[Ash Housewares]

[quote=gandalf]If we can change the energy paradigm, the entire equation changes. Anybody play chess? Oil is an unwinnable board. It’s a painful draw at best. We must diversify our sources of energy. The long-term consequences utterly SCREW our children. Talk about character. This is the central challenge of our time.
[/quote]

The comments posted after this bit from gandalf all seemed to agree- energy independence is the most critical issue facing us today. It limits our foreign policy choices and sends much of our treasure to questionable foreign countries who got lucky and hit the oil jackpot.

When I read this comment it set off alarm bells in my brain- the “unwinnable” and “chess” bits in particular. The Rocky Mountain Institute has published a report called “Winning the Oil Endgame”, and funny enough a chess board is on the cover. It was sponsored by the Pentagon and has been peer reviewed. Oil IS a winnable game, and we have the technology to do it today, at a profit. The report can be viewed for free at http://www.oilendgame.com/

I have mentioned this report on this board before but gandalf’s comment reminded me of it. Just tread the abstract if you get a chance.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=gandalf]If we can change the energy paradigm, the entire equation changes. Anybody play chess? Oil is an unwinnable board. It’s a painful draw at best. We must diversify our sources of energy. The long-term consequences utterly SCREW our children. Talk about character. This is the central challenge of our time.
[/quote]

The comments posted after this bit from gandalf all seemed to agree- energy independence is the most critical issue facing us today. It limits our foreign policy choices and sends much of our treasure to questionable foreign countries who got lucky and hit the oil jackpot.

When I read this comment it set off alarm bells in my brain- the “unwinnable” and “chess” bits in particular. The Rocky Mountain Institute has published a report called “Winning the Oil Endgame”, and funny enough a chess board is on the cover. It was sponsored by the Pentagon and has been peer reviewed. Oil IS a winnable game, and we have the technology to do it today, at a profit. The report can be viewed for free at http://www.oilendgame.com/

I have mentioned this report on this board before but gandalf’s comment reminded me of it. Just tread the abstract if you get a chance.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=gandalf]If we can change the energy paradigm, the entire equation changes. Anybody play chess? Oil is an unwinnable board. It’s a painful draw at best. We must diversify our sources of energy. The long-term consequences utterly SCREW our children. Talk about character. This is the central challenge of our time.
[/quote]

The comments posted after this bit from gandalf all seemed to agree- energy independence is the most critical issue facing us today. It limits our foreign policy choices and sends much of our treasure to questionable foreign countries who got lucky and hit the oil jackpot.

When I read this comment it set off alarm bells in my brain- the “unwinnable” and “chess” bits in particular. The Rocky Mountain Institute has published a report called “Winning the Oil Endgame”, and funny enough a chess board is on the cover. It was sponsored by the Pentagon and has been peer reviewed. Oil IS a winnable game, and we have the technology to do it today, at a profit. The report can be viewed for free at http://www.oilendgame.com/

I have mentioned this report on this board before but gandalf’s comment reminded me of it. Just tread the abstract if you get a chance.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=gandalf]If we can change the energy paradigm, the entire equation changes. Anybody play chess? Oil is an unwinnable board. It’s a painful draw at best. We must diversify our sources of energy. The long-term consequences utterly SCREW our children. Talk about character. This is the central challenge of our time.
[/quote]

The comments posted after this bit from gandalf all seemed to agree- energy independence is the most critical issue facing us today. It limits our foreign policy choices and sends much of our treasure to questionable foreign countries who got lucky and hit the oil jackpot.

When I read this comment it set off alarm bells in my brain- the “unwinnable” and “chess” bits in particular. The Rocky Mountain Institute has published a report called “Winning the Oil Endgame”, and funny enough a chess board is on the cover. It was sponsored by the Pentagon and has been peer reviewed. Oil IS a winnable game, and we have the technology to do it today, at a profit. The report can be viewed for free at http://www.oilendgame.com/

I have mentioned this report on this board before but gandalf’s comment reminded me of it. Just tread the abstract if you get a chance.

[Ash Housewares]

Veritas you just contradicted yourself. You say drilling is the answer and conservation is hogwash, then you go on to talk supply and demand. Well drilling is supply, conservation is demand. A barrel of oil conserved is no different than an extra barrel pumped out of the ground. The demand side of the equation (conservation) can respond to stimuli much more quickly than the supply side and thus should receive the bulk of our attention.

This should really be a thread of its own as there is much to discuss on this subject.

[Ash Housewares]

Veritas you just contradicted yourself. You say drilling is the answer and conservation is hogwash, then you go on to talk supply and demand. Well drilling is supply, conservation is demand. A barrel of oil conserved is no different than an extra barrel pumped out of the ground. The demand side of the equation (conservation) can respond to stimuli much more quickly than the supply side and thus should receive the bulk of our attention.

This should really be a thread of its own as there is much to discuss on this subject.

[Ash Housewares]

Veritas you just contradicted yourself. You say drilling is the answer and conservation is hogwash, then you go on to talk supply and demand. Well drilling is supply, conservation is demand. A barrel of oil conserved is no different than an extra barrel pumped out of the ground. The demand side of the equation (conservation) can respond to stimuli much more quickly than the supply side and thus should receive the bulk of our attention.

This should really be a thread of its own as there is much to discuss on this subject.

[Ash Housewares]

Veritas you just contradicted yourself. You say drilling is the answer and conservation is hogwash, then you go on to talk supply and demand. Well drilling is supply, conservation is demand. A barrel of oil conserved is no different than an extra barrel pumped out of the ground. The demand side of the equation (conservation) can respond to stimuli much more quickly than the supply side and thus should receive the bulk of our attention.

This should really be a thread of its own as there is much to discuss on this subject.

[Ash Housewares]

Veritas you just contradicted yourself. You say drilling is the answer and conservation is hogwash, then you go on to talk supply and demand. Well drilling is supply, conservation is demand. A barrel of oil conserved is no different than an extra barrel pumped out of the ground. The demand side of the equation (conservation) can respond to stimuli much more quickly than the supply side and thus should receive the bulk of our attention.

This should really be a thread of its own as there is much to discuss on this subject.

[Ash Housewares]

Another factor to consider is the number of stories. Most homes I see 2500+ sq ft are two story, most 1500sq ft homes are one story. The two story home has “dead space” where the staircase is that is of little use, so its effective sq footage is less than measured square footage. So two 2500 sq ft houses, a one story and a two story, the one story will “feel” bigger because it lacks dead space. This leads to higher ppsf for single story homes.

As for your original question, yes. Rich calculates a median ppsf for condos and homes monthly to use as an indicator of future Case Shiller (sp?) changes.

[Ash Housewares]

Another factor to consider is the number of stories. Most homes I see 2500+ sq ft are two story, most 1500sq ft homes are one story. The two story home has “dead space” where the staircase is that is of little use, so its effective sq footage is less than measured square footage. So two 2500 sq ft houses, a one story and a two story, the one story will “feel” bigger because it lacks dead space. This leads to higher ppsf for single story homes.

As for your original question, yes. Rich calculates a median ppsf for condos and homes monthly to use as an indicator of future Case Shiller (sp?) changes.

[Ash Housewares]

Another factor to consider is the number of stories. Most homes I see 2500+ sq ft are two story, most 1500sq ft homes are one story. The two story home has “dead space” where the staircase is that is of little use, so its effective sq footage is less than measured square footage. So two 2500 sq ft houses, a one story and a two story, the one story will “feel” bigger because it lacks dead space. This leads to higher ppsf for single story homes.

As for your original question, yes. Rich calculates a median ppsf for condos and homes monthly to use as an indicator of future Case Shiller (sp?) changes.

[Ash Housewares]

Another factor to consider is the number of stories. Most homes I see 2500+ sq ft are two story, most 1500sq ft homes are one story. The two story home has “dead space” where the staircase is that is of little use, so its effective sq footage is less than measured square footage. So two 2500 sq ft houses, a one story and a two story, the one story will “feel” bigger because it lacks dead space. This leads to higher ppsf for single story homes.

As for your original question, yes. Rich calculates a median ppsf for condos and homes monthly to use as an indicator of future Case Shiller (sp?) changes.

[Ash Housewares]

Another factor to consider is the number of stories. Most homes I see 2500+ sq ft are two story, most 1500sq ft homes are one story. The two story home has “dead space” where the staircase is that is of little use, so its effective sq footage is less than measured square footage. So two 2500 sq ft houses, a one story and a two story, the one story will “feel” bigger because it lacks dead space. This leads to higher ppsf for single story homes.

As for your original question, yes. Rich calculates a median ppsf for condos and homes monthly to use as an indicator of future Case Shiller (sp?) changes.

[Ash Housewares]

DELETED. On second thought I’m staying well clear of this one.

[Author]

Posts