Powell on the National Guard

"ArtKramr" wrote

Until we get the last drop of oil. Then they can burn in hell.

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion. Any student of
economy can tell you that depletion of a resource is a bad thing, and
our $7 Trillion debt is just peanuts as to where we will be in 10 years
with the tax and spend Communists we have in Congress.

Kerry is to the left of Socialism. We call that space Communism where
I live. The Communists destroyed Russia and Eastern Europe, and they
are destroying North America.

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:flyZb.9566$Ru5.1155@okepread03...
"ArtKramr" wrote

Until we get the last drop of oil. Then they can burn in hell.

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose membership
seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have had
that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy
actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that
commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly
will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which was
filed to force the administration to make public the details of the commission's
proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote
"D. Strang" wrote
"ArtKramr" wrote

Until we get the last drop of oil. Then they can burn in hell.

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

We are at the top of the production curve. While it seems there is no end to the
fossil fuel, our rate of consumption, and there being a fixed quantity of reserves,
means depletion. We can slow production, but as the population increases, then
consumption increases. SUV's sales are based on cheap credit, not oil. I don't
know of any neighbor who owns their vehicle. No one knows what a dollars
worth, but we know that as the Euro goes up, the dollar goes down, and 70%
of our dollars are overseas. We are about as set-up as we were before the
depression hit.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

The energy policy is a compromise between investment in the future, and
the status-quo.

We could really put a dent in oil imports, if we invested in non-fossil based
deployment. Such an investment would be a 30% tax write-off for home
developments that have generation facilities (solar, thermal, biodiesel, etc).

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:FAIZb.9588$Ru5.192@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us
who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling
gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able
to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

We are at the top of the production curve. While it seems there is no end to
the
fossil fuel, .....

You must be pretty young to forget that, while Jimmy Carter was president, the
fragility of our oil supply was recognized to the point that the addition of
ethanol to gasoline was initiated in an effort to stretch our resources. It's
disingenuous to suggest that our shrinking oil supplies come as a shock to us.
We've been aware of it for a long time, if you count a quarter century or so a
long time.

.......our rate of consumption, and there being a fixed quantity of reserves,
means depletion. We can slow production, but as the population increases,
then
consumption increases. SUV's sales are based on cheap credit, not oil. I
don't
know of any neighbor who owns their vehicle......

Yours must indeed be an unusual community where neighbors discuss whether or not
they buy their cars for cash or on credit. Where I live, that's considered
personal, and the only way you can find out is to specifically ask, at risk of
offending a neighbor by your nosiness and being told to MYOB.

........No one knows what a dollars worth, but we know that as the Euro goes
up, the dollar
goes down, and 70% of our dollars are overseas. We are about as set-up as we
were before the depression hit.

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of all this. I guess my noodle is running
on fumes, because I haven't read your explanation of why, with an apparently
dwindling oil supply, we still haven't yet adopted the two conservation measures
I suggested above.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our
energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first,
rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

The energy policy is a compromise between investment in the future, and
the status-quo.

How do we know it's a compromise when we don't know which alternatives, if any,
were investigated and evaluated while the policy was being formulated?

We could really put a dent in oil imports, if we invested in non-fossil based
deployment. Such an investment would be a 30% tax write-off for home
developments that have generation facilities (solar, thermal, biodiesel, etc).

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I believe
it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to
do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I
believe
it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.

That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the
possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to
put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our
bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?
That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does.

For every Gallon of Ethanol, you pay for it twice. Once for the subsidy to
farmers (in the form of welfare), and once again from the retail chain.

...why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?

It's called an unfunded mandate. Think about it this way. If we gave GM and
Ford the same amount of money we ****ed away on the Shuttle and Space Station,
we would be floating in biodiesel, and no one would know who the Bin Laden
family was.

In article ,
"George Z. Bush" writes:

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to
do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a
gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much
lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline)
So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much
Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as
well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up
water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets.

It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of
about 150 Octane gasoline.

There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing
Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be
surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it
does to make a gallon on gasoline.

It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel
systems.

Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to
electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from
somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable,
especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means,
with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that
causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in
the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice
impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal
commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects.


What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.

In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool
Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get
anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen &
Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly
using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or
Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say,
making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required
by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful,
but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I
believe
it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.


That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the
possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to
put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our
bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?
That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I.

The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist,
but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable
future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..."
can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and
consumption work.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Unfortunately, for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that ethanol is caustic
to rubber? You can't put gasahol into an airplane engine, even if it's
STC'ed for automotive gasoline.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it
into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to
need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That
has to
do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately,
for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

Not really one less gallon because you have to factor in how much total
energy it took to make a gallon of ethanol. I'm guessing it takes a lot more
energy to produce than it's worth.