Re: Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities

On Jan 8, 5:57 pm, "Don W" <dNOSPAMwidd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...
On Jan 7, 2:15 am, "Don W" <dNOSPAMwidd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

This is a mischaracterization based on faulty analysis. Hydrogen is
produced today in laboratories and in fertilizer plants around the
world by a wide variety of means. Some involve electrolytic
decomposition of water to form hydrogen. Other processes involve the
shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. In all cases
the source of hydrogen is the same - water.

You obviously have a lot more time to spend posting to this newsgroup
than I
have,

Not really.  It took you a helluva long time to come up with that list
of bull*** you keep repeating, and you repeat it over and over and
over again - which must take HUGE amounts of your time.  I don't have
time to keep up with your repetitive posting of the same errors.

You must be thinking of someone else.  

No, I'm thinkig of you.

Please cite where I "keep repeating"
anything.  

You gotta be kidding. I really don't have that kind of time you
freak.

You may have the last word here as I do have better things to do

Um.. and because I'm right and you're wrong. lol.

with my time and it's unlikely I'll continue replying to your silliness.

You have yet to point out anything that's silly - you have been
providing tons of silliness to which I'm responding though.

so I'll only respond to this one itty, bitty point.

Alright

Talk about mischaracterization!

??  Okay, lets.

The hydrogen used in fertilizer plants is
all made from hydrocarbons (and yes, a little of that hydrogen is
contributed by water

half if you use natural gas, all of it if you use coal.

Virtually all commercial hydrogen comes from reformed natural gas.  

Got the numbers? I concur that a lot of hydrogen comes form reformed
natural gas where half comes from water and the other half comes from
the methane. But a lot of that methane is also made by coal
gasification systems. SO, the hydrogen in THAT methane came
originally from water.

In the higher carbon alkanes more of the hydrogen comes from the water
as well.

So, MOST of the hydrogen (MORE THAN HALF) is made by the shift
reaction of carbon and water whether you're using coal as a feedstock
- SASOL for instance in their LURGI reactors, or methane as a
feedstock.

You can
probably show me where someone is making hydrogen from coal and I'll find
that mildly interesting but of no significant consequence.

What is of no significant consequence is that MORE THAN HALF the
hydrogen from natural gas comes from water;

CH4 + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 4 H2

Half with methane WIth higher alkanes, more ... and since only about
80% of natural gas (by molecule count) is methane, MORE THAN HALF THE
HYDROGEN COMES FROM WATER.

ANd this assumes the methane isn't made in a Lurgi reactor or other
coal gasification system.


which also contributes some of the O in the CO2.)

Yeah, I gave the reactions;

   C + 2 H2O -->  CO2 + 2 H2  for coal
  CH4 + 2 H2O -->  CO2 + 4 H2 for natural gas

Slight over-simplification,

It shows where the stuff is coming from.

but in the end what goes in and what comes out
are correct.

Correct.

 Who cares?  

You do apparently because You and Lancaster both said that the shift
reaction of methane doesn't use water. or uses only slight amount of
water - the reality is that even here MORE THAN HALF of all the
hydrogen that comes out comes from water!!!

Let's get back to the statement to which you
referred as a "mischaracterization":

Yes.

      3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
          is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
         sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
         is the worst possible feedstock.

Water is ASH (Already Suckeddryofitsenergy Hydrogen).

So was the hydrogen and carbon that is in a gallon of gasoline before
it was processed by the ancient biomass that made it using solar
energy.

 So one would have to
agree that for bulk energy storage applications, water isn't necessarily the
best place to go looking for hydrogen.

Why? It was the same place you went looking for energy to make coal
and crude oil and natural gas! I'm saying something rather simple.
BY YOUR DEFINITIONS - hydrogen is an energy sink. BY YOUR SAME
DEFINITIONS APPLIED TO THE PRODUCTION OF OIL COAL AND NATURAL GAS - SO
ARE THESE FUELS!!!! You are attempting to change the subject. You
can't have it both ways. You can't call hydrogen an energy sink and
not call coal oil and natural gas an energy sink. As yourself this
question; WHERE DID COAL COME FROM? WHERE DID OIL COME FROM? WHERE
DID NATURAL GAS COME FROM? If you say from a coal mine, from an oil
well from a gas well - you are missing the point. Its like a baby
saying that milk came from the refrigerated case in the store. That's
where it was stored for easy recovery. Its not where it came from.

ALL THESE FOSSIL FUELS DERIVED FROM SUNLIGHT, WATER AND CARBON by that
action of ancient biomass that is no more. About 10,000 tons of
biomass was processed by the biosphere for each ton of stored biomass
we recover today. Each GJ of energy produced in this way
irretreviably destroys valuable hydrocarbon feedstock, and is not only
irreplacable, but by any fair accounting of energy efficiency, took
millions of GJ of energy over millions of years to produce. USING
THE SAME STANDARDS YOU APPLY TO HYDROGEN - HYDROGEN MADE FROM SUNLIGHT
AND WATER IS THE MOST EFFICIENT PROCESS KNOWN FOR CREATING FUELS
KNOWN.

 The reactions you gave imply that
water happily renders its hydrogen

No I didn't. I fully recognize that hydrogen and oxygen must be
separated by the application of energy. SO, please do not put words
in my mouth.

when mixed with methane

No I didn't.

and of course
that is not the case.

That is true.

 When coaxed with heat from an external source and the
partial oxidation of the carbon (in the presence of a catalyst) the water
grudgingly renders its hydrogen to the reactor

Yes.

and it's oxygen to the carbon
to create carbon monoxide.  

So? You're getting into chemical details that don't change the
balance of things as you said earlier. Merely because I didn't launch
into a treatise on chemical energetics is not a logical basis to
assume I don't know it, or to talk like you're the only one here who
does. This sort of analysis actually makes the energy efficiency of
the shift reaction less efficient when compared to electrolysis - but
I considered a detail not worth pursuing given my time limitations and
the fact you weren't even getting the basis right.

This reaction is endothermic -- it requires
energy from an outside source in addition to the methane feedstock.

Agreed.

Fortunately, part of that energy can be supplied by the second reaction of
CO with H2O.  

Correct.

It still takes just as much energy to coax water into giving
up its hydrogen,

Of course - thermodynamics demands this.

but this time the CO is so desperate to get hold of another
O that it supplies the energy required to do the coaxing.  

Energy as well as mass must always balance in the end.

In the end, water
supplies NONE of the energy

Correct. Please note I never said water was a source of energy. I
said water was a source of hydrogen. Energy must be supplied by an
outside source. Why do you persist in mischaracterizing what I am
saying?

You are getting off the point. Surely you know that coal, oil and
natural gas are products of ancient photosynthesis that took CO2 and
H2O and produced alkanes and free carbon in a variety of bio-chemical
and geo-chemical processes more complex than anything we're talking
about here. In this case, the source of energy trapped in coal, oil
and natural gas, IS SUNLIGHT! By any measure of efficiency you care
to apply to any renewable system that processes water and sunlight to
hydrogen - would show it to be far more efficient than the system that
PRODUCED coal oil or natural gas. Furthermore, we don't know how to
make new oil, new coal or new natural gas on a scale needed to sustain
our energy industry with them so they meet rising demand. This means
that oil coal and natural gas are very limited and irreplaceable
resource. Obviously the MOST DESTRUCTIVE THING we can do is BURN coal
oil and natural gas. Plainly we need to preserve this valuable
commodity - which likely only exists on Earth - as an easy to use
feedstock for more valuable things than merely heat for heat engines.

and overall recoverable hydrogen chemical energy
is less than 70% of the energy that would have been available just by
burning the original supply of methane.

That's true, which is the cost of hydrogen is at least 1/.7 x as great
as natural gas prices - which is why to break this relationship,
you've got to use electrolytic, thermolytic, or photlytic processes.

But again you're missing my original point. Where did the methane
come from? It came from sunlight acting on ancient biomass. BY YOUR
OWN DEFINITIONS - the original amount of energy needed to make the
methane you so glibly take as a given, was thousands if not millions
of times greater than is recovered from the ancient methane. Modern
methods of producing methane from sunlight and carbon dioxide are far
more efficient.

Perhaps Mr. Lancaster's point might have been better made just by saying
"there ain't no more chemical energy left in water",

That's true. Yet you persist in your ignoring my point that the
energy contained in coal, oil and natural gas, was put there by
sunlight acting on ancient biomass. You ignre the fact that the
original source of carbon in those fuels was carbon dioxide absorbed
by that biomass - which was also devoid of energy. You ignore the
fact that the original source of hydrogen in those fuels was the very
same water you decry for hydrogen. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU USE
YOUR ANALYSIS TO ANALYZE FOSSIL FUELS THE SAME WAY YOU ANALYSE
HYDROGEN. You do that and you will find that hydrogen made by solar
panels is vastly superior to burning for heat highly valuable carbon
feedstocks our children would need. If you don't want to spare the
air of increased carbon. If you don't care about global warming.
Please consider the tremendous value each ton of carbon burning is
destroying for our future generations.

but a
mischaracterization it was not.

It certainly was. He is confusing the SOURCE of hydrogen with
hydrogen as a fuel, while not applying the same analysis to say coal.

If we ignore HOW coal got made, and the tremendous amounts of sunlight
and carbon dioxide and even water - was used to create each ton - we
can say each ton contains 23 GJ. By the same token if we ignore HOW
hydrogen is made, and the amounts of primary energy and water needed
to make each ton, we can say each ton contains 143 GJ.

If we choose to talk about the fact that about 165 GJ of electrical
energy must be applied to 9 tons of water to create that ton, or that
30 GJ is needed to compress it or liquefy it for storage - then we
need to talk about the fact that about 230,000 GJ of energy was needed
by the ancient biomass and geological processes to capture and store
each ton of carbon in coal, and that hundreds of thousands of tons of
water, air, and even rock was needed to make each ton - over millions
of years.

USE THE SAME STANDARDS FOR EACH - that's all I'm saying. When we do
we realize JUST HOW VALUABLE COAL and oil and natural gas ARE!
They're so valuable unique and irreplaceable in fact, we are FOOLS to
burn them for heat value, when hydrogen is so FREELY available.

 Hydrogen economy proponents are indeed
mischaracterizing water when they say that hydrogen is the most plentiful
element on the Earth's surface.

That's where all the hydrogen in the alkanes came from originally.

 There's virtually no H2 on the Eath's
surface,

You are making a huge issue over a small detail.

I agree that there is no energy in carbon dioxide, yet the carbon
cycle in the biosphere uses carbon dioxide as a freely available
source of carbno.

I agree that there is no energy in water, yet the source of hydrogen
is water.

The source of energy, contained in coal, oil, natural gas - is
sunlight orignally. The source of hydrogen in these fuels is water.
The source of carbon in these fuels is carbon dioxide. Is it that
hard to understand? NO. Why are you attempting to confuse things?
Because you want us to apply one standard to hydrogen and another to
fossil fuels.

only hydrogen ASH.  H2 = very fluffy chemical energy.  H2O = wet
stuff without any chemical energy.

The source of all hydrogen in fossil fuels was originally water.
The source of all energy in fossil fuels was originally sunlight

So, by your own definitions - fossil fuels are not really fuels, are
even more highly inefficient than any method of hydrogen production
(excepting those involving these very same inefficient energy
carriers)

This shows that you are highly biased and are interested only in
painting hydrogen with a brush you have no intention of fairly
applying to the fuels you defend. Which just shows how intellectually
dishonest you are.


The
only place you'll find electrolytic decomposition of water forming
hydrogen
for storage of significant quantities of energy is in government
subsidized
pilot programs designed to make it look like hydrogen is a feasible
automotive fuel.

Electrolytic decomposition of water is used to supply oxygen to
nuclear submarines,

(ENERGY SUPPLIED BY NUCLEAR REACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING OXYGEN TO
THE SUB -- NOT FOR STORAGE OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF ENERGY)

Well, now we get into a nuance in how energy is measured in chemical
reactions. Fact is, the sailors would die without oxygen because the
chemical processes in their bodies would cease. The cigarettes cigars
and pipes smoked on board (assuming that still happens) wouldn't
burn. neither would the candles on the birthday cakes. So, this is
an important energy source.

and its used in a wide range of laboratory and
industrial processes where the quality of hydrogen is an important
factor and cannot use hydrogen thats polluted with CO2 and other
chemicals.

...AND THESE APPLICATIONS INVOLVE THE STORAGE OF SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF
ENERGY?  YOU'RE REACHING, BUT NOT QUITE GRASPING.

I gave you a reference to a Teledyne paper. I really don't have time
for more. There were 27 pages of industrial applications. You're the
one grasping pointing to 100 year old technology that is about 99% or
more along its development curve. You've already shown that you have
detailed understanding of this process. So you know there's not much
room for improvement. Its a dead end. It uses non renewable
resources that are far more valuable as chemical feedstocks. Yet you
persist in ignoring that PEM, and other technologies are relatively
speaking brand new, and very early on their development curve, and
have the potential to kick ass - and ARE kicking ass every day - and
that this is where we are going and in the end we will not be using
any of these fossil fuels for anything but highly valued carbon
feedstock.


Electrolytic decomposition of water is used in a variety
of demonstration and development projects.  Characterizing these
programs as attempts by the government to lie about the feasability of
hydrogen as a transportation fuel is a mischracterization of these
programs and reveals an underlying misapprehension on your part of the
role of demonstration and development projects.

Of course those programs are nothing more than propaganda!  

Obviously you do not understand the importance of research and
development. That's like saying building a gigabit memory chip at
high cost is propaganda - when the market is buying megabit memory
chips. Anyone who understands the importance of R&D will say its
money well spent. Only a fool with their head up their asswould say
it was propaganda and dismiss it. same here. Any reasonable look at
the physics and technology involved would see the difference
immediately between tired old spent technology and new vital growing
technology.


The cost of
electrolytically decomposing water is astronomical in comparison to the
value of the LHV of the resulting hydrogen.

Got numbers? Like I said, 9 tonnes of water and 160 GJ produces 143
GJ of hydrogen. Take out another 20 to 30 GJ for storage and
distribution, and you've got 120 GJ by putting in 160 GJ from a
primary source. There's nothing astronomical about that.

The production of 23 GJ from a ton of coal required 230,000 GJ and
10,000 tons of carbon to be processed by the ancient biomass with
millions of GJ of sunlight falling across a broad region for millions
of years. The source of this carbon was carbon dioxide which
contributed NO energy to the system, because SUNLIGHT did all the
work.

 This is not a practical way of
making fuel,

It is not POSSIBLE to make coal from carbon dioxide by any process
known. So, you merely ignore it, and hope anyone reading your
bull*** isn't smart enough to apply what you say TO coal.

but if the government spends enough money on it they might
persuade some people that it is.

The government spends far more money defending, propping up, and
ignoring the costs and dangers of coal oil and natural gas. So, I
wouldn't go too far in this directoin if I were you. Whatever
government programs have developed whatever little progress in the
hydrogen economy, have done so against HUGE opposition and ridicule
from the entrenched energy companies.- none of which is deserved.

 Allow me to provide you with a link to a
government document showing how our government feels we must be
endoctrinated:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roa...

You didn't provide a complete linke..your statement implying that the
government wishes to indoctronate us is a gross mischaracterization of
reality - this paper is merely a discussion of the progress being made
in this reserach area.

Go straight to chapter 8 (page 35), "Education and Outreach".  Here is a
quote (I apologize about the length, but it's a classic propaganda effort
and I didn't want to cut out a single word):

No read the entire document to get a sense of what Chapter 8 is really
about. If you jump right to chapter 8 without seeing all the good
work that went into their conclusions, then you won't understand the
sound logical basis for their conclusion. This is a paper that
presents sound scientific and engineering results. It discusses how
to overcome the propaganda of the major energy companies. Propaganda
isn't preceded by EIGHT CHAPTERS of solid research! lol. Yet, Don W
wants to ignore the MEAT of the report, so that he can quote OUT OF
CONTEXT one small little piece. He's hoping you will be overwhelmed
by the depth of work in this document - that's why he 'apologizes' he
hopes you won't read it, but merely read the sound bite he wants you
to hear and accept his LIES about the document without any real
critical analysis.

So, please please please - if you take the trouble to find the
document from his fragmented pointed - take the trouble to download it
and read it carefully and fully BEFORE reading chapter 8.

"Develop a comprehensive public education and outreach program.
Hydrogen needs to get "on the map" and in the minds of consumers. Getting
the
message out will require a coordinated effort by government, industry, and
non-profit
communities to develop a broad-based education and outreach program.

Yes. The same thing was done with cancer and smoking.

This
program,
which should be developed as soon as possible, should include public
relations and
advertising campaigns. Public spokespersons need to be identified and media
briefing
packets produced. A product recognition tag, similar to EnergyStar®, should
be
developed, and hydrogen success stories should be touted. Other public
relations and
outreach activities would include:
?? Construction of traveling exhibits on hydrogen
?? Expansion of online hydrogen databases and information center
?? Creation of compact disks and Internet marketing materials
Key components of the education and public relations program include the
creation of
effective consumer messages, awareness campaigns, and media outreach.
Innovative ideas
and creative incentives are needed to prime the population for migration
toward a
hydrogen economy. Consumers need to feel compelled to learn more about
hydrogen and
must be clear about how a hydrogen economy can benefit the environment and
energy
security of the Nation.

Yes, and everyone of these points has a solid foundation in the
preceding 8 CHAPTERS of scientific work reported in this document.

Hydrogen needs to be "branded" and "personalized" for the consumer; safety
needs to
be stressed.

Just like McGruff 'take a bite out of crime' crime dog, and other
similar public campaigns. Don W doesn't address the fact that the
first 8 CHAPTERS put a lie to every single one of the points he's
attempting to make about hydrogen. So, please please please - READ
THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS before reading chapter 8 and THEN decide.
.


Messages need to be consistent (e.g., "Hydrogen is the Freedom
Fuel,"
"Hydrogen-It Works," or "Hydrogen is 'The Power'").

Yes. We need to get the truth out - and quit lying to people the way
you are Don.

In addition, industry should work with filmmakers to include product
placement in
movies.

Absolutely.

Community models and exhibits should also be developed to promote
consumer
participation and action.

Yes this will help too.

Create a public demonstration hydrogen village. Homebuilders, architects,
lending institutions, realtors, technology manufacturers, and related
associations should
lead an effort to launch a community model or hydrogen village that
identifies
stakeholders, products, and the infrastructure of a hydrogen economy.
Multiple villages,
in whole or in part, could be situated in strategic locations across the
United States as
instructional models for outreach programs directed toward students,
government, and
industry.
Commit resources for long-term education of students at all levels. Student
education is a key component to broadcasting the hydrogen message and
developing a
knowledgeable, involved hydrogen support network. Without a targeted
technology (and
applications-level) education program for students and teachers, our past
will continue to
define our future. Long-term resources should be committed to educate all
students.
Easy-to-integrate curricula should be developed for kindergarten to grade
12, vocational,
four-year engineering, and advanced-degree students. Hydrogen education
packages
should be created, including lesson plans, videos, demonstration hardware,
and
experiments to help educate science teachers and their students.

Please note what they're NOT asking for. Government subsidy to make
it profitable for hydrogen producers and hydrogen users. That's
because hydrogen CAN COMPETE and that's why major fossil fuel
companies are afraid of.

See, they've got a problem. They have a declining resource. And,
they have a need to increase profits each quarter. So, what do you
do? You use supply and demand and scarcity to bid up prices. That
way, even though you have less fuel each quarter, you have more
profit. Now what happens when ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUEL actually
and truly compete? That's right, it puts downward pressure on prices
and the oil companies coal companies and natural gas companies feel
the pressure in their pocketbooks. So, what are they going to do?
EVERYTHING THEY CAN - INCLUDING LYING TO YOU AND ME AND THE GOVERNMENT
TO MAINTAIN THEIR POSITION.

Educator training should be made available to all interested teachers
through summer
workshops and in-service training. Prizes could be offered for college-level
engineering
theses and projects on vehicle systems, stationary applications, and storage
technologies.
In addition, a hydrogen fellowship program should be created to encourage
interest in
the industry at the graduate-level. Lead organizations for this effort
include the National
Science Teachers Association, the U.S. Department of Education, education
agencies
and boards, and textbook publishing companies. This effort should begin
immediately
with an inventory of educational resources and development of teacher
training materials
that can be integrated with existing energy education materials."

In the 1960s King Hubbert warned that by 1970 the USA would enter
secondary production and by 2015 the WOrld would enter secondary
production. JFK charged Brookhaven National Labs with coming up with
a solution. They came up with compact nuclear sources that produced
hydrogen from water on a massive scale and at very low costs. JFK was
killed, but LBJ continued with the program. Nixon got in office and
scrapped the BNL study and installed the present oil companies in
their energy advisory roles. Hubbert was marginalized. The US
entered secondary production. The US began importing oil on a massive
scale. The dollar weakened. The US went off the Gold Standard.
There was an energy crisis. Oil went from $2 per barrel to $10 per
barrel. Carter vowed to do something about energy. Carter got
elected and sought $20 billion for the Department of Energy to do
something about energy independence. The 1960s BNL study was
resurrected. After 50 years of safe and reliable operations, two
nuclear accidents happened - three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Due to
mis-steps and mis-information to the President from the CIA - Carter
lost Iran - and due to further mishaps and ntelligence failures -
hostages were taken in Iran. Carter's energy program was all but
forgotten, and while tons of money were spent, NONE was spent on the
very practical BNL study that showed how we could develop a hydrogen
economy built around compact low cost high energy nuclear sources.
Nuclear was a non-starter after TMI and Chernobyl. Its still a
nonstarter. Jane Fonda starred in China Syndrome. Another failed CIA
effort to extract the hostages - involving the crash of a marine
helicopter ended Carter's focus on energy - and the media began
painting him as an ineffectual President. The personable actor,
Ronald Reagan was elected by a landslide - Watergate, the appointment
of Ford, and his subsequent pardon of Nixon was forgotten. Ronald
Reagan with the broad and wildly enthusiastic support of an emerging
right wing media became the teflon president - and the major oil
companies were re-installed in their dominant roles and alternative
energy was marginalized and forgotten. (lalala indeed)


In other words, the hydrogen economy is a washout on its own merits,

Not at all. If you would take the trouble to read the first chapters,
you will see this is a sound public education program. There is no
call for public subidy - that oil and coal and natuaal gas gets.
There is no call for special tax treatments, or special exemptions
from safety and environmental rules everyone lives with - which coal
oil and natural gas get -

Fact is, on a equal playing field hydrogen - whether powered by low
cost nuclear or low cost solar - would kick fossil fuel's ass! That's
Carter ws marginalized and everything possible was done to alienate
people from nucleear.

Go back to the 1950s Forbes and Fortune magazine where they declared
that by 1970 power would be too cheap to meter. The science hasn't
changed. Built on an appropriate scale, in an appropriate way,
nuclear power WOULD make energy cheaper more reliable safer and
cleaner. That is an impossiblity now because of a dedicated effort
among specialists who worked for those who are threatened by
alternatives to the way energy is made now.

so
we'll just have to sell everyone on the bad idea!

Reality doesn't need defended. Reality is. It will be what it is no
matter what anyone believes. So, why do efforts to educate people
about the very solid first 8 chapters of very good research and
development, scare you and the oil companies?

Is there anything in the report that is in error? Anything? I must
assume that if there were, you would say so. You haven't so there
isn't. So, the only thing you've got to carp about is that to counter
the disinformation put out for decades by the major energy companies,
that people are educated about the REALITY of hydrogen.

Nothing would help undermine any program more than for people to
promote lies and have them be proven to be lies. This is not what
this program is calling for. This program is calling for people to
come to realize that the US *can* be not only less dependent on the
mIddle east, not only indepedendent of th emiddile east, but the US
can dominate the energy picture in the world despite the middle east.
This is an important thing to know and to achieve because this is the
only way we'll end our war on terror. Now, the only problem you
Don's have is that it will bankrupt the oil comapanies. Well, I don't
wish hardship on anyone, but if they bankrupt themselves, it will be
because they lacked any sort of vision or capacity to do anything
different than what they've been doing. And that's their problem, not
ours, not the American public's and certainly not the problem of our
troops who are fighting and dying every day - not for us, but for the
greed of the oil comapnies.



haha... which I find
interesting because you're the one who keeps shouting for examples of
things working.  Well here they are!   It turns out that you KNOW of
these systems, but sweep them under the rug and continue voicing your
mis-statements as if they didn't exist.

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.