The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....

D'ohBoy

On May 16, 2:24 pm, "D'ohBoy" wrote:
On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....

D'ohBoy

And a BIG 'kiss my ass' to the shrub from D'ohBoy.

D'ohBoy

Lew Hodgett wrote:
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew


"Well!" he harrumphed. "A couple big nukes will teach 'em." (or am I
sounding too neo-con?)
gronk! and thumpa thumpa,
j4

p.s. anybody know if radioactive oil is useable?

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
newsxkXj.43$%g.0@trnddc08...
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they ignored
him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew



Take over.

"Leon" wrote:

Take over.

A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.

Oh wait, think you've got something else in mind.

Lew

D'ohBoy wrote:
On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

Lew

Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the
military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....

And a "contrived preemptive strike" is going to increase oil
production how?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Take over.

A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.

Oh wait, think you've got something else in mind.

Lew



No, that will be a big *give back*, and the islamofacists will breathe
a big sigh of relief, being given another 4 years to cook up mayhem
and mischief with an impotent US president doing little or nothing
in the meantime.

You talk about nukes? Start building your shelter. It's the
1960s all over again, but this time the war isn't "cold".

I hope Obama kept his Koran warm after his Christian "conversion" ...
given his policy ideas, he's gonna need it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 16, 5:18*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I hope Obama kept his Koran warm after his Christian "conversion" ...
given his policy ideas, he's gonna need it.

Come on, Tim. Even you don't believe that. I'd put some bat-bait in
that belfry of yours.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:18:12 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


No, that will be a big *give back*, and the islamofacists SNIP



Is this "islamofacists" (sic) a reference to someone who has a face
like a muslim?

Or, are you talking about "islamofascists"?

You would agree, I suppose, that fascists are considered right wing.

You would further agree, one would think, that Republicans are
considered right wing.

Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?




Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

I wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".


Picture if you will, Shrub, groveling at the feet of his Arab camel
jockey host, begging for an increase in his allowance, only to be told
"No".


Gives you a lot of confidence? NOT!

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
"No", AKA: "Up Yours".

Wonder if there is another approach?

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a day
from that field.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:

I wrote:

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
ignored him.

The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".


Picture if you will, Shrub, groveling at the feet of his Arab camel
jockey host, begging for an increase in his allowance, only to be told
"No".


Gives you a lot of confidence? NOT!

Lew

Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming (ala
Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense systems and
new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the inability to
have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to increase our own
production) in this case?

The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second. Developing coal
strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of greenhouse
gases), nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of nuclear waste),
and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
You don't believe your friends grin?

Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil, instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory differences
between global stock markets.

http://www.marke****ch.com/News/Stor...A42B8D50907%7D

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?


Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.

"Swingman" wrote:


Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.

Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.

Lew

On May 17, 9:34*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. *The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
meat on them.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 17, 9:34 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
meat on them.

yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any
amount of expense and trouble.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:AuBXj.1265$dh.254@trnddc05...
"Swingman" wrote:


Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.

Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.

This guy called it on the nose almost two years ago:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17812

"detention centers instead of soup kitchens" Read it and weep!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On May 17, 10:34*am, Woodie wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 17, 9:34 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. *The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
meat on them.

yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any
amount of expense and trouble.

Best get your ACME credit card out.

On May 17, 10:36 am, "Swingman" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

news:AuBXj.1265$dh.254@trnddc05...



"Swingman" wrote:

Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.

Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.

This guy called it on the nose almost two years ago:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17812

"detention centers instead of soup kitchens" Read it and weep!

I agree with most, but I always cackle when these guys list $4
trillion (or mroe) in losses to foreign trade because of NAFTA. Sure,
we've lost mroe than we've gain to Mexico, and probably to Canada. But
most of that money went to the Pacific Rim, which is not part of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, or, at least, wasn't the last
time I looked. Christ alone knows what our lunatic Prez is claiming
this week.

On May 17, 9:56*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:
Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
differences
between global stock markets.

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.

The price of oil is tied to the USD.



Some pundits speculate that it was the underlying cause for getting
rid of Sadam; he wanted to switch to the Euro.
The same bunch thinks that the sabre-rattling with Iran is all about
that too.

If oil no longer holds up the USD, the US economy collapses.

It's always the same: Follow the money!

The huge tax breaks for the rich is just another transfer of wealth
before the corps starts to rot.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:34:19 GMT, Woodie wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
meat on them.



yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any
amount of expense and trouble.


That's pretty much what Spencer Tracy said about Katherine Hepburn.

I didn't believe him, either.


My favorite Spotted Owl sentiments a

"I love the Spotted Owl - Boiled, Broiled, Fried..." (T Shirt)


"Spotted Owl - The Other White Meat." (A variation of which may turn
up in the presidential race)


"Spotted Owl - It's What's For Dinner."





Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...



Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?


Nope, they are Independents Muslims

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...




I thought they were "friends"?

Only when it suits them.


Do they have WMD's?

Of Course, that is where Sadam sent some of his after we gave him 6 months
warning that we were going to come and destroy them.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.


It's the Carter years all over again.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:37:05 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
.. .



Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?


Nope, they are Independents Muslims




Now that's really funny.

Think we can con them into voting for Nader?




Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done other
ways as well.

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the problem.
The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated and the need to
contain it for a very, very long time. Definitely problems that can be
conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to contend with.

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:37:05 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
. ..



Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?


Nope, they are Independents Muslims




Now that's really funny.

Think we can con them into voting for Nader?


Perhaps, and won't they have their hands full, then!

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years
before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million
barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation
of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done
other ways as well.

And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated

How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once the
short-half-life elements have decayed?

and
the need to contain it for a very, very long time.

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
point in warehousing it.

Definitely
problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
contend with.

And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton
not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take
10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1
million barrels a day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation
of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done
other ways as well.

And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?

I really think we agree on the need for responsible use and generation of
renewable energy . I'd suggest to put clathrates in the voids of coal or
other mines, to help prevent sinkholes.

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated

How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once the
short-half-life elements have decayed?

I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I can't quote you numbers, but I do
believe that the heat generated by nuclear waste can be considerable.
Obviously it depends on the energy of the decay step(s) and their
respective energies expressed per unit mass or volume (ducking).

and
the need to contain it for a very, very long time.

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
point in warehousing it.

Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does not
seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of it.
I think it has to be put away permanently, really.

Definitely
problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
contend with.

And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are not
rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?


Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or the
largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are simply stop
gaps and niche products and often expensive....Conservation makes a good
sound bite but no one ever rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly
worthwhile for getting through hard times but never for solving hard times.
Rod

Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:
.... snip
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.


This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The idea
that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire planet (of
which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor atmospheric constituent is
pure hubris.

Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and making
sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local pollution.
But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test. Yet so many
are buying in to it that they are willing to cause economic (and in other
countries survival) hardships on others rather than taking logical steps to
increase energy production. A growing, prosperous economy cannot continue
to use less and less energy (conservation) yet continue to grow and
prosper. When alternate sources become competitive, they will be used;
forcing their use and subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the
development of alternate energy sources.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Jeff Immelt, CEO, General Electric, obviously doesn't share your point
of view.

Seems he has made the decision to invest significant GE resources in
the renewable energy business.

Wonder where the assets from the sale of the GE major appliance
business will be invested?

Wind turbine anyone?

Lew

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:
... snip
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.


This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very
minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The
idea that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire
planet (of which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor
atmospheric constituent is pure hubris.

Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and
making
sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local
pollution. But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yet so many are buying in to it that they are willing to cause
economic (and in other countries survival) hardships on others rather
than taking logical steps to increase energy production. A growing,
prosperous economy cannot continue to use less and less energy
(conservation) yet continue to grow and prosper. When alternate
sources become competitive, they will be used; forcing their use and
subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the development of
alternate energy sources.

From your sig, and with all respect:
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.
Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.

You have to realize that things that in relative terms are minor can
still affect life in a major way. Can we adjust? We don't know, because
we don't really know how much things are going to change. Will the
planet survive? Sure, by all records Earth has been much hotter and much
cooler before, compared to now, but our society may not. Should we try
to prevent extremes like we are seemingly having success in combating air
pollution in our big cities? I think we should.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in
acquisition:

J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?


Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......

If it were not for the problems of waste control and control of plutonium
(apart from cheap nuclear weapon material, it is also very, very toxic),
nuclear would be ideal. Hence the '60's ideas of fusion energy, still a
great potential source.

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources, and
I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting 100% of
my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more. OK, on a
$50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps, but not much
in impact on my pocketbook.

Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards away,
instead of starting up the car from cold, just for getting a few stamps.
Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be a
measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for natural
resources.

All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too much
grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.
Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.

The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect.
Does CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.

I do know that if we eliminate the stuff from the atmosphere, we're done
for.

Han wrote:

.... snip

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources, and
I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting 100% of
my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more. OK, on a
$50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps, but not much
in impact on my pocketbook.


But are you really paying 100% of the cost of the difference for those
renewables, or it this where you are paying for one of those "green watts"
programs where you donate a certain amount per month for so development of
so many kilowatt hours of wind or solar?


Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards away,
instead of starting up the car from cold,

Not sure that many people would actually drive that short a distance and
even those who do are using miniscule amounts of energy in so doing


just for getting a few stamps.
Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be a
measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for natural
resources.


If you are doing it to save money, that's one thing. If you think you are
saving the planet, you've been hoodwinked.


All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too much
grin.


One of the biggest wasters of resources is the idiotic "sleep mode" on
copiers and printers at places of business. It takes on the order of
minutes for those things to wake up while the person using them has to
wait. When you compute the cost of the person's time vs. the electricity
savings, the electricity savings pale in comparison. That's a real drag on
productivity and output

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough