Powell on the National Guard

Cub Driver wrote:

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.

The popular environmental "prediction" of the mid/late 60's was
over population.

Your concerns over a refinery with no oil to refine by 2000
was unnecessary, since the earth would already be wrecked from
human over-population!

Who cares about keeping the tank of their Buick filled when
there's nothing to eat?


SMH

George:

You are aware that the only self -sustaining (better than break even)
energy source other than fossil fuels is Helium-3 Fusion, right?

And you are also aware that the best (most cost effective) place to
harvest the quantities of He-3 required to power this planet is on the
surface of the moon, right?

You certainly must be aware that *all* of the alternatives you mention
require more energy to produce than they provide, right?

"Wasting our money going to the moon" indeed!

Steve Swartz


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
R. David Steele wrote:
Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead
of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in
hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

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 SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our
roads to be able to get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a
license
plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose
membership seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings
they
may have had that evolved into our national policy. It's not even
clear
what the policy actually is, much less the reasons for it, since
everything
about that commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who
is now
or shortly will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the
Supreme
Court which was filed to force the administration to make public the
details
of the commission's proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our
energy policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests
first, rather than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of
these days.

George Z.

Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather
that you want millions of common folks without jobs?

Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket.

I guess that non-sequitor is about as much as I could expect by way of an
answer.

George Z.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message

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 like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
abundance.

But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?

It's a net energy loss IIRC.

Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you say, it
runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the life of
our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is burned
(made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to anyone),
would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that won't
be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum reserves?
How can that be an energy loss?

Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol as
there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount of
ethanol manufactured?

If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of the
fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any influence at
all?

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.

Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.

The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
fit that same infrastructure for best effect.

The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
technology is naive.

As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars could
only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they needed to
improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy. It
took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market was
capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think
anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have reached any
sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again
produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but many
people think it possible.

.....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar
companies" or "wind
companies" of the future.
They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message

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 like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
abundance.

But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?

It's a net energy loss IIRC.

Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you
say, it
runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the
life of
our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is
burned
(made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to
anyone),
would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that
won't
be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum
reserves?
How can that be an energy loss?

If the amount of fossil based fuel required to create and process the
ethanol is greater than the quantity/energy value of the ethanol that is
yielded. At least one source claims that the use of corn as the biomass for
the process yields a net gain in terms of energy yielded, but without
providing any specifics of how that conclusion was reached. Other sources
indicate ethanol production is still a net energy loser.


Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol
as
there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount
of
ethanol manufactured?

See above. And:

"...most ethanol is currently made from corn and the process involved has
matured to the point that further significant declines in production costs
seem unlikely. Ethanol's economic viability as a gasoline blending component
also depends in part on Federal and States subsidies, and the Federal
subsidy (54 cents per gallon) is slated for slow reduction over the next few
years and expiration at the end of 2007."

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plbioeth.html


If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of
the
fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any
influence at
all?

Got any idea how much CO2 is generated by the ethanol manufacturing process?
A lot, which is unrecovered. That is a "greenhouse gas"--a good Al Gore man
like yourself ought to be upset over that. Ironically, one of the big
drivers of the use of ethanol as a fuel additive is as an oxygenating agent
to improve air quality in metropolitan areas with poor air quality, ignoring
the CO2 issue.

Brooks

"George Z. Bush" wrote

...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish
human beings,

Whoa now!

This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The farmers
sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and the
distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved.

This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is
wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service
puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at
least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in
power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement.

Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach the
break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last for
centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to
play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an
alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God
Damned trip to Mars for no purpose.

It's called a "net energy loss" because the energy required to *make* the
ethanol has to come from somewhere . . . like a coal burning plant . . . and
the joules required to make the ethanol is MORE than the joules the ethanol
itself releases.

Same for all the "hydrogen" type boondoggles.

Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture
the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest
hybrids are probably right at break even now. The only reason they exist
now is some jackboot sticks a gun in our faces and steals our money to
subsidize the program. Try buyign a hybrid at "full price" and you'll see
what I mean.

If it takes more energy to make it than it releases, that just means you
have to burn more fossil fuels (or atoms, but that's pretty much out) than
you would have in the first place.

Oh yeah, and I love being lectured by our "Green" friends in Europe about
how great Diesel is . . .

Steve Swartz





"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message

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 like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
abundance.

But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?

It's a net energy loss IIRC.

Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you
say, it
runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the
life of
our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is
burned
(made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to
anyone),
would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that
won't
be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum
reserves?
How can that be an energy loss?

Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol
as
there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount
of
ethanol manufactured?

If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of
the
fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any
influence at
all?

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.

Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.

The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
fit that same infrastructure for best effect.

The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
technology is naive.

As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars
could
only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they
needed to
improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy.
It
took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market
was
capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think
anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have
reached any
sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again
produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but
many
people think it possible.

.....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar
companies" or "wind
companies" of the future.
They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.

In article ,
Leslie Swartz wrote:
Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
off" electricity to the vehicle

You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
gas required to generate the electricity.

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:MM7_b.9908$Ru5.9336@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish
human beings,

Whoa now!

This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The
farmers
sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and
the
distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved.

Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me
out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
government established a production level for corn and, for whatever amount
above that level that was produced, the government bought it up at a set price
in order to keep it off the market, thereby maintaining the price on corn at a
level that would keep the farmers economically viable.

I thought that the stuff the government bought and kept in silos against the day
when the annual supply might drop below the level needed to satisfy demand
without resulting in raised prices is what I called surplus. That corn was
bought and paid for by the taxpayer and intentionally withhelf drom the market
against the day when what was produced wouldn't be enough to satisfy public
demand.

I think one of us must have the process wrong.

This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is
wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service
puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at
least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in
power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement.

Here, too, I think it works another way. I thought that the way it worked was
that the government owned corn was sold to a distiller for a mutually agreed
upon price and, from that point on, the corn was in the capitalist system
pipeline. It belonged to the distiller, who processed it into ethanol, did his
cost accounting to establish his costs, and distributed it into the gasoline
distribution net to be retailed, presumably at a profit of some sort at every
level where it was handled before it ended up in somebody's gas tank. Not so?

Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach
the
break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last
for
centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to
play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an
alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God
Damned trip to Mars for no purpose.

It may come as a shock to you, but here I agree with you, from top to bottom.
There's a helluva lot more we can do with our money, much less than that we'd
have to borrow from banks, than to pour it into a relatively useless trip to
Mars at our expense while we have so many unfulfilled needs in our own country.
First things ought to come first, and Mars will be near the bottom of the list,
where it belongs.

George Z.

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Leslie Swartz wrote:
Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the
"top
off" electricity to the vehicle

You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
gas required to generate the electricity.

The comparisons are even worse that that.

The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas.

Using figures from edmunds.com:
A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160

highway mileage:
Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38.

At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the
9mpg difference.
Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles.

Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles.

Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery
pack.
Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected
battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles.

Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're
looking at.

Pete

In article , (Al Dykes)
wrote:

In article ,
R. David Steele wrote:

| "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed
|managed to
| wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units." -- Colin
|Powell, My
| American Journey, 1995
|
|Colin Powell quoted regarding the Guard after ODS:
|
|"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".
|
|http://www.calguard.ca.gov/250thmi/A...ory_usarng.htm
|
|Brooks
|
|
| Arthur Kramer
|
|
|
|
|Of course not. It was being fought on the cheap and there weren't enough
|regular troops to do the job and so the guard had to be called in.
It is still
|being fought on the cheap and we still don't have Iraq under control.

Thank Clinton for gutting the military in the '90s. He basically
cut the military in half.

In graph form, for those who can not read (ie grad students)
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf
In table form
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf

Army Navy Marines Af
1990 732,403 579,417 196,652 535,233
2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654

1990 2,043,705
2000 1,384,338

this was a 46% reduction in force over 10 years. The famous
"peace dividend" which was taken out of Army and AF for the most
part.


And a bunch of the headcount was contracted out to KBR. I suspect
that the budget didn't go down in proportion to headcount. I know
that the budget did a steep uptick in Clinton's last year.

Remember that The Afgani war was fought with Clinton's military.
Even in the best of circumstances Rummy's changes couldn't
have kicked it by late 2001.

Frankly, the fighting done in Afghanistan was done largely by Afghan
troops, and remnants of the Bush I military.