Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
>
> > Ditto the health care system.
> >
>
> Want to run that by, again? Read much?

What do you want me to read..I lived there.
What YOU read in the USA is a bit suspect.

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:txadnQTitb2POtrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Really? The company that is being built in Pa to covert coal to oil plant
> is a private capitol company, that was given $100,000,000 in federal seed
> money, by the President, through the DOD.
>
> mike hunt

That's a project that I hadn't heard about.

Do we get part ownership for our $100,000,000?

> "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:4446def1$0$14391$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om...
>
> > No private industry will touch this and energy
> > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for
allocating
> > resources but do not do strategic planning. Building something as a
> > nation
> > can make a lot of sense.
> >
> > I noticed a guy at a store the other day. He was wearing a t-shirt
> > commemorating the Rutan project's ascent into space. The usual
> > "Capitalism
> > 1, NASA 0" sort of message.
> >
> > Except - that's not the score. Getting 100km off the ground is a fairly
> > notable achievement. One that NASA managed in 1962 or so. I remember
> > watching it on a black-and-white TV.
> >
> > And 100km off the ground and then straight back down is not near as
> > impressive - or dangerous - as re-entry from a 160km orbit at 30K
km/sec.
> >
> > Nor has Rutan made it to the Moon. A small matter of getting up out of
> > TWO
> > gravity wells and completely escaping both.
> >
> > The score is more like "Capitalism 0.1, NASA 32." Rutan took a
baby-step
> > towards useful space travel.
> >
> > Oh, and the capacity of SpaceShip 1 or whatever it's called is a pilot
and
> > three passengers. No luggage. No supplies for a few days in space.
The
> > Shuttle can lift tons into orbit and stay there for days. An EDO
Shuttle
> > can stay up for a couple of weeks.
> >
> > So, while I think a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion plant is a bad idea,
I
> > don't think a project owned by the people for the people will
necessarily
> > be
> > a bad idea.
> >
> >> --
> >> "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
> >>
> >> -- Vice President Al Gore
> >
> > Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on
Letterman
> > last week?
> >
> >
> > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
>
>


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:txadnQTitb2POtrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Really? The company that is being built in Pa to covert coal to oil plant
> is a private capitol company, that was given $100,000,000 in federal seed
> money, by the President, through the DOD.
>
> mike hunt

That's a project that I hadn't heard about.

Do we get part ownership for our $100,000,000?

> "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:4446def1$0$14391$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om...
>
> > No private industry will touch this and energy
> > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for
allocating
> > resources but do not do strategic planning. Building something as a
> > nation
> > can make a lot of sense.
> >
> > I noticed a guy at a store the other day. He was wearing a t-shirt
> > commemorating the Rutan project's ascent into space. The usual
> > "Capitalism
> > 1, NASA 0" sort of message.
> >
> > Except - that's not the score. Getting 100km off the ground is a fairly
> > notable achievement. One that NASA managed in 1962 or so. I remember
> > watching it on a black-and-white TV.
> >
> > And 100km off the ground and then straight back down is not near as
> > impressive - or dangerous - as re-entry from a 160km orbit at 30K
km/sec.
> >
> > Nor has Rutan made it to the Moon. A small matter of getting up out of
> > TWO
> > gravity wells and completely escaping both.
> >
> > The score is more like "Capitalism 0.1, NASA 32." Rutan took a
baby-step
> > towards useful space travel.
> >
> > Oh, and the capacity of SpaceShip 1 or whatever it's called is a pilot
and
> > three passengers. No luggage. No supplies for a few days in space.
The
> > Shuttle can lift tons into orbit and stay there for days. An EDO
Shuttle
> > can stay up for a couple of weeks.
> >
> > So, while I think a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion plant is a bad idea,
I
> > don't think a project owned by the people for the people will
necessarily
> > be
> > a bad idea.
> >
> >> --
> >> "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
> >>
> >> -- Vice President Al Gore
> >
> > Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on
Letterman
> > last week?
> >
> >
> > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
>
>


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:txadnQTitb2POtrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Really? The company that is being built in Pa to covert coal to oil plant
> is a private capitol company, that was given $100,000,000 in federal seed
> money, by the President, through the DOD.
>
> mike hunt

That's a project that I hadn't heard about.

Do we get part ownership for our $100,000,000?

> "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:4446def1$0$14391$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om...
>
> > No private industry will touch this and energy
> > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for
allocating
> > resources but do not do strategic planning. Building something as a
> > nation
> > can make a lot of sense.
> >
> > I noticed a guy at a store the other day. He was wearing a t-shirt
> > commemorating the Rutan project's ascent into space. The usual
> > "Capitalism
> > 1, NASA 0" sort of message.
> >
> > Except - that's not the score. Getting 100km off the ground is a fairly
> > notable achievement. One that NASA managed in 1962 or so. I remember
> > watching it on a black-and-white TV.
> >
> > And 100km off the ground and then straight back down is not near as
> > impressive - or dangerous - as re-entry from a 160km orbit at 30K
km/sec.
> >
> > Nor has Rutan made it to the Moon. A small matter of getting up out of
> > TWO
> > gravity wells and completely escaping both.
> >
> > The score is more like "Capitalism 0.1, NASA 32." Rutan took a
baby-step
> > towards useful space travel.
> >
> > Oh, and the capacity of SpaceShip 1 or whatever it's called is a pilot
and
> > three passengers. No luggage. No supplies for a few days in space.
The
> > Shuttle can lift tons into orbit and stay there for days. An EDO
Shuttle
> > can stay up for a couple of weeks.
> >
> > So, while I think a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion plant is a bad idea,
I
> > don't think a project owned by the people for the people will
necessarily
> > be
> > a bad idea.
> >
> >> --
> >> "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."
> >>
> >> -- Vice President Al Gore
> >
> > Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on
Letterman
> > last week?
> >
> >
> > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
>
>


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:x8O1g.6372$Es3.945@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

>
> "NeedforSwede2" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1eb1a9d476b3b98989d01@news.individual.net ...
>> In article <VzC1g.9168$i41.9016@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
>> kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com says...
>>> No, I live about 30 km from school. I take a diesel-electric train
>>> to the train terminal, then two electric subway trains. Most of my
>>> students either
>>> walk, take a diesel bus or the subway there.
>>>
>> And that electric is probably oil generated, and diesel is just
>> another fuel oil produced from crude.
>
> Yet, I use considerably less energy and produce less pollution than if
> I drove into school.

All you did was to transfer the energy consumption and pollution to someone
else;it's not much different than if you took a taxi.
And if the public transpo is under-utilized,it may be a bigger waste.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:x8O1g.6372$Es3.945@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

>
> "NeedforSwede2" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1eb1a9d476b3b98989d01@news.individual.net ...
>> In article <VzC1g.9168$i41.9016@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
>> kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com says...
>>> No, I live about 30 km from school. I take a diesel-electric train
>>> to the train terminal, then two electric subway trains. Most of my
>>> students either
>>> walk, take a diesel bus or the subway there.
>>>
>> And that electric is probably oil generated, and diesel is just
>> another fuel oil produced from crude.
>
> Yet, I use considerably less energy and produce less pollution than if
> I drove into school.

All you did was to transfer the energy consumption and pollution to someone
else;it's not much different than if you took a taxi.
And if the public transpo is under-utilized,it may be a bigger waste.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:x8O1g.6372$Es3.945@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

>
> "NeedforSwede2" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1eb1a9d476b3b98989d01@news.individual.net ...
>> In article <VzC1g.9168$i41.9016@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
>> kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com says...
>>> No, I live about 30 km from school. I take a diesel-electric train
>>> to the train terminal, then two electric subway trains. Most of my
>>> students either
>>> walk, take a diesel bus or the subway there.
>>>
>> And that electric is probably oil generated, and diesel is just
>> another fuel oil produced from crude.
>
> Yet, I use considerably less energy and produce less pollution than if
> I drove into school.

All you did was to transfer the energy consumption and pollution to someone
else;it's not much different than if you took a taxi.
And if the public transpo is under-utilized,it may be a bigger waste.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

>
> "Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Ditto the health care system.
>> >
>>
>> Want to run that by, again? Read much?
>
> What do you want me to read..I lived there.
> What YOU read in the USA is a bit suspect.
>
>
>

What I READ about it, I read in the British Press! And they are writing
about NOW, not the 'good old days'

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

>
> "Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Ditto the health care system.
>> >
>>
>> Want to run that by, again? Read much?
>
> What do you want me to read..I lived there.
> What YOU read in the USA is a bit suspect.
>
>
>

What I READ about it, I read in the British Press! And they are writing
about NOW, not the 'good old days'

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

>
> "Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Ditto the health care system.
>> >
>>
>> Want to run that by, again? Read much?
>
> What do you want me to read..I lived there.
> What YOU read in the USA is a bit suspect.
>
>
>

What I READ about it, I read in the British Press! And they are writing
about NOW, not the 'good old days'

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:wj2dnTsa0OKRKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>I don't do home work for my grandchildren, what makes you believe I would
>do yours?

I am not suggesting that you do my work. Rather, that you do your work: be
sure of your facts before you post them.

> You are free to believe whatever you choose. You need not do a search to
> learn the fasts to do so. ;)

The fasts? That was during lent.

Fast seems an accurate word. Fast as in write whatever you think is true
without doing the work of verifying the info you post.

Jeff

>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5bO1g.6373$Es3.5816@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:XRydnX6uBsboP9rZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> That makes since it take four barrels of crude to produce one barrel of
>>> gasoline, but it is still a byproduct of the refining process and would
>>> need to be burned off at the refinery is not consumed..
>>
>> Could you please provide evidence that it takes four barrels of oil to
>> produce one barrel of gasoline?
>>
>> You keep coming up with "facts" like the one about how only a small
>> fraction of crude oil is converted to gasoline that don't seem to fit
>> with reality. Perhaps this is another.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:wj2dnTsa0OKRKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>I don't do home work for my grandchildren, what makes you believe I would
>do yours?

I am not suggesting that you do my work. Rather, that you do your work: be
sure of your facts before you post them.

> You are free to believe whatever you choose. You need not do a search to
> learn the fasts to do so. ;)

The fasts? That was during lent.

Fast seems an accurate word. Fast as in write whatever you think is true
without doing the work of verifying the info you post.

Jeff

>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5bO1g.6373$Es3.5816@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:XRydnX6uBsboP9rZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> That makes since it take four barrels of crude to produce one barrel of
>>> gasoline, but it is still a byproduct of the refining process and would
>>> need to be burned off at the refinery is not consumed..
>>
>> Could you please provide evidence that it takes four barrels of oil to
>> produce one barrel of gasoline?
>>
>> You keep coming up with "facts" like the one about how only a small
>> fraction of crude oil is converted to gasoline that don't seem to fit
>> with reality. Perhaps this is another.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:wj2dnTsa0OKRKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>I don't do home work for my grandchildren, what makes you believe I would
>do yours?

I am not suggesting that you do my work. Rather, that you do your work: be
sure of your facts before you post them.

> You are free to believe whatever you choose. You need not do a search to
> learn the fasts to do so. ;)

The fasts? That was during lent.

Fast seems an accurate word. Fast as in write whatever you think is true
without doing the work of verifying the info you post.

Jeff

>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5bO1g.6373$Es3.5816@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:XRydnX6uBsboP9rZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> That makes since it take four barrels of crude to produce one barrel of
>>> gasoline, but it is still a byproduct of the refining process and would
>>> need to be burned off at the refinery is not consumed..
>>
>> Could you please provide evidence that it takes four barrels of oil to
>> produce one barrel of gasoline?
>>
>> You keep coming up with "facts" like the one about how only a small
>> fraction of crude oil is converted to gasoline that don't seem to fit
>> with reality. Perhaps this is another.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you are
> free to do your own search to find what I found.

In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.

Jeff

> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:T7O1g.6371$Es3.782@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
>>> distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have
>>> any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil
>>> before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you
>>> think they will have to do with the gasoline? ;)
>>
>> I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our
>>>>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various
>>>>> economies of
>>>>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import
>>>>> crude.
>>>
>>>>> If every
>>>>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some
>>>>> day
>>>>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline
>>>>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it
>>>>> became a
>>>>> motor fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off.
>>>>
>>>> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:sDydnYSWAdwOKdrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I'm sorry that logic escapes you but if you really want to know, you are
> free to do your own search to find what I found.

In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words.

Jeff

> mike hunt
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:T7O1g.6371$Es3.782@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
>>> distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have
>>> any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil
>>> before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you
>>> think they will have to do with the gasoline? ;)
>>
>> I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our
>>>>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various
>>>>> economies of
>>>>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import
>>>>> crude.
>>>
>>>>> If every
>>>>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some
>>>>> day
>>>>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline
>>>>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it
>>>>> became a
>>>>> motor fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off.
>>>>
>>>> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>