Comments for Bill Gross.com http://www.billgross.com Thoughts on business, innovation and the energy situation the world faces. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:39:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Oil is Cheap by Will Johnston http://www.billgross.com/2008/06/oil-is-cheap/#comment-69 Will Johnston Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:57:49 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=11#comment-69 Can someone explain the implications of the new solar tax credits passed by congress with the bailout? I'm trying to determine if there is a minimum investment for the credit or what restrictions exist? It's not very easy to interpret in the writing of the legislation and I don't want to guess. Any input would be great. Will Johnston The Store for Sustainable Living www.growandmake.com Can someone explain the implications of the new solar tax credits passed by congress with the bailout? I’m trying to determine if there is a minimum investment for the credit or what restrictions exist? It’s not very easy to interpret in the writing of the legislation and I don’t want to guess. Any input would be great.

Will Johnston
The Store for Sustainable Living
http://www.growandmake.com

]]> Comment on Oil is Cheap by STORMY http://www.billgross.com/2008/06/oil-is-cheap/#comment-62 STORMY Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:42:36 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=11#comment-62 There ARE barrels and barrels and metric tons and tons of Oil and Gas that we are not tapping into because of environmental regulation and red tape. Lets get off our duffs and vote the bums out of congress that require all the stupid regulations and red tape, that holds our country back from moving ahead with getting Energy. Besides Oil and Natural Gas. Lets get the Nukes fired up, as they are the most efficient source of energy. What good is "preserving everything" if we don't have the money, or the fuel to get us there to enjoy it....I have never been to Alaska, and I would like to go there, and if I happen to see a Oil or Natural Gas Pipeline along the way ...Great!! that means I may get there cheaper!! After all, we see highways, and aren't they beautiful too?? wHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE- A HIGHWAY OR A PIPELINE.?NONE. There ARE barrels and barrels and metric tons and tons of Oil and Gas that we are not tapping into because of environmental regulation and red tape. Lets get off our duffs and vote the bums out of congress that require all the stupid regulations and red tape, that holds our country back from moving ahead with getting Energy. Besides Oil and Natural Gas. Lets get the Nukes fired up, as they are the most efficient source of energy. What good is “preserving everything” if we don’t have the money, or the fuel to get us there to enjoy it….I have never been to Alaska, and I would like to go there, and if I happen to see a Oil or Natural Gas Pipeline along the way …Great!! that means I may get there cheaper!! After all, we see highways, and aren’t they beautiful too?? wHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE- A HIGHWAY OR A PIPELINE.?NONE.

]]> Comment on Oil is Cheap by Steve http://www.billgross.com/2008/06/oil-is-cheap/#comment-61 Steve Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:15:25 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=11#comment-61 With all the talk surrounding the presidential election, the American people don't seem to realize that with our democracy, the president is limited in what change he or she can actually affect. While all the talk about change and reform is good, the American people should look to the Congress and Senate for the root of our current energy crisis as well as, a lot of other problems that we are currently facing. If there is to be real change in Washington, taxpayers need to look at who they are ultimately electing to represent them in Washington. Getting back to the discussion at hand. I disagree with the notion that oil is cheap. Oil was cheap when I paid .17 cents a gallon. I refuse to accept the notion that just because Europeans are paying absorbent prices, we should accept that our oil is cheap. I think that most Americans would agree that we need alternative energy solutions and that we should be investing in the ones that make the best sense and have the greatest probability of succeeding. However, I disagree with the way our legislators are going about it. While our politicians on the left of the Isle are playing games and holding the American people hostage by not allowing drilling in those areas that are proven to produce the greatest amount of oil, people of the Middle East are laughing all the way to the bank at our inability to free our self from oil dependency. We are just helping them achieve their ultimate goal of destroying our economy and our great nation. As soon as the congress and senate pass a bipartisan bill to open drilling in Anwar and offshore (within the 50 mile limit), watch energy prices fall and you know what, even if they don’t fall, we will have a back up plan… Oil in a few years, lower energy prices, a vibrant economy and most of all, energy independence. In the mean time let’s invest in clean alternative sources. It’s a no brainer… 1. Start drilling. 2. Invest in alternative energy 3. Gain control of our own destiny. It’s such a no brainer; even the Democrat’s should be able to figure it out. With all the talk surrounding the presidential election, the American people don’t seem to realize that with our democracy, the president is limited in what change he or she can actually affect. While all the talk about change and reform is good, the American people should look to the Congress and Senate for the root of our current energy crisis as well as, a lot of other problems that we are currently facing. If there is to be real change in Washington, taxpayers need to look at who they are ultimately electing to represent them in Washington.

Getting back to the discussion at hand. I disagree with the notion that oil is cheap. Oil was cheap when I paid .17 cents a gallon. I refuse to accept the notion that just because Europeans are paying absorbent prices, we should accept that our oil is cheap.

I think that most Americans would agree that we need alternative energy solutions and that we should be investing in the ones that make the best sense and have the greatest probability of succeeding. However, I disagree with the way our legislators are going about it. While our politicians on the left of the Isle are playing games and holding the American people hostage by not allowing drilling in those areas that are proven to produce the greatest amount of oil, people of the Middle East are laughing all the way to the bank at our inability to free our self from oil dependency. We are just helping them achieve their ultimate goal of destroying our economy and our great nation.

As soon as the congress and senate pass a bipartisan bill to open drilling in Anwar and offshore (within the 50 mile limit), watch energy prices fall and you know what, even if they don’t fall, we will have a back up plan… Oil in a few years, lower energy prices, a vibrant economy and most of all, energy independence. In the mean time let’s invest in clean alternative sources. It’s a no brainer…

1. Start drilling.
2. Invest in alternative energy
3. Gain control of our own destiny.

It’s such a no brainer; even the Democrat’s should be able to figure it out.

]]> Comment on Coal price increases - good for the planet by erto http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/coal-price-increases-good-for-the-planet/#comment-58 erto Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:22:26 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=5#comment-58 I think that environmental concerns of energy is the future. However the increase of coal doubling in the last ear,is mostly being spawned by fears of oil prices. We hear excuses that it comes from countries such as China,and India in which both use 74% and 70% of coal to produce their energy. However China has been a main exporter of coal,so while they continue to consume larger amounts it doesn't effect the supply of the coal on a global scale. I think it's more of a price controlled environment,in which will only become volatile rather stable. Will it help move on to better energy sources perhaps,but again the households that consume the highest amount of energy aren't going to be able to afford the alternatives,only the rich will be able to benefit. Disconnecting from the grid is great,bhut nearly impossible,the technolog has a while to go,and batteries are still dangerous. I think that environmental concerns of energy is the future.
However the increase of coal doubling in the last ear,is mostly being spawned by fears of oil prices.
We hear excuses that it comes from countries such as China,and India in which both use 74% and 70% of coal to produce their energy.
However China has been a main exporter of coal,so while they continue to consume larger amounts it doesn’t effect the supply of the coal on a global scale.
I think it’s more of a price controlled environment,in which will only become volatile rather stable.
Will it help move on to better energy sources perhaps,but again the households that consume the highest amount of energy aren’t going to be able to afford the alternatives,only the rich will be able to benefit.
Disconnecting from the grid is great,bhut nearly impossible,the technolog has a while to go,and batteries are still dangerous.

]]> Comment on Beat Coal by Mr T http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-51 Mr T Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:03:50 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-51 15,000 Kilowatt-hours of energy is "freely" delivered to the roof of every 2500 sq ft house every month from an infinite and un-regulated source! Even if solar panels are 15% efficient, who cares. .15 x 15,000 = 2250 kilowatt-hours/month. That still provides enough power to run all home appliances as well as an electric car. Just look at your last power bill. And solar panels are quickly becoming 25% efficient. Electric cars use 93% of the electric energy sent to the batteries. This means that 93% of the energy, which comes from ones solar panels, moves your car. (Isn't movement the reason we have cars?) The remaining energy is lost in heat. Internal combustion (Gasoline) engines are 30% efficient and have 10 times more parts. The extra parts serve to remove the 70% lost heat. If you do the math - $2.40 of every $4 gallon of gas is lost as heat. It does nothing to move the vehicle. But we continue to pay $300/month to OPEC to fill our gas cars and over $200/month for electric energy which is also made mostly from petroleum. Is a real solution really so hard to figure out? 15,000 Kilowatt-hours of energy is “freely” delivered to the roof of every 2500 sq ft house every month from an infinite and un-regulated source! Even if solar panels are 15% efficient, who cares. .15 x 15,000 = 2250 kilowatt-hours/month. That still provides enough power to run all home appliances as well as an electric car. Just look at your last power bill. And solar panels are quickly becoming 25% efficient.
Electric cars use 93% of the electric energy sent to the batteries. This means that 93% of the energy, which comes from ones solar panels, moves your car. (Isn’t movement the reason we have cars?) The remaining energy is lost in heat.
Internal combustion (Gasoline) engines are 30% efficient and have 10 times more parts. The extra parts serve to remove the 70% lost heat. If you do the math - $2.40 of every $4 gallon of gas is lost as heat. It does nothing to move the vehicle.
But we continue to pay $300/month to OPEC to fill our gas cars and over $200/month for electric energy which is also made mostly from petroleum.

Is a real solution really so hard to figure out?

]]> Comment on Coal price increases - good for the planet by Skibare http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/coal-price-increases-good-for-the-planet/#comment-47 Skibare Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:28:18 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=5#comment-47 Wind Power in Denver in July was CHEAPER than polluting usual XCEL Power.........Why not cover WIND since WIND is now priced competitively???? T Boone Pickens is into wind and so am I! Skibare Wind Power in Denver in July was CHEAPER than polluting usual XCEL Power………Why not cover WIND since WIND is now priced competitively???? T Boone Pickens is into wind and so am I!
Skibare

]]> Comment on Oil is Cheap by James McGrane http://www.billgross.com/2008/06/oil-is-cheap/#comment-45 James McGrane Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:40:38 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=11#comment-45 Nothing should move so fastas has the price of oil. Everybody has their opinion on what caused it to fit in their own little world. Did you ever look into the Oil Price Speculation comm (6(29/08), by the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee. There was four witnesses sworn in from Masters Capital Management giving testimony on why the high oil prices. It's impossible to cover it in this reply, but given the witnesses were sworn in the testimony they gave was very, very strong blaming the speculators, hedgefunds, etc. If the SEC would just change some rules the price of oil would drop fifty percent within two months. As ridiculs as this seems so do the reasons given as to demand and running out of oil seem. This country has enough energy resouorces to last a long time and with planning ahead we can overcome our problems without dirupting the economy and peoples lives. I feel strongly greed has a big part in our current problem. Nothing should move so fastas has the price of oil. Everybody has their opinion on what caused it to fit in their own little world. Did you ever look into the Oil Price Speculation comm (6(29/08), by the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee. There was four witnesses sworn in from Masters Capital Management giving testimony on why the high oil prices. It’s impossible to cover it in this reply, but given the witnesses were sworn in the testimony they gave was very, very strong blaming the speculators, hedgefunds, etc. If the SEC would just change some rules the price of oil would drop fifty percent within two months. As ridiculs as this seems so do the reasons given as to demand and running out of oil seem. This country has enough energy resouorces to last a long time and with planning ahead we can overcome our problems without dirupting the economy and peoples lives. I feel strongly greed has a big part in our current problem.

]]> Comment on Beat Coal by Jim Bell http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-44 Jim Bell Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:21:07 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-44 Folks like Jim Rogers from Duke energy do a great job putting the energy picture in balance. He and others represent the massive amount of coal and NG in our fuel mix and the huge challenge moving away from these sources. Ultimately there are a range of technologies that will help us move off of coal, including upgrades to current coal plants. Practically, each of these technologies has a cost benefit (1 year, 20year, 50 year payback). Near term conservation plays a huge role to providing room for a rationale energy approach. If we invested purely in solar now, we would use a huge amount of resources on a 25 year payback option. If we waited for gen 3 solar, we would invest a fraction of our resources. So what do we do? Conserve! Energy demand keeps climbing at 5%. It is hard to change infrastructure with a constant pressure on growth. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that conservation can reduce energy usage by 20%, with a likely positive impact on productivity (meaning operation savings). The resources saved can then be applied to invest in gen 3 solar when it comes on line. Energy Lover..... www.gadgetsforgreen.com Folks like Jim Rogers from Duke energy do a great job putting the energy picture in balance. He and others represent the massive amount of coal and NG in our fuel mix and the huge challenge moving away from these sources. Ultimately there are a range of technologies that will help us move off of coal, including upgrades to current coal plants. Practically, each of these technologies has a cost benefit (1 year, 20year, 50 year payback). Near term conservation plays a huge role to providing room for a rationale energy approach. If we invested purely in solar now, we would use a huge amount of resources on a 25 year payback option. If we waited for gen 3 solar, we would invest a fraction of our resources.

So what do we do? Conserve! Energy demand keeps climbing at 5%. It is hard to change infrastructure with a constant pressure on growth. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that conservation can reduce energy usage by 20%, with a likely positive impact on productivity (meaning operation savings). The resources saved can then be applied to invest in gen 3 solar when it comes on line.

Energy Lover…..
http://www.gadgetsforgreen.com

]]> Comment on Skeptical Environmentalist by Travis http://www.billgross.com/2008/04/skeptical-environmentalist/#comment-42 Travis Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:10:32 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/04/skeptical-environmentalist/#comment-42 (sarcasm:) Yes! What we really need is a Stalin-style massive bureaucracy-laden 5 year plan to achieve new energy technology. (:end sarcasm) The reason to do the cap and trade or similar approach is that bottom-up innovation works -- let the free market have at it and whoever comes up with the best solution makes the most money, and all the mediocre or unsuccessful approaches go by the wayside. If the incentives are right, you get many truly innovative plans being tried. Some work, some don't. But you have lots of people willing to try long-shot solutions -- the truly revolutionary ideas -- because if they work out there is such a big payoff. This is how to really achieve major advances. If you go for a massive top-down approach, you have a bureaucracy from the beginning. Despite typically being wasteful and inefficient, with central planning the people in charge are more likely to focus on approaches with a high chance of success. This means things that are less revolutionary, more mediocre, but better understood. So -- if you're lucky -- at the end you have a massive pork-barrel project that mostly does what you want, but at much greater expense than was initially promised. If you're unlucky, the central approach ends up a complete boondoggle. (sarcasm:) Yes! What we really need is a Stalin-style massive bureaucracy-laden 5 year plan to achieve new energy technology. (:end sarcasm)
The reason to do the cap and trade or similar approach is that bottom-up innovation works — let the free market have at it and whoever comes up with the best solution makes the most money, and all the mediocre or unsuccessful approaches go by the wayside. If the incentives are right, you get many truly innovative plans being tried. Some work, some don’t. But you have lots of people willing to try long-shot solutions — the truly revolutionary ideas — because if they work out there is such a big payoff. This is how to really achieve major advances. If you go for a massive top-down approach, you have a bureaucracy from the beginning. Despite typically being wasteful and inefficient, with central planning the people in charge are more likely to focus on approaches with a high chance of success. This means things that are less revolutionary, more mediocre, but better understood. So — if you’re lucky — at the end you have a massive pork-barrel project that mostly does what you want, but at much greater expense than was initially promised. If you’re unlucky, the central approach ends up a complete boondoggle.

]]> Comment on Oil is Cheap by Peter http://www.billgross.com/2008/06/oil-is-cheap/#comment-40 Peter Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:37:09 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/?p=11#comment-40 It's amazing that the US Govt didn't continue when the first crisis happened in the 70's. The power of the sun is everywhere and we should all be taking advantage of it! It’s amazing that the US Govt didn’t continue when the first crisis happened in the 70’s. The power of the sun is everywhere and we should all be taking advantage of it!

]]>