Re: 140 $ per barrel !!
Y.Porat
> In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > > "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > its more than time for fusion !!
>
> > > "If they would agree, I would agree."
>
> > > Seriously, Canada is involved in ITER. Not to the extent I
> > > personally would prefer, but involved.
>
> > > Still, wanting it does not make it possible. Nor cheap.
> > > Socks
> > Fusion certainly isn't going to happen in my lifetime and I hope I've
> > got a fair few decades left yet.
> > They're still crowing over keeping experimental fusion going for mere
> > milliseconds FFS !
>
> If ITER is a sucess, don't expect to see a working (i.e. not an experiment)
> fusion reactor until at least 2040.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
---------------------
and that is exactly the problem
for some 'mysterious' reason
no serious efforts are invested in fusion.
while it is the mightiest energy resource!!
had the proper money invested in it long ago
we could already use it
2
of course ITER is dead by arrival
and it was worse than not even starting it
because it is not even in the right direction
and a huge waist of money and worse-
waist of precious time .
fusion will be dont efficiently mainly by **acceleration**
and not just **blind** compression!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Y.Porat
so in addition to the above
one of my suggestions that can be practical
is
to use the LHC that is going on soon
for some fusion experiments...!!!
in that case it might bring back some of
its huge investments for advancing practical used
and
'earn some of its ''bread and butter'
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Jun 28, 4:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Spaceman wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > Spaceman wrote:
> > > >> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > >>>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/
>
> > > >> LOL
> > > >> A bunch of americans are letting you know about US technology.
> > > >> and you call it Europe's.
>
> > > > Opel is a German company that has already improved on Detroit's
> > > > equivalent offering.
>
> > > > 2 of the most recent Saturns are also Opels in disguise.
>
> > > It is called "shared technology"
> > > But you would not understand such because it is so american
>
> > No it's 2 European cars with a Saturn badge on the front.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Astra
>
> > "The Opel Astra is a small family car designed and manufactured by Opel,
> > the European subsidiary of General Motors.
>
> > It is branded as an Opel in continental Europe, the Republic of Ireland,
> > the Middle East, North Africa, and South Africa, as Vauxhall in the
> > United Kingdom, as Holden in Australasia, and as Chevrolet in Latin
> > America. In Russia, it is sold as both an Opel and Chevrolet. Starting
> > with the 2008 model year, the vehicle is exported to the United States
> > and Canada, where it is sold as a Saturn. "
>
> > The Aura is manufactured in the USA but I suggest you compre it with the
> > Vectra.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007-Saturn-Aura-XR.jpghttp://en.w...
>
> > It's a straight clone. Not bad looking car actually IMHO.
>
> > Graham- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Graham, realize what has made the Saturn a very attractive car to
> purchase in America. To be perfectly honest with you, it's the
> combination of the selling price and the materials used in the
> construction of its body. For American buyers, the use of very
> corrosion materials in the body is very important to us, particularly
> to us living the the colder regions of the US. Engine performance, top
> speed, and other considerations in comparison to if the car will turn
> into a rusted out piece of crap within 8-10 years.
>
> I will give Europe one credit, they have translated the advertising of
> automobiles into a competition of what fancy ac
cessories the car has
> and it contemporary styling. American car advertising says very little
> about an autombile's basic transportation capacity, or what the
> expected life time of the engine an power train is, the expected body
> life in a North American driving environment, or anything once
> considered basic to automobiles.
>
> Here, as initial;y promoted in Europe, style and appearance mean
> everything in automobile marketing. It seems to me that this of French
> origin, and the message sent to the younger members of American
> society is that unless you drive in the latest and most stylish
> automobile, you won't be able to meet hot girls! I'm not joking here.
> Car marketing in the US today has nothing to due with the durability,
> fuel efficiency, or performance of the automobile. It's all about
> sex! :-)
>
> Trust me, at my age, what car I drive will in no way enhance or dimish
> my sex life, but at 25, you view it as very important. After passing
> the age of 50, the business card and the suit that you wear makes a
> far greater contribution to the quality of your sex life than do your
> wheels. Please don't ask me how I learned this, (Lol)
>
> Harry C.
------------------
So now is the time for you to go to the hybrid car
or to the electric car (:-)
just as a minimal -ad hock- contribution
to the crisis situation
unless you dont give a damn about what will be
th e next day ......as too many people do
i hope not !!.....
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
Y.Porat
> In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > DB wrote:
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > > > >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > >>> Andy Energy wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Jun 27, 7:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes
> > > > > >>>>> 140 $
> > > > > >>>>> (and you aint seen nothing yet
> > > > > >>>>> oil producers 'dont have a God .....' )
> > > > > >>>>> so its more than time for fusion !!
> > > > > >>>> What ever happened to using less?
> > > > > >>> Apparently it's not the 'American way'.
> > > > > >> Nor apparently anyone else's way.
>
> > > > > > You're unware of what's going on in Europe ?
>
> > > > > You mean this???
> > > > >http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188
>
> > > > No, this ...
>
> > > >http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/
>
> > > > " He notes that, importantly the Flextreme will achieve the European
> > > > standard for plug-ins of < 40 g CO2 production per kM driven.
>
> > > > He also point out that E-Flex is not a "research project" but a real
> > > > production program, and that there are already over 150 engineers
> > > > assigned to the E-Flex program."
>
> > > > That's easily 4 times less emissions than an fairly average small Euro
> > > > car, so probably better than 6 times better than your Yank Tanks.
>
> > > > All we need now is enough of these ...
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
>
> > > > to power them on their daily commutes.
>
> > > > Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw.
>
> > > Too bad that in about 8 years Britain will only be able to produce
> > > 48% of their current demand unless something drastic happens.
> > Cite ?
>
> BBC
>
> > > So there won't be any place with a working outlet to plug in your
> > > car more than half the time.
> > We're not there yet anyway.
>
> 8 years and counting.
>
> > > I guess their only hope is just to ignore the EU and keep those old
> > > plants running.
> > The nukes ? They don't provide that much anyway any more. About 20%. They're
> > on 'extended life support' now.
>
> The nukes are just part of the UK problem.
>
> You really should read your own news.
>
> > Besides we buy cheap nuclear electricity from France. As have the Italians
> > been doing 'on the sly' for ages too. In fact Italy agreed to pay for a new
> > nuke as long as it was on French soil before the more recent announcement.
>
> France isn't going to supply the missing 52%.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
------------------
now please keep in mind that even the
fission reactors have their limited time
moreover
even their fuel -- Uranium
is going one day to exhaust off
not to mention price and the exhaust contamination problems
(they are sending now he exhaust to Africa (:-).........)
2
just keep in mind the time needed to develop
practical fusion !!!!
(so even if you start now ** in the right direction*-
it is pretty 'too late' )
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
> Eeyore;1172729 Wrote: nergy hogs.
>
> > -
> > So let’s see, do we put our effort into something we already know how
> > to do or into something that someone thinks will work? And no I’m
> > not
> > saying we should not explore fusion just not until we get the low
> > hanging fruit of energy reduction.
>
> > KISS (keep it simple stupid)-
>
> > I totally agree.
>
> > Graham
>
> We have known the principles of the fusion. So it is not a scientic
> research project,
very very wrong
and a very harmful assumption !!!
---------
but a engineering project.
also engineering but first a theoretic problem !!
We need to invest heavily
> on the project,
very very RIGHT !!! (:-)
instead of only a few billion dollars. How much do our
> governments spend on defence annually.
that is a question and problem not for scientists .....
to decide
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
>
> --
> orcared