|
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Dillon Pyron wrote: > Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> : > > >>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local : >> >> >>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to >>>>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>>environuts. >>>> >>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >> >>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. > > > Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak > oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their > reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 > years left at current use. Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is leadership. > And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer > chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that > keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay, > there are some things we won't miss. True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which minimizes the impact. >>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve that by >>going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. > > > With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear > protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often > does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" > one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work > (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous. Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such... JT |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Dillon Pyron wrote: >> Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> : >> >> >>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.loca l: >>> >>> >>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need >>>>>>to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>>>environuts. >>>>> >>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>> >>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >> >> >> Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak >> oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their >> reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 >> years left at current use. HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered? Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil fields yet,or began producing from them. > > Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is > leadership. All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel. That requires a scientific breakthrough. > > >> And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those >> computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know >> that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? >> Okay, there are some things we won't miss. > > True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which > minimizes the impact. Used oil can be used for making plastics. Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them. > > >>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >> >> >> With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear >> protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often >> does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" >> one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work >> (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous. > > Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held > to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and > safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such... > > JT > "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the trend and continue making the same stuff. AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 14 Apr 2009 00:03:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> >> Dillon Pyron wrote: >>> Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> : >>> >>> >>>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local : >>>> >>>> >>>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need >>>>>>>to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>>>>environuts. >>>>>> >>>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>>> >>>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >>> >>> >>> Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak >>> oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their >>> reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 >>> years left at current use. > >HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered? >Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil >fields yet,or began producing from them. Most oil producing countries have already peaked. The US peaked almost 40 years ago. Yes, they find new oil fields every year but they aren't enough to replace what we suck out in a year. And the fields they develop are getting harder and harder to extract. >> >> Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is >> leadership. > >All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery >capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel. >That requires a scientific breakthrough. Leadership can help us stretch what oil we have. The best thing we have right now is conservation. Building mass transit and replacing SUVs with subcompacts do not require scientific breakthroughs. >> >> >>> And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those >>> computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know >>> that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? >>> Okay, there are some things we won't miss. >> >> True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which >> minimizes the impact. > >Used oil can be used for making plastics. Most "used oil" is CO2 in the atmosphere. And most plastic products (unlike packaging) can't be recycled as a practical matter. >Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them. Only at a far higher price than petroleum. >>>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >>>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >>> >>> >>> With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear >>> protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often >>> does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" >>> one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work >>> (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous. >> >> Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held >> to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and >> safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such... >> >> JT >> > >"Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the >trend and continue making the same stuff. >AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world >nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering >their people's lives,and cost US more in security. If we had just paid for Iraq with increased gas tax, we would be driving Priuses and bicycles now. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in
news:Xns9BECCC067D387jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87: > "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight > the trend and continue making the same stuff. > AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd > world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of > bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security. > Of course,the DemocRATs were the ones who stopped US domestic oil production,and currently are holding up any new drilling and refinery construction. BTW,oil tankers are the biggest risk and have done the most damage to the environment,from oil production. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote: > Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > >> >>Dillon Pyron wrote: >> >>>Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> : >>> >>> >>> >>>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need >>>>>>>to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>>>>environuts. >>>>>> >>>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>>> >>>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >>> >>> >>>Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak >>>oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their >>>reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 >>>years left at current use. > > > HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered? > Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil > fields yet,or began producing from them. Peak oil like "human caused" climate change is a joke at best and giant scam at the worst. There's plenty of fossil fuels left but the point is the liquid form is controlled by unstable and often unfriendly nations. It's akin to economic blackmail which in turn should provide the incentive to replace what we don't have with alternative existing technology, (nuclear power), and new technologies. (BTW, your comment above was not to any of my statements) >>Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is >>leadership. > > > All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery > capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel. > That requires a scientific breakthrough. And that's what leadership can bring about. Battery technology is advancing very rapidly at the present time. My guess is that most urban tasks could be done with plug-in cars within five years. >>>And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those >>>computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know >>>that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? >>>Okay, there are some things we won't miss. >> >>True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which >>minimizes the impact. > > > Used oil can be used for making plastics. > Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them. I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want to see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first. >>>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >>>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >>> >>> >>>With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear >>>protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often >>>does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" >>>one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work >>>(guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous. >> >>Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held >>to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and >>safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such... >> >>JT >> > > > "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the > trend and continue making the same stuff. > AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world > nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering > their people's lives,and cost US more in security. And caused foreign manufacturers to also create mostrous SUVs. Ever follow a CRV? It ain't the Honda that I fondly remember... JT |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 14 Apr 2009 03:27:20 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in >news:Xns9BECCC067D387jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87 : > > >> "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight >> the trend and continue making the same stuff. >> AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd >> world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of >> bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security. >> > >Of course,the DemocRATs were the ones who stopped US domestic oil >production,and currently are holding up any new drilling and refinery >construction. Has domestic oil production stopped? I had not heard that. I did hear (WSJ) that US refineries are being shut down because the oil companies are predicting declining demand. >BTW,oil tankers are the biggest risk and have done the most damage to the >environment,from oil production. Another good argument for conservation. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:jI8Fl.120652$4m1.26498@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: >> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >> news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >> >> >>> >>>Dillon Pyron wrote: >>> >>>>Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>>>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.loca l: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the >>>>>>>>alternatives simply don't have the same energy density of petro >>>>>>>>fuels.We need to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and >>>>>>>>refining,screw the environuts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a >>>>>>>finite resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>>>> >>>>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >>>> >>>> >>>>Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak >>>>oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their >>>>reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 >>>>years left at current use. >> >> >> HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being >> discovered? Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL >> the drillable oil fields yet,or began producing from them. > > Peak oil like "human caused" climate change is a joke at best and > giant scam at the worst. There's plenty of fossil fuels left but the > point is the liquid form is controlled by unstable and often > unfriendly nations. Not all of it.The US has known reserves we refuse to produce. > It's akin to economic blackmail which in turn should provide the > incentive to replace what we don't have with alternative existing > technology, (nuclear power), and new technologies. Nuclear is not going to power automobiles.Not without a decent battery. > > (BTW, your comment above was not to any of my statements) well,the other folks are ones I killfiled. > > >>>Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is >>>leadership. >> >> >> All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery >> capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or >> diesel. That requires a scientific breakthrough. > > And that's what leadership can bring about. Battery technology is > advancing very rapidly at the present time. My guess is that most > urban tasks could be done with plug-in cars within five years. sorry,but leadership does NOT bring about scientific breakthroughs. > > >>>>And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those >>>>computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You >>>>know that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester >>>>suit? Okay, there are some things we won't miss. >>> >>>True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which >>>minimizes the impact. >> >> >> Used oil can be used for making plastics. >> Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make >> them. > > I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want > to see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn > products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring > your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first. Not all vegetable oils come from farming. They're working on algae that produce oil.also oils from weeds and other non-food vegetation. And I wouldn't use them for the high volume auto transportation application,but for plastics feedstocks. > > >>>>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >>>>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>>>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>>With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear >>>>protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often >>>>does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" >>>>one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work >>>>(guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous. >>> >>>Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being >>>held to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency >>>and safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such... >>> >>>JT >>> >> >> >> "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to >> fight the trend and continue making the same stuff. >> AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd >> world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of >> bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security. > > And caused foreign manufacturers to also create mostrous SUVs. Ever > follow a CRV? It ain't the Honda that I fondly remember... > > JT > > CRVs are small compared to most domestic SUVs on the roads today,and have better fuel economy,I suspect. Granted,Toyota,Honda and Nissan all make monster SUVs/PU trucks,too. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In message <mchau4tkt8tvs35689qu9uo77tvr0ih20u@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes >Has domestic oil production stopped? I had not heard that. I did >hear (WSJ) that US refineries are being shut down because the oil >companies are predicting declining demand. I did hear that the shale (shell?) sands of Canada contained about 50% of world oil, but at the moment it was to expensive to extract it. -- Clive |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 15 Apr 2009 03:26:41 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> >> I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want >> to see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn >> products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring >> your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first. > >Not all vegetable oils come from farming. >They're working on algae that produce oil.also oils from weeds and other >non-food vegetation. >And I wouldn't use them for the high volume auto transportation >application,but for plastics feedstocks. >> >> I'm volunteering my weeds. Someone please come get them. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:54:26 +0100, Clive <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
wrote: >In message <mchau4tkt8tvs35689qu9uo77tvr0ih20u@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew ><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes >>Has domestic oil production stopped? I had not heard that. I did >>hear (WSJ) that US refineries are being shut down because the oil >>companies are predicting declining demand. >I did hear that the shale (shell?) sands of Canada contained about 50% >of world oil, but at the moment it was to expensive to extract it. The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground is going to be very difficult to extract. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Gordon McGrew wrote: > The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are > running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground > is going to be very difficult to extract. > I would prefer to think that it is because oil derived from shale deposits are in a friendlier part of the world... But not viable with the price of gas less than $3 per gallon. JT |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:HRQFl.1245$l07.1176@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Gordon McGrew wrote: > >> The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are >> running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground >> is going to be very difficult to extract. Nonsense. There's oil off the California coast,and some of it NATURALLY bubbles up from the sea floor. There's oil in coastal ANWR. There's oil off the coast of South America,and oil in the South China Sea(a shallow sea,too). there's still enough places we haven't even explored yet,too. our main problem now is the environuts/socialists who hinder our drilling and refining,and cost us economically and strategically by making us dependent on foreign oil. >> > > > I would prefer to think that it is because oil derived from shale > deposits are in a friendlier part of the world... But not viable with > the price of gas less than $3 per gallon. with -today's- processes. The use of some of those might even be inhibited by the environuts who want us to do without oil. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Thus spake Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> :
>On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:40:34 -0500, Joe ><joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: > >>At some point, we have to make tough decisions and do things that >>aren't as palatable as we'd like. > >This is the truest statement in the tread. Nuclear power may be the >best choice in the long run. In the mean time, higher energy taxes >are needed to encourage conservation. > >> Nuclear power is safer and cleaner >>than most other forms right now, but there's always that fear of a >>meltdown in the general population. > >The possibility of a major nuclear accident is real. It is extremely >unlikely on any given day, but if you build enough of them and run >them long enough, it will happen and it will be truly awful. > Coal power is very safe. Assuming you aren't mining it or live very close to a coal ash mound. More people were killed in 2007 in coal mining accidents in the US than have been killed in ALL US nuclear accidents. Power, weapons, research, etc. In China, it seems that there are more people killed in coal mining accidents in a month than all the people killed in nuclear accidents around the world. -- - dillon I am not invalid The RMS Titanic sank on April 15th. US income taxes are due on April 15th. Coincidence? I think not. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 17 Apr 2009 03:07:30 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >news:HRQFl.1245$l07.1176@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> >> Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >>> The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are >>> running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground >>> is going to be very difficult to extract. > >Nonsense. There's oil off the California coast,and some of it NATURALLY >bubbles up from the sea floor. There's oil in coastal ANWR. >There's oil off the coast of South America,and oil in the South China Sea(a >shallow sea,too). >there's still enough places we haven't even explored yet,too. > >our main problem now is the environuts/socialists who hinder our drilling >and refining,and cost us economically and strategically by making us >dependent on foreign oil. > > >>> >> >> >> I would prefer to think that it is because oil derived from shale >> deposits are in a friendlier part of the world... But not viable with >> the price of gas less than $3 per gallon. > >with -today's- processes. >The use of some of those might even be inhibited by the environuts who want >us to do without oil. Even if you were right and these is actually plenty of oil (you aren't but let's just assume), you think it's ok to keep burning it at the rate we do? It's all just a plot of the environnut socialists to keep the poor capitalists from enjoying life? Global warming and the threat of huge damage to the earth is just another plot, right? |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 17 Apr 2009 03:07:30 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >news:HRQFl.1245$l07.1176@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> >> Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >>> The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are >>> running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground >>> is going to be very difficult to extract. > >Nonsense. There's oil off the California coast,and some of it NATURALLY >bubbles up from the sea floor. There's oil in coastal ANWR. >There's oil off the coast of South America,and oil in the South China Sea(a >shallow sea,too). >there's still enough places we haven't even explored yet,too. > >our main problem now is the environuts/socialists who hinder our drilling >and refining,and cost us economically and strategically by making us >dependent on foreign oil. There certainly are untapped oil deposits, but they aren't as big as you think. If ANWR came on line next year, it might take US production levels back to 1999, but nowhere near our 1970 peak. The reality of the development process is that, by the earliest time the undeveloped US capacity could come on line, we will be lucky if it would bring us back up to today's production level. >> I would prefer to think that it is because oil derived from shale >> deposits are in a friendlier part of the world... But not viable with >> the price of gas less than $3 per gallon. > >with -today's- processes. >The use of some of those might even be inhibited by the environuts who want >us to do without oil. There is no magic recovery process. You can't do it with a microchip. It is very slow, very dirty and very expensive. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands