Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Further Evidence We Should Be Glad W Invaded Iraq (Oil!)

Further Evidence We Should Be Glad W Invaded Iraq (Oil!) (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Would you believe me if I said President Bush is against cheap oil. He says that's one of the reasons we're in the jam we're in.

I bet if you researched the issue you'd have the answers in a snap. No one here seems to know.
Are you President Bush? No. You said we're in Iraq to protect our oil interests. I'm replying to you. Not President Bush.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are a perfect solution for Cars, and there are other Nuclear reactor types in the world that are cheaper and safer then what is used in the US. The Can-do reactors in Canada are much cheaper, and safer.

Nuclear is the best way to go right now until Fusion is perfected.
It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides.

Hydrogen fuel cell

While fuel cells are potentially highly efficient, and working prototypes were made by Roger E. Billings in the late 1960s, three major obstacles exist in the development of a fuel cell-powered hydrogen car. The first problem is that hydrogen has a very low density. Even when the fuel is stored as a liquid in a cryogenic tank or in a pressurized tank as a gas, the amount of energy that can be stored in the space available is limited, and hydrogen cars therefore have limited range compared to their conventional counterparts. Some research has been done into using special crystalline materials to store hydrogen at greater densities and with better safety margins.

Instead of storing molecular hydrogen on-board, some have advocated using hydrogen reformers to extract the hydrogen from more traditional fuels including methane, gasoline, and ethanol. Many environmentalists are irked by this idea, as it promotes continued dependence on fossil fuels (at least in the case of gasoline). However, given an efficient reforming process, vehicles using reformed gasoline or ethanol to power fuel cells would still be more efficient than vehicles running internal combustion engines.

The second major problem that used to plague hydrogen fuel cells involves the high cost of making reliable fuel cells that would provide electric power in a hydrogen car. Scientists are also working hard to figure out how to produce inexpensive fuel cells that are also robust enough to survive the bumps and vibrations that all automobiles have to handle. Most fuel cell designs are fragile and can't survive in such environments. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst in order to work properly, and the catalyst can be contaminated by impurities in the hydrogen supply. However, within the past few years, a nickel-tin catalyst has been developed which drastically lowers the cost of a hydrogen fuel cell car to make it an economically viable car.

The third "problem" is due to the fact that while hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier, it is not an energy source. It still must be produced from fossil fuels, or from some other energy source, with a net loss of energy (since the conversion from energy to hydrogen storage and back to energy is not 100% efficient). But Hydrogen is nearly twice as efficient than traditional combustion engines, which only have an efficiency of 15-25%. Hydrogen has a thermodynamic efficiency of 50-60%. The percentage will never be 100% because of the second law of thermodynamics. The US Energy Department has already announced plan to produce hydrogen directly from nuclear power plants. One of the main ideas of Generation IV nuclear power plant is to produce at the same time electricity and hydrogen. Since all energy sources have drawbacks, a shift into hydrogen powered vehicles will require difficult political decisions on how to produce this energy. Recently, alternative methods of creating hydrogen directly from sunlight and water through a metallic catalyst have been announced. This may provide a cheap, direct conversion of solar energy into hydrogen, a very clean solution. [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
It's simply something that HAS TO HAPPEN.

It's up to you to make it happen now, or later.

And, as it stands, the US, by wanting it to happen later, rather than now, is doing most excellent work in bringing on COMPLETE WORLDWIDE CHAOS™ as a result.
What do you think I'm doing here by posting these posts? I'm helping spread the word that the solutions that are SUPPOSED to keep us pacified aren't good enough.

However, I suppose I COULD go camp out in Crawford and ask W, "My pet dinosaur gave it's life, WHY? So we can have energy gluttony? Tell me the TRUTH, Mr. President (falling to the ground, sobbing) tell me the truth..."

(two white jacketed looney bin orderlies lead me away)

It is difficult to nudge people from passionately held beliefs.

The phb here is that 'There is no oil shortage and if there ever is one SOMEBODY, SOMEHOW will take care of it and if the government isn't alarmed, then why should I get worked up about it?'

I have my suspicions but this is not the time, nor place...

Bottom line is there is a dark world ahead in our future and no one who knows the truth about these things, government, economic or industry experts, say differently.

Now. What are YOU going to do?

Hmmm?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Are you President Bush? No. You said we're in Iraq to protect our oil interests. I'm replying to you. Not President Bush.
We ARE in the Middle East to protect our oil interests.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
Excellent post.

I saw a Scientific American Frontiers (Alan Alda) recently that outlined all of what you posted above.

Some tiny two man operation invented the solid material that bonds hydrogen to it, and can hold something like 30% more Hydrogen than any traditional method. Also way safer in the event of a tank rupture.

Certainly a step in the right direction.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
We ARE in the Middle East to protect our oil interests.
And I replied to that. What's your problem? You say thats not why we're in Iraq because President Bush is against cheap oil. Then you say we're in the Middle East for cheap oil. Make up your mind.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
And I replied to that. What's your problem? You say thats not why we're in Iraq because President Bush is against cheap oil. Then you say we're in the Middle East for cheap oil. Make up your mind.
Read my posts more slowly. Savor the words. Ponder the meaning of each one. Close your eyes and try to guess what my next point might be. Imagine what I would argue if my position on a certain supposition were different.

Then read the post again with a whole new understanding.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929
Excellent post.

Certainly a step in the right direction.
Thanks, sek929.

The following is not directed at you, but to the MacNN community:

I must say this loudly and clearly for all to read/hear...

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

To use an analogy, if a business is in trouble it CAN survive for a limited time if it has sufficient cash flow. Then, hopefully, it would become profitable.

Hydrogen is NOT the answer to our long term energy needs. It will NEVER be the answer to our long term energy needs. Hydrogen is a means of prolonging the time we might have to FIND THE REAL SOLUTION.

But HYDROGEN is NOT the SOLUTION.

It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides.

It would be like my saying I have found a way to artificially create DIAMONDS! Real DIAMONDS!

But the only problem is that it takes twice the amount of money to create MY DIAMONDS as it does to buy a similar quality real diamond.

What is the point?

Because we can use energies that are not as depleted, along with some fossil fuel to create hydrogen. Thus, it helps us stay afloat a little longer, like cash flow can keep a business afloat for a while until the business goes broke or cash flow stops altogether, or profitablity sets in.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A TEMPORARY STOP GAP MEASURE.

The problem still exists even if we replaced every vehicle on earth with a hydrogen car.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Read my posts more slowly. Savor the words. Ponder the meaning of each one. Close your eyes and try to guess what my next point might be. Imagine what I would argue if my position on a certain supposition were different.

Then read the post again with a whole new understanding.

No. I don't think simply contradicting yourself is considered sage or mystical words. Sorry.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
It would be like my saying I have found a way to artificially create DIAMONDS! Real DIAMONDS!

But the only problem is that it takes twice the amount of money to create MY DIAMONDS as it does to buy a similar quality real diamond.
Wonderfully funny comparison considering diamonds are one of the most plentiful resources on Earth and are only worth a few dollars each at best.

You should read about it sometime. There is a reason DeBeers can't set foot in the US.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 06:27 PM
 
The following is not directed at you, but to the MacNN community:

I must say this loudly and clearly for all to read/hear...

HYDROGEN IS FREE AND UNLIMITED IF MADE FROM SUNSHINE OR WIND!

HYDROGEN IS FREE AND UNLIMITED IF MADE FROM SUNSHINE OR WIND!

HYDROGEN IS FREE AND UNLIMITED IF MADE FROM SUNSHINE OR WIND!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 12:09 AM
 
Hydrogen is only used as a way to transport energy. Electricity is used to break the bonds of molecules that contain hydrogen, in this process energy is lost. The hydrogen is then put in a fuel cell so it can be converted back to electricity again for use in the car, in which case more energy is lost in the conversion. A regular battery can hold more energy than a fuel cell system . The reason we aren't putting batteries in cars though is it takes too long to charge, where is even with the inefficiencies of hydrogen it can be provided as an instant energy source for your cars. The point is hydrogen is no "alternative energy source" its just an inefficient yet quick way to store energy.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 12:26 AM
 
I would like to see more hybrid cars and SUVs put into production. I really like the Ford Escape Hybrid and this is probably going to be our next family vehicle. Then, maybe I can get my pickup truck, just a beater for me and my lumber.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 12:40 AM
 
about the war...

Iraq has not produced much oil in the past, and doesn't produce much now. However many analysts believe that iraq sits on a gold mine of oil. In the past Iraq put all its money in 'other things' instead of oil production research, (mainly a large military). When Iraq 's debt became excesively large it decided to attack kuwait. This would provide Saddam with a very mature oil producing system which he could use to bankroll iraqs budget. Because Saddam is a mad man, and because he lost to the US he still didn't get much done in the way of extracting oil.


So one theory, of which there has been much research and which I happen to agree with for why we went to war:

We are in a time when people are predicting a peak in oil production. However
If saddam had fortified his resources to finding and drilling for oil saddam would be just starting at the bottom of his production curve while other countries were beggining to top out and lose production, regardless about when people want to think oil is peaking, all opec countries except saudi arabia are maxed out. Taking this into account many anylists predict Iraq has potential to supply 25% of the worlds oil production in the future.

As someone else pointed out Saudi Arabia has us by the balls. Now it may seem as if Saddam hasn't done much to directly hurt the US, but he hasn't exactly complied with regulations of which he is in no position to go against, and saying he hasn't been the most honest or nobel person is the understatment of the decade. So what you think would happen if Saddam had the power that Saudi's are privileged to today.

Really I think the war is more about trying to secure oil not for ourselves so much as to secure it from Saddam and maybe bring some stability to the middle east in the process by gaining a foothold in Iraq.

P.S. weren't there sattlite photos of odd looking base camps and weapons plants in Iraq that had mysteriously disappeared when the US got there?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 12:49 AM
 
Wouldn't it be funny if we helped the Iraqis get more oil out of their land and then told the Saudis who made up most of the 9/11 hijackers to go FSUCK OFF?

That woudl be cool.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 02:53 AM
 
it would be nice to get rid of the middle east completly from the US equation.

you might find it a little comforting to know that now days canada is the US number 1 trade partner for oil.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by AKcrab
The following is not directed at you, but to the MacNN community:

I must say this loudly and clearly for all to read/hear...
HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.
Sorry crab. Try again. All you need to do is figure out how to get that FREE AND UNLIMITED HYDROGEN without using (hypothetical) 2 parts of electricity energy to yield 1 part of hydrogen.

I don't know how else to explain it to you.

You give me a dollar's worth of electricity and I'll give you $0.50 of hydrogen??? You think that's the answer??? That, dear crabby, is NOT the answer.

The following data has been extensively researched by Bruce Thompson, moderator of the Yahoo Group, "Running on Empty."

It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides. It is therefore an energy "carrier" not a source. Liquid hydrogen occupies four to eleven times the bulk of equivalent gasoline or diesel. Existing vehicles and aircraft and existing distribution systems are not suited to it.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p.../hydrogen.html

Hydrogen does not occur free in nature in useful quantities. It has to be made, usually by splitting water H2O to get the hydrogen. This requires all the energy you are going to get from burning the hydrogen and a bit more on account of inefficiencies. Therefore, hydrogen is an energy transfer medium rather than a primary source of energy. Hydrogen is obtained by splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy to split the water should be nuclear or solar. Nuclear is cheaper.

WILL HYDROGEN CLEAR THE AIR?
A final juicy tidbit today is this New York Times article on hydrogen.:

Widespread hydrogen use has been enthusiastically embraced by major corporations and environmentalists alike as a panacea for global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels, and is a particular favorite of the Bush administration. But skeptics, and even some hydrogen advocates, say that use of hydrogen could instead make the air dirtier and the globe warmer.

The article then goes on to state, accurately (and to the consternation of many hydrogen evangelists), that hydrogen is merely a way to store energy, and that because hydrogen does not exist here in isolation we must use a fuel such as natural gas to generate it.
Regular readers of Knowledge Problem know that natural gas prices are high relative to historic averages, and that because of both demand and supply pressures they are unlikely to decline substantially in the near future. Thus the experts quoted in the article can compare hydrogen fuel cell costs and internal combustion costs:

For now, fuel cells are about 100 times as expensive, per unit of power, as internal combustion engines.

That cost also reflects the fact that using hydrogen requires an expensive catalyst, like platinum.

The article then goes on to discuss using coal to generate hydrogen, the role that hybrid vehicles play in the evolution of low-emission technologies, and the tradeoffs that we confront as these old and new technologies evolve. I particularly think the conclusion is something we should bear in mind:

But some parts of the portfolio are more environmentally beneficial than others. Dan W. Reicher, a former assistant secretary of energy for conservation and renewables, who now manages a fund that invests in companies that produce energy from renewable sources, put it this way: "Not all hydrogen is created equal."

For those interested in more on hydrogen, I wrote a 5-part series on hydrogen in March 2003.
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/000601.html

So, once again I must advise the community (if you will please examine the facts you will see the truth...) that:

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.

HYDROGEN IS ONLY A STOP GAP MEASURE.
( Last edited by mojo2; Aug 19, 2005 at 04:09 AM. )
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
Wouldn't it be funny if we helped the Iraqis get more oil out of their land and then told the Saudis who made up most of the 9/11 hijackers to go FSUCK OFF?

That woudl be cool.
I've been wrestling with the proposition, too.

Saudi Arabia: Good Country or Bad Country?

Maybe I'll start a thread so more voices can be heard. But, I believe the Royal family is doing EVERYTHING in their power to be a good friend to us. Allowing us to locate our bases and pre-position our equipment there and permitting us to build substantial command and control centers on their land is a BIG risk for them.

They know how their muslim population might feel about their doing that, yet they did it anyway. For us AND because we were their biggest best friend and customer who poured money into the chasms to replace the oil we bought. They have paid by becoming disliked by their people. The people expressed their displeasure in many ways. 9/11 was one of them.

Our wishing Saudi Arabia could be replaced by Iraq as the leading source of our foreign oil would be substituting 6 of one for a half dozen of another.

Both are muslim countries with oil who are or would be officially allied with the US in spite of some of their citizens' wishes.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 04:59 AM
 
the return of the electric car: adding batteries to hybrids
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, this is being done not by the idiot goobermint, but by engineers in their garages in the best tradition of America...

Updated: 11:44 PM EDT
Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Miles-Per-Gallon
Environmentalists Like the Idea, but the Engines Are Not Cost Efficient Yet
By TIM MOLLOY, AP


CORTE MADERA, Calif. (Aug. 13) - Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret - a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb - all for about a quarter.

He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.

They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.

And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.

So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.

But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids - and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.

Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.

Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.

Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available.

Others are modifying hybrids, too.

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.

Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.

Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations.

"They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially."

Aye er eh? belch
_________________
Truth beareth away the Victory --

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.''
-Dresden James
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 04:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
Wouldn't it be funny if we helped the Iraqis get more oil out of their land and then told the Saudis who made up most of the 9/11 hijackers to go FSUCK OFF?

That woudl be cool.
Right. Except we liberated the Iraqi's to be free to choose what they want to do with their oil, right? So they could choose to do whatever they wanted with it, including joining OPEC?

Or was the whole Iraqi freedom thing the official Pro-War flavor of last week?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
it would be nice to get rid of the middle east completly from the US equation.

you might find it a little comforting to know that now days canada is the US number 1 trade partner for oil.
Yay! But the problem of Peak Oil remains. Also, we still want to maintain control over the area because of the threat China might some day present.

If they decided they wanted THEIR hands controlling the Middle East oil spigot (instead of ours) we'd be up shxx creek. But make no mistake, sitting on it (as one poster mentioned yesterday) is a good way to control it.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2005, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Right. Except we liberated the Iraqi's to be free to choose what they want to do with their oil, right? So they could choose to do whatever they wanted with it, including joining OPEC?

Or was the whole Iraqi freedom thing the official Pro-War flavor of last week?
I'm not sure you are reading the signs with 20/20 vision. We invaded Iraq for about 4 or 5 reasons. They are free to do what they want with their oil. They already belong to OPEC.

OPEC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Logo
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is made up of Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela; since 1965, its international headquarters have been in Vienna, Austria. The organization's purpose is to negotiate with oil companies on matters of petroleum production, prices, and future concession rights.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2