Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 08:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Do you guys not have fireplaces any more ? > > Only for show. I have 3 working ones. > Are you saying that it's OK to pollute the air for heating? A good stove can be 90% efficient. That's way better than using coal / oil / gas generated electricity to heat your house from a pollution perspective. You can also burn carbon neutral fuel on your fire such as wood and garden waste. There should be more of this, it's very environmentally sound. Graham
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 08:57 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <5d1d4$454b8938$4fe77ae$1746(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <cAq2h.21305$TV3.15219(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:29d9e$454a2b92$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:5578b$454a10c6$49ecfab$24208(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:3c732$4549ec30$4fe7336$23388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>>>>>>>>>>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>>>>>>>>>>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You're obviously not old enough to personally >>>>>>>>>remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First you say you're not talking about an embargo, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Who are you talking about? Your imaginary conflation >>>>>>>of two distinct individuals? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>then as evidence that it will happen, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oil becoming unavailable by embargo is a historical >>>>>>>fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I never said it wasn't....although strictly speaking, the 1970s embargo >>>>>>just tightened supply, it didn't become "unavailable". It was the US >>>>>>government's braindead decision to impose price controls that prevented >>>>>>demand from matching the reduced supply through price increases, thereby >>>>>>creating shortages. As others have pointed out, everywhere else that >>>>>>allowed the price to float only experienced higher prices and as a >>>>>>result, reduced consumption, not unavailability. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The discussion you led us into has to do with >>>>>>>can/can't happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Uh, no....please try to keep up. I was pointing out that if it does >>>>>>happen it won't matter a whit if we've built hundreds of nuclear plants >>>>>>or not, since we will not have the electric cars to make use of the >>>>>>increased supply of electricity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In the US we have what can only be described as an overkill >>>>>in residential electrical services. The minimum permitted >>>>>these days is 100 Amps @ 240 volts. In fact, people are >>>>>being forced to upgrade to that minimum by their homeowners >>>>>insurance. >>>> >>>>This is a fairly small factor, since relatively little heating is done by >>>>fuel oil--something like 5% of US households, >>> >>> >>>I don't believe that. Gas lines aren't as common as electirc poles. >> >>He has no idea. There's no natural gas available where I live. >>Much of the country doesn't have it. My son uses a heat pump >>with resistive heat backup, and he lives in a densely populated >>city which has no natural gas. >> >> >>>>and much of that in older >>>>homes that can benefit from improved insulation, if the economic benefit is >>>>there. The rest is domestically supplied--either natural gas or already >>>>electric. Add to this the fact that much of the oil home heating will be >>>>taken up by natural gas, since it is much cheaper in most markets. And add >>>>to this the fact that it is in the summer, not the winter, that the > > electric > >>>>grid is stretched to anywhere near its limit. >>> >>> >>>No, it's not. Ours is stretched in the winter too. If everybody >>>goes to electric heating, there will black outs during the winter. >>> >>> >>> >>>>The need for more electric >>>>plants to supply the increase in electric home heating would be minimal. >>> >>> >>>Around here there oodles of oil delivery companies. So we must >>>be all that 5%..which, of course, is nonsense. >> >>Much of the northeast depends on heating oil. Levittown NY and >>similar densely populated regions are totally dependent on oil >>for heat, both space heating as well as domestic HW which is >>created using a coil immersed in the boiler. Those folks run >>their boiler all year round. > > > My Dad was anti-oil. He installed lots of conversion burners > and new gas furnaces for homes. In that area gas lines were > run. > > >>>>>Automobiles form part of our consumption. There are many >>>>>other uses, including significant industrial consumption. >>>> >>>>Much of that is raw materials for the petrochemical industry, which cannot >>>>be replaced by nuclear power. Very little industrial heating is done by >>>>fuel oil. Mostly it's natural gas, which is already a domestic supply. >>> >>> >>>Most of the industrial heating my Dad put in was oil, not gas. This >>>was pre-1970. But oil supplied better steam heat than gas...hmmm... >>>I don't why. >> >>Pre-1970 there were fewer anti-pollution regulations, allowing >>cheaper oil (higher sulphur content and bunker oil) to be >>burned. Where large amounts are burned, it becomes very cost >>effective. Such installations have scrubbers on them today. > > > Oh, I see. I wonder if gas lines weren't run because these were > manufacturing plants. Too easy blow themselves up? Retail customers pay more for any commodity than bulk users.
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 08:59 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> Would it have been OK with you if the US stopped containing Saddam and > >> his excursions north and south? > > > >What excursions ? There weren't any after Gulf War I. > > Exactly. Everytime Saddam tried, the UK and US bombed him. I don't recall any excursions. > Or have you forgotten all that? It was the UK and US spending > money to keep him and his expansionism contained. Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) kicked his troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. > >I'll also point out to you that it wan't just the *USA* involved in that one > - > >nor even Gulf War II. > > I know that. So why did you say the USA then ? Graham
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 08:59 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <454B7EDF.F070F3B0(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? >>> >>>Yes. I don't remember all the details. >> >>It was because of western backing of Israel. Sound familiar ? Truth is that >>Israel is the number one messmaker in the region. > > > > Which action? WAs this the time when fUSSR almost gained control > of whole air space over the Suez Canal? He is victim blaming Israel for fighting back when they were twice attacked by their Arab neighbors.
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 09:00
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? > >> > >> Yes. I don't remember all the details. > > > >It was because of western backing of Israel. Sound familiar ? Truth is that > >Israel is the number one messmaker in the region. > > Which action? Action ? I didn't say action, I said *backing* ! Read what I wrote again. > WAs this the time when fUSSR almost gained control > of whole air space over the Suez Canal? What *ARE* you talking about now ?????? !!!!!!! I think you've got some wires crossed. Graham |