Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The investors don't come first, first come the explorers, and we're just barely into that phase. The explorers are often funded at a loss by either governments or private interests, for a variety of motives.

Funding for the explorers is part of the investment. You are hypothesizing a benefactor here.

No, but there is plenty of evidence of African peoples coming to Eurasia and Australia. Human populations expand outward over time, unless there is some physical reason they can't, such as an ocean or a gravity well in the way. Then the expansion pauses for a while, until a way around the barrier is found.

Africans can walk to Eurasia. There is no need for an initial sponsor or investor.

Nonsense. I'm sorry, but this 'we're in a race with Malthusian catastrophe' theory is just as empty as the 'population explosion is going to doom us' theory was 30 years ago. There is no reason to believe that we're going to engage in exponential growth of energy use to that extent, and manifold reason to think it won't happen.

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about a catastrophe.

A combination of the Generational Cycle and unexpected technical development in automation and miniaturization is what prevented manned orbital platforms (at that time), not economics. Likewise there would probably have been manned Lunar bases by now, if not for Cyclic effects.

This is just a statement of faith. You want to believe it.

Now, note that I said 'bases', not 'colonies'.

Bases were what I was talking about.

True. The reason it all stopped is exactly the same reason that most of the serious work on manned undersea facilities stalled, at that exact same time. The Silent displaced the G.I.s in the decision make stage of life, and as a group, they didn't find it appealing or important.

Wait a minute now. This is really far fetched. If space made economic sense we would be there now. Generations are meaningless.

The economics won't rule it out on any meaningful scale, unless out society goes into a large-scale Spengler-style decline, which could happen, but if so will require several centuries.

It has nothing to do with decline. Decline makes space colonization MORE likely, not less.

You're building some highly questionable assumptions into your assessment. Life-extension technologies may or may not happen.

You seem to believe interstellar travel will happen. You even hold out for faster than light travel, which violates our curent understanding of physics. But nothing in physics rules out humans living for thousands of years. No natural laws are violated.

But you're quite right, people think and act differently at different stages of a culture's lifetime, just as individuals and Generations react differently at different life-stages. To use Classical Civilization as an example, the people of the 3rd Century Roman Empire were in many ways unlike the people of Alexandrian Era psychologically

People are still the same creatures today as they were 2000 year ago. People who live for thousands of years and are partially cybernetic are not the same sort of creatures as we are today.

Remember this whole discussion started with explaining why others like us haven't come here. If it's a sure shot we are going out there, then it should be true for others. Once we get out there, what is to stop us from spreading everywhere? The hard part is getting to nearby stars. Once that is accomplished it's the same problem over and over again, getting to nearby stars from the outer edges of "human space". We should spread out throughout the entire galaxy in less than a million years, a very short time astronomically speaking.

The same holds for the others. Where are they? Why aren't they here?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A combination of the Generational Cycle and unexpected technical development in automation and miniaturization is what prevented manned orbital platforms (at that time), not economics. Likewise there would probably have been manned Lunar bases by now, if not for Cyclic effects.

This is just a statement of faith. You want to believe it.

No, I do believe it, based on my observations. My encounter with S&H allowed me to suddenly comprehend the 'why', I had already seen the 'what'.

Now, note that I said 'bases', not 'colonies'.

Bases were what I was talking about.

True. The reason it all stopped is exactly the same reason that most of the serious work on manned undersea facilities stalled, at that exact same time. The Silent displaced the G.I.s in the decision make stage of life, and as a group, they didn't find it appealing or important.

Wait a minute now. This is really far fetched. If space made economic sense we would be there now. Generations are meaningless.

Space was inevitable going to operate 'in the red' for a very long time. I'm sorry, but it was the Cycle. The G.I.s, as a group, were willing to spend the effort and resources, the Silent weren't. Even now, the loudest, most vociferous critics of manned space exploration tend to be Silent.

You can't get to 'in the black' in space flight in less than decades. But that in itself has been true of many fields of activity in history.

Do you really imagine that it was a coincidence that so many fields of exploration suddenly stalled all the same time?!

The economics won't rule it out on any meaningful scale, unless out society goes into a large-scale Spengler-style decline, which could happen, but if so will require several centuries.

It has nothing to do with decline. Decline makes space colonization MORE likely, not less.

No, decline would make space colonization impossible, as the resources available fell and the government (or other organizing axis) lost the ability to command obedience. Historically, societies in decline, such as Classical Civilization in most of the Imperial Roman Era, rarely expand, and what expansion they manage rarely comes to anything. The Empire became synonomous with Classical society, and it barely expanded beyond the borders Augustus set, in all its history (except for Britain).

You're building some highly questionable assumptions into your assessment. Life-extension technologies may or may not happen.

You seem to believe interstellar travel will happen. You even hold out for faster than light travel, which violates our curent understanding of physics. But nothing in physics rules out humans living for thousands of years. No natural laws are violated.

I don't rule out life extension technology. I just say it's too uncertain to plan on either way. We know space flight is possible, including interstellar travel.

My attitude on FTL is about the same as my attitude toward life extension. For what it's worth, I actually would bet both will happen, but there's no way to set any sort of time scale on it.

But you're quite right, people think and act differently at different stages of a culture's lifetime, just as individuals and Generations react differently at different life-stages. To use Classical Civilization as an example, the people of the 3rd Century Roman Empire were in many ways unlike the people of Alexandrian Era psychologically

People are still the same creatures today as they were 2000 year ago. People who live for thousands of years and are partially cybernetic are not the same sort of creatures as we are today.

Remember this whole discussion started with explaining why others like us haven't come here. If it's a sure shot we are going out there, then it should be true for others. Once we get out there, what is to stop us from spreading everywhere? The hard part is getting to nearby stars. Once that is accomplished it's the same problem over and over again, getting to nearby stars from the outer edges of "human space". We should spread out throughout the entire galaxy in less than a million years, a very short time astronomically speaking.

The same holds for the others. Where are they? Why aren't they here?

The most realistic answer is that they probably either don't exist, or are far enough away that they haven't gotten this far.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A combination of the Generational Cycle and unexpected technical development in automation and miniaturization is what prevented manned orbital platforms (at that time), not economics. Likewise there would probably have been manned Lunar bases by now, if not for Cyclic effects.

This is just a statement of faith. You want to believe it.

No, I do believe it, based on my observations. My encounter with S&H allowed me to suddenly comprehend the 'why', I had already seen the 'what'.

Now, note that I said 'bases', not 'colonies'.

Bases were what I was talking about.

True. The reason it all stopped is exactly the same reason that most of the serious work on manned undersea facilities stalled, at that exact same time. The Silent displaced the G.I.s in the decision make stage of life, and as a group, they didn't find it appealing or important.

Wait a minute now. This is really far fetched. If space made economic sense we would be there now. Generations are meaningless.

Space was inevitable going to operate 'in the red' for a very long time. I'm sorry, but it was the Cycle. The G.I.s, as a group, were willing to spend the effort and resources, the Silent weren't. Even now, the loudest, most vociferous critics of manned space exploration tend to be Silent.

You can't get to 'in the black' in space flight in less than decades. But that in itself has been true of many fields of activity in history.

Do you really imagine that it was a coincidence that so many fields of exploration suddenly stalled all the same time?!

The economics won't rule it out on any meaningful scale, unless out society goes into a large-scale Spengler-style decline, which could happen, but if so will require several centuries.

It has nothing to do with decline. Decline makes space colonization MORE likely, not less.

No, decline would make space colonization impossible, as the resources available fell and the government (or other organizing axis) lost the ability to command obedience. Historically, societies in decline, such as Classical Civilization in most of the Imperial Roman Era, rarely expand, and what expansion they manage rarely comes to anything. The Empire became synonomous with Classical society, and it barely expanded beyond the borders Augustus set, in all its history (except for Britain).

You're building some highly questionable assumptions into your assessment. Life-extension technologies may or may not happen.

You seem to believe interstellar travel will happen. You even hold out for faster than light travel, which violates our curent understanding of physics. But nothing in physics rules out humans living for thousands of years. No natural laws are violated.

I don't rule out life extension technology. I just say it's too uncertain to plan on either way. We know space flight is possible, including interstellar travel.

My attitude on FTL is about the same as my attitude toward life extension. For what it's worth, I actually would bet both will happen, but there's no way to set any sort of time scale on it.

But you're quite right, people think and act differently at different stages of a culture's lifetime, just as individuals and Generations react differently at different life-stages. To use Classical Civilization as an example, the people of the 3rd Century Roman Empire were in many ways unlike the people of Alexandrian Era psychologically

People are still the same creatures today as they were 2000 year ago. People who live for thousands of years and are partially cybernetic are not the same sort of creatures as we are today.

Remember this whole discussion started with explaining why others like us haven't come here. If it's a sure shot we are going out there, then it should be true for others. Once we get out there, what is to stop us from spreading everywhere? The hard part is getting to nearby stars. Once that is accomplished it's the same problem over and over again, getting to nearby stars from the outer edges of "human space". We should spread out throughout the entire galaxy in less than a million years, a very short time astronomically speaking.

The same holds for the others. Where are they? Why aren't they here?

The most realistic answer is that they probably either don't exist, or are far enough away that they haven't gotten this far.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The investors don't come first, first come the explorers, and we're just barely into that phase. The explorers are often funded at a loss by either governments or private interests, for a variety of motives.

Funding for the explorers is part of the investment. You are hypothesizing a benefactor here.

Yes, most likely a government. This is so likely to happen as to be nearly a certainty, on a decades-long scale. It requires only the right national mood in a liberal democracy, or a politician with that turn of mind and the skill to drive it through.

Space exploration is merely expensive, not prohibitively so, and could almost surely be made cheaper with advancing technology. There were various ideas on the boards for cheaper access to space in the late 60s and early 70s, before the fire suddenly went out of the effort.

Note that the Space Shuttle, itself, is almost a classic example of what started out as a straightforward idea in G.I. days, transformed into a bureucratic money and effort sponge. The story of the development of that idea from its origins to what finally took flight (sort of) is a surreal example of Generational dynamics at work, both in NASA's internal workings and the political transformations.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The investors don't come first, first come the explorers, and we're just barely into that phase. The explorers are often funded at a loss by either governments or private interests, for a variety of motives.

Funding for the explorers is part of the investment. You are hypothesizing a benefactor here.

Yes, most likely a government. This is so likely to happen as to be nearly a certainty, on a decades-long scale. It requires only the right national mood in a liberal democracy, or a politician with that turn of mind and the skill to drive it through.

Space exploration is merely expensive, not prohibitively so, and could almost surely be made cheaper with advancing technology. There were various ideas on the boards for cheaper access to space in the late 60s and early 70s, before the fire suddenly went out of the effort.

Note that the Space Shuttle, itself, is almost a classic example of what started out as a straightforward idea in G.I. days, transformed into a bureucratic money and effort sponge. The story of the development of that idea from its origins to what finally took flight (sort of) is a surreal example of Generational dynamics at work, both in NASA's internal workings and the political transformations.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I don't rule out life extension technology. I just say it's too uncertain to plan on either way. We know space flight is possible, including interstellar travel.

What do you men by possible? Taking 50,000 years to go to Alpha Centauri is possible, but hardly what anyone would reasonably call interstellar travel. Getting there significantly faster than that is like life extension, permitted by the laws of physics, but not something we can do yet.

The most realistic answer is that they probably either don't exist, or are far enough away that they haven't gotten this far.

They can't be too far away. If interstellar travel is possible as you say then in a short period of time (astronomically speaking) humans will be everywhere in the galaxy. Thus, if any intelligent life form has ever developed space travel in our galaxy at any time in the past, they would also be everywhere in the galaxy, including here.

Therefore if you are right about interstellar then humans are the only intelligent life form ever to appear in the galaxy.

There can be no right answer here. Until we actually travel to another star (and neither of us will live to see this) we can't know that we can. And until we actually discover an extraterrestial civilization, we can't know that we aren't alone.


This is an interesting subject and I hope you are right. Here's why I am pessimistic in the short term. Just gettng to orbit is hard. Burt Rutan plans to meet the requirements for the X-prize, which is billed as "almost" into space, using a velocity of 2500 mph. The kinetic energy at 2500 mph is only 2% that of a craft in orbit. Rather than "almost into space" the X prize is only 2% of the way.

This is really more in the line of a rocket plane than an orbital launch vehicle. You need to impart a lot of delta vee, AND you have to use a lot of thrust. Chemical propulsion has too small of a specific impulse to impart much velocity. Hence you need a huge rocket to get to orbital speeds. All the non-chemical propulsion methods have low thrust and so are unsuitable for launch purposes.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I don't rule out life extension technology. I just say it's too uncertain to plan on either way. We know space flight is possible, including interstellar travel.

What do you men by possible? Taking 50,000 years to go to Alpha Centauri is possible, but hardly what anyone would reasonably call interstellar travel. Getting there significantly faster than that is like life extension, permitted by the laws of physics, but not something we can do yet.

The most realistic answer is that they probably either don't exist, or are far enough away that they haven't gotten this far.

They can't be too far away. If interstellar travel is possible as you say then in a short period of time (astronomically speaking) humans will be everywhere in the galaxy. Thus, if any intelligent life form has ever developed space travel in our galaxy at any time in the past, they would also be everywhere in the galaxy, including here.

Therefore if you are right about interstellar then humans are the only intelligent life form ever to appear in the galaxy.

There can be no right answer here. Until we actually travel to another star (and neither of us will live to see this) we can't know that we can. And until we actually discover an extraterrestial civilization, we can't know that we aren't alone.


This is an interesting subject and I hope you are right. Here's why I am pessimistic in the short term. Just gettng to orbit is hard. Burt Rutan plans to meet the requirements for the X-prize, which is billed as "almost" into space, using a velocity of 2500 mph. The kinetic energy at 2500 mph is only 2% that of a craft in orbit. Rather than "almost into space" the X prize is only 2% of the way.

This is really more in the line of a rocket plane than an orbital launch vehicle. You need to impart a lot of delta vee, AND you have to use a lot of thrust. Chemical propulsion has too small of a specific impulse to impart much velocity. Hence you need a huge rocket to get to orbital speeds. All the non-chemical propulsion methods have low thrust and so are unsuitable for launch purposes.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, actually, neither did the Europeans. Hence the terms "Indians" for Native Americans and "West Indies" for the Caribbean islands.

Yes they did. The Spanish wished to build a trading empire in the east along the lines of what the Portuguese were doing. These were "new lands" for the Europeans in the form of new opportunities for exploitation.

No, they were new opportunities arising in old lands.

People have migrated when the situation they were living in became less suitable and new land, which they could see, beckoned them.
This is how Native Americans settled the new world.

It's also how the English settled North America. I really don't see the difference, except in terms of technology.

Europeans dissatisfied with their situation could not engage in the voyages of discovery and colonization on their own, however. They needed a sponsor to provide the resources need to make the trip. The Native Americans didn't need a sponsor. This is the key difference.

By banding together, they could become their own sponsor and often did. The Native Americans, like all foraging/hunting societies, operated in bands, and the bands constituted the sponsor. Individuals from Asia didn't make the crossing because humans in those days didn't live as individuals.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, actually, neither did the Europeans. Hence the terms "Indians" for Native Americans and "West Indies" for the Caribbean islands.

Yes they did. The Spanish wished to build a trading empire in the east along the lines of what the Portuguese were doing. These were "new lands" for the Europeans in the form of new opportunities for exploitation.

No, they were new opportunities arising in old lands.

People have migrated when the situation they were living in became less suitable and new land, which they could see, beckoned them.
This is how Native Americans settled the new world.

It's also how the English settled North America. I really don't see the difference, except in terms of technology.

Europeans dissatisfied with their situation could not engage in the voyages of discovery and colonization on their own, however. They needed a sponsor to provide the resources need to make the trip. The Native Americans didn't need a sponsor. This is the key difference.

By banding together, they could become their own sponsor and often did. The Native Americans, like all foraging/hunting societies, operated in bands, and the bands constituted the sponsor. Individuals from Asia didn't make the crossing because humans in those days didn't live as individuals.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The reason why oil price will rise as it becomes short in supply is not only because oil becomes harder to extract as it is exhausted.

It is entirely because of that, directly or indirectly, because depletion is a result of that. There is no such thing as an oil field that has completely run out of oil; abandoned fields are abandoned because the cost of extracting the remaining oil is now higher than the value of that oil.

TDP IS economically competetive with $30+ dollar oil. Last year oil was $30, is TDP competitive?

Apparently not, so apparently you are mistaken.

The cost of labor in the pharmaceutical manufacturing has little to do with with the energy needed to make the goods purchased by the workers. High priced labor is not high because they consume more energy. If your surgeon decides to ride a bike to work for his health, will he now charge you less?

If he does that, he still consumes more energy than I do. He still lives in a bigger house, which cost more energy to build; he still owns more consumer goods, which cost more energy to manufacture; he still enjoys more services, which cost more energy to provide.

The cost of the workers in the pharmaceutical industry isn't caused by energy prices, but it is all spent on energy, directly or indirectly. Thus, that must be considered an indirect energy cost as well.

Think of the things most households spend their incomes on. Include all company benefits and the company Social Security contribution as household income. Now how much do you actually spend on energy? Take your house. If you have a mortgage, most of that monthly payment goes to paying interest, which is an intangible service.

Why do I pay interest? Because I cannot afford to buy the house outright, and apart from the land it's built on, the price of the house all comes down to energy: energy to manufacture the building materials; energy to transport them to the house's location; energy to build the goods bought by the construction workers who demand the salaries they do in order to buy those goods; energy to power the construction machinery. As for the interest itself, it reflects a profit for the mortgage company, which the mortgage company desires in order to buy goods and services which themselves are produced with energy, and in order to pay the salaries of its employees who demand that salary in order to buy goods and services made with energy.

I am speaking of energy's indirect input as well as its direct input. Energy is almost everything.

A substantial fraction of the income in this country goes to people who simply can't consume material goods in proprtion to their incomes.

Yes, but they invest that fraction of their income, either in production of goods and services, which comes down to an energy expenditure, or in nonproductive investments such as gold, jewelry, artwork, or real estate, and all but the last of those also comes down to an energy expenditure. Energy is almost everything in a high-tech industrial society.

Why do you think this EPR is relevant, anyways. Where did you get this idea?

Why do I think it's relevant? We're talking about the production of energy here, and you have to spend energy to produce energy. The amount you're really producing, for practical purposes, is the net of that equation. Isn't that obvious, and isn't its relevance obvious? Isn't that plain common sense? Why in the world do you question its relevance?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The reason why oil price will rise as it becomes short in supply is not only because oil becomes harder to extract as it is exhausted.

It is entirely because of that, directly or indirectly, because depletion is a result of that. There is no such thing as an oil field that has completely run out of oil; abandoned fields are abandoned because the cost of extracting the remaining oil is now higher than the value of that oil.

TDP IS economically competetive with $30+ dollar oil. Last year oil was $30, is TDP competitive?

Apparently not, so apparently you are mistaken.

The cost of labor in the pharmaceutical manufacturing has little to do with with the energy needed to make the goods purchased by the workers. High priced labor is not high because they consume more energy. If your surgeon decides to ride a bike to work for his health, will he now charge you less?

If he does that, he still consumes more energy than I do. He still lives in a bigger house, which cost more energy to build; he still owns more consumer goods, which cost more energy to manufacture; he still enjoys more services, which cost more energy to provide.

The cost of the workers in the pharmaceutical industry isn't caused by energy prices, but it is all spent on energy, directly or indirectly. Thus, that must be considered an indirect energy cost as well.

Think of the things most households spend their incomes on. Include all company benefits and the company Social Security contribution as household income. Now how much do you actually spend on energy? Take your house. If you have a mortgage, most of that monthly payment goes to paying interest, which is an intangible service.

Why do I pay interest? Because I cannot afford to buy the house outright, and apart from the land it's built on, the price of the house all comes down to energy: energy to manufacture the building materials; energy to transport them to the house's location; energy to build the goods bought by the construction workers who demand the salaries they do in order to buy those goods; energy to power the construction machinery. As for the interest itself, it reflects a profit for the mortgage company, which the mortgage company desires in order to buy goods and services which themselves are produced with energy, and in order to pay the salaries of its employees who demand that salary in order to buy goods and services made with energy.

I am speaking of energy's indirect input as well as its direct input. Energy is almost everything.

A substantial fraction of the income in this country goes to people who simply can't consume material goods in proprtion to their incomes.

Yes, but they invest that fraction of their income, either in production of goods and services, which comes down to an energy expenditure, or in nonproductive investments such as gold, jewelry, artwork, or real estate, and all but the last of those also comes down to an energy expenditure. Energy is almost everything in a high-tech industrial society.

Why do you think this EPR is relevant, anyways. Where did you get this idea?

Why do I think it's relevant? We're talking about the production of energy here, and you have to spend energy to produce energy. The amount you're really producing, for practical purposes, is the net of that equation. Isn't that obvious, and isn't its relevance obvious? Isn't that plain common sense? Why in the world do you question its relevance?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's also how the English settled North America. I really don't see the difference, except in terms of technology.

Yes, after the initial voyages.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's also how the English settled North America. I really don't see the difference, except in terms of technology.

Yes, after the initial voyages.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Apparently not, so apparently you are mistaken.

Why do you say that?

Why do you think this EPR is relevant, anyways. Where did you get this idea?

Why do I think it's relevant? We're talking about the production of energy here, and you have to spend energy to produce energy. The amount you're really producing, for practical purposes, is the net of that equation. Isn't that obvious, and isn't its relevance obvious? Isn't that plain common sense? Why in the world do you question its relevance?

No its not obvious. You don't just use energy to produce energy. You use other things, too. You are taking such a broad view of this as to make it meaningless. You are like the libertarians who make an assertion to support their philosophy and when questioned, simply state that it is self-evident.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Apparently not, so apparently you are mistaken.

Why do you say that?

Why do you think this EPR is relevant, anyways. Where did you get this idea?

Why do I think it's relevant? We're talking about the production of energy here, and you have to spend energy to produce energy. The amount you're really producing, for practical purposes, is the net of that equation. Isn't that obvious, and isn't its relevance obvious? Isn't that plain common sense? Why in the world do you question its relevance?

No its not obvious. You don't just use energy to produce energy. You use other things, too. You are taking such a broad view of this as to make it meaningless. You are like the libertarians who make an assertion to support their philosophy and when questioned, simply state that it is self-evident.

Why do I pay interest?

You don't have to. Just save the money necessary to buy the house.

Why do I pay interest?

You don't have to. Just save the money necessary to buy the house.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do I pay interest?

You don't have to. Just save the money necessary to buy the house.

That's actually done more often than most people think. It isn't common, but it isn't unheard of.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do I pay interest?

You don't have to. Just save the money necessary to buy the house.

That's actually done more often than most people think. It isn't common, but it isn't unheard of.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Apparently not, so apparently you are mistaken.

Why do you say that?

Because if it were market-competitive with oil, it would be taking a larger share of the market. I do believe it's on the way to becoming so, or rather oil is on the way to becoming less competitive than alternatives.

No its not obvious. You don't just use energy to produce energy. You use other things, too.

"You don't just use money to make money. You use other things, too." Nevertheless, we speak of profit in terms of the amount of money gained minus the amount of money spent to gain it. In terms of energy production, the relevant net energy produced is energy gained minus energy used to gain it. When the energy used equals the energy gained, the source ceases to be a source, no matter how cheap the labor or materials may be that also go into the equation.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Apparently not, so apparently you are mistaken.

Why do you say that?

Because if it were market-competitive with oil, it would be taking a larger share of the market. I do believe it's on the way to becoming so, or rather oil is on the way to becoming less competitive than alternatives.

No its not obvious. You don't just use energy to produce energy. You use other things, too.

"You don't just use money to make money. You use other things, too." Nevertheless, we speak of profit in terms of the amount of money gained minus the amount of money spent to gain it. In terms of energy production, the relevant net energy produced is energy gained minus energy used to gain it. When the energy used equals the energy gained, the source ceases to be a source, no matter how cheap the labor or materials may be that also go into the equation.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do I pay interest?

You don't have to. Just save the money necessary to buy the house.

It was a rhetorical question, Mike, to which I provided the answer. You need not belabor the obvious and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do I pay interest?

You don't have to. Just save the money necessary to buy the house.

It was a rhetorical question, Mike, to which I provided the answer. You need not belabor the obvious and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Because if it were market-competitive with oil, it would be taking a larger share of the market. I do believe it's on the way to becoming so, or rather oil is on the way to becoming less competitive than alternatives.

What does market-competitive mean when the price of oil fluctuates all over the map?

"You don't just use money to make money. You use other things, too." Nevertheless, we speak of profit in terms of the amount of money gained minus the amount of money spent to gain it. In terms of energy production, the relevant net energy produced is energy gained minus energy used to gain it. When the energy used equals the energy gained, the source ceases to be a source, no matter how cheap the labor or materials may be that also go into the equation.

Energy is not interchangable like money. 1000 BTUs of sunlight is not equivalent to 1000 BTUs of gasoline.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Because if it were market-competitive with oil, it would be taking a larger share of the market. I do believe it's on the way to becoming so, or rather oil is on the way to becoming less competitive than alternatives.

What does market-competitive mean when the price of oil fluctuates all over the map?

"You don't just use money to make money. You use other things, too." Nevertheless, we speak of profit in terms of the amount of money gained minus the amount of money spent to gain it. In terms of energy production, the relevant net energy produced is energy gained minus energy used to gain it. When the energy used equals the energy gained, the source ceases to be a source, no matter how cheap the labor or materials may be that also go into the equation.

Energy is not interchangable like money. 1000 BTUs of sunlight is not equivalent to 1000 BTUs of gasoline.