Re: domino

#41

No it costs that much in Europe because they tax the living hell out of
it!!!!! Look that one up on the Hindu Times................

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote

Quote:

They remove sulfur in Europe as well? It that one of the reason diesel
fuel cost $9 a gallon in Europe?

"jim beam" <spamvortex (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote in message
news:sJ2Zk.73506$786.27850 (AT) fe11 (DOT) news.easynews.com...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:11:30 -0600, HLS wrote:

"PeterD" <peter2 (AT) hipson (DOT) net> wrote in message

Absolutely... And the refining issue is the removal of the sulphur
which is costing us about a dollar per gallon. Consider that just a
'green tax' and you will be dead on... Of course, that dollar 'green
tax' is killing the US economy, but the greenies don't care. Another
poorly thoughtout solution...

They remove sulfur in Europe as well.

jeepers dude, don't let the cat out of the bag!!! the "cost" of sulfur
removal has been the excuse the oilcos have been using to bleat for more
tax relief and reduced standards [lower calorific value]. you'll ruin
their ability to keep bamboozling the proles.

#42

No it costs that much in Europe because they tax the living hell out of
it!!!!! Look that one up on the Hindu Times................

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote

Quote:

They remove sulfur in Europe as well? It that one of the reason diesel
fuel cost $9 a gallon in Europe?

"jim beam" <spamvortex (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote in message
news:sJ2Zk.73506$786.27850 (AT) fe11 (DOT) news.easynews.com...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:11:30 -0600, HLS wrote:

"PeterD" <peter2 (AT) hipson (DOT) net> wrote in message

Absolutely... And the refining issue is the removal of the sulphur
which is costing us about a dollar per gallon. Consider that just a
'green tax' and you will be dead on... Of course, that dollar 'green
tax' is killing the US economy, but the greenies don't care. Another
poorly thoughtout solution...

They remove sulfur in Europe as well.

jeepers dude, don't let the cat out of the bag!!! the "cost" of sulfur
removal has been the excuse the oilcos have been using to bleat for more
tax relief and reduced standards [lower calorific value]. you'll ruin
their ability to keep bamboozling the proles.

#43

631grant wrote:

Quote:

Yes I do and did you know that plutonium can also be used in a PWR power
plant??? In fact, near the end of the fuel cycle of present reactors there
is plutonium in them that was produced???? A breeder reactor is the
future.....

Only in dystopian (look it up) science fiction.

Quote:

"Leftie" <No (AT) Thanks (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Oa3Zk.41121$zQ3.6137 (AT) newsfe12 (DOT) iad...
631grant wrote:
Uh, do you know what a Breeder Reactor is?????

Do you know the differences between "uranium" and "plutonium"?

"Matthew Fedder" <enigmamf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:5652bdd2-be1c-4df3-86a1-126039366fec (AT) w1g2000prm (DOT) googlegroups.com...
The problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power.
Which is the safest, cleanest way to generate power.
We don't have an unlimited supply of uranium -- it's just oil of a
different color. If we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our
energy, I don't think the supply of uranium would last 50 years
(though it's been a long time since I've looked at those numbers...)

#44

631grant wrote:

Quote:

Yes I do and did you know that plutonium can also be used in a PWR power
plant??? In fact, near the end of the fuel cycle of present reactors there
is plutonium in them that was produced???? A breeder reactor is the
future.....

Only in dystopian (look it up) science fiction.

Quote:

"Leftie" <No (AT) Thanks (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Oa3Zk.41121$zQ3.6137 (AT) newsfe12 (DOT) iad...
631grant wrote:
Uh, do you know what a Breeder Reactor is?????

Do you know the differences between "uranium" and "plutonium"?

"Matthew Fedder" <enigmamf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:5652bdd2-be1c-4df3-86a1-126039366fec (AT) w1g2000prm (DOT) googlegroups.com...
The problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power.
Which is the safest, cleanest way to generate power.
We don't have an unlimited supply of uranium -- it's just oil of a
different color. If we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our
energy, I don't think the supply of uranium would last 50 years
(though it's been a long time since I've looked at those numbers...)

#45

Mike is obviously a little slow and closed minded, Jim Beam, so talk slowly
to him.......

)

"jim beam" <spamvortex (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote

Quote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:54:05 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote:

Whet he suggest was they make more diesel. If the refineries can not
get rid of the lighter distillates like gasoline, they will need to burn
it off like they did before it began to be used as a motor fuel

you're still not getting it dude. catalysis, not simple distillation.
that means no "excess" gasoline.

"jim beam" <spamvortex (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote in message
news:jx2Zk.58215$Ac1.22419 (AT) fe04 (DOT) news.easynews.com...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:03:55 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote:

What would we do with the gasoline?

jeepers mike, "catalysis" - look it up. simple distillation, what
you're assuming, is yesterdays news.

"631grant" <tjwitman (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:h2XYk.2563$UI2.1781 (AT) bignews6 (DOT) bellsouth.net...
Having been a trained nuclear engineer in the Navy 35 years ago, I
can only imagine how much better and safer the nuclear plants would
be today. In the Navy, we have never had a nuclear accident in over
40 years of operation of MANY plants. The best people to build the
plants would be the Navy, keeping the unions out of the equation. I
witnessed first hand how the escalated the cost of building the
reactors in Limerick, Pa.

Yes, the French would also be a good choice since they actually have
MORE nuclear plants than they can use. They had to shut some down as
they became more Green and used less energy.

Finally, the mix of gas and diesel from a barrel of oil is
interesting; however, the percentages could be shifted to more diesel
than gas as we switched to diesel cars. The problem is that the oil
companies wouldn't make as much money.

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:tlu7j4hfkihqavsirg8c0qhgrn3i3ga2e8 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:51 -0600, "HLS" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

"Caesar Romano" <Spam (AT) uce (DOT) gov> wrote in message
Adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate
an already full demand side.

Dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel
automobiles might
help.

As I see it, there is no real energy plan for this nation, just a
bunch of
unhappy
people. If Obama could put together an intelligent energy policy,
maybe he
would
earn his salary.

The problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. Which is the
safest, cleanest way to generate power. A real energy plan would be
to start building nukes, and standardize auto batteries for swap-out
at service stations. Meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs, power
companies and service station operators.
It would be a real Manhattan type project. Provide a lot of jobs.
We contract French engineers to do the nuke plants. They know what
they're doing.

--Vic

#46

Mike is obviously a little slow and closed minded, Jim Beam, so talk slowly
to him.......

)

"jim beam" <spamvortex (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote

Quote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:54:05 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote:

Whet he suggest was they make more diesel. If the refineries can not
get rid of the lighter distillates like gasoline, they will need to burn
it off like they did before it began to be used as a motor fuel

you're still not getting it dude. catalysis, not simple distillation.
that means no "excess" gasoline.

"jim beam" <spamvortex (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote in message
news:jx2Zk.58215$Ac1.22419 (AT) fe04 (DOT) news.easynews.com...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:03:55 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote:

What would we do with the gasoline?

jeepers mike, "catalysis" - look it up. simple distillation, what
you're assuming, is yesterdays news.

"631grant" <tjwitman (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:h2XYk.2563$UI2.1781 (AT) bignews6 (DOT) bellsouth.net...
Having been a trained nuclear engineer in the Navy 35 years ago, I
can only imagine how much better and safer the nuclear plants would
be today. In the Navy, we have never had a nuclear accident in over
40 years of operation of MANY plants. The best people to build the
plants would be the Navy, keeping the unions out of the equation. I
witnessed first hand how the escalated the cost of building the
reactors in Limerick, Pa.

Yes, the French would also be a good choice since they actually have
MORE nuclear plants than they can use. They had to shut some down as
they became more Green and used less energy.

Finally, the mix of gas and diesel from a barrel of oil is
interesting; however, the percentages could be shifted to more diesel
than gas as we switched to diesel cars. The problem is that the oil
companies wouldn't make as much money.

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:tlu7j4hfkihqavsirg8c0qhgrn3i3ga2e8 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:51 -0600, "HLS" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

"Caesar Romano" <Spam (AT) uce (DOT) gov> wrote in message
Adding a large number of diesel automobiles would further saturate
an already full demand side.

Dropping the taxes on biodiesel for highly efficienty diesel
automobiles might
help.

As I see it, there is no real energy plan for this nation, just a
bunch of
unhappy
people. If Obama could put together an intelligent energy policy,
maybe he
would
earn his salary.

The problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power. Which is the
safest, cleanest way to generate power. A real energy plan would be
to start building nukes, and standardize auto batteries for swap-out
at service stations. Meaning a joint effort by auto mfgs, power
companies and service station operators.
It would be a real Manhattan type project. Provide a lot of jobs.
We contract French engineers to do the nuke plants. They know what
they're doing.

--Vic

#47

Oh, how wrong you are. You better look it up because you know not of what
you speak............ Even the simple Wikipedia bears out what I said.

"Leftie" <No (AT) Thanks (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

631grant wrote:
Yes I do and did you know that plutonium can also be used in a PWR power
plant??? In fact, near the end of the fuel cycle of present reactors
there is plutonium in them that was produced???? A breeder reactor is
the future.....

Only in dystopian (look it up) science fiction.

"Leftie" <No (AT) Thanks (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Oa3Zk.41121$zQ3.6137 (AT) newsfe12 (DOT) iad...
631grant wrote:
Uh, do you know what a Breeder Reactor is?????

Do you know the differences between "uranium" and "plutonium"?

"Matthew Fedder" <enigmamf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:5652bdd2-be1c-4df3-86a1-126039366fec (AT) w1g2000prm (DOT) googlegroups.com...
The problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power.
Which is the safest, cleanest way to generate power.
We don't have an unlimited supply of uranium -- it's just oil of a
different color. If we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our
energy, I don't think the supply of uranium would last 50 years
(though it's been a long time since I've looked at those numbers...)

#48

Oh, how wrong you are. You better look it up because you know not of what
you speak............ Even the simple Wikipedia bears out what I said.

"Leftie" <No (AT) Thanks (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

631grant wrote:
Yes I do and did you know that plutonium can also be used in a PWR power
plant??? In fact, near the end of the fuel cycle of present reactors
there is plutonium in them that was produced???? A breeder reactor is
the future.....

Only in dystopian (look it up) science fiction.

"Leftie" <No (AT) Thanks (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Oa3Zk.41121$zQ3.6137 (AT) newsfe12 (DOT) iad...
631grant wrote:
Uh, do you know what a Breeder Reactor is?????

Do you know the differences between "uranium" and "plutonium"?

"Matthew Fedder" <enigmamf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:5652bdd2-be1c-4df3-86a1-126039366fec (AT) w1g2000prm (DOT) googlegroups.com...
The problem is the luddite rejection of nuke power.
Which is the safest, cleanest way to generate power.
We don't have an unlimited supply of uranium -- it's just oil of a
different color. If we used nuclear power to generate 100% of our
energy, I don't think the supply of uranium would last 50 years
(though it's been a long time since I've looked at those numbers...)