 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / April 2006We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil conversion plant and extract as much gasoline, from domestic coal, as we need, independently of foreign nations. We could just about balance our budget just on that one item alone. Just call it Manhattan Project II and get started. Gasoline would be cheap and stay that way, once foreigners, greedy oil companies, and profits are taken out of the picture. And even if it wasn't cheap, its still cheap enough compared to losing our manhood to the Arab sheiks, Venezuelan strongman, Nigerian Mau-mau, and so on down the line. That is, if we wanted to. Call the troops home today and we will have collectively, $1,500,000,000.00 a month to invest in Manhattan Project II until its done. Put it to the vote of the people: Do they want gasoline-a-plenty at low cost for ourselves and generations to come, or do they want to see our beloved country go bankcrupt...to Hell in a handbasket with empty tanked SUV cars and Pickups littering the landscape and cemetaries full of their dead soldier-children? I'm waiting, Mr. President. Please answer before the impeachment proceedings begin to put you out of the warmongering business (or the Generals do a coup d'etat). > The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil > conversion plant and extract as much gasoline, from domestic coal, as we > need, independently of foreign nations. We could just about balance our > budget just on that one item alone. Just call it Manhattan Project II and > get started. You forget one little obstacle. The "Not in my backyard" crowd. 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 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 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. 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. 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. mike hunt > 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 > 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 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Jeff >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm I should have added that not only is a lot of the crude oil that we import refined into gasoline, but we also import around 1,000,000 barrels a day of gasoline: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2006-04 -19T151756Z_01_N19400851_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-STOCKS.xml. This is, in part, because of lost capacity post Katrina. jeff 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.. mike hunt >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> According the DOE, almost half of the crude oil is refined into gasoline, >> hardly "only a small part." > 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 > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> gasoline, >>> hardly "only a small part." I don't do home work for my grandchildren, what makes you believe I would do yours? You are free to believe whatever you choose. You need not do a search to learn the fasts to do so. ;) mike hunt >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff >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 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Jeff I certainly do not take the time to proof read, if my automatic spell checker is satisfied as I type, I'm satisfied. My degree is in Metallurgy, not Petrochemicals I only know what I read on that subject. If you have a source that indicates something other than the figures I found and quoted, please post it. I am always willing to be more enlightened on any subject. If my source was incorrect I will direct my source to your source so they can argue which is correct. Until then I could not care less whether you chose believe what I posted, or not. If it is two three of four barrels it makes no difference, gasoline is still just one more byproduct that must be sold to a willing buyer, stored or disposed of, in some manner to continue running the refinery to produce the product that can be sold or stored. mike hunt >>I don't do home work for my grandchildren, what makes you believe I would >>do yours? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> >>> Jeff Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of gasoline. So gas is $8 a gallon? According to your calculations, I guess it is. ;) mike hunt > Oil is $75 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So that's about $2 per > gallon for raw oil. And it takes 4 gallons to make a gallon of > gasoline. > > So gas is $8 a gallon? This should help.... The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4 percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12 percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited, almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products, such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this process. Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This "process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined, yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller quantities of many other petroleum products Gerald > 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.. Hmmm. Interesting claim. 4 barrels crude * $70 / barrel crude * barrel / 42 gallons = 6.67 $/gallon And that is before any processing costs and gasoline taxes. Another hypothesis shot down. Lynn 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? ;) mike hunt >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff > 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 > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Jeff 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. mike hunt >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>> >>> Jeff > 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 > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>>> >>>> Jeff On 4/20/2006 10:48 PM Jeff spake these words of knowledge: >> 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 Jeff, step away from the troll. Just quit replying to him; it's not like he's going to start making sense all of a sudden. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen  SignatureC: the power of assembler with the flexibility of assembler. Why not post a source that disputes what was posted before making a personal attack? mike hunt > On 4/20/2006 10:48 PM Jeff spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > RFT!!! > Dave Kelsen >Why not post a source that disputes what was posted before making a personal >attack? Maybe, "Mike", because you're a troll and a known liar, and you routinely make claims and then refuse to back them up. Nothing you say can be trusted. I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention? mike hunt >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention? It is your contention that needs supporting. Yet you fail to do so. Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff You are the one who has a problem with what I posted and you have yet to post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. I have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so ;) mike hunt >>I guess we can assume you did not find a source to support you contention? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> >>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words. Will you two read this, it was posted the toher day but you are to busy yelling at each other... This should help.... The United States and Russia, along with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), accounted for 61 percent of the total crude oil produced in the world in 2004. The United States accounted for 7.4 percent of the world's total 2004 crude oil production, and Russia 12 percent. Because uses for crude oil in its natural state are limited, almost all crude oil is processed into finished petroleum products at a refinery. The refining process usually involves (1) distillation, or separation of the hydrocarbons that make up crude oil so that the heavier products, such as asphalt, are separated from the lighter products, like kerosene; (2) conversion, or cracking of the molecules to allow the refiner to squeeze a higher percentage of light products, such as gasoline, from each barrel of oil; and (3) treatment, or enhancement of the quality of the product which could entail removing sulfur from such fuels as kerosene, gasoline, and heating oils. The addition of blending components to gasoline is also a part of this process. Crude oil is measured in barrels. A barrel of 42-U.S. gallons of crude oil yields slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This "process gain" of volume is due to a reduction in the density during the refining process. In 2004, one barrel of crude oil, when refined, yielded 19.7 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as smaller quantities of many other petroleum products Gerald > You are the one who has a problem with what I posted and you have yet to > post any source that leads you to believe what I posted was not correct. > I have not said you are wrong, I said I'm willing to look at where you got > your information, I'm still waiting for you to show me were my source was > wrong. One can only assume that apparently you are not able to do so ;) YOu got it a.s backwards. When you make a claim, it is up to you to support your claim. It is not up to me to disprove your claim. Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>>> >>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words. Precisely the point, you made a claim, I'm only asking you to prove it. I merely quoted something I read, I made no claim. I even directed you to the source for what I posted ;) mike hunt . When you make a claim, it is up to you to support your claim. > Jeff > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>>>> >>>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words. > Precisely the point, you made a claim, I'm only asking you to prove it. > I merely quoted something I read, I made no claim. I even directed you to > the source for what I posted ;) What specific claim did I not back? Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you are unwilling or unable to back your words. I can see why you are in a quandary, if you can't remember what you posted I can understand why you can not prove what you said. ;) mike hunt >> Precisely the point, you made a claim, I'm only asking you to prove it. I >> merely quoted something I read, I made no claim. I even directed you to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>>> mike hunt >I can see why you are in a quandary, if you can't remember what you posted >I can understand why you can not prove what you said. ;) There you go again. You said that I did not back a claim. I asked which one, and now you are unable to back YOUR claim. Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> >>>>> mike hunt I'm not claiming anything I simply asked you what was it you posted. How do you expect somebody else to remember something you posted, after you snipped everything several post ago to suit your bottom posting obsession, when YOU don't even remember what you posted? ;) >>I can see why you are in a quandary, if you can't remember what you posted >>I can understand why you can not prove what you said. ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff They would make less gasoline and more "other stuff". The ratio of gas to "other stuff" is not fixed. It's flexible depending on demand. That is not true they already 'crack' to make as much gasoline as they can. If the demand was cut in half and lowers the price why would the even want to make more gasoline when the greater profit is in the carbon base? The idea has always been to get rid of the higher distillates to get to the money makers. mike hunt > They would make less gasoline and more "other stuff". > > The ratio of gas to "other stuff" is not fixed. It's flexible > depending on demand. Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out. The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the price of gas were cut they'd simply make less of it. They wouldn't "burn it off". You just can't be that stupid. I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine crude to get to the carbon stock, without producing gasoline or other volatiles, I'm sure the oil companies will pay you an awful lot of money to know how you could do it. LOL mike hunt > Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out. > The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the > price of gas were cut they'd simply make less of it. They wouldn't > "burn it off". You just can't be that stupid. (top posting fixed) > > Most plants have complexity ratings. They can vary what they get out. > > The greater profit isn't necessarily in teh carbon base. So if the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > mike hunt No, Mike. True, you can't "refine" it directly, but they already know how to make what they need from the refined fractions. Your failure to acknowledge that makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll. The price of oil in dollar tems is more attributable to the weakness of the dollar Everything will soon be more expensive in dollars Houses, gold, oil have been paving the road Soon hamburgers, coke, toilet paper etc will follow It is adjusting to the amount of dollars that have been printed Banks around the world are beginning to send the dollars home The negotiations for oil is turning to Euros You can think of it as a Pizza There is one Pizza and several slices The whole Pizza is worth 100 dollars and one piece costs 1 dollar You print 900 dollars more to pay for the Pizza Now the Pizza is worth 1000 dollars and each slice costs 10 dollars It is still the same Pizza and the slices are the same You will be going to the store and the hamburger you get is the same size with the same ingredients but it will cost you ten times as much Just like what has happened with the oil You get the same amount of oil but you need ever more dollars The rest of us do not want to pay for your counterfait money and pay for your exceesive livestyle The chinese have shown how they can make the same things as you do for a lot less amounts of dollars One hour of pay in USA costs the same as 30 hours in China It is not because one hour in USA is worth more it is just the dollars are overpriced and they are spread all over the world The rest of the world are sending those dollars home where they belong and you will see its worth decreasing There is no way they can be talked up in value any longer A hamburger costing 1 dollar should cost 30 dollars Prepare for a heavy inflation A house costing 100.000 dollars should really cost 3.000.000 dollars The house is not becoming better it is just the dollars going down in value The Corean war The Vietnam war The Afghan war The Iraq war and many other stupid actions has called for the printing presses creating dollars and they are coming back now along with the terrorists Best of luck > The price of oil in dollar tems is more attributable to the weakness of > the dollar [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Best of luck If what you say is true, then shouldn't the money market interest be falling? Signature"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore Can we assume you are not an economics major? ;) mike hunt > The price of oil in dollar tems is more attributable to the weakness of > the dollar You can resort to calling me names if you are running out of arguments to support you position if you chose, I could not care less, but I certainly am not ignorant of the fact one can not refine crude to get to the carbon stock without producing gasoline or other volatiles. If they can not sell or store them, they will need to be burned off ;) mike hunt >> I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine >> crude [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > acknowledge that > makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll. > You can resort to calling me names if you are running out of arguments to > support you position if you chose, I could not care less, but I certainly > am not ignorant of the fact one can not refine crude to get to the carbon > stock without producing gasoline or other volatiles. If they can not > sell or store them, they will need to be burned off ;) Other tactics you might try include top-posting, to make it harder to follow threads, ignoring particular parts of threads where you have been shown to be incorrect, claiming that the other people don't support their arguments when the other people are asked for evidence, deleting parts of a post without indicating that fact when those parts of the post contain the information that shows the other person is incorrect. Mike is an expert at all of these, so you can read his posts for examples of each of them. Please provide evidence that oil companies have burned off "volatiles" in large quantities to get rid of them in recent years. > mike hunt Jeff >>> I'll bet you are not a chemist but if you can figure out way to refine >>> crude [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> acknowledge that >> makes you either extremely ignorant, or a troll. Now we are getting to the crux of the problem, I never said 'oil companies have burned off "volatiles" in large quantities to get rid of them in recent years.' No wonder you can not prove that it. What I have been saying all along is what I said in my post. If they can not store gasoline or sell it a profit they will burn it off and take a tax credit as a capital loss ;) mike hunt >> You can resort to calling me names if you are running out of arguments >> to support you position if you chose, I could not care less, but I >> certainly am not ignorant of the fact one can not refine crude to get to >> the carbon stock without producing gasoline or other volatiles. If they >> can not sell or store them, they will need to be burned off ;) . > Please provide evidence that oil companies have burned off "volatiles" in > large quantities to get rid of them in recent years. > >> mike hunt > > Jeff > Now we are getting to the crux of the problem, I never said 'oil companies > have burned off "volatiles" in large quantities > to get rid of them in recent years.' No wonder you can not prove that it. > What I have been saying all along is what I said in my post. If they can > not store gasoline or sell it a profit they will burn it off and take a > tax credit as a capital loss ;) Please demonstrate that the oil companies have burned off gasoline and claimed it as a capital loss, then. Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Jeff Again you miss quote, what I said was 'If they can not store gasoline or sell it a profit they will burn it off and take a tax credit as a capital loss....I told you before I do not do homework for my own grand children, I'm not about to do yours. If you really need to know when the oil companies burned of volatiles, in the past that they could not sell or store, I suggest you do a search, as I did. You might start by searching the IRS site. The tax returns of publicly held corporations are public records, viewable to anybody willing to search.. You will be amazed at how many billions in federal taxes the government collects form the oil companies, by the way. As to that ability of one to take a capital loss, I pay of lot of money to attorneys and accounts for advice on when I can take a capitol loss, I suggest if you want tax advice, you can do the same. Lucky for me I generally have to pay capital gains taxes mike hunt >> Now we are getting to the crux of the problem, I never said 'oil >> companies have burned off "volatiles" in large quantities [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >>> Jeff > > You can resort to calling me names if you are running out of arguments to > > support you position if you chose, I could not care less, but I certainly [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Jeff Why are you against top posting. Many email and newsreaders automatically top post. My grip is people don't clip enough. Too much crap gets dragged along with every reply. Signature"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore >> > You can resort to calling me names if you are running out of arguments to >> > support you position if you chose, I could not care less, but I certainly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Other tactics you might try include top-posting, to make it harder to follow >> threads, >Why are you against top posting. Because it sucks. It's not normal for discussion. > Many email and newsreaders automatically top post. Newsreaders? No. Outlook and web browsers? Maybe. f.cking microsoft. >My grip is people don't clip enough. Top posters never seem to clip ANYHING. > Too much crap gets dragged along with every reply. Thank top posters for that. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== >> > You can resort to calling me names if you are running out of arguments >> > to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Why are you against top posting. Many email and newsreaders > automatically top post. Top posting makes it harder to follow a thread. Jeff > My grip is people don't clip enough. Too much crap gets dragged along > with every reply. > 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? >> Better yet, you we could build fuel-efficient motor vehicles, develop >> alternative sources of energy that don't cause global warming, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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 > 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. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. Jeff I'm with you on the mass transit idea, the only problem being is that ours sucks! We are just to plain greedy to invest in a good idea. I was born in New York City where they did have the brains to invest in it and it works great! They did have their hard time in NYC but recovered nicely and it's one of the best transit systems in the world. Gerald > I'm with you on the mass transit idea, the only problem being is that > ours sucks! We are just to plain greedy to invest in a good idea. I was > born in New York City where they did have the brains to invest in it > and it works great! They did have their hard time in NYC but recovered > nicely and it's one of the best transit systems in the world. NYC's transit system does have some short comings, like the idiots who manage it. In addition, it would be better if trains from NJ, upstate NY and Conn. would go to more places than just Penn Station, Grand Central Station and a few stops on the way. In addition, there are some areas of NYC where the subways are not convient. And more subways are needed to go to the upper east side and harlem. But it is an excellent system. NYC has millions of people. That is very helpful in making a functional system. That is one reason why other smaller cities can't make a go of mass transit. Jeff > Gerald > 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. Signature"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore > > 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. Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on Letterman last week? 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 > No private industry will touch this and energy > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for allocating [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** > 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? > > No private industry will touch this and energy > > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for allocating [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** This project really is a good idea but needs to be expanded way past one plant.. It is real and we will all benifet. Gerald That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the process competitive. Consumers are not going to buy higher cost alternative fuels just to save the planet. they will only do so when they can save money. mike hunt > This project really is a good idea but needs to be expanded way past > one plant.. It is real and we will all benifet. > > Gerald >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the process >competitive. Consumers are not going to buy higher cost alternative fuels >just to save the planet. they will only do so when they can save money. > >mike hunt Very true mike, that is why governments artificially inflate costs through taxation and regulation, to force us to either reduce, or use other high cost solutions. Example: High federal and state taxes on gasoline, that contribute zero to the finished product. Forcing us to buy smaller cars, or pay higher taxes. ;) later, tom @ www.IRantAndRave.com >> This project really is a good idea but needs to be expanded way past >> one plant.. It is real and we will all benifet. >> >> Gerald > >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the process > >competitive. Consumers are not going to buy higher cost alternative fuels [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > tom @ www.IRantAndRave.com What high federal and state taxes on gasoline are those? Gas taxes don't even cover the cost of the highway system. If gasoline was paying its way, the taxes on it would cover the highway system and at least half of our military budget. >> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the >process [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >If gasoline was paying its way, the taxes on it would cover the highway >system and at least half of our military budget. Good point. The Commerce Department actually had the nerve to propose a special tax on hybrids because they might cause a drop in tax revenues for road maintenance. > >> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the > >process [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > tax on hybrids because they might cause a drop in tax revenues for > road maintenance. It's coming. There will be a tax on energy conserving vehicles. We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. Signature"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore That can be easily accomplished, elect more democrats, they are very proficient at figuring ways to increase taxes. Currently the federal and state governments ALL make more per gallon on gasoline than do the oil companies or the retailers. The federal tax is .185c per gallon and the average state tax is .28c a gallon. Some states like California also add their sales tax to gasoline in addition to the motor fuel tax. Some states add to your cost of food by taxing fuels used in farming. Search the Congressional Record and you will see the recent investigation of the oil industry, in by the House Energy Committee, showed the oil companies averaged around 15c a gallon and retailers .05c ;) mike hunt >> >> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the >> >process [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel > economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. > That can be easily accomplished, elect more democrats, they are very > proficient at figuring ways to increase taxes. Currently the federal and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > mike hunt Exactly Mike. IF the dimmies get in control they will tax the feel good crowd while giving them high honors for conserving, also a little pat on the rump, LOL. For me increased gas prices don't have much of an impact because I don't drive that much any more. I either walk or ride a bike for short trips, it's much more healthy anyway. BTW, if the socialists do gain control, we'll have absolutely nothing to worry about. They will build huge amounts of condominiums and force those of us who have our own home and property out and into condos. This, the socialists say will be more efficient and tax friendly, for them. LOL. > >> >> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the > >> >process [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel > > economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. Signature"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore > That can be easily accomplished, elect more democrats, they are very > proficient at figuring ways to increase taxes. Currently the federal and > state governments ALL make more per gallon on gasoline than do the oil > companies or the retailers. The federal tax is .185c per gallon and the > average state tax is .28c a gallon. That's less than $0.01 per gallon. That's almost nothing. > Some states like California also add their sales tax to gasoline in > addition to the motor fuel tax. Some states add to your cost of food by > taxing fuels used in farming. Search the Congressional Record and you > will see the recent investigation of the oil industry, in by the House > Energy Committee, showed the oil companies averaged around 15c a gallon > and retailers .05c ;) Yet, according to Sen. Reid, oil companies make 50c to 75c per gallon of gas. http://reid.senate.gov/gasprices0504.cfm and the big oil companies saw their profits go up by 44 to 294%! I am really happy that I invested in the oil companies and related industrties. In California, the price of refining and profits went from about $0.35 to $0.40 in January 2002 to around $0.65 now. I guess that explains the record profits the oil companies are making. Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel >> economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. According the Department of Commerce, oil companies in general earn around 9% or 10% profit. WalMart and Procter Gambol make well over 20%. Exxon paid more in federal cooperate taxes than it paid in dividends to the share holds, who then paid taxes on the SAME money ;) mike hunt >> That can be easily accomplished, elect more democrats, they are very >> proficient at figuring ways to increase taxes. Currently the federal and [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>> We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel >>> economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. >According the Department of Commerce, oil companies in general earn around >9% or 10% profit. WalMart and Procter Gambol make well over 20%. Exxon >paid more in federal cooperate taxes than it paid in dividends to the share >holds, who then paid taxes on the SAME money ;) I heard Microsoft has a profit margin of 85% on its home OS software. I'm glad MS isn't running the oil companies. ;) tom >mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>>> We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel >>>> economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. > According the Department of Commerce, oil companies in general earn around > 9% or 10% profit. WalMart and Procter Gambol make well over 20%. Exxon > paid more in federal cooperate taxes than it paid in dividends to the > share holds, who then paid taxes on the SAME money ;) ExxonMobile had a profit margin of around 10.8%. Walmart and its competitors had profit margins of around 3.6%. The values are from yahoo fiance http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT and http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM I am sure that the corporate filings with the SEC will be consistant with the yahoo finance numbers. After all, that is where Yahoo gets them. Jeff > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>>> We cannot allow the dissipation of fuel tax money due to better fuel >>>> economy vehicles, therefore we must tax them more. Jeff, you and Mike are bad readers,,, Or are a bad study,,, Give it up... You have both taken it beyond your means... Wasting everyone time if you cannot respond to others... Have a good day, not that I would think that you would see this message.. Gerald Gerald my friend don't you recognized when sombodys chain is being pulled? ;) mike hunt > Jeff, you and Mike are bad readers,,, Or are a bad study,,, Give it > up... You have both taken it beyond your means... Wasting everyone time > if you cannot respond to others... Have a good day, not that I would > think that you would see this message.. > > Gerald > Jeff, you and Mike are bad readers,,, Or are a bad study,,, Give it > up... You have both taken it beyond your means... Wasting everyone time > if you cannot respond to others... Have a good day, not that I would > think that you would see this message.. > > Gerald Then, ignore the thread. Bye. Jeff > Jeff, you and Mike are bad readers,,, Or are a bad study,,, Give it > up... You have both taken it beyond your means... Wasting everyone time > if you cannot respond to others... Have a good day, not that I would > think that you would see this message.. > Gerald Then, ignore the thread. Bye. Jeff Yup Done deal! Only because the thread is senseless. The thread had some good content until you guys took it into space with a version of a HOT AIR ENGINE... Good luck... Gerald That was most likely was placate those Senator and Congressmen that were opposed to giving US taxpayers money to buyers of hybrid vehicles to be passed on to foreign companies that sell hybrids at premium price, that do not themselves pay federal corporate income taxes. ;) mike hunt >>> >That may well be if the price of crude get high enough to make the >>process [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > tax on hybrids because they might cause a drop in tax revenues for > road maintenance. I know about this plant, saw it on CNN I think, it is a great idea but they need about 30 maybe 40 or more. Start building them right now and our dependence on crude will start to go away. The coal town will come back, my only hope is that the great amounts will also be spent to take care of the miners. Safety and health and a better way to get this coal out. Our current coal mining ideas are probably very old compared to what they could be if more money was spent on research. Gerald > I know about this plant, saw it on CNN I think, it is a great idea but > they need about 30 maybe 40 or more. Start building them right now and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gerald It won't happen because of the environmental laws. Hell they have a tough time just upgrading the existing facilities. Signature"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore Nomen? First off I'm not sure why you would not want your post archived... ? Secondly I do think that People Owned had anything to do with the U.S.S.R. That was a dictatorship. The People owned nothing... My wife is from Russia... She is wonderful... Gerald > Nomen? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gerald Well, here I go again. Follow the society-progression threads in Marx, Lenin, Engels. "Authoritarianism until enlightenment" Now understand human nature... who is it runs the central planning; who manages the national companies? Where did the Russian Mafia come from? Are we to believe it just sprang, fully-mature, in the eighties and nineties? Aren't they the same personality/mindsets that we saw at Enron? Why did Enron happen? Wasnt it enabled by people-elected politicians setting little loopholes in the tax-codes? Why would they be any different in overseeing National Socialism (cause that's what you really advocate)? Politicians are SMARTER THAN YOU becuase they got YOU to elect them. Why did Enron come to light? Because of a whistleblower within. What happens to someone who does that in a central planning society? That whistle-blower may get another job at another private company...or with a government agency (well, prolly not the guvmint for obvious reasons) but what if the government WAS the employer? Where would that whistleblower earn a living? SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > Nomen? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That was a dictatorship. The People owned nothing... My wife is from > Russia... She is wonderful... Indeed, Russia was an oligarchy if not a dictatorship. Even so, the people probably lived better and progressed faster than had the monarchy system of the czars persisted. The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United Kingdom as well. The transportation was good, and affordable. Ditto the health care system. After privatization, it all went to hell in a handbasket. Private industry under capitalism does some things very well,and other things abominally. (That is probably why the founding fathers preserved the US Postal Service as a government function, rather than opening it up to entrepreneurs as a business.) But, friends, this fuel problem isn't going to go away. You can put your head in the sand if you wish, but when you pull it out, the problem will still be here, and worse. We need real answers, not a temporary source of cheap gasoline. >> Nomen? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >After privatization, it all went to hell in a handbasket. Eh? pre what, 85 I think it was, trains were nasty, smelly anf filthy. statoins were dark and often dank, trains were slow and often not on time, and my local mainline station at the time had no working electronic scheduals (the dot matrix board was always broke, and all the monitor screens had severe phosphor burn. Nowadays, trains are faster, cleaner, and the stations are actually nice to be in. I saw a prorgam on PBS the other day as well, a British guy going around the southern UK and wales after 20 years away, and he was amazed by the trains. Hell, liverpool lime street's got clean glass over head for the first time in over 60 years. and Edge Hill station (one of the worlds first stations, and the one between Liverpools main station, and the station roughly where the Rocket was tested) doesn't look like a bomb site any more. >>The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United >>Kingdom [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > electronic scheduals (the dot matrix board was always broke, and all > the monitor screens had severe phosphor burn. Never let facts get in the way of a good opinion! ;) SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United > Kingdom > as well. The transportation was good, and affordable. Adn heavily subsidized by taxes. Most of which NOW go to... > Ditto the health care system. Want to run that by, again? Read much? > (That is probably why the founding fathers preserved the US > Postal Service as a government function, rather than opening it up to > entrepreneurs as a business.) Uh... not exactly. Study up. Think 'Rural electrical coop' for a hint. Then think how much of your junk mail arrives by FedEx or UPS ... there's a little hint there as to why first class postal rates keep rising. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! "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. > "Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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' SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > The People of the United States could build a people-owned coal-to-oil > conversion plant and extract as much gasoline, from domestic coal, as we [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > proceedings begin to put you out of the warmongering business (or the > Generals do a coup d'etat). The problem is that no town or city wants any type of power plant to be built in their back yard. I live in a county that has a Nuclear Power Plant. The liberals in this state have been trying to close down that Nuclear Power Plant for the past 20 years. There has not been a new Nuclear Power Plant built in the past 20 years. The reason is because no person in America wants a Nuclear Power plant or a Coal to Oil Conversion Plant to be built in their back yard. There is even a name for it---NIMBY--. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > The problem is that no town or city wants any type of power plant to > be built in their back yard. I live in a county that has a Nuclear [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > name for it---NIMBY--. > Jason Read the Washington Post op-ed... not just nimby, now it's BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. No it's time for people to take action alright. First step: The Fed's should reclaim all territory 12 miles off the beach in the Gulf and drill. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > > The problem is that no town or city wants any type of power plant to > > be built in their back yard. I live in a county that has a Nuclear [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > should reclaim all territory 12 miles off the beach in the Gulf and > drill. In New Orleans--the Fed's should not allow anything to be built in those areas that were destroyed during the last hurricane. Someone stated, "Let's rebuild New Orleans in a different part of the state that is ABOVE sea level." I agree with the person that made that statement. However, they will not follow this advice. The end result will be that New Orleans will be destroyed again within the next 10 years by another hurricane. It's kind of like rebuilding a house located next to a large river everytime there is a flood. New Orleans should be declared "Wetlands". The Fed's protect the Wetlands in some areas but they don't seem to care about the fact that New Orleans is a Wetland. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. Well I don't beleive that much. There was a town in Texas what during the early 1900's that fell victim to a storm also. I wish I could remember the name now, Agausta comes to mind. They got nuked by mother nature also but they came back to rebuild but they build something that could almost not be knocked down. New Orleans needs to do the same project but with the engineers and also add to this idea would be to get the envirorment to work as it had sice the 1700's or before. The current system is and was a joke for many years. A better idea would put many people to work and save history in my view. Yes they need to deal with the wetland problem, it is because the screwed this idea up that they had as big a problem as they did last year. Yeah.. a little crazy tonight... Gerald Oils not the answer. We can drill for a long time to come. What is needed is for the people to wake up and come up with free ideas and more technology to make things more effiencent <Spelling, we were warned in 1973 and we deceided to ingnore the warning COMPLETLY. We are paying for ignorance. We the people have NOTHING to complain about. We the people need to get our a.ses together<i think the fcc approved that word for us. The energy companies are laughing their way, ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK! Gerald > Oils not the answer. We can drill for a long time to come. What is > needed is for the people to wake up and come up with free ideas and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > word for us. The energy companies are laughing their way, ALL THE WAY > TO THE BANK! Let's put some common sense in play: Yes and No... we were warned in the seventies. But the greens had the ear of the politicians.. while we went on about our lives. So we rule out evidence that refutes them.. Check out caribou population, check out wildlife in Prudhoe bay. We should have HAD that site drilling done, at least one producing well- site in every field. We should have HAD industry consortium pulling oil from Colorado Oil shale. We SHOULD NOT have Power Plants burning natural gas or fuel oil because it's cheaper than coal scrubbing. We SHOULD have had Power plants running on coal gasification, developed again, by industry consortium with research/dev funding supplied by tax breaks, rather than trading pollution credits. You think that wouldnt make much difference? What is China using all that oil, for? What if China actually bought our technology to make coal burn cleaner, wouldnt that actually help us in other areas? First and foremost: We SHOULD have NEVER stopped building state of the art nukes. As I pointed out elsewhere even the guy who started the anti- nuke lobby NOW says it was a mistake. Three-Mile Island was a success story, Chernobyl was the warning! But it was demogogue politicians and the press that made them seem the same. Do you REALLY think energy companies are at fault? Or is it 'WE THE PEOPLE, SAYING "BUILD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANYWHERE NEAR ANYTHING!" It was "You the People" that keep electing that idiot Kennedy... who ignores or counters everything his nephew promotes because of nimby. - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - Now... THIS is a warning, I am actually being nice here... if I read ONE more 'the people vs big bad corp' themed simple minded opinion on here, I am going to come out with all guns blasting. You think I'm crusty now... you aint seen nothing! SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > > Oils not the answer. We can drill for a long time to come. What is > > needed is for the people to wake up and come up with free ideas and [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > am going to come out with all guns blasting. You think I'm crusty now... > you aint seen nothing! Yep, we lost a lot of time and wasted a lot of fuel listening to those bark chewers. I doubt we still have the technical expertise to build nuke power plants. We'd most likely have to ask France to help us. You're right about the coal, we have much but not using it much, very sad. U.S. is in decline, but it didn't have to be. Had we more GWB like administrations in the past we would still be leading the world in every area. More Carter like administrations and we'll be a third world country. Signature"[ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message