Horvath wants to be bound.... and gagged.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...
That is bound hydrogen. The fuel is atomic hydrogen, which is unbound. The
energy cost is in breaking the bond. Did you know that gasoline has lots
of
hydrogen in it?
"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:19:21 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

Oil is created by bacteria from organic material. It does not take
thousands
of years to create. It can be created in a short time from biomass.

Where does hydrogen occur naturally?

Everywhere. The oceans are 2/3rds hydrogen. Your body is full of
hydrogen.


How can it be gotten and yet there be
a net energy gain?


Fusion.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:47:23 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

That is bound hydrogen. The fuel is atomic hydrogen, which is unbound. The
energy cost is in breaking the bond. Did you know that gasoline has lots of
hydrogen in it?


I can write you the chemical formula for heptane, hexane, and octane.



"Horvath" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:19:21 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

Oil is created by bacteria from organic material. It does not take
thousands
of years to create. It can be created in a short time from biomass.

Where does hydrogen occur naturally?

Everywhere. The oceans are 2/3rds hydrogen. Your body is full of
hydrogen.


How can it be gotten and yet there be
a net energy gain?


Fusion.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Bart Senior wrote:
World fuel consumption [demand] is exceeding supply.

That's true, but it's somewhat of an artificially constructed political
situation. At any given moment, producers could (if they wanted to) step
up production to exceed demand. But it's doubtful that they could
sustain it because demand is ramping up even with prices going up faster
than inflation. So why go to the trouble, especially when it puts you
and me (and all of the US) literally over a barrel?


... Oil
reserves will run out in our lifetimes.

Depends on how well you take care of yourself

... Scientists are now
saying we will run out of fossil fuels before they have a
significant impact on global warming.


???
Which "scientists" are saying this? All but the paid shills are saying
that our burning fossil fuels most likely have already had significant
impact on the global climate.


Get a clue. Every bit of mineral oil in the ground or under
the sea, that can economically be extracted--will be extracted.
No matter where it is. The entire world economy depends on
it. You depend on it.


That is exactly right.

If you really want to save the Artic, the solution is to push for
legislation to develop and commericially market hydrogen fuels.


I dunno if hydrogen is closest on the horizon.

Here's an important point: there are already off-the-shelf substitutes
for fossil fuels. You could run your car on renewable methane tomorrow
afternoon if you wanted to. Here's the problem... it's more expensive.
So are all the current or forseeable alternatives.

Why don't you put up a big solar panel and run your car off solar
generated electricity? Because to get enough energy to drive very far or
very fast, you'd spend thousands on soalr panels & fancy batteries,
that's why!

Etc etc etc.

Until gasoline gets at least twice as expensive (and I'd be tempted to
say 5X), there is no substitute.

Consider that from the prespective of geological time the
life of Artic oil fields will be very short.


Agreed again.

Even if nothing was done to clean up damange, which would
not happen, Mother Nature would solve this problem all by herself.
The fact is there would be a clean up when we are done extracting
this oil.


Yeah, but once the species livng there are wiped out, they're gone.
Kaput. How are you going to "clean up" extinct species?


There is nothing on the ocean that can long survive--no ship,
no mining structure, and no mineral oil spill that Mother Nature
won't clean up herself in a very short time. On land it takes a
little longer.


Now here I disagree. Prince William Sound has still not recovered fully
from the Exxon Valdez spill. It is not at all easy to "clean up" a
petroleum product spill. The best you can do it containerize it and put
it someplace that's already ruined.


If you want to be concerned about the environment, be concerned
about toxic chemicals and radiological contaminants--you will
find those closer to home--not in the Artic.


Agreed again... with the caveat this is not a good excuse for trashing
the arctic.


Let them pump all the oil and natural gas they can out of there

Naw, let's wait until it will be even more valuable.

In five years oil prices will be sharply higher, and you will be
mad at whoever is in office

Most likely a Republican, if they reap all the campaign contributions
that Wall Street is sure to shower on them when President Bush's Social
Security plan goes through...

But wait, I digress... agreed again. A good post Bart, thanks.

Here's one added thing... if you think that fuel prices will get high
enough for sailing ships to once again take over the world's commerce,
that ain't gonna happen. As Phillip Bolger pointed out a long time ago,
cargo ships are mortgaged, and they earn by the number of cargos they
deliver... as long as motor ships (or steam ships) can average faster
per ton/mile, they'll do the carrying.

Regards
Doug King
because fuel prices will be too high.
People will have bigger concerns--like how to stay warm.

"DSK" wrote in message

Here's an important point: there are already off-the-shelf substitutes for
fossil fuels. You could run your car on renewable methane tomorrow
afternoon if you wanted to. Here's the problem... it's more expensive. So
are all the current or forseeable alternatives.

Why is ethanol completely ignored? We can grow corn til the cows come home
(provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's the most
practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the most
beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant can
produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents. Auto engines can be
made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Until gasoline gets at least twice as expensive (and I'd be tempted to
say 5X), there is no substitute.

See above.

Yeah, but once the species livng there are wiped out, they're gone. Kaput.
How are you going to "clean up" extinct species?

You don't. They become the oil for the next generation of higher beings,
say, 20 billion years hence. g

Now here I disagree. Prince William Sound has still not recovered fully
from the Exxon Valdez spill.

Some say it never will recover completely. Dig down into the beach sand and
you'll find crude a few thousand years from now. Same with the bottom of
the sound.

An "ethanol spill" would have less than 10% the net deleterious effect of a
crude spill, and the long-term effects would be negligible.

So why is ethanol ignored? Simple: big oil wants it ignored. Far from
perfect, alcohol possesses almost none of the negative environmental impact
issues of petroleum.

Max

Here's an important point: there are already off-the-shelf substitutes for
fossil fuels. You could run your car on renewable methane tomorrow
afternoon if you wanted to. Here's the problem... it's more expensive. So
are all the current or forseeable alternatives.


Maxprop wrote:
Why is ethanol completely ignored?

I don't know.

... We can grow corn til the cows come home
(provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's the most
practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the most
beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant can
produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents.

Hmm..

Ethanol produces far less energy per unit burned, but not 85% less. So
if this plant can really sell ethanol at 25c /gallon then it should be
doing a booming business.


... Auto engines can be
made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.


Agreed, the current approved mix is %15 ethanol by volume but for some
reason pitch a fit about it.



Yeah, but once the species livng there are wiped out, they're gone. Kaput.
How are you going to "clean up" extinct species?


You don't. They become the oil for the next generation of higher beings,
say, 20 billion years hence. g


You mean, when cockroaches finally replace us?

Now here I disagree. Prince William Sound has still not recovered fully
from the Exxon Valdez spill.


Some say it never will recover completely. Dig down into the beach sand and
you'll find crude a few thousand years from now. Same with the bottom of
the sound.

An "ethanol spill" would have less than 10% the net deleterious effect of a
crude spill, and the long-term effects would be negligible.


2 points- ethanol evaporates quickly, so it's more likely to cause air
pollution than water pollution; and since it's produced int eh
cornfields we wouldn't be transporting it in huge ships anyway... well
maybe to Japan


So why is ethanol ignored? Simple: big oil wants it ignored. Far from
perfect, alcohol possesses almost none of the negative environmental impact
issues of petroleum.


Agreed. Why don't you send Cheney a memo on that. He won't return my calls.

DSK

"Maxprop" wrote in message

Why is ethanol completely ignored? We can grow corn til the cows come
home (provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's
the most practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the
most beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant
can produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents. Auto engines can
be made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.

We sell ethanol at the pumps here in Canada..... it's not that cheap!

CM

Ethanol is heavily subsidized in the US thanks to Cargill and Bob Dole. It
actually increases pollution by lowering the gas mileage and efficiency of a
car engine. Looking at the total production cycle ethanol is a bust as far
as cost and pollution.
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:3m1Pd.44113$gA4.39345@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

Why is ethanol completely ignored? We can grow corn til the cows come
home (provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's
the most practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of
the
most beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant
can produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents. Auto engines
can
be made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than
to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.

We sell ethanol at the pumps here in Canada..... it's not that cheap!

CM

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message

Why is ethanol completely ignored? We can grow corn til the cows come
home (provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's
the most practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the
most beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant
can produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents. Auto engines can
be made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.

We sell ethanol at the pumps here in Canada..... it's not that cheap!

1. What percent of your petrol is ethanol? It is often used to raise
octane ratings, and may increase the cost of a gallon of petrol, but pure
ethanol is ridiculously cheap.
2. Might it just be possible that your ethanol-spiked gasoline is being
artificially priced up by big oil in order to discourage its use?
3. A few years back the price of medical or research-grade ethanol took a
big jump in price. I inquired as to the reason, and the answer I was given
by Carolina Biological was that their supplier had been acquired by British
Petroleum. Beginning to see a pattern here? (They were searching for a new
supplier.)
4. The owner's manuals of quite a few automobiles use to have warnings
against using ethanol in the fuel systems. Reasons cited were possible
corrosion issues, and fuel handling materials (hoses, etc.) which are not
impervious to alcohol. Class-action litigation was filed by some ethanol
producers when, after some research, they discovered that such excuses were
invalid--no corrosion was obtained after exposure to either gas/ethanol
mixtures or to pure ethanol for long periods of time. And the hoses did not
degrade with ethanol exposure either. What was discovered during the
preliminary hearings was that a couple of oil companies paid some auto
manufacturers to include those warnings. As the result of a settlement the
warnings were removed, ostensibly under the excuse that the problems had
been corrected by the auto makers.

Max

Actually, the answer is in the stars... or at least the moon and the
asteroids...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...
World fuel consumption [demand] is exceeding supply. Oil
reserves will run out in our lifetimes. Scientists are now
saying we will run out of fossil fuels before they have a
significant impact on global warming.

Get a clue. Every bit of mineral oil in the ground or under
the sea, that can economically be extracted--will be extracted.
No matter where it is. The entire world economy depends on
it. You depend on it.

If you really want to save the Artic, the solution is to push for
legislation to develop and commericially market hydrogen fuels.

Consider that from the prespective of geological time the
life of Artic oil fields will be very short.

Even if nothing was done to clean up damange, which would
not happen, Mother Nature would solve this problem all by herself.
The fact is there would be a clean up when we are done extracting
this oil.

There is nothing on the ocean that can long survive--no ship,
no mining structure, and no mineral oil spill that Mother Nature
won't clean up herself in a very short time. On land it takes a
little longer.

If you want to be concerned about the environment, be concerned
about toxic chemicals and radiological contaminants--you will
find those closer to home--not in the Artic.

Let them pump all the oil and natural gas they can out of there and
simply make sure they do a clean job of it and remove all the
damage when they leave! Given time, there will be nothing
significant to show we were there. If you really care, go up there
and monitor what they are doing. I doubt you care enough to leave
your warm home--heated with fossil fuel, and put action to your
words.

In five years oil prices will be sharply higher, and you will be
mad at whoever is in office because fuel prices will be too high.
People will have bigger concerns--like how to stay warm.

"Bobsprit" wrote

Dear NRDC BioGems Defender,

No one voted on Election Day to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
But President Bush is now claiming a mandate to do exactly that.

Congressional leaders are pushing for a quick vote that would turn
America's
greatest sanctuary for Arctic wildlife into a vast, polluted oil field.

Even worse, they are planning to avoid public debate on this devastating
measure by hiding it in a must-pass budget bill.

Please go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/ta....asp?ms=RR0501
right now and send a message telling your U.S. senators and
representative to
reject this sneak attack on the Arctic Refuge.

And please forward my message to your friends, family and colleagues. We
must
mobilize millions of Americans in opposition as quickly as possible.

Don't believe for a second that the president is targeting the Arctic
Refuge
for the sake of America's energy security or to lower gas prices at the
pump.

President Bush knows full well that oil drilled in the Arctic Refuge
would take

ten years to get to market and would never equal more than a paltry one
or two
percent of our nation's daily consumption. Simply put, sacrificing the
crown
jewel of our wildlife heritage would do nothing to reduce gas prices or
break
our addiction to Persian Gulf oil.

But if the raid on the Arctic Refuge isn't really about gas prices or
energy
security, then what is it about?

It's the symbolism.

The Arctic Refuge represents everything spectacular and everything
endangered
about America's natural heritage. It embodies a million years of
ecological
serenity . . . a vast stretch of pristine wilderness . . . an
irreplaceable
birthing ground for polar bears, caribou and white wolves.

It is the greatest living reminder that conserving nature in its wild
state is
a core American value. It stands for every remnant of wilderness that we,
as a
people, have wisely chosen to protect from the relentless march of
bulldozers,
chain saws and oil rigs.

And that's why the Bush administration is dead set on destroying it.

By unlocking the Arctic Refuge, they hope to open the door for oil, gas
and
coal giants to invade our last and best wild places: our western
canyonlands,
our ancient forests, our coastal waters, even our national monuments.

This is the real agenda behind the raid on the Arctic Refuge and the
entire
Bush-Cheney energy plan: to transfer our public estate into corporate
hands so
it can be liquidated for a quick buck.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) admitted as much when he said this
battle over the Arctic Refuge is really a fight over whether energy
exploration

will be allowed in similarly sensitive areas in the future. "It's about
precedent," Rep. DeLay said.

I take him at his word. If we let the president and Congress plunder the
Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge for the sake of oil company profits, then no
piece of
our natural heritage will be safe from wholesale destruction.

Please go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/ta....asp?ms=RR0501
and tell your senators and representative they have no mandate to destroy
the
Arctic Refuge. Then please be sure to forward this message to as many
people as

you can.

And thank you for speaking out at this critical time.

Sincerely,

Robert Redford
Board of Trustees
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

"JG" wrote in message

Actually, the answer is in the stars... or at least the moon and the
asteroids...

Cosmic rays? Been wearing that foil beanie again, Jon?

Max