George Shirley wrote:
>
> 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.

Certainly not Louisiana. That's our Haiti.
Florida is completely different. There are
Jews living there, and they know how to
complain.

sf > wrote:

>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.

Declassified:
http://www.bnl.gov/energy/

blake murphy wrote:

>
> 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.
>


Jeez, Blake, halfway through tha tpost I started wondering if you'd gone
over to the Dark Side.

gloria p

On 5/1/2010 1:20 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> J. > 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.

So suppose the US reduced energy consumption to the Italian level. That
would make the US not need any oil at all? Is that what you are saying?

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

Who other than the !Kung are running an oil-free society?

> Steve

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:


> 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.

Sounds like circular reasoning, unless I'm missing something. It takes
an enormous amount of energy to electrolyze. To create hydrogen from
the electrolysis of water, takes just as much energy as is released by
burning the hydrogen, assuming 100% efficiency (which we are not even
close to at this point). Without some kind of breakthrough, the
electricity generation requires a fuel. As the price of "fuel" rises,
the price of electricity rises with it. As the price of electricity
rises, the cost of producing hydrogen by electrolysis rises.

Simply put, it will *never* happen. As Pete keeps saying, hydrogen is
not a *source* of energy, just a way to store it. There is simply no
way to procure hydrogen fuel without expending more energy than you can
get out of it.

All current plans for hydrogen fueled vehicles are based on getting the
hydrogen from fossil fuel sources (natural gas).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 4/30/2010 3:13 PM, Steve B wrote:
> > 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.

Nice conspiciry theory...

Schlumberger is an autonomous French company started by two brothers of
that name and isn't owned by Haliburton. I worked for Schlumberger for
almost ten years when they were going through their big expansion phase
and purchased my then employers business.


>
> 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.
>
>

On 5/1/2010 12:20 PM, blake murphy wrote:
> 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:
>>>
>>> ...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
>

AKA the Gulf of Texaco.

Becca

Dan wrote:

> To create hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, takes just as much
> energy as is released by burning the hydrogen, assuming 100% efficiency
> (which we are not even close to at this point).

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, 100% efficiency is not even
theoretically possible.

Bob

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
> > To create hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, takes just as much
> > energy as is released by burning the hydrogen, assuming 100% efficiency
> > (which we are not even close to at this point).
>
> According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, 100% efficiency is not even
> theoretically possible.

Here's some numbers for "not even close":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...ter#Efficiency

"The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the
numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50*80%.[11][12]
These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical
energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating
the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power
plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via
electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30*45%."

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

J. Clarke > wrote:

>On 5/1/2010 1:20 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> J. > 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.

>So suppose the US reduced energy consumption to the Italian level. That
>would make the US not need any oil at all? Is that what you are saying?

No, if you read above, I said we should be conserving energy
instead of drilling for *more* oil.

I did not say we could get buy on zero oil consumption; although
if we made that a firm goal we probably could, but I was not
attempting to argue that point.

In any case, Obama blew it big time coming out in favor of drilling.

Steve

On May 1, 10:20*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:

> 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.
>

Italians have a much smaller country. They don't have to have their
products shipped all over the country. They probably don't need to
drive as far.

Also, even if we did reduce the level to theirs, how do we stop using
oil?

Even if we found some new magical way to run cars, how would we
convert all the cars? There are a lot of people who can't afford a
brand new car, especially a more expensive one. Especially when they
have one that runs fine. So, how do we suddenly replace millions of
cars that can run by other means? Regardless of what the new methods
are, the transition will be a slow one as people replace their cars.
Poorer people will be buying their cars used from people who can
afford to upgrade.

Right now, we need oil. And coal. Even those electric cars are
powering up from electricity provided by coal.

Since we currently need a lolt of oil, doesn't make sense to buy our
own, which creates more jobs for Americans, rather than buying it from
our enemies?

On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:10:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>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?

So you're joining Pete? Good grief.

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

On Sat, 01 May 2010 09:46:55 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>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.

As it is, the Gulf states are reaping what they sowed.

>This is like worrying about an oil slick on the Moon.


Unbelievable. So, in your POV this fiasco is okay? Why not just live
in the City dump?

IMO, if they can clean up Erie, they can clean up the Gulf and now is
a good time to start.

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

On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:37:06 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Certainly not Louisiana. That's our Haiti.
>Florida is completely different. There are
>Jews living there, and they know how to
>complain.

The last time I looked the ex-pat Cubans were a powerful political
force too. I guess you haven't noticed that ordinary tourists still
can't visit Cuba and have it stamped on our passport.

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

On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:09:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>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?

The natives still have that revered boy child thing going. Girls are
not valued. Things seem to be going well in the urban areas - but
orphanages are bursting with girls, if you haven't noticed. In the
country, where there is little need for an education people have as
many children as they want. The threat of no free education is not
leverage.

After I hit send, I realized I should have also included education.
Countries with severe population problems are also under educated.

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

On Sat, 1 May 2010 13:27:20 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>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.
>
An ecological disaster is an ecological disaster, whether it comes
from a tanker, an oil rig or a volcano... but it's not happening in
Pete's back yard so it's okay.


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

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On May 1, 10:20*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Italians have a much smaller country. They don't have to have their
> products shipped all over the country. They probably don't need to
> drive as far.
>
> Also, even if we did reduce the level to theirs, how do we stop using
> oil?
>
> Even if we found some new magical way to run cars, how would we
> convert all the cars? There are a lot of people who can't afford a
> brand new car, especially a more expensive one. Especially when they
> have one that runs fine. So, how do we suddenly replace millions of
> cars that can run by other means? Regardless of what the new methods
> are, the transition will be a slow one as people replace their cars.
> Poorer people will be buying their cars used from people who can
> afford to upgrade.
>
> Right now, we need oil. And coal. Even those electric cars are
> powering up from electricity provided by coal.
>
> Since we currently need a lolt of oil, doesn't make sense to buy our
> own, which creates more jobs for Americans, rather than buying it from
> our enemies?

Your voice of reason echoes in the wilderness unfortunately. :-(
I was quite angry when I found out that we actually sell most of our
domestic oil outside the country.

Stock holders and big oil companies do not give a rats ass about the
needs of the people here.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 5/2/2010 2:49 AM, wrote:
> On May 1, 10:20 am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Italians have a much smaller country. They don't have to have their
> products shipped all over the country. They probably don't need to
> drive as far.
>
> Also, even if we did reduce the level to theirs, how do we stop using
> oil?
>
> Even if we found some new magical way to run cars, how would we
> convert all the cars? There are a lot of people who can't afford a
> brand new car, especially a more expensive one. Especially when they
> have one that runs fine. So, how do we suddenly replace millions of
> cars that can run by other means? Regardless of what the new methods
> are, the transition will be a slow one as people replace their cars.
> Poorer people will be buying their cars used from people who can
> afford to upgrade.
>
> Right now, we need oil. And coal. Even those electric cars are
> powering up from electricity provided by coal.
>
> Since we currently need a lolt of oil, doesn't make sense to buy our
> own, which creates more jobs for Americans, rather than buying it from
> our enemies?

When did Canada and Mexico become "our enemies".

On 5/2/2010 3:14 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:10:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> So you're joining Pete? Good grief.

Whoever "Pete" might be.

Either you have a viable (as in someone has shown that it can completely
replace fossil fuels on a large scale, not as in "some Hippy said . .
..") replacement for fossil fuels or you don't. If you do then please
present it. If you don't then please STFU or join the killfile.

On Sun, 02 May 2010 05:30:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> If you do then please
>present it. If you don't then please STFU or join the killfile.

You'll be a lot happier after you kill file me because I think you and
Pete are hopelessly stuck in the past.

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

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> > > To create hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, takes just as much
> > > energy as is released by burning the hydrogen, assuming 100% efficiency
> > > (which we are not even close to at this point).
> >
> > According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, 100% efficiency is not even
> > theoretically possible.
>
> Here's some numbers for "not even close":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...ter#Efficiency
>
> "The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the
> numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50*80%.[11][12]
> These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical
> energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating
> the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power
> plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via
> electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30*45%."

You're focusing in electrolysis. The link provided to the DOE nuclear
hydrogen site had information on several other technologies that may be
better, and when produced using "waste" heat from a nuclear plant, it
only increases the overall efficiency.

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> 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.

It can only be cost effective if it is produced from a "free" or "waste"
energy source.

>
> (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.

The algae based biodiesel seems to have pretty good potential and can be
produced in non-arable areas.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 05:30:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
> > If you do then please
> >present it. If you don't then please STFU or join the killfile.
>
> You'll be a lot happier after you kill file me because I think you and
> Pete are hopelessly stuck in the past.

We're hopelessly stuck in reality, unlike folks like you living in some
fantasy land. Unlike the products of out failing schools, we have the
education and intelligence to separate the pie-in-the-sky unworkable
nonsense from the viable proven technologies.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> 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

As with all these pseudo-comparisons with things like energy
consumption, health care, public transportation, etc. in other
countries, it is comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Population
densities, standard of living, and numerous other factors make such
comparisons meaningless.

Don't tell us how some non comparable country is doing something, tell
us how something could be feasibly done here in the US.

sf wrote:
>
> 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.

You just continue living in your fantasy land where everything matches
your hippie prejudices. I'll continue living in and understanding the
real world.

Pete C. wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >
> > On 5/1/2010 1:45 AM, 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.
> >
> > (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.
>
> The algae based biodiesel seems to have pretty good potential and can be
> produced in non-arable areas.

Same for miscanthus (although I'm not so sure about its non-arable
element).

Sky

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

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Who other than the !Kung are running an oil-free society?

Before they got refrigerators, the Inuit.

Becca wrote:
>
> AKA the Gulf of Texaco.

Spill, baby, spill!

On 5/2/2010 11:49 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Becca wrote:
>>
>> AKA the Gulf of Texaco.
>
> Spill, baby, spill!

When's the last time you saw a Texaco station? The Saudi's own the
Texaco Star stations now and the rest is kaput.

Having worked for more oil companies than most of you know the names to
I can attest to the fact that MOST oil companies do not want to pollute
nor to hurt people on the job. It isn't altruism, it's money honey.

In all my years as a safety professional I have been named in lawsuits
more than two hundred times. I never had to pay a dime, and 99% of the
lawsuits were frivolous and the judges dismissed them. In the 1% that
got something it was smaller companies that just paid up rather than go
through a long, drawn-out, law suit with lots of bad publicity.

That being said, I never worked for BP, came close one time until I
looked up their safety record and said never mind.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> The algae based biodiesel seems to have pretty good potential and can be
> produced in non-arable areas.

No, it doesn't. The field is dominated by
government-supported charlatans. There are
two big problems.

One is that large closed cultures cannot be kept pure.
Algal virii and algal grazers (such as rotifers)
will get in there and eat the algae. Open cultures,
of course, will be contaminated with whatever
the wind blows in, so they have an even worse
problem. The most successful algal culture systems
use organisms such as _Spirulina_ or _Haematococcus_
which can be grown under stressful conditions (such as
high salinity) that suppress other species.

The other is heat. A dense algal culture is
almost black. It is a very efficient absorber
of solar energy, and it gets hot. If it gets
too hot, the algae die. Open cultures have the
advantage that they can be cooled by the evaporation
of water, but then you face the problem of getting
enough water to run your culture system. And it
must be pure water, otherwise there will be a
salt build-up in the culture medium.

Mass algal culture for fuel is pipe dream.
The only people in the field who are not
delibrate charlatans are delusional scientists.

On 5/2/2010 11:01 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 05:30:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> If you do then please
>> present it. If you don't then please STFU or join the killfile.
>
> You'll be a lot happier after you kill file me because I think you and
> Pete are hopelessly stuck in the past.

In other words you've got nothing but you're sure that anybody who
points that out is "stuck in the past"?

On 5/2/2010 12:38 PM, Sky wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2010 1:45 AM, 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.
>>>
>>> (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.
>>
>> The algae based biodiesel seems to have pretty good potential and can be
>> produced in non-arable areas.
>
> Same for miscanthus (although I'm not so sure about its non-arable
> element).

Miscanthus is a grass. Wheat is a grass. Corn is a grass. Anywhere
you can grow miscanthus you should be able to grow wheat or corn. Ergo
it's competing with wheat and corn for farmland, and fuel from corn has
already raised food prices.

As for algae, now you've basically got a factory going that's got
nutrients coming in one end and fuel going out the other. Can you do
that cheaper than nuclear?

On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:33:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> 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.

well, ready or not, we've probably reached peak oil. it's past time to
look for alternates.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 02 May 2010 05:30:48 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 5/2/2010 3:14 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:10:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> So you're joining Pete? Good grief.
>
> Whoever "Pete" might be.
>
> Either you have a viable (as in someone has shown that it can completely
> replace fossil fuels on a large scale, not as in "some Hippy said . .
> .") replacement for fossil fuels or you don't. If you do then please
> present it. If you don't then please STFU or join the killfile.

ohnoes!!!

blake

On Sun, 02 May 2010 12:19:27 -0500, George Shirley wrote:

> On 5/2/2010 11:49 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Becca wrote:
>>>
>>> AKA the Gulf of Texaco.
>>
>> Spill, baby, spill!
>
> When's the last time you saw a Texaco station? The Saudi's own the
> Texaco Star stations now and the rest is kaput.
>
> Having worked for more oil companies than most of you know the names to
> I can attest to the fact that MOST oil companies do not want to pollute
> nor to hurt people on the job. It isn't altruism, it's money honey.
>
> In all my years as a safety professional I have been named in lawsuits
> more than two hundred times. I never had to pay a dime, and 99% of the
> lawsuits were frivolous and the judges dismissed them. In the 1% that
> got something it was smaller companies that just paid up rather than go
> through a long, drawn-out, law suit with lots of bad publicity.
>
> That being said, I never worked for BP, came close one time until I
> looked up their safety record and said never mind.

your last sentence might serve as a 'nuff said.'

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 1 May 2010 18:17:33 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
>> To create hydrogen from the electrolysis of water, takes just as much
>> energy as is released by burning the hydrogen, assuming 100% efficiency
>> (which we are not even close to at this point).
>
> According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, 100% efficiency is not even
> theoretically possible.
>
> Bob

then we'll just repeal the law. or if that's not enough, we'll amend the
constitution.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> On 5/2/2010 12:38 PM, Sky wrote:

> >> "J. Clarke" wrote:

> >>> (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.

> > Same for miscanthus (although I'm not so sure about its non-arable
> > element).
>
> Miscanthus is a grass. Wheat is a grass. Corn is a grass. Anywhere
> you can grow miscanthus you should be able to grow wheat or corn. Ergo
> it's competing with wheat and corn for farmland, and fuel from corn has
> already raised food prices.

You can forget the "ergo" thing. Hay is a grass. Straw is a grass. I
spent half my life (actually, one week) in Elko, Nevada. The growing
season there is very short, and average precipitation is about 10
inches. The only crop is hay, and that requires irrigation. I'm sure
you can plant corn and wheat there, but you won't harvest anything for
market. The hay is not a competitor with other crops for farmland
there, it's the only thing you can grow.

Here's some information about miscanthus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_giganteus

Some of the points raised above were addressed but there aren't enough
hard numbers to really analyze it. I'm sure that information is
somewhere, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 5/2/2010 6:26 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> "J. > wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2010 12:38 PM, Sky wrote:
>
>>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>>>>> (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.
>
>>> Same for miscanthus (although I'm not so sure about its non-arable
>>> element).
>>
>> Miscanthus is a grass. Wheat is a grass. Corn is a grass. Anywhere
>> you can grow miscanthus you should be able to grow wheat or corn. Ergo
>> it's competing with wheat and corn for farmland, and fuel from corn has
>> already raised food prices.
>
> You can forget the "ergo" thing. Hay is a grass. Straw is a grass. I
> spent half my life (actually, one week) in Elko, Nevada. The growing
> season there is very short, and average precipitation is about 10
> inches. The only crop is hay, and that requires irrigation. I'm sure
> you can plant corn and wheat there, but you won't harvest anything for
> market. The hay is not a competitor with other crops for farmland
> there, it's the only thing you can grow.

Hay is not "a grass". Hay is vegetation that has been dried for
storage. Common constituents of hay include various grasses, various
legumes, clover, etc. Generally if the grasses used to produce hay will
grow then other grasses will grow.

Straw is also not "a grass", it is the stalks on which grains such as
wheat and oats grew.

If this is a demonstration of the depth of your knowledge of agriculture
you really shouldn't be pontificating about it.

In any case hay is animal fodder--if the price of hay goes up then the
price of meat and dairy produce go up.

> Here's some information about miscanthus:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_giganteus
>
> Some of the points raised above were addressed but there aren't enough
> hard numbers to really analyze it. I'm sure that information is
> somewhere, though.

Oh, wow, you can type "miscanthus wiki" into google. I'm _so_ impressed.

On 5/2/2010 2:47 AM, sf wrote:
> An ecological disaster is an ecological disaster, whether it comes
> from a tanker, an oil rig or a volcano... but it's not happening in
> Pete's back yard so it's okay.
>


The Deepwater Horizon explosion is a disaster on many levels; 11 workers
were killed and 17 were injured. I worry about the impact this oil
spill will have on the wetlands, the animals, birds and seafood.

My family has been in the oil business for 4 generations, the worst
disaster is my father lost one finger. Oh, I forgot about my BIL, the
pipes fell on him and he was in the hospital for almost a year. It is a
dangerous business.

Becca

On 5/3/2010 9:58 AM, Becca wrote:
> On 5/2/2010 2:47 AM, sf wrote:
>> An ecological disaster is an ecological disaster, whether it comes
>> from a tanker, an oil rig or a volcano... but it's not happening in
>> Pete's back yard so it's okay.
>
>
> The Deepwater Horizon explosion is a disaster on many levels; 11 workers
> were killed and 17 were injured. I worry about the impact this oil spill
> will have on the wetlands, the animals, birds and seafood.
>
> My family has been in the oil business for 4 generations, the worst
> disaster is my father lost one finger. Oh, I forgot about my BIL, the
> pipes fell on him and he was in the hospital for almost a year. It is a
> dangerous business.
>
> Becca

My family too Becca, me, father, grandfather, great grandfather. None of
us was ever injured on the job, none killed on the job. Although my
grandfather fell over dead from a massive heart attack at the tunnel
gate at the Mobil refinery in Beaumont, TX in 1946. The men in my line
generally die of either strokes or heart attacks.

Forty-seven years in the oil industry, thirty-one of them in industrial
safety, and I've only seen two people die from on-the-job accidents and
both of those were preventable and caused by human failure, ie. dumb-ass
stuff that wouldn't kill anyone if they weren't careless.