Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How Will the World be Without Arab Oil?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Daylight

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 11:39:57 AM10/31/01
to
Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down
The cars industry will be ash
Many other industries will be hurt very badly
Millions of people will stay at home without jobs "jobless"
The world economy will crash
The entire industrial world will collapse

The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
oxygen flow, the world will die.

Hugh Bothwell

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 11:55:06 AM10/31/01
to

"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com...

1. We aren't THAT dependant on them. Saudi Arabia
supplies 8% of the US petroleum; the Mid-East as a whole,
something like 30%. Europe and Japan have more to
lose.

2. If the price of oil rises substantially, it will provide
economic funding for other approaches, from domestic
fossil fuels to ethanol to hydrogen, solar power, etc.

3. Taking a longer-range view, we should look
at getting off fossil fuels anyway. Go for domestic
fusion power and/or solar powersats. Switch from
aircraft to highspeed light rail transport.


'Oil is oxygen' works both ways - without us
buying their oil, the Mid-East would lose 85%
of its revenue. Al-Quaida will be back to
depending on camels for transport.

Patrice Allais

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 11:59:39 AM10/31/01
to
Heard somewhere that these companies were not ethicals ones...

Whatever, one more reason to call for other energies right now and start
getting rid of the oil lobby...

Dans l'article <70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com>,
"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> a écrit :

George Kingfish Stevens

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 12:24:05 PM10/31/01
to
The solution is for us to take over . . . period! Then "Arab" oil
will no longer exist. Three cheers for "American" oil . . . and a
small thank-you for the diaperhead trash that we allow to fill the
barrells for us (at $1.50/hr).

On 31 Oct 2001 08:39:57 -0800, daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight)
wrote:

Skler

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 12:32:04 PM10/31/01
to
>As crude
> oil production tapers off and becomes more expensive, or even if it a
sudden
> market shift occurs as a result of OPEC prices increasing or their
resources
> being withheld, it must be understood that OPEC represents less than 20%
of
> the current oil production in the world, and there are other oil reserves
> waiting in the wings to be ***utilized***.

Skler

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 12:29:24 PM10/31/01
to
Actually, the US acquires most of it's crude oil from South and Central
American nations, some from African countries, central Asia, even Australia;
there are substantial oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico off the southern US
coast and in Alaska as well. In the short term, there would be great
economic and social impact if OPEC oil were cut off since it would require
some time for other energy concerns to increase and make up for the
difference. More important is the fact that according to oil industry
experts, we are at the peak of world oil production at present anyway. Major
Western industries have been investigating and committing to long term
energy policies and the development of sustainable, alternative energy
resources and technologies, new types of fuels, new engines, more efficient
use of energy and so on... If anything, a reduction or halting of OPEC oil
would actually serve to give our present course toward alternative energy a
great boost! Coal burning power plants are constantly improving, becoming
cleaner, pebble bed nuclear reactors show great promise and increased
safety, hydrogen internal combustion and fuel cell technologies show great
promise, and hybrid automobiles and power generators are already in use.
Concentrated Solar power generating plants utilizing exotic fluids
circulated through parabolic solar collectors are actually already on line
in Arizona and California and generating electricity at a reasonable cost
that would become much more viable if many more such plants were
constructed. The continuous growth paradigm of Western economies on the
other hand, the exponential population explosion in technologically and
financially poorer nations are indeed a problem. But reduced dependence on
cheap fossil fuels would actually serve to improve that situation. As crude
waiting in the wings to be utilities. In addition, coal reserves currently
known will last hundreds of years, even if the world population and energy
consumption of industrial nations continues to grow at it's present rate. In
actuality, fossil fuels will not pose a long term problem with regard to the
human condition, but instead it is other basic natural resources that may
come into play in the long term: Water, land that's suitable for large
scale agriculture. Such basic resource shortages will be most acute in
desertous nations, or those with the largest population growth rates. None
of this is a surprise to those who are in tune with the long term
projections of energy resources and related technological developments, or
the issue of population pressure and environmental degradation,
deforestation, non point source pollution or even the possibility of global
warming.
If OPEC were to disappear tomorrow, it would indeed be a great strain on
the world economy over the short term. Unemployment would temporarily rise,
a decreased standard of living would be seen around the world. But
transient changes in oil production would also serve to spur new industries
and compensatory avenues of resource development, even changes and
improvements in living habits, transportation, city planning, zoning, etc.
The main thing is that if such change occurs suddenly then yes, the effects
on quality of life will be catastrophic in some cases and present great
hardship to many. However, if such changes unfold more gradually, then the
transition to new resources and collective behaviors regarding whole
societies will not result in the doom and gloom that many would expect.
There's even a very favorable and positive outcome to this scenario, in
which more of a balance with nature can be achieved, where instead of the
continuous growth and accelerating consumption, an equilibrium may be
arrived at, in which advances in human technology and the quality of life
will not necessarily be synonymous with increased consumption, the depletion
of resources, or subjugation of more people to hardship while a small elite
faction benefits, and so on...
The world will not die if Arab oil is cut off. In fact, such an occurrence
would be most devastating to the Arab world itself.

Here's a very general, albeit useful formula to consider in the context of
these issues. There are some factors left out and it's simplified, but it is
a good tool for getting a basic understanding. Try thought experiments where
you reduce or increase one or more of the factors in the equation and see
what happens to the Quality of life. It's a simple ratio type of deal...


Quality of Life = Labor (intensity of work and number of workers) *
Technology (imagination, invention, tools) * Natural resources (water,
oil, gas, coal, trees, land, etc.) / Total population (all of the mouths
there are to feed, backs to put clothes on, feet that need shoes, people who
need roofs over their heads, etc.)

[* means multiply]
[/ means divide]

Sklert

Daylight <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com...

Skler

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 12:36:00 PM10/31/01
to
Hugh is absolutely right!

In the long run, being cut off from OPEC oil would mean nothing, if an
improvement for Western civilization.

Skler


Boomer

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 12:53:14 PM10/31/01
to
If we need it badly enough we'll just walk over your dead body and get it,
not that we will really need it of course.


Sam Timmerman

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 1:19:16 PM10/31/01
to
In article <r2XD7.34082$6s1.1...@weber.videotron.net>,
"Blues" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
> "Hugh Bothwell" <hugh_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:K1WD7.28266$zu4....@news.tor.primus.ca...
> > ... without us buying their oil, the Mid-East would lose 85%


> > of its revenue. Al-Quaida will be back to depending on camels
> > for transport.
>

> Exactly. And Saudi Arabia, Koweit etc. will go back to the Middle Age. They
> need us more than we need them.

There are other markets for oil in the world. If a drop in US demand for
Middle Eastern oil caused a drop in prices (due to excess of supply),
much of the developing world might take advantage of the chance to buy
oil more cheaply. It might even do them a lot of good, in some respects.

I'm not sure how the Gulf states are spending their oil-powered riches.
If they have any sense at all, they're not spending it all on marble
palaces with solid gold trimmings, but are ploughing some of it back
into education and building a good industrial/technological base. If
this is the case, they might actually be able to ride out the eventual
crunch when demand for oil fades away.

Sam

--
'woodpulp' gets its mail from 'myrealbox', which is a commercial site

Bev Thornton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 1:27:01 PM10/31/01
to
Daylight, in <70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com>, wrote:
>
> Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down

Not if Muammar can help it. You know that don't you?

> The cars industry will be ash

No, they're going electric right now and the safe hydrogen cell is
almost ready for production. There are even two competing designs that
both perform very, very well.

> Many other industries will be hurt very badly

George Bush is seeing to that. Or did you miss the news on what they did
to Canada yesterday? That must have been in thanks for us busting theat
whole al Qaeda cell in Toronto, the one they are crying wolf over right
now. We're going to get more too, many, many more. There is no hiding in
Canada. You should have stayed with military targets.

Say, you working for the Bush adminstration by any chance?

> Millions of people will stay at home without jobs "jobless"
> The world economy will crash
> The entire industrial world will collapse

Fat chance. The world will go on without you.



> The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
> oxygen flow, the world will die.

hahahahaha

You sound like an American talking about yankee dollars.

Fool.

Count your sunrises.

--
Compute FREE: http://debian.org/ http://freedos.org/ http://openbsd.org/
RECYCLE: http://worldcomputerexchange.org/ PRIVACY: http://www.gnupg.org/
http://www.ifrc.org/ http://msf.org/ http://rawa.org/ http://tibet.org/
http://landmineaction.org/ http://peacebrigades.org/ http://www.unv.org/
http://septemberhearts.org/ http://warchild.ca/ http://warchild.org.uk/

Boris Mohar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 1:33:56 PM10/31/01
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:27:01 GMT, lusit...@home.com (Bev Thornton) wrote:

>Daylight, in <70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com>, wrote:
>>
>> Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down
>
>Not if Muammar can help it. You know that don't you?
>
>> The cars industry will be ash
>
>No, they're going electric right now and the safe hydrogen cell is
>almost ready for production. There are even two competing designs that
>both perform very, very well.

Where will the hydrogen come from?

Regards,

Boris Mohar


Bev Thornton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 1:45:26 PM10/31/01
to
Boris Mohar, in <0og0ut0ljgmfm0qtc...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
> Where will the hydrogen come from?

The cells generate it. Everything is internal. Maybe eight years from
market right now. two new processes, they will be competing.

Invest in companies in aircell plastics if you want a part of it.

Tom Wilson

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 1:50:54 PM10/31/01
to

"Sam Timmerman" <woodpulp@see_sig_for_mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:woodpulp-83F6FC...@news.fr.kpnqwest.net...

> I'm not sure how the Gulf states are spending their oil-powered riches.
> If they have any sense at all, they're not spending it all on marble
> palaces with solid gold trimmings, but are ploughing some of it back
> into education and building a good industrial/technological base.

They don't have any sense at all. What they don't spend on marble palaces
they spend on advanced military weapons. Education and infrastructure? Fat
chance.


Boris Mohar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 2:19:26 PM10/31/01
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:45:26 GMT, lusit...@home.com (Bev Thornton) wrote:

>Boris Mohar, in <0og0ut0ljgmfm0qtc...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>>
>> Where will the hydrogen come from?
>
>The cells generate it. Everything is internal. Maybe eight years from
>market right now. two new processes, they will be competing.

They generate it out of some raw material input. I suspect that it is one of
the oil fractions. Do you have a link?

Regards,

Boris Mohar


cmm123

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 2:39:28 PM10/31/01
to
What are you an idiot? Not only is the Middle East not the only source, but
there are HUGE sources that remain untapped (Alaska, as well as off-shore
AND deep-sea). These are plain facts.

Think of it this way. New England provides so much seafood. It provides most
if not all of all the *good* seafood in the U.S. BUT, if they were wiped
out, we'd all cry but we'd turn more to Maryland and Alaska. No big deal.
(Sorry Boston ;) ... Just trying to make a point).

It would hurt. Probably hurt really really bad. Economic markets might
slide. But, in the LONG RUN it would not be a big deal. In fact, it'll be a
catalyst for change. We'd come out BETTER for it.

However, the Middle East would not. At best they'd starve and die of disease
and poverty because of embargos and excommunication from the World economy.
At worst they'll be a radioactive wasteland as they are regrettably nuked
into oblivion (you might disagree with this, but I can think of many reasons
for this last statement).

If anything the World is the Middle East's oxygen. Not the other way around.
Please tell me exactly WHAT resources (any natural resources!!!!) do they
have!!?? My friend, you got it backwards. Food is like Oxygen. Oil is not.
The Middle East- for the most part- has no food. You got it backwards,
friend.


"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com...

prism

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 2:46:54 PM10/31/01
to
On 31 Oct 2001 08:39:57 -0800, daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight)
wrote:

>Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down

First you have to ask yourself a couple of questions.

If ALL the middle east oil producing nations were taken over by
extremist muslims, do you honestly think they will stop selling oil?

Furthermore, do you really believe that the market forces will change
to allow the 'new' owners of this oil anymore control of the world
price then OPEC already has?

No matter who controls the oil, the customer is still the one buying
it. Without the big consumption of the US that oil would be going at 4
bucks a barrel, or less. That would totally destroy any plans of Arab
self-sufficiency. Western technology is still needed to drill,
transport and refine the oil and maintain the systems in place now,
meaning, US companies will still be needed and probably cost the Arabs
more money (danger pay, security) to keep working.

Any higher prices for oil would force the economy to develop alternate
energy sources, from fuel cell cars to tar sand refining, further
endangering possible revenues, and hopes for better lives, for the
Mid-East. No Arab would let that happen.

Only the players change, not the game.

D. Scott Secor

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 2:51:35 PM10/31/01
to
"Hugh Bothwell" <hugh_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K1WD7.28266$zu4....@news.tor.primus.ca...
<snip>

> 'Oil is oxygen' works both ways - without us
> buying their oil, the Mid-East would lose 85%
> of its revenue. Al-Quaida will be back to
> depending on camels for transport.

Not to mention sex. ;-)


j...@ti.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 2:48:38 PM10/31/01
to
Those that don't understand what "prism" wrote need to go study economics and
the nature of man kind as well a history. When done in a few years (10+), come
back - else stay way.

JNH

Bev Thornton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 3:22:22 PM10/31/01
to
Boris Mohar, in <gfj0ut8m2eetfnfcb...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
> They generate it out of some raw material input. I suspect that it is one of
> the oil fractions. Do you have a link?

No, there is not a thing on the web. I probably shouldn't have mentioned
it but I am not under any non-disclosure agreement and am not a trader.

The companies with the technology are Canadian and Korean. If I wrote
names here some friends would be very angry at me.

Follow the development of the aircell plastics.

Deborah P. Jackson

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 5:45:11 PM10/31/01
to
Now I know you're a
little kid maybe 10 or 12, Na more like a 3yr. old with brain damage!
Terrorist mentality is a lie kid, and here's a clue why IT NEVER
WORKS!!!!

Daylight <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com...

Grinch

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 3:45:55 PM10/31/01
to
On 31 Oct 2001 08:39:57 -0800, daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight)
wrote:

>Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down

Oh, stop the nonsense.

We went through an Arab oil embargo once already, remember?
The world survived.

And here are some of the differences today...

The US economy is much less dependent on oil today than it was then.

The US imports a smaller percentage of its oil from the Mideast than
it did then.

The oil exporters of the Mideast like Saudi Arabia are *in debt*
today, unlike then -- if they cut off exports they cut off their own
source of revenue and cut their own economic throats by making
themselves bankrupt.

And there is much more oil today that is readily available at above
today's market price than there was then --- which means, *at a
price*, we can get as much oil as we want today from outside of the
Mideast, unlike then,
E.g., large scale production of oil from tar sands, shale, coal and
the like is viable at about $30/b (it's already viable in Canada) --
which is why OPEC doesn't let the price of oil go above $30.
(Remember, Germany fought WWII using oil-from-coal made with 1930s
technology, and South Africa ran a modern economy on oil-from-coal
during the embargo years.)
And that's beside other higher-cost deposits of regular oil that
are still largely untapped -- like the Alaska fields.

During the 1980s, oil reached $55/b in today's money -- and we had an
economic boom.

So don't sweat it.

mntbiker

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 4:14:12 PM10/31/01
to
We already have alternative fuels, unfortunately the price of oil in
monetary, human and ecological tolls will have to be viewed by the masses as
too costly before we as a world are ready to take the effort and pay the
money required to fully develop these technologies.

Bio-Diesel, Solar, and many other fuels are already available.
I imagine a world where most young healthy and able people ride a bike or
walk short distances, solar panels on every roof, natural and ecologically
friendly alternatives to lawns... etc.

Rants like Daylight's do not scare me at all, in fact I wish gasoline was
$10 a gallon. just watch the suppressed technology roll out when no one buys
gasoline unless they REALLY need it. The Mideast needs our dependency on oil
more than we need the oil.

Our dependency on oil is the oxygen that keeps the Mideast rolling daylight,
that is how I know your a fraud. Any real terrorist would know that the last
thing they want is to end our consumption of oil they want to control our
dependence and we cannot allow that to happen. The way to diminish our
dependence is to educate our people, practice conservation and maximize our
renewable resources.

Lets kill the bastard and get the fuck out of the Mideast, crush all SUV's,
give a tax credit to anyone who can prove they bike, rollarblade, run, walk,
crawl or ride a bust to get to work, cut our fuel use in half and spend the
money saved on researching alternative fuels.

The number one alternative fuel for the average citizen would be excersize.

"Deborah P. Jackson" <jack...@mlec.net> wrote in message
news:3be062ee$0$18496$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...

vince

unread,
Oct 30, 2001, 4:42:07 PM10/30/01
to
People forget one thing - if it wasn't for British and American oil
companies in the early 1900s the Arabs would still be living in tents - and
that IS a fact!


j...@ti.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 4:59:36 PM10/31/01
to vince
Damn, another thing we did wrong that caused all this shit.

JNH

Amy Caton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:24:44 PM10/31/01
to

"Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0og0ut0ljgmfm0qtc...@4ax.com...

Water. h2O

-A

> Regards,
>
> Boris Mohar
>
>


Light Templar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:32:14 PM10/31/01
to

"Amy Caton" <amyc...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:IL%D7.4553$8s4....@news.indigo.ie...


What happens to the water?


Bev Thornton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:34:11 PM10/31/01
to
Light Templar, in <3be08...@news.provide.net>, wrote:
>
> What happens to the water?

It comes apart.

Magic materials. Super plastics.

Grantland

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:49:51 PM10/31/01
to
lusit...@home.com (Bev Thornton) wrote:

>Boris Mohar, in <gfj0ut8m2eetfnfcb...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>>
>> They generate it out of some raw material input. I suspect that it is one of
>> the oil fractions. Do you have a link?
>
>No, there is not a thing on the web. I probably shouldn't have mentioned
>it but I am not under any non-disclosure agreement and am not a trader.
>
>The companies with the technology are Canadian and Korean. If I wrote
>names here some friends would be very angry at me.
>
>Follow the development of the aircell plastics.

Crap. There's a ton of stuff on the web about fuelcells.

Grantland

bill

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 6:58:56 PM10/31/01
to
No problem,we can get it from those deadbeat whales and they taste just
like chicken.

Daylight wrote:

> Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down

> The cars industry will be ash

Amy Caton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:01:17 PM10/31/01
to

"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
news:3be08...@news.provide.net...

Splits into two atoms of hydrogen to one oxygen. When you burn the oxygen
you get... water. Sounds a bit too good to be true doesn't it, but these
things have been used in space probes for years.

-A

>


Boris Mohar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:10:05 PM10/31/01
to

And where will you get the energy to rip the hydrogen out?


Regards,

Boris Mohar

Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs

Boris Mohar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:12:21 PM10/31/01
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:34:11 GMT, lusit...@home.com (Bev Thornton) wrote:

>Light Templar, in <3be08...@news.provide.net>, wrote:
>>
>> What happens to the water?
>
>It comes apart.
>
>Magic materials. Super plastics.

No magic. It does not "come apart" You have to put energy in to split
water.

TDodge

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:16:12 PM10/31/01
to
"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com...
> The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
> oxygen flow, the world will die.
The world can get along without Arab oil easier than Arabs can get
along without the worlds money. They can't really do anything at all,
and have no other exports. They'll go back to selling sand and camel
shit to each other.
It's going to be a long war, and we're skipping a few chapters ahead
here.
BWAHAHAHA
--
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a
terrible resolve "
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto


Amy Caton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:20:16 PM10/31/01
to

"Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4k41utcm9iqbmrsqd...@4ax.com...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

-A

Bev Thornton

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 7:34:17 PM10/31/01
to
Grantland, in <3be08dc7....@ct-news.iafrica.com>, wrote:
>
> Crap. There's a ton of stuff on the web about fuelcells.

Ok. Follow that. It's your trail.

hotair

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:00:58 PM10/31/01
to
> >>
> >> Where will the hydrogen come from?
> >>
> >
> >Water. h2O
> >
>
> And where will you get the energy to rip the hydrogen out?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Boris Mohar
>
> Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs

Simple grade school physics/chemistry, apply a DC voltage and hydrogen rises
from one electrode, oxygen from the other!
If I remembered which was which I'd have done better in that course....
hardly rocket science, just have to improve the efficiency of the
process....


Light Templar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:05:16 PM10/31/01
to

"Amy Caton" <amyc...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:_h0E7.4572$8s4....@news.indigo.ie...

Well, what I mean is, is any water lost?


Light Templar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:06:21 PM10/31/01
to

"Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:rn41utk2ms57h183g...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:34:11 GMT, lusit...@home.com (Bev Thornton)
wrote:
>
> >Light Templar, in <3be08...@news.provide.net>, wrote:
> >>
> >> What happens to the water?
> >
> >It comes apart.
> >
> >Magic materials. Super plastics.
>
> No magic. It does not "come apart" You have to put energy in to split
> water.
>
>

And where does that energy come from, and is any water lost?


hotair

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:14:52 PM10/31/01
to
> >
> > No magic. It does not "come apart" You have to put energy in to
split
> > water.
> >
> >
>
> And where does that energy come from, and is any water lost?
>
>

Well duhhhhhh, if you split a molecule into its separate parts then of
course the original one is gone...gezzzzzz
Are you sure you're not in one of my classes? 1 plus 1 usually equals
2......


TDodge

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:14:45 PM10/31/01
to
"hotair" <hotai...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tu17ku4...@corp.supernews.com...

> Simple grade school physics/chemistry, apply a DC voltage and hydrogen
rises
> from one electrode, oxygen from the other!
> If I remembered which was which I'd have done better in that course....
> hardly rocket science, just have to improve the efficiency of the
> process....
>
I think that system is a net loss of energy. Use electricity to make
hydrogen to make electricity. Gotta follow Bev's path for a different
way.


Light Templar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:36:39 PM10/31/01
to

"hotair" <hotai...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tu18ejq...@corp.supernews.com...

Well... Then why would I want to deplete the world's water supply?
Somehow, I'm not seeing this as an advantage.


Red Herring

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:45:57 PM10/31/01
to
On 31 Oct 2001 08:39:57 -0800, daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight) wrote:

>The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
>oxygen flow, the world will die.

The Arab oil ismore like crack cocaine to the West - deceptively cheap, and
addictive. Cut the flow of oil, and the West will suffer withdrawal
symptoms, then switch to alternative sources of energy, build smaller,
electric cars, turn to telecommuting, yada, yada, yada.

Cut the flow of petrodollars to ragheads, and they will be living in tents
and chewing camel dung. That is, if we let them.

---
Take prisoners and kill them, for Allah said: "No prophet should have prisoners
until he has soaked the land with blood." (The Hijacking Notes).
---

hotair

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 8:50:47 PM10/31/01
to
>
> Well... Then why would I want to deplete the world's water supply?
> Somehow, I'm not seeing this as an advantage.
>
>

I'm reasonably sure that the formation of water from the individual atoms is
a ongoing naturally occuring process but in the absense of proof you have a
very valid point....I'll refrain from further comment until we hear from an
expert
after fossil fuels are also a naturally occuring and onoing process, our
remains will be the source of crude a million years from now...


Grantland

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 9:03:44 PM10/31/01
to
"TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@stny.rr.com> wrote:

They get the hydrogen from methanol or hydrocarbons. CO2 is still
exhausted, but much less.

Grantland

Light Templar

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 9:32:51 PM10/31/01
to

"hotair" <hotai...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tu1aidh...@corp.supernews.com...

True, but the measurement would be just how fast is the water replenishing
itself, if you're assumption is correct, compared to our rate of
consumption.


Adam

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 10:16:11 PM10/31/01
to

Light Templar <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
news:3be09...@news.provide.net...
No hydrogen or oxygen is lost.

Look electrolysis does this:
2H2O -> 2H2 +O2

then if you burn hydrogen in air (which contains oxygen) this happens:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

a real chemist will correct the details (i'm studied physics) but the
principle is simple enough.

If you want to extract hydrogen from water, you must apply energy. Once you
have separated the hydrogen, you have a combustible gas. When it burns,
water vapour will be a byproduct of the reaction.

But the idea that if we have hydrogen powered cars, we solve the
environmental crisis or the oil dependency seems to be wrong. We either
extract the hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e. fossil fuels) or we extract it
from water, which costs electricity; and we have to get the electrical power
from somewhere, so unless we go totally nuclear then we still have a
reliance on fossil fuels.


______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net

Tbangor

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 10:53:15 PM10/31/01
to
On 31 Oct 2001 08:39:57 -0800, daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight)
wrote:

>Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down

>The cars industry will be ash

>Many other industries will be hurt very badly
>Millions of people will stay at home without jobs "jobless"
>The world economy will crash
>The entire industrial world will collapse
>

>The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
>oxygen flow, the world will die.

No, the arab nations selling the oil will die (starve). The west has
oil and other sources.

Skler

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 11:06:06 PM10/31/01
to
I don't know how mass production of hydrogen will work, or maybe it will
eventually involve circulation of water in a closed loop with some other
form of energy input to separate the hydrogen atoms in H2O? Maybe hydrogen
will be produced/extracted from water or some other raw materials on a very
massive scale in order to reduce costs, right? Anyway, the byproducts of
fuel cells are a little bit of heat, some work (e.g. generating electricity)
and water anyway, so it doesn't 'use up' water. The fuel cell itself has a
catalyst, which does not last indefinitely, so it has to be replaced too.
Seems like I remember reading that that smaller fuel cells presently use
platinum? Economically viable fuel cells on the scale of being used for
small electrical power plants are just around the corner, some are already
in use! Hydrogen fuels cells for buses, trains, even cars, becoming widely
used may very well come sooner than you think! When breakthroughs or
gradual improvements in technology reach the cusp of economic viability,
you'll know it. I've always been disappointed that US energy policies don't
seem to reflect the importance of such developing technologies as hydrogen
fuel cells, concentrated solar for example, though cleaner burning coal and
safer pebble bed nuclear technologies have been recently subsidized with
public tax revenues. I'm rooting for fuel cell technology, supplemented with
other sustainable types, so we can take a huge bite out of our greenhouse
gas emission problem, and our limited dependence on Middle Eastern crude
oil.

Sklarg


Amy Caton

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 4:47:58 AM11/1/01
to

"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
news:3be09...@news.provide.net...

No...

I think part of the confusion here is that people are thinking that a
fuel-cell is a primary energy source, it isn't, it's more of a glorified
battery.

Electrolysis of water is but one way of extracting hydrogen from the
environment, but lets follow it through.

1. Nuke station generates electricity
2. Electricity used to electrolyze water - split into oxygen and hydrogen
3. Hydrogen stored in fuel cell.
4. Hydrogen and oxygen (from air) recombined via catalyst into water (steam)
and electricity.

Not a primary power source but a superannuated battery. ok?

-A


quietude

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 5:29:34 PM10/31/01
to
Think about one or two more centuries: Oil will disappear.

Then the Arab will eat dirts to survive ?

Using oil as a weapon once more ? Well, if the world is going back
in time, why bombs can not come to control all oil fields ? That
solution is not optimal; so is using oil as a weapon.

-------

"Skler" <antoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9rpcqg$sh5$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> Hugh is absolutely right!
>
> In the long run, being cut off from OPEC oil would mean nothing, if an
> improvement for Western civilization.
>
> Skler
>
>
>
>


Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:21:28 AM11/1/01
to

"Amy Caton" <amyc...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:1U8E7.4624$8s4....@news.indigo.ie...

Just trying to make sure we're not trading one set of problems, for another
set of problems.


Alex W.

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:39:10 AM11/1/01
to

"Skler" <antoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9rqhnu$s0r$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...

That's the long term.

In the short to medium term, there is a lot we can do. We can stop
morons from installing outside air-conditioning on their patio. We
can equip factories, office buildings and large residential blocks
with micro-turbines. We can force the development of
superconducting materials. We can encourage industry to investigate
more energy-efficient manufacturing processses. On an individual
level, even such small things as using low-energy light bulbs or
making sure that we do not leave the light blazing in every room of
the house can produce significant improvements in energy use.


Alex W.

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:43:24 AM11/1/01
to

"Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3be0b...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...

>
> Light Templar <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
> news:3be09...@news.provide.net...

> > Well, what I mean is, is any water lost?
> >
> No hydrogen or oxygen is lost.
>
> Look electrolysis does this:
> 2H2O -> 2H2 +O2
>
> then if you burn hydrogen in air (which contains oxygen) this
happens:
> 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
>
> a real chemist will correct the details (i'm studied physics) but
the
> principle is simple enough.

A real chemist would also probably point out that water isn't always
water. I doubt that the fuel cell technology would be happy with
tap water or sea water: too many impurities. We'd have to purify
the water first, reduce it to a genuine state of H2O. And that in
itself costs energy.


>
> If you want to extract hydrogen from water, you must apply energy.
Once you
> have separated the hydrogen, you have a combustible gas. When it
burns,
> water vapour will be a byproduct of the reaction.
>
> But the idea that if we have hydrogen powered cars, we solve the
> environmental crisis or the oil dependency seems to be wrong. We
either
> extract the hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e. fossil fuels) or we
extract it
> from water, which costs electricity; and we have to get the
electrical power
> from somewhere, so unless we go totally nuclear then we still have
a
> reliance on fossil fuels.

Yep.
Do I detect the age-old principle of "out of sight, out of mind"?
Shifting the burden does not make it go away....

Alex


el_misti

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:53:03 AM11/1/01
to
"Amy Caton" <amyc...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<IL%D7.4553$8s4....@news.indigo.ie>...

> "Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:0og0ut0ljgmfm0qtc...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:27:01 GMT, lusit...@home.com (Bev Thornton)
> wrote:
> >
> > >Daylight, in <70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com>, wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down
> > >
> > >Not if Muammar can help it. You know that don't you?
> > >
> > >> The cars industry will be ash
> > >
> > >No, they're going electric right now and the safe hydrogen cell is
> > >almost ready for production. There are even two competing designs that
> > >both perform very, very well.
> >
> > Where will the hydrogen come from?
> >
>
> Water. h2O
>
hehehe

> -A
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Boris Mohar
> >
> >

WARHOL

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 8:31:42 AM11/1/01
to
a world without Arab Oil = NO CIVILSATION.

Imaging no plastic = No clotes = No computers = No amercains with big mouth


Milton John Kleim, Jr.

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:50:07 AM11/1/01
to
daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight) wrote:

> Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down

> The cars industry will be ash

> Many other industries will be hurt very badly
> Millions of people will stay at home without jobs "jobless"
> The world economy will crash
> The entire industrial world will collapse

> The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
> oxygen flow, the world will die.

Nope, sorry. There are non-Muslim sources of oil, which would get us
by until we reoriented our energy supplies. And, if Muslims cut off
oil, then they will unite the West against Islam, and we will simply
come and TAKE your oil. No OPEC, no Emirs, just free black gold.

You bastards need our money more than we need your oil. Without
Western money, your facades of civilization crumble back into the sand
heaps they were for millenia.

Milton John Kleim, Jr.

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:54:19 AM11/1/01
to
Boris Mohar <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Where will the hydrogen come from?

Water. You know, *H* 2 O?

Nitecrawler7

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 10:31:31 AM11/1/01
to
Grinch wrote:

> On 31 Oct 2001 08:39:57 -0800, daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight)


> wrote:
>
> >Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down
> >The cars industry will be ash
> >Many other industries will be hurt very badly
> >Millions of people will stay at home without jobs "jobless"
> >The world economy will crash
> >The entire industrial world will collapse
> >
> >The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
> >oxygen flow, the world will die.
>

Screw the Ay-Rabs! Throw those pistons away and get on with hydrogen fuel
cell technology. The oil companies could care less what fuel they vend to
the motoring public, it's just a matter of logistics in distribution.
Just so you know, almost half of the Pipe goes to Japan. I remember that
originally, it was the Navy's oil field. Then it was 'not a drop outside
the US'. Now it's let's make a deal deal.


..

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:14:25 AM11/1/01
to

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be152fc$0$36467$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

> a world without Arab Oil = NO CIVILSATION.

How ever we can still spell civilisation.
Also we could also fake our "from address:" far better than you mr earhtlink
you numbnut

>
> Imaging no plastic = No clotes = No computers = No amercains with big
mouth

Look learn some english if you wish to play

Even people who have english as a third language fail to understand your
pathetic attempts to reveal the nature at your ace card, that of the oil.

We are getting less and interested in 'your' oil, the oil ransom days are
numbered

We still will have more than we need, you on the other hand will be up
doodoo creek without a paddle,

Please return when you can discuss things ina rational manner , do not
bother post to your unintelligable crap any more, no ones reading it or
believing it.

Have a happy existence


TonyJeffs

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 12:26:51 PM11/1/01
to
"Hugh Bothwell" <hugh_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<K1WD7.28266$zu4....@news.tor.primus.ca>...

> 1. We aren't THAT dependant on them. Saudi Arabia
> supplies 8% of the US petroleum; the Mid-East as a whole,
> something like 30%. Europe and Japan have more to
> lose.

According to government and oil company stats, The USA imports 2/3 of
its oil, mostly from the middle east.. Have a look at my oil website
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tony.jeffs/oil.xls

Th US has 40GB of oil left and use 11 per year.
1/3 they extract themselves. 2/3 they import.
At this rate, the US will have no oil left in 11 years.
Most of the western world will run out of oil in around 6 years. Then
we will be totally dependent on the east, and the caspian.
Saudi in contrast, at current extraction rates, has 78 years oil left.
In fact, they don't use very much at all in Saudi. If they stop
exporting oil, and keep it for themselves, it will last them for
centuries.

Although the USA uses the most oil per year as a nation, on a per
person basis, they use only half as much as Singapore, and are
generally similar per-person to other western countries.


>
> 2. If the price of oil rises substantially, it will provide
> economic funding for other approaches, from domestic
> fossil fuels to ethanol to hydrogen, solar power, etc.
>

If the price rises substantially, all that money will go to the
places that supply the oil. The oil companies and the western world
won't be better off.

> 3. Taking a longer-range view, we should look
> at getting off fossil fuels anyway. Go for domestic
> fusion power and/or solar powersats. Switch from
> aircraft to highspeed light rail transport.
>

I agree.
But there is a huge amount to be done. We fully utilise hydro electric
power, and already produce a huge amount of food by solar power (What
powers a corn field??)
Nuclear fusion hasn't been invented yet.
Wind power is something we can exploit further.
I have been trying to find out how energy-efficient a wind turbine
really is.
>

> 'Oil is oxygen' works both ways - without us
> buying their oil, the Mid-East would lose 85%
> of its revenue. Al-Quaida will be back to
> depending on camels for transport.

They will still have oil, cars and refineries. We, unfortunately,
will only have cars and refineries.
......................
Having said all that, the world functioned ok without much oil 80
years back.
It'll change, but life will continue.

At current rates, the world runs out of oil in 38 years.
There is another source of oil, though, that I don't know much about.
PArts of the world have a huge amount of shale-oil - muddy oily sand.
Currently we don't use it because it is not economic to extract, but
if we incorporate that into the equation, oil will last, at current
use rates, for 60 years.

Tony

GW

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 1:02:43 PM11/1/01
to
It's a good thing the Taliban aren't welcome in a civilized world.

Since this is an equation, let's turn it around to prove it's real.

NO CIVILISATION = a world without arab oil

Imagining no arabs = no terrorists = no liers = trecherous camel humpers


In article <3be152fc$0$36467$ba62...@news.skynet.be>,
WAR...@earhtlink.com says...

clutch cargo

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 1:50:26 PM11/1/01
to

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be152fc$0$36467$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> a world without Arab Oil = NO CIVILSATION.
>
> Imaging no plastic = No clotes = No computers = No amercains with big
mouth
>

Yet plenty of cocksucking Belgians with shit for brains, eh?


dennis

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 1:56:34 PM11/1/01
to

"clutch cargo" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:SPgE7.58363$bF5.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> LOL
>


Dave

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 2:04:13 PM11/1/01
to
Mega duh, when you burn the hydrogen you get...tada....water vapor!


"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message

news:3be0a...@news.provide.net...

Evil Arevir

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 4:43:37 PM11/1/01
to
How about you keep your oil, and we keep our food and technology?

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be152fc$0$36467$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:21:52 PM11/1/01
to

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be152fc$0$36467$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> a world without Arab Oil = NO CIVILSATION.
>
> Imaging no plastic = No clotes = No computers = No amercains with big
mouth
>
>

You seem worried Andy..


Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:24:55 PM11/1/01
to

So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O again
with nothing lost across the process?

"Dave" <dbo...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:9rs668$vm9gh$1...@ID-75556.news.dfncis.de...

Hank Oredson

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:27:57 PM11/1/01
to

"Daylight" <daylig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com...

> Giant western companies working in the oil industry will close down
> The cars industry will be ash
> Many other industries will be hurt very badly
> Millions of people will stay at home without jobs "jobless"
> The world economy will crash
> The entire industrial world will collapse
>
> The Arab oil is like the oxygen for the whole world. Cutting the
> oxygen flow, the world will die.

The arab countries will be in MUCH worse shape, if they still exist.
They cannot survive without the money we pay for their oil.

--
... Hank

Let loose the cats of war,
sleek and fast and strong.
They will seek and kill,
the evil we have found.

http://horedson.home.att.net

Adam

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:09:33 PM11/1/01
to

Light Templar <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
news:3be1c...@news.provide.net...

>
> So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O again
> with nothing lost across the process?

do an internet search for 'water cycle'; that might help you understand

DeceitfulGenius

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:16:11 PM11/1/01
to
I've seen a few posts questioning our sources of oil.. They are as
follows..
(http://api-ec.api.org/about/index.cfm?objectid=A222B83C-6FD1-41B4-9B0F519C8
23C36CA&method=display_body&er=1&bitmask=001002000000000000)

Where do the raw materials for your gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and
all of our plastic products come from? Here is a breakdown based on
government data for the year 2000:

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.1 %
United Kingdom 1.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 1.7%
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6
100.0 %


*United Nations sales program for food and medical supplies for the people
of Iraq

hope this helps...
"TonyJeffs" <tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8ec4c623.01110...@posting.google.com...

Boris Mohar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:19:11 PM11/1/01
to
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 00:09:33 +0100, "Adam" <adam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Light Templar <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
>news:3be1c...@news.provide.net...
>>
>> So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O again
>> with nothing lost across the process?
>
>do an internet search for 'water cycle'; that might help you understand
>

Water cycle has nothing to do with it.

Regards,

Boris Mohar


Boris Mohar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:29:44 PM11/1/01
to

Hydrogen is not stored in the fuel cell. Fuel cell is where the reaction
takes place. Hydrogen is stored in a big honking pressurized container or a
cumbersome hydride. Pull up and fill up becomes a scientific procedure.

Regards,

Boris Mohar


Boris Mohar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:32:01 PM11/1/01
to

Yes I know. Do you know what it takes to dig it out and safely store it?

Regards,

Boris Mohar

j...@ti.com

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:10:28 PM11/1/01
to
How about us poor-spelling Americans?

JNH

Never Anonymous Bud wrote:

> No internet access for poor-spelling europeans.

j...@ti.com

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 5:08:26 PM11/1/01
to
How about us poor-spelling Americans?

JNH

Never Anonymous Bud wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:31:42 +0100, "WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com>
> wrote:
>

Sean

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:38:02 PM11/1/01
to
You really should take chemistry 101.

But it is split into h2 and o

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:24:55 -0500, "Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail>
scratched their head and muttered:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd
have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but
for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:47:47 PM11/1/01
to

"Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dom3utkh88at3afur...@4ax.com...

Well, I admit that I don't. My concern here is that this process isn't as
safe, or efficient as the tech boys wish to make it sound. I have no real
desire to trade one set of problems for another set of problems. So any
information one could give would be appreciated. I have read a couple of
web pages, but they seem to be written by the tech boys, and avert any
mention of a down side to this.


TDodge

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 6:48:23 PM11/1/01
to
"Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:r6m3ut0du659sopfl...@4ax.com...

> Hydrogen is not stored in the fuel cell. Fuel cell is where the reaction
> takes place. Hydrogen is stored in a big honking pressurized container or
a
> cumbersome hydride. Pull up and fill up becomes a scientific procedure.

> Boris Mohar
>
that scotched plans for a hydrogen powered aircraft. The fuel tank was
twice as big as the plane. Back to the drawing board on that one!
petro still allows the greatest energy to be stored in the smallest space,
as far as I know.
--
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a
terrible resolve "
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

jingoist

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 7:04:20 PM11/1/01
to
They spend some of their money on education alright. Look at the terrorist
training camps that exist in most Islamic countries.

"Tom Wilson" <tom.w...@medcenter.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:9rph8u$aso$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>
> "Sam Timmerman" <woodpulp@see_sig_for_mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:woodpulp-83F6FC...@news.fr.kpnqwest.net...
> > I'm not sure how the Gulf states are spending their oil-powered riches.
> > If they have any sense at all, they're not spending it all on marble
> > palaces with solid gold trimmings, but are ploughing some of it back
> > into education and building a good industrial/technological base.
>
> They don't have any sense at all. What they don't spend on marble palaces
> they spend on advanced military weapons. Education and infrastructure? Fat
> chance.
>
>
>
>


jingoist

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 7:11:29 PM11/1/01
to
As far as I know, the US is the only nation that has the technology to
develop and produce oil from land that is too radioactive for life to exist.
Get the message?

"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
news:N%jE7.168881$W8.51...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Tbangor

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 7:52:38 PM11/1/01
to
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:31:42 +0100, "WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com>
wrote:

>a world without Arab Oil = NO CIVILSATION.
>
>Imaging no plastic = No clotes = No computers = No amercains with big mouth
>

No money from oil sales - no food for Arabs - no Arabs -

WARHOL

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 7:41:43 PM11/1/01
to

"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> a écrit dans le message de news:
3be1c...@news.provide.net...

> So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O again

> with nothing lost across the process?, I'm not seeing this as an
advantage.


But you need a superconductor. Do you have a superconductor?
And how much ENERGY do you need for H.

My father always told me; If they, ever can make a superconductor at
ambiant temperatur. Then they have to rebuilt everything whatever was made
by MEN BEFOR.

And the best way to do that, is by provocing a TOTAL WAR..

Maybee, They Have a superconductor at ambiant temperatur !

Then I can tell you that a lot of us ( people ) will not see the futur
anymore. Whatever your race, religion or country you r frome.
They will NOT need us anymore !
And who are THEY I dont know.

Remenber a lot off civilisations went before!.
New technology - New civilisation.

And those, who did the WTC Attack, maybee have the formula for a
superconductor at ambiant temperatur.


Boris Mohar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 8:13:50 PM11/1/01
to

You father was an idiot. He fed you.


Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 8:30:23 PM11/1/01
to

"TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bblE7.58550$bF5.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...

> "Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:r6m3ut0du659sopfl...@4ax.com...
>
> > Hydrogen is not stored in the fuel cell. Fuel cell is where the
reaction
> > takes place. Hydrogen is stored in a big honking pressurized container
or
> a
> > cumbersome hydride. Pull up and fill up becomes a scientific procedure.
> > Boris Mohar
> >
> that scotched plans for a hydrogen powered aircraft. The fuel tank was
> twice as big as the plane. Back to the drawing board on that one!
> petro still allows the greatest energy to be stored in the smallest space,
> as far as I know.

Well, not entirely accurate, Nitro, for example, surpasses petrol, but I'm
not too sure I'd want to run that in my car. :c)


Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 8:33:17 PM11/1/01
to

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be1f009$0$36468$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

>
> "Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3be1c...@news.provide.net...
>
> > So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O
again
> > with nothing lost across the process?, I'm not seeing this as an
> advantage.
>
>
> But you need a superconductor. Do you have a superconductor?
> And how much ENERGY do you need for H.
>

I don't know, that's why I've been asking the questions.

> My father always told me; If they, ever can make a superconductor at
> ambiant temperatur. Then they have to rebuilt everything whatever was made
> by MEN BEFOR.
>
> And the best way to do that, is by provocing a TOTAL WAR..
>
> Maybee, They Have a superconductor at ambiant temperatur !
>

Oooookaaaayyy!

> Then I can tell you that a lot of us ( people ) will not see the futur
> anymore. Whatever your race, religion or country you r frome.
> They will NOT need us anymore !
> And who are THEY I dont know.
>
> Remenber a lot off civilisations went before!.
> New technology - New civilisation.
>
> And those, who did the WTC Attack, maybee have the formula for a
> superconductor at ambiant temperatur.

Doubtful. Those were business offices, not research facilities.


WARHOL

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 8:56:28 PM11/1/01
to

"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> a écrit dans le message de news:
3be1f...@news.provide.net...

>
> "WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
> news:3be1f009$0$36468$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3be1c...@news.provide.net...
> >
> > > So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O
> again
> > > with nothing lost across the process?, I'm not seeing this as an
> > advantage.
> >
> >
> > But you need a superconductor. Do you have a superconductor?
> > And how much ENERGY do you need for H.
> >

> I don't know, that's why I've been asking the questions.

A lot more energy then H. can Produce

So you will still need PETROL or ATOMIC ENERGY to produce H.
Up to you the choice. Pay the arabs or bult more atomic centrals.
OR MAKE WAR FOR PETROL

world without Arab Oil = NO AMERICAIN CIVILISATION.


Chris Malcheski

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 8:16:03 PM11/1/01
to
Amy,

I don't see the practicality in this. It takes more energy (lots more) to
electrolyze the water than could ever be produced by recombining it. Also
some kind of inhibitor (i.e. salt) has to be added to the water to provide
enough resistance to prevent a direct short circuit from occurring. I
suppose if the primary purpose is to port the fuel from one point to
another, then the method would have its merits but as a means of large-scale
power generation, it's a net loss any way you slice it.

Putting guys on bicycle-powered generators all day would be a lot more
efficient if you want to get into an in-depth analysis of joules out for
calories in? :)

-- Chris

Dani

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:33:33 PM11/1/01
to
mit...@iafrica.com (Grantland) wrote in message news:<3be0acef....@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
> "TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"hotair" <hotai...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tu17ku4...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Simple grade school physics/chemistry, apply a DC voltage and hydrogen
> rises
> >> from one electrode, oxygen from the other!
> >> If I remembered which was which I'd have done better in that course....
> >> hardly rocket science, just have to improve the efficiency of the
> >> process....
> >>
> >I think that system is a net loss of energy. Use electricity to make
> >hydrogen to make electricity. Gotta follow Bev's path for a different
> >way.
> >
> They get the hydrogen from methanol or hydrocarbons. CO2 is still
> exhausted, but much less.
>
> Grantland

Holy shit! I thought you were either a retarded adult, or a seven
year old child, but look you just showed that you have the ability to
speak like a mature, sane adult! You should try this more often; it
makes you look better.

Daniella

hotair

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:38:38 PM11/1/01
to
>
> So you will still need PETROL or ATOMIC ENERGY to produce H.
> Up to you the choice. Pay the arabs or bult more atomic centrals.
> OR MAKE WAR FOR PETROL
>
> world without Arab Oil = NO AMERICAIN CIVILISATION.
>
>

We need energy to produce H, solar is free, must be a way to utilize
that....some form of co-generation process perhaps?

But we have lots of oil reserves here.....albeit the cost per gallon might
rise bit in the interim as we develop them, Fort McMurray, the untapped
reserves off the BC coast, the capped wells in Sask cause their oil is too
heavy compared to Arab oil!
Arab oil is light which means more profit for the oil companies as less
refining is required.
We need oil to support our way of life but we can/will survive without Arab
oil....and I suppose the Arabs can survive wthout our money!
Wonder who will feel the pinch first? This could open up a new
thread....LOL


Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:50:52 PM11/1/01
to

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be2018e$0$36466$ba62...@news.skynet.be...


Ooooookaaaaayyy... Thanks for the info.


Light Templar

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 9:52:23 PM11/1/01
to

"hotair" <hotai...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tu41nmt...@corp.supernews.com...

> >
> > So you will still need PETROL or ATOMIC ENERGY to produce H.
> > Up to you the choice. Pay the arabs or bult more atomic centrals.
> > OR MAKE WAR FOR PETROL
> >
> > world without Arab Oil = NO AMERICAIN CIVILISATION.
> >
> >
>
> We need energy to produce H, solar is free, must be a way to utilize
> that....some form of co-generation process perhaps?
>

Wouldn't it be more efficient to forgo the hydro then and just use the
solar? (Of course, solar also has it's problems)

vince

unread,
Oct 31, 2001, 10:58:28 PM10/31/01
to
Do you Yanks realise that Americas biggest oil field was developed by BP -
British Petroleum who also own Amoco and Standard Oil of Ohio?

BP was also responsible for developing most of the oil fields in the Middle
East.

Most people think of the big Yank oil companies so spare a thought for the
Brit ones as well.


Rob Mitchell

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:25:27 PM11/1/01
to
In article <70ceae71.01103...@posting.google.com>,
daylig...@yahoo.com (Daylight) wrote:

> Subject: How Will the World be Without Arab Oil?

I have another one for you:

Q.: How will the world be without you people who attempt to dictate to all
the rest of us what we can & cannot read, what can & cannot be published,
what can & cannot be written (as you tried to do to for 10 years with
Salman Rushdie & his publishers in many countries & succeeding in doing
with one of his translators, whom you murdered, as well as many other
writers, teachers, etc., whom you also murdered, even though you were
unable to provide even the most meager shred of proof that these people
posed the tiniest threat to anyone); & how will the world be without you
people who believe that everyone of a certain gender should be enslaved?

A.: Better off.

Rob

WARHOL

unread,
Nov 1, 2001, 11:38:13 PM11/1/01
to

"Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
los3ut4d31utstmgm...@4ax.com...

My father is a FreeDomFighter


Dave

unread,
Nov 2, 2001, 7:59:04 AM11/2/01
to
It takes energy to make the conversion from water to hydrogen and oxygen.
But no, there is no real loss, atoms don't just dissappear. The energy used
to break down the water is recovered when it's combusted. It's a
conservation of energy thing, you know science :-)


"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message

news:3be1c...@news.provide.net...
>
> So, it goes from H2O, to H 2O, we burn the H, and it becomes H2O again

> with nothing lost across the process?
>
> "Dave" <dbo...@deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9rs668$vm9gh$1...@ID-75556.news.dfncis.de...
> > Mega duh, when you burn the hydrogen you get...tada....water vapor!
> >
> >
> > "Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
> > news:3be0a...@news.provide.net...
> > > Well... Then why would I want to deplete the world's water supply?

> > > Somehow, I'm not seeing this as an advantage.
> >
> >
> >
>
>


Dave

unread,
Nov 2, 2001, 8:02:00 AM11/2/01
to

"WARHOL" <WAR...@earhtlink.com> wrote in message
news:3be1f009$0$36468$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> But you need a superconductor. Do you have a superconductor?
> And how much ENERGY do you need for H.

Really, wow I didn't realize that we were using superconducting copper when
I did this in chemistry class back in the 1960's! Yes we actually made
hydrogen and oxygen from common water using lemon juice, copper and zink
contacts and a couple of d cells - not that we would have driven very far on
what we made but it made a nice little explosion when we re-combined it.


Gary Forbis

unread,
Nov 2, 2001, 8:30:02 AM11/2/01
to
"Dave" <dbo...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:9ru5as$vsjjq$1...@ID-75556.news.dfncis.de...

I'm confused. Why did you need the d cells if you had lemon juice, copper,
and zinc? Maybe you needed more glasses.


Hugh Bothwell

unread,
Nov 2, 2001, 8:31:45 AM11/2/01
to

"Chris Malcheski" <malc...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:KtnE7.332$O%4.54...@news.uswest.net...

> I don't see the practicality in this. It takes more energy (lots more) to
> electrolyze the water than could ever be produced by recombining it.

'Some' more, not necessarily a lot.

If you touch a battery while it's recharging, it's warm - that's
waste heat, it means it takes more energy to charge the battery
than you'll get out of it. Same deal.

The question, then, is 'how efficient can this process be on
an industrial scale'? Does anyone have numbers?


>Also
> some kind of inhibitor (i.e. salt) has to be added to the water to provide
> enough resistance to prevent a direct short circuit from occurring.

As a kid doing a science experiment, we were told to add
washing soda, although plain old dirt would likely work.


> suppose if the primary purpose is to port the fuel from one point to
> another, then the method would have its merits but as a means of
large-scale
> power generation, it's a net loss any way you slice it.

? You wouldn't use this for power generation - that needs to
be switched to other sources (my vote is for solar power
satellites).

Hydrogen power is for anything mobile, ie. your car - stuff that
can't be run directly off the grid.

Hugh Bothwell

unread,
Nov 2, 2001, 8:46:13 AM11/2/01
to

"Light Templar" <IDon't@acceptmail> wrote in message
news:3be1d...@news.provide.net...

>
> "Boris Mohar" <bor...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:dom3utkh88at3afur...@4ax.com...
> > Yes I know. Do you know what it takes to dig it out and safely store
it?
>
> Well, I admit that I don't. My concern here is that this process isn't
as
> safe, or efficient as the tech boys wish to make it sound. I have no
real
> desire to trade one set of problems for another set of problems. So any
> information one could give would be appreciated. I have read a couple
of
> web pages, but they seem to be written by the tech boys, and avert any
> mention of a down side to this.

Hydrogen power pros and cons:

First, generating it; the common industrial-scale method is
steam cracking of natural gas.

Pro: very cheap
Con: still takes fossil fuels; have we got enough?

If you want to get away from fossil fuels altogether, you
can run an electrical current through water to dissociate it.

Pro: very simple, you could do it in your garage
Con: more expensive, where will you get the electricity?

Once you have hydrogen, how are you going to store it?
You could just store it in a tank under pressure

Pro: simple, fine for stationary stuff
Con: heavy, bulky, and potentially explosive
(not at all good for a car).

You can cool it WA-A-AY down and store it as
a liquid, ie cryogenically.

Pro: much denser, easier to handle
Con: need lots of refrigeration equipment and
insulation, OR you can let it cool itself by
boiling off - fine in the short term, but
wasteful over the longer term.

Or you can chemically react it with something, ie
as a metal hydride. You get a powder that releases
hydrogen when it's heated.

Pro: dense, fairly inert ie safe to handle
Con: increased weight and volume, slow
discharge, slow recharge.


The more you read about hydrogen, the nicer
gasoline seems to work with :-(


Grantland

unread,
Nov 2, 2001, 10:31:36 AM11/2/01
to
dani...@hotmail.com (Dani) wrote:


>> >
>> They get the hydrogen from methanol or hydrocarbons. CO2 is still
>> exhausted, but much less.
>>
>> Grantland
>
>Holy shit! I thought you were either a retarded adult, or a seven
>year old child, but look you just showed that you have the ability to
>speak like a mature, sane adult! You should try this more often; it
>makes you look better.
>
>Daniella

Stop following me around, bimbo.

Grantland

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages