Actually, I devoured this garbage back in the '80s and early '90s....Bought into it too.
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.I think ethonol is stupid, it totally ruins the carb in my 2 stroke dirt bike if i let it sit in there for more than a few weeks. Plus, like you said, to make it uses more resources than it saves.
Your post seems to make me think you read stuff into my post i didn't put there, i feel as if you may think I'm one of these "The earth is going to explode into a ball of fire if we dont listen to al gore" types. PLEASE tell me i'm wrong.
Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
Global warming will kill us all....Republicans are to blame.
That's completely bogus. CO does in fact occur due to incomplete combustion of some fuels. But CO2 results from incomplete combustion of ALL fuels.Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant
Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!
It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!
OK, Midnight. You are really not to bright, are you? Carbon Monoxide, CO, is the result of incomplete combution of C. CO2 is the result of complete combustion of C.
"analyzation" and "absorbtion" aren't real words, illiterate old perv. Go back to playing with preteen boys, where you have gullible and trusting souls to bloviate to.
Arrhenius didn't put his conclusions in the context of a dynamic system, with millions of variables and possible compensatory factors.
What is true here? That we are introducing carbon that was dormant and now is participating in the biosphere is a fact! The long term affect of this is not known but is believed. Should one worry? An interesting question.
Are we going to get(or are getting)a new religion?
