|
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
As long as drivers will go to the station that had the lowest price, evn if
it a penny a gallon, alternates will not sell without government incentives. Look at the hybrids, buyers prefer the conventionally powered twins, because they cost thousands less to drive home even with incentives. Smart buyers do not want to reduce the amount of oil we import by prepaying for three years fuel consumption in the purchase price. The ultimate consumer product is the one that suits your personal needs and costs less. When I was in retail the most important question a buyer asked before signing on the bottom line was 'How much is my monthly payment?' LOL mike hunt "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message news:gdB1g.4249$Lm5.3094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m... > thanks for the info Mike. I am like you pretty convinced that until > gasoline is in the say 7-10 dollar/gallon range will we suddenly discover > that we need to explore alternatives. Then there will be a 10-20 year lag > to get anything on line. Long past my need for it. > > Ron |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"The BEnevolent dbu" <Relaxand@smeltherose.comm> wrote in message
news:Relaxand-27DD36.16280119042006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com... > In article <6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com>, > Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > > > The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil > > The first sentence turned me off right away. "people owned"? I hate > those words because it reminds me of the old U.S.S,R. > > You must be a socialist. What's wrong with that? 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 *** |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"The BEnevolent dbu" <Relaxand@smeltherose.comm> wrote in message
news:Relaxand-27DD36.16280119042006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com... > In article <6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com>, > Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > > > The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil > > The first sentence turned me off right away. "people owned"? I hate > those words because it reminds me of the old U.S.S,R. > > You must be a socialist. What's wrong with that? 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 *** |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"The BEnevolent dbu" <Relaxand@smeltherose.comm> wrote in message
news:Relaxand-27DD36.16280119042006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com... > In article <6e44b58d2c244460da06f2402dd9e1da@dizum.com>, > Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > > > The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil > > The first sentence turned me off right away. "people owned"? I hate > those words because it reminds me of the old U.S.S,R. > > You must be a socialist. What's wrong with that? 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 *** |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"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. According the DOE, almost half of the crude oil is refined into gasoline, hardly "only a small part." http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm > The people in every other major industrial country in the world pays a > lot more for gasoline than do we, and they are still using more every > year. In several European countries, they use half the energy, per capita, than we do in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_usa_per_per > 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 > mike hunt > > > > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Cyx1g.9071$i41.2217@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, improve >> the efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes and our feet >> to get around more. >> >> Jeff >> > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"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. According the DOE, almost half of the crude oil is refined into gasoline, hardly "only a small part." http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm > The people in every other major industrial country in the world pays a > lot more for gasoline than do we, and they are still using more every > year. In several European countries, they use half the energy, per capita, than we do in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_usa_per_per > 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 > mike hunt > > > > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Cyx1g.9071$i41.2217@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, improve >> the efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes and our feet >> to get around more. >> >> Jeff >> > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. > It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our > need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies of > the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. According the DOE, almost half of the crude oil is refined into gasoline, hardly "only a small part." http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm > The people in every other major industrial country in the world pays a > lot more for gasoline than do we, and they are still using more every > year. In several European countries, they use half the energy, per capita, than we do in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_usa_per_per > If every > vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some day > we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline > would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became a > motor fuel. Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? Jeff > mike hunt > > > > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Cyx1g.9071$i41.2217@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, improve >> the efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes and our feet >> to get around more. >> >> Jeff >> > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b0B1g.236$2c3.125@edtnps89... > Jeff wrote: >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, >> improve the efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes >> and our feet to get around more. >> >> Jeff > > What about YOU, Jeff? > > Do you live in a corner of your parents' basement, a block from school? > > Or, how much of YOUR transportation needs DON'T involve fossil fuels? 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. jeff |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b0B1g.236$2c3.125@edtnps89... > Jeff wrote: >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, >> improve the efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes >> and our feet to get around more. >> >> Jeff > > What about YOU, Jeff? > > Do you live in a corner of your parents' basement, a block from school? > > Or, how much of YOUR transportation needs DON'T involve fossil fuels? 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. jeff |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b0B1g.236$2c3.125@edtnps89... > Jeff wrote: >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, >> improve the efficiency of our houses, and use buses, subways, bikes >> and our feet to get around more. >> >> Jeff > > What about YOU, Jeff? > > Do you live in a corner of your parents' basement, a block from school? > > Or, how much of YOUR transportation needs DON'T involve fossil fuels? No, I live about 30 km from school. I take a diesel-electric train to the train terminal, then two electric subway trains. Most of my students either walk, take a diesel bus or the subway there. jeff |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:hXydnWk9Eqd_e9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > As long as drivers will go to the station that had the lowest price, evn > if it a penny a gallon, alternates will not sell without government > incentives. Look at the hybrids, buyers prefer the conventionally powered > twins, because they cost thousands less to drive home even with > incentives. Smart buyers do not want to reduce the amount of oil we > import by prepaying for three years fuel consumption in the purchase > price. The ultimate consumer product is the one that suits your personal > needs and costs less. When I was in retail the most important question a > buyer asked before signing on the bottom line was 'How much is my monthly > payment?' LOL But when one has selected a car, he might be able to get a lower monthly payment at another dealer, but he won't get another car of the same model that gets better gas milage. Jeff > mike hunt > > > "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message > news:gdB1g.4249$Lm5.3094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m... >> thanks for the info Mike. I am like you pretty convinced that until >> gasoline is in the say 7-10 dollar/gallon range will we suddenly discover >> that we need to explore alternatives. Then there will be a 10-20 year >> lag to get anything on line. Long past my need for it. >> >> Ron > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:hXydnWk9Eqd_e9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > As long as drivers will go to the station that had the lowest price, evn > if it a penny a gallon, alternates will not sell without government > incentives. Look at the hybrids, buyers prefer the conventionally powered > twins, because they cost thousands less to drive home even with > incentives. Smart buyers do not want to reduce the amount of oil we > import by prepaying for three years fuel consumption in the purchase > price. The ultimate consumer product is the one that suits your personal > needs and costs less. When I was in retail the most important question a > buyer asked before signing on the bottom line was 'How much is my monthly > payment?' LOL But when one has selected a car, he might be able to get a lower monthly payment at another dealer, but he won't get another car of the same model that gets better gas milage. Jeff > mike hunt > > > "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message > news:gdB1g.4249$Lm5.3094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m... >> thanks for the info Mike. I am like you pretty convinced that until >> gasoline is in the say 7-10 dollar/gallon range will we suddenly discover >> that we need to explore alternatives. Then there will be a 10-20 year >> lag to get anything on line. Long past my need for it. >> >> Ron > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:hXydnWk9Eqd_e9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > As long as drivers will go to the station that had the lowest price, evn > if it a penny a gallon, alternates will not sell without government > incentives. Look at the hybrids, buyers prefer the conventionally powered > twins, because they cost thousands less to drive home even with > incentives. Smart buyers do not want to reduce the amount of oil we > import by prepaying for three years fuel consumption in the purchase > price. The ultimate consumer product is the one that suits your personal > needs and costs less. When I was in retail the most important question a > buyer asked before signing on the bottom line was 'How much is my monthly > payment?' LOL But when one has selected a car, he might be able to get a lower monthly payment at another dealer, but he won't get another car of the same model that gets better gas milage. Jeff > mike hunt > > > "ron" <really good@serviceu.com> wrote in message > news:gdB1g.4249$Lm5.3094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m... >> thanks for the info Mike. I am like you pretty convinced that until >> gasoline is in the say 7-10 dollar/gallon range will we suddenly discover >> that we need to explore alternatives. Then there will be a 10-20 year >> lag to get anything on line. Long past my need for it. >> >> Ron > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
I think allot of states with the coal would Love to have it in their
backyard. Those states have been depressed for a long time now. Gerald |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
I think allot of states with the coal would Love to have it in their
backyard. Those states have been depressed for a long time now. Gerald |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands