Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Rod Speed · Guest

beavith <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
oil sands, shale oil and even coal.

I wish you were correct.
Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.

Wrong, particularly with coal.

I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please
read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Those dont say anything like that with coal.

There is no easy way out of this.

Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel
when you have energy from nukes and its completely
routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.

i>m not familiar with nukes anywhere in the world that are used to produce hydrogen.
[/quote]
Your problem.

[quote]any kind of REAL hydrogen roduction volume is made from natural gas.
[/quote]
Just because its currently done like that is completely irrelevant to what makes sense in the future.

[quote]not to say that they couldn>t, but i>l take it on good advice
that the value of the electricity exceeds the value of the H2.
[/quote]
It isnt either/or, a nuke can produce both.

[quote]its an economic
[/quote]
You can get pills for premature ejaculations apparently.

[quote]We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

look guys. as the price of fuel goes up demand will drop to
find some kind of equilibrium between the fuel use and its cost.
[/quote]
Whats much more likely to happen is that as the price increases, that
makes liquid fuel from shale oil and oil sands and coal more economically
viable and we see a continuing increase in the use of fuel.

Certainly the countrys that still use oil to produce electricity
will find it makes sense to use nukes instead eventually, but
thats not a very big percentage of the use of oil anymore.

[quote]it will be higher, but it>ll allow for other economic sources of fuel to come on-line.

it will be disruptive.
[/quote]
I doubt it.

[quote]it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.
[/quote]
I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

Eeyore · Guest

Bob Eld wrote:

[quote]"Anthony Ferrante" <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I have been told by friends that the USA has vast amounts of oil
underground but the government keeps blocking all attempts to get at
it. Is this true and if so, why the opposition to getting it?

Anthony

It>s partially true. Much of the oil people talk about is in Anwar in
northern Alaska. It>s an environmentally sensitive area and drilling there
could harm wildlife on the refuge up there, to say nothing of oil spills and
damage to the permafrost, tundra. etc.

Oil companies claim they can drill cleanly, but so did Capt Hazelwood think
he could pilot the Exxon Valdez. The Oil industry does NOT have a very good
record with respect to the environment.

Add to that there is presently no way to get oil out of the Anwar region.
The aging Alaska pipe line is not up to the task and ships can>t operate in
the Arctic ocean so what do you do with the oil if you do drill it?

The oil companies have millions of acres under lease they have NOT drill on
for various reasons one being a shortage of rigs and equipment. Some say
they should exhaust the existing leases before getting new ones.

Then there is refining capacity. The US has done little to expand refining
capacity and new oil may not even find the pipelines, ships and refineries
to handle it.

Then there>s the economics of the situation. The oil companies are making
record profits without new oil, why would they want to increase supply?
They>re better off doing as little as possible and keeping supplies tight.
It>s simple economics. That>s one reason they don>t rush into all of their
present leases to say nothing of new ones.

Then we come to the basic idea that we MUST end the oil age sooner or later.
There>s the CO2 problem, smog and other pollution plus oil is finite.
Drilling may give us a few more years but at higher and higher prices and
our reserves are not nearly enough to keep us from importing all we need.
We really should bite the bullet now and get free of the stuff.
[/quote]
Thanks for one of the best, simplest and most concise explanations I>ve ever
heard on the matter.

Graham

beavith · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:36:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.

That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.

Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
oil sands, shale oil and even coal.

I wish you were correct.
Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.

Wrong, particularly with coal.

I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report :

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Those dont say anything like that with coal.

There is no easy way out of this.

Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel when you have energy from nukes
and its completely routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.
[/quote]

i>m not familiar with nukes anywhere in the world that are used to
produce hydrogen. any kind of REAL hydrogen roduction volume is made
from natural gas.

not to say that they couldn>t, but i>l take it on good advice that the
value of the electricity exceeds the value of the H2. its an economic

[quote]
We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.
[/quote]

look guys. as the price of fuel goes up demand will drop to find some
kind of equilibrium between the fuel use and its cost.

it will be higher, but it>ll allow for other economic sources of fuel
to come on-line.

it will be disruptive. it will make cheap energy economies and the
poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.
>

beavith · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:41:57 -0400, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_House@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]
"beavith" <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote
Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
economical to mine.

The oil production peak was reached 3 years ago.

The term refers to the point when the rate of production levels off and
begins to decline.

The cronically Brain Dead Bevith confuses a quantity with the rate of
change of tha quantity.

KKKonservatives are chronically and perpetually Ignoran.

Bevith is just the latest example.
[/quote]
LOL!

you confuse production variation as either linear up or down. what if
it oscillates thanks to various political situations in unstable areas
of the world?

whoops!

looks like you confused your pot smoking dreams with reality. again.
>

jmfbahciv · Guest

Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

Airplanes, trucks, ships, trains...

Which aint cheap energy economys being discussed there.

I quote:

"Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore."

The primary use of oil in most of the world is for transport.

But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy economys being discussed there.
[/quote]
There is never going to be "cheap" energy.

/BAH

JG · Guest

On Jul 23, 1:33 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
[quote]No Scotty, production has increased from 85 to 86 M bbls/day this year.
As there has been no US offshore exploration, there are 10s of billions of unknown reserves.

[/quote]
Certain OPEC countries remain on the low side for production, Libya
and a former Sunni dictatorship come to mind.

Eric Gisin · Guest

No Scotty, production has increased from 85 to 86 M bbls/day this year.
As there has been no US offshore exploration, there are 10s of billions of unknown reserves.

"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_House@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B%vhk.33175$Mc.18345@read1.cgocable.net...
[quote]
"beavith" <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote
Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
economical to mine.

The oil production peak was reached 3 years ago.

The term refers to the point when the rate of production levels off and begins to decline.

The cronically Brain Dead Bevith confuses a quantity with the rate of change of tha quantity.

KKKonservatives are chronically and perpetually Ignoran.

Bevith is just the latest example.

[/quote]

Rob Dekker · Guest

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6eo2lqF82q7uU1@mid.individual.net...
[quote]Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

I see you only make statements like "not a problem" and "won>t be disruptive" and "this is bull shit" and statements like that.

You>re lying now.

[/quote]
Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".
Dude, you have a sick way of pissing people off...

[quote]Anyone can do handwaving.

And anyone can do the sort of mindless chicken little imitations that you are doing too.

But this is sci.energy.

No it isnt.
[/quote]
Yes it is. At least that>s where I am.
Which NG are you working out of ? Please tell me so I can avoid it.

[quote]
We expect

You get no say what so ever on what any particular newsgroup expects, ever.

[/quote]
Code of conduct for science newsgroups : stay scientific, use data to back up arguments.
I>m sorry if that is news to you; you are probably used more to insulting people and handwaving.

[quote]at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your statements.

Dont need any of those on the basics like we wont be running out of oil in 10 years
and that there is more than just hydrocarbons that can be used as a transport fuel.

And YOU made the claims I commented on.

YOU get to provide at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your statements.

THATS how it works.
[/quote]
I posted the Hisrch report and EWG report to show that there is a serious problem with Peak Oil.
You claimed we can postpone the peak with coal, and cause no disruptions in energy supply.
You did not show how this can be done, what it costs and which time frame that takes.
You did not show anything but handwaving to dis-prove the reports' findings.

[quote]
In absense of that, there is not a lot to talk about.

Yep, your shit and now lies arent even worth discussing.

[/quote]
So let>s switch to YOUR shit and lies :

Here is your coal solution that you think will last 100>s of years :
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Under business as usual, Coal will peak between 2020 and 2030.
And this without your plans to divert multiples of world coal supplies to liquid fuel.

Now your plan and data please...

Rob

Rod Speed · Guest

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

I see you only make statements like "not a problem" and "won>t be disruptive" and "this is bull shit" and statements
like that.

You>re lying now.

Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".
[/quote]
Still lying.

[quote]Dude, you have a sick way of pissing people off...
[/quote]
Dud, you couldnt bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

[quote]Anyone can do handwaving.

And anyone can do the sort of mindless chicken little imitations that you are doing too.

But this is sci.energy.

No it isnt.

Yes it is.
[/quote]
No it isnt.

[quote]At least that>s where I am.
[/quote]
Different matter entirely.

[quote]Which NG are you working out of ? Please tell me so I can avoid it.
[/quote]
Pathetic.

[quote]We expect

You get no say what so ever on what any particular newsgroup expects, ever.

Code of conduct for science newsgroups
[/quote]
No such animal.

[quote]: stay scientific, use data to back up arguments. I>m sorry if that is news to you; you are probably used more to
insulting people and handwaving.
at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your
statements.

Dont need any of those on the basics like we wont be running out of
oil in 10 years and that there is more than just hydrocarbons that can be used as a
transport fuel. And YOU made the claims I commented on.

YOU get to provide at least a bit of data with some thorough studies
to back up your statements. THATS how it works.

I posted the Hisrch report and EWG report to show that there is a
serious problem with Peak Oil. You claimed we can postpone the peak
with coal, and cause no disruptions in energy supply. You did not show how this can be done, what it costs and which
time
frame that takes. You did not show anything but handwaving to dis-prove the reports'
findings.

In absense of that, there is not a lot to talk about.

Yep, your shit and now lies arent even worth discussing.

So let>s switch to YOUR shit and lies :

Here is your coal solution that you think will last 100>s of years :
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Under business as usual, Coal will peak between 2020 and 2030.
And this without your plans to divert multiples of world coal
supplies to liquid fuel.
Now your plan and data please...

Rob[/quote]

Rod Speed · Guest

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

I see you only make statements like "not a problem" and "won>t be disruptive" and "this is bull shit" and statements
like that.

You>re lying now.

Oh.. that>s right, I forgot to mention that you call me "boy".
[/quote]
Still lying.

[quote]Dude, you have a sick way of pissing people off...
[/quote]
Dud, you couldnt bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

[quote]Anyone can do handwaving.

And anyone can do the sort of mindless chicken little imitations that you are doing too.

But this is sci.energy.

No it isnt.

Yes it is.
[/quote]
No it isnt.

[quote]At least that>s where I am.
[/quote]
Different matter entirely.

[quote]Which NG are you working out of ? Please tell me so I can avoid it.
[/quote]
Pathetic.

[quote]We expect

You get no say what so ever on what any particular newsgroup expects, ever.

Code of conduct for science newsgroups
[/quote]
No such animal.

[quote]stay scientific, use data to back up arguments.
[/quote]
How odd that you didnt do anything like that yourself.

[quote]I>m sorry if that is news to you;
[/quote]
You>re lying, again.

[quote]you are probably used more to insulting people and handwaving.
[/quote]
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

[quote]at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your statements.

Dont need any of those on the basics like we wont be running out of oil in 10 years and that there is more than just
hydrocarbons that can be used as a transport fuel.

And YOU made the claims I commented on.

YOU get to provide at least a bit of data with some thorough studies to back up your statements.

THATS how it works.

I posted the Hisrch report and EWG report
[/quote]
Neither of which claim that we will be out of oil in just 10 years.

Neither of which claim that only hydrocarbons can be used as a transport fuel.

[quote]to show that there is a serious problem with Peak Oil.
[/quote]
Pity that was never in dispute.

[quote]You claimed we can postpone the peak with coal,
[/quote]
Of course the peak can be postponed by using other
sources of oil than just pumping crude oil out of the ground.

[quote]and cause no disruptions in energy supply.
[/quote]
I didnt say it as absolutely as that.

[quote]You did not show how this can be done,
[/quote]
You>re lying, again.

[quote]what it costs
[/quote]
Irrelevant to whether its obviously possible.

[quote]and which time frame that takes.
[/quote]
I did say that that varys with how long the current price of crude remains for.

[quote]You did not show anything but handwaving to dis-prove the reports' findings.
[/quote]
The reports dont say anything like what you claimed they did, liar.

[quote]In absense of that, there is not a lot to talk about.

Yep, your shit and now lies arent even worth discussing.

So let>s switch to YOUR shit and lies :
[/quote]
You just lied again about what I actually said.

[quote]Here is your coal solution that you think will last 100>s of years :
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf
[/quote]
Doesnt say that the use of coal wont postpone the peak of oil, liar.

[quote]Under business as usual, Coal will peak between 2020 and 2030.
[/quote]
Just some pig ignorant fool>s claim.

[quote]And this without your plans to divert multiples of world coal supplies to liquid fuel.
Now your plan and data please...
[/quote]
Go and f ck yourself.

YOU made the claims.

YOU get to substantiate the claims YOU made.

THATS how it works.

Rod Speed · Guest

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
[quote]Rod Speed wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of
those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the
energy they use anymore.

Airplanes, trucks, ships, trains...

Which aint cheap energy economys being discussed there.

I quote:

"Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use
anymore."

The primary use of oil in most of the world is for transport.

But that isnt the primary source of energy in the cheap energy
economys being discussed there.

There is never going to be "cheap" energy.
[/quote]
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Bush is Diabolical Terror · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:41:57 -0400, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_House@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]
"beavith" <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote
Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
economical to mine.

The oil production peak was reached 3 years ago.

The term refers to the point when the rate of production levels off and
begins to decline.

The cronically Brain Dead Bevith confuses a quantity with the rate of
change of tha quantity.

KKKonservatives are chronically and perpetually Ignoran.

Bevith is just the latest example.
[/quote]
When these cunts controlled both houses of congress and the white
house they never bothered to pass a bill for offshore drilling.

Only now before an election do they raise the issue; they>re is no end
to their diabolical plans to blame the dems for all their fuckups
while they preach on "Taking Personal Responsibilty"
>

The Trucker · Guest

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:29:25 -0400, beavith wrote:

[quote]snip
Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel
when you have energy from nukes and its completely
routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.

i>m not familiar with nukes anywhere in the world that are used to produce hydrogen.

Your problem.

its not my problem. its reality. sorry.

any kind of REAL hydrogen roduction volume is made from natural gas.

Just because its currently done like that is completely irrelevant to what makes sense in the future.

untilthe value of the H2 generated exceeds the value of the
electricity, its never going to make sense. ever.
[/quote]
That is quite wrong. There are uses for hydrogen fuels that cannot be
served by electricity from a power plant, e.g. airplanes and ships and
the like. While the energy to make the transportable fuel may be greater
than the fuel will provide, the transportability is essential. I
am not real happy about nuclear powered warships. But there is
nothing I can do about it. Electric cars and hybrids are probably OK with
batteries. But that won>t work for a airplane. The batteries may be just
too heavy.

[quote]not to say that they couldn>t, but i>l take it on good advice
that the value of the electricity exceeds the value of the H2.

It isnt either/or, a nuke can produce both.

its an economic boondoggle

You can get pills for premature ejaculations apparently.

We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

look guys. as the price of fuel goes up demand will drop to
find some kind of equilibrium between the fuel use and its cost.

Whats much more likely to happen is that as the price increases, that
makes liquid fuel from shale oil and oil sands and coal more economically
viable and we see a continuing increase in the use of fuel.

Certainly the countrys that still use oil to produce electricity
will find it makes sense to use nukes instead eventually, but
thats not a very big percentage of the use of oil anymore.

it will be higher, but it>ll allow for other economic sources of fuel to come on-line.

it will be disruptive.

I doubt it.

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

it pervades everything throughout our economy, whether its used to
generate electricity to pump water for crops or the fuel used to
transport good from maufacture to point of sale. pull the
oil/hydrocarbons out of any of those tasks, and look for the
disruption.

--[/quote]
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

Rod Speed · Guest

beavith <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote:
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
beavith <beavith1@netscape.net> wrote:

Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel
when you have energy from nukes and its completely
routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.

i>m not familiar with nukes anywhere in the world that are used to produce hydrogen.

Your problem.

its not my problem.
[/quote]
Corse it is.

[quote]its reality.
[/quote]
Nope, its completely routine technology that can be used when its desirable.

[quote]sorry.
[/quote]
You>re lying now.

[quote]any kind of REAL hydrogen roduction volume is made from natural gas.

Just because its currently done like that is completely
irrelevant to what makes sense in the future.

untilthe value of the H2 generated exceeds the value
of the electricity, its never going to make sense. ever.
[/quote]
Wrong. It isnt an either/or, both can be done when doing that makes sense.

As it will do when the cost of hydrocarbon transport fuels gets high enough.

[quote]not to say that they couldn>t, but i>l take it on good advice
that the value of the electricity exceeds the value of the H2.

It isnt either/or, a nuke can produce both.

its an economic boondoggle
[/quote]
Nope, an economic reality when the price of hydrocarbon based transport fuels gets high enough.

[quote]We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

look guys. as the price of fuel goes up demand will drop to
find some kind of equilibrium between the fuel use and its cost.
[/quote]
Or the price will make other sources of the fuel viable, both with other
hydrocarbon sources and with non hydrocarbon based fuel like hydrogen.

Thats already happened with the use of LPG and CNG as a transport fuel.

[quote]Whats much more likely to happen is that as the price increases,
that makes liquid fuel from shale oil and oil sands and coal more
economically viable and we see a continuing increase in the use of fuel.

Certainly the countrys that still use oil to produce electricity
will find it makes sense to use nukes instead eventually, but
thats not a very big percentage of the use of oil anymore.

it will be higher, but it>ll allow for other economic sources of fuel to come on-line.

it will be disruptive.

I doubt it.

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.

it pervades everything throughout our economy,
[/quote]
Many of those uses of crude oil are completely routine to replace with something else.

Thats already happened extensively with house heating, power
generation, plastics, herbicides, pesticides, medicines etc etc etc
and will happen even more in the future with transport fuels too.

[quote]whether its used to generate electricity
[/quote]
Hardly anyone is stupid enough to use crude oil for that much anymore.

[quote]to pump water for crops
[/quote]
Completely routine to replace that with electricity.

[quote]or the fuel used to transport good from maufacture to point of sale.
[/quote]
Thats harder to replace, but still perfectly possible. Crude
oil has been replaced by LPG and CNG with cars extensively
already and thats perfectly possible with trucks as well.

And hydrogen has already been used in some vehicles too.

[quote]pull the oil/hydrocarbons out of any of those tasks, and look for the disruption.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Its just change, not disruption.

beavith · Guest

<snip>
[quote]Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel
when you have energy from nukes and its completely
routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.

i>m not familiar with nukes anywhere in the world that are used to produce hydrogen.

Your problem.
[/quote]

its not my problem. its reality. sorry.

[quote]
any kind of REAL hydrogen roduction volume is made from natural gas.

Just because its currently done like that is completely irrelevant to what makes sense in the future.
[/quote]

untilthe value of the H2 generated exceeds the value of the
electricity, its never going to make sense. ever.

[quote]
not to say that they couldn>t, but i>l take it on good advice
that the value of the electricity exceeds the value of the H2.

It isnt either/or, a nuke can produce both.

its an economic boondoggle

You can get pills for premature ejaculations apparently.

We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
this period without wrecking our economies and our planet>s eco systems.

Wrong.

Demand side is the most flexible :

Wrong again.

what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.

Wrong again.

The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.

Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.

look guys. as the price of fuel goes up demand will drop to[/quote]
find some kind of equilibrium between the fuel use and its cost.
[quote]
Whats much more likely to happen is that as the price increases, that
makes liquid fuel from shale oil and oil sands and coal more economically
viable and we see a continuing increase in the use of fuel.

Certainly the countrys that still use oil to produce electricity
will find it makes sense to use nukes instead eventually, but
thats not a very big percentage of the use of oil anymore.

it will be higher, but it>ll allow for other economic sources of fuel to come on-line.

it will be disruptive.

I doubt it.

it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.

I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.
[/quote]
it pervades everything throughout our economy, whether its used to
generate electricity to pump water for crops or the fuel used to
transport good from maufacture to point of sale. pull the
oil/hydrocarbons out of any of those tasks, and look for the
disruption.
>


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 4 of 10