Last Flight Sea Harrier(10) - SHAR_Last_Flight_10.JPG

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

There's already technology available to replace fossil fuels; not just the
biodiesel and ethanol already mentioned. There's a process known as TDP -
Thermal Deploymerisation Process (that's why it's known as TDP!) that can
take any carbon-based fuel (food scraps; garden waste; waste plastic; waste
paper; agricultural waste; forestry waste etc) and make gaseous and liquid
fuels (diesel; petrol [gasoline] and kerosene) that would mean we wouldn't
have to change anything on our cars - even biodiesel requires some changes.

I read one article that said (paraphrased) "In 2001, the U.S. imported 4.2
billion barrels of crude oil. Using TDP, all the agricultural waste in the
U.S. could replace 4 billion barrels of that". The other 200 million
barrels could be replaced with fuel farms (growing trees, probably) as well
as food and forestry waste.

--
Alan Erskine

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

There's already technology available to replace fossil fuels; not just the
biodiesel and ethanol already mentioned. There's a process known as TDP -
Thermal Deploymerisation Process (that's why it's known as TDP!) that can
take any carbon-based fuel (food scraps; garden waste; waste plastic; waste
paper; agricultural waste; forestry waste etc) and make gaseous and liquid
fuels (diesel; petrol [gasoline] and kerosene) that would mean we wouldn't
have to change anything on our cars - even biodiesel requires some changes.

I read one article that said (paraphrased) "In 2001, the U.S. imported 4.2
billion barrels of crude oil. Using TDP, all the agricultural waste in the
U.S. could replace 4 billion barrels of that". The other 200 million
barrels could be replaced with fuel farms (growing trees, probably) as well
as food and forestry waste.

--
Alan Erskine

Alan Erskine wrote:

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).




I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
discovered than is admitted.

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

"NoJags Neil" wrote in message
...
See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine

NoJags Neil wrote:

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...



But this was not known back in the 1980, yes?

JT

NoJags Neil wrote:

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...



But this was not known back in the 1980, yes?

JT

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
own...


See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

"Alan Erskine" skrev i en meddelelse
...
"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
it.

I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
nation better than a quick little war!
2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"

Alan Erskine wrote:

"alf blume" wrote in message
k...

"Paul Elliot" skrev i en meddelelse
t...

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
it.

I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

C'mon.




I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...

JT