Re: The AWG scam

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Jenn, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Jenn, Dec 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jenn

    Disbelief Guest

    Jenn wrote:
    > Jane_Galt wrote:
    >> All the details on why global warming is nothing new, and is natural:
    >>
    >> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

    >
    > I tend to believe the Earth is cooling .....


    Yep, but on a natural cycle - 'man-made' global warming is just one hell of
    a scam that allows firms and governments to make billions in cash.

    Man over-working the earth's resources is far more dangerous than the
    above -
    and yanks buying huge amounts of the precious resources and just storing
    them are major perpetrators of shortages world-wide.

    Goodnight.
     
    Disbelief, Dec 28, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Disbelief wrote:
    > Jenn wrote:
    >> Jane_Galt wrote:
    >>> All the details on why global warming is nothing new, and is
    >>> natural: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html



    >> I tend to believe the Earth is cooling .....



    > Yep, but on a natural cycle - 'man-made' global warming is just one
    > hell of a scam that allows firms and governments to make billions in
    > cash.


    I'm sure it is...

    > Man over-working the earth's resources is far more dangerous than the
    > above -
    > and yanks buying huge amounts of the precious resources and just
    > storing them are major perpetrators of shortages world-wide.
    >
    > Goodnight.


    I think we should allow drilling for oil here in the US, plus allow for
    incentives to create new sources of energy that are economically beneficial
    for everyone and also good for our environment. Technology exists to do,
    but I tend to believe the oil companies want to squash any realistic
    possibilities because they want to line their own pockets.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 28, 2010
    #3
  4. Jenn

    Aardvark Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:40:24 -0600, Jane_Galt wrote:

    > "Jenn" <> wrote :
    >
    >
    >> I think we should allow drilling for oil here in the US, plus allow for
    >> incentives to create new sources of energy that are economically
    >> beneficial for everyone and also good for our environment. Technology
    >> exists to do, but I tend to believe the oil companies want to squash
    >> any realistic possibilities because they want to line their own
    >> pockets.

    >
    >
    > If it didn't have everything to do with redistribution of wealth, they'd
    > agree to run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.
    >
    > "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit
    > the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of
    > The Energy Advocate
    >
    > Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME from the
    > earth anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they have
    > pre-packaged power plant designs that could be pre-approved and built
    > very quickly. We could be running this whole country, including small
    > vehicles, on nuclear, within 20 years, but of course that wouldn't fit
    > the Progressive socialists' pseudo- environmentalist, actual
    > redistribution of wealth agenda.
    >
    > We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy,
    > homes, businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the
    > enviro-nazis would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.


    Two words: China syndrome.

    Fuckwit.



    --
    Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
     
    Aardvark, Dec 29, 2010
    #4
  5. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Jane_Galt wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote :
    >
    >
    >> I think we should allow drilling for oil here in the US, plus allow
    >> for incentives to create new sources of energy that are economically
    >> beneficial for everyone and also good for our environment.
    >> Technology exists to do, but I tend to believe the oil companies
    >> want to squash any realistic possibilities because they want to line
    >> their own pockets.



    > If it didn't have everything to do with redistribution of wealth,
    > they'd agree to run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.
    >
    > "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will
    > inhabit the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden,
    > author of The Energy Advocate
    >
    > Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME from
    > the earth anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they have
    > pre-packaged power plant designs that could be pre-approved and built
    > very quickly. We could be running this whole country, including small
    > vehicles, on nuclear, within 20 years, but of course that wouldn't
    > fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo- environmentalist, actual
    > redistribution of wealth agenda.
    >
    > We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy,
    > homes, businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the
    > enviro-nazis would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.


    I'm on the fence when it comes to Nuclear power plants as I'm just not all
    that sure how 'safe' they really are especially in the time we live in now
    when every other terrorist nut group is trying to kill anyone and everyone
    who doesn't fit into their particular belief system.

    I lean more towards Solar,Wind, Geothermal, Water power, and alternative bio
    fuels.


    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 29, 2010
    #5
  6. Jane_Galt <> pinched out a steaming pile
    of<Xns9E5CA99D64216JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.97.142>:

    >We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy,

    homes,
    >businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the enviro-

    nazis
    >would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.
    >


    funny, you dont come across as a competent nuclear scientist.
    hmmmmm...


    --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
    cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
    _____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
    / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
    _\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
    /___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Dec 29, 2010
    #6
  7. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Jane_Galt wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote :


    >> I'm on the fence when it comes to Nuclear power plants as I'm just
    >> not all that sure how 'safe' they really are especially in the time
    >> we live in now when every other terrorist nut group is trying to
    >> kill anyone and everyone who doesn't fit into their particular
    >> belief system.



    > I've talked to people who run them, they have some very nasty defense
    > systems built in.


    ok Like what?


    >> I lean more towards Solar,Wind,


    > The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.


    True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will work when
    the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe the technology
    exists and we could find ways to incorporate those methods as being
    supplemental to our current power supplies.

    >> Geothermal, Water power,



    > Not enough to make it up.


    I think it's worth exploring...

    >> and alternative
    >> bio fuels.



    > Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    > our food supply.


    Again, I think it can be an additional power source.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 29, 2010
    #7
  8. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    news:ifg1u6$v96$-september.org...
    > Jane_Galt wrote:
    >> "Jenn" <> wrote :

    >
    >
    >>> I lean more towards Solar,Wind,

    >
    >> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.

    >
    > True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will work when
    > the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe the technology
    > exists and we could find ways to incorporate those methods as being
    > supplemental to our current power supplies.


    It's not that simple. First one must consider the pollution generated by
    the production of those things, especially solar panels. Then, one must
    have an infrastructure designed to move the power from one place to another.

    The technology exists, it's just not far enough along to make it widely
    viable at this time.

    >
    >>> Geothermal, Water power,

    >
    >
    >> Not enough to make it up.

    >
    > I think it's worth exploring...


    It's all worth exploring, as long as the science is real. Companies have
    been doing this for some time without government regulation and demands.

    >
    >>> and alternative
    >>> bio fuels.

    >
    >
    >> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    >> our food supply.

    >
    > Again, I think it can be an additional power source.


    Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but didn't work.
    Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your mileage is reduced so you
    have to buy more. The amount of pollutants generated to produce this stuff
    is staggering. Using food crops to produce ethanol is not really very
    sensible, because it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops
    aren't being used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
    moving ethanol. It's a mess.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 29, 2010
    #8
  9. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    SeaNymph wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    > news:ifg1u6$v96$-september.org...
    >> Jane_Galt wrote:
    >>> "Jenn" <> wrote :

    >>
    >>
    >>>> I lean more towards Solar,Wind,

    >>
    >>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.

    >>
    >> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
    >> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
    >> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
    >> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.



    > It's not that simple. First one must consider the pollution
    > generated by the production of those things, especially solar panels.
    > Then, one must have an infrastructure designed to move the power from
    > one place to another.
    > The technology exists, it's just not far enough along to make it
    > widely viable at this time.


    I never said it was simple.. I said it was more or less worth investigating
    and developing.


    >>>> Geothermal, Water power,

    >>
    >>
    >>> Not enough to make it up.

    >>
    >> I think it's worth exploring...



    > It's all worth exploring, as long as the science is real. Companies
    > have been doing this for some time without government regulation and
    > demands.



    On this we agree.


    >>>> and alternative
    >>>> bio fuels.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    >>> our food supply.


    >> Again, I think it can be an additional power source.




    > Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
    > didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
    > mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of pollutants
    > generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using food crops to
    > produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because it tends to
    > increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being used for
    > food. And then there are the problems associated with moving
    > ethanol. It's a mess.



    It's a more renewable resource than oil is, and eventually supplies will
    decrease over time. It's better to investigate other methods of renewable
    power sources now before we have that problem
    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 29, 2010
    #9
  10. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    news:ifgen0$ssn$-september.org...
    > SeaNymph wrote:
    >> "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    >> news:ifg1u6$v96$-september.org...
    >>> Jane_Galt wrote:
    >>>> "Jenn" <> wrote :
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> I lean more towards Solar,Wind,
    >>>
    >>>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.
    >>>
    >>> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
    >>> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
    >>> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
    >>> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.

    >
    >
    >> It's not that simple. First one must consider the pollution
    >> generated by the production of those things, especially solar panels.
    >> Then, one must have an infrastructure designed to move the power from
    >> one place to another.
    >> The technology exists, it's just not far enough along to make it
    >> widely viable at this time.

    >
    > I never said it was simple.. I said it was more or less worth
    > investigating and developing.


    It is being looked into, and has been for decades. They still aren't where
    they need to be.

    >
    >
    >>>>> Geothermal, Water power,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Not enough to make it up.
    >>>
    >>> I think it's worth exploring...

    >
    >
    >> It's all worth exploring, as long as the science is real. Companies
    >> have been doing this for some time without government regulation and
    >> demands.

    >
    >
    > On this we agree.
    >
    >
    >>>>> and alternative
    >>>>> bio fuels.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    >>>> our food supply.

    >
    >>> Again, I think it can be an additional power source.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
    >> didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
    >> mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of pollutants
    >> generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using food crops to
    >> produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because it tends to
    >> increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being used for
    >> food. And then there are the problems associated with moving
    >> ethanol. It's a mess.

    >
    >
    > It's a more renewable resource than oil is, and eventually supplies will
    > decrease over time. It's better to investigate other methods of renewable
    > power sources now before we have that problem


    Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't been
    done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one pollutant with
    another?
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 29, 2010
    #10
  11. Jenn

    Dustin Guest

    "SeaNymph" <> wrote in
    news:ifg9i4$tes$-september.org:

    > "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    > news:ifg1u6$v96$-september.org...
    >> Jane_Galt wrote:
    >>> "Jenn" <> wrote :

    >>
    >>
    >>>> I lean more towards Solar,Wind,

    >>
    >>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.

    >>
    >> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
    >> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
    >> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
    >> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.

    >
    > It's not that simple. First one must consider the pollution
    > generated by the production of those things, especially solar
    > panels. Then, one must have an infrastructure designed to move the
    > power from one place to another.
    >
    > The technology exists, it's just not far enough along to make it
    > widely viable at this time.
    >
    >>
    >>>> Geothermal, Water power,

    >>
    >>
    >>> Not enough to make it up.

    >>
    >> I think it's worth exploring...

    >
    > It's all worth exploring, as long as the science is real. Companies
    > have been doing this for some time without government regulation and
    > demands.
    >
    >>
    >>>> and alternative
    >>>> bio fuels.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    >>> our food supply.

    >>
    >> Again, I think it can be an additional power source.

    >
    > Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
    > didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
    > mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of
    > pollutants generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using
    > food crops to produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because
    > it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being
    > used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
    > moving ethanol. It's a mess.


    You forgot something about ethanol. Unless your vehicle is a flexfuel
    kind, running ethanol in your older car is actually breaking down the
    oil and harming the fuel system, including the injectors. Ethanol is
    processed corn; it's not even suitable for corn mash whiskey. Poor
    combustion rate, less milage. There are no gains for you as a car
    owner, unless you have stock in a corn field.


    --
    Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
    rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
    challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
    of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
    toys they get to play with.
     
    Dustin, Dec 30, 2010
    #11
  12. Jenn

    Dustin Guest

    "Jane_Galt" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9E5CA99D64216JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.97.142:

    > If it didn't have everything to do with redistribution of wealth,
    > they'd agree to run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.


    Please explain what you mean by safe, clean nuclear energy. As a lowly
    electrical apprentice who spent two weeks rewiring a sub station fed by
    a nuke site; I'm interested in your outsider thoughts. Then, I'll share
    my insider thoughts on the subject.

    > "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will
    > inhabit the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden,
    > author of The Energy Advocate


    True. Well more than enough. :)

    > Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME from
    > the earth anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they have
    > pre-packaged power plant designs that could be pre-approved and
    > built very quickly. We could be running this whole country,
    > including small vehicles, on nuclear, within 20 years, but of course
    > that wouldn't fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo-
    > environmentalist, actual redistribution of wealth agenda.


    I'm unaware of our ability to recycle waste rods from a reactor. Do you
    have a reference url for this?

    > We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy,
    > homes, businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the
    > enviro-nazis would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.


    No, that wouldn't be a good idea. Too many stupid drivers; It's why we
    can't use hydrogen powered cars yet. A hydrogren powered car could
    generate more than enough electrical power and exhaust drinkable!
    water. The drawback? liqified hydrogen is a big bomb; and drivers
    aren't careful enough. We couldn't outfit cars with nuke reactors for
    the same reason. It's not always the technology that won't let us do
    it, but uncurably stupid people who will get the technology and
    invariable do what we think is worst case scenario.



    --
    Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
    rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
    challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
    of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
    toys they get to play with.
     
    Dustin, Dec 30, 2010
    #12
  13. Jenn

    Dustin Guest

    "Jane_Galt" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9E5CE6F8ECD2DJaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.97.142:

    > "Jenn" <> wrote :
    >
    >> Jane_Galt wrote:
    >>> "Jenn" <> wrote :
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I think we should allow drilling for oil here in the US, plus
    >>>> allow for incentives to create new sources of energy that are
    >>>> economically beneficial for everyone and also good for our
    >>>> environment. Technology exists to do, but I tend to believe the
    >>>> oil companies want to squash any realistic possibilities because
    >>>> they want to line their own pockets.

    >>
    >>
    >>> If it didn't have everything to do with redistribution of wealth,
    >>> they'd agree to run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.
    >>>
    >>> "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will
    >>> inhabit the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard
    >>> Hayden, author of The Energy Advocate
    >>>
    >>> Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME
    >>> from the earth anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they
    >>> have pre-packaged power plant designs that could be pre-approved
    >>> and built very quickly. We could be running this whole country,
    >>> including small vehicles, on nuclear, within 20 years, but of
    >>> course that wouldn't fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo-
    >>> environmentalist, actual redistribution of wealth agenda.
    >>>
    >>> We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear
    >>> energy, homes, businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government
    >>> and the enviro-nazis would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.

    >>
    >> I'm on the fence when it comes to Nuclear power plants as I'm just
    >> not all that sure how 'safe' they really are especially in the time
    >> we live in now when every other terrorist nut group is trying to
    >> kill anyone and everyone who doesn't fit into their particular
    >> belief system.

    >
    > I've talked to people who run them, they have some very nasty
    > defense systems built in.


    The military guards? :) That is a good defense, yes. for someone intent
    on coming inside the building to get to the control room. Without
    disclosing nuke site weaknesses tho to anyone who might be reading; if
    you know anything about the science behind it, you already know the
    weakest link isn't protected by those guards and you can get a reactor
    to go critical with a hawk saw and sometime. If you want to discuss
    specifics, I'd suggest email. but if you think about what I wrote for a
    moment, and you've been around a nuke plant; you already know what I'm
    implying.

    > The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.


    and the solar panels don't have enough amp rating do to much good for
    the sunlight yet.

    >> Geothermal, Water power,

    >
    > Not enough to make it up.


    Nope.

    >> and alternative
    >> bio fuels.

    >
    > Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    > our food supply.


    And isn't good for the engines it's run in.


    --
    Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
    rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
    challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
    of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
    toys they get to play with.
     
    Dustin, Dec 30, 2010
    #13
  14. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    SeaNymph wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote in message


    >>
    >> I never said it was simple.. I said it was more or less worth
    >> investigating and developing.

    >
    > It is being looked into, and has been for decades. They still aren't
    > where they need to be.


    That's why they need to keep trying.


    >>> Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
    >>> didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
    >>> mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of
    >>> pollutants generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using
    >>> food crops to produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because
    >>> it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being
    >>> used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
    >>> moving ethanol. It's a mess.



    >> It's a more renewable resource than oil is, and eventually supplies
    >> will decrease over time. It's better to investigate other methods
    >> of renewable power sources now before we have that problem



    > Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't
    > been done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one
    > pollutant with another?


    Pollutants aren't what they used to be.

    Have you heard of this:

    "West Virginia's first methane-fueled power plant now producing using
    decomposing trash"
    West Virginia's very first methane-fueled power plant has started the
    production of electricity. It is expected to operate at full capacity
    beginning next month.

    The $6 million plant was built by Charleston Clean Energy LLC at a
    Charleston landfill. The plant burns methane generated as a by-product of
    decomposing trash.

    http://www.examiner.com/environment...r-plant-now-producing-using-decomposing-trash



    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 30, 2010
    #14
  15. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Jane_Galt wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote :



    >>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.

    >>
    >> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
    >> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
    >> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
    >> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.
    >>
    >>>> Geothermal, Water power,

    >>
    >>
    >>> Not enough to make it up.

    >>
    >> I think it's worth exploring...



    > Explore all you want, the proof is cost effectiveness.


    I don't think gasoline is 'cost effective', but we've built it into our
    lives as something we have to budget for like we do food or any other daily
    expense, and we're all held captive by the price of gasoline - will it go up
    or down? I've been curious about some of the hybrid cars that run on both
    gas and electric motors... drove one recently. It's an interesting concept
    and would take some getting used to, but it could be more cost effective in
    the long run than strictly gas only vehicles.

    > Do you not think that all the geniuses in the world are just itching
    > for ways to develop something that can cost less than burning fossil
    > fuels and be cleaner too? You know how much money someone could make?


    I don't know what the geniuses of the world itch to be doing... lol Might
    be nice to be privy to that info, tho.. wouldn't it?


    >>>> and alternative
    >>>> bio fuels.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
    >>> our food supply.

    >>
    >> Again, I think it can be an additional power source.



    > WHY? It's like saying that burning our new clothing can "be an
    > additional power source". What would be the point?


    Not exactly ... it's more like we have gas heaters, but we also have a wood
    stove for additional heat if we need it.


    > Oh, and did you know that when you add ethanol to the gas each fall,
    > it drops fuel efficiency by about 2 MPG?


    yes ...

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
     
    Jenn, Dec 30, 2010
    #15
  16. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    news:ifgkn9$m9q$-september.org...
    > SeaNymph wrote:
    >> "Jenn" <> wrote in message

    >
    >>>
    >>> I never said it was simple.. I said it was more or less worth
    >>> investigating and developing.

    >>
    >> It is being looked into, and has been for decades. They still aren't
    >> where they need to be.

    >
    > That's why they need to keep trying.
    >
    >
    >>>> Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
    >>>> didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
    >>>> mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of
    >>>> pollutants generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using
    >>>> food crops to produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because
    >>>> it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being
    >>>> used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
    >>>> moving ethanol. It's a mess.

    >
    >
    >>> It's a more renewable resource than oil is, and eventually supplies
    >>> will decrease over time. It's better to investigate other methods
    >>> of renewable power sources now before we have that problem

    >
    >
    >> Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't
    >> been done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one
    >> pollutant with another?

    >
    > Pollutants aren't what they used to be.


    So, what degree of pollutants are you uncomfortable with? Are you saying
    that all the pollutants produced in the production of ethanol are okay?
    Ethanol comes with a host of problems, not the least of which are the
    obvious pollutants, poor performance and a biggie...transportation.

    >
    > Have you heard of this:
    >
    > "West Virginia's first methane-fueled power plant now producing using
    > decomposing trash"
    > West Virginia's very first methane-fueled power plant has started the
    > production of electricity. It is expected to operate at full capacity
    > beginning next month.
    >
    > The $6 million plant was built by Charleston Clean Energy LLC at a
    > Charleston landfill. The plant burns methane generated as a by-product of
    > decomposing trash.
    >
    > http://www.examiner.com/environment...r-plant-now-producing-using-decomposing-trash
    >


    This is something else that has been ongoing, on a lesser scale, for quite
    some time. There are many ways to produce energy.

    Something else to keep in mind is that petroleum products are used for much
    more than fuel.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 30, 2010
    #16
  17. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Jane_Galt" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9E5DEAA151487JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
    > "SeaNymph" <> wrote :
    >
    >
    >> Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't
    >> been done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one pollutant
    >> with another?

    >
    >
    > Run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.
    >
    > "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit the
    > earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of The
    > Energy
    > Advocate
    >
    > Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME from the
    > earth
    > anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they have pre-packaged power
    > plant designs that could be pre-approved and built very quickly. We could
    > be
    > running this whole country, including small vehicles, on nuclear, within
    > 20
    > years, but of course that wouldn't fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo-
    > environmentalist, actual redistribution of wealth agenda.
    >
    > We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy, homes,
    > businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the enviro-nazis
    > would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.


    I think nuclear is an excellent way to go. Of course, I'd like to see
    someone develop cold fusion as well.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 30, 2010
    #17
  18. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    news:ifh4hj$rcf$-september.org...
    > Jane_Galt wrote:
    >> "Jenn" <> wrote :

    >
    >
    >>>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.
    >>>
    >>> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
    >>> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
    >>> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
    >>> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.
    >>>
    >>>>> Geothermal, Water power,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Not enough to make it up.
    >>>
    >>> I think it's worth exploring...

    >
    >
    >> Explore all you want, the proof is cost effectiveness.

    >
    > I don't think gasoline is 'cost effective', but we've built it into our
    > lives as something we have to budget for like we do food or any other
    > daily expense, and we're all held captive by the price of gasoline - will
    > it go up or down? I've been curious about some of the hybrid cars that
    > run on both gas and electric motors... drove one recently. It's an
    > interesting concept and would take some getting used to, but it could be
    > more cost effective in the long run than strictly gas only vehicles.


    The cost efficiency of gasoline is not really an issue at this point. To
    effectively discuss the use of gasoline to power vehicles as opposed to
    other sources, one must also account for the other uses of petroleum
    products in this country, and throughout the word. Gasoline is a byproduct.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 30, 2010
    #18
  19. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Jenn" <> wrote in message
    news:ifh4hj$rcf$-september.org...
    > Jane_Galt wrote:
    >> "Jenn" <> wrote :

    >

    I've been curious about some of the hybrid cars that run on both
    > gas and electric motors... drove one recently. It's an interesting
    > concept and would take some getting used to, but it could be more cost
    > effective in the long run than strictly gas only vehicles.


    I have driven a Prius for almost 6 years. The problem with hybrid cars is,
    of course, the battery. I think the industry would be well served to find
    solutions to that issue.

    There's nothing odd about hybrid cars, and some are better than others,
    because of the system they utilize. They are a viable option, at this point
    in time. The concept has been around for quite some time, Toyota just did
    it better than Honda.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 30, 2010
    #19
  20. Jenn

    SeaNymph Guest

    "Dustin" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9E5DC93F0B5CDHHI2948AJD832@no...
    > "Jane_Galt" <> wrote in
    > news:Xns9E5CA99D64216JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.97.142:
    > No, that wouldn't be a good idea. Too many stupid drivers; It's why we
    > can't use hydrogen powered cars yet. A hydrogren powered car could
    > generate more than enough electrical power and exhaust drinkable!
    > water. The drawback? liqified hydrogen is a big bomb; and drivers
    > aren't careful enough. We couldn't outfit cars with nuke reactors for
    > the same reason. It's not always the technology that won't let us do
    > it, but uncurably stupid people who will get the technology and
    > invariable do what we think is worst case scenario.


    I've been fascinated with the idea of hydrogen cars for about 6 years. One
    of the drawbacks, from what I've read, is the huge increase in water vapor
    in the atmosphere, if they were widely driven.
     
    SeaNymph, Dec 30, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephen J. Rush

    Re: Prove important update [I hope nobody fell for this scam]

    Stephen J. Rush, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    Stephen J. Rush
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. Mike
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    2,843
  3. Mike T.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    554
    Elvis the King
    Feb 26, 2004
  4. Cash4gold Scam Ripoffreport.com Scam

    , May 27, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,141
    BadForPeople
    May 5, 2012
  5. Ferd Berfle

    Re: The AWG scam

    Ferd Berfle, Dec 30, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    848
    Ferd Berfle
    Dec 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page