No way! France speaks out against US war plan

[sandorski]

Oil concerns aside in Afghanistan, much of the International community supported the action in Afghanistan. They sent troops in order to bring Al Queda to justice(still going on btw), but the International community has yet to sign on to Bush's WoT or Iraq. It seems strange how the urgency to attack Iraq has surpassed bringing Al Queda to justice, especially when Iraq has been basically doing nothing since Desert Storm, other than the occassional shooting at US/UK aircraft in the no-fly zone.

So we have an unfinished task, Al Queda to justice; An announced yet unexplained or strategized WoT; A hyped up with "evidence" and, the much better and more alarming ,"new and more conclusive evidence" "need" to invade Iraq. In the least, Dubyah doesn't seem to be able to finish what he's started, at the worst he's an idiot with ADD, but I think that he's simply obsessed with Iraq to an unhealthy degree.

 

[Moonbeam]

sandorski, Saddam said something on the phone to Bush senior about where GW came from.

Hay Quote: " I know you can do this because you pay attention."
-------------------------------------

LOL Do ya spose he means fuel cells? I'll be paying attention.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

Pay more attention. Combustion is terribly inneffecient because it produces more heat than usuable power. It does not take much to be more efficent than combustion. And you do not get hydrogen for free anywhere.

Interesting. Cant seem to find specifics though. Some vague references about oil to hydrogen conversion, but nothing about the relative efficencies. What kind of process are they using? Perhaps you can provide technical links with specifics, taking into account the power costs of conversion added to the inefficencies of producing energy from fuel cells. I know you can do this because you pay attention.

Linkage.

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

I am talking about water-splitting using photovoltaics as the energy source. This isn't impractical and certainly isn't thermodynamically impractical. In fact, it is predicted by the hydrogen experts including your very own DoE. Oil ain't gonna last forever - so no point bringing polymers in to the argument.

Try some research - I did loads on this subject for my 2:1 british Brunel SEP engineering degree.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

Pay more attention. Combustion is terribly inneffecient because it produces more heat than usuable power. It does not take much to be more efficent than combustion. And you do not get hydrogen for free anywhere.

Interesting. Cant seem to find specifics though. Some vague references about oil to hydrogen conversion, but nothing about the relative efficencies. What kind of process are they using? Perhaps you can provide technical links with specifics, taking into account the power costs of conversion added to the inefficencies of producing energy from fuel cells. I know you can do this because you pay attention.

Linkage.

Good! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production.

By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

All of the this may sound like I am against fuel cells. You would be mistaken to believe so. I think much more should be spent in alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, we would rather put ourselves in jeopardy and rely on oil than spend 1/2 of what it will cost to rebuild NY in R&D. I have often referred to the harnessing of wave energy for electrical power generation. It is a commercial success in the UK. That power could be used to generate electricity to break down water. Non polluting power as long as there are waves. Most of you are too young to remember the oil embargo. That was a treat. Literally riots in the street. Did we learn our lesson? Nope. It's about time we did.

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

Pay more attention. Combustion is terribly inneffecient because it produces more heat than usuable power. It does not take much to be more efficent than combustion. And you do not get hydrogen for free anywhere.

Interesting. Cant seem to find specifics though. Some vague references about oil to hydrogen conversion, but nothing about the relative efficencies. What kind of process are they using? Perhaps you can provide technical links with specifics, taking into account the power costs of conversion added to the inefficencies of producing energy from fuel cells. I know you can do this because you pay attention.

Linkage.

Good! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production.

By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

All of the this may sound like I am against fuel cells. You would be mistaken to believe so. I think much more should be spent in alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, we would rather put ourselves in jeopardy and rely on oil than spend 1/2 of what it will cost to rebuild NY in R&D. I have often referred to the harnessing of wave energy for electrical power generation. It is a commercial success in the UK. That power could be used to generate electricity to break down water. Non polluting power as long as there are waves. Most of you are too young to remember the oil embargo. That was a treat. Literally riots in the street. Did we learn our lesson? Nope. It's about time we did.

Hydrogen from photovoltaic powered water splitting is the answer and is what most experts and futurists predict.

Stop looking at methanol...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Bollocks

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

Pay more attention. Combustion is terribly inneffecient because it produces more heat than usuable power. It does not take much to be more efficent than combustion. And you do not get hydrogen for free anywhere.

Interesting. Cant seem to find specifics though. Some vague references about oil to hydrogen conversion, but nothing about the relative efficencies. What kind of process are they using? Perhaps you can provide technical links with specifics, taking into account the power costs of conversion added to the inefficencies of producing energy from fuel cells. I know you can do this because you pay attention.

Linkage.

Good! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production. By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology. All of the this may sound like I am against fuel cells. You would be mistaken to believe so. I think much more should be spent in alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, we would rather put ourselves in jeopardy and rely on oil than spend 1/2 of what it will cost to rebuild NY in R&D. I have often referred to the harnessing of wave energy for electrical power generation. It is a commercial success in the UK. That power could be used to generate electricity to break down water. Non polluting power as long as there are waves. Most of you are too young to remember the oil embargo. That was a treat. Literally riots in the street. Did we learn our lesson? Nope. It's about time we did.

Hydrogen from photovoltaic powered water splitting is the answer and is what most experts and futurists predict. Stop looking at methanol...

I did quite some time ago, as it did not seem to our advantage. Photovoltaics have come a long way and in several years may compete with oil. Unfortunately if a competing technology came up you would see 25 cent a gallon gas come back long enough to kill it. That is where government can play a positive role.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HayabusariderGood! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production.

By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

Gas,Methonal, natural all can be used to extract hydrogen. They are all hydrogen rich. You can use water as well, but it is just not as hydrogen rich as the others. The move to fuel cell powered cars will be fairly painless as the infrastructure need not change over night. Cars will initially be sold with onboard reformers and you will pump gas as normal. And these cars will have VERY low emmissions. They will be slightly more effecient(5-10%) than a combustion engine. This is huge step in the right direction.

The problem with feul cells is the platinum that is required to make them $$$$$$$.


Diesels remain more polluting than gas engines.

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HayabusariderGood! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production.

By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

.............You can use water as well, but it is just not as hydrogen rich as the others.

I give up! Cannot argue with those not willing to do the research.

Forget the fossil fuels.. how idiotic is it to talk of fossil fuel produced hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels?

Water is half hydrogen????!!!!! So your statement makes no sense...

The DoE and others believe that huge Photovoltaic water-splitting farms will be set up in hot sunny places..

Hydrogen can be pumped 10000 miles with few losses....

http://www.hydrogenus.com/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HayabusariderGood! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production. By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

Gas,Methonal, natural all can be used to extract hydrogen. They are all hydrogen rich. You can use water as well, but it is just not as hydrogen rich as the others. The move to fuel cell powered cars will be fairly painless as the infrastructure need not change over night. Cars will initially be sold with onboard reformers and you will pump gas as normal. And these cars will have VERY low emmissions. They will be slightly more effecient(5-10%) than a combustion engine. This is huge step in the right direction. The problem with feul cells is the platinum that is required to make them $$$$$$$. Diesels remain more polluting than gas engines.

Current diesel emissions are a problem. I know, as I have severe respiratory reactions to them at levels that would not bother most. There are cleaner systems coming on board. This is great, because there seems to be a significant link to high diesel emissions and childhood asthma. I have mixed feelings about using reformers because if it works well, where is the incentive to move away from carbon sources? Every technology has a certain inertia. People stick with what works. Now that is great for the time being, but we still have the economic disincentive to move further which causes political ramifications. Besides we live in a world built of oil. Is it wise to burn down the house we have to heat it?

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HayabusariderGood! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production. By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

Gas,Methonal, natural all can be used to extract hydrogen. They are all hydrogen rich. You can use water as well, but it is just not as hydrogen rich as the others. The move to fuel cell powered cars will be fairly painless as the infrastructure need not change over night. Cars will initially be sold with onboard reformers and you will pump gas as normal. And these cars will have VERY low emmissions. They will be slightly more effecient(5-10%) than a combustion engine. This is huge step in the right direction. The problem with feul cells is the platinum that is required to make them $$$$$$$. Diesels remain more polluting than gas engines.

Current diesel emissions are a problem. I know, as I have severe respiratory reactions to them at levels that would not bother most. There are cleaner systems coming on board. This is great, because there seems to be a significant link to high diesel emissions and childhood asthma. I have mixed feelings about using reformers because if it works well, where is the incentive to move away from carbon sources? Every technology has a certain inertia. People stick with what works. Now that is great for the time being, but we still have the economic disincentive to move further which causes political ramifications. Besides we live in a world built of oil. Is it wise to burn down the house we have to heat it?

oil will run out this century.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HayabusariderGood! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production. By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

Gas,Methonal, natural all can be used to extract hydrogen. They are all hydrogen rich. You can use water as well, but it is just not as hydrogen rich as the others. The move to fuel cell powered cars will be fairly painless as the infrastructure need not change over night. Cars will initially be sold with onboard reformers and you will pump gas as normal. And these cars will have VERY low emmissions. They will be slightly more effecient(5-10%) than a combustion engine. This is huge step in the right direction. The problem with feul cells is the platinum that is required to make them $$$$$$$. Diesels remain more polluting than gas engines.

Current diesel emissions are a problem. I know, as I have severe respiratory reactions to them at levels that would not bother most. There are cleaner systems coming on board. This is great, because there seems to be a significant link to high diesel emissions and childhood asthma. I have mixed feelings about using reformers because if it works well, where is the incentive to move away from carbon sources? Every technology has a certain inertia. People stick with what works. Now that is great for the time being, but we still have the economic disincentive to move further which causes political ramifications. Besides we live in a world built of oil. Is it wise to burn down the house we have to heat it?

The hydrogen has to come from something. You can get it from water, a rock, or fossil fuels. The question becomes how much do you want to pay for the energy you need. Fossil fuels will remain the low hanging fruit for sometime.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bollocks, the people you are arguing with aren't the only people reading.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bollocks

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HayabusariderGood! Almost there. Now the article you cite talks about reforming with methanol. All we have to do is dig more methanol wells... No wait. Drat! Seems there is at least one more - step gotta make methanol... Oh there is infrastructure, fuel cell cost, still have CO2 production. By the time you are done, I doubt you will have a significant difference in OVERALL efficiency between fuel cells powered this way and petroleum based engines, especially if you consider the possible improvements in diesel technology.

Gas,Methonal, natural all can be used to extract hydrogen. They are all hydrogen rich. You can use water as well, but it is just not as hydrogen rich as the others. The move to fuel cell powered cars will be fairly painless as the infrastructure need not change over night. Cars will initially be sold with onboard reformers and you will pump gas as normal. And these cars will have VERY low emmissions. They will be slightly more effecient(5-10%) than a combustion engine. This is huge step in the right direction. The problem with feul cells is the platinum that is required to make them $$$$$$$. Diesels remain more polluting than gas engines.

Current diesel emissions are a problem. I know, as I have severe respiratory reactions to them at levels that would not bother most. There are cleaner systems coming on board. This is great, because there seems to be a significant link to high diesel emissions and childhood asthma. I have mixed feelings about using reformers because if it works well, where is the incentive to move away from carbon sources? Every technology has a certain inertia. People stick with what works. Now that is great for the time being, but we still have the economic disincentive to move further which causes political ramifications. Besides we live in a world built of oil. Is it wise to burn down the house we have to heat it?

oil will run out this century.

They said that last century And oil still remains very cheap.

Think they mean it this time?

 

[Moonbeam]

The hydrogen has to come from something. You can get it from water, a rock, or fossil fuels. The question becomes how much do you want to pay for the energy you need. Fossil fuels will remain the low hanging fruit for sometime.
-----------------------------------------
The cost of wind generated electricity is competative with gas generated electricity.

It isn't cost that holds back alternative energy, it's established energy interests. Take the money for the war on drugs and use it on the war for energy independence.

 

[Moonbeam]

We won't run out of oil. It will simply become too expensive to extract.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Will anyone ever stop to consider what it is we need oil for? We're fueling our need for more fuel.

How about well engineered public transportation, and lots of nice bike paths.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The hydrogen has to come from something. You can get it from water, a rock, or fossil fuels. The question becomes how much do you want to pay for the energy you need. Fossil fuels will remain the low hanging fruit for sometime.
-----------------------------------------
The cost of wind generated electricity is competative with gas generated electricity.

It isn't cost that holds back alternative energy, it's established energy interests. Take the money for the war on drugs and use it on the war for energy independence.

Windmills are competative, now if we could only get them to work 24/7 Windmills could be used for a fractional portion of our energy needs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think that the emphasis should be to provide for future needs. Assuming you can get cheap oil, should you still be dependent on it.
A little back on this thread. If Carter had seriously invested in alternative energy research and that was followed by succeding presidencies, we would be saying Saddam who? Fundamentalist are being funded by countries who make their money on us. In effect we pay the terrorists, however unintentional. Now history cannot be undone, but people of vision could prevent these things from happening in the future. And what would it really cost to do so? Factor in what a war with Iraq will do. Other Arab countries will most likely tighten the oil supply. Costs escalate, and the Russians arent going to be able to save us in the short term. But what if they could? We would be dependant on them. Oil is the drug, and the dealer always has the advantage. Lets get out of this mess once and for all.

Bollocks I am not disregarding what you say, but I want to explore all renewable energy sources before settling on one. I suspect different means will be used in different areas. Photovoltaics would be especially nice if they were affordable when combined with storage. Would be nice to unplug from the grid. Less likely to be victims of terrorists attacking central power plants.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The hydrogen has to come from something. You can get it from water, a rock, or fossil fuels. The question becomes how much do you want to pay for the energy you need. Fossil fuels will remain the low hanging fruit for sometime.

Oil = low hanging fruit. That's great, who writes your material?

 

[VFAA]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Oil in Afghanistan... LMAO! You think? LMAO! You don't really believe its worth fighting this much for do you? LMAO! Damn, you're a real paranoid trooper.

Somebody point this ignorant egomaniac who never hit the books to a map or some source of information where he can learn that Afghanistan is loaded with oil (as much as most of Middle East is). Oh yeah, did you also know that Afghanistan has the largest crop of poppies? Same poppies you wear to honor war heros.

 

[Bollocks]

that would be paradise....

 

[Bollocks]

www.energy.org.uk/EFWind.htm

o.1% of energy in the UK comes from windmills...

impressive huh?

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The hydrogen has to come from something. You can get it from water, a rock, or fossil fuels. The question becomes how much do you want to pay for the energy you need. Fossil fuels will remain the low hanging fruit for sometime.
-----------------------------------------
The cost of wind generated electricity is competative with gas generated electricity.

It isn't cost that holds back alternative energy, it's established energy interests. Take the money for the war on drugs and use it on the war for energy independence.

Windmills are competative, now if we could only get them to work 24/7 Windmills could be used for a fractional portion of our energy needs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just to be clear here, I'm not the originator of the quote: "The hydrogen has to come from something. You can get it from water, a rock, or fossil fuels. The question becomes how much do you want to pay for the energy you need. Fossil fuels will remain the low hanging fruit for sometime."

I was quoting charrison. Please give him the credit.

Bullocks, I'm not sure what your point about .1% is. At one time that is how much we got from oil. The trick to wind mills is that the wind blows at night. I'm in favor of photovoltaic development and implementation as well as wind mill technology. The wind is also always blowing 24/7 someplace. And if we make windmills and photovoltaic panels like we do bullets, they'd be cheap.

 

[MadRat]

VFAA-

You're full of it. Extracting oil from Afghanistan has and will be cost-prohibitive. If it was cost-effective then troops would be there to claim it. The U.S. has more oil locked in shale then all of the Middle East combined. Doesn't mean its cost-effective to start a war over it. And you can kiss my ass for calling me ignorant.