. For every issue I provide a logical argument and support, not conspiracy theories. On the issue that this thread is about I point to the actual SEC filings and the SEC rules regarding reserve reporting and BOE conversion. No conspiracy theory is needed to explain a bubble because bubbles are always evident to those that stick to the facts and avoid the emotions.

It is interesting how the points brought up against my argument are estimates coming from model projections and an argument that technology will eventually solve the lousy economics problem. I am used to this because it is a repeat of the housing and NASDAQ bubble arguments in which I was also accused of believing in conspiracies. The problem for the doubters was that the skeptics turned out to be right.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:34 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Learn how to read dumdum. For every issue I provide a logical argument and support, not conspiracy theories"

no you don't.

you present WHAT YOU THINK are that - not what is.

and you do believe in conspiracy theories - you've said so in many ways but won't admit it up front.

that's hypocritical.

you have opinions.

they are not facts.

you present facts to support your opinions.

that does not make your opinions facts but you are very dishonest in a number of ways in how you present also.

you say that Native Americans natural rights were "protected"...

when it's crystal clear they were not.

but you continue your dishonest narrative so it fits your little world..

that's not 'facts and logic' dumbass.

that's bias and hypocrisy.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:37 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

this is purely your opinion fool.

you do not get to be the arbiter of facts and logic much less decide the penalties for violating them and this coming from a world conspiracy fool is hypocritical as hell.


The facts are what they are. If you are ignorant of them your opinion is not important. Keep in mind that you were arguing about pensions without understanding any of the accounting issues. You had to learn them on the fly by reading the comments that others provided or by searching the internet. The problem was that when you did your searches you did not have enough understanding to figure out which narratives that you linked to were valid and which ones were pure political spin. You did the same for a number of other issues. You argued even though it was clear that you were ignorant of the issues being discussed.

It seems to me that you do not have a clue what these blogs are supposed to be about. They are a forum where serious people can argue about serious issues. They are not supposed to be places where one can exchange opinions that are based on ignorance.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:39 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The facts are what they are. If you are ignorant of them your opinion is not important"

you do not get to decide that.

even if you did, it does NOT give you the right to insult others and launch Ad Hominem attacks.

you are a coward and a bully guy.

admit it.

you are not a nice person and you are bringing up kids who will emulate you.

you should be ashamed.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:40 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" It seems to me that you do not have a clue what these blogs are supposed to be about. They are a forum where serious people can argue about serious issues. They are not supposed to be places where one can exchange opinions that are based on ignorance."

that's your opinion dumbass.

you do not get to decide.

you are an insufferable arrogant ass.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

and you do believe in conspiracy theories - you've said so in many ways but won't admit it up front.

Show me the references. It is not my fault that you do not know how to read carefully and that you refuse to look at the actual arguments that I give.

It is easy for someone who is ignorant of the BLS statistics to look at morganovich, myself, or Ron and say that we are arguing about some conspiracy. We are not. We simply point out that the methodology has changed and that if we apply the previous methodology to the current period we see a situation that is similar to what we saw in the 1970s. We also make it clear that it is perfectly acceptable to apply the current methods to the 1970s for a direct comparison. And if we do we find that the 1970s do not appear to have much in the way of inflation because substitution and hedonic adjustments make it go away. Similarly, if we ignore the people who want to work full time but they can only work part time or have given up entirely there is not unemployment problem.

Your ignorance keeps getting in the way. You think the world works a particular way and when people point out the reality you call them conspiracy theorists. The problem for you is that the data supports their arguments and exposes your faith based models as illusion. An intelligent person would learn from that. But someone like you prefers opinions and illusions to reality.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:46 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

you fancy yourself as an "enforcer" in a blog you do not own.

Can you imagine Mark Perry himself deciding which people could post which comments?

He would be hooted out the door.

yet your little pea brain tries to function that way in a blog you do not even own.

you've gotten away with it til now.

from now on.. you're gonna get your just desserts.

you be polite and respectful of others no matter what you think inside or keep your trap SHUT and move on.

every time you run your big mouth..I'm gonna be there...to remind you of what a dumbass you are.

 
At 1/30/2012 9:50 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" It is easy for someone who is ignorant of the BLS statistics to look at morganovich, myself, or Ron and say that we are arguing about some conspiracy."

there is no pride in allying yourself with others who have the same wrong ethics.

none of you is entitled to belittle and insult those you disagree with even if you are 100% correct on the facts..

which I can readily assure you - you are NOT!

you are an insufferable arrogant ass who needs to re-think how you deal with others.

bullies and cowards tend to clump together... I know what kind of guy you were in school.. based on who you are right now...

and it's not a pretty picture.

you need to get an attitude adjustment and learn to accept other points of view even those you do not agree with rather than attacking those you disagree with.

If you were as great as you think you are - you'd not be here in this blog hurling insults to start with.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:00 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

you are a coward and a bully guy.

I have news for you dumdum. You need to buy that dictionary and look up the words that you keep using so improperly.

It is easy to have the same faith based popular opinions as everyone else and go along for the ride. It takes courage to stand up and point out that things are not as they seem. People do not like someone telling them that they are wrong when they are so certain of their positions or when they take positions that expose them to risk.

People did not like it when some of us were pointing out that there was a very large NASDAQ bubble that was fuelled by the Fed's easy money policies. They did not like it when we pointed out that Clinton's bailout of the banking sector during the Mexican crisis would create a moral hazard that would end badly. They did not like it when some of us pointed out that the housing market was in a huge bubble that had prices several standard deviations out from trend. In all cases we were called delusional and that we were told that we did not have the right to decide what the facts meant.

But what you don't realise is that having the courage to stand alone when the facts were on your side pays very well. I had no trouble having people think that I was nuts if my modest positions allowed me to make more in a year than I had in 15 years of making a decent wage as an engineer. I had not trouble with the volatility that I predicted would be inevitable as long as the facts still told the same story. I had no trouble having people laugh because I was buying Pan American Silver and Franco Nevada while they were piling into Nortel and Dell. I hand no trouble being laughed at when I told my friends and neighbours that I preferred gold and silver to housing. I have no problem telling them that there is a huge bubble in the bond markets, in shale gas, and most fiat currencies.

You also forget that you were tolerated for a very long period as many of us tried to educate you so that you could shed your obvious ignorance. Nobody wanted to bully you around because they felt sorry for you. But after hundreds of postings that showed that you refused to look at any facts or learn anything people got tired of your ignorance and you insertion in debates that you were unqualified to take a part in. Those who tried to educate you turned and pointed out your ignorance. That is not bullying. That is telling you the truth that your parents and teachers should have told you a long time ago.

Stop whining and stop taking pride in your ignorance. Grow up. Learn. Think. Change.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:07 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" It is easy to have the same faith based popular opinions as everyone else and go along for the ride. It takes courage to stand up and point out that things are not as they seem."

there is no "courage" in belittling and insulting others fool.

it's called cowardly behavior.

and when you team up with others to do it.. it's called bullying.

you are these things and yet you have this grandiose view of who you think you are.

you are an ignorant arrogant dumbass who thinks quite highly of himself.

an egomaniac....

you are, in reality, a 13 yr old.

either in reality or you're stunted in your emotional development.

do you like being attacked personally?

get used to it.

it's the only real way to deal with folks like yourself.

it's the only thing you really understand.

your idea of the "golden rule" is to crap on others while laughing.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:17 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

there is no "courage" in belittling and insulting others fool.

Sure there is. Most people are too afraid of hurting the feelings of others and make themselves look bad so they ignore ignorance and stupidity. I found out a long time ago that the simplest approach is to point out the good and the bad equally no matter what others thought. The fact that your feelings are hurt is not my concern. My only concern is to get you to shed your attachment to ignorance. It seems that I have yet to be successful but there is still hope.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:29 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Most people are too afraid of hurting the feelings of others and make themselves look bad so they ignore ignorance and stupidity"

is this your excuse?

ha ha ha

do you think they would tolerate this in high school or a college class?

do you think this would be permissible behavior for a teacher or a professor?

People who really know their stuff are confident and willing to explain and defend their views without throwing down the gauntlet to others.

you are not any of those things.

you are a arrogant dysfunctional pipsqueak who explains the world in terms of worldwide conspiracies all the while blathering about facts and logic and insulting others.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:58 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

do you think they would tolerate this in high school or a college class?

do you think this would be permissible behavior for a teacher or a professor?


Not at all. In high school and college it is not considered politically correct to point out to the ignorant students that they are ignorant. You just move them along and let reality finally show them just how incompetent they are.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:04 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Not at all. In high school and college it is not considered politically correct to point out to the ignorant students that they are ignorant. You just move them along and let reality finally show them just how incompetent they are"

it's not acceptable in most forums either dufus.

there is a real reason why most blogs say "do not insult others or attack them personally".

you don't do that at work with your colleagues or you boss or your neighbors or your spouse...

you learn that maintaining relationships is useful and that engaging in warrior tactics is not.

you claim to be a Connoisseur of logic.

I posit that you are not at all but a dunderhead who has serious unresolved anger issues that drives you to want to belittle and insult others.

you need help boy.

and I'm going to help you.

wise up dumbass.

 
At 2/06/2012 7:45 AM, Blogger rgfairpurification said...

Thanks for sharing, our one of my Air Cleaner business. It helps to control the indoor air quality by reducing pollutants. I hope you like it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home