Re: OT: 2006 US Elections

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:04:56 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <znu-257C44.00425626082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <gmgraves-78BF19.12354025082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <430dc2a6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > Nicholas Buenk <morn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:50:15 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> > > > <lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >>In article <7ZaPe.34983$XM3.25389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > > >>TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>>In article <Zm5Pe.2810$db6.1498@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > > >>>> TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>>Snit wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> stated in post
>> > > >>>>>>lloydparsons-3ACE85.13274024082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/24/05 11:27
>> > > >>>>>>AM:
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>While we've got a few political postings, I thought I would add
>> > > >>>>>>>another.
>> > > >>>>>>>Here is where I think the next US elections are headed and why.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Here is what the incumbents (regardless of party) have to answer
>> > > >>>>>>>for.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Gas: Prices through the roof, with no indication of an end in
>> > > >>>>>>>sight.
>> > > >>>>>>>Doesn't matter if they are still cheaper than most of the world.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>This is hurting the US economy ... but, coincidently enough,
>> > > >>>>>>helping
>> > > >>>>>>those
>> > > >>>>>>in the US oil industry and those with financial ties to it... such
>> > > >>>>>>as
>> > > >>>>>>both
>> > > >>>>>>Bosh and Cheney.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>You should stop paying attention to MoveOn propaganda.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Oil: Ditto
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Natural Gas: projected to be up 58% this next winter after the
>> > > >>>>>>>30+%
>> > > >>>>>>>last
>> > > >>>>>>>winter.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Electricity : up, I don't have figures for that
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Food: By the time of elections, prices will be up, I think
>> > > >>>>>>>substantially because of the prices oil is bringing.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>The cost of Gas / Oil / Petroleum (GOP) is going to hurt the
>> > > >>>>>>country
>> > > >>>>>>in
>> > > >>>>>>many
>> > > >>>>>>ways.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>Actually, most things will be up because of the cost of oil to
>> > > >>>>>>>manufacture and transport.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>The price of GOP is not going to do much to help any industry other
>> > > >>>>>>than
>> > > >>>>>>those directly involved... and they are making record profits I
>> > > >>>>>>believe
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>Because they're selling near capacity, at greatly increased rates.
>> > > >>>>>Any
>> > > >>>>>situation where you have a limited supply and high demand will
>> > > >>>>>result
>> > > >>>>>in
>> > > >>>>>skyrocketing prices and profits.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>They are selling at near capacity in part because they took
>> > > >>>>refineries
>> > > >>>>offline and didn't replace them. Thereby creating part of the
>> > > >>>>shortage.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>In many industries, as volume increases, margins are lowered. But in
>> > > >>>>the oil industry they report that they are making the same margins.
>> > > >>>>Much of their current fatness in profits is pure greed. Greed being
>> > > >>>>fed
>> > > >>>>by the big oil incumbents in the white house.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Well, it is their right to charge whatever the hell they feel like
>> > > >>>charging. If someone wants to help out, they can open their own
>> > > >>>refineries.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Well, I guess that tells me where you stand as a capitalist, huh?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>I don't buy that crap at all. When a company is doing damage to the
>> > > >>people, then something should be done. And make no mistake, big oil IS
>> > > >>damaging our economy.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Maybe we should get the government to quit making it so difficult and
>> > > > expensive to build and run a refinery.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe we should get the government to put major resources into finding
>> > > alternatives to oil, rather than putting those resources into securing
>> > > supply of it.
>> >
>> > Sorry, that won't happen. NOTHING has as much energy per unit volume as
>> > does petroleum-based fuels. Not alcohol, not hydrogen, nothing. These
>> > so-called alternative fuels are simply not practical and never will be.
>> > At least that's the conclusion of a recent government study on
>> > alternative fuels.
>>
>> I'd be curious to read what that study says about methanol.
>>
>> Methanol (not to be confused with ethanol, which is pretty much useless
>> except as an excuse for the government to give money to ADM) has about
>> half the energy density of gasoline (which is more than enough), comes
>> in a convenient liquid form, and can be consumed directly in fuel cells
>> (with very high efficiency) or used in internal combustion engines (much
>> more cleanly than gas).
>>
>> It's currently selling for about $0.90/gallon. Double that, since it has
>> a lower energy density... looks pretty cheap compared with today's gas
>> prices.
>
>As a fuel additive or as one of a myriad of alternative fuel strategies,
>methanol might be a player, but as a gasoline replacement its a
>non-starter. To begin with, do you know how much arable land it would
>take to grow enough trees to make the quantity of methanol required to
>replace gasoline?

It could be produced from the annual fall leaves or lawn cliipings as
well.

> How about all there is and then some? The problem with
>partial solutions is that they tend to be impractical. Today, you stop
>at a service station and you buy gasoline or Diesel oil. That's it.
>Imagine the complexity of the distribution system if we had to dispense
>gasoline, gasohol, petroleum Diesel, Bio-Diesel, methanol, hydrogen,
>methane, and lord only knows what-all? Sounds impractical to me. I might
>be wrong, but I don't see it working.

--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."

Jim Polaski
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... NOTHING has as much energy per unit volume as ... >>> alternative fuels. ... >> I'd be curious to read what that study says about methanol. ... >> half the energy density of gasoline, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... >>> Maybe we should get the government to put major resources into finding ... >> so-called alternative fuels are simply not practical and never will be. ... > I'd be curious to read what that study says about methanol. ... > half the energy density of gasoline, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... NOTHING has as much energy per unit volume as ... >> I'd be curious to read what that study says about methanol. ... >> half the energy density of gasoline, ... >> in a convenient liquid form, and can be consumed directly in fuel cells ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Downside to Methanol
    ... transportation and dispensing form for energy. ... It always boils down to the 'source' of the energy first. ... Methanol can be produced from non-petroleum sources, ... several processes that can produce methanol or other liquid fuels ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... > As a fuel additive or as one of a myriad of alternative fuel ... > strategies, methanol might be a player, but as a gasoline replacement ... > take to grow enough trees to make the quantity of methanol required to ... 89, and 91 octane gas, diesel, and sometimes kerosene. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)