<DrumBeat: July 31, 2006The Oil DrumThe Chicago Tribune Story on Oil>

228 comments on A Conversation with Vinod Khosla

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

memmel on July 31, 2006 - 1:37am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

I wish you had probed him on CTL since this is proven technology and in many areas could be combined with ethanol distillation to lower the overall C02 inputs. I'm just saying that if you want to talk proven technology today that's the way to go.

Also he seems very focused on figuring a way to save the car culture not address the real needs of a post peak world. It's a way to fleece the sheep for a bit longer but not sustainable or really that important.

I'm really becoming convinced that the wealthy people in America are unconsciencly but collectively working on how to ensure that 10% and maybe 20% of the American population can continue to live the good live no matter how bad it gets.
His answers even though he does not realize it just reinforces this view.

I've looked at cellulose its certainly a viable material for small scale steam or electricity production but the cost simply collecting the biomass to move it any large distance prevents its use as fuel. If technology suitable for conversion was available on a per farm basis I'd reverse my position but would you haul a load of empty plastic milk jugs 50 miles  to burn them ? That's basically what your doing hauling biomass any distance. I'm pretty convinced that any replacement for oil has to have very good scaling capabilities so we can achieve a reasonable yield from many small inputs. In fact that why Americans made whisky from there corn on the farm in the first place it was not cost effective to move the corn ! This equation has not changed.

Consider this if every building in America is outfitted with
a small wind turbine I don't think we would have a electric generation problem. Sure there not as efficient as there monster brethren but on the same hand its this type of distributed response that really will solve our problems we are fixated on the "big" factory solution.

I'm working on the solar equivalent of the windmill so that could be added. I hope we get solar energy conversion cheap enough that the motto of the the president that lifts us from the great post oil depression will be a windmill and solar concentrator on every rooftop in America.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MicroHydro on July 31, 2006 - 3:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"I'm really becoming convinced that the wealthy people in America are unconsciencly but collectively working on how to ensure that 10% and maybe 20% of the American population can continue to live the good live no matter how bad it gets."

Bingo!  Substitute World for america and you have the big picture.  The elite plan for the mid 21st century is for the whole world to look more like Brazil where there are 20 million cars for 190 million people.  (Actually it will be worse than that as the human/auto ratio worldwide is already 10:1, the ratio is going to go up, not down.  The USA ratio will over decades drift down to  the world ratio)  After the ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, and tractors are fueled, what liquid fuel remains will go to the rich/well connected/inner party members.  Is there any other way it could be?  If humans couldn't even share well during the 20th century cheap oil fiesta. there is no way they will be more altruistic on the downslope of Hubbert's peak.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fleam on July 31, 2006 - 5:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
ding ding ding! ding! DING! we have a winner! And some of you might still wonder why I want to "grow up" to be a bum.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wharf Rat on July 31, 2006 - 12:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
 Ya don't need to grow up to be a bum.
Peter Pan Rat

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fleam on July 31, 2006 - 4:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Not that kind of bum...... but in the US one is considered a "bum" if they don't have a car, don't work themselves to death, I define "bum" as doing something like washing windows when money's needed, living in a little place, getting by with little enough income so as to be nontaxable, etc.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on July 31, 2006 - 8:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You need also to substract the consumption from the army (a big one) and for private jets.

Even if this is the plan A, CTL would be a much better pick for the elites. Especially after you consider the labour required for unit of output for coal vs ethanol. Something tells me that they will try to avoid labor-dependant solutions.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fallout on August 1, 2006 - 1:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Once you reduce the equation down to massive unemployment and third world style cheap labor, labor is not longer a major problem for this type of solution.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will on August 1, 2006 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Offshoring killed the labor movement in the U.S.
Once that option is removed, politics will changed quickly, labor unions will be back.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on July 31, 2006 - 11:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
nothing makes me laugh more than people who say once the pie starts to shrink we're gonna be forced to cooperate. Could you have a more flawed, disconnected from verfiable reality understanding of human nature?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on July 31, 2006 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is correct, a shrinking pie forces cooperation. The intresting question is how large the cooperating to compete with others groups are going to be. I am afraid that the nation state will have a rebirth. My best scenario is a EU wide cooperation with nice but perhaps a little frosty diplomatic relations with USA, Russia, China and so on.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on July 31, 2006 - 1:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I disagree, a shrinking pie increases competition, competition might increase cooperation if there is a clear benefit to those involved in the cooperating party.  If however, an individual/group/country/alliance finds it more profitable to go it alone they will do so.  In the end the amount of cooperation is directly tied to the amount of benefit for a given size entity.

As for the EU, sorry but I think Europe is screwed.  If energy vs food becomes a concern, Europe's population density will cannibalize itself.  Next to China and India, Europe is the last place I want to be.  

Unfortunately, historically, when scarcity comes into play, humanity has shown to bring out the worst in ourselves more often than the best.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
quasarstrider on July 31, 2006 - 4:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The EU has excess food production capacity. People are paid to dump their excess produce. People are paid not to produce.

The fact that people are more densely packed also means that it will take less energy to carry food and provide services. The fact that there is more rail and other forms of public transport also reduces the transportation problem.

Last but not least, consider France: 76% of their electrical production comes from nuclear, most of the rest from hydro, wind power is still mostly untapped, they are net electricity and food exporters. This is the country from where came the TGV and they have a wide electric railroad network.

If the rest of Europe follows their example, things could end reasonably ok.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on August 1, 2006 - 11:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The excess food production is the result of Oil and Gas based fertilizers, and pesticides.

Without those products to maintain the conventional farming system, the crop yields of an organic system are anywhere from 23 to 60 percent less over a 30 to 80 year period.  With that kind of attrition, do you think the EU would still have the food production capability to have excesses, or more importently even enough for its own population.  Furthermore those percentages, are generally in reference to grain production.  The attrition gets worse when we consider that food production is even worse for vegatable and fruit production which requires more land usage for fewer pounds of food.  The attrition REALLY begins to shine when you consider how much grain production is consumed to provide feed for beef, chicken or other meat products.

So sure if you think that a complete well rounded diet of grain only will sustain a healthy European populace I might cede to you, that pure grain production with organic production methods could stave off starvation for a time in Europe but I doubt it.  And eventually lack of nutrients from Vegatable, Fruit, and meat products will cause other issues besides famine.

All that nuclear and hydro energy is worth jack if you can't grow the food to move on those nice rail systems you talk about.  And to date, I have not heard of too many alternatives to providing affordable or sustainable sources of fertilizers and pesticides.

Literally, when a car is being driven, or a home is being heated with gas, we driving or heating our future meals away.

And before you think I'm way off base, consider Prof Goose's Energy Crisis Diet

Or even better do a search on Dr Pimentel, or the actual numbers on crop yields of Organic versus non-organic farming, most importantly look at those years over an extended maintained period.

Europe might be leading the way on Energy alternatives, and bravo for them, but they had best be able to secure a source for future fertilizers, and pesticides.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on August 1, 2006 - 11:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Pesticide feedstock can be secured by market price driven prioritaisation, from remaining oil and gas production or biomass. Nitrogen fertilizer can be manufactured with electricity as the main "raw material". The world is not ending but there is lots that needs to be built and done.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on August 1, 2006 - 1:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Not meaning to imply the end of the world, however, even with oil and gas prioritization driven by the market the effect on the price of food, and to farmers will hurt.  Cheap oil and gas equated to cheap and plentiful crop yields.

As for Nitrogen extraction via electricity, while viable, is still energy intensive.  If the whole point is to lower our energy consumption then that would fly in the face of that goal.

From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert) its pretty commonly agreed here and elsewhere that producing the amounts of energy we consume today in a post peak world is going to be a very tough objective to meet barring some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs.

The general method of attack that I've seen espoused here, and on other forums, is two fold, in that we replace as much non-renewable energy with renewable energy as possible (and many seem to think we can't do a 100% replacement) coupled with a conservation effort to reduce the total energy pool needed to operate a high tech society.  If both goals are attacked in tandem, then there is a chance we can maintain a technological society, albeit with a different lifestyle (note I say lifestyle, and not standard of living).

In my opinion the sooner we can ween ourselves off using oil and gas as the common purpose fuel and limit its use to specific enterprises such as cheaply produced fertilizers, pesticides, advanced materials (plastics,lubricants, etc), and advanced fuels for select projects such as space and underwater exploration the better off humanity will be and more importantly the longer the window will be open before an end of oil event.

Ultimately, I'm not a gloom and doomer, in fact I'm very hopeful in many respects.  I personally think this coming century will be a make or break period in human history.  If we can overcome the energy problem, I honestly think our next step will be a massive push for space.  Once we get a move into space we will for all practical purposes in the coming centuries have a limitless supply of quite a few types resources to fund a steadily increasing economic, and human growth trend.

Like my dad has told me since I was old enough to understand some of the advantages of space, "The universe is raining soup out there, we just need to figure out how to build a bowl big enough to go get it".

Some might call me a dreamer, and I would agree they are right, but when you read about things like a planet with rainstorms and lakes of hydrocarbons that once we figure out how to harvest could provide for us for who knows how long, then is it such a bad thing to be dreaming and yet also worried that our current path will preclude that dream?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on August 1, 2006 - 2:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If we can overcome the energy problem, I honestly think our next step will be a massive push for space.

Ha! Another (potential?) singularitarian here!
However you rightly notice :

producing the amounts of energy we consume today in a post peak world is going to be a very tough objective to meet barring some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs.

Yup, barring "some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs" then WHAT?
May be we should care too for some of the "less favorable" outcomes.

Anyway the casual use of the word "energy" all over these discussions is inappropriate an very misleading because energy cannot be "produced" it is negentropy that we are looking for.
This is not a pedantic minor point, it explains why you can be fooled in believing that :

a planet with rainstorms and lakes of hydrocarbons that once we figure out how to harvest could provide for us...

Because in order to take any advantage of "lakes of hydrocarbons" you have to burn them with oxygen and move the "energy" to the place where you need it (or move the hydrocarbons before the burning).

If those hydrocarbons are located in an "entropy well" with respect to this location of use there is NOTHING you can take advantage of.

Switching back to "lay terms" to explain this, it means that if you have to spend more "energy" to move and/or process the hydrocarbons to the point of use and to supply oxygen (conveniently forgotten because it is "all around in the air"), then you are doomed.
So, may be these "lakes of hydrocarbons" are only a mirage (dunno, I did not make the calculations) as there does not even seem to be any oxygen over there to burn them on site.

This is ABOUT THE SAME with biomass, ethanol, etc... and this is the very topic of all the discussions here.
The fact that some ressource "looks like" an energy source does not mean it is really usable because of too poor EROEI!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sofistek on August 1, 2006 - 4:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
consider France: 76% of their electrical production comes from nuclear
Which is unsustainable.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on July 31, 2006 - 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Magnus,

Upon further reflection, you are correct. Take the war in Iraq as an example. The U.S. and U.K. cooperated quite well when it came time to steal Iraq's oil at the point of a gun.

Yes, they are "stealing" it just in a rather sophisticated way. Just google "Iraq" and "production sharing agreements." As Jay predicted in 1997 the money from Iraq's oil is now flowing to the friends of George Bush.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on July 31, 2006 - 4:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Re. shortage and cooperation.

A better question to think about might be: did social programs grow out of the US Depression experience?

(yes, elites in any system can skim the cream, but take too much and the masses get "active."  You get, for instance, a bonus army camped out in Washington.)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on July 31, 2006 - 9:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"The U.S. and U.K. cooperated quite well when it came time to steal Iraq's oil at the point of a gun."

This logic is worthy of the Downing Street Memo, as far as fitting inappropriate evidence to the desired ideology.

If you want to look at whether people, PEOPLE, will cooperate or infight during times of privation, than don't use two Imperially minded governments with plenty of assets as your example, even if Stealing MORE assets is their motive.

 You might look at Civil War Reconstruction, at Postwar Germany, The Depression or Dustbowl era reactions of communities, and where they pulled together to make it through, as opposed to where they fought, lynched people, and generally fell apart as communities.  Surely distressed populations will have examples of both sides, but after all these collapses, these societies did pull back together.  I don't believe this happened because of the conveniences of a petroleum or coal energy supply, but because we seem to end up realising every time that we are better able to survive when we keep our groups together and at peace, and to find peace Between neighboring groups.

In fact, I would love to know about how the people are struggling to work together in Iraq now, as many certainly must be doing, while scads of others are joining the ranks of the insurgency-  a fine example of countless people being divided and destroyed as a result of our inputs of vast amounts of misdirected energy..

I do agree with you completely about the 'arrangements' that have been taking place re: Iraq's future oil production.  Nothing like watching our Government set up yet another stick of dynamite to blow up in our faces..

Bob Fiske

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
IFeelFree on July 31, 2006 - 12:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We will either cooperate or suffer the consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if large numbers of people form co-ops, or communes in order to survive more comfortably. I have a friend who lives with 5 other couples on some land in Oregon. They all tend a large vegetable garden, have their own water supply, their own dwellings w/solar heated water, etc. They will probably be minimally impacted by peak oil (unless roving hords of starving people over-run their land).
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on July 31, 2006 - 3:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Cooperation is why we are in this situation. More cooperation = more babies.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nalathani on July 31, 2006 - 5:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My fiance and I are moving to an Ecovillage of 30 families in western NY. There's no point in waiting for things to get hard before making the decision to work together. Might as well do it now so you're experienced in shared responsibility while no one is hungry
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
whaleoil on July 31, 2006 - 10:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Amen.  When the pie isn't getting bigger, the only
way to get a bigger piece is to get a piece of
someone else's.  And I think I agree with AMPOD,
people will always try to get a bigger piece of
the pie.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
QueenofSpades on August 2, 2006 - 12:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think it's all too easy to make these simplistic judgments about what will happen -- cooperation/conflict, nature/nurture, good/evil, blah, blah, blah. It's pretty obvious that humans and their societies are complex and not one-dimensional. Yes, under certain circumstances, they will tear each other apart. Under other circumstances, they will help each other. Living, as I do, in Vermont, on a smaller and more human scale, I find people are more inclined to lend a hand when it's needed. Then again, it all depends on just how desperate things are or at least how desperate people feel. In larger groups where people don't know each other, they are generally inclined to be more callous. There are plenty of other such factors determining these sorts of outcomes as well. So, while it can seem cool to be flip about it, I think it's just naive.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sofistek on August 1, 2006 - 4:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
what liquid fuel remains will go to the rich/well connected/inner party members
I read this kind of prediction a lot but I can't help wondering how it could possibly come about. Who is going to produce and dispense all of these oil products to the fabulously wealthy? Maybe only the fabulously wealthy, themselves, will be employed in the oil industry, including the dispensing of gasoline.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Mike Hearn on July 31, 2006 - 7:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bad assumption - Xethanol is in fact planning on building efficient small-scale cellulosic ethanol plants right next door to the sources of waste in a community (typically wood industry sites like sawmills).

These people believe there is no particular reason why the ethanol plants have to be massive industrial sites like todays oil refineries.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on July 31, 2006 - 8:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bad assumption - Xethanol is in fact planning on building efficient small-scale cellulosic ethanol plants right next door to the sources of waste in a community (typically wood industry sites like sawmills).

I think this is the idea first application of cellulosic ethanol. You need to have local biomass, and waste biomass would be ideal. I think it still comes down to enzyme costs, because I think capital costs for a Syntec-type process are going to be prohibitive.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on July 31, 2006 - 9:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
They could carbonize the byproducts instead, and ferment the off-gas using something like BRI Energy's Clostridium process.  That would yield a storable solid fuel (charcoal) plus liquid fuel.

The benefit being that charcoal can be converted to electricity in DCFC's at 80% efficiency, compared to ethanol in cars at 15%.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on July 31, 2006 - 8:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Re: "I've looked at cellulose its certainly a viable material for small scale steam or electricity production but the cost simply collecting the biomass to move it any large distance prevents its use as fuel..."

I will posting on this shortly. If the real costs of using coal were imposed (eg. through a pricing mechanism like a carbon tax), large-scale electricity from cellulosic sources would become cost-effective in a hurry. Localized electricity generation would be part of the equation. Needless to say, the supply chain problem for cellulosic ethanol to make liquid transportation fuels would probably be worse cost-wise. But I hope this comes up again when I publish.

Thanks for this comment. I will have to insert some text to address it.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cacciato69 on July 31, 2006 - 5:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If the biomass is unthinned wood that has a high potential for fire, especially on our western US federal or state lands, then a state/fed subsidy could be justified economically.  We need a way of incorporating the economic potential for loss to wild fires in the value to have small operators remove thinnings and produce either cellulosic ethanol or electricity or other energy products.  If forests are lost to wildfire they put all their Carbon into the atmosphere anyway, so harvesting them under well understood forest management regimes could be very useful.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JeffreyET on July 31, 2006 - 4:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Memmel, I think you made a very important pair of points that are deeply related. Deep-pocket investors seem to favor the big-plant solutions so that they can "fleece the sheep" a little bit longer. After TSHTF, the richest 10% are going to regard the rest of America the same way America as a whole now regards Africa... It's just human nature. And anyone who cares to look can see it happening already. So yes, grain exports will be cut to favor fuels, and eventually grain for fuel will compete economically with grain for food. Which is bad news for people who don't have enough money to both drive and eat (meaning everyone except Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Ken Lay if he is not really dead, and of course all their party puppets, servants and security forces). After the sheep have no wool left, you know what happens next. On the other hand, this may be our last opportunity to really push for a solution that looks more like a national village and less like Pol Pot's Cambodia. I followed a link from this board to EnergyAmerica, and this group seems to have an impressive grassroots plan to achieve the "Wind Turbines and PV Arrays On Every Rooftop" vision over the longer term. The problem is going to be grabbing our federal representatives by the shoulders, getting their faces out of the feed trough, and pointing their noses at the future.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on July 31, 2006 - 11:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I don't think the American public will willfully power down.
I think in a lot of ways that's why a depression is in the offing. Again not because of any deep conspiracy but because we won't change and the people with money are now focusing on taking care of themselves consolidating there financial wealth into real assets farmland for example. A depression is what needs to happen to cause America to split int a wealthy class the few with jobs. I would not be surprised to see this be almost exactly the amount of consumers we need to match the oil/bio abilities available. The deeper you look into the American economy today the more you question the financial policies of the last several years its obviously a house of cards timed to collapse within the next two years or basically when commodities shoot through the roof lead by oil prices. Why were insane housing markets allowed and encouraged along with loans that would have been criminal before ? A lot of things point towards a lot of people maneuvering for a position in a quite different America devoid of a middle class. And agian I'm not saying there is a conspiracy but my experience with wealthy people is except for a few exceptional people they are almost clones of each other in there outlooks and thoughts. The herd mentality is powerful at the top.

I don't see any real investment in infrastructure  happening to ensure a middle class albeit with a adjusted or sane standard of living. It may actually be too late now costs may have already spiraled out of control it would be interesting to see how many construction projects are experiencing massive cost overruns now. I now suspect its to late for electrification.

The masses want there cars and looks like they will be living in them soon.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bd6951 on August 1, 2006 - 9:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The following quote expresses the widely held belief that this energy thing is merely a cabal of the rich, that having large sums of money will somehow insulate themselves from the new circumstances presented by petrocollapse:

"I'm really becoming convinced that the wealthy people in America are unconsciencly but collectively working on how to ensure that 10% and maybe 20% of the American population can continue to live the good live no matter how bad it gets."  

This is NOT what is going to happen.  Rich people merely "own" these energy resources. (I dismiss the entire "High Tech" economy as nonsense; where do we go after being able to download your favorite rock star as your ringtone?; Google is a file cabinet for chrissake!)  For some reason they have been allowed to claim ownership of the ancient solar energy that manifests itself as fossil fuels. The plutocracy in which we now live derives all of its power from control of energy resources.  (I'll stay away from the Cheney/Bush junta.  One needs only to observe the southwest Asia energy wars to be certain of this.)  They have NO idea how any of it really works.  They are forced to hire the people who actually build, operate and maintain the sources of their power.  And the people they are forced to hire are beginning to question why this system even exists. This is their achilles heel.

All of this will change suddenly when people begin to fully understand that money and energy are the same thing.  The American public is woefully ignorant about energy in general.  We live in a society where a gallon of Mountain Dew (until recently, at least) cost as much as a gallon of gasoline.  When one considers the "work" that these two equal volumes of liquid can do it is no wonder that our society is headed for such big trouble.  

Peak Oil is the ultimate feild leveller.  The skills necessary to confront the reality of PO have largely disappeared from our vernacular - sustainable farming, mechanical skills (and I'm not talking about decorating) like carpentry, electrical, sewing, weaving, canning.  The affluent have amassed their "wealth" through financial shenanigans.  Many people who have been able to enjoy the good life afforded by cheap and abundant energy supplies - bankers, lawyers, accountants, economists or anybody employed above county government (the list could go on for a while considering that 80% of the jobs in this country will disappear after petrocollapse)will find themselves in very difficult and, likely, insoluble situations  

Those of us who understand all of the nuances of sustainable energy technologies will be able to produce impressive quantities of liquid renewable fuel - the only interest I have in celulosic ethanol is as the alcohol used in the production of biodiesel - but only in the context of a truly sustainable society/economy.  Achieving sustainablity will happen in one of two ways: through cooperation or necessity.  I'm going with the latter.  

Which reminds me of the "Rules of Three", from the excellent CSI:  you can be without air for three mintues; without water for three days; without food for three weeks.  You do the math.  Personally, I'm ready for six months.

Griffin

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on August 1, 2006 - 2:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
For some reason they have been allowed to claim ownership of the ancient solar energy that manifests itself as fossil fuels.

Well said.
You forgot to add:
For some reason they have been allowed to claim they "produce" the stuff when in fact they merely mine it.

When was the last time a gold miner called himself a "producer"? (--except of course for those guys in Hollywood who are mining for the next Oscar-winning flick. they are producers.)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.