Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Manners

Expand Messages
  • Jon Louis Mann
    ... What I meant was I would respect JW s comments if he was a genius and didn t suffer fools,  but the reverse is the case.  If he knew what he was talking
    Message 1 of 29 , Nov 25, 2012
      > > > It is not like you are a successful politician.
      > Why would anyone care about having your respect?

      > > > I actually think this is a statement made in good
      > > > faith. IMHO, you would grow if you were able to
      > > > understand the answer to that question. While self
      > > > respect is critical, and one shouldn't put up a
      > > > false front to get respect, earning the respect of
      > > > those who have achieved less than you can be very
      > > > beneficial. The reason why will be left as an
      > >  >exercise for the student. :-)
      > > > Dan M.

      What I meant was I would respect JW's comments if he was a genius and didn't suffer fools,  but the reverse is the case.  If he knew what he was talking about and could address the point, rather than resorting to personal attack I would respect his opinion, instead of the opposite.
      I don't run for office seeking respect. I'm seeking change and to have a voice an issues I want on the agenda.  Self respect isn't critical, nor is putting up a false front. I wonder how this troll heard about this list and why he joined???
      Jon


      > JW, you really need to crawl out of your Mommy's basement
      > and find something more rewarding to do that trying to lower
      > others to your level of puerile provocation and personal
      > attack.  By posting "Actually, no, that is not why I
      > assume you are not successful" you're clearly evading
      > responding to my questioning your comment why you assume I
      > am not successful by phishing to get me to respond to your
      > sarcasm, so you can deliver another cheap shot.  That
      > is exactly what trolls do when they can't refute an argument
      > or retort.  If you're not mature enough to participate
      > in a rational dialog you should say nothing, or leave. 
      > Why are you on this site, anyway.  you don't seem like
      > a fan of David Brin?
      > As for making compromises to get elected it wouldn't make a
      > difference in this case.  That is what Obama does, and
      > he is much better than the alternative.  In this case,
      > no one would believe I would change my spots, plus they
      > would not support me anyway because they already have too
      > many candidates who would sell out for real. There is no way
      > I will EVER agree to revolving door conflict of interest
      > cronyism, backscratching patronage, politics!
      > My goals include getting the SMO airport closed, getting
      > free WiFi with a link to a Virtual Town Hall on the city
      > website, etc. I have made substantial progress in that
      > direction.  Sometimes the best way to win is to
      > lose.  That is what Japan did...
      > Jon Mann   

      > Close SMO?!  We don't need any more small airports
      > closing - we've lost
      > thousands already and no new ones are opening.  What's
      > up with that?
      > I've flown in and out of SMO many times...
      > Nick

      Here is something you may want to look into, Nick:
      http://www.casmat.org/2011/09/summary-of-accidents-at-smo.html
      and that doesn't include all the near misses...

      The area around SMO has become heavily populated since it was first built and the purpose has changed. There are several schools which are constantly idling their engines while queuing up for take offs, circling, landing and taking off again. There is constant noise pollution and toxic fumes, especially if you happen to live on the flight path. Some of this could be addressed and resolved; by closing the flight schools, changing the fuel, limiting idling, etc. The FAA wants to extend the runway for larger jets and that may turn out to be a bargaining chip to keep the airport open when the lease expires in 2015. When I first started talking about closing SMO ten years ago, no one took me seriously. The present council has been a pushover for the FAA, but that has changed now that they see how other small airports have been closed down to allow rapid development. As it is now, the city is in the red on SMO and the pier, but they both create well paid
      jobs for cronies. This airport doesn't really serve people who live here, but it provides a great alternative to wealthy residents(like Arnold Schwarzenegger) of nearby communities (Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Belair, Pacific Palisades, etc.) who don't want to deal with LAX. Rather than turning that property over to developers, I advocated linking it up to nearby Clover Park.

      > My question for the list is: if John comes across as a
      > troll, why are
      > people responding to him? By doing so, you give him exactly
      > what he
      > wants. By getting a rise out of others, he makes you dance
      > to his
      > tune. If you really think he has nothing worthwhile to add
      > to the conversation, don't reply to his goads!
      > Damon.

      Excellent point, Damon, and I did that for a long time...

      > ...he says, even though it's an indirect means of poking
      > the troll.
      >  --
      > Warren


      _______________________________________________
      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • Dan Minette
      Since we don t want this list dominated by carved Norwegian tourist shop items, I thought I d throw out an argument. I have seen Germany and Japan shutting
      Message 2 of 29 , Nov 26, 2012
        Since we don't want this list dominated by carved Norwegian tourist shop
        items, I thought I'd throw out an argument. I have seen Germany and Japan
        shutting down nuclear energy, after the Greens have suceeded in making it
        non-PC. They had argued that the energy will be replaced by renewaable
        sources. But, reality has set in, and they are being replaced by fossil
        fuels.

        Indeed, the biggest rise in energy production will be coal plants. As

        http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-than-1000-new-coal-plants-planned-wo
        rldwide-15279

        shows, there are plans for 1.4 trillion watts of capacity being added now in
        process. This will add the equivalent of another China in greenhouse gas
        emissions, more than the US and EU combined. So, I'd argue that the Green's
        main effect on the environment has been to increase greenhouse gas emissions
        by making nuclear power politically unacceptable. Japan shutting down their
        reactor after the only nuclear damage having been radiation burns on the
        feet of workers who walked into radioactive water without checking and
        without boots (non-fatal) is amazing. It's like shutting down all
        automobile traffic after the 100 car pileup on Thanksgiving on I-10.

        Dan M.


        _______________________________________________
        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
        For God s sake (written as 日本酒), Japan had the earthquake of the century , it hit hard on the nuclear plants, and almost nothing happened. If this is
        Message 3 of 29 , Nov 27, 2012
          For God's sake (written as 日本酒), Japan had the "earthquake of the
          century", it hit hard on the nuclear plants, and almost nothing
          happened. If this is not a very good security test on nuclear power,
          then I don't know what could be. Maybe hit a nuclear plant with an
          airplane?

          Alberto Monteiro

          _______________________________________________
          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
        • Kevin O'Brien
          ... I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are even safer.
          Message 4 of 29 , Nov 27, 2012
            On 11/26/2012 9:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
            > Since we don't want this list dominated by carved Norwegian tourist shop
            > items, I thought I'd throw out an argument. I have seen Germany and Japan
            > shutting down nuclear energy, after the Greens have suceeded in making it
            > non-PC. They had argued that the energy will be replaced by renewaable
            > sources. But, reality has set in, and they are being replaced by fossil
            > fuels.
            >
            > Indeed, the biggest rise in energy production will be coal plants. As
            >
            > http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-than-1000-new-coal-plants-planned-wo
            > rldwide-15279
            >
            > shows, there are plans for 1.4 trillion watts of capacity being added now in
            > process. This will add the equivalent of another China in greenhouse gas
            > emissions, more than the US and EU combined. So, I'd argue that the Green's
            > main effect on the environment has been to increase greenhouse gas emissions
            > by making nuclear power politically unacceptable. Japan shutting down their
            > reactor after the only nuclear damage having been radiation burns on the
            > feet of workers who walked into radioactive water without checking and
            > without boots (non-fatal) is amazing. It's like shutting down all
            > automobile traffic after the 100 car pileup on Thanksgiving on I-10.

            I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the
            design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are
            even safer. This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very
            few people approach problems that way.

            Regards,

            --
            Kevin B. O'Brien
            zwilnik@...
            A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.


            _______________________________________________
            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
          • Keith Henson
            On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Kevin O Brien wrote: snip ... Twitter compressed solution Really cheap power if we bootstrap by
            Message 5 of 29 , Nov 27, 2012
              On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Kevin O'Brien <zwilnik@zwilnik.c> wrote:

              snip

              > This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very
              > few people approach problems that way.

              Twitter compressed solution

              "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite
              and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. "

              If anyone wants to know more, ask.

              Keith

              _______________________________________________
              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            • Klaus Stock
              ... Um, like the german SNR-300 design? Yup, the first reactor with a core catcher! Which was, of course, dismantled. Apparently, there s only one things the
              Message 6 of 29 , Nov 27, 2012
                > I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the
                > design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are
                > even safer.

                Um, like the german SNR-300 design? Yup, the first reactor with a core
                catcher! Which was, of course, dismantled. Apparently, there's only
                one things the "greens" fear more than an unsafe reactor - and that's
                a safer one.

                Funny quote from a politician who opposed the SNR-300: "If we had
                such technology, we'd have to export it, too.". That wouldn't have
                helped Fukushima; that was a 1960s design, while the SR-300 was a
                1970s design, which was being upgraded though the 1980s.


                And now something completely different (warning: machine
                translation!):
                http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planet-wissen.de%2Fnatur_technik%2Fenergie%2Ferdoel%2Finterview.jsp

                Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests.

                - Klaus



                --
                Best regards,
                Klaus mailto:ks@...


                _______________________________________________
                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
              • Klaus Stock
                ... Our political leaders don t need solutions, they need fear. Once you control voters by fear, you can do literally everything. That s toally different from
                Message 7 of 29 , Nov 27, 2012
                  >> This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very
                  >> few people approach problems that way.

                  > Twitter compressed solution

                  > "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite
                  > and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. "

                  > If anyone wants to know more, ask.

                  Our political leaders don't need solutions, they need fear. Once you
                  control voters by fear, you can do literally everything.

                  That's toally different from us people with a scientific background,
                  who still believe that we're constrained by physical laws. Or math. Or
                  reason. Or logic.

                  It works because politicians don't even get close to breaching natural
                  laws. They are content with much, much simpler achievements. Personal
                  wealth, power or just making certain other people feel miserable.

                  However, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, has studied physics.
                  I'm wondering if she would be open to scientific solutions. Or if
                  there political contrains which would prevent her from actually
                  persuing solutions.

                  - Klaus


                  _______________________________________________
                  http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                • Dan Minette
                  ... it for propulsion ... With all due respect, Keith, I ve been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility.
                  Message 8 of 29 , Nov 27, 2012
                    >"Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use
                    it for propulsion
                    >lasers to bring up parts for thousands. "

                    With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50
                    years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a
                    design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major
                    industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than
                    earth bound solar cells.

                    Dan M


                    _______________________________________________
                    http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                  • Kevin O'Brien
                    ... Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting: http://www.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=5336750 A trade war over
                    Message 9 of 29 , Nov 28, 2012
                      On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
                      >> "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use
                      > it for propulsion
                      >> lasers to bring up parts for thousands. "
                      > With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50
                      > years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a
                      > design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major
                      > industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than
                      > earth bound solar cells.
                      Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting:

                      http://www.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=5336750

                      A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up
                      several interesting topics. First, this is arguably the most important
                      technology of the 21st century since it not only provides energy
                      security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does not
                      appear in this story. Third, there is an interesting economic argument.
                      The Chinese government is subsidizing their manufacturers which results
                      in Chinese solar panels being about 30% cheaper (per the story. I have
                      not verified this independently.) From one perspective, you could argue
                      that this is great for consumers. China is making everything 30%
                      cheaper! Woo hoo! The objection is that this would undermine local
                      producers, but that is not as clear a problem as the European
                      manufacturers would like to say. For the advantage to be permanent you
                      would need either perpetual subsidies by the Chinese government or some
                      kind of barrier to entry in the solar panel market that would keep out
                      competitors. Economic theory says that potentially the Chinese
                      manufacturers could use these subsidies to drive out competitors, and
                      when that was accomplished they would just raise prices and enjoy
                      monopoly rents. But without the barriers to entry, that cannot happen.

                      The other solution, if you think that subsidies by one side is a
                      problem, is to create counter-subsidies. That might be preferable to a
                      trade war, and arguably would help promote a technology we desperately need.

                      Regards,

                      --
                      Kevin B. O'Brien
                      zwilnik@...
                      A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.


                      _______________________________________________
                      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                    • Keith Henson
                      On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette wrote: snip ... It s not hard to find out what I have done,
                      Message 10 of 29 , Nov 29, 2012
                        On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" <danminette@...> wrote:

                        snip

                        > I was basically asking if you've been around the block. That's not an appeal
                        > to authority, just the result of the observation that folks who've walked
                        > the walk are more likely to be accurate the next time they talk the talk
                        > than folks who never walked the walk.

                        It's not hard to find out what I have done,
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson

                        > I did look at high energy lasers, and the person who wrote
                        >
                        > http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html
                        >
                        > Looks like he has worked with high power lasers. One notes that high power
                        > is 5 kWatt, and the many caveats for use at that energy.

                        These http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/vesta/ are 15 kW and
                        have been ganged to over 100 kW. Getting to the GW level (out in
                        space no less) is just a matter of having a lot of money to buy lasers
                        and haul them out there.

                        snip

                        > So, I won't say never to power satellites, but
                        > I'd saw it's probably three black swans away....and they have to be just the
                        > three black swans we need.

                        If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep
                        it to yourself.

                        Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of
                        working on power satellites and laser propulsion.

                        Keith

                        _______________________________________________
                        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                      • Dan Minette
                        ... It depends on how close you are to the nuclear bomb test. But, oil is generally lower in radioactivity than bananas. If you are far enough away from the
                        Message 11 of 29 , Nov 29, 2012
                          >Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests.

                          It depends on how close you are to the nuclear bomb test. But, oil is
                          generally lower in radioactivity than bananas. If you are far enough away
                          from the test, then the radiation is so low, it's orders of magnitude below
                          what you get from eating a banana.

                          Dan M.


                          _______________________________________________
                          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                        • Dan Minette
                          ... From: brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O Brien Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:06 AM To:
                          Message 12 of 29 , Nov 29, 2012
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                            Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien
                            Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:06 AM
                            To: brin-l@...
                            Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses

                            On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
                            >> "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite
                            >> and use
                            > it for propulsion
                            >> lasers to bring up parts for thousands. "
                            > With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for
                            > 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you
                            > point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale
                            > in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even
                            > less likely than earth bound solar cells.
                            Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting:
                            >A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up
                            several interesting topics.
                            >First, this is arguably the most important technology of the 21st century
                            since it not only provides
                            >energy security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does
                            not appear in this story.

                            But, the technology is extremely expensive, even the cheap version. That is
                            why Germany is building coal plants to replace the nuclear plants, while
                            solar represents only 0.3% of the total energy supply.
                            China is subsidizing it's solar panels in an attempt to gain a monopoly in
                            selling solar panals. It doesn't really use them....I couldn't get a number
                            just on Chinese solar panels, but there total renewable (excluding
                            hydroelectric and wood) is 0.2% of their energy consumption, and wind is
                            much cheaper, so maybe they have 0.01%-0.05% solar.

                            They have a natural advantage in that they can just dump the toxic byproduct
                            of making solar cells instead of processing them. That cuts material costs
                            tremendously. They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all
                            other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a
                            position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any
                            country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So,
                            using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it.
                            But, since solar power is a feel good luxury, and shows no sign of being an
                            important part of any ecconomy, they cannot use it as a political weapon. A
                            country can do without solar power; it cannot do without rare earths.

                            Nuclear power and biofuels from synthetic biology and bioengineering are far
                            more likely to be used as green energy sources. One advange each has is
                            that the development of efficient storage is not required for their use. In
                            a real sense, solar needs two breakthroughs that we cannot see to be
                            effective. Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why
                            wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. It only made sense
                            when natural gas was expensive.

                            Dan M.


                            _______________________________________________
                            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                          • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
                            ... Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It
                            Message 13 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                              Dan Minette wrote:
                              >
                              > Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why
                              > wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand.
                              > It only made sense when natural gas was expensive.
                              >
                              Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a
                              country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are
                              outside it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when
                              the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used
                              complementary to other sources of energy.

                              Alberto Monteiro

                              _______________________________________________
                              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                            • Klaus Stock
                              ... I remember one study where it was predicted that if (in Germany) 10% if the required electricity is produced by wind, temperatures on land will rise and
                              Message 14 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                                >> Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why
                                >> wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand.
                                >> It only made sense when natural gas was expensive.
                                >>
                                > Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a
                                > country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are
                                > outside it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when
                                > the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used
                                > complementary to other sources of energy.

                                I remember one study where it was predicted that if (in Germany) 10%
                                if the required electricity is produced by wind, temperatures on land
                                will rise and drop on the sea.

                                To me, that sounds like wind farms on land will deliver not enough
                                energy to power the air conditions we might need. Wind farms on the
                                water will reduce evaporation. No idea how big this impact will be,
                                but if we begin to need desalination plants to provide water for
                                irrigation, wind farms might again lead to less energy instead of more.

                                Furthermore, the currently used designs require massive maintenance.
                                Production of replacement parts is not CO2-neutral. Not by far! Yo,
                                still somewhat better than burning coal. But still surprisingly
                                "dirty".

                                Water is, AFAIR, even worse. The water basins replace plants, which
                                would otherwise convert CO2.

                                Pumped-storage hydroelectricity are often cited as a solution to
                                the storage problem. Apart from the problem mentioned above, they are
                                also inefficient. While a modern pumped-storage hydropower station may
                                yield an efficiency between 70% and 80%, energy transmission from and to
                                the the site also takes a toll. It's estimated that today about 50% of
                                the electrical energy is lost on it's wan from the power plant to the
                                user. Consider that the energy might to be transmitted twice (to the
                                pumped-storage hydropower station and back). Of course, it would make
                                sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind
                                turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with
                                politics, not technology.

                                - Klaus


                                _______________________________________________
                                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                              • Dan Minette
                                ... country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save water and not consume natural gas when the wind blows.
                                Message 15 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                                  >Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a
                                  country-wide electric grid, only >some parts of the Rain Forest are outside
                                  it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when >the wind blows.
                                  So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other
                                  sources of >energy.


                                  I'm sorry if I was unclear. Texas actually had a fairly large number of
                                  windmills. And, they had been used in tandum with expensive natural gas.
                                  The natural gas plants are cheaper than coal, but the fuel was more
                                  expensive. So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low
                                  wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down
                                  to a virtual halt.

                                  The largest German company in this field has calculated that they can only
                                  count on about 10% of the nameplate capacity from windmills. As a result,
                                  when windmills get to over 6%-10% of total grid power, they become
                                  impractical. The black swan I was talking about was a cheap efficient
                                  storage mechanism for vast amounts of power. That would make windmills
                                  practical as a significant source. Otherwise, we can have them as a 4%-8%
                                  source, but always need to rely on other sources. At low levels, this might
                                  make ecconomic sense. But, having two sets of power plants, overall, does
                                  not make sense.

                                  Dan M.


                                  _______________________________________________
                                  http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                • Kevin O'Brien
                                  ... Well, I just noted that a new technology has come along that replaces much of the use of rare earth elements (it had to do with electric motors). This is
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                                    On 11/29/2012 6:38 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
                                    > They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all
                                    > other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a
                                    > position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any
                                    > country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So,
                                    > using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it.
                                    Well, I just noted that a new technology has come along that replaces
                                    much of the use of rare earth elements (it had to do with electric
                                    motors). This is one of the reasons you have to be slightly skeptical
                                    about attempts to use predatory pricing to create monopolies. The very
                                    act of raising prices creates a strong incentive for substitutes, among
                                    other things. I just did a Google search on "rare earth substitutes"
                                    that brought back a number of recent articles about how rare earth
                                    prices were falling as a result of manufacturers finding substitutes,
                                    and other articles about how manufacturers are finding those substitutes.

                                    Now, I cannot say exactly how this will play out since predictions are
                                    hard, especially when they are about the future. ;) But there is a
                                    concept in economics called "hysteresis" that says that changes once
                                    made are sometimes hard to reverse. A great example of this was the
                                    automobile market in the 1970s. When oil prices rose, consumers went
                                    looking for fuel-efficient autos. When U.S. manufacturers could not meet
                                    this demand, they turned to the hitherto ignored Japanese cars. This led
                                    them to discover a previously unknown fact, that those cars were of
                                    higher quality than American cars. As a result, even when oil prices
                                    fell, the market share of Japanese autos did not fall back to its
                                    previous level. A "permanent" change had occurred in consumers'
                                    preferences. It is at least conceivable to me that the research into
                                    alternatives to rare earths will result in a "permanent" fall in demand
                                    for them.

                                    Regards,

                                    --
                                    Kevin B. O'Brien
                                    zwilnik@...
                                    A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.


                                    _______________________________________________
                                    http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                  • Kevin O'Brien
                                    ... Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. Regards, --
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                                      On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
                                      > So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low
                                      > wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down
                                      > to a virtual halt.
                                      Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being
                                      expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if.

                                      Regards,

                                      --
                                      Kevin B. O'Brien
                                      zwilnik@...
                                      A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.


                                      _______________________________________________
                                      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                    • Wayne Eddy
                                      On the subject of black swans, what do you guys think about LENR? Is it all smoke & mirrors or is it a game changer? On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:08 PM, ALBERTO
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                                        On the subject of black swans, what do you guys think about LENR?  Is it all smoke & mirrors or is it a game changer?


                                        On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:08 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO <albmont@...> wrote:
                                        Dan Minette wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Wind just needs one, effective storage.  The lack of it is why
                                        > wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand.
                                        > It only made sense when natural gas was expensive.
                                        >
                                        Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a
                                        country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are
                                        outside it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when
                                        the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used
                                        complementary to other sources of energy.

                                        Alberto Monteiro

                                        _______________________________________________
                                        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com


                                      • Klaus Stock
                                        ... Of course, certain critical businesses will be exempt from that tax. - Klaus _______________________________________________
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Nov 30, 2012
                                          >> So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low
                                          >> wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down
                                          >> to a virtual halt.

                                          > Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being
                                          > expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if.

                                          Of course, certain critical businesses will be exempt from that tax.

                                          - Klaus


                                          _______________________________________________
                                          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                        • Dan Minette
                                          ... yourself. I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance of suceeeding. ... working on power satellites ... I m not sure if you
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Dec 1, 2012
                                            >If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to
                                            yourself.

                                            I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance
                                            of suceeeding.

                                            >Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of
                                            working on power satellites
                                            >and laser propulsion.

                                            I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix. But,
                                            we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years
                                            now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a
                                            plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run.

                                            Short run: give nuclear power a level playing field...the same safety
                                            requirements as any other industry, and allow the testing of new safer,
                                            cheaper designs in the US and Europe. Practically speaking, it is unlikely
                                            that the Communist party/the government of China is a good source for
                                            innovation. Princelings tend to not want to vary from the tried and true
                                            much. So it is up to Europe and the US to do this. (I've had experience
                                            both with Chinese tech. goods and as a potential vendor for China and you
                                            can see the fingers of the Communist party holding back the wheels of
                                            progress in both cases).

                                            Short run: improve fuel efficiency standards. Add a tax to gasoline and
                                            electricity. Have rebates for low income people to balance the tax. If
                                            they spend it elsewhere, find.

                                            Short run: build a natural gas infrastructure for truck transportation in
                                            the US. The decline in US emissions to 1992 levels (even though the
                                            population increased 23%) is mostly due to the switch to natural gas from
                                            coal.

                                            But, the critical area is the developing world. China puts out more CO2
                                            than the US and EU combined, and the new coal plants on order from China and
                                            India will add this amount again. So, we need to make nuclear power cheap.
                                            It may not be enough to be as cheap as coal, and in that case the west could
                                            switch but India and China would be far less likely to. In the west, the
                                            small difference in cost would not be a barrier. The difference is larger
                                            in India and China because coal is very cheap with no pollution control or
                                            mining regulations.

                                            Mid term, offer subsidies for synthetic biofuels that do not displace
                                            cropland. Right now, several companies are in pilot to initial commercial
                                            appplication. I'd give this field the highest chance of working: say 25%
                                            chance of being close to competitive with gasoline while using concentrated
                                            waste CO2, sunlight, bioengineered life forms, and brackish water.

                                            Then, the goverments should support research in areas that would allow for
                                            alternative energy in decades. This would be developing our knowledge in a
                                            lot of different fields so someoone could put the knowledge together to
                                            develop either a power source or effective power storage.

                                            They include

                                            Plasma physics
                                            Mesoscopic physics
                                            Synthetic biology
                                            Material sciences

                                            And more engineering oriented, but still experimental:

                                            Development of capacitance
                                            Development of compact accelerators

                                            This is not exhaustive, I'd welcome suggestions. It's putting governments
                                            back in the business of funding fundamental research at, say, 1% of GDP.
                                            There will be scores of possibilities that all have a 1%-2% chance of
                                            working. And when one does, venture capital and small companies can be the
                                            mechanism for picking winners and losers. The government's job is to
                                            prepare the field.

                                            Dan M.


                                            _______________________________________________
                                            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                          • Dan Minette
                                            ... probably even using the wind ... not technology. I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly used in Switzerland, and they
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Dec 1, 2012
                                              > Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants,
                                              probably even using the wind
                                              >turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics,
                                              not technology.

                                              I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly
                                              used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric
                                              dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good
                                              windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle
                                              of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is
                                              porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high
                                              wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one
                                              line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very
                                              specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in
                                              elevation from one large area to another....mountaintops aren't good because
                                              you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas,
                                              and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were
                                              easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in
                                              wind would be doing water storage already.

                                              Dan M.


                                              _______________________________________________
                                              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                            • Dan Minette
                                              ... From: brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O Brien Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:13 AM To:
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Dec 1, 2012
                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                                                Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien
                                                Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:13 AM
                                                To: brin-l@...
                                                Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses

                                                On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
                                                >> So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind.
                                                >> Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down
                                                >> to a virtual halt.


                                                >Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive.
                                                And to my mind the only
                                                >question is when that tax comes, not if.

                                                How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a
                                                carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than
                                                fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in
                                                decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will
                                                benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to
                                                natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform
                                                of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not
                                                popular....even going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much
                                                for Obama to propose.

                                                Given the fact that Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate 95-0, I can't see
                                                carbon taxes at 5x the European level. At the present level of Europe's tax,
                                                it would cost an extra 0.6 cents/kwH for natural gas and 1.2 cents per kWh
                                                for coal. That's peanuts compared to the extra cost for wind/endergy
                                                storage which is by far the cheapest form of energy. And for gasoline, it's
                                                an extra 11 cents/gallon, well within the weekly variation in price.

                                                And, this is just the US. China will just use coal. But, windmills will
                                                not be effective until the total cost, with energy storage, becomes within a
                                                2-3 cents/kwH of other sources.

                                                Dan M.


                                                _______________________________________________
                                                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                              • Klaus Stock
                                                ... Only for an ideal wind turbine. In real life, current designs have to be turned out of the wind if the wind gets strong. They actually have a rather small
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Dec 2, 2012
                                                  >> Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants,
                                                  > probably even using the wind
                                                  >>turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics,
                                                  > not technology.

                                                  > I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly
                                                  > used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric
                                                  > dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good
                                                  > windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle
                                                  > of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is
                                                  > porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high

                                                  Only for an ideal wind turbine. In real life, current designs have to
                                                  be turned out of the wind if the wind gets strong. They actually have
                                                  a rather small range of wind speeds in which they can operate; both
                                                  weak and strong wind is a problem.

                                                  Vertical wind turbines, like the Savonius design, are less efficient,
                                                  but can cope with a wider range of wind speed (including weaker wind
                                                  and turbulent wind). Advocates of vertical wind turbines often cite
                                                  conspiracy theories as the reason for the limited use of these designs
                                                  in large scales.

                                                  > wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one
                                                  > line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very
                                                  > specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in
                                                  > elevation from one large area to another....mountaintops aren't good because
                                                  > you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas,
                                                  > and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were
                                                  > easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in
                                                  > wind would be doing water storage already.

                                                  Nope. In Germany, political reasons are the real reasons, not common
                                                  sense. Electricity from wind turbines was highly subsidized, with the
                                                  result that it became "commercially efficient" to erect wind parks at
                                                  location which made absolutely no sense. After this had been found
                                                  out, the subsidies have been reduced. But still you can make more
                                                  money by producing electricity than by pumping water.

                                                  - Klaus


                                                  _______________________________________________
                                                  http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                • Keith Henson
                                                  On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette wrote: (Keith) ... I make a case that going to laser propulsion and power sats would get
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Dec 2, 2012
                                                    On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" <danminette@...> wrote:

                                                    (Keith)
                                                    >
                                                    >>If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to
                                                    > yourself.
                                                    >
                                                    > I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance
                                                    > of suceeeding.
                                                    >
                                                    >>Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of
                                                    > working on power satellites
                                                    >>and laser propulsion.
                                                    >
                                                    > I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix.

                                                    I make a case that going to laser propulsion and power sats would get
                                                    humanity off fossil fuels in 20 years. Do you consider that a quick
                                                    fix?

                                                    But,
                                                    > we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years
                                                    > now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a
                                                    > plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run.

                                                    snip

                                                    I notice you don't put either a cost per kWh or a capital investment
                                                    on any of these tired proposals, Nuclear is both expensive and slow
                                                    (even in China) to install. There are also scaling problems. If you
                                                    are going to get off fossil fuel, do you really want to build 15,000 1
                                                    GW reactors?

                                                    If we are going to make a good choice, we need to cite the numbers. I
                                                    have analyzed the cost of this new idea to build power satellites with
                                                    laser propulsion. I get $1600 per kW and 2 cents per kWh based on
                                                    6.8% discount rate. The cost information for other forms is easy to
                                                    find.

                                                    Offer stands, but you are going to have to cite defensible numbers to
                                                    get me to switch my efforts to your concept of how to solve the
                                                    problem.

                                                    Keith

                                                    _______________________________________________
                                                    http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                  • Kevin O'Brien
                                                    ... I am assuming that at some point we have enough Sandy s to tip the balance. That will come much later than it should have come, but I think it will come
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Dec 2, 2012
                                                      On 12/1/2012 6:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
                                                      > How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a
                                                      > carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than
                                                      > fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in
                                                      > decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will
                                                      > benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to
                                                      > natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform
                                                      > of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not
                                                      > popular....even going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much
                                                      > for Obama to propose.
                                                      I am assuming that at some point we have enough "Sandy's" to tip the
                                                      balance. That will come much later than it should have come, but I think
                                                      it will come at some point. IF you don't think that will ever happen,
                                                      just adjust your forecasts accordingly. BTW, carbon taxes are an
                                                      economically efficient way of reducing emissions, which means that if
                                                      you need to reduce emissions this does it with the least negative effect
                                                      on the economy.

                                                      Regards,

                                                      --
                                                      Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
                                                      zwilnik@... Linux User #333216


                                                      _______________________________________________
                                                      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                    • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
                                                      ... The europeans are crazy. They don t know what to do, they add a lot of uncertainty to the economy with all those subsidies that come and go, taxes that
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Dec 3, 2012
                                                        Klaus Stock wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Nope. In Germany, political reasons are the real reasons, not common
                                                        > sense.
                                                        >
                                                        The europeans are crazy. They don't know what to do, they add a lot of
                                                        uncertainty to the economy with all those subsidies that come and go,
                                                        taxes that come and go, and regulations that come and go.

                                                        Alberto Monteiro

                                                        _______________________________________________
                                                        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                      • Dan Minette
                                                        I sent this to a single person instead of the list due to Killer B being changed (probably automatically) from the sender to a cc. I think this happened a
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Dec 4, 2012
                                                          I sent this to a single person instead of the list due to Killer B being
                                                          changed (probably automatically) from the sender to a cc. I think this
                                                          happened a couple of other times. I've gotten replies, but will not post
                                                          them, because they aren't my emails. But if the sender would, or would give
                                                          me permission to, that would be great.
                                                          In reply to Kevin, I wrote:

                                                          > The Chinese were extremely ham-handed about this. In particular,
                                                          > their stoppage of rare earth shipments in response to an incident
                                                          > involving their extrodinary claims to ocean territory (basically any
                                                          > territory claims of the Chinese over the last 1000 years are
                                                          > considered valid and enforceable by the the Chinese government)
                                                          > generated strong reaction. Given the fact that consumers rightfully
                                                          > believed that the Chinese were untrustworthy suppliers, as well as
                                                          > expensive ones, it was reasonable for them to sacrifice a little
                                                          > performance to switch to a more reliable and cheaper supply. The Chinese
                                                          overplayed their hand, as they have overall the last year.
                                                          >
                                                          > They can probably drive Western companies out of the solar cell business.
                                                          > Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their
                                                          > currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits
                                                          > this. They may very well increase prices after becoming a near
                                                          > monopoly, but the alternatives are oil and gas and coal and wind.
                                                          > And, for certain remote applications, solar power actually works best.
                                                          >
                                                          > So, I'm guessing that it will not be the big win they see. But, they
                                                          > are caught at a GDP level where Huntington has pointed out that
                                                          > totalitarian goverments begin to get pushed by the growing middle
                                                          > class. Their reaction is to clamp down harder....especially with the
                                                          > new leadership, where all the leaders are both well filtered and the
                                                          > result of nepotism. It is a dangerous mixture. Putting this together
                                                          > with their demographic window of opportunity (the 1-child policy has a
                                                          > big demographic bubble that will be old in 20 years), a surplus of
                                                          > males, and one has a classic situation where countries become aggressive.
                                                          >
                                                          > We will be living in interesting times.
                                                          >
                                                          > Dan M.


                                                          _______________________________________________
                                                          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                        • Kevin O'Brien
                                                          ... And if the Chinese try to raise further, it only creates more incentives to look into alternatives. I think this may be one of the reasons why the Club of
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Dec 4, 2012
                                                            On 12/4/2012 9:02 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
                                                            > I sent this to a single person instead of the list due to Killer B being
                                                            > changed (probably automatically) from the sender to a cc. I think this
                                                            > happened a couple of other times. I've gotten replies, but will not post
                                                            > them, because they aren't my emails. But if the sender would, or would give
                                                            > me permission to, that would be great.
                                                            > In reply to Kevin, I wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            >> The Chinese were extremely ham-handed about this. In particular,
                                                            >> their stoppage of rare earth shipments in response to an incident
                                                            >> involving their extrodinary claims to ocean territory (basically any
                                                            >> territory claims of the Chinese over the last 1000 years are
                                                            >> considered valid and enforceable by the the Chinese government)
                                                            >> generated strong reaction. Given the fact that consumers rightfully
                                                            >> believed that the Chinese were untrustworthy suppliers, as well as
                                                            >> expensive ones, it was reasonable for them to sacrifice a little
                                                            >> performance to switch to a more reliable and cheaper supply. The Chinese
                                                            > overplayed their hand, as they have overall the last year.

                                                            And if the Chinese try to raise further, it only creates more incentives
                                                            to look into alternatives.

                                                            I think this may be one of the reasons why the Club of Rome predictions
                                                            failed (there are clearly numerous reasons). As an economist named
                                                            Hotelling pointed out early in the 20th century, there are good reasons
                                                            in economics to expect the prices of non-renewable resources to rise
                                                            over time at approximately the same rate as the interest rate. (I'm just
                                                            giving a simplified explanation here, see the Journal article if you
                                                            really like this sort of thing.) But any time a resource has rising
                                                            prices it creates incentives to look for substitutes, and the higher the
                                                            price, the higher the incentive. So a lot of products are no longer made
                                                            with steel, but with plastics or composites, for instance. The other
                                                            price obviously is to stimulate the search for new sources of supply.
                                                            Put those together and you can see why those predictions of disaster
                                                            have not materialized.

                                                            By similar reasoning, any attempt to monopolize a resource or product
                                                            can only succeed if there is some way of preventing and competitor from
                                                            entering the market. Most commonly this requires government action to
                                                            create and sustain the monopoly. Since that will not happen in the case
                                                            of rare earth elements, I doubt there can be a lasting monopoly problem
                                                            here. In a similar way, recall how the oil prices hikes of the 70s
                                                            turned into the price collapse of the 1980s as both fuel efficiency and
                                                            increased exploration responded ot the market price signals.

                                                            > They can probably drive Western companies out of the solar cell business.
                                                            > Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their
                                                            > currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits
                                                            > this. They may very well increase prices after becoming a near
                                                            > monopoly, but the alternatives are oil and gas and coal and wind.
                                                            > And, for certain remote applications, solar power actually works best.
                                                            Well, they can drive them out, perhaps, but can they keep them out? One
                                                            of two things seems likely:

                                                            1. China creates a temporary monopoly, then tries to raise prices to
                                                            profit from it. See above for how market forces respond.

                                                            2. China creates a monopoly, then subsidizes solar panel producers
                                                            permanently to maintain that monopoly. And permanently low prices for
                                                            solar panels cause terrible devastation to the U.S. economy...Wait, that
                                                            doesn't quite make sense. I think I rather like low prices for solar
                                                            panels. And this could create a boom in low-cost, non-polluting energy
                                                            which only benefits us.

                                                            > So, I'm guessing that it will not be the big win they see. But, they
                                                            > are caught at a GDP level where Huntington has pointed out that
                                                            > totalitarian goverments begin to get pushed by the growing middle
                                                            > class. Their reaction is to clamp down harder....especially with the
                                                            > new leadership, where all the leaders are both well filtered and the
                                                            > result of nepotism. It is a dangerous mixture. Putting this together
                                                            > with their demographic window of opportunity (the 1-child policy has a
                                                            > big demographic bubble that will be old in 20 years), a surplus of
                                                            > males, and one has a classic situation where countries become aggressive.
                                                            OK, this is where my "economist" hat no longer gives me any particular
                                                            aid. I will say that indeed it will get interesting, but the factor that
                                                            is most likely to cause aggression on a large scale is water. That is in
                                                            short supply, unless we can access abundant cheap energy to desalinate
                                                            ocean water to make potable water.

                                                            Regards,

                                                            --
                                                            Kevin B. O'Brien
                                                            zwilnik@...
                                                            A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.


                                                            _______________________________________________
                                                            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                          • Klaus Stock
                                                            Hi, ... Well, selling products at prices below below production cost and (aggressive) disdaining of IP right of other countries has happened before. So. China
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Dec 4, 2012
                                                              Hi,

                                                              >> Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their
                                                              >> currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits
                                                              >> this.

                                                              Well, selling products at prices below below production cost and
                                                              (aggressive) disdaining of IP right of other countries has happened
                                                              before. So. China is imitating the past strategies of the western
                                                              countries. So what?


                                                              Some disturbing thoughts remain, though.

                                                              We in Germany pay high fuel taxes and are told to drive fuel-efficient
                                                              and clean vehicles. OTOH, Volkswagen still produces 1980s models in
                                                              China. This way, we take care that not are responsible for pollution
                                                              and excessive oil consumption, but the Chinese. Hooray?

                                                              - Klaus


                                                              _______________________________________________
                                                              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.