If they ever get nuclear fusion working real good,(I believe someday
they will) that will be a good thing too.Nuclear fusion is
safe,according to articles I have read about it before.
cuhulin

Joeseph Newman of Lucedale,Mississippi invented some free energy
devices.How do I know this? Because back around 1973,he brought a few of
his free energy devices to downtown Jackson,Mississippi.I hurried up and
finished up earlier than usual running my bread route for Sunbeam Bakery
that afternoon and I drove down town to see for myself.There wasen't
anything fake or phoney about his free energy devices at all,I saw them
working with my own eyes and there were some other people there with
electrical equipment checking out his free energy devices he brought to
Jackson.Say or think whatever you like,I saw them working with my very
own eyes.I have a big softback book here that I ordered from Joseph
Newman when I got back home that afternoon.The book has diagrams of his
free energy devices and explains all about them too.
cuhulin

www.devilfinder.com Joseph Newman Lucedale Mississippi Free Energy
Devices
Of course I realize some of y'all will think/call him a kook,go
ahead,help yourself.I was there and I know what I saw and I am not a
kook.
cuhulin

John Smith wrote:

What am I missing?


A brain maybe?

"David" wrote in message
...
Oil Companies Discover 'Sustainability'

Recently on Nova "Science Now" they had a piece on hydrogen fuel cells. To
store enough liquid hydrogen for a 150 mile trip you would need a pressure
vessel capable of holding about three times the volume of gasoline needed
for the same trip at a pressure of up to 50,000 lbs/sq in. Do you want to
drive around with something like that behind you? One of the experts on
fuel cells said to forget about hydrogen for automobiles. Just another
fairy tale to keep people from learning he eventual truth. Read up on
Hubbert's peak. You'll understand what the oil crises means then.

By the way, I worked with Chuck Burch at Conoco in exploration research. I
have a Ph.D. in physics and worked in exploration geophysics. The oil
companies are merging so they can lay off exploration people. There's no
more big oil to be found and they know it.

John Reed


By Charles I. Burch, Prairie Writers Circle. Posted July 30, 2005.


The companies have yet to admit that no scheme for providing
sustainable energy can rely on petroleum.


Sustainability is big in corporate America today. The word, that is.
Once an arcane term used chiefly by foresters and agricultural
researchers, "sustainable" has become the label of choice that
executives use to describe their businesses.

Perhaps the most laughable of the newly "sustainable" corporations are
the oil companies. Pumping a finite resource like oil out of the
ground must be one of the least sustainable endeavors on the planet.
But this doesn't bother the oil industry, which knows a powerful
public relations word when it sees one.

The most recent ConocoPhillips annual report has a section titled
"Technology Achieving Long-term Sustainability," and the CEO writes of
the company's "sustainable growth plan." Annual reports from
ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil speak of "sustainable development." And
BP and Shell issue reports on the sustainability of their operations.
There are even auditors willing, for a fee, to vouch for the
statements in these "sustainability" reports.

All this when Arthur R. Green, lecturer for the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists and former chief geoscientist of ExxonMobil,
says world oil production is nearing its peak.

The history of U.S. oil production is instructive.

Domestic oil output steadily rose until it peaked in 1970. Since then
production has declined despite the technological know-how of domestic
oil companies and the considerable incentive of high prices. Domestic
oil production in 2003 was less than 60 percent of its 1970 level.

To meet our demand we import foreign oil. More than 56 percent of what
we used in 2003 came from other countries, and the proportion
increases every year.

Increase, taper off, then decrease -- world oil production will follow
the same pattern. Some experts think world output is very near its
peak already, while others say the peak will arrive sometime between
now and 2050.

Five complications make this grim picture even bleaker.

First, the world's largest oil reserves tend to be in countries with
unstable governments. Unrest can disrupt supply.

Second, insiders have been suspicious for some time about oil reserve
figures claimed by certain Middle Eastern countries. In 1987 the
United Arab Emirates claimed reserves of 33 billion barrels; in 1988
they claimed 98 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy. Iraq and some other Middle Eastern countries also reported
similarly implausible sudden increases. These figures probably owe
more to politics than sound science.

Third, China, until 1993 a net oil exporter, now imports more than 40
percent of its oil and is the world's third largest importer, after
the United States and Japan. With 1.3 billion people, one-fifth of the
world's population, and an economy that has quadrupled since 1978,
China is developing a world-class thirst for oil. China and the rest
of Asia now consume about as much oil as the United States.

Fourth, as demand climbs past supply, already high oil prices will
rise even higher. The "energy crisis" of the 1970s showed how
sensitive overall inflation, interest rates and the stock market are
to increased oil prices. The oil squeeze will not just raise the cost
of energy. It will affect the entire economy.

Fifth, even as oil becomes more scarce, development of replacement
fuels remains on the back burner. Do not expect the oil companies to
do more than token research on other fuels. True, they do have
experience taking on large projects and have sophisticated ways of
analyzing risk. But their investment and expertise are in petroleum.

If an oil company makes a genuine sustainability breakthrough --
figuring out, for example, how to make hydrogen efficiently with solar
power -- you can be sure the company will publicize this rather than
promote the pleasant fiction that its current operations are
sustainable. The reality is that no scheme for providing energy
sustainably can rely on petroleum.

But do not expect to hear that from oil executives.

Charles Burch was a senior staff scientist at Conoco before retiring
in 2002. He wrote this essay for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers
Circle, Salina, Kan.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:46:08 GMT, "John Reed"
wrote:



"David" wrote in message
.. .
Oil Companies Discover 'Sustainability'

Recently on Nova "Science Now" they had a piece on hydrogen fuel cells. To
store enough liquid hydrogen for a 150 mile trip you would need a pressure
vessel capable of holding about three times the volume of gasoline needed
for the same trip at a pressure of up to 50,000 lbs/sq in. Do you want to
drive around with something like that behind you? One of the experts on
fuel cells said to forget about hydrogen for automobiles. Just another
fairy tale to keep people from learning he eventual truth. Read up on
Hubbert's peak. You'll understand what the oil crises means then.

By the way, I worked with Chuck Burch at Conoco in exploration research. I
have a Ph.D. in physics and worked in exploration geophysics. The oil
companies are merging so they can lay off exploration people. There's no
more big oil to be found and they know it.

John Reed
I'm all for total melt-down of society so we can start over with a
clean slate.

Perhaps bumper cars have had their run...

David wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:46:08 GMT, "John Reed"
wrote:



"David" wrote in message
.. .
Oil Companies Discover 'Sustainability'

Recently on Nova "Science Now" they had a piece on hydrogen fuel cells. To
store enough liquid hydrogen for a 150 mile trip you would need a pressure
vessel capable of holding about three times the volume of gasoline needed
for the same trip at a pressure of up to 50,000 lbs/sq in. Do you want to
drive around with something like that behind you? One of the experts on
fuel cells said to forget about hydrogen for automobiles. Just another
fairy tale to keep people from learning he eventual truth. Read up on
Hubbert's peak. You'll understand what the oil crises means then.

By the way, I worked with Chuck Burch at Conoco in exploration research. I
have a Ph.D. in physics and worked in exploration geophysics. The oil
companies are merging so they can lay off exploration people. There's no
more big oil to be found and they know it.

John Reed
I'm all for total melt-down of society so we can start over with a
clean slate.

Well, you've certainly 'melted down' 'tard boy. At least from a mental health
standpoint.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

I have read articles before about some sort of metal hydrides (something
like that) technology that is suppose to be safe enough for storing
Hydrogen fuel.Humph!,I was reading where James Randi said he traveled to
the wilds of Mississippi (not only does James Randi look like a kook,I
wouldn't be supprised if he is a kook,mind you,I am not calling him a
kook,not yet anyway) to Lucedale,Mississippi to see Joseph Newman's free
energy devices.(I wonder if James Randi got stuck in any muddy roads,got
attacked by some bears?) I lived in Martinsville,Indiana in 1947 and
Bozeman,Montana in 1956 and Salina,Kansas in 1957 and when I was in the
Army,Scott Air Force Base,Illinois and SL-60 near Pacific,Missouri in
1963 and near Elizabethtown,Kentucky when I was at Fort Knox,Kentuck in
1963 (Ordnance School, ammo school) and Vinh Long and Tan Son
Nhut,Vietnam in 1964 and near Killeen,Texas (Fort Hood,Texas) in 1965
and the "amazing" James Randi said he traveled to the wilds of
Mississippi.Well,I can tell y'all the wilds of Mississippi are no wilder
than anywhere else in the World I have ever been.
cuhulin,in the wilds of Jackson,Mississippi

"David" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0400, "Michael Lawson"
wrote:



Hydrogen fuel cells would be a nicer alternative, but
what is the long term impact? We don't know. Nuclear
power is a nice alternative to coal and gas fired power
plants, but no one wants to put up with the risks of it
(or the spent fuel).

--Mike L.


Nuclear would be fine if it weren't for all the petroterrorists
threatening to blow-up the spent-fuel rods.

All you have to say is "Chernobyl" to people
and their appetite for nuclear seems to dissipate.
Or Yucca Mountain. Or "where do we put the
spent fuel rods?"

As far as this stuff goes, nuclear is a great source
of energy, if done right. No matter what energy
source is chosen, there will be byproducts, because
you can't get something for nothing in this world. The
question has to be the following: what source of
energy is the best with the least amount of problems?
Of the usual suspects, given current technology,
nuclear is the best choice. That said, I don't see us
shutting down the coal fired plants anytime soon
and replacing them with nuclear reactors because
people are more scared of nuclear than coal, to be
honest.

--Mike L.

www.devilfinder.com Radioactive Coal I read about that over five years
ago.
cuhulin