Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:mjones-04F04C.00284001052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns96472ACA7C4FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:mjones-223160.01354929042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9646861EC47E2WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> news:mjones-72AA33.12394628042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns964641AC76568WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >
.....
>> >>
>> >> When you must expend 100 Joules of energy to extract oil that will
>> >> yield less than 100 Joules of energy, the politics doesn't matter,
>> >> the economics doesn't matter. You are at the point where you are
>> >> better off to use the 100 Joules directly and not convert it into
>> >> crude petrolium.
>> >
>> > ***{The only fixed and irreducible energy costs are those imposed by
>> > the necessity to lift the oil from its point of origin to its point
>> > of use. A typical barrel of oil, back in the old days, had a capacity
>> > of 55 gallons, and contained about 44 gallons of crude, with the
>> > excess space being left to allow for expansion. A run-of-the-mill
>> > barrel of Texas crude contains 19,460 Btu's/lb and weighs 7.286
>> > lbs/gal. Therefore its total weight is (44)(7.286) = 320.6 lbs, and
>> > its total energy content is (320.6)(19,460) = 6.25x10^6 Btu's.
>>
>> There is also the cost of cleaning up the environment. That has been
>> ignored, up until now. Factor that in, also.
>
> ***{That's just politically required nonsense, not a fixed and
> irreducible cost. In fact, it is insanity, and can be easily seen as
> such by any person who grasps the fact that reserves are merely those
> deposits that can be presently extracted at a profit. Once that simple
> idea is understood, environmentalist requirements that mines and oil
> wells taken out of service be filled in, demolished, planted over with
> forest, etc., stand revealed as lunacy, pure and simple.

That is only a small part of the 'cleaning up the environment.' And I am
not advocating filling in mines just because they are not currently
profitable. Only when the hole is of no use [other than storage of the
tailing that have been accumulating during the mining and refining
operations].

When ore is refine, waste is produce. When products made from the ore are
distributed, waste is produced.

Now 'waste' is a resource out of place. Much 'waste' could, if it were in
the right location, be used as a raw material in the manufacture of some
other product.

My 'cleaning up the environment' includes proper use or disposal of all
waste.

.....
.....
You are assuming that the cabon is in liquid pools rather than
>> scattered as grains of carbon scattered in the rocks.
>
> ***{No, I'm giving you a hypothetical example, in an attempt to
> illustrate the fallacy inherent in your idea that any oil deposit,
> anywhere on earth, is at or near breakeven, when the irreducible energy
> costs of extraction are compared to the energy contained in the oil. No
> such deposit exists, anywhere on Earth. There has never been a barrel of
> oil, anywhere on Earth, that did not contain at least a hundred times as
> much energy as is required to lift it from its point of origin to its
> point of use. And that includes oil scattered as grains of hydrocarbon
> in oil shale or tar sands. The costs of separation of the hydrocarbon
> from the matrix in which it is embedded is not a fixed cost, but a cost
> subject to reduction by the ingenuity of engineers. Such problems are
> solved by figuring out ways to bypass the matrix, and focus solely on
> the goal itself: the oil. Hundreds of techniques have been developed
> that serve that purpose, including fracturing the matrix by blasting to
> allow the entrained oil to flow; the introduction of hot water or
> superheated steam to float the oil out of the matrix; and so on. Yes, of
> course, all such techniques have a cost, but the point is that there is
> no discernible limit to the ability of creative engineers, to come up
> with ways to solve problems by lowering costs. The situation is *not*
> static. You cannot cavalierly assume, as you are wont to do, that any
> oil deposit that is presently submarginal, will remain submarginal
> forever. --MJ}***

There are always diminishing returns. There will come a day when it costs
more than it yields.

All of those recovery methods have associated costs. Those who figure the
costs need to factor in all of the costs of producing that superheated
steam and getting it into the matrix, etc. The costs are NOT just the
dollar costs at the wellhead.

.....
>> >> Again, better to move our industries into space.
>> >
>> > ***{*All* of our industries?
>>
>> Start with the heavy industry.
>>
>> >That would require the use of massive
>> > force, because it would make no economic sense at all, with the
>> > consumers and raw materials mostly on Earth, to move the industries
>> > into space. And, of course, to persuade Earth's population to leave
>> > Earth and stop using raw materials from Earth would require even more
>> > massive use of force.
>>
>> I am not advocating the use of force.
>>
>> > But why? What goal are we pursuing, that justifies killing so
>> > many people? --MJ}***
>>
>> The future of the human race.
>
> ***{First you say you are not advocating the use of force, and then, two
> sentences further down, you essentially concede that what you are
> advocating requires the killing of lots of people!

People are dying to produce the electricity that puts my words on your
screen. People died to produce that screen. People died to put the roof
over your head. People are dying.

I am not advocating 'killing' people who refuse to move to space.
I am saying that people will die in the effort and that is normal, natural
and not bad.

> Result: I literally
> have no idea what position you are advocating. If you are merely saying
> that people should be free to go into space if they can create or
> purchase the means to do so, and that some of those who do that will be
> killed, that's fine.

Exactly.

> But if you have in mind some government program
> that forces people into space and kills those who do not want to go--as
> would be necessary to turn the Earth into a park--then we part company
> in a major way.

As would I with anyone that advocates such a use of force.

> As for the future of the human race, well, mankind will
> without a doubt go extinct if we insist on remaining on Earth, whether
> the ultimate cause is a killer asteroid, or a nearby supernova, or a
> change in the luminosity of the sun, or something else.

Exactly.

> Hence as a
> practical matter the only way any Earth-based life form will avoid
> extinction will be if man moves into space and takes them with him. That
> means man is not a threat to other species, as environmentalists
> believe, but, instead, represents their only hope of avoiding
> extinction. --MJ}***

Their only hope and their worst enemy unless the hope is fulfilled.

.....
>> > alternatively, we would need for each orbital
>> > factory to have its own, smaller mirror,
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> ***{If this is all being done without forcing anyone, as you said, then
> some of these folks--virtually all of them, in fact--are going to opt in
> favor of using nukes for power, because it will be far simpler and less
> labor intensive. Can you live with free choice on this matter? --MJ}***

Nuclear energy is clearly the best choice for many things.
Solar energy is clearly the best choice for most things.
Using both in space is clearly the test choice.

>> > its own smaller power plant,
>> > etc., together adding up to the same thing. And we would need to
>> > somehow get raw materials up to the factories,
>>
>> That is easy. Capture the earth busters before they can hit the earth.
>> Turn them into factories and habitats.
>
> ***{If nobody is being forced, then most people are going to continue
> living on Earth, continue mining on Earth, and continue manufacturing on
> Earth. Some of those who opt to live in space may earn their living by
> mining near-Earth asteroids, of course, but most will pursue other
> lifestyles. Again, can you live with free choice in such matters?
> --MJ}***

Free choice is the only kind I favor.
Truely free choice. Really free, based on knowledge and logic.

Choices not forced by fear or hate or poverty.
How many of your choices in life have been free choices?

>> Take the factories to the raw materials (the asteroid belt).
>
> ***{If freedom of choice is respected, such decisions will be made on
> economic grounds: raw materials from the asteroid belt will only be used
> if they are competitive with other sources. To be shipped to Earth, for
> example, they would have to be competitive with Earth based sources.
> Unfortunately, given the amount of orbital angular momentum that would
> have to be killed off, it is likely that those costs would be
> prohibitive. But maybe not: lots of work is being done in celestial
> mechanics right now, to discover low-cost, long-haul pathways in the
> solar system, and many surprising discoveries are being made in that
> area. Perhaps robot ore carriers will someday ferry huge tonnages from
> the asteroid belt to Earth, taking 10, or 20, or 50 years to make the
> trip, slipping slowly and imperceptibly, via gravity assists from
> various solar system objects, to wend their way gradually toward the
> Earth at essentially zero cost.

Using solar sails. Using solar furnaces. Using the m.v of the materials
boiled off duriing the refining process itself.

> But if that proves impracticable, and
> freedom of choice is respected, then asteroid belt raw materials will be
> utilized only if there is a significant human population near the
> asteroid belt. And if few people choose to live there, can you accept
> that? Or would you want to coerce them into doing so? --MJ}***

I would not coerce them.

I would not want them coerced by fear or hate or poverty into remaining on
earth either.

They. You. Me. We all are being coerced by circumstances, right now.

>
>> > and get the finished goods to
>> > retail outlets and thence to end users who, presumably, would not be
>> > on Earth. But why would we do all of this?
>>
>> To ensure the future of the human race.
>
> ***{Freedom of choice will ensure the future of the human race. We need
> people spread out as much as possible, into multiple locations, because
> no particular location is safe. The population living in the asteroid
> belt might, for example, be wiped out by a supernova; and yet, because
> of protection afforded by Earth's thick atmosphere, people living on
> Earth might survive. Or Earth might be wiped out by a comet or an
> asteroid, while people survived in the asteroid belt. Or people on Mars
> might survive, while everyone else was wiped out, etc. Thus not merely
> will Earth not be turned into a park, if people's freedom of choice is
> respected, but failure to do so will be a *good* thing. Again, can you
> live with such an outcome, or does your desire to turn Earth into a park
> mean you would be willing to use force to get your way? --MJ}***

I want to see that which curently forces us to fear, hate and kill each
other removed. I want to see poverty defeated without the use of force on
any side.

>
>> > To turn the Earth into a park? Are we back to that again? For
>> > what possible reason would we want to turn the Earth into a
>> > park? --MJ}***
>>
>> Because it would be a nice place to visit.
>
> ***{If there is enough demand from tourists, lots of wilderness areas on
> Earth would be preserved and utilized for that purpose. Cities,
> factories, and a huge indigenous population, however, will remain on
> Earth so long as freedom of choice is respected. Again, is that outcome
> acceptable to you, or do you advocate violence to bring about the
> outcome you desire? --MJ}***

I advocate the end of violence. Physical. And the end of the mental
violence of propaganda. The end of the use of greed, hate and fear to
control the masses.

Such violence is a crime againt humanity.

In a situation of plenty, there will be no need for such violence.

>> >> NO! man would increase the sea level rise by speeding up the melting
>> >> of glacers and the southern ice cap.
>> >
>> > ***{The CO2 is rapidly taken up by plant growth. The plant growth is
>> > mostly water, and, by eliminating or reducing standing thermals,
>> > brings about increased rainfall in the area where it takes place,
>> > causing the water table to rise. Result: icemelt that would otherwise
>> > have contributed to rising sea levels contributes to increased plant
>> > biomass and rising water tables instead. --MJ}***
>>
>> data?
>
> ***{Robert Clark asked first. Here is a copy of my response to him.
>
>> I've never heard of a biologist denying that carbon-based life forms
>> need carbon, or that they obtain it, ultimately, from CO2 in the
>> atmosphere, so it would be essentially impossible to find a reference
>> to the contrary. However, since you ask, here is a good entrance point
>> for such information:
>> http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2001/ga7.htm.
>>
>> Next, for sheer fascination, try this:
>> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/CO2/hurley-co2.html. This guy will
>> explain to you in vast detail how to maintain lush, beautiful plants in
>> your home aquarium--by bubbling in CO2 at a precisely controlled rate!
>>
>> For those with lots of plants in the home:
>> http://www.bey-tech.com/CO2Blackbox.html. This company sells a
>> fuel-cell based CO2 generator which increases ambient CO2
>> concentrations in the home up to 1500 ppm, to produce lush plant
>> growth.
>>
>> Additionally, a web search on "CO2 fertilization" ought to give you a
>> ton of hits. This is a topic that has been researched for at least a
>> hundred years, and is utterly non-controversial.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
.....
>
> Bottom line: the only moral use of force is against persons who have
> voluntarily accepted the use of force, and hence its risks, by
> initiating its use against others.

The use of force include the manipulation of other through the use of
hate, ignorance, fear, poverty.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.
    ... >> deposits that can be presently extracted at a profit. ... environmentalist requirements that mines and oil ... >> costs of extraction are compared to the energy contained in the oil. ... >> such deposit exists, anywhere on Earth. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Saving the Earth from ourselves
    ... Saving the Earth from ourselves ... Environmentalists, many of whom are young and have had a scholastic ... A guy would open the door and tap the metal ashtray on ... harmful about dumping a little leftover oil and gasoline into what we ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Saving the Earth from ourselves
    ... Environmentalists, many of whom are young and have had a scholastic ... diet of worshipping the Earth, don't really have any idea about how ... A guy would open the door and tap the metal ashtray on ... harmful about dumping a little leftover oil and gasoline into what we ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: There is enough oil on Earth for 1000 years !
    ... The mass of air on earth is 5.3e18kg. ... crude oil contains about 85% carbon and 13% hydrogen. ... >>suicidal because of CO2 and other emissions. ... to make energy as scarce and expensive as possible. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: CO2 - Plane vs Train
    ... > years to form and the Earth is only around 6000 years old, ... > have created the Earth with all this oil already there ... > of such viewpoints should not be taken as criticism of religion in ... But it's the laziest of reasoning and easily shown to be at fault. ...
    (uk.railway)