mm wrote:
On 10 May 2006 11:00:09 -0700, wrote:


mm wrote:

On 10 May 2006 07:08:35 -0700, wrote:


The problem is that most people think you can just get hydrogen from
water. You are correct that electrolysis is one of the ways it can be
generated. In that case, the hydrogen is best viewed as a transport
vehicle for the energy. The nuke is the real source of the energy, not

You meann nuclear power? The electricity generated at nuclear power
plants is no better at splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen than
is any other electricity.

Hydrogen doesn't have any other relationship with nuclear power
plants.



The point is the hydrogen is just an energy transport vehicle. So, if
not nuclear, then where do you propose to get the energy from? Import


For all the risks and costs of nuclear, it might be necessary if we're
going to keep using electricity at the rate we do. According to
Jeopardy, 20% of US electricity is made with nuclear now. (even though
no new plants have opened in decades. There are 3 within 90 or 120
minutes of Baltimore.)

My objection was to your tying hydrogen closely to nuclear. It has no
special relationship to nuclear.

(not counting hydrogen bombs and the possible possibilty of cold
fusion (that is, a hydrogen bomb that's not a bomb and generates heat
more slowly and at a lower temperature than a bomb.)

If you mean that you want to use nuclear and hydrogen is one way to
store the energy, I have no objection, but it didn't sound that way in
hte post that I answered

More below.


more oil? Burn natural gas? Just use the oil or gas then and forget
the hydrogen. Hydroelectric? All the easy sites are done, and there
are serious environmental issues with any more sites. Nuclear is cost
effective and readily deployable. That's why it makes the most sense
as a source of energy to generate hydrogen.




(except that if cold fusion is ever developed, it will *use* hydrogen,

not generate it.)


the water. And the problem is most of the people running around
saying water is the answer, don't realize this. They think you just
get the hydrogen out of the water by some miracle process. And these
same people won't let anyone build a nuke in this country anyway.
Until that is solved, hydrogen is a myth.

It's no less of a problem then, except generation of electricy might
be cheaper, especially as the cost of oil goes up. We could also burn
coal to make eletricity to generate hydrogen.

Sure you could burn coal, but how realistic is that? You've got lots
of people running around saying that global warming is gonna kill us
all. You think building more fossil fuel plants, especially coal
fired ones that not only generate CO2 but other difficult to deal with
pollutants, is a reasonable approach?


There are problems with every fuel. I'm not pushing coal (even though
it is plentiful and not radioactive), only saying it is as related to
hydrogen as is nuclear.


AHH, but studies of the emissions from coal plants show clearly that the
amount of radiation vented to the atmosphere from coal plants EXCEEDS
normal annual radiation released from a nuclear plant!!!!

There is a very low level of radioactivity in coal. When you burn ALOT
of it, the radiation gets released. Thorium and uranium are present in
very nearly MINE ABLE quantities in the ash that gets trapped in the
waste pile.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

This link explains some of the hazards of coal fired plants.

In the 1950s I lived near a town that processed lots of wood into paper
and lumber products. Those processes needed LOTS of high pressure steam
heat. The plants were in a valley in the mountains of North Carolina.
Coal was the fuel of choice for these plants, HUGE piles of it were
lying around on the ground surrounding the boilers. The stink was
awful, you had to roll up the windows (no AC in cars those days), hold
your breath and close your eyes (eyes burned)

Course those plants did not have fly ash precipitators on them and all
coal power plants now have such, capturing over 99% of the ash before
reaching the atmosphere.

There is also coal slurry, which iirc solves some of the problems of
coal, but has difficulties of its own. I don't remember the details.

There is also low sulfur versus high sulfer coal. I thought
low-sulfur was pretty good, but I don't recall details.

So, again, where is the energy going to come from for this pie in the
sky hydrogen?


Nor am I pushing hydrogen. It too has problems, mostly iiuc that you
can only put so much of it in a pressure tank on a car.


In fact, if you just built
the nukes, they could go a long way to helping even without getting to
the hydrogen for fuel stage.

You're correct. The plants I'm familiar with are required to add 5%
gasoline to the alcohol they produce to denature it. It can be denatured
with other things but gasoline is easiest for them.


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Rich256 wrote in news:_9x8g.47283$Fs1.20823@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:49:23 GMT, Rich256 wrote:

However, I would like to see a current valid study that shows
that ethanol can be produced for those low prices
Ethanol is 200 proiof vodka How cheap could it be? I certainly don't
expect the taxes to be much less.

Great point!! The road tax is a lot less than liquor tax. And imagine
all the bootleggers driving down the road, perfectly legal with a tank
full of liquor. Only when they dump it and drink it can they get in
trouble.


I suspect they will "denature" the ethanol to make it undrinkable.
I wonder what that will do for emissions?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

HarryS wrote:
You're correct. The plants I'm familiar with are required to add 5%
gasoline to the alcohol they produce to denature it. It can be denatured
with other things but gasoline is easiest for them.


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Rich256 wrote in news:_9x8g.47283$Fs1.20823@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:49:23 GMT, Rich256 wrote:

However, I would like to see a current valid study that shows
that ethanol can be produced for those low prices
Ethanol is 200 proiof vodka How cheap could it be? I certainly don't
expect the taxes to be much less.
Great point!! The road tax is a lot less than liquor tax. And imagine
all the bootleggers driving down the road, perfectly legal with a tank
full of liquor. Only when they dump it and drink it can they get in
trouble.

I suspect they will "denature" the ethanol to make it undrinkable.
I wonder what that will do for emissions?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net



But, they would have a difficult time detecting the difference with the
guy running with home made stuff!!

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
HarryS writes:

Even if you tax the fuel ethanol the
same as you tax gasoline, it can be produced at a considerably lower
cost than gasoline can be produced and marketed from $50 crude, let
alone $70 crude.

Bunk.

Photosynthesis is inherently weak and wasteful.

Ethanol is a technically inferior fuel.

The justification is more or less, "we may lose money on every gallon, but
we'll make it up on volume".

When compared to gasoline, you won't get an argument that ethanol can't give
you the energy output that gasoline can. But, it does have sufficient
energy output to drive a vehicle and, when added in amounts around 10%,
ethanol has beneficial environmental effects and the mix is not as energy
inefficient as pure ethanol because of the improved burning of the gasoline
portion of the mix.

Nature, left to it's own devices, came up with a fantastic process to
capture energy from the sunlight. We've been deriving benefits from that
process for years as we pump crude oil from the ground, crude oil that the
photosynthetic process enabled natural earth processes to store away.
Eventually, that storehouse will be depleted. Can we replace it with some
renewable fuel source? We'd better be able to. Will it be fuel ethanol
derived from grain? Definitely not completely. Could it be fuel ethanol
derived from cellulosic materials? Yes, if that process is sufficiently
perfected. More likely, it will be replaced by a mix of technologies.

There's a lot of concern that the use of corn for manufacturing fuel ethanol
primarily benefits the corn producer. I think that the folks who voice this
concern miss that fact that every form of energy that we use benefits some
more that others, i.e., OPEC, the crude producers, drilling equipment
manufacturers and the people who drill wells, oil companies, coal producers,
natural gas suppliers, electricity producers, and on and on.

You can bet that the fuel ethanol plants currently operating aren't losing
money. Those on the drawing boards, and there are a considerable number
planned, will never be built if it looks like they'll lose money.

Again, let the marketplace decide if it's weak and wasteful. The
marketplace in this country is very efficient at ferreting out inefficient
processes.

Harry

On Wed, 10 May 2006 22:06:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:49:23 GMT, Rich256 wrote:

However, I would like to see a current valid study that shows
that ethanol can be produced for those low prices
Ethanol is 200 proiof vodka How cheap could it be? I certainly don't
expect the taxes to be much less.

I'm pretty sure that the BATF requires you to poison
(err... "de-nature") any alcohol that's not intended
and stamped for human consumption, but you shouldn't
then be subject to the 26 USC 5001 taxes on
spirits, which IIRC, is about $13.50/gallon.

But, they would have a difficult time detecting the difference with the
guy running with home made stuff!!

You aren't allowed to make your own distilled spirits.
Period.

You aren't even allowed to own the equipment.

Rich256 wrote in
:

HarryS wrote:
You're correct. The plants I'm familiar with are required to add 5%
gasoline to the alcohol they produce to denature it. It can be
denatured with other things but gasoline is easiest for them.


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Rich256 wrote in
news:_9x8g.47283$Fs1.20823@bgtnsc05- news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:49:23 GMT, Rich256
wrote:

However, I would like to see a current valid study that shows
that ethanol can be produced for those low prices
Ethanol is 200 proiof vodka How cheap could it be? I certainly
don't expect the taxes to be much less.
Great point!! The road tax is a lot less than liquor tax. And
imagine all the bootleggers driving down the road, perfectly legal
with a tank full of liquor. Only when they dump it and drink it
can they get in trouble.

I suspect they will "denature" the ethanol to make it undrinkable.
I wonder what that will do for emissions?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net



But, they would have a difficult time detecting the difference with
the guy running with home made stuff!!


the "revenuers" would be after them.
(ALCOHOL,tobacco and firearms;BATF-troop)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Michael Daly" wrote in
:


On 10-May-2006, wrote:

Same ****, different smoke stack.

Exactly right, whether battery or hydrogen. If you work out how much
electricity is equired to replace gas, you see that the amount of
power to be produced is enormous. We're not talking about one or two
more nukes - we're talking about more than doubling existing
electrical capacity!

Mike



So what? More Good-paying jobs for US citizens,and a safe,reliable energy
source.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Michael Daly" wrote in news:jIOdnbr_R8CGW__ZRVn-
:


On 11-May-2006, Richard J Kinch wrote:

Photosynthesis is inherently weak and wasteful.

And yet it produced a heck of a lot of oil.

Mike

Over millions of years.

drops of water individually are "weak",but over time,they can erode
rock;think Grand Canyon,beaches....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

For all the risks and costs of nuclear, it might be necessary if we're
going to keep using electricity at the rate we do. According to
Jeopardy, 20% of US electricity is made with nuclear now. (even though
no new plants have opened in decades. There are 3 within 90 or 120
minutes of Baltimore.)

FWIW:

GIGAWATT HOURS GENERATED, USA.
JANUARY, 2006 %
coal ---------- 168,997 51.96%
liquid petrol-- 4182 1.29%
petrol-coke---- 1876 0.58%
nat-gas ------- 41735 12.83%
nuclear ------- 71912 22.11%
hydro --------- 27084 8.33%
oth.renewable - 8355 2.57%
wood ---------- 3406 1.05%
waste --------- 2,063 0.63%
geothermal ---- 1255 0.39%
solar --------- 12 0.00%
wind ---------- 1619 0.50%
pumped-storage -(-536) (-0.16%)
Other --------- 287 0.09%
calc-total ---- 332,247
Reported Tot -- 325246 100.00%

This works out to an average of
325 Terrawatts-hours/month.
(or, around 437,158,602 kilowatts,
continuously.)

For comparison, the solar power density
at earths orbital distance is around 1.4
kilowatts/meter.(1) So an orbiting solar
plant, in full sun, with 100% conversion
efficiency, only needs around 312 square
kilometers of solar collector.

About half of the available energy hitting
the top of the atmosphere makes it to the surface.
About half the time, any given part of the planet
is in darkness. Divide by 2 again to
account for dawn/evening, and the fact that
your solar plants aren't on the equator.
Optomistically, current technology allows for
around 20% conversion.

So 312 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 5 ~= 25,000 sq. km
is needed to replace the current electric
generating capacity of the US with solar.

That's certainly do-able. I mean, it's only
a chunk of land the size of Macedonia.
I'm pretty sure AOL has mailed out enough
CDs to make the reflectors..
(or maybe maryland. Can we pave maryland?
PLEASE????)


(1) Numbers from sources more than
about a decade old will be around 10%
less than this, the difference appears
to be an increase in solar energy output.

On 11-May-2006, Jim Yanik wrote:

So what? More Good-paying jobs for US citizens,and a safe,reliable energy
source.

And a country that's already trillions of dollars in debt has to cough up
trillions more dollars to build the nukes and infrastructure. The money
comes up front, present generations benefit and future generations get
stuck with the bill. China already holds over 20% of US debt; if you stay
this course, the communists will own America.

Mike

On 11-May-2006, wrote:

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc.

A multiple front attack on the problem is inevitable. There is no silver
bullet, but a lot of smaller changes have some hope of getting us a lot
closer to the solution.

But anytime you try to do almost any one of these,
some nuts show up to **** and moan and stop it.

And unfortunately, most people claim these ****ers and moaners are all
left-wing environmentalists, In fact, right-wing politicians in the back pockets
of special interest groups are just as much of a problem.

Mike

Goedjn wrote:
But, they would have a difficult time detecting the difference with the
guy running with home made stuff!!

You aren't allowed to make your own distilled spirits.
Period.

You aren't even allowed to own the equipment.


Tell that to some of the "Red Necks" in the hills:-).

According to mrsgator88 :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

And that's more dangerous than BBQ tank refilling stations?

In some ways propane is more dangerous, because it's heavier than
air, and flows along the ground almost like water seeking low points.

There have been a number of propane rail car accidents where the propane
flowed downhill for quite a distance before it encountered something
that ignited it. That wouldn't happen with hydrogen.

Well, I was thinking about the hydrogen car being in a collision with a
semi. She'd be blowed up REAL good. With proprane, I only thought "how
much can happen between the hardware store and my house".

You do know that there are propane-powered cars, don't you?

Propane car rail accidents never occurred to me.

They do to me, because my grandfather was transportation manager for a very
large oil company (since morphed twice), and he got to supervise the results
as well as interact with his peers in industry/government on how to avoid the
problems repeating themselves.

There was a major accident back I think in the late 50's/early 60's where
a propane derailment just north of Toronto seemed to be just fine - no fire,
everything seemed secure.

Hours later, while they were trying to assess/extricate stuff, a safety OP
valve on one car popped, and the propane flowed downhill almost half a mile
before encountering an ignition source. Then flashed back to the derailment
site... Which happened to be adjacent to a fuel storage area... It didn't
all go up, but it wasn't nice at all. Fortunately, there was no homes
near it.

[This isn't the "great Mississauga train derailment" which was many years
later, it had propane, and it burned reasonably innocuously - it was
spectacular because they had to evacuate something like 200,000 people
for a couple days. The thing they were scared of was the chlorine cars
letting loose... No, it wasn't my grandfather's company ;-)]
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

wrote in message oups.com...

z wrote:
wrote:

Even the socialist French get two thirds of their electric power from
nuclear.

At 3 times the price of US electricity. Like in Japan. Meanwhile the
inability of nuclear plant operators to avoid embarrassing incidents,
even at those prices has its inevitable outcome:


Yeah, right, nuclear is so damn expensive compared to other
alternatives. That must be why all the power companies in the US that
have one are desperatley trying to get their licenses extended so they
can keep them running. And why there are currently proposals to
finally build a few more. It's because power companies want to find
ways to generate power that aren't cost effective.

In short, more hysteria.

While we, the taxpayers assume risks for accidents, and cost for developing disposal
facilities. You do realize that U.S. nuke operators are not responsible for the enviromental
costs of accidents at their facilities in excess of $9 billion. Thus, they don't have to buy
insurance to cover over that. Otherwise, insurers would be the factor that stops their
development.

Bob

"Goedjn" wrote in message ...

As for nuclear, I have generally been opposed, but willing to
reconsider. However, I do think liability limits are a huge subsidy of
dubious merit, as is waste disposal non-system we are still wrangling
over. Who would want it in their backyard? These isotopes will be

If you're willing to pay me $250,000, then not only can
you store it in my back yard, you can store it in my
basement. I want to move to someplace at least 200'
above sea-level, anyway.

I'm sure your neighbors don't have any problem with that. And that you don't care.

Bob

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

Exactly right, whether battery or hydrogen. If you work out how much
electricity is equired to replace gas, you see that the amount of
power to be produced is enormous. We're not talking about one or two
more nukes - we're talking about more than doubling existing
electrical capacity!


So what? More Good-paying jobs for US citizens,and a safe,reliable energy
source.


If it's so safe, why do they need protection from liability?

Bob

"Rich256" wrote in message ...
wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:53:53 GMT, Rich256 wrote:

Sure we do. There has been research for 50 years on using it for
vehicles. Nuclear plants to make Hydrogen from water. It may well be
the fuel of the future.
You would be a lot better using that nuke plant to simply supply
electricity. It is a more efficient way to distribute the energy.

But it is not a portable fuel that can be used in vehicles.

I see lots of buses using it just fine. Maybe we just need to work on mass transit.

Bob

wrote:

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc.

As long as it doesn't involve a smaller car, or a smaller engine.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:17:47 -0400, Goedjn wrote:


For all the risks and costs of nuclear, it might be necessary if we're
going to keep using electricity at the rate we do. According to
Jeopardy, 20% of US electricity is made with nuclear now. (even though
no new plants have opened in decades. There are 3 within 90 or 120
minutes of Baltimore.)

FWIW:

GIGAWATT HOURS GENERATED, USA.
JANUARY, 2006 %
coal ---------- 168,997 51.96%
liquid petrol-- 4182 1.29%
petrol-coke---- 1876 0.58%
nat-gas ------- 41735 12.83%

Pesonally, I hate making electricty with natural gas. I think gas
should be saved for gas stoves. (it's a lot easier to send gas
through those pipes than it is to send coal or plutonium.)

nuclear ------- 71912 22.11%

Cool. Close to 20 (and maybe for a period when oil-fuled generation
was down because of Katrina.)

hydro --------- 27084 8.33%
oth.renewable - 8355 2.57%
wood ---------- 3406 1.05%
waste --------- 2,063 0.63%
geothermal ---- 1255 0.39%

If we use too much geothermal, won't the inside of the earth cool off
and the shell crack? Or something bad? How much is too much?

solar --------- 12 0.00%
wind ---------- 1619 0.50%
pumped-storage -(-536) (-0.16%)
Other --------- 287 0.09%
calc-total ---- 332,247
Reported Tot -- 325246 100.00%

This works out to an average of
325 Terrawatts-hours/month.
(or, around 437,158,602 kilowatts,
continuously.)

For comparison, the solar power density
at earths orbital distance is around 1.4
kilowatts/meter.(1) So an orbiting solar
plant, in full sun, with 100% conversion
efficiency, only needs around 312 square
kilometers of solar collector.

About half of the available energy hitting
the top of the atmosphere makes it to the surface.
About half the time, any given part of the planet
is in darkness. Divide by 2 again to
account for dawn/evening, and the fact that
your solar plants aren't on the equator.
Optomistically, current technology allows for
around 20% conversion.

So 312 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 5 ~= 25,000 sq. km
is needed to replace the current electric
generating capacity of the US with solar.

That's certainly do-able. I mean, it's only
a chunk of land the size of Macedonia.
I'm pretty sure AOL has mailed out enough
CDs to make the reflectors..
(or maybe maryland. Can we pave maryland?
PLEASE????)

No.


(1) Numbers from sources more than
about a decade old will be around 10%
less than this, the difference appears
to be an increase in solar energy output.

I read a lot of belittling- and pretty damned inaccurate- comments re
environmental concerns. I think these are very important, and I tend
to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming and
biodiversity, for example, more convincing than say, Michael Crichton
and Rush Limbaugh. As some have noted, all that oil was produced via
photosynthesis- the coal, too. Ought to give you some pause about
being too cavalier with the conditions that make this planet
biologically rich. We are living in an era of accelerating mass
extinction of species- this means nothing to you? No, it isn't
happening for some mysterious, indefineable reason- we're doing it.
Good point about Brazilian ethanol's actual and potential impact on the
Amazon. Renewable resources are renewable if used sustainably- wood
is not very renewable if we clearcut every forest on earth to produce
it- which is rather close to the current situation. Consider that
the clean air most of us breath, clean water we drink, would be a lot
dirtier if not for some of those who I hear being called crazies,
wackos and obstructionists- they were called that then, too.
This request- if you want to talk about crazy
environmentalists- at least cite some actual people/ organizations- I
certainly don't agree with all of them, all of the time- instead of
simply being a "theysayer."

On Thu, 11 May 2006 03:41:03 GMT, "HarryS"
wrote:

I wonder if the OP (mm) expected all this when he asked his question :-)

No, not really. In fact I got so far into the environment thing, I
forgot to read the answers to my original question, until now.

Harry

"mm" wrote in message
.. .
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

"and I tend to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming"

While irresponsible conduct by man may contribute slightly to global
warming, a few million years ago, long before man started doing all these
supposedly irresponsible things or was even here, there was a glacier 50
miles from where I live in East/Central Illinois. What happened to it?
Global Warming. There is also constantly being found evidence of animal and
plant species that vanished long before man started burning gasoline, coal,
cutting trees, etc.

There have been commercials on TV lately by a Minister no less, saying we
can stop global warming. Phooey, it will take a force far greater than mere
man to do that, not to say we shouldn't do what we reasonably can to keep
from accelerating it.

Walt Conner

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-May-2006, wrote:

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc.

A multiple front attack on the problem is inevitable. There is no silver
bullet, but a lot of smaller changes have some hope of getting us a lot
closer to the solution.

But anytime you try to do almost any one of these,
some nuts show up to **** and moan and stop it.

And unfortunately, most people claim these ****ers and moaners are all
left-wing environmentalists, In fact, right-wing politicians in the back pockets
of special interest groups are just as much of a problem.

Mike


People claim that the environmental kooks are a problem becauce they
are totally unreasonable and opposed to almost everything. No offshore
drilling, no nukes, no drilling in ANWAR, no storage sites for nuke
waste, no builiding of dams. A classic case of the hypocracy is
Robert Kennedy Jr. Big environmentalist telling us all how we should
be changing our lives to help the environment, conserve resources and
how we should be adopting all these great clean renewable energy
sources.

But, he sees nothing wrong in personally owning several large SUVs,
more than one home and riding in private jets. Currently three is a
proposal to build a wind farm off Cape Cod. Who are two of the chief
opponents? Kennedy and fellow liberal Walter Cronkite. They know
what's good for all of us, they just won't have any part of it for
themselves.

You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the
back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not
opposed to everything and do want to move ahead on finding more energy,
which we ultimately need. All the whacko environmentalists want to do
is obstruct everything, including windmills, while many of them like
Kennedy, consume resources with abandon.

On 12-May-2006, wrote:

People claim that the environmental kooks are a problem becauce they
are totally unreasonable and opposed to almost everything.

Well, did it ever occur to you that there's a difference between an environmental
kook and an environmentalist? I didn't think so...

A classic case of the hypocracy is Robert Kennedy Jr.

He's in politics. Enough said. I was talking about environmentalists.


but in general, they are not
opposed to everything and do want to move ahead on finding more energy,
which we ultimately need.

Then why did it take so many years for Bush to even mention alternative energy?

Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world.

Mike

wrote:
You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the
back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not
opposed to everything

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Richard
Cheney, VP.

and do want to move ahead on finding more energy,

Yes, they are not opposed to digging up more oil, you are right about
that.

"Mr. President, the cost of oil has gone up, and demand is increasing
greatly, and the supply is likely to run out in a few decades, and the
average American is being hit financially, and the oil-rich countries
are a source of global instability, and there is concern that the use
of fossil fuels is doing irreparable harm to the planet, what shall we
do?"
" I dunno. Maybe we could look for more oil in Alaska? Dick?"
"Works for me, W. I can't think of anything else."

On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:31:44 GMT, "WConner"
wrote:

"and I tend to find the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming"

While irresponsible conduct by man may contribute slightly to global
warming, a few million years ago, long before man started doing all these
supposedly irresponsible things or was even here, there was a glacier 50
miles from where I live in East/Central Illinois. What happened to it?
Global Warming. There is also constantly being found evidence of animal and
plant species that vanished long before man started burning gasoline, coal,
cutting trees, etc.

There have been commercials on TV lately by a Minister no less, saying we
can stop global warming. Phooey, it will take a force far greater than mere
man to do that, not to say we shouldn't do what we reasonably can to keep
from accelerating it.


Actually, for a mere couple of trillion dollars, we COULD stop global
warming. You just have to launch a giant mylar sunshade into
high-earth-orbit. SOmething like 2,000 miles square.
Ok, maybe closer to a few dozen trillion. Call it 50.
That's only around $7,000 per human.

Then why did it take so many years for Bush to even mention alternative energy?

Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world.


Because all of the alternative energy sources except arguably nuclear
are a bad economic bargin until petrol hits $4.50 a gallon.

We use dead dinosaurs (ok, algea) to run our cars because they're
REALLY, REALLY cheap, compared to all the alternatives.

It's true that it's not as cheap as it used to be.
This shouldn't be a surprise to you. You will never move
a 3,000# chunk of metal with you inside it around the
country for less than $0.10 a mile again. Get used to it.

Michael Daly wrote:
On 12-May-2006, wrote:

People claim that the environmental kooks are a problem becauce they
are totally unreasonable and opposed to almost everything.

Well, did it ever occur to you that there's a difference between an environmental
kook and an environmentalist? I didn't think so...


That's why I used the term environmental kook. Sure there are some
environmentalists that have some balance, but they are rarely heard
from. Instead the ones we hear from and that have control of the
movement are largely the kooks that show up opposed to everything
except conservation.



A classic case of the hypocracy is Robert Kennedy Jr.

He's in politics. Enough said. I was talking about environmentalists.



In politics? He holds no elected office that I am aware of, but he
sure is deep into environmental organizations and causes. But it's ok
for him to own multiple vehicles, SUV's, fly in corporate jets and
oppose windmills when they turn out to be in his families area of
interest.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Biography
The way Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has assumed command of the Water Keeper
Alliance, you'd almost think he started the environmental movement on
his own. But he actually stumbled into it as a result of a 1984
criminal conviction for heroin possession. A judge sentenced him to 800
hours of community service, which he satisfied with volunteer work for
the Hudson River Foundation. After his 800 hours were used up, the
organization (now operating as the Hudson Riverkeepers) hired Kennedy
as its "chief prosecuting attorney."
In the years since his drug conviction, Kennedy has also gone to work
for the Natural Resources Defense Council and assumed a professorship
in the law school at Pace University. Kennedy also started Pace's
environmental law clinic specifically to sue governments and businesses
on behalf of Riverkeeper.

Robert Kennedy approaches environmental law with a brash,
take-no-prisoners approach that tends to alienate many who might
otherwise be his allies. After working with him on a $10 million New
York City watershed agreement, Putnam County (NY) legal counsel George
Rodenhausen told reporters that "he separates himself from good
science at times in order to aggressively pursue an issue and win."

In July 2003, a major U.S. pork producer obtained an indictment against
Kennedy in Poland for committing slander during an inflammatory rant
against the company's Polish subsidiary. The indictment charges that
Kennedy spouted "untrue information" and "consciously manipulated
the facts" with the intent to "discredit the company."

Kennedy's harshest public thrashing to date, however, came from one
of his closest colleagues, Riverkeeper founder Robert Boyle. Along with
seven other Riverkeeper board members, Boyle resigned in 2000 after
Kennedy insisted upon hiring a convicted environmental felon as the
group's chief scientist. At the time, Boyle told the New York Post
that Kennedy "is very reckless," and added that "[h]e's assumed
an arrogance above his intellectual stature."

Reflecting on the episode later, Boyle gave the New York Times an apt
summary of Kennedy's attitude regarding his environmental crusades:
"I thought he was thinking of himself and not the cause of the
river," Boyle said. "It all became his own greater glory."





but in general, they are not
opposed to everything and do want to move ahead on finding more energy,
which we ultimately need.

Then why did it take so many years for Bush to even mention alternative energy?

Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world.

Maybe because he thinks the free market is better at figuring out
solutions than another government boondoggle. I'm still waiting for
the first gallon of oil from the billions that Jimmy Carter took from
the oil companies to produce oil from shale. Actually it was taken
from consumers, because taxes just get passed on like any other cost.



Mike

z wrote:
wrote:
You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the
back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not
opposed to everything

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Richard
Cheney, VP.

and do want to move ahead on finding more energy,

Yes, they are not opposed to digging up more oil, you are right about
that.

And what's the problem with that? The environmental extemists ONLY
want conservation. Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars. We've dramatically reduced the
energy consumption of home appliances, PC's, etc. Does Energy Star
ring a bell. We've made new homes more energy efficient through better
insulation. We've put billions into more mass transit and created HOV
lanes on our highways. It's pretty clear we have done a lot to
conserve energy, just like the enviromental extremists want.

But, where are the new nuclear power plants that companies are willing
to build? Not one has been built in over 20 years. Where are the
oil wells in ANWAR or off the coast of NJ? Where are the windmills in
Kennedy's back yard? It;s the environmental extemist kooks that are
doing everything they can to stop development of any additional sources
that are readily available, because the lack any sense of balance.






"Mr. President, the cost of oil has gone up, and demand is increasing
greatly, and the supply is likely to run out in a few decades, and the
average American is being hit financially, and the oil-rich countries
are a source of global instability, and there is concern that the use
of fossil fuels is doing irreparable harm to the planet, what shall we
do?"
" I dunno. Maybe we could look for more oil in Alaska? Dick?"
"Works for me, W. I can't think of anything else."

wrote:
z wrote:
wrote:
You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the
back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not
opposed to everything

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Richard
Cheney, VP.

And what's the problem with that? The environmental extemists ONLY
want conservation. Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars.

Dude, you are on such a roll this week!

"After peaking at 26 miles per gallon in 1987, the fuel economy of the
new U.S. car and truck fleet today is hovering around 24 mpg, a 20 year
low."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/Closing-Fuel-Economy-Loopholes-Can-Save-Consumers-Billions.html

On 12-May-2006, Goedjn wrote:

Because all of the alternative energy sources except arguably nuclear
are a bad economic bargin until petrol hits $4.50 a gallon.

And those alternatives have been dropping in price for decades as the technology
is improved, developed and volume of sales increases. The only reason that cars
are so cheap is that they've spent over a century getting the price down and the volume
up.

Putting subsidies in place that support big oil in preference to alternatives (the prior
Bush plan) works against the free market that allows alternatives to flourish. Most
Americans probably never heard of biodiesel until Bush talked about it.

Ethanol - I read this morning in the latest edition of The Economist that the US has
a $0.54/liter surcharge on imported Brazilian ethanol and a $0.51/liter tax break on
domestic ethanol. Them republicans shore luv th' free markit - and getting the taxpayer
to pay for it.

You will never move
a 3,000# chunk of metal with you inside it around the
country for less than $0.10 a mile again

High-powered car at high speed? - yes.

Sailboat? No.

Don't give up so easily :-)

Mike

On 12-May-2006, wrote:

Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars.

There's hyperbole if I've ever seen it. In _fact_ the fuel consumption
per vehicle is _higher_ today than at any time since CAFE standards
were introduced. CAFE is based on one of each vehicle, not the average
of what is actually sold. Since light trucks (pickups, minivans and SUVs)
outsell cars (and have been outside of CAFE) the actual consumption of fuel
per vehicle is _high_. What many environmentalists, and not just the kooks,
know is that this fact is working against conservation.

Oh, yes - most of the improvements in fuel economy within CAFE is the result
of Japanese cars, not American. If the American companies weren't selling
relabeled Japanese cars, they've had a hard time meeting CAFE restrictions.
(e.g. GM linked with Suzuki, Ford with Mazda, Chrysler with Mitsubishi).

Americans live beyond their means. And that includes not just financial
(negative savings rates and high debt loads) but in terms of energy consumption
per capita. _That_ has to change as it's unsupportable.


We've put billions into more mass transit

What Americans call "mass transit", the rest of the western world calls a joke.
Americans don't understand, build or use mass transit in any way resembling
reasonable.

It's pretty clear we have done a lot to
conserve energy, just like the enviromental extremists want.

A lot of talk is not the same as action.

Mike

z wrote:
wrote:
z wrote:
wrote:
You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the
back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not
opposed to everything

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Richard
Cheney, VP.

And what's the problem with that? The environmental extemists ONLY
want conservation. Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars.

Dude, you are on such a roll this week!

"After peaking at 26 miles per gallon in 1987, the fuel economy of the
new U.S. car and truck fleet today is hovering around 24 mpg, a 20 year
low."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/Closing-Fuel-Economy-Loopholes-Can-Save-Consumers-Billions.html

First, I said cars, not cars and trucks. And OK, instead of 20 years,
I should have said 30 years. In 1974, the CAFE for cars was 13.6MPG.
In 2004, it was 29.3MPG, more than double, which shows we have done a
lot to improve the fuel economy of vehicles.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE...alCarFleet.htm

Exactly what the environmetalists wanted and I agree, it was a good
idean. Now, how many nuclear power plants have we built in that
period to address the other side of the equation? How many new off
shore wells nere off NJ? How many wind mills off Cape Cod ? How many
wells in ANWAR? Answer zippo, because of whacko environmentalists.

Michael Daly wrote:
On 12-May-2006, wrote:

Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars.

There's hyperbole if I've ever seen it. In _fact_ the fuel consumption
per vehicle is _higher_ today than at any time since CAFE standards
were introduced. CAFE is based on one of each vehicle, not the average
of what is actually sold. Since light trucks (pickups, minivans and SUVs)
outsell cars (and have been outside of CAFE) the actual consumption of fuel
per vehicle is _high_. What many environmentalists, and not just the kooks,
know is that this fact is working against conservation.

Oh, yes - most of the improvements in fuel economy within CAFE is the result
of Japanese cars, not American. If the American companies weren't selling
relabeled Japanese cars, they've had a hard time meeting CAFE restrictions.
(e.g. GM linked with Suzuki, Ford with Mazda, Chrysler with Mitsubishi).

Americans live beyond their means. And that includes not just financial
(negative savings rates and high debt loads) but in terms of energy consumption
per capita. _That_ has to change as it's unsupportable.

Typical liberal BS. Bad Americans live beyound there means. American
companies haven;t done anything to improve fuel economy, despite that
CAFE for cars was 13.6MPG in 1974, it's 29.3 in 2004. Or what they
have done through cooperation with foreign companies doesn't count.
We should all adjust our living standard so it's more in line with
China, or Cuba, then you'd be happy.




We've put billions into more mass transit

What Americans call "mass transit", the rest of the western world calls a joke.
Americans don't understand, build or use mass transit in any way resembling
reasonable.

It's pretty clear we have done a lot to
conserve energy, just like the enviromental extremists want.

A lot of talk is not the same as action.

Mike


Typical whacko enviromental extremist position. Nothing America does
counts or is right. We should all live in caves because YOU say so.
All the while the likes of Robert Kennedy, go flying in private jets,
driving SUV's and living in multiple homes. As do all the liberal
elite. How many houses do Kerry, Streissand and the like have? Many
even have heated garages. Then they fly off in private jets to go
skiing at Vail and preach this crap to the rest of America. What a
crock!

"Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world."

While there are things that Pres. Bush has been deeply disappointing in, the
alternatives are worse. I mean a "5" as Pres. is better than a "0".

Walt Conner

Mys Terry wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:55:19 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:


On 12-May-2006, wrote:

Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars.

There's hyperbole if I've ever seen it. In _fact_ the fuel
consumption per vehicle is _higher_ today than at any time since CAFE
standards were introduced. CAFE is based on one of each vehicle, not
the average of what is actually sold. Since light trucks (pickups,
minivans and SUVs) outsell cars (and have been outside of CAFE) the
actual consumption of fuel per vehicle is _high_. What many
environmentalists, and not just the kooks, know is that this fact is
working against conservation.

Oh, yes - most of the improvements in fuel economy within CAFE is the
result of Japanese cars, not American. If the American companies
weren't selling relabeled Japanese cars, they've had a hard time
meeting CAFE restrictions. (e.g. GM linked with Suzuki, Ford with
Mazda, Chrysler with Mitsubishi).


In the early 70's, the EPA proposed some emmission standards that
completely freaked out the Big Three. The Big Three testified that it
would take them 10 years to meet those standards, and the proposal was
based on a deadline of only 3 years. Honda of Japan bought a brand new
Chevy Nova and shipped it to Japan. 3 MONTHS later they shipped it
back with a Honda CVCC cylinder head on the inline 6 cylinder GM
engine, and it EXCEEDED the proposed standards.

And you thought WE won WWII...


Terry & Skipper, Clearlake Texas


That is because GM and the other two US auto companies were more interested
in continuing to make their old motors and not develop better ones. They
FOUGHT to keep making the old stuff rather than develop modern motors.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"WConner" wrote in message
news:kl79g.55$343.48@trnddc06...
"Get your head out of your republican butt and look at the real world."

While there are things that Pres. Bush has been deeply disappointing in,
the alternatives are worse. I mean a "5" as Pres. is better than a "0".

Walt Conner

Walt, that's a terrible thing to say about John McCain!

S

wrote in message
ps.com...

And what's the problem with that? The environmental extemists ONLY
want conservation. Let;s see, in the last 20 years we've already
dramatically raised the MPG of cars. We've dramatically reduced the
energy consumption of home appliances, PC's, etc. Does Energy Star
ring a bell. We've made new homes more energy efficient through better
insulation. We've put billions into more mass transit and created HOV
lanes on our highways. It's pretty clear we have done a lot to
conserve energy, just like the enviromental extremists want.

You're saying what we've done is "good enough" but I'll disagree here. We
could be doing more. Here's an example. Hybrid technology is working its
way into large trucks. The system I just read about does something quite
novel. It just shuts the engine while idling, like at a red light. This
would be of most benefit for stop-and-go drivers. This supposedly increases
MPG by about 10%. Just by cutting off the gas at red lights (the Hybrid
system keeps the flywheel spinning for re-starts).

This could have been put into every 8 cylinder SUV years ago. Anyone buying
such a vehicle could easily have afforded this upgrade, but where was the
incentive at that time? I don't like guvmint reaching too far into my life
but this would have been an acceptable intrusion.

We haven't done enough and we can always do more. To say otherwise is bunk
and a recipe for failure.

But, where are the new nuclear power plants that companies are willing
to build? Not one has been built in over 20 years. Where are the
oil wells in ANWAR or off the coast of NJ? Where are the windmills in
Kennedy's back yard? It;s the environmental extemist kooks that are
doing everything they can to stop development of any additional sources
that are readily available, because the lack any sense of balance.

I agree we should have more nukes. I think we can see now the risks can be
managed and are worth it. Here in Illinois we have lots of them, however we
also have deregulation so we're going to get screwed on the deal anyway.
But not as bad as if we didn't have nukes. I don't think ANWAR is the
answer however. Its a stopgap at best. Changing our behavior and
priorities will get us a lot furniture. But if they can drill oil off the
coast of NJ, I think thats great. May as well get the oil close to where
the cars are. Windmills would be good too.

S

wrote in message
oups.com...

We should all adjust our living standard so it's more in line with
China, or Cuba, then you'd be happy.

Our living standard is definitely slipping. And I feel our majority leaders
are not doing all they can to change this.

S