LUNCH WITH THE 40D!

William E. Graham wrote:

But hydrogen is obtained by pumping electricity through sea water, and
the electricity is produced by burning coal, so there you go
again.......:^)

No it isn't. Hydrogen produced from electricity (and fresh water,
please) is far too expensive for commercial use. It is usually made
from natural gas and sometimes from oil or even coal.

The problem is, of course the same. CO and CO2 are released.


The only way to win is through solar power, and wind power, and tide
power, and they all probably slow the earth down a little bit......I
haven't thought this through enough yet, but I suspect that there has to
be something bad about it.......Nuclear is probably the only real safe
option, today.

Except that the conversion efficiency is very poor. About 30%. So the
electricity is more economically used elsewhere.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"mj" wrote in message
...


A barrel of crude contains 42 gallons. Each barrel yields about 19.15
gallons of gasoline plus other petroleum-based products.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...ine/index.html

So that's roughly about 50%......Not unreasonable, considering how many cars
on the road.....They probably get as much gasoline out of it as they
possibly can.......

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William E. Graham wrote:

But hydrogen is obtained by pumping electricity through sea water, and
the electricity is produced by burning coal, so there you go
again.......:^)

No it isn't. Hydrogen produced from electricity (and fresh water, please)
is far too expensive for commercial use. It is usually made from natural
gas and sometimes from oil or even coal.

The problem is, of course the same. CO and CO2 are released.

That may be, but when Rosie (and those of her ilk) say, "Why don't they run
cars on Hydrogen....The ocean is full of it." they don't seem to understand
that it's already burned, and it is very expensive to get it back.....Not
only that, but you have to cool it and compress it in order to get enough of
it in a tank to get you across town.....It doesn't come already in liquid
form.....

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Aug 10, 4:06 pm, "William E. Graham" wrote:
Nuclear is probably the only real safe option, today.

Miss Chernobyl of 2004 says hi.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan20...rnobyl2004.jpg

There have been for more man hours of life lost because of fossil fuel
pollution of the atmosphere than from nuclear accidents.......Nuclear power
is the obvious way to go.

In message , William E.
Graham writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , William E.
Graham writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , William
E. Graham writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
. ..
In message ,
William E. Graham writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
. ..
In message ,
William E. Graham writes

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
news:XuOdnalavrcJ1wXVnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@sup ernews.com...
Chris H wrote:

The Iraqis will slap our other cheek as those others have

took them down to the river to baptize them to our way of
life. That's
gratitude for ya.

They don't want the US way of life.

I have no problem and respect that. My issue is with the US
forcing our beliefs and way of life on them whether we
genuinely want to help them or steal their resources. And
this is something morally wrong especially when it costs us blood and treasure.


Well, that wasn't the original reason why we attacked
Iraq.....It supposed to protect us, and not help the Iraqis.

It did not help the US.

If these dictatorships wouldn't harbour terrorists and mess
around with WMD's there wouldn't be any problems.

Iraq had no WMD and did not harbour terrorists.

If you say so.......

No the CIA, SIS and UN said that.

There were no AQ in Iraq before 2003 I know I was there (before
2003).

AQ and the other terrorists wanted rid of Saddam and an Islamic
government put in along the lines if Iran.

When the USA removed Saddam (the man the CIA had hellped put in
to power) AQ and others moved in. that is historical fact

As for the WMD they have all been accounted for by the CIA, SIS
and the UN monitors. That is all proven.

That is nonsense.....Nobody knows how many WMD's there were
Actually they do.. There was a very heavy inspection and monitoring
program. Despite Hollywood you can't jut knock up an atomic bomb.

and/or where they were, and nobody can prove how many of them were
moved out to Syria or anywhere else.....For all we know, they were
buried somewhere in the Iraqi desert.....

So you mean the US government lied?

The CIA and SIS were adamant as was the US inspection teams that
there were no WMD before the invasion and 6 years on they have been
proved right despite all the searches of all the nuclear facilities.

However everything, al the evidence of the CIA, SIS and UN does
agree with the inspectors who said it was all destroyed in the mid 90's
So what do you have that dissagrees with the CIA, SIS and UN?

You are aware that the "inspectors" were4 just paperwork pushers,

Are you aware that this was not the case?

and never looked inside any buildings or anywhere except file cabinets,

I have seen documentary footage shot by an observer with them doing
just that... inside buildings, inside plant etc etc including some
mebers of the team who were former US military officers.

aren't you? - All Saddam had to do was operate some paper shredders
in order to make his WMD;s "disappear".......

Not true.

Well, you obviously read a different set of bloggers that I do.

I don't read bloggers. I have real contacts in the military from my days
in the mob. I

- I am sorry, but when asked to choose between Rosy Odonnel's
eveluations and those of our state department, I will have to go with
the state department. Rosy still thinks that, "you can't melt steel".

The US State department tends to tell lies. The US military certainly
does.

There is a lot of bad information out there.
Very true.

I am not on the inside,
That is the problem... you can only base your assessment on propaganda.
I am not inside any more but get to listen by an open window.

Incidentally my colleagues always said the only difference between the
Soviet Public and the US Public was the Soviet public knew whenthe4h
were being fed propaganda.

so I have nothing to go on but my own common sense. I know that Iraq
is as big as the state of California......You couldn't find a warehouse
full of WMD's in the state of California with a couple of dozen
inspectors, even if you had 20 years to do it, and there was nobody
moving them around when your back was turned.....So my common sinse
tells me that you are wrong.....Sorry about that.....

I am sorry to say you have no idea what you are talking about. The
amount of surveillance and inspection in Iraq on the WMD's make it
difficult to hide them. Especially when everyone know their start
positions.

Also the US Administration had "proof" of WMD for the invasion. Proof
that suddenly disappeared as soon as the invasion started.

The Information the CIA, SIS and UN had stayed constant and was
corroberated.

The US administration LIED and several have admitted it.

As you say you don't have any inside information but even the public
information said there were no WMD... the ONLY people who said there was
were the Bush administration. They have given no evidence to back that
up and none was found.

All these who gave evidence that the WMD had been destroyed have been
able to back up their evidence.

Come and join us on uk.current-events.terrorism there for the last 7
years all the evidences and links have been regularly posted.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 8/10/08 9:34 PM, in article
,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Aug 10, 4:06*pm, "William E. Graham" wrote:
Nuclear is probably the only real safe option, today.

Miss Chernobyl of 2004 says hi.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan20...rnobyl2004.jpg

I *knew* someone would get this back on topic!