I attended a briefing by James Wopolsey who is the Chairman of the Foundation in Defense of Democracy. He is also a big wheel in the oil industry. His key point was that the world now has a glut of gas so much so that the owners are looking for markets for it. Gas can be converted to methanol which can drive cars. At present prices, it can drives the car at 1/6 the cost for oil. He believes that there will be a shi9ft to gas driven cars. Ted Belman.
Israel shouldn’t export its natural gas, says a key economic institute, a conclusion that will dismay the businesses exploring for hydrocarbons in the Mediterranean seabed.
Israel needs the gas to replace petroleum used in transportation, and it must keep down the cost of desalinating seawater for drinking and agriculture, says the Israeli Institute for Economic Planning in a working paper presented last Thursday at the annual Herzliya Conference.
“It is axiomatic that there is value, and even a necessity, in allowing the export of natural gas,” writes Yossie Hollander, the institute’s chairman. “But like other axioms in their day, it seems this is nothing but an untested, even shaky, assumption.”
Hollander says the current discourse suffers from a “cognitive bias” since the gas companies only sell and export and don’t know how to push gas a substitute for oil. He says the government mustn’t get dragged into the question of whether to export natural gas; rather, it should adopt a “different approach” that would include strategic considerations.
The Prime Minister’s Office and the Energy and Water Resources Ministry set up an interministerial committee two months ago to examine gas policy, including exports. The gas and infrastructure companies took the podium at hearings organized by the committee. Unsurprisingly, they supported exporting Israeli gas.
One argument was that this would facilitate Israel’s drilling operations and open the market to competition. But Hollander says exporting gas would endanger both Israel’s economy and security. Though he understands gas producers’ preference for exports, this would require extremely expensive infrastructure and great risks, he warns.
“Haifa would be in danger of going up in flames even if the gas liquefaction facility is located out by the Leviathan field,” he says. “Some people claim that LNG [liquefied natural gas] ships are like two atomic bombs.”
Exporting lacks business logic, Hollander says. The gas market is developing quickly around the world, and global gas prices are at risk of collapsing and eroding the profitability of Israeli gas. This, the paper says, could stem from the fierce competition expected in Europe from Russian gas, or competition for LNG exports to Asia from Australia and Indonesia.
Hollander also maintains that producing gas in Israel is relatively expensive because the stuff is deep under the sea. These costs come on top of the security costs unique to Israel.
Therefore, Israel will have a tough time competing in the global gas market, Hollander says. “Even if Israel becomes a competing player in this market, its revenues and profit expectations will be low,” he writes.
“It is important to differentiate between the gas companies’ optimistic forecasts and the reality. Many companies obviously have a vested interest in presenting economic expectations from an LNG export project in rosy terms. But even now it can be seen, amid clear trends of growing gas supply and the increasing number of large competitors, that Israel’s added value is small and the profitability of LNG from Israel would be low.”
Dividing up the spoils
Israel hasn’t developed an energy policy despite the gas finds of the past few years, says Hollander. Discussion on the subject has been limited to dividing the spoils, he says, rather than trying to put together a national energy policy that takes into account the gas discoveries and the region’s geopolitical changes.
Hollander says the state should require gas producers to direct their output to local use, making sure gas suppliers and investors are guaranteed certainty regarding local demand. This, he says, can be done by adjusting laws and regulations to require the use of gas and opening the market to competition between the various fuels.
Decisions need to made in three areas, says Hollander. First, Israel must decide on the economic feasibility of each energy source in terms of costs and benefits. Second, it must determine which energy sources will compete, considering worldwide success in managing energy policy.
Hollander warns against reliance on a single energy source, which he calls “a strategic mistake for generations to come.” The third area concerns factors that aren’t “purely economic,” as Hollander puts it – environmental and geopolitical factors, for example.
Hollander lists four possible uses for natural gas: Greater use in the electricity market, use for water desalination, production of oil substitutes – mainly for transportation – and exports. He disputes the Energy and Water Resources Ministry’s forecast of annual natural gas demand reaching 17 billion cubic meters in 2030, saying gas consumption could approach 25 BCM if its uses are broadened.
Replacing petroleum products used in surface transportation with natural gas or its derivatives could, for instance, save the economy $2.65 billion a year just in raw material costs based on 2010 figures, Hollander says. He adds that the savings to the Israeli economy in 2025 would amount to $8.47 billion.
Hollander notes that natural gas has replaced oil products in electricity production, but warns against replacing coal with gas at Israel Electric Corporation power stations. He recommends that Israel continue using coal to generate electricity, at a higher rate than that mentioned by various experts in the economy. This would be for competitive and cost-savings reasons, despite the damage to the environment.
“Preventing competition between electricity production sources and basing the electricity economy on just one raw material is highly likely to prove a terrible and unnecessary strategic mistake,” Hollander writes.
“Considering the significant price differentials and security risks involved in relying on gas, it seems the objective of using gas for as much as 80% of electricity production is both uneconomical and too dangerous for the country,” he adds, referring to a target mentioned by the IEC’s heads.
Meanwhile, Hollander says natural gas reserves can provide cheap electricity for desalinating seawater and, since electricity accounts for about one-third of desalination costs, this could slash the cost of desalinated water. He says this process could even become more economical than delivering water through the national water carrier – which consumes 10% of all electricity generated in Israel.
Large-scale desalination, says Hollander, could have other geopolitical advantages – for example; if Israel sells water to Jordan, or even Syria.
And you have incontrovertible proof that it was not JEWISH before it was ‘Christian’?
Moreover, the mere fact that paint-by-the-numbers ‘Christians’ are as clueless as to its real meaning as paint-by-the-numbers JEWS does not, ipso facto, render the precept unreflective of Objective Reality.
Really? — so you’re not compulsive, Yamit?
— you don’t have any bad habits?
Mazal Tov! — May I be the first (undoubtedly the first) to offer you a hearty yashar koakh!
Silly-assed nebechl. You can’t see the forest for the trees.
Now track with me:
Up until the moment of their fall, they were deathless — immortal.
Until then, they thus had had no NEED to reproduce themselves.
The “pain of childbirth” is post-Edenic — because childbirth itself is post-Edenic.
Cain & Abel were both born AFTER Eden.
Moreover, the “cultivation of crops” is “arduous” because when Man took his fall, he took all of creation WITH him in his descent: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.”
A fallen world thus AWAITS each of us upon his entry into it.
“Insincere,” yes, but not because it was “agricultural” — insincere is insincere.
An execrable rendering. This isn’t about counseling from the Human Potential Movement.
The Master of the Universe was simply saying, ‘When YOU take seriously your offering to Me, then I will LIKEWISE take it seriously.’
Ditto, the above. Better: ‘then I will accept it.’
— A metaphor for compulsiveness — an inclination toward sin.
But only by repentance, and even that’s not possible without the prior recognition — and authentic ACKNOWLEDGEMENT — of the attendant compulsiveness.
Viz., even repentance is a GIFT that you cannot give yourself; it too comes from God.
And it [repentance] comes only to him who recognizes that he has no power of himself — or in himself — to make himself just.
In any event, you are mistaken in presuming that this discourse with Cain pertains to the matter of Original Sin; that preceeded Cain’s entry into the world.
No, Yamit, you reject the ‘concept’ of Original Sin — it offends your elephantine ego
— and nothing that offends Yamit can be ‘Jewish’; it’s an implicit Article of Faith with you.
Of course it’s my opinion. (Du-uh.)
— But then, given your tone & manner, it would be hard to entertain a contrary one.
Actually I was comparing PresentCompany to Torquemada (as I’ve done before).
Hunh?! — when? Cite the post.
I’ve never done that. How could I? — I’ve told you (multitudinous times, all over this blogsite): haNitzri was/is UNIQUE.
So, what’s to ‘compare’?
(What part of “unique” do you not understand?)
Obviously. But then, you don’t WANT to either. Easier to attack what you don’t understand; no constraints from conscience.
If they are, in fact, mystics, they are never inconsistent.
But then, as I also told you — long ago — it’s a word far more frequently MISUSED than aptly employed.
No doubt.
But then, as usual, it was YOU, Yahnkele — not YoursTruly — who first interjected the subject of “intellect” into the discussion [see above].
Way too much here for one post; have to split it into three or four (at least).
Why? — I said he is as much subject to the proclivity as anybody else.
Are you ascribing infalliblity to him?
(Should I genuflect upon pronouncing his name?)
In your eternally preconceived outlook, Yamit, ANYBODY who disagrees with you ALWAYS ‘loses’ the argument at hand.
Well then, which of your two above statements is true? — The qualified one or the un-qualified one?
Obviously Rashi IS about opinion.
And for the purposes of this discussion (especially, given the circumstances which gave rise to it, above), what YOU — or, for that matter, what YoursEverTruly — may think about the basis for (or even the reasonableness of) R. Shlomo Yitzhaki’s opinions is thoroughly irrelevant; his opinions remain opinions.
What good would it do? — we both know, boychik, that your bigoted attitude toward me will NEVER let you regard any example I give as sufficient to change your mind.
Look at what happened when I gave you an example — the one you had cited from Tractate Men. 85b, in response to Alanjo’s reference to D’vorim 33:24.
The mere fact that the proferred details (even if they are actual) will ‘fit’ a given explanation for a conclusion does not — of itself — make the conclusion correct; it COULD still be entirely circumstantial. It remains a theory until such time as it is found, by its nature, to rule out any other explanation. And in this particular matter (Asher & Oil), it’s clear that the jury is definitely still out; indeed the Book would appear to be wide open.
You have a need to believe that about me, Yamit
— and as long as you continue to harbor such a need, nothing will alter your outlook. So, why should I try?
In any case, my characterizing of R. Shlomo’s interpolations as occasionally fanciful does him no more ‘defamation’ than does characterizing the Midrashic tradition itself as occasionally fanciful.
Your REBBEOLATRY is as tiresome as your boorishness. Even Rashi himself must be groaning in his grave (for embarrassment) about now — probably groaning in eight-part harmony, right alongside Rambam, & RambaN, & Rashbam, & RaLBaG, & RaDaK, & RIKaM, & ReMaK (not to be overlooking S’forno, ibn-Ezra & the rest of the Medieval crew).
Now why would I accept your characterization of my argument as “Sophistic”?
Nu, and the Revealer told you this?
(But then, of course, that would itself constitute a Revelation, wouldn’t it?)
Pot… Kettle… Black…
QED.
Of what?
(I identified YOUR projection, above.)
All of our power stations are running on Natural Gas and if they need to build more they will build them to meet the need.
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) — Better Place LLC, a U.S. start up developing charging stations, started its first commercial roll- out with 100 electric cars to Israeli customers.
Better Place, founded by former SAP AG executive Shai Agassi, is in partnership with Renault SA to build and operate electric-car charging networks and battery-exchanging stations, starting in Israel and then in Denmark.
“The first wave of electric cars is the ultimate proof that the change is here,” Chief Executive Officer Moshe Kaplinsky of Better Place Israel said in an e-mailed statement.
The delivery process in Israel will be in stages, Better Place said in yesterday’s statement.
Plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles have the potential to make up 9 percent of auto sales in 2020, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That could rise to 22 percent of sales by 2030, or four million vehicles.
Unless you can show where Rashi quoted out of context, you lose this argument.
Rashi is not about opinion any more than your claims about Jesus. At least Rashi understood Hebrew, the Torah and the Law. There is a difference between opinion based on knowledge and opinions based of ignorance. You fall into this latter category. If you believe Rashi gave fanciful interpolations then give some examples. If you can’t you are just a defamer low life.
If one states the Earth is round and not flat, would that be in your Sophistic argument fact or opinion?
There was only one revelation. 😛
.
How so? Your opinions are not projection?
So now you are comparing yourself to Galileo? Comparing yourself to Jesus not good enough for you? Can’t figure out you MYSTICS, you’re so inconsistent.
Now who could you be referring to? Intellect? The creator of all things is way beyond your petty concept of intellect.
Ah, I forgot your stupid pagan Christian belief in original sin.
Not only are the descendants of Adam and Eve not stained with the “Curse of Original Sin”, but nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are even Adam and Eve cursed by G-d as a punishment for their own sin; rather, their punishment is exile from the Garden of Eden together with the consequences that naturally flow therefrom (e.g., pain in childbirth and arduous cultivation of crops; see Genesis 3:16-23).
Moreover, in the most profound and definitive declaration to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible concerning a human being’s relationship to Sin, Redemption and Free Will, the G-d of Israel explains to Adam’s son Cain (after He has rejected Cain’s agricultural offering as being insincere) that every human being, even after abysmal failure, has been gifted by Him with the ability to triumph anew over temptation by choosing Good over Evil. As the Hebrew Bible relates:
“And HaShem said to Cain, ‘Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, Sin rests at the door. Its desire is towards you; yet you can conquer it.’” (Genesis 4:6-7).
Consequently, Judaism rejects the concept of the “Curse of Original Sin”.
Boorish? That’s just opinion, yours.
Don’t see how that follows. Nothing you have written here insulates Rashi from the inclination to quote out of context in one place or another.
In any case, Rashi is entitled to his opinion — fanciful interpolations and all.
But that’s all it is — opinion.
It’s not revelation.
Like Rashi, you , Yamit are entitled to your opinion.
MY opinion is that YOUR opinion here is largely projection.
As I recall, the Inquisition had the same opinion of Galileo.
Unlike yourself, I reserve my “respect” for the Intellect that created theirs.
All men are born in sin — even “Jewish sages” — and are therefore subject to error.
NOT all men are boorish, however.
There, Yamit, you reign supreme.
That was my point — and why I doubt that putting all cars in the country on electric power seems likely.
Really?
Like what?
According to whom? Christians?
Stick with your own book and leave ours alone.
Israel will never allow a large Nuclear reactor to be built: Too dangerous for such a small country.
Rumor Home Dept. buys cold fusion patent?
If not a hoax can be a geopolitical and economic game changer.
e-cat cold fusion coming to Home Depot in 2012?
By Dr. Mark D. Nispel
Italian Cold Fusion Machine Passes Another Test
LENR Promoted as Energy Solution in Michigan Senate Race by Candidate Randy Hekman
dweller says:
Your insufferable arrogance is only supplanted by your overriding ignorance. You substitute puerile Sophistry for wisdom and lack respect for your betters intellectual in general and Jewish sages in particular.
Rashi:
Chumash with Rashi,
Bereishit – Genesis – Chapter 1
When you open a copy of the Torah you will find that the text has apparent errors. Spelling errors, grammatical errors and syntactical errors and textural contradictions and not a few of them, there are quite a lot. Example is alreeady shown in the first verse of the Torah..in the Beginning ( see above Bereishit – Genesis ). Rashit is the construct form and is read literal in the Beginning of….? There is a word missing.
Rashi went through the whole Torah and where he found errors in grammatical, syntactical and textural contradictions. Rashi didn’t write on readable verses only those verses found to be fatally flawed. If you leaf through Rashi “Chamush With Rashi” you will fing most verses are flawed making them unreadable because of these apparent mistakes. If you believe that G-d gave the Torah, you would have to draw the conclusion that G-d is mentally retarded. Or you can assume that the flaws are purposeful anomaly using stylistic manipulation as a flag to hint to the reader of a deeper meaning to the verse.
The first verse of the Torah as an example. If you read the verse exactly was written ‘In the Beginning of…G-d created the Heavens and the earth” The mistake goes away and a deep meaning is revealed. : With rasheit G-d created the heavens and the earth. So we have a problem of what does rasheit mean. Open a concordance and look for every place rasheit is entered as a noun. You will find that the word rasheit invariable means the Jews or the Torah. Plug these two words into the verse and you have to exclude the Jews , they didn’t exist at that time so you enter torah and the verse makes sense. “With the Torah G-d made heaven and earth”
We can conclude then that this device called Torah is a nature creating device. With Torah man has the ability to change his own nature. Comes the Torah and it tells us that it can recreate man against his innate nature from the inside out. We have the ability with Torah to change our nature.
It turns out that the most important verse in the Tarah is the first verse. If it wasn’t for that first verse no one would ever be bound by the Torah. The apparent mistake in this verse is not a mistake afterall ut a deeper message that we can all change our natures through Torah.
Claim Orthodox Jews that 2000 years ago they had a vibrant literature describing the deep meaning of all these apparent errors. Known as the Oral Tradition.
So if there is anyone who cannot be accused of out of context interpretation it’s Rashi. dummkopf!!
Seems like generating that much electricity would require a virtually inexhaustible energy source, would it not? — probably require nuclear power.
It could mean both olive oil and crude oil. Prophecies in the Bible do that sometimes. It’s exiting to see Israel benefiting and thinking what way would be best to use it. Have any of you heard about some experiment to be done in Israel using electric cars throughout the country? Perhaps they will use the gas powered method on large trucks or have it on cars also.
1. Get off your horse, Yamit; your boorishness is wearisome. Tanakh and its contents are not your personal property.
2. How do you know Rashi himself didn’t take the verse “out of context?”
3. As it happens, the land allotment to Asher & progeny — the north coast, roughly from (what is today) Haifa to the Litani — is actually one of the loci of the most promising of the oil & natual gas discoveries.
Don’t quote verses from my Bible out of context and meaning.
24. And of Asher he said: “May Asher be blessed with sons. He will be pleasing to his brothers, and immerse his foot in oil.
“and immerse his foot in oil: for his land flowed like a spring with oil. It once happened, that the people of Laodicea were in need of oil, and they appointed an agent [who was sent from place to place, until he found an olive farmer. The latter brought this agent to his home, and there, the olive farmer washed himself and then dipped his hands and feet, thereby fulfilling our verse here: “And dip his foot in oil.” Then, he supplied the agent from Laodicea with one million, one hundred and eighteen thousand maneh worth of olive oil!]. — [Tractate Men. 85b]” RASHI
Signs of the verse in Deuteronomy which says, ‘Asher shall dip his heel in oil.’
No gas export industry until Hezbollah is taken out of Lebanon.