this is serious stuff

[racerxnet]

Fantastic statistical analysis. Such resources to read. WOW Great rebutttal to the articles from FTW with a wonderful supply of fact. It really appears that your brain was stuck on the end of the toilet paper! What little was left is now flushed down the shitter.


http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html

[BJ_M]

Now wait a minute. According to the aforementioned anthropology professor, dinosaurs 'devolved' (see decayed) into oil. I thought it was all the plant material from a few geological periods prior, but he is a college professor!

You see why I bring that experience up, don't you? :wink::

it was once believed -- and still taught by mostly naive teachers, that oil and gas (and coal) came from dinosaurs and plants .. problem with that story is many fold.

one - there is way to much oil and gas and coal, the earth would have had to have life for 100's of time longer ...

two -- oil and gas have been discovered through out the galaxy , including on on other planets and hydrocarbons clouds exist in space -- that all surly didnt come from dino ..

three - The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened.

The only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and mulch it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.

Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?

Petroleum and coal were made from materials in which heavy hydrocarbons were common components. We know that because the meteorites are the sort of debris left over from the formations of the planets and those contain carbon in unoxidized form as hydrocarbons as oil and coal-like particles. We find that in one large class of meteorites and we find that equally on many of the other planetary bodies in the solar system. So it’s pretty clear that when the Earth formed it contained a lot of carbon material built into it.

see "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels", which is available in most bookstores and other books along the same vein ..


russia and china are doing most of the research in this area after it was found huge pockets of oil in solid granite (oldest stone on earth - predates all life) which by old theories - should not happen ... The White Tiger field off the coast of Vietnam is producing at a very good rate now from granite-based rock.

[Capmaster]

I think you made the best case for all of us concerning your position, in that we do not have any of these best case senario cars in existance. And probably never will. Your technical prowness in the ability of 304 stainless to sheild one from an accident are far from conclusive in this case.

My father is the owner of a medium sized machine shop specializing in the aerospace industry. I have many years in working with various metals and plastics. Your position is unconvincing at best. My position regarding the discussion is what is PROVEN safe. Not simple rhetoric on this site. None the less your position is baseless and without merit at the present time. Show me the facts.

OK. Taken from Scientific American, Sept. '99 issue, article on the Cassini mission:

Jerry Grey, a mechanical and aerospace engineer at Princeton University, says RTGs proved their survivability in 1968, when a military satellite carrying two generators was destroyed in a launch explosion in California. The RTGs landed in the Santa Barbara Channel and were retrieved intact from the seabed. "Nothing has a zero hazard," Grey notes. "But the hazard from RTGs is so small it should not bar their use."

Meanwhile the DOE is developing a more efficient generator for spacecraft called the Advanced Radioisotope Power System (ARPS). If successful, ARPS would require 50 percent less plutonium fuel than a comparable RTG does. ARPS would also be about 25 percent lighter, no small consideration for a spacecraft component. NASA is paying the DOE $75 million to develop the generators, and JPL's McNamee says flight units could be ready for the planned 2003 launch of Europa Orbiter. The spacecraft would then need to carry as little as five kilograms of plutonium fuel.

This mentions a power source called an RTG (Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generator) we've been using in the nuclear weapons business for decades. The one used on Cassini is similar in design. Their mechanical design is such that a worst-case transportation accident will not release radioactive material. That includes scenarios like jet fuel fires, explosives detonated near the weapon, rifle bullets, etc. The worst possible environments found in air transport include fire, explosion and extreme mechanical impact. These generators survived extensive testing, and they are actually weaker mechanically than a near-solid stainless casting or forging because their internal cavity must contain the thermocouple stacks and it must also incorporate an electrical connector for the power it generates. A heat-only module would need only a tiny cavity and no connector. A proposed polonium module would be almost solid stainless steel and considerably stronger. You don't have to have an engineering degree to see this.

I hope it isn't presumptuous making this argument to someone who has actually worked in a machine shop, since I only have an engineering degree ....
Go away now :P

[racerxnet]

"I hope it isn't presumptuous making this argument to someone who has actually worked in a machine shop, since I only have an engineering degree ....
Go away now "

You may work in one, but being part owner and engineer is a bit more than you can handle.

[Capmaster]

"I hope it isn't presumptuous making this argument to someone who has actually worked in a machine shop, since I only have an engineering degree ....
Go away now "

You may work in one, but being part owner and engineer is a bit more than you can handle.

I was talking about you. You don't even understand that - how are you going to digest what I posted? You know ...you shouldn't go into a battle of the wits unarmed. And I'll ignore that last statement ...you've already embarrassed yourself enough. Go away.

[racerxnet]

Your wit has put you in the spotlite where no light exists. We are still in a vunerable position as to what we are to do as a nation who is dependant on oil from the Middle East. To say your position is the answer to our needs is foolish. All reliable energy is secured from petrolium at this time. Our manufacturing is based on this present situation and will not change in the near future. From an economic perspective it can not turn on a dime to accomodate nuclear propulsion or nuclear power generation to support the industry as a whole. The turn around from planning, to construction for the needs of the future paint a bleak picture.

It still takes oil to build the devices you suggest, to oil powering the tractor and oil to manufacture the fertilizer we apply to the fields for food.

[indolikaa]

It really appears that your brain was stuck on the end of the toilet paper! What little was left is now flushed down the shitter.

And that's the best you can do, huh?

Let me give you my standard 'listen up, *******!' speech with the appropriate modifications.

My father is the owner of a medium sized machine shop specializing in the aerospace industry. I have many years in working with various metals and plastics. Your position is unconvincing at best. My position regarding the discussion is what is PROVEN safe. Not simple rhetoric on this site. None the less your position is baseless and without merit at the present time. Show me the facts.

Why don't you show us the facts, young'un.

How about we start with the name and address of your father's business? All too easy to hide behind a false identity in cyberspace; are we to believe you simply because 'you say it's true' and that's good enough? I'd like to check his credentials, see if his degree is really worth the paper it's printed on, all the other things that are normally associated with validating the legitimacy of your claim.

And who is the authority when it comes to declaring your position is PROVEN to be safe? How do we know it isn't all rhetoric? And then you accuse others of basing their stand on positions that are baseless and without merit? Again, I ask, what makes you the expert?

I've been down this road before with others like you on this forum. Anybody can claim to be anything they want on the Internet. How are the rest of us to know it's true. You claim to be part of a family-owned aerospace business, but for all we know you could be the fry cook at the local greasy spoon.

What metals have you worked with? What plastics have you worked with? Why is 304 Stainless not up to the task? Do you have an empirical studies that prove this to be the case? I didn't think so.

I think it's time you 'fessed up and provided some verifiable credentials.

I didn't start this argument. I jumped in with some humor (which you completely missed) and provided life experience to demonstrate why I disagree with your position in this matter. If you can't see the humor in an anthropology professor lecturing on the subject of petroleum geology, how am I supposed to believe your the resident expert in metallurgy?

Lighten up. And pass me some more of that FTW material. I need to put it to good use again.

[Capmaster]

Your wit has put you in the spotlite where no light exists. We are still in a vunerable position as to what we are to do as a nation who is dependant on oil from the Middle East. To say your position is the answer to our needs is foolish. All reliable energy is secured from petrolium at this time. Our manufacturing is based on this present situation and will not change in the near future. From an economic perspective it can not turn on a dime to accomodate nuclear propulsion or nuclear power generation to support the industry as a whole. The turn around from planning, to construction for the needs of the future paint a bleak picture.

It still takes oil to build the devices you suggest, to oil powering the tractor and oil to manufacture the fertilizer we apply to the fields for food.

It's like trying to push spaghetti ...trying to reason with him. Why are there always several lurkers like him on every board?

[indolikaa]

Inability to accept themselves as who they are, lack of a proper education makes them feel inferior, erectile dysfunction, the list goes on an on.

I did just notice something...

All reliable energy is secured from petrolium at this time.

P-E-T-R-O-L-E-U-M is not the only reliable energy form. France has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that nuclear power is reliable and safe. Sure, there's that little 'spent fuel' irritation that goes along with such a nationalized scheme, but which is doing more damage to the Earth right now? Fossil fuels or spent fuel rods?

[pacmania_2001]

Whilst I think nuclear energy will be the future (until/unless another form of energy can be found) of our fuel needs I don't think it's going to happen for another decade or two until the petroluem supplies become more scarce and also the stigma surrounding nuclear energy dies down somewhat.

In the more distant future (especially if nuclear power doesn't take off) I think we'll start seeing micro-power plants that only supply power to a small number of households and use technology such as wind and solar energy, maybe even geo vents.

Disclaimer: I hold no degree in engineering, the above statement is my opinion.

[Capmaster]

Whilst I think nuclear energy will be the future (until/unless another form of energy can be found) of our fuel needs I don't think it's going to happen for another decade or two until the petroluem supplies become more scarce and also the stigma surrounding nuclear energy dies down somewhat.

In the more distant future (especially if nuclear power doesn't take off) I think we'll start seeing micro-power plants that only supply power to a small number of households and use technology such as wind and solar energy, maybe even geo vents.

Disclaimer: I hold no degree in engineering, the above statement is my opinion.

Those are all interesting. I'd like to see more windmills used in the near-term. Local residents by such windmill farms as the one outside Amarillo, and the one just east of Los Angeles complain about low frequency vibrations caused when the blade passes in front of the stanchion and is blocked from the wind. VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbine) technology seems promising too.

[indolikaa]

Methinks you're right, Pac.

BIG OIL is smart to invest in alternate fuels research. Whether through depletion of world supply or government intervention, they're going to need to have a plan for the day when oil is viewed in a more negative light by the general public.

My opinion on the matter? EuroRail got it right, and we missed the boat entirely. Now we're at the mercy of a transportation nightmare that we cannot afford to not foster and fund, at the expense of economic collapse.

I shouldn't be taking Southwest Airlines between Phoenix and Albuquerque, I should be taking a high-speed train.

[pacmania_2001]

Another factor in the switch to alternate fuels (including nuclear) will also be the increasingly political control of the oil supplies by organisations like OPEC.

Westernised countries will see in the years to come that they are gradually getting screwed more and more and will be looking to reduce their dependance on the oil-producing countries through alternate fuel sources.

Either that or they'll just invade another middle-eastern country. :P

[luvvbuzz]

Either that or they'll just invade another middle-eastern country. :P

i could not have put that better myself.

i see some of the other more....intellectual posters... on here have lowered the tone by arguing personally, shame, was quite an interesting debate going on, until somebody started name calling.

[indolikaa]

pacmania_2001 wrote:


Either that or they'll just invade another middle-eastern country.


i could not have put that better myself.

Nope. This time we have our sights set on Venezuela. Just ask Chavez, he'll tell it you it's already a done deal.

i see some of the other more....intellectual posters... on here have lowered the tone by arguing personally, shame, was quite an interesting debate going on, until somebody started name calling.

Don't be afraid to name names. Some people prefer to be punched square in the face rather than from behind.

[Capmaster]

Don't be afraid to name names. Some people prefer to be punched square in the face rather than from behind.

That would be soooo "American" to "lower the tone" like that

[pacmania_2001]

Nope. This time we have our sights set on Venezuela. Just ask Chavez, he'll tell it you it's already a done deal.

Crazy Venezuelans, only good for beauty queens.

[g_shocker182]

What I have learned from this thread:

(a) It's fusion, not fission

(b) A lot of people believe nuclear energy is the way to go

(c) Talk about energy (oil, nuclear derived) can get people emotionally involved

(d) BJm knows his fuels

and
(e) If a dvd-copying forum can produce an energy crisis thread as extensive as this one, well I guess anythings possible


-------------------------------

WHat I know concerning this thread

(a) If everyone has such a big opinion about what needs to be done, then stop complaining abotu what is being done and get off your ass to go do what you think is right

(b) Nuclear energy is just one of the many ways to power our planetary (human) needs. A very small (couple of grams) amount of uranium can power a aircraft carrier. Thats why they have nuclear reactors instead of diesel plants.

(c) You don't spend energy. With our American way of life surrounding the automobile, people think that fueling cars is depleteing Earths energy. Rather, Energy is conserved within our system known as earth. It is just changed into other forms, i.e. heat. (Knowing how to) Transforming this byproduct to reusable energy is the problem.

[luvvbuzz]

good post g shocker, we praise you for sharing your thoughts, feelings and ideas with us. so the show is on tonight on bbc2, i will be watching, i dont know if any of you can pick up bbc world service but it is a documentary/fiction/drama and should be an interesting take on events which could/could not be written in our future.

[BJ_M]

maybe someone could record it -- or i forget if that is legal in GB

[g_shocker182]

Sorry, but I won't be watching.

If I wanted to watch something that would make up my mind for me, I'd watch something by Michael Moore.

[BJ_M]

Sorry, but I won't be watching.

If I wanted to watch something that would make up my mind for me, I'd watch something by Michael Moore.

heheehe -- good one ... and so true

[flaninacupboard]

Well, we'll be sorted in this country for sure! for many decades our gov't has been charging a gigantic tax on fuel (just worked it out, it costs $5.38 per US gallon, please someone correct me if i'm wrong on that figure!) and spending the money on research into alternative fuels and transport systems! we'll be travelling in flying electric cars and power our homes from 30cm wide solar panels!


</sarcasm>

just started reading this thread as the prog started so missed most of it. but hey.

[luvvbuzz]

duh! sorry i forgot michael moore is god isnt he?

[indolikaa]

Michael Moore? Isn't he a regular on FOX News Channel?

[g_shocker182]

Lets keep on topic here, please.

[indolikaa]

You're kidding, right?

Sorry, but I won't be watching.

If I wanted to watch something that would make up my mind for me, I'd watch something by Michael Moore.

[BJ_M]

Well, we'll be sorted in this country for sure! for many decades our gov't has been charging a gigantic tax on fuel (just worked it out, it costs $5.38 per US gallon, please someone correct me if i'm wrong on that figure!) and spending the money on research into alternative fuels and transport systems! we'll be travelling in flying electric cars and power our homes from 30cm wide solar panels!


</sarcasm>

just started reading this thread as the prog started so missed most of it. but hey.

you pay about 75-80 Pence Per Litre, thats (tops) 3.45 per gallon (a US Gallon - which is different than a CND/GB gallon) = $6.25 US a gallon ..


74% of your gas price goes to tax ... therefore you pay $4.63 US in tax per gallon -- so you are pretty close, plus maybe my figures may be a off also ... you are close enough for sure ..



in the usa -- gas only costs about $1.60- $1.90 (apx.) with only 23 cent per-gallon tax (currently -- i think it will go to 27 or 28 cents) plus some state tax ... total is about 35-38 cents a gallon i believe ...


in canada -- gas prices change by as much as 70-80cents a gallon IN A DAY !!
- its nuts

if gas went up by 70cents a gallon in USA in 1 hour (as here) -- there would be a riot ...

and it happens here every week ...


we (in canada) pay anywhere from 60cents a liter to 90cents a liter ... on avg -- it is a big spread from prov. to prov. (thats about $2.00 - $2.25 a gallon in US $)

you get really shafted in Qu.

[g_shocker182]

You're kidding, right?

Sorry, but I won't be watching.

If I wanted to watch something that would make up my mind for me, I'd watch something by Michael Moore.

I know, I know, but I dont want it to go furthur.

[g_shocker182]

A few years ago I remember there was a gas war between these two gas stations and it got as low as $0.56 / gallon.

But now its been around $1.55