Posted on 06/03/2008 3:11:10 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
Bookmark also.
Reason for Hitler shifting the main thrust of Barbarossa away from Moscow and toward Stalingrad was his desire to break through and seize the Baku oilfields. Didn’t make it, needless to say.
You learn something new everyday.
Today was a good one.
That's a completely different (and completely impractical, and completely uneconomic) technology. I remember (years ago) Mother Earth News publishing an article about a truck making a cross-country trip, fueled (IIRC) by carbon monoxide derived from burning wood. So what? You could probably get a truck from coast to coast, pushed by 'Sports Illustrated' readers, if you had enough pull. Would that provide any benefit whatsoever to an average (like me) American? No. Period. End of story (in the real world, that is, not the D@mocrat world). And that is exactly what most D@mocrat proposals amount to - all fluff, and absolutely no real substance...
Yes, but oil also played a major part in why the British were in North Africa in the first place.
Battlefield North Africa: Rommel's Rise And Fall
"The battle for North Africa was a struggle for control of the Suez Canal and access to oil from the Middle East and raw materials from Asia. Oil in particular had become a critical strategic commodity due to the increased mechanization of modern armies. Britain, which was the first major nation to field a completely mechanized army, was particularly dependent on the Middle Eastern oil. The Suez Canal also provided Britain with a valuable link to her overseas dominions -- part of a lifeline that ran through the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, the North African campaign and the naval campaign for the Mediterranean were extensions of each other in a very real sense."
The American people need to grow a spine and just tell these troublemakers to shut up or come up with a workable, viable solution. So far, I haven't seen them doing anything but complain. They even have issues with solar power because of global warming. Give me a break.
FACT: oil has been selling for more than $45 per can for quite some time.
FACT: we have more coal than we know what to do with.
FACT: the D@mocrats have been forcing you to pay extra for your gasoline, every single day of the week, ever since oil hit ~$50 per can (do you even remember when it was that cheap?).
Congratulations!
I literally LAUGH every time the price of gasoline goes up, because I know for a fact that cheap energy is still out there, it is still available today, and the folks who 'qualify' as American voters doen't want to hear it. (I don't make a penny off it, but I still laugh... ;>)
LMAO!!!
Fairbanks Alaska is doing a $1 million study on the feasibility of coal to fuel conversion here.
* Cease all ethanol production. It takes away from food production and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. As diesel prices go up, the cost of farming tips the balance of cost to make ethanol a bad idea. Just say "no" to ethanol! Even Jimmy Carter says that diverting farm production from food to fuel is dumb – even HE gets it.
* Immediately create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and cease regional "boutique" blends which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Even if this is the "cleanest" blend, just make it ONE and be done with it. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful.
* Lift the restrictions in order to drill for oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and other sites in the CONUS as a matter of national security.
* Encourage the petro industry to construct state-of-the-art refineries and/or retrofit current and dormant ones and crank up production for our newly-accessed oil in the CONUS.
* Make all “carbon credit” scams unlawful. Discrediting Algore should have been a slam-dunk a long time ago. Stop electing Reps who buy into the Global Warming / Global Cooling / Climate Change Hoax. CO2 is not our enemy!
* Construct SEVERAL, regional Pebble-Bed Modular Reactors (or other similar modern designs) that are not considered "breeders", are rechargeable, and cleaner than any current nuclear generator design. Breeders are OK, but PBMR's are better. DO SOMETHING NUCLEAR to resolve energy problems.
* Use the residual heat from the reactors above to process motor fuel from coal and/or shale. Even though Clinton "stole" some of the best coal reserves, we still have a lot to use.
* Become independent enough to make the cartels (i.e. OPEC) inconsequential.
* Convince local taxing bodies to lift or cap the sales tax on gasoline so that as gas prices go up, the local tax collectors don’t see a windfall revenue jump at the expense of the consumer. The Federal government could compel the states (and locals) to cap the fuel taxes.
If you squint real hard, and read between the lines, the ‘manifesto’ will require the dismissal of all RINOs and LibDems and the election of some clear-minded conservatives to even consider any of the above.
bump, BTTT, and bookmark.
IF...IF... we’re going to go down the road of government involvement in the energy market, we’d be far better off giving the money in research grants to find new alternative sources and production processes than boxing ourselves in with nonsense like ethanol and wind power.
It has always struck me as inefficient to burn coal to power the conversion of coal to liquid fuel. You end up with far less than half the original coal energy in the liquid fuel itself. Even with energy from a nuclear reactor to drive the reaction, less than half the energy gets stored in the final product. However, using energy from a nuclear reactor, you don't produce any CO2 to get the energy to drive the reaction. That alone makes it worth trying.
Ditto, in spades...
whatever happened to acid rain?
In what way? Please be specific...
;>)
However, I don't see this coming about in the few years I have left because the Liberal Democrats will never let it happen and I surely do not see it under the nObama regime.
The German process was real and worked, although it was expensive.
South Africa use a similar process called SASSOL to make liquid fuels during the UN embargo over apartheid.
While the chemistry is apolitical, the opponents of even maintaining our lifestyle point to the non-PC nature of the previous users of the process to discredit it.
While I usually dislike government intervention, one of the ideas I really like is a US Government price support of liquid fuels at an equivalent of $100/barrel of oil. Essentially a variable tax on lower production cost fuels. One of the big drawbacks to investment in alternative energy sources is that if the price of oil goes down, you lose all of your money. A government price support prevents that. Of course with the current oil price the tax would be zero.
Once we develop a liquid fuel technology other than oil, the economies of scale will eventually reduce the price significantly.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful for the US to lead the world in alternative fuel production? We could be selling to other nations and collecting obscene profits instead of a bunch of camel-jamming muslims.
http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2003/tl_liqphasemethanol_success.html
The DOE and Eastman have been working on this for at least 20 years.
Or we could all ride bicycles.
Let’s go drill for some of our own oil, instead of begging the world to drill for theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.