How much oil is in the Himalayas,? The Andes? The Alps?
Oil comes from heating and compressing organic matter, so that igneous rock, which comprises a large part of the earth's substructure, does not produce it.
However, we can and do grow organic matter that can be harvested as petroleum.
My position is that we will need fossil fuels for the short term as a national security, less an economic measure, until we have more efficient and more ecological sources of fuel.
We already have the means to do it. But the question remains, do we have the will to do so?
By RACHEL D'ORO The Associated Press 5/27/2004, 8:46 p.m. ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Hybrid tankers that can power an entire airfield. Electric chariots that can zip soldiers to their destinations. Fuel cell-powered all terrain vehicles that can roll along in near silence.
From Our Advertiser
These are among alternative-energy vehicles being developed by the Army, which showed off a dozen prototypes Thursday at Elmendorf Air Force Base.
The Army envisions the vehicles greatly reducing its fuel consumption on the battlefield and at urban posts in the near future with technology other military branches are watching closely. In fact, the Air Force has assigned a representative to the Army's Detroit-based National Automotive Center, which is developing the vehicles through partnerships with manufacturers.
"Our intention is to find common-use items that work not only commercially but with the military," said Army spokesman Eric Emerton.
The open house at an Elmendorf hangar was the show-and-tell portion of a four-day symposium in Anchorage co-hosted by the Army to explore clean energy sources for and from Alaska.
Military and industry engineers and others led visitors around vehicles ready for use and under development. Examples ranged from relatively humble Segway Human Transporters and three-wheel American Chariots to a heavy- duty hybrid truck and two versions of a surveillance carrier.
All represent the virtues of energy-saving technology that's so crucial at a time when the Army burns 750,000 gallons of fuel a day in Iraq alone, said NAC Director Dennis Wend.
"We can take these technologies and reduce our fuel on the battlefield," he said. "At the same time, we can put these technologies on our bases and be a good neighbor to our industrial partners by sharing information."
Reality, however, is three to five years away for the more advanced equipment, according to Wend. The automotive research center, created a decade ago, has intensified its alternative energy development only in the last few years.
Besides corporate money, the center receives $100 million in federal research and development funds. But a recent $60 million infusion for a two-year pilot program will enable it to develop hybrid battlefield trucks.
"If that works out successfully, we could be looking at another billion dollars to put them into production, to actually produce several thousand vehicles for the Army's battlefields," Wend said.
Among the more impressive items on display was the SmarTruck II, a technologically enhanced armored vehicle. The modified Chevrolet Silverado is loaded with gear that would make James Bond proud — luxury seats, a missile launcher, electric generator and far-range surveillance equipment, including night-vision capabilities.
All that would make the hybrid-electric ideal for vulnerable urban settings such as Baghdad, Iraq, according to its developers, which include Integrated Concepts & Research Corp., a subsidiary of Kodiak-based Native Regional corporation Koniag Inc.
Then there's the tanklike hybrid-electric diesel truck developed with Oshkosh, Wis.-based Oshkosh Truck Corp., which builds the Army's large off-road vehicles as well as civilian fire and refuse trucks. Painted in camouflage tones, the Oshkosh HEMTT consumes less fuel and puts out reduced emissions compared with its traditionally fueled counterparts.
The vehicle also can produce 350 kilowatts of electricity while its 505 horsepower engine idles. The company tested the vehicle's onboard generator at the Whittman Airfield in Oshkosh, providing lighting for the control tower and a 14,000-foot runway for two hours. It was a hit — signifying numerous applications for the military and civilians alike, said company engineer Chris Yakes.
"There's the fuel economy and the power production capabilities," Yakes said. "It can be used for anything from natural disasters to homeland security."
Hey Dan have you heard anything about a Broward FLA new hire teacher whose previous exp according to MSNBC was holding a pistol to the heads of "detainees" in FREE IRAQ? Can't find original citation.
On 6/05/04, Dan wrote: > They get the elevator. We get the shaft.
On 6/05/04, Dean wrote: > If you don’t have time to read the entire article, at > least look at the last paragraph in which this > Pennsylvania online paper quotes a Canadian transportation > analyst. (What is it with our neighbor to the north > recently? O Canada!) > > If consumers get the correct message, think how the > marketplace might respond.
Consumers have power only in a free market. Oil is not a free market. It is an oligopoly.
Meanwhile, we are in a war, where our govewrnment is subsidizing the market makers.
Your latest posting qualifies you for the obfuscation hall of fame. Congratulations.
Care to explain to anyone still interested what relevance it has to my refutation of your “consumer power” assertion or to my original “provocative quote” posting?
Yours in continuing good cheer, Dean
On 6/06/04, Dan wrote:
>>> Given the significant layering of regulation, taxation, and >> the like in the USA’s economy, we have darn few truly free >> markets. > > Enough said. > > Overlay it with price fixing by the cartel, which violates > antitrust laws, and is used as a wedge politically and > economically, the cost of oil is a security problem.
On 6/06/04, Dean wrote: > Howdy King D. > > Your pattern of reacting without first reflecting continues. > > You have stated that “Consumers have power only in a free > market.” Think rationally about this statement for a moment > or two. > > Given the significant layering of regulation, taxation, and > the like in the USA’s economy, we have darn few truly free > markets. This has neither prevented consumers from having > considerable power in the marketplace, nor has it rendered > market forces irrelevant. > > Your comment is pure and total nonsense. > > Cheerfully yours, > Dean > > > On 6/06/04, Dan wrote: > >> Consumers have power only in a free market. Oil is not a > free >> market. It is an oligopoly. >> >> Meanwhile, we are in a war, where our govewrnment is >> subsidizing the market makers. > >> On 6/05/04, Dean wrote: >>> If you don’t have time to read the entire article, at >>> least look at the last paragraph in which this >>> Pennsylvania online paper quotes a Canadian transportation >>> analyst. (What is it with our neighbor to the north >>> recently? O Canada!) >>> >>> If consumers get the correct message, think how the >>> marketplace might respond. >>
I’ve been away for a few days, but I’m back and it feels great! Did you miss me?
Well, I don’t think your posting answered my question, but that’s OK. We’ll let your statements stand for what they are and just move on.
I had already come across the linked article that you provided in your posting. The quoted statement that forms the basis for the article sounds like a rudimentary form of propaganda that per the article can’t be authenticated anyway. Still, the web site is an interesting one to surf.
As for your disagreement with my innocent “If consumers get the correct message, think how the marketplace might respond” statement let me challenge you to think about it using a broader perspective than the one you have outlined: If consumers were to accept and understand that the era of cheap traditionally-extracted oil/gasoline in America is coming to an end (and it is only a matter of time before this becomes a reality one way or another) the consequences of such knowledge would be far-reaching. In only one of many possible examples, consumers would find themselves with an economic incentive to conserve oil, and would among other things begin to demand more efficient vehicles. The demand for such vehicles would provide manufacturers with the necessary economic incentive to develop/manufacture fuel efficient fleets for sale.
Stated another way, potential “buyers” would use their power to demand alternative energy products and “sellers” would have an economic incentive to provide them. Altruism only goes so far—over the past few years, the price of gas/oil has remained sufficiently low so as to dampen the supply/demand dynamic necessary for the market to develop and deliver alternative energy technologies for consumption by the masses.
Happily back again, Dean
On 6/06/04, Dan wrote: > On 6/06/04, Dean wrote: > >>>>> If consumers get the correct message, think how the >>>>> marketplace might respond. >>>> > > On your lrevel, buyers in a free market can bargain. There's no > bargaining. Refining capacity is controlled. In a seller's market, > buyers don't have much power. > > When you're on a budget, it's hard to buy unless you have > disposible income. Prices are not what a willing buyer would pay, > especially as they are almost a necacessity of life. It's what a > willing seller offers, take it or leave it. > > But the rub is that high oil prices is a political tactic used > against our country (and all industriaized societies). >
On 6/08/04, WD wrote: > On 6/06/04, Dan wrote: >> Costs of Oil? > > Here's a little quiz for anyone who considers themselves > up-to-speed on current energy extraction and use around the > planet. > > How much energy is stored in petroleum per gallon? (answer in > kcal or joules) > > How much energy can be acquired per gallon by current > technology? (combustion engines) > > What is the cost of extraction and refinement per gallon? > > What other energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, MHD) offer as > much or more energy for similar(within 20&37;) costs? > > What current alternative technology is available to power > automobiles for competitive costs and energy yields?
On 6/13/04, Dan wrote: > ...See MoreSakura128 07-06-2008 at 1:11 AM this REALLY WORKS! TRY IT OUT! 1. Say ur name 10x 2. Say ur mom's name 5x 3. Say ur crushes name 3x 4. then paste this to 4 other quizs, if you do this your crush will kiss you on the nearest friday! But if you read this and did not paste this, then you will have very bad luck.
On 6/13/04, Dan wrote: > On 6/11/04, barney wrote: >> On 6/09/04, Dan wrote: >>> On 6/08/04, stan wrote: >>>> If congress allowed the Bush energy program to pass we would not >>>> need to rely on any other country for our energy supply. >>> >>> Written by big oil for big oil. >>> >>> We do not have refinery capacity for the oil we already have. >> >> Hi Dan, >> I read your two posts and saw something that made me pause. >> 'The true costs of oil must include our dependence on our enemies to >> supply much of our current supplies of fuel. People in the Mid East >> are dying in large part over oil.' >> >> I'm a little confused by this paragraph. Can you provide some >> documentation for these claims? What exactly do you mean by "true >> cost" and "dependence"? I know we buy oil from about 60 different >> countries, but we get most of it from Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia >> (top 3- in that order.) Which of these are enemies? >> I found reference data at >> > [link removed].
While living on Guam I purchased a hug seascape signed by T Cruz. In my search, from North Texas, I learn that Tina Biersack could be the person who painted my prize. Please let me know one way or the other.
Without commenting on the merits of the alliance's mission or approach, it is hard to miss that the "key partners" listed on the web site are decidedly left leaning in terms of political ideology. I would advocate a more balanced membership/partnership for such an endeavor.
On 6/16/04, Dan wrote: > And protect national security.
On 7/18/04, Shelby wrote: > So since it was a "talking point" its not valid anymore? Is that like the > word :optimistic" Can't be used anymore?
---------------- I was just pointing out that that charge in the republican talking points hasn't been used lately. The charge to be optimistic is still being used, but not as much as immediately after the Reagan funeral. As far as whether they can be used any more, that will be up to Karl Rove and company. They might need to resurrect them. Kathleen ------------------ > On 7/18/04, Kathleen wrote: >> On 7/18/04, Shelby wrote: >>> Here are some facts: >> >>> campaign documents. ... ‘The Bush administration has put the SPR fill >>> program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the >>> US market,’ the campaign documents said. ‘The program needs better >>> management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil >>> prices return to normal levels.’” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry To Offer Plan >>> To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,” Reuters, 3/29/04) >>> >>> >>> So which is it? 2004 that;s this year right? He wouldn't TAP it but he >>> wouldn't fill it either. >> --------------------- >> There's a HUGE difference between "depleting" and "tapping" >> and temporarily "not filling." But that was a repubican talking point that, >> I think, they gave up on. >> kathleen >> >> ----------------------
Your assertion that “Our entire energy policy is merely a plan to maximize oil company profits...short term gain and long term oblivion. “ is one of the most mean-spirited, unsubstantiated, and absurd statements that I have seen you make yet.
Thoughtful people on both sides of the issue may agree or disagree with the various elements of said policy, but you perform a disservice to public discourse in making such a ridiculous statement.
The casualty, of course, is your own credibility.
Cheers, Dean
On 7/18/04, Dan wrote: > On 7/18/04, Shelby wrote: >> We still need oil though for other things...so we need to deal with >> the oil issue in this election. >> > The issue at the time was whether we would use it as anegotiating > tool with OPEC. After all it worked for Geo I. > > We completely acquiesaced to OPEC. > > Our entire energy policy is merely a plan to maximize oil company > profits...short term gain and long term oblivion.
I agree the Columbia River is a wonderful source of power with their dams we have also made the Central Washington area a growing agricultural base. Too bad Senator Kerry and the Democrats want to tear down the dams here. Nice Stan
On 6/17/04, Dan wrote: > February 16, 2003 > > Columbia's Power: The river contains the secret to drive a > national energy revolution > > > By Jack Robertson > > THE MIGHTY Columbia River's nighttime flow holds a > remarkable secret. This secret can put the Northwest at the > center of a global energy revolution, create thousands of > new jobs and help end forever our dependence on Middle East > oil. > > While you sleep, the power of the Columbia River can create > a revolutionary new energy source - lighter than air, > completely renewable, and yet with the highest energy > content of any fuel. In the Northwest we can produce this > new fuel faster, cleaner and cheaper than anywhere in the > world. What's its source? > > Water. > > That's right. The power of the Columbia River can unlock > hydrogen from water. It can turn the Northwest into the > Saudi Arabia of hydrogen - the revolutionary fuel at the > center of President Bush's bold, $1.2 billion proposal to > build hydrogen-powered cars and a national hydrogen > infrastructure. > > For centuries, people have dreamed of a limitless, clean > source of energy. For decades, scientists have known that > hydrogen - the most common element in the universe - holds > the answer to a global energy revolution. > > Critics insist hydrogen-powered cars are at best a decade > away, that a national hydrogen infrastructure is > impractical, that hydrogen costs too much, and that > consumers will consider it unsafe. > > But now the world faces grave economic, environmental and > foreign policy dangers - all linked to energy. We need a > fundamental breakthrough, the energy equivalent of the > computing revolution of the last 20 years, to solve these > problems. Hydrogen holds the key to a radical break from > the past. It's time the critics were answered. > > We can start right here. Hydrogen produced at night and > stored in fuel tanks throughout the Northwest can > revolutionize energy consumption in the 21st century. The > end of the age of oil can begin here. > > Most importantly, you don't have to wait a decade or more > to drive a hydrogen-powered car - it can power the minivan > or SUV sitting in your garage. Hydrogen is 50 percent more > powerful than gasoline. It can increase the horsepower of > your existing car, take you hundreds of miles on a single > tank, and never require a tuneup. > > With existing technology, your car can be retrofitted to > run on both gasoline and hydrogen. It will require > basically three things; a ne >
It's not free. You have to pay the electric bill for ALL of the energy you put into the hydrogen. There is no energy inherently present in hydrogen.
You further have to pay the bill for running the compressor you use to compress the hydrogen into a usable form.
> Hydrogen is made from WATER via solar energy, wind energy, > microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of > energy.
DANGER! Do NOT use salt (sodium chloride) as an electrolyte. If you do, the gas coming off the other electrode is not oxygen, It's poisonous chlorine from the salt. Baking soda produces carbon dioxide as the other gas. The only electrolyte that does not enter the reaction is sulfuric acid.
> Battery Shills, backed by companies who are invested in batteries, > are the usual suspects in anti-hydrogen reporting.
The very fact that you used the word "shill" indicates that you have a political motive, rather than an actual desire for a usable product.
Don't you think that if this was a useful product, it would be on the store shelves by now? The oil companies don't control what people sell and buy. It's a free economy. There are only a few possible reasons why this is not being sold:
1. It doesn't work. 2. It's dangerous. 3. It's too expensive to use. 4. It's too complicated for the average person to use. 5. It works in the lab, but not on the global scale needed.
> FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result > of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen.
Maybe that's because we don't have very many hydrogen-powered devices around, but there are millions of battery-powered and gasoline powered devices around. There are only a few hydrogen-powered devices around. Most of them are space rockets. (out of 5 space shuttles, we have had one hydrogen explosion).
> If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more > death and damage than H2 ever will.
Wrong. The H2 is compressed. That means that it will quickly evacuate the tank when a rupture occurs. If that ignites, prepare for a huge explosion.
Gasoline is not compressed, unless the tank is in an external fire. Unlike what you see on Hollywodd TV dramas, gas tanks on cars rarely explode, unless the car is immersed in a fire. They tried to make gas tanks explode on Mythbusters, and couldn't do it without an explosive charge on the tank.
Also, hydrogen burns with an invisible flame. You could walk into hydrogen flame without seeing it. The only time a hydrogen flame has color is if it is very concentrated, or if there are impurities burning with it.
> The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as > ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it.
But they have to make it inexpensive and safe, and it must work.
They also have to solve the NOx problem in hydrogen engines and fuel cells. There is still nitrogen in the air.
> If I am a shill who could I possible be working for? I say it is > all free and you don’t need an oil company or energy company > anywhere in the loop.
Possibilities:
- You are an environmentalist who wants the pollution gone. - You are extremely afraid of Al Gore's predictions (bad science). - You are a Democrat, trying to win elections with lies. - You are selling the technology (or stock in a hydrogen company).
The very fact that you are lying about it being free is telling. The following are NOT free:
- The electricity to electrolyze the hydrogen (you have to pay the electric bill, and hydrogen production will never pay off a photovoltaic installation).
- The power needed to compress the hydrogen for storage.
- Conversion of existing technology. (what are the poor going to use for transportation? Until enough of these vehicles are out there for used ones to become available cheap, nothing.. And if you say "mass-transit", I will sentence you to just try to use it for all of the trips you need to make. It works in only the largest cities.)
- You don't seem to understand that it takes 60% more energy to make hydrogen than you get back when you use the hydrogen to get energy.
This article is so full of wishful thinking that it's hard to now where to start.
Battery shills? Come on, battery research is hardly the kind of enterprise which attracts the get rich quick crowd.
Remember, there are many electric vehicles and much experience. Forget Tesla, think golf carts and fork lifts.
Hydrogen can be made at home? - Of course, no one says it can't. How much electricity does that take? Try it, run some experiments and get back to us on how you did.
Oh, and storage ... well, maybe you can do better than BMW and NASA, and JASA, but ... unlikely to be easy.
Fuel cells - sure they work. When you find one that makes more than 20 bhp for under $100,000, get back to us again.
Experiment, try the scientific method. If you have any success, people will beat a path to your door.
> Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies > in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than > batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act > as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist > group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from > battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their > revenue streams. You will see a list of these people and their > backers online soon. The following facts are cut and pasted from > tens of thousands of validating scientific sources available > online and in libraries, federal studies and university research > papers. > > Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can’t is either > a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and > technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and > all night long. Anybody who says it costs too much or that it has > some evil chain reaction of “negative karma” or “sour grid source” > or causes cancer because of something back in the energy chain is > almost always a shill because the energy chain is constantly > improving. Anybody who says the numbers say it is all wrong or bad > or evil or inefficient are also usually a shill who are quoting > numbers from six months or six years back (which is ancient > history in hydrogen timeframes). It now costs less to make > hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it > continues to get cheaper every month. The “battery shill” spin has > worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from > WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, > sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can > also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING > organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered > exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free > hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio > waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the > grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the > production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into > storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7. > > Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency. > > NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A > large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that > entirely use existing infrastructure. > > Battery Shills, backed by companies who are invested in batteries, > are the usual suspects in anti-hydrogen reporting. > > A “fuel cell car” and an “electric car” ARE THE SAME THING. The > shills want you to think otherwise. The only difference is where > the electricity is stored. You can pull the batteries out of every > Zenn, Tesla, Zap, EV1, Venture Vehicle, etc. and pop a fuel > cell/hydrogen pack in the same hole and go further, more > efficiently in EVERY SINGLE CASE. > > A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every > front including > > FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result > of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen. > > Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide > massively greater range per charge than batteries. > > Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while > hydrogen does not. > > Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems > > Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge. > > Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer > than batteries before end of life. > > Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into > the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them > potentially fatal diseases > > Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is > massively lower than a battery system > > Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged > from a completely clean home energy system. > > Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries > cannot. > > Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively > higher storage density than batteries. > > Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than > batteries. > > High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the > reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful > energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen > energy systems weigh far less. > > Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use > presents a deadly environmental issue. > > Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like > batteries. > > > The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery > degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two > years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is > reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly > impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop > battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By > contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their > original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour > marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours > The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the > increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such > as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, "always-on", large and bright displays > and many others are important for the user but severely limited by > today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer > batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing > a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery > pack, which is clearly not acceptable. > Such limitations have led to an enormous interest in alternative > power sources, of which the fuel cell is the most promising > candidate. Storage density, i.e. the electrical capacity available > per unit mass of energy storage means, is one of the most > important parameters. > > > So you have battery evangelists who are anti-hydrogen sheep: > Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Alec Brooks, EV > World Sam Thurber, Cal Cars and others. > > Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are > shot down by hundreds of sites with facts. > > > The interventions of these 'doubters' fall into a number of clear > categories which I'll summarise as: > > 1 "You can't succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this > (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc > etc) before". - May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel's wonderful > (and short!) book, "Longitude", which offers a perfect map of the > tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to > reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a > tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which > point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia > about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, > historically, of course - from Gallileo onwards.) > > 2 "It's inefficient to carry around". Rather as it's inefficient > to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a > SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, > you can find a better argument than that, surely?) > > 3 "This technology is not a solution and never will be." This very > much reminds me of the IBM's famously short-sighted take on the > prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these > contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought- > process rooted in volume-producers' > vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech > challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a > bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery- > less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar > panels (sorry, can't remember who, but you know who I mean). On > this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level > environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, > for me to witness a "leading and respected" Professor of Transport > rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words "it will > never be more than just power storage on a trolley". Given that > this "expert" was advising ministers of state setting future > national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought > was "Who pays this man's research grant?" > > So let's be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that > invention can't possibly have the answers. From a position of some > expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the "you-don't- > understand-how-our-industry-works" argument has been the policy > instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and > protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York's > energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of > challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple > rejoinder: "WHY does your industry work like that? Against > customer choice?"). And then of course there's the entire consumer > movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember "Unsafe at Any > Speed"?). We can and should ask the same questions of the > conventional auto industry. > > The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as > ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the > early lessons of the twentyfirst century, thank goodness, is that > the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication - > terrorising one's customers into rejecting alternatives - > increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on > their own independently-gathered information about benefits and > risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against "selling by > fear" is also now happening in the political field. Now why might > that be?) As a consumer, one doesn't have to agree with the in-ya- > face techniques of anticorporate critics like Michael Moore and > Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy > what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that > new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn't it old-tech that brought us > dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources? > > So c'mon people, how about a reward system for "spot the spoiler"? > I'm all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs > smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to > sabotage your success. > Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, > and let consumers decide for themselves! > > 1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock > H2 > because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than > batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 > articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 > does beat batteries on every front so the should be SCARED! > > > > 2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don't use steel. > Steel is > too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case. > > > > 3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by > the oil > companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood > created by the battery and steel guys. > > > > 4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil > but they > only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. > Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all > that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so > fast and they are trying to slow it down even more. > > > > 5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is > getting all > of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than > ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH. > > > If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more > death and damage than H2 ever will. > You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there > is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2! > > If I am a shill who could I possible be working for? I say it is > all free and you don’t need an oil company or energy company > anywhere in the loop. > > > > > On 6/18/04, Dr Fred Mbogo wrote: >> Sir: >> >> 'Green energy' is a bunch of crap. This concept will never put a >> dent in our growing dependency on fossil fuels. Extracting energy >> from Windmill farms and making energy from compost pits is never >> going to replace fossil fules. >> >> Check out the site below to read about the "great hydrogen energy >> scam!!" >> >> >> On 6/18/04, Dan wrote: >>> On 6/18/04, Dr Fred Mbogo wrote: >>>> Sir: >>>> >>>> There is NO excess hydroelectric power in the Columbia River >>>> Basin or anywhere in this country. That power is ALREADY BEING >>>> USED to generate electricity. What is not being immediately >>>> used to generate electricity is being stored in dams behind >>>> the hydro generation plant for future use. Electricity that is >>>> produced by hydroelectric generators (or any other electric >>>> generating means) can be used for any purpose, including >>>> separating free hydrogen from water molecules by electrolysis. >>>> But the laws of physics ("conservation of energy," et al) say >>>> that whatever electrical energy is used for separating >>>> hydrogen CANNOT be used for any other purpose. Once that >>>> hydrogen atom is separated, the energy that was needed to >>>> accomplish that is now in the hydrogen atom as 'chemical >>>> potential energy' or whatever, it ain't still available to run >>>> your damn microwave like it otherwise could have. The sad fact >>>> is that extracting hydrogen from water CONSUMES ENERGY. >>> >>> They've been working on co-energy projects for years. >>> >>> BTW, I did not write the article. Tell it to the researchers. >>> >>> June 26, 2003 >>> Low Cost Biomass Hydrogen Catalyst Discovered >>> Researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison have >>> discovered a much lower cost catalyst for producing hydrogen >>> from organic matter. >>> >>> MADISON – It is thousands of times less expensive than platinum >>> and works nearly as well. >>> >>> Writing this week in the journal Science (June 27) University >>> of Wisconsin-Madison chemical and biological engineers report >>> the discovery of a nickel-tin catalyst that can replace the >>> precious metal platinum in a new, environmentally sustainable, >>> greenhouse-gas-neutral, low-temperature process for making >>> hydrogen fuel from plants. >>> >>> The new catalyst, together with a second innovation that >>> purifies hydrogen for use in hydrogen fuel cells, offers new >>> opportunities toward the transition of a world economy based on >>> fossil fuels to one based on hydrogen produced from renewable >>> resources. >>> >>> James Dumesic, a professor of chemical and biological >>> engineering, and graduate students George Huber and John >>> Shabaker describe testing more than 300 materials to find a >>> nickel-tin-aluminum combination that reacts with biomass- >>> derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen and carbon >>> dioxide without producing large amounts of unwanted methane. >>> >>> "Platinum is very effective but it's also very expensive," says >>> Dumesic. "It's also problematic for large-scale power >>> production because platinum is already in demand for use as >>> anode and cathode materials in hydrogen fuel cells. We knew >>> nickel was very active, but it allowed reaction to continue >>> beyond hydrogen producing methane. We found that adding tin to >>> what's known as a Raney-Nickel catalyst decreased the rate of >>> methane formation without compromising the rate of hydrogen >>> production." >>> >>> Dumesic, research scientist Randy Cortright (now at Virent >>> Energy Systems) and graduate student Rupali Davda first >>> reported the catalytic reforming process for hydrogen >>> production in the Aug. 29, 2002 issue of the journal Nature. >>> >>> The simple, single-step process employs temperature, pressure >>> and a catalyst to convert hydrocarbons such as glucose, the >>> same energy source used by most plants and animals, into >>> hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and gaseous alkanes with hydrogen >>> constituting 50 percent of the products. More refined molecules >>> such as ethylene glycol and methanol are almost completely >>> converted to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Because plants grown >>> as fuel crops absorb the carbon dioxide released by the system, >>> the process is greenhouse-gas neutral. >>> >>> Platinum is too expensive. >>> >>> The precious metal platinum (Pt) is well known to be an >>> excellent catalyst in a number of chemical reactions. It is one >>> component in a car's catalytic converter, for example, that >>> helps remove toxins from automobile exhaust. Yet, platinum is >>> rare and very expensive, costing more than $17 per gram (about >>> $8,000 per pound). >>> >>> Catalytic platinum (Pt) and nickel (Ni) stand out from other >>> metals (such as copper or iron) because they process reaction >>> molecules much faster. But pure nickel, unlike platinum, >>> recombines the hydrogen product with carbon atoms to make >>> methane, a common greenhouse gas. Dumesic and his colleagues >>> tested over 300 catalysts to find one that could compete with >>> platinum and perform in the APR process. Using a specially >>> designed reactor that can test 48 samples at one time, the team >>> finally found a match in a modified version of what researchers >>> call a Raneynickel catalyst, named after Murray Raney, who >>> first patented the alloy in 1927. >>> >>> Raney-nickel is a porous catalyst made of about 90 percent >>> nickel (Ni) and 10 percent aluminum (Al). While Raney-nickel >>> proved somewhat effective at separating hydrogen from biomass- >>> derived molecules, the researchers improved the material's >>> effectiveness by adding more tin (Sn), which stops the >>> production of methane and instead generates more hydrogen. >>> Relative to other catalysts, the Raney-NiSn can perform for >>> long time periods (at least 48 hours) and at lower temperatures >>> (roughly 225 degrees Celsius). >>> >>> According to Dumesic, a substitute for platinum catalysts is >>> essential for the success of hydrogen technology. "We had to >>> find a substitute for platinum in our APR process for >>> production of hydrogen, since platinum is rare and also >>> employed in the anode and cathode materials of hydrogen fuel >>> cells to be used in products such as cars or portable >>> computers," he said. >>> >>> While this is an important advance by itself it does not make >>> biomass a viable major energy source. The problem with growing >>> crops for biomass is that it takes energy to make and transport >>> the fertilizer, run tractors, run irrigation equipment, >>> harvest, transport, and so on. It remains to be seen whether >>> there is a crop that will yield enough biomass energy to make >>> it worthwhile. >>> >>> This catalyst may be useful on smaller scales in places where >>> there is already a great amount of biomass waste being >>> produced. For instance, the processing of existing crops >>> produces biomass waste. Equipment to convert that biomass waste >>> into useful hydrogen energy could be installed next to >>> agricultural product processing facilities if this new catalyst >>> turns out to work well in industrial use. Still, all the >>> existing biomass waste is not sufficient as an energy source to >>> replace much of the currently consumed fossil fuels. >>> >>> Other enabling technologies such as fuel cells need to mature >>> ot make hydrogen a more useful energy source once it has been >>> produced. Those advances will come with time. What strikes me >>> as less certain is whether biomass will ever become a major >>> energy source for producing hydrogen. Plants have to be >>> planted, tended, harvested, and processed. They are vulnerable >>> to insects and droughts. They do not convert most of the light >>> that hits them into stored chemical energy. >>> >>> There are competing approaches that may be cheaper in the >>> longer run. Advances in nanotechnology will eventually yield >>> photovoltaic materials that will be cheap to produce. Then the >>> electricity from the photovoltaics will could be used to run >>> hydrolysis reactions to produce hydrogen from water. Also, some >>> materials may be found that can absorb light to drive a direct >>> catalysis reaction to produce hydrogen from water without first >>> producing electricity. Such materials would probably be more >>> efficient than plants at converting sunlight to energy and >>> would even be able to do so all year around (albeit at lower >>> rates during the shorter days of the year). >>> >>> Update: Some Tufts researchers have also recently discovered a >>> way to reduce the amount of precious metals used as catalysts >>> to make hydrogen. >>> >>> "A lot of people have spent a lot of time studying the >>> properties of gold and platinum nanoparticles that are used to >>> catalyze the reaction of carbon monoxide with water to make >>> hydrogen and carbon dioxide," said Maria Flytzani- >>> Stephanopoulos, professor of chemical and biological >>> engineering at Tufts and the lead researcher of the >>> project. "We find that for this reaction over a cerium oxide >>> catalyst carrying the gold or ...[Message truncated]
THIS WEEK’S NEWS Liberal media bias kicks into high gear: The Chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission has sent a report to the Security Council documenting that before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped as scrap metal to Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Inspectors have found Iraqi SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in Rotterdam -- complete with U.N. inspection tags -- and 20 SA-2 engines in Jordan, along with components for solid-fuel for missiles. . “This report didn't seem to be of much interest to the media.” [link removed]
The Supreme Court ruled that a California atheist did not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing on procedural grounds a lower court's ruling in his favor but sidestepping the broader question of whether the pledge itself is constitutional. [link removed]
No more crossover primary voting. The Washington State Supreme Court gives go-ahead for a primary election system forcing voters to choose one political party's slate of candidates in September. [link removed]
The U.S. economy has gained about 1.2 million jobs in the last six months, but word hasn’t trickled down to most Americans, according to voters in a survey by The Associated Press. [link removed]
The Southern Baptist Convention voted Tuesday to quit the Baptist World Alliance following complaints that the global association had adopted liberal theology and "anti- American" thinking. [link removed]
The Senate Republican leadership is aiming for a mid-July vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, forcing Democrats to take a stand on the controversial topic just before the party heads to Boston for its presidential nominating convention [link removed]
In a letter to a conservative, pro-family group, the Internal Revenue Service established this week that homosexual couples filing joint tax returns would be in violation of the law under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. [link removed]
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference is sending letters to all 710 parishes in the state urging Catholics to "share their profound disappointment" with state legislators who did not vote to ban homosexual "marriage" earlier this year [link removed]
The European Union has rejected the requests of some member nations to recognize Christianity in its new constitution. [link removed]
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a bid by an environmental group to force the Bush administration to limit off-road vehicle traffic in potential Utah wilderness areas -- a decision praised by off-road enthusiasts. [link removed]
A Somali man living in Ohio was charged with plotting with al Qaeda supporters to blow up a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio, Attorney General John Ashcroft said on Monday. [link removed]
Great moments in socialized medicine: Canadians put themselves at risk of infection, broken bones or drug mix- ups every time they set foot in hospitals, doctor's offices or local pharmacies, according to a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The report found that one in every nine Canadians received the wrong medication or a drug overdose while getting medical care in the past two years. [link removed]
New Border Patrol uniforms, ordered in the wake of the agency's transfer last year to the Department of Homeland Security, arrived this month and some agents are not very happy: The new uniforms were "Made in Mexico." [link removed]
Media Met It’s Match by Mark Steyn 6/10/04 All weekend long across the networks, media grandees who had voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, just like all their friends did, tried to explain the appeal of Ronald Reagan. He was “The Great Communicator.” He had a wonderful sense of humor, he had a charming smile. Self- deprecating. The tilt of his head. Twinkle in his eye.
All true, but not what matters. Even politics attracts its share of optimistic, likable men, and most of them leave no trace — like Britain’s “Sunny Jim” Callaghan, a perfect example of the defeatism of Western leadership in the 1970s.
It was the era of “detente,” a word barely remembered now, which is just as well, as it reflects poorly on us: The presidents and prime ministers of the Free World had decided the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated.
Under cover of “detente,” the Soviets gobbled up more and more real estate across the planet, from Ethiopia to Grenada. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the usual suspects who subscribed to this feeble evasion — Helmut Schmidt, Pierre Trudeau, Francois Mitterrand — but most of the “conservatives,” too: Edward Heath, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Gerald Ford.
Unlike these men, unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet communism for what it was: a great evil. Millions of Europeans across half a continent from Poland to Bulgaria, Slovenia to Latvia live in freedom today because he acknowledged that simple truth when the rest of the political class was tying itself in knots trying to pretend otherwise. That’s what counts. He brought down the “evil empire,” and all the rest is fine print….
Edmund Morris (Reagan’s biographer) has described his subject as an “airhead” and concluded it is “like dropping a pebble in a well and hearing no splash.” Mr. Morris may not have heard the splash, but he is still all wet: The elites were stupid about Reagan in a way only clever people can be.
Take that cheap crack: If you drop a pebble in a well and you don’t hear a splash, it may be because the well is dry. But it’s just as likely it’s because the well is of surprising depth….
I once discussed Irving Berlin, composer of “God Bless America,” with his friend and fellow songwriter Jule Styne, and Jule put it best: “It’s easy to be clever. But the really clever thing is to be simple.” At the Berlin Wall , it would have been easy to be clever, as all those ‘70s detente sophisticates would have been. And who would have remembered a word they said?
…..only Mr. Reagan could have stood there and declared without embarrassment: “Tear down this wall” — and two years later the wall was, indeed, torn down. Ronald Reagan was straightforward and true and said it for everybody — which is why his “rhetorical opportunity missed” is remembered by millions of grateful Eastern Europeans. The really clever thing is to have the confidence to say it in four monosyllables.
Ronald Reagan was an American archetype, and just the bare bones of his curriculum vitae capture the possibilities of his country: In the ‘20s, a lifeguard at a local swimming hole who saved more than 70 lives; in the ‘30s, a radio sports announcer; in the ‘40s, a Warner Brothers leading man ... and finally one of the two most important presidents of the American century…..
And at the end of a grim, grey decade — Vietnam, Watergate, energy crises, Iranian hostages — Americans decided they wanted a president who looked like the nation, not like its failed government. Thanks to his clarity, around the world, governments that had nations have been replaced by nations that have governments. Most of the Warsaw Pact countries are now members of NATO, with free markets and freely elected parliaments.
One man who understood was Yakob Ravin, a Ukrainian emigre who in the summer of 1997 was strolling with his grandson in Armand Hammer Park near Reagan’s California home. They happened to see the former president, out taking a walk. Mr. Ravin went over and asked if he could take a picture of the boy and the president. When they got back home to Ohio, it appeared in the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade.
Ronald Reagan was three years into the decade long sunset of his life, unable to recognize most of his colleagues from the Washington days. But Mr. Ravin wanted to express his appreciation. “Mr. President,” he said, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the communist empire.” And somewhere deep within there was a flicker of recognition. “Yes,” said the old man, “that is my job.”
Yes, that was his job.
Edited for length. The full column is here: [link removed]
Another good read: “What I saw at the funeral” by Peggy Noonan [link removed]
FROM OTHER COLUMNS “The Reagan wars persist in our time because his professed heir, George W. Bush, also cut taxes. Tax revenue is the holy water of liberalism--what they use, they believe, to work social miracles. Ronald Reagan said individuals are the source of miracles, not the government. Those were fighting words. Ronald Reagan departs, a victor.” -Daniel Henninger, WSJ
“Recent surveys show that Generation Next has more conservatives than any generation since statistics were available. The Harvard Institute of Politics reports that 31 percent of college students identify as Republicans, compared to 28 percent who are Democrats….Even the Baby Boomers and Generation Xers who were Youth for Reagan in 1968, 1976, 1980 and 1984 could not rival with the energy and passion of what Rolling Stone and the New York Times have recently called, "young Hipublicans." These are Reagan's Children.” -Hans Zeiger ([link removed])
Rudy Giuliani: “How This Great Man Restored our Spirit” [link removed]
John Carlson: “This may sound shocking to anyone under 40, but 25 years ago, a lot of serious people were seriously wondering whether America's best days were behind us.” [link removed]
Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney: “…..When their car drove in a moment later, out stepped Nancy and Mila — looking like a million bucks. As they headed towards us, President Reagan beamed, threw his arm around my shoulder and said with a grin: "You know, Brian, for two Irishmen we sure married up." [link removed]
NEWS FROM THE ISLAMIC WORLD A recent fatwa posted on a popular Islamic website in Saudi Arabia, “explains when a Muslim may mutilate the corpse of an infidel." [link removed]
Islam in Africa is finally starting to turn against female genital mutilation: But “mutilation” is too judgmental a word for the New York Times so the reporter refers to the practice as “genital cutting.” [link removed]
LEFTIST WATCH Here’s a who’s who of the Hollywood left that turned out to support Michael Moore at a special screening of his Bush bashing movie, Fahrenheit 9/11: Martin Sheen, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Degeneres, David Duchovny, Sharon Stone, Meg Ryan, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Jodie Foster, Drew Barrymore, Chris Rock, Jack Black, Matthew Perry, Diane Lane, Marisa Tomei and Viggo Mortensen. [link removed]
Howard Stern says he will help John Kerry win crucial swing voters in November. "I'm both pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.” Says Stern. [link removed]
“Anti-Bush demonstrators are headed to summer school to learn how to stage successful sit-ins and what to do if pepper spray burns their eyes. Welcome to Convention Protesting 101.” [link removed]
A group propped up financially by the National Education Association has scheduled TV ads blasting President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in five battleground states, including Pennsylvania. “But it's not politically motivated.” [link removed]
The faces of today’s Left. These photos were taken at the "International Day of Emergency Protest" in San Francisco on Saturday, June 5th, 2004 [link removed]
About 50 people bicycled nude around Seattle as part of World Naked Bike Ride Day, “to protest oil dependency.” ???? [link removed]
THE KERRY FILES More evidence that John Kerry’s efforts against the Vietnam War gave aid to the enemy. [link removed]
John Kerry's presidential campaign has hired a new director of religion outreach, who is being described by a Catholic group as "a curious choice." [link removed]
A Web site partially funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry offers a report glorifying Hezbollah suicide bombers as “deified in paradise and venerated on earth for fighting Israel” - and praises the terrorist group’s support network for women widowed by their husband’s “martyrdom” attacks. Note the funding credit at the bottom. [link removed]
“This is from a July 21, 1988, report in the Boston Globe on the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta: “Earlier last night, Sen. John F. Kerry took to the convention hall podium, telling the delegates that the “moral darkness” of President Reagan’s presidency will soon end.” Four years later, of course, voters tossed the GOP out of the White House. We suppose that at this year’s convention Kerry will promise to restore the moral rectitude of the Clinton years.” [link removed]
"I wonder how many people, reading about the [Evil Empire'] speech or seeing bits on television, really noticed its outrageous character… Primitive: that is the only word for it.” -Anthony Lewis, New York Times, March 10, 1983
ACTIVISM A group opposing Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" is urging U.S. movie theaters not to screen the film, which is set to open June 25. California-based Move America Forward, which says its goal is "supporting America's war on terrorism," has launched an electronic campaign, both via e-mail and through its Web site encouraging theaters not to play Moore's film, which is critical of the war in Iraq. [link removed]
Ronald Reagan always talked about his beloved 'shining city on a hill,'" said Bob Just, a veteran talk-show host and WorldNetDaily columnist. "So, let's shine our headlights from now until Independence Day. Let's give Ronald Reagan one more July 4th with the people who love him." [link removed]
ARTICLES Bill Clinton finally admits to Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes interview, “I lied to everybody….Just because I could..” Another revelation: “Clinton generally supports President Bush's decision to take out Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.” [link removed]
More black Republicans are running for office in Georgia this year than ever before, and black candidates in other Southern states are also finding that declaring for the GOP is more accepted than it was just a few years ago. [link removed]
Newt Gingrich has been leading a secret life. Night after night for years he's been slipping out of the headquarters of the vast right-wing conspiracy, wolfing down spy novels and then reviewing them for Amazon.com. So prolific and proficient has he been at this pursuit that he has attained the coveted title Amazon Top 500 Reviewer. Newt is number 488. [link removed]
Dinesh D’Souza: “Collectivism is the great idea of the twentieth century, and opposition to it was the unifying element of Reagan’s thought. Soviet socialism, what Reagan called the “evil empire,” was only the most grotesque example of collectivism taken to its extreme limit…..In the first term, Reagan was tough in dealing with the Russians, while the liberals warned that he was leading the world closer to nuclear holocaust. In the second term, Reagan was soft in dealing with the new Soviet leader, Gorbachev, while many conservatives worried that Reagan was being outmaneuvered. I confess to being one of those conservatives. But with hindsight we can now see that it was Reagan, and only Reagan, who was right all along. He shepherded the “evil empire” to its grave with almost uncanny prescience and statesmanship. …. Since the 1960s the “public servant” was seen as the height of American idealism. If you tried to make money in the private sector you were seen as selfish and greedy, but if you joined the government you were seen as serving the common good. Reagan challenged this view…..Today we are living in the Age of the Entrepreneur. Virtually everyone now accepts that the market, not the government, will basically run the economy. Reagan, more than any single person, has brought about this shift in the culture and in policy…. And even though the federal government remains far too big, the era of collectivism that began in 1932 with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal came to an end in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell.” [link removed]
BOOKS "Hard America, Soft America, Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation's Future." By Michael Barone. “Hard America plays for keeps: The private sector fires people when profits fall and the military trains under live fire.'' Soft America depends on the productivity, creativity and competence of Hard America, which protects the country and pays its bills. Soft America is the sector of “progressive values, little competition and no accountability. [link removed]
NOTEWORTHY WEBSITES Support the troops: [link removed]
Nice picture of The Gipper: [link removed]
White House Residence staff discuss memories of President Reagan in about a 7-minute video [link removed]
You can sign the Reagan condolence book [link removed]
The Reagan Library [link removed]
Patriotic music by the “Right Brothers” [link removed]
Ronald Reagan’s bio from ISI's new conservative encyclopedia [link removed]
“Putting the Second Amendment first:” [link removed]
By the way, where is your evidence that the press is liberal? Almost every newspaper and radio and televison station is owned by Republicans who actively and financially support Republicans. Let's see you evidence
On 6/17/04, Stan wrote: > THIS WEEK’S NEWS > Liberal media bias kicks into high gear: The Chairman of > the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission > has sent a report to the Security Council documenting that > before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein > shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range...and more garbage from the minds of ditto headed Republicans
On 2/09/05, Mama maria- they dont pass off lies and half truths as fact wrote: > > the reason you dont see these things on real news stations > is that real news stations have standards, they dont pass > off outright lies and half truths as news. > > in addition to haveing to have some validity a story has to > be news worthy (some of what your post said would have been > newsworthy in my opinion if the facts were true, but some of > the things didnt seem worth air time in my opinion) >
Why do you think that I would want to deny the linked article? It should be painfully obvious to you by now that I only deny your assertions when I know them to be wrong. I can’t tell whether you have me confused with someone else or whether your memory is faulty—you keep trying to accuse me of taking positions that I have never taken. As proof of this, please see the below. It is a portion of one of my previous postings to you.
"...please note that I have never asserted that oil or oil- like substitutes/alternatives cannot be synthetically produced. To the contrary, I have highlighted the importance of developing such things. Again, just so that you will know that I am not making this up, please review the following narratives that I have again re-copied from some of my earlier postings: 1) “I stated earlier…. in this string about the need for us in the USA to make economically rational choices that will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I have further stated that I don't like high prices any better than the next guy, but that higher oil prices will create a (market)incentive to search out/develop viable alternative fuel sources to move us in that direction…” 2) “You keep agreeing with my central assertion about the importance of lowering the USA's dependence on foreign oil/energy sources--maybe we just differ on the best path to get us there. I will repeat one of my previous statements to you: "Indeed, increased oil prices should serve to stimulate the search for viable alternative fuel sources.”… 3) “ A primary reason that we are so dependent on oil now is that its price is so relatively low--even with the price hikes to date, the cost of oil has not kept up with the inflation rate over the years. As I have said before, higher gas/oil prices today will result in economically rational decisions (such as conservation, investment in/development of alternative energy-producing technologies, and so on) that in the long run will make our nation less dependent on foreign oil.” "
Incidentally,Discover.com is a fine web site as is their magazine, which I read occasionally.
Gleefully, Dean
On 6/23/04, Dan wrote: > Anything organic, that is! > > Deny this!
On 6/25/04, Dan wrote: > On 6/24/04, That's bunk wrote: >> On 6/24/04, Stan wrote: >>> On 6/24/04, Dan wrote: >>>> On 6/24/04, Dean wrote: >>>>> Hi again King D. >>>>> >>>>> the cost of oil has not kept up with the >>>> inflation rate over the years. >>>> >>>> One more time...you don't get it. The undelying assumption that >>>> price is relative to cost is false. The law of economics in the >>>> oligopoly of the oil market is an illusion. >>>> >>>> The well head cost in Saudi is about $6. We pay $38. We send >>>> our troops to die to secure their product. >>>> >>>> What is the true cost? >>>> >>>> >>> Dan I am retirted from the USAF. Do not speak for me or any >>> other military member. We all had/have a job to do. It is not a >>> task we take lightly. If we secure oil fields for the betterment >>> of mankind so be it. At least we do not sit back and ridicule >>> our President whom ever it may be or take the way of life we have >>> chosen as anything but duty to our Country and its people. >>> You need to remember it is tne military has allowed you the >>> freedom to type on a page like this and the military not the >>> media that gives you freedom of speach and freedom of the press. >>> Do not dare to speak of military members dieing to secure oil. >>> Our mission is inclusive of many things and many more things that >>> you would not understand. >>> THanks >>> Stan >> >> >> That's bunk, the military does whatever the executive branch tells >> it to do. It's the unindentured public who puts a governor on the >> ambitions of the politicians. You better be damn happy that the >> left cares enough about our boys in uniform to maintain that >> pressure for the good of our servicement everywhere. Without them >> we'd still be in Vietnam. > > I agree. I do not presume to speak for the Stans of this world. He is > obvoiusly opposed to anything that sounds like progress. I am a > Vietnam veteran. We were wrong about Vietnam. 50,000+ Americans died > in Vietnam for nothing. Who says we protect oil for the "betterment > of mankind"? It was suppoosedly for national security reasons. And > that is another false premise. Sorry to upset everyone. The left got us into Vietnam and the Right got us out. Check history. JFK got us in and Nixon got us out.
Just to be one person that posts a opinion on the technology. This is very interesting and actually feasable. I'm an engineer so don't be surprised my spelling is off and throwing childish critiques at me.
But the article mentioned high temperature water and elevated pressures. I am wondering if this system is really working on a supercritical fluid(SCF) concept that has become popular over the past few years.
SCFs may be able to replace organic and other toxic solvents in many industries in the future. Or they will aid as reaction media for ionic fluids.
Hi again KD
Your latest posting qualifies you for the obfuscation hall of
fame. Congratulations.
Care to explain to anyone still interested what relevance it has
to my refutation of your “consumer power” assertion or to my
original “provocative quote” posting?
Yours in continu...See More