dom

Freedom, for who though?

Utter shit isn't it.

Gold currency was the mechanism which evolved into the current debt money economy that is destroying the world today.

Government should supply the money (fiat) and banks be restricted to 100% reserves.

I agree there's an issue about aging populations, and lower birth rates. We probably have to raise retirement ages, ration healthcare for life-prolonging treatments, raise taxes etc. Also we have to understand that immigration of younger potential earners from poorer countries may be only a temporary solution to this imbalance.

 

That's all different to an 'unfunded liabilitiy' issue though. That's what I think is a bogus argument, because it doesn't address the reality of how welfare works - welfare is basically a decision about rationing in the here and now, not about using the wealth of past generations to sustain current welfare.

 

There are hard decisions to make and they will get harder if economies start to contract, horrifically difficult if economies collapse. But for me the unfunded liability argument is at the least a questionable bit of reasoning.

Interesting. The $60 trillion is an arbitrary figure, it matters not. The national debt will continue to grow to cover expenditure and interest on the debt, as it always has done. The most dangerous course of action is an attempt to reduce/repay the national debt. This has always been the most effective way to impoverish the vulnerable.

Looks like Bob Hoye was bang on the money.

I'm with Jim on this one.

I'm interested to hear the arguments for and against oil @>$64 in 2012

Sure, peak oil is the obvious one.

But what about things like synthetic fuel production quenching demand?

Legislation, carbon emissions etc?

Discovery of a giant new field?

Scientific breakthrough?

War?

Global recession?

Things may change dramatically, is this trade far more risky than it seems?

As a rule of thumb I think it is correct to estimate that 10 calories of oil are required to produce 1 calory of food energy. So although I might manage 1,500 miles pergallon on my touring bike, that is probably not really better than the best electric cars in terms of thermal footprint.

I don't think it's that much. The average human consumes about 3.6GJ/yr, 1GJ/yr used by mechanised farming and the same per capita for fertilisers.

The over enthusiastic MPG claims by electric car manufacturers really need to be used in context, especially if the electricity is from hydro or wind with high energy pay back ratios.

Will small scale PV generation ever make a significant contribution to primary energy production in the UK?

Cost per kWh is high.

Stand alone systems need high capacity storage systems.

7 million UK households would need to be fitted with solar hot water and PV systems, plus reduce overall electricity demand dramatically to save the equivalent of 4% total primary energy production.

To generate any significant interest in these systems would need the introduction of incentives like Germany's REFIT scheme, where electricity is purchased from small scale PV for a premium by the utility. This does away with the need for expensive storage systems.

Remember, at latitude 51, 4.6KWh m^2/day is received during July and in January only 0.6kWh m^2/day!

Considering this fact, it's unlikely most households will see stand alone PV as an attractive investment for some time yet.

Opinions please;

http://www.uramin.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=96

The community in Spain where my father-in-law lives has no grid connection. The dwellings have home made electricity generating systems. Most of these have been done on a budget, utilising batteries from institutional back up systems or fork lift trucks (traction batteries). Energy is harnessed using PV and wind turbines.

Now, my FIL system has 800AH battery capacity. Without batteries the whole system would be virtually useless. For over half the day the generating output is less than demand and often zero. However, the batteries will keep his modest consumers powered up through the night. He has an excellent monitoring system on the wall with an audible alarm to warn if maximum discharge limit is imminent.

There are only four low energy bulbs in the house. No TV, no computer, no electric fridge. He has a tiny washing machine which is filled with water by hand, no spin, just an agitator. Even this consumes too much energy to be used at times where output is less than peak. This is the crux IMO.

The attitude of the community is to not use the energy in the first place, thus avoiding all the problems of generation and storage. Their lives are comfortable and healthy.

Most people in the UK have never seen such lifestyles in practice. Our emphasis, when discussing alternative energy, is based around meeting current and projected demand, a futile exercise IMO.