 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008140 $ per barrel !!
While the price of a barrel of oil becomes 140 $ (and you aint seen nothing yet oil producers 'dont have a God .....' ) so its more than time for fusion !! ATB Y.Porat ------------- ---------------- [snip] > its more than time for fusion !! "If they would agree, I would agree." Seriously, Canada is involved in ITER. Not to the extent I personally would prefer, but involved. Still, wanting it does not make it possible. Nor cheap. Socks > > its more than time for fusion !! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Still, wanting it does not make it possible. Nor cheap. > Socks Fusion certainly isn't going to happen in my lifetime and I hope I've got a fair few decades left yet. They're still crowing over keeping experimental fusion going for mere milliseconds FFS ! Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > its more than time for fusion !! > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Still, wanting it does not make it possible. Nor cheap. > > Socks > Fusion certainly isn't going to happen in my lifetime and I hope I've > got a fair few decades left yet. > They're still crowing over keeping experimental fusion going for mere > milliseconds FFS ! If ITER is a sucess, don't expect to see a working (i.e. not an experiment) fusion reactor until at least 2040.  SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jun 28, 12:25 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. --------------------- and that is exactly the problem for some 'mysterious' reason no serious efforts are invested in fusion. while it is the mightiest energy resource!! had the proper money invested in it long ago we could already use it 2 of course ITER is dead by arrival and it was worse than not even starting it because it is not even in the right direction and a huge waist of money and worse- waist of precious time . fusion will be dont efficiently mainly by **acceleration** and not just **blind** compression!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------------ > On Jun 28, 12:25 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------------------ so in addition to the above one of my suggestions that can be practical is to use the LHC that is going on soon for some fusion experiments...!!! in that case it might bring back some of its huge investments for advancing practical used and 'earn some of its ''bread and butter' TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------------- > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes > 140 $ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ------------- > ---------------- Nobody knows how to do it. Ben > > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes > > 140 $ [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ben -------------------- the first think to know is how not to do it !!(:-) not by any tokamak system 2 i know it should be done based on acceleration actually counter accceleration so that is why i suggest LHC to start getting into it 3 itneed some betetr knowledge about the the raw material particles 4 i think i know some missing knowledge better than anyone else 5 yet there will be no public spoon feeding from me 6 anyway a counter collision between say D and T might be a good start and i dont see any problem to do it by that LHC (but only a start (:-) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > > > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes > > > 140 $ [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------- and they dont need to use for that thier 'Tev' energy level , as a nice and safe start they can use only the Mev level energy !!! so btw even existing smaller accelerators can start right now those experiments and nor wait the two years ?? untill LHC is starting !!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes > 140 $ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ------------- > ---------------- What ever happened to using less? This is something we can do right now. We have the technology, products and manpower to reduce our energy consumption by 80% or more but do we have the will? We could do this in the next decade if we as a society set it as a goal. Energy management is something we can do verses fusion which we only think we can do but do not know when. It is like hydrogen that we’ve been promised in the next decade, this was about 30 years ago and we are still far from being practical. Doing with less is not doing without. The homes we retrofit save 40-60% of their heating and cooling bill and the occupants are more comfortable than they have ever been in the house. In new construction getting 70-80% reduction is easy and with some off the shelf products we can get the other 20-30%. And if our manufactures would make the electrical consuming devices more efficient (this is something we already know how to do) the 20-30% would be real easy. So let’s see, do we put our effort into something we already know how to do or into something that someone thinks will work? And no I’m not saying we should not explore fusion just not until we get the low hanging fruit of energy reduction. KISS (keep it simple stupid) Andy > > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes > > 140 $ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What ever happened to using less? Apparently it's not the 'American way'. > This is something we can do right > now. We have the technology, products and manpower to reduce our [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would make the electrical consuming devices more efficient (this is > something we already know how to do) the 20-30% would be real easy. You could start by trashing plasma TVs. Gross energy hogs. > So lets see, do we put our effort into something we already know how > to do or into something that someone thinks will work? And no Im not > saying we should not explore fusion just not until we get the low > hanging fruit of energy reduction. > > KISS (keep it simple stupid) I totally agree. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes > > > 140 $ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > What ever happened to using less? > Apparently it's not the 'American way'. Nor apparently anyone else's way. At one time the US was such a large fraction of the oil market the US could significantly influence prices. Those days are long gone. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nor apparently anyone else's way. You're unware of what's going on in Europe ? Graham >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're unware of what's going on in Europe ? You mean this??? http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 > >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You mean this??? > http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 No, this ... http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ " He notes that, importantly the Flextreme will achieve the European standard for plug-ins of < 40 g CO2 production per kM driven. He also point out that E-Flex is not a "research project" but a real production program, and that there are already over 150 engineers assigned to the E-Flex program." That's easily 4 times less emissions than an fairly average small Euro car, so probably better than 6 times better than your Yank Tanks. All we need now is enough of these ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor to power them on their daily commutes. Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. Graham >>>> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ LOL A bunch of americans are letting you know about US technology. and you call it Europe's. LOL > > http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ > > LOL > A bunch of americans are letting you know about US technology. > and you call it Europe's. Opel is a German company that has already improved on Detroit's equivalent offering. 2 of the most recent Saturns are also Opels in disguise. Graham >>> http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2 of the most recent Saturns are also Opels in disguise. It is called "shared technology" But you would not understand such because it is so american :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > >>> http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It is called "shared technology" > But you would not understand such because it is so american No it's 2 European cars with a Saturn badge on the front. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Astra "The Opel Astra is a small family car designed and manufactured by Opel, the European subsidiary of General Motors. It is branded as an Opel in continental Europe, the Republic of Ireland, the Middle East, North Africa, and South Africa, as Vauxhall in the United Kingdom, as Holden in Australasia, and as Chevrolet in Latin America. In Russia, it is sold as both an Opel and Chevrolet. Starting with the 2008 model year, the vehicle is exported to the United States and Canada, where it is sold as a Saturn. " The Aura is manufactured in the USA but I suggest you compre it with the Vectra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007-Saturn-Aura-XR.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Opel_Vectra_front_20070926.jpg It's a straight clone. Not bad looking car actually IMHO. Graham On Jun 28, 4:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Graham, realize what has made the Saturn a very attractive car to purchase in America. To be perfectly honest with you, it's the combination of the selling price and the materials used in the construction of its body. For American buyers, the use of very corrosion materials in the body is very important to us, particularly to us living the the colder regions of the US. Engine performance, top speed, and other considerations in comparison to if the car will turn into a rusted out piece of crap within 8-10 years. I will give Europe one credit, they have translated the advertising of automobiles into a competition of what fancy accessories the car has and it contemporary styling. American car advertising says very little about an autombile's basic transportation capacity, or what the expected life time of the engine an power train is, the expected body life in a North American driving environment, or anything once considered basic to automobiles. Here, as initial;y promoted in Europe, style and appearance mean everything in automobile marketing. It seems to me that this of French origin, and the message sent to the younger members of American society is that unless you drive in the latest and most stylish automobile, you won't be able to meet hot girls! I'm not joking here. Car marketing in the US today has nothing to due with the durability, fuel efficiency, or performance of the automobile. It's all about sex! :-) Trust me, at my age, what car I drive will in no way enhance or dimish my sex life, but at 25, you view it as very important. After passing the age of 50, the business card and the suit that you wear makes a far greater contribution to the quality of your sex life than do your wheels. Please don't ask me how I learned this, (Lol) Harry C. On Jun 29, 7:35 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 4:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Harry C. ------------------ So now is the time for you to go to the hybrid car or to the electric car (:-) just as a minimal -ad hock- contribution to the crisis situation unless you dont give a damn about what will be th e next day ......as too many people do i hope not !!..... ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------------- >>>> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ How many of these will be in production in a decade? In the mean time, you will hope that Putin stays a nice guy. > Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. How many new plants will be up and running in a decade? Will truckers be happy with the price of fuel in a decade? Take a good look: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 This is a problem the whole world faces. Europe too. http://www.financeweek.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=5939&d=11&h=24&f=254 "the average total debt-to-GDP bratio to around 250% across the OECD, rising above 400% in Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain." The roaring twenties in the U.S. ended with total D2GDP at these levels. So, it is not just that resources are becoming limited or D2GDP is off the scale. It is that both are occurring at the same time. U.S.: http://lakeweb.com/money/creditmarketdebt_GDP_06.pdf Taking the red pill means you stop 'believing' and start taking a critical look at our condition. Your favorite paper: http://lakeweb.com/money/Hirsch.pdf > >>>> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How many of these will be in production in a decade? That's down to Opel and their masters at GM. They hope to introduce it IIRC in 2011-2012. And Chevy's Volt about the same time. Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel for the ICE. > In the mean time, you will hope that Putin stays a nice guy. He's not the only guy in the business, besides he's no longer the big boss and the new one is much more Euro-friendly. With Ukraine already in the motions of EU membership application, don't expect Russia to want to be left out in the cold. > > Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. > > How many new plants will be up and running in a decade? Not a clue. You'd better ask them. > Will truckers be happy with the price of fuel in a decade? Will truckers ever be happy ? Irrelevant nonsense snipped. You'll just have to use less. It's THAT simple. Graham >>>>>> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel > for the ICE. So, it will have an impact but that impact is likely to be meaningless? >> In the mean time, you will hope that Putin stays a nice guy. > > He's not the only guy in the business, besides he's no longer the big boss > and the new one is much more Euro-friendly. The new guy is Putin's sock puppet. Putin is the primary oligarch and still holds the power. > With Ukraine already in the > motions of EU membership application, don't expect Russia to want to be left > out in the cold. Huh? He who has the gas won't be left in the cold. >>> Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. >> How many new plants will be up and running in a decade? > > Not a clue. You'd better ask them. Right. Then why did you post it? >> Will truckers be happy with the price of fuel in a decade? > > Will truckers ever be happy ? > > Irrelevant nonsense snipped. You'll just have to use less. It's THAT simple. Hardly irrelevant. Just over your head I suspect. > > Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body > > styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel > > for the ICE. > > So, it will have an impact but that impact is likely to be meaningless? Since when is any impact meaningless. Say it does 3-5% better. Is that meaningless ? > >>> Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Right. Then why did you post it? Because it's a critical decision that marks an entire shift of thinking. Next the Swedes ? The Finns are already expanding nuclear generation. Graham >>> Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body >>> styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since when is any impact meaningless. Say it does 3-5% better. Is that meaningless > ? "Say it does 3-5% better..." Is that your number for the next decade? Are you answering the question I asked and you snipped? >>>>> Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. >>>> How many new plants will be up and running in a decade? >>> Not a clue. You'd better ask them. >> Right. Then why did you post it? > > Because it's a critical decision that marks an entire shift of thinking. > > Next the Swedes ? The Finns are already expanding nuclear generation. And you still have not answered the question. What will the impact be in a decade? How much of this will be off set?: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 > >>> Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body > >>> styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > a decade? How much of this will be off set?: > http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 You'd prefer we did nothing like the USA ? Didn't you know we're now importing Nowegian NG ? And French electricity. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>> Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body > > >>> styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > a decade? How much of this will be off set?: > > http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 > You'd prefer we did nothing like the USA ? > Didn't you know we're now importing Nowegian NG ? And French electricity. The French don't produce enough electricity to solve the UK problem. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > Didn't you know we're now importing Nowegian NG ? And French electricity. > > The French don't produce enough electricity to solve the UK problem. They're producing plenty and building new reactors right now.. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Didn't you know we're now importing Nowegian NG ? And French electricity. > > > > The French don't produce enough electricity to solve the UK problem. > They're producing plenty and building new reactors right now.. Just keep telling yourself that. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >>> Didn't you know we're now importing Nowegian NG ? And French electricity. >> The French don't produce enough electricity to solve the UK problem. > > They're producing plenty and building new reactors right now.. Famous donkey a.s cite, where is it/////? Numbers and how it affects the U.K. required... In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body > > > styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel > > > for the ICE. > > > > So, it will have an impact but that impact is likely to be meaningless? > Since when is any impact meaningless. Say it does 3-5% better. Is that meaningless > ? > > >>> Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Right. Then why did you post it? > Because it's a critical decision that marks an entire shift of thinking. > Next the Swedes ? The Finns are already expanding nuclear generation. To bad the UK can't since they sold the last UK power plant building company to Toshiba in 2006. Now the UK has to stand in line with the rest of the world if it ever decides to build more nukes while the waiting list grows. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > > > Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body > > > > styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Now the UK has to stand in line with the rest of the world if it ever > decides to build more nukes while the waiting list grows. Areva/EDF wants to build them here. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Interestingly the Opel Has better fuel efficiency because of (a) the body > > > > > styling (sedans have lousy coefficients of drag) and (b) the use of a diesel [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Now the UK has to stand in line with the rest of the world if it ever > > decides to build more nukes while the waiting list grows. > Areva/EDF wants to build them here. It takes about 10 years to get one in production and the lights go out in 8. Good luck. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It takes about 10 years to get one in production and the lights go > out in 8. Areva reckon 6 years and they're the most experienced in the business. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It takes about 10 years to get one in production and the lights go > > out in 8. > Areva reckon 6 years and they're the most experienced in the business. So, are the contracts all signed with everything ready to go and no one else in line first? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You mean this??? > > http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188 > No, this ... > http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/the-opel-flextreme/ > " He notes that, importantly the Flextreme will achieve the European > standard for plug-ins of < 40 g CO2 production per kM driven. > He also point out that E-Flex is not a "research project" but a real > production program, and that there are already over 150 engineers > assigned to the E-Flex program." > That's easily 4 times less emissions than an fairly average small Euro > car, so probably better than 6 times better than your Yank Tanks. > All we need now is enough of these ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor > to power them on their daily commutes. > Italy just voted to re-start nuke ops btw. Too bad that in about 8 years Britain will only be able to produce 48% of their current demand unless something drastic happens. So there won't be any place with a working outlet to plug in your car more than half the time. I guess their only hope is just to ignore the EU and keep those old plants running. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > > >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Too bad that in about 8 years Britain will only be able to produce > 48% of their current demand unless something drastic happens. Cite ? > So there won't be any place with a working outlet to plug in your > car more than half the time. We're not there yet anyway. > I guess their only hope is just to ignore the EU and keep those old > plants running. The nukes ? They don't provide that much anyway any more. About 20%. They're on 'extended life support' now. Besides we buy cheap nuclear electricity from France. As have the Italians been doing 'on the sly' for ages too. In fact Italy agreed to pay for a new nuke as long as it was on French soil before the more recent announcement. Areva and EDF are going to become very rich companies. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > > >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Too bad that in about 8 years Britain will only be able to produce > > 48% of their current demand unless something drastic happens. > Cite ? BBC > > So there won't be any place with a working outlet to plug in your > > car more than half the time. > We're not there yet anyway. 8 years and counting. > > I guess their only hope is just to ignore the EU and keep those old > > plants running. > The nukes ? They don't provide that much anyway any more. About 20%. They're > on 'extended life support' now. The nukes are just part of the UK problem. You really should read your own news. > Besides we buy cheap nuclear electricity from France. As have the Italians > been doing 'on the sly' for ages too. In fact Italy agreed to pay for a new > nuke as long as it was on French soil before the more recent announcement. France isn't going to supply the missing 52%. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > > > > >> In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > > > >>>>> While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > BBC URL ? Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Cite ? > > > > BBC > URL ? Sorry, it was the dailymail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025586/FUEL-CRISIS-Forget-warnings-pani c-pumps-Thanks-decades-government-neglect-Britain-set-lose-nearly-half-electrici ty-years.html SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025586/FUEL-CRISIS-Forget-warnings-pani c-pumps-Thanks-decades-government-neglect-Britain-set-lose-nearly-half-electrici ty-years.html Fine. Ignore the EU then. It's what the French do when they don't like their directives. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025586/FUEL-CRISIS-Forget-warnings-pani c-pumps-Thanks-decades-government-neglect-Britain-set-lose-nearly-half-electrici ty-years.html > Fine. Ignore the EU then. It's what the French do when they don't like their directives. Britain really doesn't have any other choice. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Britain really doesn't have any other choice. Given the current level of farce, waste and general incompetence in the EU, don't bet on us still being a member by then. EFTA still exists. And we're not the only critics of the farce either. Graham In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Britain really doesn't have any other choice. > Given the current level of farce, waste and general incompetence in the EU, don't bet on us still being a member by then. EFTA still exists. > And we're not the only critics of the farce either. What, you mean it isn't all one big, happy, European family with everyone willing to forget hundreds of years of heritage for the common good? Maybe you're getting a glimmer of how Americans feel about being told they should be more European. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Given the current level of farce, waste and general incompetence in the EU, don't bet on us still being a member by then. EFTA still exists. > > And we're not the only critics of the farce either. What is this? The Brits make a go of it on their own??!! You are clueless after all........ Best to keep in mind an ounce of gold can buy 7 barrels. Its a bargain Bert On Jun 29, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. ------------------ now please keep in mind that even the fission reactors have their limited time moreover even their fuel -- Uranium is going one day to exhaust off not to mention price and the exhaust contamination problems (they are sending now he exhaust to Africa (:-).........) 2 just keep in mind the time needed to develop practical fusion !!!! (so even if you start now ** in the right direction*- it is pretty 'too late' ) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- On Jun 28, 6:02 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Graham, that's great news, since I purchased stock in Areva around 6 years ago, simply on a fling. At the time I was complating the purchase a new BMW, since at the time I was driving a rusty 1986 Cadillac Cimarron (and still am until fuel prices go back down). That's likely the best decision that I have ever made in my entire life. My second best turned out to be investing in Microsoft, during the days back when Bill Gates was still sitting a table with folding legs, selling Microsoft Basic on cassettes packaged in little plastic food storage bags that included a one page set of instructions. That was at a computer geek-fest in Boston circa 1982, and I invested about $2k as simply a lark. Strange how some times things turn out well. (Fortunately I retained the orginal stock certificates deep down in a drawer of my desk, thinking some day they may be valuable as at least historic collectables.) I've made bad investments to, like purchasing Xerox in 1979. Sold it in 1990 for a net profit of $1.15 a share. I am definitely not someone who you should turn to for investment advice. :-) Harry C. In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: > > > > > While the price of a barrel of oil becomes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Nor apparently anyone else's way. > You're unware of what's going on in Europe ? Essentially the same thing that's going on in all the first world countries with some minor variations in the fine detail. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > You're unware of what's going on in Europe ? > > Essentially the same thing that's going on in all the first world countries > with some minor variations in the fine detail. I'd say BIG variations. Graham On Jun 28, 9:18 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Eeyore wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Apparently it's not the 'American way'. --------------- Until another **"Energy pearl harbor ''** will come !!(:-) BTW is i s not the Americans alone to blame it is Europe and now - the far east as well !! thugh the US was the 'teacher' of it Y.Porat ----------------------- > > Nor apparently anyone else's way. > > You're unware of what's going on in Europe ? > > Graham Eeyore;1172729 Wrote: > - > On Jun 27, 7:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" y.y.po...@gmail.com wrote:- [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Graham We have known the principles of the fusion. So it is not a scienti research project, but a engineering project. We need to invest heavil on the project, instead of only a few billion dollars. How much do ou governments spend on defence annually -- orcared > Eeyore;1172729 Wrote: nergy hogs. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > We have known the principles of the fusion. So it is not a scientic > research project, very very wrong and a very harmful assumption !!! --------- but a engineering project. also engineering but first a theoretic problem !! We need to invest heavily > on the project, very very RIGHT !!! (:-) instead of only a few billion dollars. How much do our > governments spend on defence annually. that is a question and problem not for scientists ..... to decide ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- > -- > orcared |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.