Ethanol Powered Aircraft

ktbr wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

Tell you what fellow, *you* are the one who needs an education!

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Oh, and *you* have almost certainly never been to ANWR if you
think all it is is "frozen tundra"! Some people (those with a
bit more knowledge than you) are aware that frozen tundra is
some pretty awesome landscape.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:19:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote in :

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
the billion dollar investments needed.

On 16 Aug 2006 11:13:08 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:
The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
the billion dollar investments needed.

I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East,
the rich camel ****in' Bedoins can go back to being what they have
been throughout history -- POOR camel ****in' Bedoins... Without the
money from the oil, terrorism will not be able to be financed...
Problem solved...

Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Jim



I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen...

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:07:03 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:
Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Exactly... Inefficient, but with since it only needs water as a fuel
and we have *plenty* of that, a bit of inefficiency might be
acceptable...

RST Engineering wrote:

Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Jim

You have just pointed out the level of overall ignorance that pervades
this country these days. That's part of the reason why we are in the
situation we are in in the first place.... ignorant people elect ignorant
politicians.

I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East...

Besides the repulsive words that follow, don't you think that a country
that can't educate itself, that still believes in gods and spirits, that
rejects evolution, and that believes taking shoes off and banning
toothpaste and fine wines on carry-on luggage keeps us safe, is not
really the right country to entrust bunches of nuclear reactors to?

Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead won't have
moles in the reactors?

The simple solutions aren't.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote

Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead won't have
moles in the reactors?

Nah, moles in the reactors will not do any good. They are just small
rodents.

Anyway, moles in reactors would be quickly killed from all of the radiation.

g

You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit "send."
;-)
--
Jim in NC