sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:40 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
> >Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
> >stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
> >if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
> >prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
> >mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
> >( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
> >for so long.
> >
> >Sky
>
> This is what happens when the public allows drilling off their
> coastlines. The Valdez, Alaska, spill still hasn't been completely
> cleaned up.... after how many years?

The Valdez spill had nothing whatsoever to do with offshore drilling.
People like you who either deliberately lie and distort or are just
plain clueless about facts are the biggest threat to this country. It's
not possible to have any rational policies or debates when the ignorant
and prejudiced attack anything they don't like or understand.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:59:07 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

>Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
>accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
>look bad.

YAY, hooray to making it look bad! More drilling was a dumb idea.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:15:03 -0700, "Steve B"
> wrote:

>
>"Sky" > wrote in message
...
>> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
>> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
>> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>> for so long.
>>
>> Sky
>>
>> --
>> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
>> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!
>
>Dude!
>
>They opened the shrimp season early, and all the shrimpers reported to the
>oil companies and volunteered their boats for containment. The shrimp are
>not mature enough yet for harvesting. Learn what you are talking about
>before putting that grey matter in gear.
>
>The size and magnitude of this will only be known in a year. A plausible
>reclamation idea of a bell over the wellhead with an airlift vacuum has been
>proposed, which is exquisitely simple, and in my opinion will work.
>
>But, that's just coming from someone who lived in Louisiana for eight years,
>and knows the fishery, and not an informed individual such as
>you............................
>
>BTW, at any stage, less than a weeks inventory is kept by any supplier
>because of spoilage, so the time to stock up was LAST week. But, again,
>bowing to your superior intellect ..........
>
>Steve
>
Oh good grief. Stop being such a pompous ass.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:29:48 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> > Sky wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's
>> >> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>> >> time to remediate.
>> >
>> > Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
>> > remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
>> > inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
>> > volcano in Iceland.
>>
>> ...and everyone knows the volcano in iceland turned out to be completely
>> harmless.
>
> BS. Tell that to the airlines, travelers, damaged engines, etc.

He was being sarcastic. Oil may be natural but it is anything but harmless.

Paul

Steve B wrote:
>
> "gloria.p" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Shrimp and seafood will be unavailable and gas prices will rise.
> >
> > Oh, BOOHOO. It's "all about me", isn't it?
> >
> > What about the widespread damage to the environment overall in general and
> > the loss of both life and oil. What about the obscene disregard for
> > safety shown by both BP and the drilling company? (BTW, the rumor is that
> > the drilling company is a subsidiary of Haliburton.)
> >
> > Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
> > accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
> > look bad.
> >
> > gloria p
>
> FYI, Haliburton's subsidiary, Schlumberger, pronounced shlumberzhay, did the
> cementing on the well, which was being capped for further development. This
> leaves a clear trail back to Cheney and Dubya.
>
> I agree that this was an accident or somebody screwed up big time. This is
> going to be HUGE, eclipsing the Exxon Valdez exponentially. No one would
> cause such a disaster except a madman or someone seeking power. No one
> would do this on purpose. It's just plain bad for business.

The "anti" crowd does include some madmen and terrorists, but I'm not
sure they have the capability to sabotage something of this scale and
complexity.

> I think you've got it figured: Either Obama did or didn't really plant
> to drill, he either would or wouldn't have actually drilled, or he either
> is or isn't planning on moving forward with the programs he did or didn't
> really intend.
>
> But no matter what happens it's bad for America!

Mr. O fully intends to fulfill all campaign promises.

Or, that's what some people say.

Steve

"gloria.p" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Shrimp and seafood will be unavailable and gas prices will rise.
>
> Oh, BOOHOO. It's "all about me", isn't it?
>
> What about the widespread damage to the environment overall in general and
> the loss of both life and oil. What about the obscene disregard for
> safety shown by both BP and the drilling company? (BTW, the rumor is that
> the drilling company is a subsidiary of Haliburton.)
>
> Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
> accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
> look bad.
>
> gloria p

FYI, Haliburton's subsidiary, Schlumberger, pronounced shlumberzhay, did the
cementing on the well, which was being capped for further development. This
leaves a clear trail back to Cheney and Dubya.

I agree that this was an accident or somebody screwed up big time. This is
going to be HUGE, eclipsing the Exxon Valdez exponentially. No one would
cause such a disaster except a madman or someone seeking power. No one
would do this on purpose. It's just plain bad for business.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

sf <sofat@Obeastie wrote:
>"gloria.p" wrote:
>
>>Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
>>accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
>>look bad.
>
>More drilling was a dumb idea.

OIL is a dumb idea. The technology exists for safe/clean,
inexpensive, efficient hydrogen energy... international mega wealth
industries and the politicos in their back pocket is all that stands
in the way. There could have been hydrogen fuel cell driven surface
vehicals thirty years ago... hydrogen fuel cell air transportation
would have been shortly thereafter a reality, as would space travel.

It's far more rational to place resources into R&D for alternative
energy... drilling for more oil is pure pinheadedness. The resources
wasted on this spill alone by the time it's under control and
remediated would have freed the world from oil dependance. What's
needed is change alright, but in a new direction. Drilling for oil is
just more of the same-old... and oil is very finite, then what...
running out of oil will be a lot worse than running out of beer.

brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> sf <sofat@Obeastie wrote:
> >"gloria.p" wrote:
> >
> >>Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
> >>accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
> >>look bad.
> >
> >More drilling was a dumb idea.
>
> OIL is a dumb idea. The technology exists for safe/clean,
> inexpensive, efficient hydrogen energy...

No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
useable state.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
> useable state.

It's called nuclear hydrogen.

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html

This would be a good complement to electricity production,
because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
or you have to have something to do with all that
nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
lines between France and Italy.

With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
the energy during slack demand to make fuel.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
> > carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
> > somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
> > useable state.
>
> It's called nuclear hydrogen.
>
> http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html

That's nice, however it is exactly as I said, hydrogen is *not* and
energy source it is only a carrier. In this case it is excess nuclear
energy being used during off peak times to produce hydrogen for storage
for later use i.e. charge the hydrogen battery.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:43:36 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>"Pete C." wrote:
>>
>> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
>> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
>> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
>> useable state.
>
>It's called nuclear hydrogen.
>
>http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
>
>This would be a good complement to electricity production,
>because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
>You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
>or you have to have something to do with all that
>nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
>export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
>at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
>night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
>lines between France and Italy.
>
>With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
>proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
>the energy during slack demand to make fuel.

Hydrogen fuel cells already exist... and are actually in use (in
Israel and Sweden... they produce electricity to operate electric
motor driven vehicles... only by-product being water, zero
pollution... they use no fossil fuel whatsoever. Fuel cells are
exchanged by driving through something that operates like a mini car
wash, as the vehicle is pulled through the spent cell that is located
on the under carraige is extracted and a fresh cell inserted.

These fuel cells have been under development for more than thirty
years at the grubbermint facility where I worked (the very same
facility where the infamous Manhattan Project was conducted) and
research is ongoing. Many improvements have been made but work is
slow and tedius as the grubberment allocates very little funding.

brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:43:36 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> >"Pete C." wrote:
> >>
> >> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
> >> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
> >> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
> >> useable state.
> >
> >It's called nuclear hydrogen.
> >
> >http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
> >
> >This would be a good complement to electricity production,
> >because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
> >You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
> >or you have to have something to do with all that
> >nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
> >export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
> >at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
> >night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
> >lines between France and Italy.
> >
> >With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
> >proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
> >the energy during slack demand to make fuel.
>
> Hydrogen fuel cells already exist... and are actually in use (in
> Israel and Sweden... they produce electricity to operate electric
> motor driven vehicles... only by-product being water, zero
> pollution... they use no fossil fuel whatsoever. Fuel cells are
> exchanged by driving through something that operates like a mini car
> wash, as the vehicle is pulled through the spent cell that is located
> on the under carraige is extracted and a fresh cell inserted.
>
> These fuel cells have been under development for more than thirty
> years at the grubbermint facility where I worked (the very same
> facility where the infamous Manhattan Project was conducted) and
> research is ongoing. Many improvements have been made but work is
> slow and tedius as the grubberment allocates very little funding.

Yes, hydrogen fuel cells certainly exist and have been useable but very
expensive for a fair amount of time. This however does not change the
fact that hydrogen is not an energy source, just a carrier. The hydrogen
fuel cell is basically just a better battery. The energy to produce the
hydrogen has to come from somewhere, such as the nuclear power that was
noted.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:33:20 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:43:36 -0700, Mark Thorson >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Pete C." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
>> >> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
>> >> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
>> >> useable state.
>> >
>> >It's called nuclear hydrogen.
>> >
>> >http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
>> >
>> >This would be a good complement to electricity production,
>> >because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
>> >You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
>> >or you have to have something to do with all that
>> >nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
>> >export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
>> >at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
>> >night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
>> >lines between France and Italy.
>> >
>> >With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
>> >proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
>> >the energy during slack demand to make fuel.
>>
>> Hydrogen fuel cells already exist... and are actually in use (in
>> Israel and Sweden... they produce electricity to operate electric
>> motor driven vehicles... only by-product being water, zero
>> pollution... they use no fossil fuel whatsoever. Fuel cells are
>> exchanged by driving through something that operates like a mini car
>> wash, as the vehicle is pulled through the spent cell that is located
>> on the under carraige is extracted and a fresh cell inserted.
>>
>> These fuel cells have been under development for more than thirty
>> years at the grubbermint facility where I worked (the very same
>> facility where the infamous Manhattan Project was conducted) and
>> research is ongoing. Many improvements have been made but work is
>> slow and tedius as the grubberment allocates very little funding.
>
>Yes, hydrogen fuel cells certainly exist and have been useable but very
>expensive for a fair amount of time. This however does not change the
>fact that hydrogen is not an energy source, just a carrier. The hydrogen
>fuel cell is basically just a better battery. The energy to produce the
>hydrogen has to come from somewhere, such as the nuclear power that was
>noted.

You're an idiot. H20... I'll say no more.

brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:33:20 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:43:36 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Pete C." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
> >> >> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
> >> >> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
> >> >> useable state.
> >> >
> >> >It's called nuclear hydrogen.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
> >> >
> >> >This would be a good complement to electricity production,
> >> >because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
> >> >You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
> >> >or you have to have something to do with all that
> >> >nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
> >> >export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
> >> >at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
> >> >night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
> >> >lines between France and Italy.
> >> >
> >> >With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
> >> >proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
> >> >the energy during slack demand to make fuel.
> >>
> >> Hydrogen fuel cells already exist... and are actually in use (in
> >> Israel and Sweden... they produce electricity to operate electric
> >> motor driven vehicles... only by-product being water, zero
> >> pollution... they use no fossil fuel whatsoever. Fuel cells are
> >> exchanged by driving through something that operates like a mini car
> >> wash, as the vehicle is pulled through the spent cell that is located
> >> on the under carraige is extracted and a fresh cell inserted.
> >>
> >> These fuel cells have been under development for more than thirty
> >> years at the grubbermint facility where I worked (the very same
> >> facility where the infamous Manhattan Project was conducted) and
> >> research is ongoing. Many improvements have been made but work is
> >> slow and tedius as the grubberment allocates very little funding.
> >
> >Yes, hydrogen fuel cells certainly exist and have been useable but very
> >expensive for a fair amount of time. This however does not change the
> >fact that hydrogen is not an energy source, just a carrier. The hydrogen
> >fuel cell is basically just a better battery. The energy to produce the
> >hydrogen has to come from somewhere, such as the nuclear power that was
> >noted.
>
> You're an idiot. H20... I'll say no more.

You're the idiot, it takes an energy *source* to separate the H2 from
the O. It doesn't matter if you do the separation somewhere else and
fuel your cell with compressed hydrogen, or you let the cell do it
charging it from an electric source, in either case the hydrogen is just
the energy carrier.

On 4/30/2010 3:43 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
>>
>> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
>> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
>> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
>> useable state.
>
> It's called nuclear hydrogen.
>
> http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
>
> This would be a good complement to electricity production,
> because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
> You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
> or you have to have something to do with all that
> nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
> export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
> at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
> night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
> lines between France and Italy.
>
> With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
> proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
> the energy during slack demand to make fuel.

Do a little more research Mark, hydrogen makes a poor fuel because it
doesn't have enough Btu's to fire a furnace, or run an engine,
efficiently. I ran boilers for a large oil company back in the sixties,
they tried putting excess hydrogen into the fuel feed for the boilers
and everything went to hell in a handbasket. Natural gas, of which there
is a plentitude in the US, serves better in large boilers, can run cars
more efficiently, and does a better job than H. Of course H is a cleaner
burning fuel as the residue is basically H2O, aka water but the CO and
CO2 of natural gas, aka methane, can be scrubbed fairly easily from the
exhaust.

"gloria.p" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Shrimp and seafood will be unavailable and gas prices will rise.
>
> Oh, BOOHOO. It's "all about me", isn't it?
>
> What about the widespread damage to the environment overall in general and
> the loss of both life and oil. What about the obscene disregard for
> safety shown by both BP and the drilling company? (BTW, the rumor is that
> the drilling company is a subsidiary of Haliburton.)
>
> Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
> accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
> look bad.

You're absolutely right of course. I didn't mean to make it sound all
boohoo'y for me. I really am concerned about the wildlife is being
impacted, and our earth.

Gulf of Mexico

60 million b.c.e - 2010.

R.I.P.

Goodbye.

Cheryl wrote:
>
> "gloria.p" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Shrimp and seafood will be unavailable and gas prices will rise.
>>
>> Oh, BOOHOO. It's "all about me", isn't it?
>>
>> What about the widespread damage to the environment overall in general
>> and the loss of both life and oil. What about the obscene disregard
>> for safety shown by both BP and the drilling company? (BTW, the rumor
>> is that the drilling company is a subsidiary of Haliburton.)
>>
>> Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
>> accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
>> look bad.
>
> You're absolutely right of course. I didn't mean to make it sound all
> boohoo'y for me. I really am concerned about the wildlife is being
> impacted, and our earth.
>

Pete C. wrote:

> It is important to remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground
> that is inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike
> that volcano in Iceland.

You don't think the volcano is a disaster?

Bob

Cheryl wrote:
>
> You're absolutely right of course. I didn't mean to make it sound all
> boohoo'y for me. I really am concerned about the wildlife is being
> impacted, and our earth.

Don't worry about it. The area impacted is a
dead zone. If that's not true, then the whole
dead zone theory is a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zo...Gulf_of_Mexico

In article . com>,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> > sf <sofat@Obeastie wrote:
> > >"gloria.p" wrote:
> > >
> > >>Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
> > >>accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
> > >>look bad.
> > >
> > >More drilling was a dumb idea.
> >
> > OIL is a dumb idea. The technology exists for safe/clean,
> > inexpensive, efficient hydrogen energy...
>
> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
> useable state.

Actually, during the last administration, billions of dollars were
allocated for pure R&D to develop methods of producing hydrogen fuel.
All of the money was devoted to producing it from...fossil fuels
(natural gas). Thunk.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> Actually, during the last administration, billions of dollars were
> allocated for pure R&D to develop methods of producing hydrogen fuel.
> All of the money was devoted to producing it from...fossil fuels
> (natural gas). Thunk.

No matter the "administration," there has been government and private
support for research to develop renewable energy from tidal, geothermic,
and "bio" (think corn & cooking oil as some examples) resources.

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:55:08 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Pete C. wrote:
>
>> It is important to remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground
>> that is inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike
>> that volcano in Iceland.
>
>You don't think the volcano is a disaster?
>
Apparently not. I guess nothing is an issue unless it impacts him
physically.
>Bob


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 4/30/2010 4:43 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
>>
>> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
>> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
>> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
>> useable state.
>
> It's called nuclear hydrogen.
>
> http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
>
> This would be a good complement to electricity production,
> because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
> You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
> or you have to have something to do with all that
> nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
> export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
> at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
> night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
> lines between France and Italy.
>
> With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
> proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
> the energy during slack demand to make fuel.

And when fuel prices rise to a level where it is cheaper to make
hydrogen by electrolysis than to use some other source then that's what
will happen. Until they rise to that level, using electrolytic hydrogen
would just increase costs.

On 4/30/2010 6:31 PM, George Shirley wrote:
> On 4/30/2010 3:43 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it does not. Hydrogen is *not* an energy source, it is an energy
>>> carrier, basically a better battery. The energy still has to come from
>>> somewhere to produce / separate the hydrogen and compress it into a
>>> useable state.
>>
>> It's called nuclear hydrogen.
>>
>> http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html
>>
>> This would be a good complement to electricity production,
>> because nuclear plants can't be throttled quickly.
>> You either have to use fossil fuel to meet peak demand,
>> or you have to have something to do with all that
>> nuclear energy when demand is low. In France, the
>> export electricity to the UK, Germany, and Italy
>> at night -- Italy had a nationwide blackout one
>> night when a thunderstorm knocked out the transmission
>> lines between France and Italy.
>>
>> With nuclear hydrogen, we could increase the
>> proportion of electricity from nuclear, and use
>> the energy during slack demand to make fuel.
>
> Do a little more research Mark, hydrogen makes a poor fuel because it
> doesn't have enough Btu's to fire a furnace, or run an engine,
> efficiently.

<cough> Space Shuttle Main Engine <cough>

> I ran boilers for a large oil company back in the sixties,
> they tried putting excess hydrogen into the fuel feed for the boilers
> and everything went to hell in a handbasket. Natural gas, of which there
> is a plentitude in the US, serves better in large boilers, can run cars
> more efficiently, and does a better job than H. Of course H is a cleaner
> burning fuel as the residue is basically H2O, aka water but the CO and
> CO2 of natural gas, aka methane, can be scrubbed fairly easily from the
> exhaust.

How do you "easily" scrub CO2 from a car exhaust and what do you do with
it after you've scrubbed it?

If you're trying to burn hydrogen in an oil burner it's not going to
work very well, try burning it in a hydrogen burner and it works fine.

On 4/30/2010 1:51 AM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Pete C. wrote:
>
>>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
>>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>
>> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
>> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>> islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
>> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
>> negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
>> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
>> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>> time to remediate.
>
> Yes, this could easily end up a bigger spill than the Valdez,
> because it could go on for months.
>
> This is among the reasons why we should be conserving energy instead
> of drilling for more oil.

Uh huh. So tell us how to conserve enough energy to not need any fuel.
Not pie in the sky pipe dreams and not bullshit like turning out
lights and adding more insulation, but something that will actually work
to reduce energy consumption to a level that can be met with existing
non-fuel sources.

On 5/1/2010 1:45 AM, Sky wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>> Actually, during the last administration, billions of dollars were
>> allocated for pure R&D to develop methods of producing hydrogen fuel.
>> All of the money was devoted to producing it from...fossil fuels
>> (natural gas). Thunk.
>
> No matter the "administration," there has been government and private
> support for research to develop renewable energy from tidal, geothermic,
> and "bio" (think corn& cooking oil as some examples) resources.

(a) We know how to produce all the hydrogen we want. There's no trick
to that. The trick is producing it at a cost that makes it competitive
and there's no way that can be done by making it from water.

(b) "bio" is crap--the effect of "bio" has been to raise food prices.
I'm sure you think that there's some magic biofuel that will grow madly
on non-arable land but there isn't.

On Sat, 01 May 2010 00:45:35 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>No matter the "administration," there has been government and private
>support for research to develop renewable energy from tidal, geothermic,
>and "bio" (think corn & cooking oil as some examples) resources.
>

The continued use of fossil fuel represents fossilized thinking. Out
with the old, get going with the new and not the current form of
nuclear - which is like sitting on a time bomb.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:19:40 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Cheryl wrote:
>>
>> You're absolutely right of course. I didn't mean to make it sound all
>> boohoo'y for me. I really am concerned about the wildlife is being
>> impacted, and our earth.
>
>Don't worry about it. The area impacted is a
>dead zone. If that's not true, then the whole
>dead zone theory is a myth.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zo...Gulf_of_Mexico

According to your cite, the dead zone theory requires the existence of
life in the first place.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:00:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:40 -0500, Sky >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>> >stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>> >if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
>> >prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>> >mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
>> >( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>> >for so long.
>> >
>> >Sky
>>
>> This is what happens when the public allows drilling off their
>> coastlines. The Valdez, Alaska, spill still hasn't been completely
>> cleaned up.... after how many years?
>
>The Valdez spill had nothing whatsoever to do with offshore drilling.
>People like you who either deliberately lie and distort or are just
>plain clueless about facts are the biggest threat to this country. It's
>not possible to have any rational policies or debates when the ignorant
>and prejudiced attack anything they don't like or understand.

Pete, you're a complete idiot. Oil spills are made of oil and you
can't change that fact.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:29:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>Uh huh. So tell us how to conserve enough energy to not need any fuel.
> Not pie in the sky pipe dreams and not bullshit like turning out
>lights and adding more insulation, but something that will actually work
>to reduce energy consumption to a level that can be met with existing
>non-fuel sources.

Birth control.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 5/1/2010 11:28 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:29:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> Uh huh. So tell us how to conserve enough energy to not need any fuel.
>> Not pie in the sky pipe dreams and not bullshit like turning out
>> lights and adding more insulation, but something that will actually work
>> to reduce energy consumption to a level that can be met with existing
>> non-fuel sources.
>
> Birth control.

So how's that working out in China?

On 5/1/2010 10:55 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 00:45:35 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>> No matter the "administration," there has been government and private
>> support for research to develop renewable energy from tidal, geothermic,
>> and "bio" (think corn& cooking oil as some examples) resources.
>>
>
> The continued use of fossil fuel represents fossilized thinking. Out
> with the old, get going with the new and not the current form of
> nuclear - which is like sitting on a time bomb.

So instead of telling everyone else to produce a miracle, why don't you
whip one up and show all the stupid scientists and engineers how it's done?

sf wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:19:40 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> >Cheryl wrote:
> >>
> >> You're absolutely right of course. I didn't mean to make it sound all
> >> boohoo'y for me. I really am concerned about the wildlife is being
> >> impacted, and our earth.
> >
> >Don't worry about it. The area impacted is a
> >dead zone. If that's not true, then the whole
> >dead zone theory is a myth.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zo...Gulf_of_Mexico
>
> According to your cite, the dead zone theory requires the existence of
> life in the first place.

And it was all killed years ago, before the oil slick.
This is like worrying about an oil slick on the Moon.

J. Clarke > wrote:

>On 4/30/2010 1:51 AM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> This is among the reasons why we should be conserving energy instead
>> of drilling for more oil.

>Uh huh. So tell us how to conserve enough energy to not need any fuel.
> Not pie in the sky pipe dreams and not bullshit like turning out
>lights and adding more insulation, but something that will actually work

Lessee. Italians are perfectly happy using 3100 kg of oil-equivalent
per year, instead of the 7800 Americans are using. So yes,
conserve, don't drive your SUV, eat less meat, consume less in
general and we won't have to drill.

Hard to call something a "pipe dream" when real people are actually
doing it already. But you knew this.

Steve

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:57:01 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:29:48 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Sky wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's
>>>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>>>> time to remediate.
>>>
>>> Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
>>> remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
>>> inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
>>> volcano in Iceland.
>>
>> ...and everyone knows the volcano in iceland turned out to be completely
>> harmless.
>
> BS. Tell that to the airlines, travelers, damaged engines, etc.

but 200,000 gallons of oil a day into the gulf of mexico won't harm
anything?

blake

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:57:24 -0700, Juan Anonly wrote:

> On 2010-04-30 06:57:41 -0700, Chemiker said:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:00:58 +0000 (UTC),
>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>>>
>>> It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
>>> he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>>>
>> What a slapdown. Just before EarthDay a drilling rig, not in
>> production, blows up and sinks. And now Axelrod decrees there will be
>> no further Gulf drilling until the investigation is "over". Funny how
>> it all works out *against* drilling. And what's this I hear about SWAT
>> team being sent to other oil rigs to "inspect".... for what, I wonder?
>> Faulty valves? IMHO, SWAT teams don't seem the right inspectors for
>> drilling hardware....
>>
>> Smart money bet that renewed or expanded drilling was never going to
>> happen, despite the PrezBO's rhetoric. Now: Do Axelrod's words mean
>> that drilling for NatGas in the Green Canyon lease will be halted? BHP
>> Biliton and Rio Tinto have just initiated major NatGas efforts there.
>
> I think you've got it figured: Either Obama did or didn't really plant
> to drill, he either would or wouldn't have actually drilled, or he
> either is or isn't planning on moving forward with the programs he did
> or didn't really intend.
>
> But no matter what happens it's bad for America!

no, no, no. not bad for *america*, just bad for *obama*. but we can fix
that once we take our country back from a president duly elected by a
pretty healthy majority of u.s. citizens.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:00:59 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:40 -0500, Sky >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>>>stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>>>if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
>>>prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>>>mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
>>>( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>>>for so long.
>>>
>>>Sky
>>
>> This is what happens when the public allows drilling off their
>> coastlines. The Valdez, Alaska, spill still hasn't been completely
>> cleaned up.... after how many years?
>
> The Valdez spill had nothing whatsoever to do with offshore drilling.
> People like you who either deliberately lie and distort or are just
> plain clueless about facts are the biggest threat to this country. It's
> not possible to have any rational policies or debates when the ignorant
> and prejudiced attack anything they don't like or understand.

yeah, too bad the citizens aren't fully enough informed to decide it's
either no big deal of some kind of sabotage initiated by commie obama.

blake

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:41:37 -0700, Steve B wrote:

> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>>Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>>
>> It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
>> he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>
> I understand Obama has dispatched SWAT teams to the area. Is this to deal
> with the tea baggers?

pussy. he should use tactical nukes.

blake

On 5/1/2010 11:46 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:19:40 -0700, Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cheryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're absolutely right of course. I didn't mean to make it sound all
>>>> boohoo'y for me. I really am concerned about the wildlife is being
>>>> impacted, and our earth.
>>>
>>> Don't worry about it. The area impacted is a
>>> dead zone. If that's not true, then the whole
>>> dead zone theory is a myth.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zo...Gulf_of_Mexico
>>
>> According to your cite, the dead zone theory requires the existence of
>> life in the first place.
>
> And it was all killed years ago, before the oil slick.
> This is like worrying about an oil slick on the Moon.

That's right, we have to protest to stop all those Midwestern farmers
from dumping all their nitrates into the Mississippi and then down to
the Gulf. If we don't the last ten shrimpers and the four crabbers, not
to mention the illegal fishermen will starve to death. If you don't
believe that you should read the sob stories in the local papers.

As a matter of fact, oil and tar has been washing ashore on the Gulf
beaches for millennia, if not eons. Ma Nature has done a pretty good job
of turning it into harmless elements. Now we have a much bigger spill
and the idiots in Washington, you know, the ones we elected, are
screaming to stop all drilling before we pollute the beaches and the
tourists stop coming. Of course they're only worried about Florida, the
rest of the Gulf States and Mexico aren't that important.