Oil Prices set to tumble.

[binkster 0]

The only way to make good money with WIND is to actually own the land they put it on. In west Texas they are paying around 2000 USD a month for each wind generator on your land.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

We know that the price of energy has gone up - everything has -, but how much is that due to inflation? How much of that price that the ratepayer has to pay is caused by inefficient, bloated government utility or a for profit utility that is allowed to not worry about competition?

Why Public Utility Monopolies Fail

"To prevent "burdensome competition" among utilities in a given area, governments have often granted legal local monopolies to specific water, electricity, and natural gas companies — or provided the services themselves.

Competing firms have been legally excluded from the utility market, with disastrous results. Occasional blackouts and deactivations of hot water are common in the experience of many Americans — while a free market in, say, groceries, brings about no conspicuous shortages. Furthermore, prices for the "public" utilities are on the rise — typically accompanied by declines, rather than improvements, in the quality of service."

http://mises.org/daily/2028

Edited March 1, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[walker 0]

Hi Baff1

There is a difference between a price range and a price

The prices in the link I gave were not cheaper for gas and coal than for Wind Power they were in the same range. You do realise they were ranges and not bottom prices don't you? You might also note that the mean of the ranges place wind power as cheaper than coal. Though I will admit that is not a correct use of statistics so instead I wrote and I quote.

Note that the costs of wind production are already equal to the cost even the cheapest fossil fuel.

Meaning they were in the same range. Give or take few cents.

More importantly I was saying that

In the Wiki page you quote most of the various sources also plant wind in the same range with the lowest fossil fuel price range.

On the question of Subsidies

You do not seem to be understanding that it is the fossil fuel companies that get the lions share of subsidies.

As I pointed out all electricity producers are subsidised.

Government subsidy in Europe

Fossil fuels €23.9 billion

Renew-ables. €5.3 billion

In the UK most of our power plants were built by the Government on tax payers money. So that would be 100% subsidy for coal nuclear and oil power plants not many of the latter oil is the most costly electricity source. Until recently in the UK they were all run and owned by the government and paid for by the tax payer. When they were privatised they given at better than free as they had tax subsidies to the generating companies to take them, and the decommissioning costs were excluded.

Stop Creating myths and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the more gullible

As to your attempting to create a myth that electricity companies put up the cost of electricity because they are paying for wind power generation when they are SEPERATE companies. We all know that the price of fossil fuel has almost trebled since 2003 and that our energy companies are making record profits. You must think the people on this forum are really dumb.

On the matter of sources

With regard to dissing my sources as hippies well at least my sources use real data from wouldn't you know it government statistics and peer reviewed research.

Meanwhile your source for the weird electricity prices graph is very odd and appears not to be any form of traceable peer reviewed research or statistics.

http://www.pvsolarenergyuk.co.uk//wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Average-Cost-of-electricity.jpg

http://www.pvsolarenergyuk.co.uk//wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Average-Cost-of-electricity.jpg

It appears to be marketing information from an intranet, that double slash is indicative, at this company:

http://www.pvsolarenergyuk.co.uk/

Some one should warn them about their web and intranet security, the server is wide open set up like that.

Back to the point; it is without context or source data and does not match any data from other more reputable sources. Such as say the UK National Statistics Archive:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/prices/1085-qepdec10.pdf

See:

Chart 2.1.2 Fuel price indices in the domestic sector in real terms 1990 to 2009

You might notice that the graph below it for oil for 2008 is typical of a bubble. If you say compare it to the house price bubble of 2007. Or the 90s Dot com bubble. You may notice that current Oil prices mimic that.

I also use wiki but always prefer original sources

If you would rather use US sources we can use the US Governments own DOE source. It uses those levelized prices you are enamoured of, I would like to go into their methodology in more detail before accepting it (see [1] below) but once again Wind Power is in the same range as the cheapest Fossil fuel sources see table 1:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

[1] The levelized methodology for offshore includes the cost of a theorized undersea cable network to transport energy to the mainland. I would dispute this as I already said it is far more sensible to crack sea water for hydrogen production.

Are you worried that your shares are about to fall arse over tip and you are going to loose your shirt yet?

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 1, 2011 by walker

[hellfire257 3]

Like I said, Wind power is a secondary solution and unless you have some massive great expanses of deserted land that is 100% flat and you develop efficient turbines then its potential is practically nil.

I tell you now also, Wind turbines are not popular in Lincolnshire and a large proportion oppose them. They are quite possibly the most useless forms of energy generation in existence.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Hellfire257

[Beagle 672]

Since were talking about investments...my Family invested in 112m² photovoltaik pannels on the roofs. I got my first "negative" electric power invoice last month. The panels earn us 430€ each month guaranteed for the next 10 years. This means the investment will have itself paid off in 4 years. and earning tax free money for the remaining 6 years.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Beagle

[walker 0]

Like I said, Wind power is a secondary solution and unless you have some massive great expanses of deserted land that is 100% flat and you develop efficient turbines then its potential is practically nil.

Hi Hellfire257

And Yet 7% and rising of UK electricity is already provided by renuables Wind Power being both the largest source and the biggest increase in supply:

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/electricity-growth/#percentage

If you look at the graph which is UK National Stats once again, you can see the growth curve is the exact opositite of falling flat, it is in point of fact an exponetial rise, the polar oposite of falling flat.

There is more detail here in the latest Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics (DUKES)

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/dukes/349-dukes-2010-internet.pdf

It amazes me all these nosense myths and assertions people make without any recourse to any form of fact.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 1, 2011 by walker

[hellfire257 3]

I wasn't stating that. I was saying that they are inefficient and there are certainly better alternatives.

In accordance to the laws of thermodynamics, you cannot convert all the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical, then into electrical. This is the first problem, clearly showing energy degradation. Secondly, all the air that passes through the blades doesn't get turned into useable energy.

You can calculate the maximum power available from a wind turbine by the following equation which is derived from basic mechanics.

Where:

p = density of air

r = turbine radius

v = windspeed

Max power = 1/2p(pi)r^2v^3

As you can see, there are several variables involved in the production of power. Because of this, its validity as a dependable energy source is a doubt-able. Solar power is no better. Wind turbines are a waste of money in my opinion. The money would be better spent upon hydroelectric power which is a dependable source of energy and is one of the most common forms of renewable electricity.

Wind turbines require a large amount of space for the amount of energy they convert and considering the alternative options available which are far more fruitful, are useless.

Sources: Own knowledge from IB HL Physics.

It amazes me how you discredit my opinion based upon an assumption.

[Baff1 0]

Hi Hellfire257

And Yet 7% and rising of UK electricity is already provided by renuables Wind Power being both the largest source and the biggest increase in supply:

Except in November and Febuary of last year, when zero percent of British electricity was generated by wind power.

Because there was no wind.

And yet... 7% of the country did not have a power cut. Why?

Because fossil fuel plants were also running. The 7% wind generated electricity is 7% surplus capacity. If it wasn't there the only difference it would make to the electricity customers is that their bills would be significantly cheaper.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Hi Baff1

There is a difference between a price range and a price

The prices in the link I gave were not cheaper for gas and coal than for Wind Power they were in the same range.

That might be the "same range" to you, but I consider a 50%-100% rise in my electricity bill to be a significant one.

That would be the difference between paying £600 a year and paying £900-£1200 a year.

Hmm a new computer each year... or eco windowmills... not a very tough choice for me, that one.

And it has knock on effects, not just driving the price up for every household in the country but also the price of all goods manufactured here and all services provided here.

It's an arse fucker for a country in deep financial doo doo.

Fossil fuel companies receive subsidies?

They are the most heavily taxed industry in the country.

70% of the price of petrol at the pump is tax. The companies also pay drilling lisences, corporate tax, VAT, income tax, etc. etc. etc.

In the UK, many of our power stations were built at a time when the industry was nationalised. So yes, most of them were built by the government.

Since privatisation the bulk of power stations built were gas powered up until eco became subsidised. That's when the prices we pay for electricity recently went through the roof.

With regards to sources, I not only have my electricity bills for the last few decades, but also for the last couple of deacdes, I have been getting my yearly market analysis direct from the power companies I have invested in. These are the ones I prefer. The ones which they are legally not allowed to mislead on.

The 300 page ones they each deliver through my letter box each year.

But of course I also like to read all the pundits in the business news and watch Jeff Randall on TV etc.

Nothing I am telling you is not common knowledge. It's all public domain information.

I have absolutely no intrest in listening to idiot hippies.

I don't care how many idiot hippies peer review each other. A fuckwit is a fuckwit and a group of fuckwits all agreeing with eachother is a group of fuckwits all agreeing with each other.

I suggest you look for another group of peers. As a suggestion I would try starting with those people who actually pay for it. If you want to know how much things cost, that is usually the best place to start.

Nor am I very intrested in government propaganda. What did you think they were going to say?

"We wasted your money by the fuckload so that we could stay in power for another year"?

"We fucked the economy"?

"We plan on fucking the economy even more"?

What I have noticed is that the whole carbon trading thing has been quietly swept under the carpet. I don't think we have to worry about that anymore.

They know how much they screwed up even if they can't admit it just yet.

Greens are swing voters old boy. Governments care about winning elections as a first priority. That is all.

As I said, it is important to avoid all political sources if you wish to understand the costs.

I'm about the money mate. Just the money.

Wind power blows.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

IAs you can see, there are several variables involved in the production of power. Because of this, its validity as a dependable energy source is a doubt-able. Solar power is no better. Wind turbines are a waste of money in my opinion. The money would be better spent upon hydroelectric power which is a dependable source of energy and is one of the most common forms of renewable electricity.

The problem with hydro is that you can't build it just anywhere.

You need a damable river etc.

Also the price of building that dam is vastly varied depending on the available topography.

So while it is dependable, it isn't viable for most communities in the world and it is rarely the cheapest way of doing it.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Baff1

[niall0 10]

Walker, there is a group called OPEC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC.

They are the voice so to speak of the major Oil Producing nations.

They have this technique, it's called stock piling. What they do is stockpile Oil, over what is needed. Yet, the oil prices keep on rising.

Why you ask? Because there is this economic system called capitalism. This system means everyone wants to get rich. So, OPEC, being capitalist increase the price of Oil as it will always be needed. Eventhough they may have excess oil to last them for months. This means they can make lots of money at other peoples expenses. Why? Supply and demand.

Think of OPEC as a drug dealer of Oil, and the people as Oil addicts. People will pay for their fix, even if the price is increasing/quality decreasing. Why? Because they need their fix.

[johncage 29]

i think we're well past that stage. the problem with opec is known. they're pretty much discussing possible solutions.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Walker, there is a group called OPEC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC.

They are the voice so to speak of the major Oil Producing nations.

They have this technique, it's called stock piling. What they do is stockpile Oil, over what is needed. Yet, the oil prices keep on rising.

Why you ask? Because there is this economic system called capitalism. This system means everyone wants to get rich. So, OPEC, being capitalist increase the price of Oil as it will always be needed. Eventhough they may have excess oil to last them for months. This means they can make lots of money at other peoples expenses. Why? Supply and demand.

Think of OPEC as a drug dealer of Oil, and the people as Oil addicts. People will pay for their fix, even if the price is increasing/quality decreasing. Why? Because they need their fix.

OPEC can do whatever they want. It's their oil. Do I agree with their policies? No. So as a consumer that believes in "Capitalism", I can still purchase their fuel, go some where else or use another forum of energy.

[Baff1 0]

Walker, there is a group called OPEC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC.

They are the voice so to speak of the major Oil Producing nations.

They have this technique, it's called stock piling. What they do is stockpile Oil, over what is needed. Yet, the oil prices keep on rising..

Not just them, to run the price up, the distributers keep it floating around at sea.

When the price goes up enough, they land it.

[Beagle 672]

That's done not only with oil. Whenever the steel price drops too much some of the furnaces are shut down. A shut down furnace takes months to be back in production. This way a shortage is produced to rise the market price.

I think at least since 2009 most of us should know that capitalism is much to destructive without strict regulation, but despite better knowlegde most of the old regulations (some made after the big depression in the 20's) were abolishes in the 90's.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Not just them, to run the price up, the distributers keep it floating around at sea.

When the price goes up enough, they land it.

It's my understanding that a lot of ships have to wait in the Gulf of Mexico because there aren't enough refineries. It actually cost money to keep the ships out in the gulf until there is room to unload its crude.

[Beagle 672]

It's my understanding that a lot of ships have to wait in the Gulf of Mexico because there aren't enough refineries. It actually cost money to keep the ships out in the gulf until there is room to unload its crude.

So the question is...why do tankers wait moored off the english coast and in the mouth of the River Elbe instead of landing in Hamburg?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7989760.stm

The line beetween market and blackmail is fading!

Edited March 2, 2011 by Beagle

[walker 0]

Hi all

The desperate actions of those who own the shares of an industry that has no future, all this speculator hoarding nonsense is typical of a dying industry. Hype the value in order to draw in the suckers who will be left holding the bag. Exactly the same was done in the housing bubble. Still one born every minute.

All it does is drive up the pressure in the Oil bubble soon it will pop and everyone with shares in it will loose their shirt.

It also makes clear why we need to move to a secure energy source like wind power.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 2, 2011 by walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

A recent declassified Pentagon investigation shows evidence that the previous Oil Bubble was purposefully created and lead to the the financial crash of 2008.

Financial terrorism suspected in 2008 economic crash

Pentagon study sees element

By Bill Gertz

-

The Washington Times

8:54 p.m., Monday, February 28, 2011

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system.

The unclassified 2009 report “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses†by financial analyst Kevin D. Freeman, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, states that “a three-phased attack was planned and is in the process against the United States economy.â€

While economic analysts and a final report from the federal government's Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission blame the crash on such economic factors as high-risk mortgage lending practices and poor federal regulation and supervision, the Pentagon contractor adds a new element: “outside forces,†a factor the commission did not examine.

“There is sufficient justification to question whether outside forces triggered, capitalized upon or magnified the economic difficulties of 2008,†the report says, explaining that those domestic economic factors would have caused a “normal downturn†but not the “near collapse†of the global economic system that took place.

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran. Chinese military officials publicly have suggested using economic warfare against the U.S. ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/

As always follow the link to the original article in full

I am looking for the correct public source of this document to link to. There are several unoficial sources of the report available on the web, use google to search for:

"economic warfare: risks and responses"

but be aware that several links appear to be sites infected with a virus or set up to expose you to a trojan or virus or spam.

Odd that a report that only just came out elicits this kind of responce.

I have a safe copy of this report and can supply it to you on request. I will try to upload a copy of the report to a proper source later today.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 2, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

I'll get my tinfoil hat... :j:

Edit to add: I LOVE that everything thats wrong in the US at the moment is the fault of terrorists. Its not possibly the fact that most people have 3, 4, 5 or more credit cards, are spending all kinds of money they dont have on stuff they dont need, etc etc. Oh no, its clearly the terrorists at fault... :j:

[walker 0]

I'll get my tinfoil hat... :j:

No need to worry DM just follow this link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49755779/Economic-Warfare-Risks-and-Responses-by-Kevin-D-Freeman

[Baff1 0]

There was nice article in the Telegraph today about wind power.

I thought of you.

The CEO of some power company or other said that we would be adopting a new way of doing things by 2020.

He said we would not have electricity on demand. But only when the wind blows.

He said that there was going to have to be a culture change in the way we use electricity. So that we all got used to only using it when it was available.

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

Hi all

The desperate actions of those who own the shares of an industry that has no future, all this speculator hoarding nonsense is typical of a dying industry. Hype the value in order to draw in the suckers who will be left holding the bag. Exactly the same was done in the housing bubble. Still one born every minute.

All it does is drive up the pressure in the Oil bubble soon it will pop and everyone with shares in it will loose their shirt.

It also makes clear why we need to move to a secure energy source like wind power.

Kind Regards walker

So invest in it.

If you believe in it, do it.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Schoolboy twaddle doesn't impress anyone.

Buy some windmill and hydrogen shares and tell us how much you are making from them. Contribute to human knowledge instead of just gassing on with your bright ideas.

The thing about oil shares, is that those of us who own them (half the country) aren't waiting on the future to see our return. We get paid every 3 months.

I'm not giving up my income today because next year it won't pay me anymore.

When it stops paying, it stops paying. While it is paying and paying well, it's time to capitalise on your good fortune.

The most laughable thing of all, would be to sell now with payments at record highs and forcast to rise.

Why don't I dump my best performing shares because an internet conspiracist told me too?

Because I like money. That's why.

The idea is that you dump those shares which are not performing well. Not the other way round. Pretty elementry stuff I'm afraid.

There is of course a reason why we have portfolio's and hedge funds however, so that when one goes down, we can live off another that is doing better instead. So I'm covered either way.

It isn't about some fantasy vision of the future we have. It's about the realities of now. Today.

I can't wait 10 years to get paid. I need something that pays right now today.

And currently, what pays me best is oil and tobacco.

You don't have to like it. That's just the way it is.

I need a place to keep my money that pays a return above the rate of inflation.

You won't get that from windmills and you won't get that from hydrogen.

With oil prices at a record high, so are the returns for investment in oil. It may not fit with your vision of the future... but fantasies don't pay my bills.

P.S. all my oil shares have already paid for themselves. If they were valueless tomorrow, I would still be laughing.

However they won't be worth less than I paid for them tomorrow. I bought at the bottom of the market, and currently they are at the top and still rising. They have a long long way indeed to fall before I will be selling them at a loss.

Oil shares are rather good for capital investment as the market is very volatile. The value price fluctuates.

Not that I am a capital investor. I'm a pensioner.

Oil companies drift at the whim of international events. A revolution here. A nationalisation there. A spill. Prices can go up and down massively from year to year. If you keep your eye on it, then as long as you are never in a great rush to get your hands on your money... it's an easy market to profit from.

Lose my shirt? ROFLLMAO.

You don't strike me as someone who has a shirt to lose mate. That's why you are so willing to gamble with everyone elses.

I'm not really sure you know what you are talking about with the "housing bubble".

You are aware there has not been one in this country?

I take it you don't own a house?

It just seems that you have zero experience on this subject. An ideas man.

In the last few years there have been two major housing bubbles. One in Spain and one in the U.S.

Would you care to elaborate on the similarities between them and the current rise in oil prices?

I suggest to you that the oil boom is closer related to the British housing market. Where even though people have less money to spend on housing, the increased demand for housing is so great that prices are not collapsing.

While if you go to Spain or the U.S., where housing has been subsidised, there are 700,000 unsold houses in Spain, and U.S. housing prices have dropped by 2/3rds.

That's what happens when the state interferes in the market place. It unbalances it.

That's why wind power is a time bomb to come.

The green bubble.

An unsustainable economy forced on us by our political masters rather than an organic and sustainable industry born out of supply and demand.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi all

The key question are:

How recessionary in the Oil Price Bubble?

Will it cause a second 2008 style Recession?

And will that lead to full scale Depression, as per the Wall Street crash of 1922?

The UK is already moving in to a double dip recession following the current administrations mishandling of the economy.

The US looks to heading the same way with a closure of all government activity looking all but inevitable.

Baff1 seems to like to say that anyone who does not agree with him should be shouted down or is in some way insane.

I am not the only one who thinks relying on fossil fuels is danger to the world

I would submit the view I am expressing is held by others:

Will oil prices trigger a recession?

Jonathan Ratner February 24, 2011 – 10:49 am

The rally in crude oil is supported by fundamentals in the United States and China and ample liquidity in risk asset markets. Prices are also being augmented by quantitative easing in the United States and the Middle East supply shock. But since oil prices could climb higher still, the cost may be reduced momentum for the global recovery.

“I believe we are getting closer to the point where the surge in oil prices could tip the global economy back into recession,†said David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist for Gluskin Sheff + Associates.

The Street’s research shows that the trigger point for recession calls would be somewhere around US$120 per barrel, he told clients.

WTI oil has rocketed 150% above levels seen two years ago, while Brent is up 160%. This puts the steep run-up in energy costs in the same league as oil shocks of the past, which have often contributed to, or caused, serious economic challenges in the U.S. and global economies, according to Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets...

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/24/will-oil-prices-trigger-a-recession/

As always follow the link to the original article in full

Bubbles, oil & troubles: How rising prices threaten the global recovery

Posted by Michael Schuman Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:49 am

Prices of just about everything have been rising precipitously in recent months -- from cotton and corn to copper, and, of course, oil. Generally speaking, high prices for commodities are bad for growth, for two reasons. First, they spark inflationary pressures that can force central banks to hike interest rates, thus slowing down economies. Secondly, they cause consumers and companies to spend more on food, raw materials and energy. That eats into their ability to spend on other stuff and dampens economic growth as well. With oil at $100, you'd think the world's economists would be in a frenzy of dire predictions and growth downgrades.

But they're not. I've noticed that the reaction from economists to high commodity prices – generally speaking – has been muted. Sure, they are taking note of the potential risks. But overall they've stuck to their position that the global economic recovery is proceeding along nicely and are taking something of a wait-and-see approach to recalculating where the global economy will head in 2011.

However, I'm getting a sinking feeling in my gut that the rising prices could have a bigger, more painful and more protracted impact than many economists now expect. Granted, I'm engaging in a bit of speculation here, but hear me out...

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/03/01/bubbles-oil-troubles-how-rising-prices-threaten-the-global-recovery/

As always follow the link to the original article in full

The threat of the current Oil Bubble is obvious to all but the long term threat of relying on unreliable supplies of Fossil Fuel is not safe for anyone.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 2, 2011 by walker
forgot to add: As Allways... on the second linked article

[Baff1 0]

Oil prices could easily trigger a recession in my opinion.

But the increase in oil prices is not being driven by western demand. We are actually using less.

I'm not really intrested in the views of others, Walker.

I am talking to you.

About your views.

And sharing my own.

If other people here would like to contribute their own, I would be intrested in cross examining them also perhaps. Certainly if I find errors in them, I will be willing to offer corrections.

In recent conversations with me you have asked me to qualify my opinions.

I'm sorry that you feel you are unable to qualify your own. If you feel shouted down instead of able to stand up to the scrutiny of your ideas, then perhaps you might want to examine them a bit closer yourself before forming too cast iron an opinion.

Having ideas is the easy part, the way in which you discover whether or not they are good ideas is by testing them in the field.

Oil is better investment than green energy. As tested by Baff.

For me the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I'm making money on oil and losing money on wind. If this changes, I'll be sure to let you know.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi all

Baff1 I am perfectly willing to explain my opinions, but I see no problem in using articles to both support it and get the message across.

On the matter of how the last recession was triggered by commodity speculation that created the last Oil Bubble:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4708028n

As I keep pointing out fossil fuel, precisely because it is a commodities market product, is just bubble after bubble after bubble. This means it is strategically insecure. In other words a risk to individual nations states and the world economy.

Baff1 you keep going on about the unreliability of wind, when in reality you know full well it is both fully predictable eg you get weather reports that are correct for a two to four day warning, thus giving you plenty of time to shift to your backup and storage system; and the energy is fully storable by cracking sea water to produce Hydrogen. All we do is replace unreliable expensive polluting fossil fuels with good clean wind power produced Hydrogen. Case closed.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 2, 2011 by walker
words not works

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Oil is better investment than green energy. As tested by Baff.

I don't always agree or like what Walker says, but you are failing to see why oil is a better investment. It's because it's a bubble. It's basically a Ponzi Scheme where the investors know that the roller coaster ride is going to end rather quickly, but if you get on board soon enough, you can make a lot of money.

The Oil-Price Bubble

"There are many factors behind the sharp increase in the oil price, but one is usually overlooked: it's a bubble. Where bubbles appear in the market (think of housing and tech stocks, to name two in recent memory), you will find the hidden hand of monetary policy at work. This is an underlying issue that helps explain the price. Recognizing this also helps us make a better judgment concerning the future of the oil price as it relates to overall economic well-being."

http://mises.org/daily/2999

[walker 0]

Hi all

Err...

TODAY'S MARKETSMARCH 2, 2011.

Stocks Slide as Oil Prices Rise Dow Tumbles 168.32 as Mideast Turmoil Inflames Worries About Inflation.

By JONATHAN CHENG And CAROLYN CUI

New York

Widening tensions in the Mideast drove oil prices sharply higher, inflaming worries about inflation and sending the stock market to its lowest close in a month.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 168.32 points, or 1.38%, to finish at 12058.02, its third triple-digit decline in the past week. Oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange, already up 6% this year, jumped 2.7% to settle at $99.63 a barrel. They rose through $100 in after-hours electronic trading.

Gold reached a new nominal record.

Higher oil prices already are leaking into the U.S. economy through rising prices at the gas pump, which risk curtailing consumers' spending on other products. Economists worry that the fragile U.S. recovery could be stalled or thwarted by higher oil prices. That also drives up the cost of making goods, feeding into inflation.

"The higher the oil price goes and the longer it stays higher, the more it has a direct impact on growth by curtailing it to some degree," said Wasif Latif, vice president of equity investments at USAA Investment Management Co...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704506004576173961240139414.html

As always follow the link to the original article in full

Once more letting reality argue the case for me.

Kind Regards walker