Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Well when you put it THAT way I have to agree ;) It's hard to justify anything that is harmful if there is a better alternative. The problem is it is better for those who don't stand to gain from the unhealthy stuff. I'm glad to see a lot of wind turbines going into southern Ontario these days. Joe Zeke Yewdall wrote: are you saying they raise the rates more than what is justified? Maybe not more than is justified to pay for the nuclear plants, but is paying for nuclear plants at all justified since they cost so much more than other options. Oddly enough, the power company here just made a big show of trying to defend us from a 1% price increase due to renewable energy requirements foisted on them by the environmentalists, but a few months later, asked for an 11% price increase because natural gas prices went up. To claim that the 11% increase is justified because fuel costs went up sort of misses the point that it could have been at least partially avoided by having a bit more wind power on the grid. On 6/27/06, *Joe Street* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jeff; First let me say I am not a nuclear proponent. Quite the opposite. But I read your post and I thought, ok if they raise the rates because of the cost for comissioning and decommissioning, then how is it that they make more money? I am not arguing that the rates go up. Here in Ontario where we have reactors that can't be kept online due to hydrogen embrittlment of the fuel rods and other problems(candu reactors) the huge debts incurred by the reactors are painful in what it is costing us. Terrible technology no matter how you look at it. But are you saying they raise the rates more than what is justified? Can you substantiate this? I'm interested. Joe Jeff Lyles wrote: I have work at nuclear plants before. There are not design to reduce energy consumption. They are design to make money for the power companies. They do this as follows. First, they raise electric rates to be able to pay for the construction of the plant. It takes an average of 20 years to pay for the construction of the plant. Second, when they close the plant down, they raise the electric rates again to pay for the decommissioning of the plant. In between those times, they do as little as maintenance work as possible so that they can keep the plant online as much as possible. So, in the end, you close down the plant because the amount of work, including maintenance, is so much that it is not cost effective to do it. In the end, nuclear plants make the power company money by giving them a good reason to raise their electric rates and fail to show how long term dependence upon nuclear plants can lower and keep rates stabilized. One case in point in Trojan Nuclear Plant. It was close down and decommission because of the amount of work that needed to be done on it, including replacing the steam generators. Trojan operated for around 30 years, give or take. If nuclear plants were the solution to the problem, then the nuclear plants built 30 years ago would be pointed to as shining examples of why we need nuclear power. But, instead, the nuclear industry is not wanting the public to think or go see how they are doing. There is a very good reason for this. As the saying goes, connect the dots. Jeff - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd, Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you really get a second chance when you screw up with nuclear. FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: Here are examples of nulclear power working successfully; the problems that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's the proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons 1,2,3, you would have had a better response. You mention scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I think you set yourself up to get hammered. And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. -Weaver scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
are you saying they raise the rates more than what is justified? Maybe not more than is justified to pay for the nuclear plants, but is paying for nuclear plants at all justified since they cost so much more than other options. Oddly enough, the power company here just made a big show of trying to defend us from a 1% price increase due to renewable energy requirements foisted on them by the environmentalists, but a few months later, asked for an 11% price increase because natural gas prices went up. To claim that the 11% increase is justified because fuel costs went up sort of misses the point that it could have been at least partially avoided by having a bit more wind power on the grid. On 6/27/06, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jeff;First let me say I am not a nuclear proponent. Quite the opposite.ButI read your post and I thought, ok if they raise the rates because ofthe cost for comissioning and decommissioning, then how is it that they make more money? I am not arguing that the rates go up. Here in Ontariowhere we have reactors that can't be kept online due to hydrogenembrittlment of the fuel rods and other problems(candu reactors) thehuge debts incurred by the reactors are painful in what it is costing us. Terrible technology no matter how you look at it. But are you sayingthey raise the rates more than what is justified?Can you substantiatethis?I'm interested.JoeJeff Lyles wrote: I have work at nuclear plants before. There are not design to reduce energy consumption. They are design to make money for the power companies. They do this as follows. First, they raise electric rates to be able to pay for the construction of the plant. It takes an average of 20 years to pay for the construction of the plant. Second, when they close the plant down, they raise the electric rates again to pay for the decommissioning of the plant. In between those times, they do as little as maintenance work as possible so that they can keep the plant online as much as possible. So, in the end, you close down the plant because the amount of work, including maintenance, is so much that it is not cost effective to do it. In the end, nuclear plants make the power company money by giving them a good reason to raise their electric rates and fail to show how long term dependence upon nuclear plants can lower and keep rates stabilized. One case in point in Trojan Nuclear Plant. It was close down and decommission because of the amount of work that needed to be done on it, including replacing the steam generators. Trojan operated for around 30 years, give or take. If nuclear plants were the solution to the problem, then the nuclear plants built 30 years ago would be pointed to as shining examples of why we need nuclear power. But, instead, the nuclear industry is not wanting the public to think or go see how they are doing. There is a very good reason for this. As the saying goes, connect the dots. Jeff - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd,Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now.It's not like you really get asecond chance when you screw up with nuclear.FWIW, I think if you had started your post with:Here are examples of nulclear power working successfully; the problemsthat caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's theproof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons 1,2,3, you would have had a better response.You mentionscientific and engineering but then no examples or research.I think youset yourself up to get hammered.And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong.-Weaverscientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view,the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three MileIsland and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop afunctional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this.jtcava wrote:I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens.It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a truesurvival situation.John Keith Addison wrote:I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects andoptionsfor reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability.Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in thelist archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue.What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-mindedto arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assumesuch an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
When you raise electric rates, your total revenue goes up. Since the private power companies are in the business of making money, you can rest assured that every time they raise electric rates that they are raising them more than enough to build nuclear plants as well as more then enough to decommission them. Have you ever heard of any power company saying that they have paid off the cost of building a nuclear plant and now they can lower the rates? The answer is no. The power companies use any excuse they can to raise electric rates. That is one reason why public utility commisions were form. That way the power company has to justify a rate increase before the commission before the rates can be increase. No matter how temporary the rate increase is, I have never heard of any private power company lowering its rates after the reason for raiseing the rates needs have been met. That is how the power companies make money off of it. This way they can show a lot of money spent and then make a lot of money on the money being spent. This is akin to Exxon Mobile saying that they only made 6% profits even though they were record profits. That is because the more money that they spend, the more they can justify having higher rates. So, in a nut shell, 6% of one billion dollars is more then 6% of one million dollars, so the power companies would rather spend a billion dollars so that they can raise the rates and make 6% profit on a billion dollars spent. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring are you saying they raise the rates more than what is justified? Maybe not more than is justified to pay for the nuclear plants, but is paying for nuclear plants at all justified since they cost so much more than other options. Oddly enough, the power company here just made a big show of trying to defend us from a 1% price increase due to renewable energy requirements foisted on them by the "environmentalists", but a few months later, asked for an 11% price increase because natural gas prices went up. To claim that the 11% increase is justified because fuel costs went up sort of misses the point that it could have been at least partially avoided by having a bit more wind power on the grid. On 6/27/06, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jeff;First let me say I am not a nuclear proponent. Quite the opposite.ButI read your post and I thought, ok if they raise the rates because ofthe cost for comissioning and decommissioning, then how is it that they make more money? I am not arguing that the rates go up. Here in Ontariowhere we have reactors that can't be kept online due to hydrogenembrittlment of the fuel rods and other problems(candu reactors) thehuge debts incurred by the reactors are painful in what it is costing us. Terrible technology no matter how you look at it. But are you sayingthey raise the rates more than what is justified?Can you substantiatethis?I'm interested.JoeJeff Lyles wrote: I have work at nuclear plants before. There are not design to reduce energy consumption. They are design to make money for the power companies. They do this as follows. First, they raise electric rates to be able to pay for the construction of the plant. It takes an average of 20 years to pay for the construction of the plant. Second, when they close the plant down, they raise the electric rates again to pay for the decommissioning of the plant. In between those times, they do as little as maintenance work as possible so that they can keep the plant online as much as possible. So, in the end, you close down the plant because the amount of work, including maintenance, is so much that it is not cost effective to do it. In the end, nuclear plants make the power company money by giving them a good reason to raise their electric rates and fail to show how long term dependence upon nuclear plants can lower and keep rates stabilized. One case in point in Trojan Nuclear Plant. It was close down and decommission because of the amount of work that needed to be done on it, including replacing the steam generators. Trojan operated for around 30 years, give or take. If nuclear plants were the solution to the problem, then the nuclear plants built 30 years ago would be pointed to as shining examples of why we need nuclear power. But, instead, the nuclear industry is not wanting the public to think or go see how they are doing. There is a very good reason for this. As the saying goes, connect the dots. Jeff - Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org S
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Unless the plastic film is of real good quality is better to use two thin layers at times, stops shorts as the chances of two poor spots in the plastic coinciding with each other would be very slim. This is why older dialectric units used double layers of paper films in wax or other substances to expel water. Doug - Original Message - From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring Jason Katie wrote: its pretty simple theory, take two dielectric layers (i.e. extremely thin plastic) and layer them between two foil layers like so- --- being plasticwrap/thin wax paper/other being foil -- /// -- /// and stagger pin/tape one end of each to a paper towel roll, dowel rod or other non conductor. make a connection to each layer of foil and roll the layers into a tight spool. it will take a lot of foil and dielectric but when it just fits inside the bucket it should measure in the full farad ranges (a pair of cofee cans in oil measures about 0.125F So the foil and dielectric layers move in spirals expanding outward, or there are independent rings of foil, dielectric, foil, dielectric, and so forth, and you tie all the foil layers together? Sorry, I'm a visual person, so I'm trying to imagine this while waiting for work uniforms to finish going through the laundry. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Information from NOD32 This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Servers. part000.txt - is OK http://www.eset.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Lao Telecom MailScanner with NOD32, and is believed to be clean. Information from NOD32 This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Servers. part000.txt - is OK http://www.eset.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Lao Telecom MailScanner with NOD32, and is believed to be clean. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
its a spiral. Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (most likely to get me) - Original Message - From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring Jason Katie wrote: its pretty simple theory, take two dielectric layers (i.e. extremely thin plastic) and layer them between two foil layers like so- --- being plasticwrap/thin wax paper/other being foil -- /// -- /// and stagger pin/tape one end of each to a paper towel roll, dowel rod or other non conductor. make a connection to each layer of foil and roll the layers into a tight spool. it will take a lot of foil and dielectric but when it just fits inside the bucket it should measure in the full farad ranges (a pair of cofee cans in oil measures about 0.125F So the foil and dielectric layers move in spirals expanding outward, or there are independent rings of foil, dielectric, foil, dielectric, and so forth, and you tie all the foil layers together? Sorry, I'm a visual person, so I'm trying to imagine this while waiting for work uniforms to finish going through the laundry. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Hi Jeff; First let me say I am not a nuclear proponent. Quite the opposite. But I read your post and I thought, ok if they raise the rates because of the cost for comissioning and decommissioning, then how is it that they make more money? I am not arguing that the rates go up. Here in Ontario where we have reactors that can't be kept online due to hydrogen embrittlment of the fuel rods and other problems(candu reactors) the huge debts incurred by the reactors are painful in what it is costing us. Terrible technology no matter how you look at it. But are you saying they raise the rates more than what is justified? Can you substantiate this? I'm interested. Joe Jeff Lyles wrote: I have work at nuclear plants before. There are not design to reduce energy consumption. They are design to make money for the power companies. They do this as follows. First, they raise electric rates to be able to pay for the construction of the plant. It takes an average of 20 years to pay for the construction of the plant. Second, when they close the plant down, they raise the electric rates again to pay for the decommissioning of the plant. In between those times, they do as little as maintenance work as possible so that they can keep the plant online as much as possible. So, in the end, you close down the plant because the amount of work, including maintenance, is so much that it is not cost effective to do it. In the end, nuclear plants make the power company money by giving them a good reason to raise their electric rates and fail to show how long term dependence upon nuclear plants can lower and keep rates stabilized. One case in point in Trojan Nuclear Plant. It was close down and decommission because of the amount of work that needed to be done on it, including replacing the steam generators. Trojan operated for around 30 years, give or take. If nuclear plants were the solution to the problem, then the nuclear plants built 30 years ago would be pointed to as shining examples of why we need nuclear power. But, instead, the nuclear industry is not wanting the public to think or go see how they are doing. There is a very good reason for this. As the saying goes, connect the dots. Jeff - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd, Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you really get a second chance when you screw up with nuclear. FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: Here are examples of nulclear power working successfully; the problems that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's the proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons 1,2,3, you would have had a better response. You mention scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I think you set yourself up to get hammered. And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. -Weaver scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. jtcava wrote: I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true survival situation. John Keith Addison wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot right out of it long ago. It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his website, though he provides the url. This, eg: http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm Ranger Supercharger Project Maybe you owe him an apology. I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Every once in a while we find a post that challenges years of research and discussion and asks everyone to take a giant step back and re-examine ideas on a particular issue long after a consensus has been reached, as if we've missed something. Even though it's discouraging, I would be willing to re-examine an issue if new evidence reveals itself. In fact, I would consider it crucial. But, what's most discouraging is when a forum discusses energy strategy for years, realizes that a comprehensive energy strategy will involve numerous schemes for renewable energy and biofuels, then finds a post in that forum that includes a statement to the effect of: The answer is The oil industry has made us dependent on it, even when it's not the best source of energy for a given application. It has brought men to power who have influenced the highest levels of government to ensure that competitive alternatives are squashed. We've learned that a single energy source which fosters a dependence on it due to the exclusivity of the raw materials or technologies, provides a substitute for our current dependency on oil. At it's worst, we know that such a dependency brings to power those who will encourage a government to help them exploit or even militarily control other countries. Although I keep an open mind toward all energy technologies (including hydrogen), I encourage you not to place all importance on one. -Redler Mike Weaver wrote: You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals. No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Re: Nuclear Power One aspect of nuclear power which concerns me (in addition to the overwhelming number of reasons not to support it) is the less publicized situation it creates in terms of ROI. There is a huge investment put into construction and decommission then, an equally huge amount of political pressure to keep it running as long as possible - not only to recover those investments but, to improve upon the the gains and advocate further use of that technology. That translates to risk vs. profit and forces the public to trust those who are making the decisions (i.e. those who are profiting). - Redler I am the decider - G. W. Bush Mike Weaver wrote: chem.dd, Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you really get a second chance when you screw up with nuclear. FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: Here are examples of nulclear power working successfully; the problems that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's the proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons 1,2,3, you would have had a better response. You mention scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I think you set yourself up to get hammered. And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. -Weaver scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. jtcava wrote: I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true survival situation. John Keith Addison wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot right out of it long ago. It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his website, though he provides the url. This, eg: http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm Ranger Supercharger Project Maybe you owe him an apology. I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address listed at the end of every message you receive from the list: Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ When you've done that (make sure you do a thorough job), please come back and offer some support for your view that objections to nuclear power have only political correctness to support them. Thankyou. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
WHy would you advocate hydrogen with all its losses. Supercaps are the perfect battery for transportation. More efficient than lead acid too (and no lead) - as for hydrogen who needs 25% system efficiency? KirkMike Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen."Every once in a while we find a post that challenges years of research and discussion and asks everyone to take a giant step back and re-examine ideas on a particular issue long after a consensus has been reached, as if we've missed something.Even though it's discouraging, I would be willing to re-examine an issue if new evidence reveals itself. In fact, I would consider it crucial.But, what's most discouraging is when a forum discusses energy strategy for years, realizes that a comprehensive energy strategy will involve numerous schemes for renewable energy and biofuels, then finds a post in that forum that includes a statement to the effect of: "The answer is...".The oil industry has made us dependent on it, even when it's not the best source of energy for a given application. It has brought men to power who have influenced the highest levels of government to ensure that competitive alternatives are squashed. We've learned that a single energy source which fosters a dependence on it due to the exclusivity of the raw materials or technologies, provides a substitute for our current dependency on oil. At it's worst, we know that such a dependency brings to power those who will encourage a government to help them exploit or even militarily control other countries.Although I keep an open mind toward all energy technologies (including hydrogen), I encourage you not to place all importance on one.-RedlerMike Weaver wrote: You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals. No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Kirk McLoren wrote: WHy would you advocate hydrogen with all its losses. Supercaps are the perfect battery for transportation. More efficient than lead acid too (and no lead) - as for hydrogen who needs 25% system efficiency? Only people building nuclear power plants who think they've got enough energy to throw away . . . Seriously though, because electrolysis is endothermic, it's POSSIBLE to build an electrolyzer that uses process heat as part of its input. That's what most nuclear / hydrogen advocates fall back on when the efficiency question comes up. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
I didn't. Kirk McLoren wrote: WHy would you advocate hydrogen with all its losses. Supercaps are the perfect battery for transportation. More efficient than lead acid too (and no lead) - as for hydrogen who needs 25% system efficiency? Kirk Mike Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen." Every once in a while we find a post that challenges years of research and discussion and asks everyone to take a giant step back and re-examine ideas on a particular issue long after a consensus has been reached, as if we've missed something. Even though it's discouraging, I would be willing to re-examine an issue if new evidence reveals itself. In fact, I would consider it crucial. But, what's most discouraging is when a forum discusses energy strategy for years, realizes that a comprehensive energy strategy will involve numerous schemes for renewable energy and biofuels, then finds a post in that forum that includes a statement to the effect of: "The answer is...". The oil industry has made us dependent on it, even when it's not the best source of energy for a given application. It has brought men to power who have influenced the highest levels of government to ensure that competitive alternatives are squashed. We've learned that a single energy source which fosters a dependence on it due to the exclusivity of the raw materials or technologies, provides a substitute for our current dependency on oil. At it's worst, we know that such a dependency brings to power those who will encourage a government to help them exploit or even militarily control other countries. Although I keep an open mind toward all energy technologies (including hydrogen), I encourage you not to place all importance on one. -Redler Mike Weaver wrote: You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals. No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Everyone,The only reasonable solution to the energy crisis is solar! It's free and basically infinite. All we have to do is develop some better solar cells and batteries (or those new capacitors that everyone is talking about) to power our electric engines! Will KOn 6/26/06, Mike Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen.Every once in a while we find a post that challenges years of research and discussion and asks everyone to take a giant step back and re-examine ideas on a particular issue long after a consensus has been reached, as if we've missed something. Even though it's discouraging, I would be willing to re-examine an issueif new evidence reveals itself. In fact, I would consider it crucial.But, what's most discouraging is when a forum discusses energy strategy for years, realizes that a comprehensive energy strategy will involvenumerous schemes for renewable energy and biofuels, then finds a post inthat forum that includes a statement to the effect of: The answer is The oil industry has made us dependent on it, even when it's not thebest source of energy for a given application. It has brought men topower who have influenced the highest levels of government to ensure that competitive alternatives are squashed. We've learned that a singleenergy source which fosters a dependence on it due to the exclusivity ofthe raw materials or technologies, provides a substitute for our current dependency on oil. At it's worst, we know that such a dependency bringsto power those who will encourage a government to help them exploit oreven militarily control other countries.Although I keep an open mind toward all energy technologies (including hydrogen), I encourage you not to place all importance on one.-RedlerMike Weaver wrote: You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals.No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum?I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
acually the "supercap battery" that fits a 9V package is all about space efficiency, if you wanted to, you could build a multifarad capacitor out of tinfoil andplastic wrapin a 5 gallon bucket for a similar effect with lower cost, justWAAAY too big for a 9V package, and heavy-heavy. (i spent all too much time in the electronics lab in college...) JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (most likely to get me) - Original Message - From: Will Kelleher To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring Everyone,The only reasonable solution to the energy crisis is solar! It's free and basically infinite. All we have to do is develop some better solar cells and batteries (or those new capacitors that everyone is talking about) to power our electric engines! Will K On 6/26/06, Mike Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen."Every once in a while we find a post that challenges years of research and discussion and asks everyone to take a giant step back and re-examine ideas on a particular issue long after a consensus has been reached, as if we've missed something. Even though it's discouraging, I would be willing to re-examine an issueif new evidence reveals itself. In fact, I would consider it crucial.But, what's most discouraging is when a forum discusses energy strategy for years, realizes that a comprehensive energy strategy will involvenumerous schemes for renewable energy and biofuels, then finds a post inthat forum that includes a statement to the effect of: "The answer is...". The oil industry has made us dependent on it, even when it's not thebest source of energy for a given application. It has brought men topower who have influenced the highest levels of government to ensurethat competitive alternatives are squashed. We've learned that a singleenergy source which fosters a dependence on it due to the exclusivity ofthe raw materials or technologies, provides a substitute for our current dependency on oil. At it's worst, we know that such a dependency bringsto power those who will encourage a government to help them exploit oreven militarily control other countries.Although I keep an open mind toward all energy technologies (including hydrogen), I encourage you not to place all importance on one.-RedlerMike Weaver wrote: You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals.No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum?I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
I'm with you on that one Will. And if regenerative braking becomes commonplace in electric vehicles, think of the energy savings when the bulk of your off-highway miles comes from wind resistance and not acceleration.Imagine the energy recycled from a 2000lb car accelerating from zero to sixty miles per hour in 10 seconds.Assuming a regenerative breaking system with an efficiency of 100% (for the sake of conversation, electric motors/generators are pretty efficient), I did some calculations and came up with approximately .01 gallons (1.28oz fl) of gasoline each time that car accelerates. That's what's lost today and maybe gained repeatedly during every trip in every car in the future.Something not taken into consideration by people like George Monbiot (Re: "Feeding Cars or People").Of course, cars may become lighter (with any luck) and the fuel saved will be on the acceleration side instead of recycling energy during braking.Even if the energy doesn't come from gasoline in the future, the same principle applies - significant energy savings.- Redler_ Calculations:60mph = 26.8m/sec (26.8/10)ft/sec^22000lbs=907KgF=ma=907*2.6m/sec^2=2431Ndist= .5at^2 =.5*2.68*100=134mWork=Fd=2431N*134m=325788Nm=309Btu309Btu/(125,000Btu per gallon)=.00247 gallons.00247gal/(25% efficiency for internal combustion engines)=.01 gallons=1.28ozflWill Kelleher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone,The only reasonable solution to the energy crisis is solar! It's free and basically infinite. All we have to do is develop some better solar cells and batteries (or those new capacitors that everyone is talking about) to power our electric engines! Will KOn 6/26/06, Mike Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen."Every once in a while we find a post that challenges years of research and discussion and asks everyone to take a giant step back and re-examine ideas on a particular issue long after a consensus has been reached, as if we've missed something. Even though it's discouraging, I would be willing to re-examine an issueif new evidence reveals itself. In fact, I would consider it crucial.But, what's most discouraging is when a forum discusses energy strategy for years, realizes that a comprehensive energy strategy will involvenumerous schemes for renewable energy and biofuels, then finds a post inthat forum that includes a statement to the effect of: "The answer is...". The oil industry has made us dependent on it, even when it's not thebest source of energy for a given application. It has brought men topower who have influenced the highest levels of government to ensure that competitive alternatives are squashed. We've learned that a singleenergy source which fosters a dependence on it due to the exclusivity ofthe raw materials or technologies, provides a substitute for our current dependency on oil. At it's worst, we know that such a dependency bringsto power those who will encourage a government to help them exploit oreven militarily control other countries.Although I keep an open mind toward all energy technologies (including hydrogen), I encourage you not to place all importance on one.-RedlerMike Weaver wrote: You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals.No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum?I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Jason Katie wrote: acually the supercap battery that fits a 9V package is all about space efficiency, if you wanted to, you could build a multifarad capacitor out of tinfoil and plastic wrap in a 5 gallon bucket for a similar effect with lower cost, just WAAAY too big for a 9V package, and heavy-heavy. (i spent all too much time in the electronics lab in college...) Tell me more I have way, way too many 5-gallon buckets hanging around since I saved them from being thrown away, and the car has a #$*-ton of space in the back... ;) Be kinda cool to have the first diesel-electric hybrid Syncro. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
its pretty simple theory, take two dielectric layers (i.e. extremely thin plastic) and layer them between two foil layers like so- --- being plasticwrap/thin wax paper/other being foil -- /// -- /// and stagger pin/tape one end of each to a paper towel roll, dowel rod or other non conductor. make a connection to each layer of foil and roll the layers into a tight spool. it will take a lot of foil and dielectric but when it just fits inside the bucket it should measure in the full farad ranges (a pair of cofee cans in oil measures about 0.125F Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (most likely to get me) - Original Message - From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring Jason Katie wrote: acually the supercap battery that fits a 9V package is all about space efficiency, if you wanted to, you could build a multifarad capacitor out of tinfoil and plastic wrap in a 5 gallon bucket for a similar effect with lower cost, just WAAAY too big for a 9V package, and heavy-heavy. (i spent all too much time in the electronics lab in college...) Tell me more I have way, way too many 5-gallon buckets hanging around since I saved them from being thrown away, and the car has a #$*-ton of space in the back... ;) Be kinda cool to have the first diesel-electric hybrid Syncro. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
Jason Katie wrote: its pretty simple theory, take two dielectric layers (i.e. extremely thin plastic) and layer them between two foil layers like so- --- being plasticwrap/thin wax paper/other being foil -- /// -- /// and stagger pin/tape one end of each to a paper towel roll, dowel rod or other non conductor. make a connection to each layer of foil and roll the layers into a tight spool. it will take a lot of foil and dielectric but when it just fits inside the bucket it should measure in the full farad ranges (a pair of cofee cans in oil measures about 0.125F So the foil and dielectric layers move in spirals expanding outward, or there are independent rings of foil, dielectric, foil, dielectric, and so forth, and you tie all the foil layers together? Sorry, I'm a visual person, so I'm trying to imagine this while waiting for work uniforms to finish going through the laundry. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
You all know perfectly well the answer is Dilithium Crystals. No arguments, please. robert and benita rabello wrote: chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
chem.dd, Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you really get a second chance when you screw up with nuclear. FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: Here are examples of nulclear power working successfully; the problems that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's the proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons 1,2,3, you would have had a better response. You mention scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I think you set yourself up to get hammered. And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. -Weaver scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. jtcava wrote: I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true survival situation. John Keith Addison wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot right out of it long ago. It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his website, though he provides the url. This, eg: http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm Ranger Supercharger Project Maybe you owe him an apology. I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address listed at the end of every message you receive from the list: Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ When you've done that (make sure you do a thorough job), please come back and offer some support for your view that objections to nuclear power have only political correctness to support them. Thankyou. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner David - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
I have work at nuclear plants before. There are not design to reduce energy consumption. They are design to make money for the power companies. They do this as follows. First, they raise electric rates to be able to pay for the construction of the plant. It takes an average of 20 years to pay for the construction of the plant. Second, when they close the plant down, they raise the electric rates again to pay for the decommissioning of the plant. In between those times, they do as little as maintenance work as possible so that they can keep the plant online as much as possible. So, in the end, you close down the plant because the amount of work, including maintenance, is so much that it is not cost effective to do it. In the end, nuclear plants make the power company money by giving them a good reason to raise their electric rates and fail to show how long term dependence upon nuclear plants can lower and keep rates stabilized. One case in point in Trojan Nuclear Plant. It was close down and decommission because of the amount of work that needed to be done on it, including replacing the steam generators. Trojan operated for around 30 years, give or take. If nuclear plants were the solution to the problem, then the nuclear plants built 30 years ago would be pointed to as shining examples of why we need nuclear power. But, instead, the nuclear industry is not wanting the public to think or go see how they are doing. There is a very good reason for this. As the saying goes, connect the dots. Jeff - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd, Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you really get a second chance when you screw up with nuclear. FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: Here are examples of nulclear power working successfully; the problems that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's the proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons 1,2,3, you would have had a better response. You mention scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I think you set yourself up to get hammered. And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. -Weaver scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. jtcava wrote: I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true survival situation. John Keith Addison wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot right out of it long ago. It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his website, though he provides the url. This, eg: http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm Ranger Supercharger Project Maybe you owe him an apology. I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address listed at the end of every message you receive from the list: Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Biofuels, as carbon neutral as they may be, are not the long term solution to this planet's energy and global warming needs. The question is, how do we get the hydrogen? Obviously not from fossil or biofuels, . From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. David - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 5:49 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/20/markets/oil_intl_outlook.reut/index.htm Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring - Jun. 20, 2006 Reuters, June 20, 2006 Oil Consumption Seen Soaring Much of world's growth will take place in Asia, although U.S. will still use the most; OPEC needed to meet bulk of demand, EIA says. June 20, 2006: 9:34 AM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- World oil demand should soar from this year's almost 86 million barrels per day to 118 million bpd by 2030, even though higher fuel prices will cut back some petroleum usage, the U.S. government's top energy forecasting agency predicted Tuesday. Much of the growth in global oil consumption over the next quarter century will come from the non-industrialized nations in Asia, where the strong economies of China and India will gobble up more barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Department of Energy. Much of the world's incremental oil demand is projected for use in the transportation sector, where there are few competitive alternatives to petroleum, EIA said in its annual long-term international energy supply and demand forecast. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will provide a large chunk of the additional oil supplies that will be needed to meet demand in 2030, the EIA said. However, the agency said OPEC's total share of global supply will fall from 39.7 percent (34 million bpd) of this year's world oil demand to 38.4 percent (45.3 million bpd) of global oil demand in 2030. While worldwide oil consumption rises, expected high crude prices will reduce demand by some 8 million bpd more than forecast last year in 2025 to 111 million bpd, EIA said. This year's forecast has projections out to 2030 for the first time. Oil production from non-OPEC countries in West Africa and the Caspian Sea region is forecast to increase sharply and grab a larger share of the global oil market over the next 25 years. Oil output is expected to decline in Norway, Europe's largest producer, from a peak of 3.6 million bpd this year to 2.5 million bpd in 2030. Despite President Bush's call for the United States to end its addiction to oil, Americans will use more crude and retain the title of the world's biggest energy consumers. U.S. oil demand is forecast to jump from 20.8 million bpd this year to 27.6 million bpd in 2030, still accounting for about one out of every four barrels of crude consumed each day in the world. The EIA's long-term forecast to 2030 also predicted: - Global natural gas consumption will jump from 95 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to 182 trillion cubic feet. - Coal use will grow at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent. - High oil prices will raise concerns about the security of energy supplies and will increase nuclear power generating capacity. - Carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming will rise from 25 billion tons in 2003 to 43.7 billion tons. Non-industrialized nations will account for 75 percent of the increase in emissions by 2030. - Renewables, like solar and wind power, will meet 9.1 percent of U.S. energy demand in 2030, almost double from 5.7 percent in 2003. Copyright 2006 Reuters ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
My thoughts? Nuclear power is like having sex with a black widow spider. Feels good at first, but it's ultimately fatal. -Weaver chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Biofuels, as carbon neutral as they may be, are not the long term solution to this planet's energy and global warming needs. The question is, how do we get the hydrogen? Obviously not from fossil or biofuels, . From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. David - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 5:49 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/20/markets/oil_intl_outlook.reut/index.htm Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring - Jun. 20, 2006 Reuters, June 20, 2006 Oil Consumption Seen Soaring Much of world's growth will take place in Asia, although U.S. will still use the most; OPEC needed to meet bulk of demand, EIA says. June 20, 2006: 9:34 AM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- World oil demand should soar from this year's almost 86 million barrels per day to 118 million bpd by 2030, even though higher fuel prices will cut back some petroleum usage, the U.S. government's top energy forecasting agency predicted Tuesday. Much of the growth in global oil consumption over the next quarter century will come from the non-industrialized nations in Asia, where the strong economies of China and India will gobble up more barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Department of Energy. Much of the world's incremental oil demand is projected for use in the transportation sector, where there are few competitive alternatives to petroleum, EIA said in its annual long-term international energy supply and demand forecast. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will provide a large chunk of the additional oil supplies that will be needed to meet demand in 2030, the EIA said. However, the agency said OPEC's total share of global supply will fall from 39.7 percent (34 million bpd) of this year's world oil demand to 38.4 percent (45.3 million bpd) of global oil demand in 2030. While worldwide oil consumption rises, expected high crude prices will reduce demand by some 8 million bpd more than forecast last year in 2025 to 111 million bpd, EIA said. This year's forecast has projections out to 2030 for the first time. Oil production from non-OPEC countries in West Africa and the Caspian Sea region is forecast to increase sharply and grab a larger share of the global oil market over the next 25 years. Oil output is expected to decline in Norway, Europe's largest producer, from a peak of 3.6 million bpd this year to 2.5 million bpd in 2030. Despite President Bush's call for the United States to end its addiction to oil, Americans will use more crude and retain the title of the world's biggest energy consumers. U.S. oil demand is forecast to jump from 20.8 million bpd this year to 27.6 million bpd in 2030, still accounting for about one out of every four barrels of crude consumed each day in the world. The EIA's long-term forecast to 2030 also predicted: - Global natural gas consumption will jump from 95 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to 182 trillion cubic feet. - Coal use will grow at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent. - High oil prices will raise concerns about the security of energy supplies and will increase nuclear power generating capacity. - Carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming will rise from 25 billion tons in 2003 to 43.7 billion tons. Non-industrialized nations will account for 75 percent of the increase in emissions by 2030. - Renewables, like solar and wind power, will meet 9.1 percent of U.S. energy demand in 2030, almost double from 5.7 percent in 2003. Copyright 2006 Reuters ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
On Jun 24, 2006, at 5:46 AM, chem.dd wrote: Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Gladly -- it's absurd and uninformed! Both fission and fusion are boondoggles by Big Energy to centralize power production and receive massive government subsidies. Fusion will likely never work and wouldn't be safe inherently or otherwise (take some time and read up about fatigue and disposal problems with the metal structures around the fusion reaction). Fission would only work for a few decades at best, at huge financial and environmental cost. You might as well advocate coal with sequestration -- equally absurd, for similar reasons. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. David - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot right out of it long ago. It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his website, though he provides the url. This, eg: http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm Ranger Supercharger Project Maybe you owe him an apology. I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address listed at the end of every message you receive from the list: Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ When you've done that (make sure you do a thorough job), please come back and offer some support for your view that objections to nuclear power have only political correctness to support them. Thankyou. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner David - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
When we first started hearing about Hydrogen, there had been relatively little research done on the difficulties that we are faced with when considering Hydrogen. Since then, there have been remarkable discoveries in the use of catalysts for brreaking the water molecule that assist in providing more bang for the buck. This reduces some of the energy in vs. the energy out equation, which still isn't as energy effective as fuels for which we already have infrastructure in place. I think nuclear has its place. And if you look up on a sunny day, you'll see the place I'm talking about. I feel that there will likely be some thinking outside the box discoveries (or in some cases, old ideas revisited) that will enable a more efficient conversion from solar nuclear to a transportable fuel in the future. To my way of thinking, biofuels are a stepping stone out of the stone age, where we will no longer depend on combustion for travel. A hundred years from now, our current hopes and designs for Hydrogen will probably be seen as yet another of those stepping stones to an efficient transportation system that doesn't leave behind toxins that generations for the rest of time will bear the consequences of. One of the cleanest and most effective transformations I can think of between the solar nuclear source, and the transportable fuel we use is photosynthesis, and nature has experience doing this... Waste products are used and recycled in the natural cycle. Imagine if we could duplicate the process... Carbon dioxide and water go in, solar energy is applied, and hydrocarbons and oxygen come out. Someone will figure it out, probably even get a patent on something nature has been doing forever, a tree in your front yard will be seen as a patent infringement... LOL doug swanson chem.dd wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. David - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software. No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein. All existing databits have been constructed from recycled databits. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true survival situation. John Keith Addison wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the issue. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot right out of it long ago. It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his website, though he provides the url. This, eg: http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm Ranger Supercharger Project Maybe you owe him an apology. I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: From an objective scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address listed at the end of every message you receive from the list: Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ When you've done that (make sure you do a thorough job), please come back and offer some support for your view that objections to nuclear power have only political correctness to support them. Thankyou. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner David - Original Message - From: "robert and benita rabello" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring chem.dd wrote: The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be laughing if your proposition wasn't so sad. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring
chem.dd wrote: I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and options for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of sustainability. What is truly sad is closed mindedness. Closed mindedness? You've GOT to be kidding! You start off with the proposition that nuclear hydrogen is the ONLY answer to our energy problems, state that you don't want to talk about Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, and you have the gall to call ME closed minded? Why not spend some time searching through the archives. We've discussed hydrogen here MANY times in the past. Hydrogen is an ash. It's a dead end. And nuclear? I thought you might be kidding, but I can see you're not, and THAT is sad! If you really want to learn something about a future energy paradigm, learn to think that less is more, efficiency is an investment, learn about true sustainability, and think of ways in which local resources can supply needs. (If local resources aren't up to the task, it's NOT sustainable!) If you can wrap your mind around this kind of thinking, then we'll have room for discussion. But talking hydrogen to me makes about as much sense as selling land on the moon. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
