oil price in free fall
Gosi
working.
I guess the oil price level finally reached too high.
Lets hope it will fall all the way down to reasonable level.
I also wish that we have learned a lesson from this and continue
search for new sources of energy.
Bassplayer12
I hope you're right because the lesson fron the previous oil crisis sure
wasn't, judging by the number of SUV's that were sold in the years after.
Mike hunt
the Presidents announcement to lift the Executive Branch ban on offshore
drilling had a lot to do with the price drop, since it started to drop the
very next day.
Now if we can lonely get the Dims leadership in Congress to allow a vote by
the Members we will see it drop even more. "We can't drill our way out" is
BS. If we have more of our own oil we still not need to buy as much form
those that want to control the price. Apparently there are more than
enough votes to lift the ban, according to published reports.
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:654638bb-6c24-4daf...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Mike hunt
result of the Carter administration trying to "control" distribution, to
lower demand. Messing with the market by the government never works. When
Reagan removed the controls and allowed the market to take over the
"shortage" disappeared
"Bassplayer12" <pere...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:4888940b$0$4000$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
PerfectReign
> The last "oil crises" was not a result of supply and demand but rather a
> result of the Carter administration trying to "control" distribution, to
> lower demand. Messing with the market by the government never works.
Concur. In an open market such as ours, it cannot possibly work. It
only "works" in a closed market such as the USSR, and even then it falls
apart over time.
Our governer in teh '70s, Jerry Brown, tried to stop us all from driving and
implemented massive carpool lane projects. All additions to adding lane
miles to california freeways were curtailed or halted.
As a result, we have a horrendous mess, and people still don't carpool or
take public transportation.
I did try that for about three years, and found it awful. I much prefer to
drive myself, rely on my own schedule and listen to audio books on the
drive.
> When Reagan removed the controls and allowed the market to take over the
> "shortage" disappeared
>
I certainly don't miss the gas lines.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org
Gosi
oil has been expensive in Europe for a long time and it has meant
improvements have been made in trains and other public transport.
A lot of people do not need a car anymore.
There are even combinations of trains and car/truck/bicycle hire by
the hour at the stations.
Steve W.
> oil has been expensive in Europe for a long time and it has meant
> improvements have been made in trains and other public transport.
> A lot of people do not need a car anymore.
> There are even combinations of trains and car/truck/bicycle hire by
> the hour at the stations.
The problem is that it would never work in the U.S. Mass transit for
major cities is already in place. The problem is that there are FAR more
places than large cities that would never have coverage. The distances
usually traveled are also MUCH farther than Europe.
--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York
PerfectReign
Bingo - I lived in Germany for a year then Switzerland for three months. In
neither case did I have a car. I was able to get by either hitchiking,
using the trains and/or other local transport.
However, the distances travelled were *far* less than I'd need to travel
here in the US.
After coming back from studying in West Germany (Tubingen), I thought I'd be
a good green-party liberal and take the bus to university. I mapped out the
plan and figured I'd be able to study on teh bus.
Turns out the busride for the 20-mile trip took me a little over two hours
each way. By comparison, I could get there in about twenty minutes (it was
15 miles by car) in my truck.
I did end up later carpooling with a buddy of mine. She had also studied in
Germany (and now lives in Switzerland with her husband and two kids) so we
were able to talk a lot.
Still, mass transit just isn't suited for most places. Unlike in Europe -
where towns were created around central lines - we don't have many
centralized locations.
Case in point - I work 21 miles from home. There is a metro train station a
block away from my work. However, to get to it, and to get to work at 7:00,
I'd have to hop a train from my house at 5:24AM, hope it got into downtown
LA (30 miles away) by 6:11 on time, then switch trains to another line,
take the 6:25 train from LA and hope to be at my next station at 6:45.
Total travel time, 1:20 - then I have to walk about a half mile to my
office.
Or, I could just leave at 5:30 - like I often do - take the freeway for
twenty miles, and get to work at 6:00. Total travel time, 0:30, and I park
in the first row of parking.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Gosi
You have to design cities around the tansport system.
If you design it around the car you will never have a good transport
system.
Design a good transport system first and you will not need many cars.
Edwin Pawlowski
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> The problem is that it would never work in the U.S. Mass transit for
>> major cities is already in place. The problem is that there are FAR more
>> places than large cities that would never have coverage. The distances
>> usually traveled are also MUCH farther than Europe.
> Still, mass transit just isn't suited for most places. Unlike in Europe -
> where towns were created around central lines - we don't have many
> centralized locations.
>
> Case in point - I work 21 miles from home.
One reason we don't have the infrastructure is the automobile. I work 24
miles from home, a typical 33 minute drive. Fact is, if the auto was never
invented or was never cheap, I'd be working closer to home and public
transportation would be available. The automobile allowed for the suburbs
to be built and for no allowance for trains to be made. It took 50+ years
to evolve to where we are and would probably take twice that to devolve into
a cluster of larger cities with mass transit.
The building that our company was in until recently used to employ 1200
people in its heyday into the 1950's. Most were locals and came to work on
the (no longer existing) trolley car that ran up main street. The company
eventually moved manufacturing south, etc. Those 1200 people, or their
descendants, are now scattered and using their cars to get to work
You can at least take a 2 hour ride to work if you want. I'd have to walk
the 24 miles as nothing exists between our towns, or even in the towns. I
can't imagine what would have to be done to make it viable today.
HLS
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:654638bb-6c24-4daf...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
It is an interesting study. As soon as Congress passes an antitrading bill
for oil, the
price starts to fall a bit.
Have we unnerved the traders? Maybe, a bit, but dont worry...they will be
back in
full force most likely.
Boone Pickens testimony before the Senate was interesting. He said, among
many other
things, that we are moving away from a petroleum fueled era and we need a
bridge to get
us to the next state of renewable energy. Like it or not, he is probably
correct.
PerfectReign
>
> "PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> The problem is that it would never work in the U.S. Mass transit for
>>> major cities is already in place. The problem is that there are FAR more
>>> places than large cities that would never have coverage. The distances
>>> usually traveled are also MUCH farther than Europe.
>
>> Still, mass transit just isn't suited for most places. Unlike in Europe -
>> where towns were created around central lines - we don't have many
>> centralized locations.
>>
>> Case in point - I work 21 miles from home.
>
>
> One reason we don't have the infrastructure is the automobile.
Partially true - In LA, they tried to use the trains but it just wasn't
viable. Twenty years before the famed LA Trolly system gave up the ghost
(and the rumors started flying about the tire industry colluding to remove
teh trains), they were continually in the red and had to be government
supported.
> I work 24
> miles from home, a typical 33 minute drive. Fact is, if the auto was
> never invented or was never cheap, I'd be working closer to home and
> public
> transportation would be available.
That may be. Of course, the auto has also opened up the ability for many to
become wealthy, so we may have been stuck longer otherwise.
> The automobile allowed for the suburbs
> to be built and for no allowance for trains to be made. It took 50+ years
> to evolve to where we are and would probably take twice that to devolve
> into a cluster of larger cities with mass transit.
Heh - I don't think the auto is responsible for the suburbs but the suburbs
wouldn't have been feasable much without it.
Keep in mind, my grandparents moved to the "suburbs" of Los Angeles in the
20's. They certianly didn't have a car yet.
>
> The building that our company was in until recently used to employ 1200
> people in its heyday into the 1950's. Most were locals and came to work on
> the (no longer existing) trolley car that ran up main street. The company
> eventually moved manufacturing south, etc. Those 1200 people, or their
> descendants, are now scattered and using their cars to get to work
There are other alternatives as well. When I was a worker bee, I would work
one day a week from home. I have staff members who do that now.
>
> You can at least take a 2 hour ride to work if you want. I'd have to walk
> the 24 miles as nothing exists between our towns, or even in the towns. I
> can't imagine what would have to be done to make it viable today.
--
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>One reason we don't have the infrastructure is the automobile. I work 24
>miles from home, a typical 33 minute drive. Fact is, if the auto was never
>invented or was never cheap, I'd be working closer to home and public
>transportation would be available. The automobile allowed for the suburbs
>to be built and for no allowance for trains to be made. It took 50+ years
>to evolve to where we are and would probably take twice that to devolve into
>a cluster of larger cities with mass transit.
>
>The building that our company was in until recently used to employ 1200
>people in its heyday into the 1950's. Most were locals and came to work on
>the (no longer existing) trolley car that ran up main street. The company
>eventually moved manufacturing south, etc. Those 1200 people, or their
>descendants, are now scattered and using their cars to get to work
>
>You can at least take a 2 hour ride to work if you want. I'd have to walk
>the 24 miles as nothing exists between our towns, or even in the towns. I
>can't imagine what would have to be done to make it viable today.
>
bought and maintained vans for employee transport. These were white
collar "professionals" and clerical.
There was some cost charged to the employees using them.
One employee would be the driver and keep the van at home.
Seems there were about 15 of these vans up until about 10 years ago,
each shuttling about 6-10 people. Some came from 30+ miles away.
I only noticed 3 or 4 when I left a couple years ago.
The driver might have had 1/2 hour added to his commute from picking
up the others people in his area.
The van pool was started sometime in '70's, when corporations still
had a sense of community and actively looked for solutions to
community problems.
Companies in an geographical area working together could make this
concept more efficient. It's not rocket science.
Any complaint that it isn't "convenient" is answered simply with "Then
don't join a pool. Get to work on your own."
Van poolers always left work on time, because managers knew any
petty bullshit in holding the poolers up would bring down the wrath of
the management leaders who put the plan in place.
Yes, there were actually "leaders" in corporations way back then.
There were the usual petty complaints about sharing a ride with this
or that person. BFD, use your own car or take a bus if you don't like
it.
--Vic
Mike hunt
vehicles, are heavily taxed to give the citizens the "FREE" social system
benefits like "FREE" health care.
You do not know this county if you think we can rely on trains and buses for
general transportation. There are states in the US that are as big, or
bigger, than counties in Europe
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fa4a47e-4ec8-45f5...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Mike hunt
off IMPORTED oil. What till he tries to build the thousand of miles of new
NG lines. The environuts and the NIMBY nuts will kill that idea. If you
doubt that look at what is happening in the effort to build new electric
high voltage lines that we need. The reason we are burning off BILLIONS of
cubic feet of NG every year at the wells and the refineries is BECAUSE we do
not have the lines to distribute the NG.
"HLS" <nos...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:H6kik.18987$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Mike hunt
and American inventors will find the solutions to our need to import oil
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eubbmF...@mid.individual.net...
tango
news:7eGdnZGtUJPrARXV...@ptd.net:
You guys must have been living with the martians on another planet named
earth.
On this one the oil crisis was caused by an OPEC boycott.
There's bullshit, then absurd bullshit which is what this statement is.
Gosi
> "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote innews:7eGdnZGtUJPrARXV...@ptd.net:
>
>
>
> > The last "oil crises" was not a result of supply and demand but rather
> > a result of the Carter administration trying to "control"
> > distribution, to lower demand. Messing with the market by the
> > government never works. When Reagan removed the controls and allowed
> > the market to take over the "shortage" disappeared
>
> >news:4888940b$0$4000$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
> >>> For a while it looked like the law of supply and demand was not
> >>> working.
> >>> I guess the oil price level finally reached too high.
> >>> Lets hope it will fall all the way down to reasonable level.
> >>> I also wish that we have learned a lesson from this and continue
> >>> search for new sources of energy.
>
> >> I hope you're right because the lesson fron the previous oil crisis
> >> sure wasn't, judging by the number of SUV's that were sold in the
> >> years after.
>
> You guys must have been living with the martians on another planet named
> earth.
> On this one the oil crisis was caused by an OPEC boycott.
> There's bullshit, then absurd bullshit which is what this statement is.
It is likely that the price hike was caused by speculators higher up
in the chain.
Most oil companies were willing participants.
All kinds of stupid reasons used to influence the price upwards.
Now when the wind is out of the hike the price will most likely come
down sharply.
The high price has shown a lot of people all kinds of truths.
One is good and that is that many people have been spending energy
without thinking about it.
Another good thing is that people have opened their eyes about
alternatives.
This has been somewhat costly exercise but it may be said it has been
generally an eye opener.
Will we learn from it?
PerfectReign
>> You guys must have been living with the martians on another planet named
>> earth.
>> On this one the oil crisis was caused by an OPEC boycott.
>> There's bullshit, then absurd bullshit which is what this statement is.
>
> It is likely that the price hike was caused by speculators higher up
> in the chain.
> Most oil companies were willing participants.
> All kinds of stupid reasons used to influence the price upwards.
> Now when the wind is out of the hike the price will most likely come
> down sharply.
> The high price has shown a lot of people all kinds of truths.
> One is good and that is that many people have been spending energy
> without thinking about it.
> Another good thing is that people have opened their eyes about
> alternatives.
> This has been somewhat costly exercise but it may be said it has been
> generally an eye opener.
> Will we learn from it?
I hope so. I can't imagine people buying oversized gas-guzzling cars and
trucks anymore. I'm glad I don't drive one.
I also hope that this allows the US to get around to thinking about
home-grown fuels more.
JR
alcohol.
We just have to keep the pols from mucking it up again.
Also allowing speculators to buy on a 5% margin rather than the 50% allowed
on most other commodities
looked good on paper but really came around to bite us in the butt big time.
Regards,
JR
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f43e3F...@mid.individual.net...
JR
I don't think very many 4cyl econoboxes would pull my 3000lb sailboat
back up the launch ramp.
Regards,
JR
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f43e3F...@mid.individual.net...
Steve W.
> Just an additional comment here.
> I don't think very many 4cyl econoboxes would pull my 3000lb sailboat
> back up the launch ramp.
> Regards,
> JR
Well, they might. I would bet it would be fun to watch !!!!
I have a friend who makes a bunch of money this time of year. He goes
over to a couple different lakes on the weekends and sets there, just
waiting for the yuppies with the fancy boats to show up, and discover
that that "little boat" they towed around with the BMW or Volvo suddenly
became kin to the Titanic when they try to pull it out of the water...
His tow vehicle, 1 ton Dodge with a Cummins in it.
--
Steve W.
PerfectReign
> I agree PR, but I really think that bio-diesel makes a lot more sense than
> alcohol.
> We just have to keep the pols from mucking it up again.
> Also allowing speculators to buy on a 5% margin rather than the 50%
> allowed on most other commodities
> looked good on paper but really came around to bite us in the butt big
> time. Regards,
I'm all for it!
I say soybeans are the way to go. Between them, peanuts, coconuts, palm
trees and whatnot, we could go way far with biodiesel.
Believe me, I'd love to stick a 6.5L or a duramax in my truck and run solely
on bio.
Mike hunt
so called "oil shortage" was caused by the Carter administration. Do a
search WBMA
"tango" <ta...@cynet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AE869DB...@216.77.188.18...
<RJ>
>Just an additional comment here.
>I don't think very many 4cyl econoboxes would pull my 3000lb sailboat
>back up the launch ramp.
>Regards,
> JR
>
Rent a slip
or
sell the boat.
( there;s always a solution )
<rj>
Gosi
I think we need more to organize cities for public transport and
intercity trains.
In general utilize energy better.
Oil is too slippery and costly.
I am not sure the long term trend that is needed has been set in
motion in the US yet.
There ar ehints that china, india and other big countries that were
subsidising oil will decrease their subsidies.
That would also help the long term trend.
The US should go in more for alternatives and not least more nuclear.
JR
Add a video camera and win the 10 grand on "Funniest Home Video's".
"Steve W." <csr6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6iq6i$bvr$1...@aioe.org...
PerfectReign
>
> I think we need more to organize cities for public transport and
> intercity trains.
That would be nice, but next to impossible in many countries.
For example the cities are often built up around (a) shipping of goods and
(b) cheap available land.
For example, you'll have City X built next to a port or a river and then the
spread in a general direction based on individual purchases of land for
development. Since no government - except for the USSR - can really
dictate where things need to be built, you won't get the efficiencies you
need.
As for the USSR, we can see where that government is today.
> In general utilize energy better.
> Oil is too slippery and costly.
> I am not sure the long term trend that is needed has been set in
> motion in the US yet.
> There ar ehints that china, india and other big countries that were
> subsidising oil will decrease their subsidies.
> That would also help the long term trend.
> The US should go in more for alternatives and not least more nuclear.
You are right, but keep in mind the NIMBY factor. No one wants a nuclear
reactor built nearby. Nevermind that they are the safest form of cheap
energy we have that has the least environmental impact - no one wants to
have Three Mile Island in their community. (Keep in mind that Three Mile
Island actually wasn't a disaster - the structure did its job and kept the
melting reactor from spewing all over the landscape.)
In any case, Ex-Governor bush is moving a bit towards resuming nuclear power
and I have also written my congressman and senators on the subject.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Gosi
> Gosi turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think we need more to organize cities for public transport and
> > intercity trains.
>
> That would be nice, but next to impossible in many countries.
>
> For example the cities are often built up around (a) shipping of goods and
> (b) cheap available land.
>
> For example, you'll have City X built next to a port or a river and then the
> spread in a general direction based on individual purchases of land for
> development.
All major cities were originally built around waterways.
Then came airports and trainstops and crossings.
Later the automobile would try to rearrange the options for a decade.
In many places it has changed the way cities grew.
There is no central decision but a lot of individual choices and it
all depends on the options available.
Governments and major players can assist in the making of
infrastructure.
It is not possible to stand against the tide and force people into
something.
If one transport option becomes too costly everyone will slowly adapt
and change.
The cars and trucks have utilized the fact that roads have been built
and oil has been cheap.
Now that oil is no longer cheap and probably never will be again then
older forms of transport will be coming into favor again.
This only happens very slowly.
Governments can put on taxes to assist in making some options more
favorable than others.
It would be good if they have good visions.
> Since no government - except for the USSR - can really
> dictate where things need to be built, you won't get the efficiencies you
> need.
>
> As for the USSR, we can see where that government is today.
USSR was famous for making silly decisions so now there is no USSR
anymore.
There are other dictatorships around showing us how not to do things.
There are also a heard of silly politicians making silly decisions.
One of the most stupid people around is in Zimbabve but some others
equally silly are closer to you wherever you are.
It is only a question of not being able to have too much power in one
pair of silly hands.
Whatever happens I bet that next year will see positive changes.
>
> > In general utilize energy better.
> > Oil is too slippery and costly.
> > I am not sure the long term trend that is needed has been set in
> > motion in the US yet.
> > There ar ehints that china, india and other big countries that were
> > subsidising oil will decrease their subsidies.
> > That would also help the long term trend.
> > The US should go in more for alternatives and not least more nuclear.
>
> You are right, but keep in mind the NIMBY factor. No one wants a nuclear
> reactor built nearby. Nevermind that they are the safest form of cheap
> energy we have that has the least environmental impact - no one wants to
> have Three Mile Island in their community. (Keep in mind that Three Mile
> Island actually wasn't a disaster - the structure did its job and kept the
> melting reactor from spewing all over the landscape.)
>
> In any case, Ex-Governor bush is moving a bit towards resuming nuclear power
> and I have also written my congressman and senators on the subject.
>
> --www.perfectreign.com||www.filesite.org
Gosi
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a
marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT
researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power:
storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because
storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive
and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers
have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for
storing solar energy.
Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this
discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of
all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about
for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of
Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the
July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-
off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as
unlimited and soon."
Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew
Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed an
unprecedented process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to
split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and
hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free
electricity to power your house or your electric car, day or night.
The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst
that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces
valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal,
phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity --
whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source
-- runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin
film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.
Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce
hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting
reaction that occurs during photosynthesis.
The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.
'Giant leap' for clean energy
Sunlight has the greatest potential of any power source to solve the
world's energy problems, said Nocera. In one hour, enough sunlight
strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one
year.
James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis who was not
involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a
"giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive
scale.
"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future
prosperity of humankind," said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of
Biochemistry at Imperial College London. "The importance of their
discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for
developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our
dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change
problem."
'Just the beginning'
Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity
and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial
photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly
basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the
conditions under which photosynthesis operates.
More engineering work needs to be done to integrate the new scientific
discovery into existing photovoltaic systems, but Nocera said he is
confident that such systems will become a reality.
"This is just the beginning," said Nocera, principal investigator for
the Solar Revolution Project funded by the Chesonis Family Foundation
and co-Director of the Eni-MIT Solar Frontiers Center. "The scientific
community is really going to run with this."
Nocera hopes that within 10 years, homeowners will be able to power
their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells, while using excess
solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power their own
household fuel cell. Electricity-by-wire from a central source could
be a thing of the past.
The project is part of the MIT Energy Initiative, a program designed
to help transform the global energy system to meet the needs of the
future and to help build a bridge to that future by improving today's
energy systems. MITEI Director Ernest Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green
Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, noted that "this
discovery in the Nocera lab demonstrates that moving up the
transformation of our energy supply system to one based on renewables
will depend heavily on frontier basic science."
The success of the Nocera lab shows the impact of a mixture of funding
sources - governments, philanthropy, and industry. This project was
funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Chesonis Family
Foundation, which gave MIT $10 million this spring to launch the Solar
Revolution Project, with a goal to make the large scale deployment of
solar energy within 10 years.
Gosi
> For a while it looked like the law of supply and demand was not
> working.
> I guess the oil price level finally reached too high.
> Lets hope it will fall all the way down to reasonable level.
> I also wish that we have learned a lesson from this and continue
> search for new sources of energy.
http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/7/lehman-oil-back-to-90-in-six-months
PerfectReign
> 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution
>
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
>
> In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a
> marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT
> researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power:
> storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
>
I saw that on /. the other day.
I just read an interesting article in Diesel Power magazine (September 2008)
that discussed biodiesel from algae. There have been talk about this for
some time now, but no real action. Apparently the issue has been
production.
Now, however, it has been shown
(http://tur-www1.massey.ac.nz/~ychisti/~yc.html) that the US would need 24%
of arable land to produce biofuels from soybeans or other crops. Yet, the
same result could be achieved with algae using only 1%-3% of crops.
In addition, there's a new process for converting the algae - the MCGYAN
process (http://www.mcneffresearchconsultants.com/technology-mcgyan.asp)
that uses common zironia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconia) as a
catalyst. There's a new algae producing "refinerey" being workedon in
Isanti, Minnesota. (
http://isanticountynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1863&Itemid=1)
If all this works, one would just need to deal with the normal issues of
free methanol, glycerine and triglycerides.
Add the ability for us to use more solar with the ability to produce
biodiesel, and the Arabs will be quaking in their Burkas.
Gosi
> Gosi turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
> > 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution
>
> >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
>
> > In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a
> > marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT
> > researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power:
> > storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
>
> I saw that on /. the other day.
>
> I just read an interesting article in Diesel Power magazine (September 2008)
> that discussed biodiesel from algae. There have been talk about this for
> some time now, but no real action. Apparently the issue has been
> production.
>
> Now, however, it has been shown
> (http://tur-www1.massey.ac.nz/~ychisti/~yc.html) that the US would need 24%
> of arable land to produce biofuels from soybeans or other crops. Yet, the
> same result could be achieved with algae using only 1%-3% of crops.
>
> In addition, there's a new process for converting the algae - the MCGYAN
> process (http://www.mcneffresearchconsultants.com/technology-mcgyan.asp)
> that uses common zironia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconia) as a
> catalyst. There's a new algae producing "refinerey" being workedon in
>
> If all this works, one would just need to deal with the normal issues of
> free methanol, glycerine and triglycerides.
>
> Add the ability for us to use more solar with the ability to produce
> biodiesel, and the Arabs will be quaking in their Burkas.
>
The problem with all fossil fuels is the CO2 production.
The fuel cells and H production stops all that and it is a major
revolution in power use
Mike hunt
water around the world as it is, if we started turning it into fuel the
earth will it will cause millions of people to die
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c49ab1bd-56da-4149...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Mike hunt
and the environuts are not want to do
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6abb4f6b-e825-4159...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Mike hunt
grass? After it was the far greater CO2 level in the atmosphere
60,000,000 years ago that produced all the plant growth to sustain the
dinasours for 160,000,000 years ;)
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:64c54c0e-4b84-4d67...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
PerfectReign
>
>> The problem with all fossil fuels is the CO2 production.
>> The fuel cells and H production stops all that and it is a major
>> revolution in power use
> If we reduce the amount of CO2, where will we get all that algae and saw
> grass? After it was the far greater CO2 level in the atmosphere
> 60,000,000 years ago that produced all the plant growth to sustain the
> dinasours for 160,000,000 years ;)
Um, the article relates to biodiesel. Bio diesel is carbon neutral (which is
a good term for all you CO2 kooks in the worls).
Plant consumes sunlight and CO2 > plant grows > plant releases O2 >
hydrocarbons from plant are converted to diesel > diesel engine burns
biodiesel and releases CO2.
Seems pretty stable to me.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Mike hunt
less CO2, there will still be the same amount of plant growth as there is
now and we can make more Bio-fuels?
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fmp3jF...@mid.individual.net...
PerfectReign
> Does that mean you believe, if the environuts have their way and there is
> less CO2, there will still be the same amount of plant growth as there is
> now and we can make more Bio-fuels?
I doubt we could make a serious dent in plant growth either way.
BuckerooBilly
>water around the world as it is, if we started turning it into fuel the
>earth will it will cause millions of people to die
http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/
http://www.oceanandair.coas.oregonstate.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.display&pageID=174
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/coasts/hab/welcome.html
These are just a few of the over thousand hits looking at "Algae
blooms off coasts".
I say, "Let's start to kill two birds with one stone and make a
harvest out of algae blooms". Tidel ponds could be made to draw the
stuff in, runoff to fertilize/feed the ponds, and the algae's killed
when we harvest the oil and ferment the cellulose. When the pond is
"spent", lower the gate and drain and refill during a tide cycle.
Florida's hot and humid, it can grow algae all year round, with
seawater. Most gulf states could make a current problem a natural
resource.
Mike hunt
and oxygen levels during the 160,000,000 years the dinosaurs roamed the
earth to increase your knowledge on the subject of CO2 and the much greater
plant growth and the resulting greater oxygen production. ;)
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fnkd0F...@mid.individual.net...
Mike hunt
will tell you loss of sea water will reduce the amount of fresh water. What
makes you believe the environuts would ever let us build the facilities?
In addition what makes you believe we could possibly produce enough bio-fuel
to replace the amount of diesel fuel we consume or the 400,000,000 gallons
of gasoline that are consumed in the US every day? ;)
"BuckerooBilly" <Bucker...@dot.net> wrote in message
news:48972b23...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> >I can hear the environuts screaming about that there is a shortage of
> >fresh
>>water around the world as it is, if we started turning it into fuel the
>>earth it will cause millions of people to die
tango
> What make you believe the environuts would make that distinction?
> They will tell you loss of sea water will reduce the amount of fresh
> water. What makes you believe the environuts would ever let us build
> the facilities? In addition what makes you believe we could possibly
> produce enough bio-fuel to replace the amount of diesel fuel we
> consume or the 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline that are consumed in
> the US every day? ;)
>
>
When are you and that small band of ideologues going to realize that your
hero Bush boy even now admits global warming is a problem.
That little fantasy island you and Bill and a couple of others live on is
slowly sinking so don't be the last guy off. LOL ):
Gosi
> For a while it looked like the law of supply and demand was not
> working.
> I guess the oil price level finally reached too high.
> Lets hope it will fall all the way down to reasonable level.
> I also wish that we have learned a lesson from this and continue
> search for new sources of energy.
The oilprice has continued to slide.
The price of a barrel went to $147 and is now $95 so it has gone down
35% in two months.
Question is what level will it stay on.
My guess is it will level off somewhere around $80 to $90
Now there is a question if the pump prices go down to the same levels
as before the latest rises started a year ago.
Will the car sales start increasing again?
Have we learned anything from this spike in prices?
Gosi
I am seeing the international price of oil going down but the pump
prices stay the same.
As soon as the international prices started to go up the pump prices
went up.
The same connection does not seem to apply when it comes down.
Now when the printing presses go warm making more and more dollars the
price of dollar is sure to come down too.
I wonder when the pump prices start to show those realities.
The government may well step in and raise taxes to keep the pump
prices up as they have done before if they have not already done so.
Gosi
> On 10 Sep, 03:31, Gosi <gos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 24 Juli, 07:33, Gosi <gos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For a while it looked like the law of supply and demand was not
> > > working.
> > > Lets hope it willfallall the way down to reasonable level.
> > > I also wish that we have learned a lesson from this and continue
> > > search for new sources of energy.
>
> > The oilprice has continued to slide.
> > The price of a barrel went to $147 and is now $95 so it has gone down
> > 35% in two months.
> > Question is what level will it stay on.
> > My guess is it will level off somewhere around $80 to $90
>
> > Now there is a question if the pump prices go down to the same levels
> > as before the latest rises started a year ago.
>
> > Will the car sales start increasing again?
>
> > Have we learned anything from this spike in prices?
>
> prices stay the same.
> As soon as the international prices started to go up the pump prices
> went up.
> The same connection does not seem to apply when it comes down.
>
> Now when the printing presses go warm making more and more dollars the
> price of dollar is sure to come down too.
> I wonder when the pump prices start to show those realities.
>
> The government may well step in and raise taxes to keep the pump
> prices up as they have done before if they have not already done so.
Oil is costing seventy something now and pure fear as the whole market
has lost confidence in everything
Banks and companies going bust.
There's just a lot of panic.
Gosi
well the oil is down to $60 and no end in sight.
The Vietnam war is hounting us now.
Nixon took away the connection to gold because he had printed too many
dollares to finance the war.
Same is happening with the wars against "terrorists" being financed by
the printing presses.
It looks like the "terrorists" are winning.
All the economical systems are in a free fall.
The artificial paper money has once again been proven inadequate.
Gold is the only real option.
Everything else just becomes artificial.
Noone knows the price of anything at the moment.
Mike Hunter
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1512d5f-2a54-4969...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Gosi
> I know that at "this moment," gas is down to $2.399 down the street. LOL
So for 1 share of GM stock you would be able to buy 2.271 gallons of
gas
Mike Hunter
to go down ;)
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e5efe10-7a89-4655...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Gosi
If you have money to burn
Mike Hunter
comment about, of which you apparently have little of no knowledge LOL
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54a40a1d-d7de-4ba1...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Gosi
Even if the price of oil is coming down then the price of GM stocks is
coming down faster so you get less and less oil for the GM stock.
It looks like the terrorists are winning the war and bringing down the
economy as well as big companies.
Who would have believed that Bush would succeed so skillfully in his 8
years to bring the US to its knees and make a lot of small companies
out of big companies.
Only question now is if he will allow to create a little longer rope
for GM to hang itself in or let a lot of people at GM join the lot of
people who have already lost their jobs because of his actions.
The biggest action hero the world has ever know.
Gosi
> comment about, of which you apparently have little of no knowledge LOL
Well
The price of oil is still falling and GM has died and begged for
taxpayers money to make it to the year end
Gosi
>
> The price of oil is still falling and GM has died and begged for
> taxpayers money to make it to the year end
It is an interesting thought how stands to gain by the rise and fall
of oil.
In the long run this sudden rise of oil may have been the end of our
dependency on the arabs.