If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article dhLZb.9601$Ru5.5073@okepread03,
D. Strang wrote: "George Z. Bush" wrote Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy. You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need, because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. For every Gallon of Ethanol, you pay for it twice. Once for the subsidy to farmers (in the form of welfare), and once again from the retail chain. For "farmers" substitute "ADM, Inc" ("Archer Daniels Midland"), far and away the single biggest beneficiary of the subsidies, and a huge campaign donor to both parties. See Cato Institute's "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare" http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html Cato describes itself as a conserviative think tank, which they indeed are. ADM has been CONVICTED AND FINED in what was at the time the biggest antitrust fine in history. Corn-related in that there is a byproduct of corn-ethanol production a valuable industrial byproduct; Lecithin. Because of the subsidies ADM was able to produce and lecithin for free, and undercut all the competition. See http://www.lecithin.com/info/p2.html ...why haven't they created greater demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources? It's called an unfunded mandate. Think about it this way. If we gave GM and Ford the same amount of money we ****ed away on the Shuttle and Space Station, we would be floating in biodiesel, and no one would know who the Bin Laden family was. -- Al Dykes ----------- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"George Z. Bush" writes: "D. Strang" wrote in message news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03... "George Z. Bush" wrote Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part, unfortunately for us all. Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy. You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need, because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for some reason, it never caught on with consumers. It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline) So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets. It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of about 150 Octane gasoline. There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it does to make a gallon on gasoline. It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel systems. Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable, especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means, with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects. What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies: http://www.nrel.gov/ This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas to do it. In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen & Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say, making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful, but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe. Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would jump-start this oil producer. http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I believe it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the current technology in algae production would be able to match that price, with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology improves. That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources? That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I. The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist, but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..." can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and consumption work. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
: "Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated : shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the : Guard". Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard. In part because this allows the professional regular troops to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump over first. Sending National Guard units into combat requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more Vietnams. Emmanuel Gustin |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote: In article , "George Z. Bush" writes: "D. Strang" wrote in message news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03... "George Z. Bush" wrote Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part, unfortunately for us all. Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy. You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need, because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for some reason, it never caught on with consumers. I just read something that said that Ethanol production on Iowa returned about 35% more energy than that it took to make. It went on to say that Iowa needed little irrigation, and in a dry state like Nebraska artificial irrigation would require more energy input. I think I read it in Economist. Ethanol subsidies is pork barrel politics of the highest order, and that's saying something given the obsecne subsidies we give Big Sugar (mostly in Flordia). Remind me, what's the Fla Govener's name again ? We also protect Peanut and Tobacco growers. There are only a handful of companies that get Peanut money. Tobacco is more of a small indy-farmer business, I'm told. ADM gets most of the ethanol subsidy and lots of other agricicultural pork. It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline) So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets. It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of about 150 Octane gasoline. There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it does to make a gallon on gasoline. It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel systems. Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable, especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means, with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects. What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies: http://www.nrel.gov/ This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas to do it. In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen & Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say, making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful, but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe. Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would jump-start this oil producer. http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I believe it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the current technology in algae production would be able to match that price, with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology improves. That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources? That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I. The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist, but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..." can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and consumption work. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster -- Al Dykes ----------- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Powell on the National Guard
From: Ed Rasimus Date: 2/21/04 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time If you mean getting the military of the enemy defeated or under our control, then that has been done in Iraq in much less time at much less cost than the invasion, defeat and occupation In Iraq it still isn't under control. Or even close. As for you question of how I got to Vietnam, you already know that I went by the active duty USAF route. W Of course you did. So did I. So did we all who wanted to get into it fast. The F 105 could kill you quite nicely without the benefit of an additional enemy. Same for the B-26 Marauder. But never underestimate the power of the enemy. which I know you never would. Fifth, I didn't volunteer for combat. It came and got me. I wasn't so smart. I volunteered and went after it. And got it fast. Sixth, I did volunteer for my second combat tour in the F-4, nearly six years later. Of course you did. I would never think otherwise. But you didn't duck out and join the guard did you? You went right back in. There are those who want to fight, and those who don't want to fight. But I certainly don't need to tell you that do I? ((:-)). Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
D. Strang wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote we still don't have Iraq under control. We're still deployed in Germany, Korea, Colombia, Bolivia, and the Sinai, etc... We are out of control then, right? Speak for yourself. Freedom costs money, and lives. Perhaps. But in this case, "oil" costs money and lives. Without it we would have someone like Sadaam's son's shooting us and raping our relatives just for fun. Or, in this case, we would be driving Tercels rather than Explorers. If you have a problem with freedom, then vote Democrat, and join the Communist goal of serfdom. Normally, one pursues a goal. Are you a native speaker of English? If not, you're doing quite well. Cheers --mike |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling In 1975, Aristotle Onassis wanted to build an oil refinery in the town in which I live. We believed, and went around saying, that this was utterly stupid because in 25 years we would have run out of oil (and this wasn't something we made up, but was a serious forecast) and we would be stuck with a rusting shell. So here it is, four years after the apocalypse, and there are more proven reserves in the world today than there were in 1975. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
No one knows what a dollars worth, but we know that as the Euro goes up, the dollar goes down, and 70% of our dollars are overseas. We are about as set-up as we were before the depression hit. Huh? The euro goes up, the euro goes down. It's been down for years and is now up a bit from its day-of-issue exchange rate. The Great Depression was mostly brought on by beggar-thy-neighbor tariffs, notably the Smoot-Hawley trade bill. In other words, if you want a depression, you're more likely to get one if you vote for one of the current crop of Democratic contenders. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
GWB and the Air Guard | JD | Military Aviation | 77 | March 17th 04 10:52 AM |
Colin Powell on National Guard | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 12 | February 23rd 04 01:26 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |