Discussion:
House of Saud, House of Bush?
(too old to reply)
Kristopher
2004-04-19 19:47:38 UTC
Permalink
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm


Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.

NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President
Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower
gas prices before November to help the president's
re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday.


Anyone have any thoughts on this?
--
Kristopher

The question is not "What," or "How," but rather "-Why-?"
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
2004-04-19 23:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kristopher
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm
Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.
NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President
Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower
gas prices before November to help the president's
re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
My thought is that I'd sure like to know the quid pro quo; what would a
re-elected Bush do for them?

I wonder whether Bush supporters will spin this as an example of how GWB
is a can-do President who can use his influence to make things better for
the American people. I dunno, maybe it is.

-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- ***@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Marilee J. Layman
2004-04-20 04:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Post by Kristopher
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm
Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.
NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President
Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower
gas prices before November to help the president's
re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
My thought is that I'd sure like to know the quid pro quo; what would a
re-elected Bush do for them?
Well, the Feds are about to fine a lot of people at Riggs Bank in DC a
lot of money for not conforming to the money laundering laws with the
Saudi Arabia account.

Maybe the Saudis won't be charged or implicated or something.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20942-2004Apr17.html
--
Marilee J. Layman
Chris Malme
2004-04-20 08:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
My thought is that I'd sure like to know the quid pro quo; what would a
re-elected Bush do for them?
Given that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and that none
of them were Iraqi, I would say he has already done it for them.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
2004-04-20 20:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Malme
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
My thought is that I'd sure like to know the quid pro quo; what would a
re-elected Bush do for them?
Given that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and that none
of them were Iraqi, I would say he has already done it for them.
Actually, if I understand your imputation, I don't agree with it.

My impression is that the house of Saud has a tiger by the tail. They're
spreading Islamofascism by funding Wahabbist schools not because they like
it but because it buys them some degree of domestic tranquility. They ought,
by this analysis, to be in favor of activities which remove the pressure on
them. Bush asserts that we're out of Iraq in just over two months; do the
Saudis plan to move in and take it over? If not, they're going to end up
with a terrorist-breeding neighbor that either remains in Afghanistan-like
chaos or throws forth another strongman.

So I don't think it's in the Saudi government's best interest to have Bush
knock over Iraq and get out. (I don't think it's in _anybody's_ best
interest.) I don't think it was in the Saudi government's best interest for
our Arabic-speaking resources to be diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq before a
serious nation-building job had been undertaken there. Even if GWB _is_ their
guy, he hasn't been doing that great a job for them.

(And I don't think it would really have been very effective in our own interest
for us to knock over the house of Saud and get out either. It's not like
they're a first-world liberal democracy, but if we created a vacuum, I don't
think we'd like what would rush in to fill it.)

Or are you just suggesting that this is a payoff for a PR exercise in
misdirection?. My strong impression, again, is that GWB et al went after Iraq
not to distract attention from the Saudis but because they _wanted_ to go after
Iraq.

-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- ***@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Chris Malme
2004-04-21 09:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Actually, if I understand your imputation, I don't agree with it.
If you thought I was saying that the US/UK should have invaded Saudi and
not Iraq, that isn't what I meant. <g>
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Or are you just suggesting that this is a payoff for a PR exercise in
misdirection?. My strong impression, again, is that GWB et al went after
Iraq not to distract attention from the Saudis but because they _wanted_
to go after Iraq.
I think the action in Iraq served two purposes. It is clear that the Bush
administration had a plan (and a desire) to attack Iraq, even before 9/11,
and that 9/11 merely provided the excuse to do so.

At the same time, it was a very useful distraction from the the real issue
- that 15 Saudi nationals took part in an attack on the US - and yet the
Saudis appear to have taken no political or economic flack for it. Compare
that with what would happen if 15 ex-US military had been discovered
plotting in an South American (or Middle-East) country - people would be
yelling "CIA" from the rooftops. Look at what happened as a result of the
British cavers in Mexico.

I am not saying that the Saudi government *were* behind the people who
perpetrated 9/11, but I don't think it unreasonable to ask questions and
investigate, and I don't think it unreasonable to put political and
economic pressure on the Saudis to make the cooperate with the
investigation. Instead, the US/UK invaded a completely unrelated country,
and waged a largely successful proproganda campaign, to implicate Iraq in
9/11.

In my opinion, the Saudis got off very lightly, and have a lot to thank
George Junior for.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-20 08:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Post by Kristopher
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm
Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
My thought is that I'd sure like to know the quid pro quo; what would a
re-elected Bush do for them?
Someone else pointed out the easiest way for the Saudis to implement
this project is to raise prices right now (as they have done). That way
when the prices fall later it looks good to those people with short
memories (i.e. most of us) and it doesn't cost the Saudis anything in
hard cash.

As for a re-elected Bush, he can make sure that any attempts to
investigate Saud family financing of Muslim terrorism and fundamentalism
will be ignored or the evidence treated as a State secret (the missing
28 pages of the first 9/11 report, for example).
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
2004-04-20 20:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sneddon
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Post by Kristopher
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm
Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
My thought is that I'd sure like to know the quid pro quo; what would a
re-elected Bush do for them?
Someone else pointed out the easiest way for the Saudis to implement
this project is to raise prices right now (as they have done). That way
when the prices fall later it looks good to those people with short
memories (i.e. most of us) and it doesn't cost the Saudis anything in
hard cash.
Well, I hear on the radio that OPEC had planned the current reduction
in output - squeezing supply and thus increasing prices - a year before
they did it. That would have been fairly prescient, given Bush's approval
ratings at that time.
Post by Robert Sneddon
As for a re-elected Bush, he can make sure that any attempts to
investigate Saud family financing of Muslim terrorism and fundamentalism
will be ignored or the evidence treated as a State secret (the missing
28 pages of the first 9/11 report, for example).
Okay, that's a point.

-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- ***@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
AUWG
2004-04-21 03:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kristopher
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm
Post by Kristopher
Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.
NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President
Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower
gas prices before November to help the president's
re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Keith F. Lynch
2004-04-21 04:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.

But I agree that the ideal is for everyone who is unhappy with the
House of Saud to choose not to buy their products. It works for me.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Mark Atwood
2004-04-21 05:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
But I agree that the ideal is for everyone who is unhappy with the
House of Saud to choose not to buy their products. It works for me.
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
***@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Kip Williams
2004-04-21 10:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Atwood
Post by Keith F. Lynch
But I agree that the ideal is for everyone who is unhappy with the
House of Saud to choose not to buy their products. It works for me.
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Though the Saudis can apparently influence how much that costs us.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Bad enough having [expletive] flu, without being crucified." --John
Cleese (after Monty Python's Life of Brian)
James Nicoll
2004-04-21 13:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Mark Atwood
Post by Keith F. Lynch
But I agree that the ideal is for everyone who is unhappy with the
House of Saud to choose not to buy their products. It works for me.
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Though the Saudis can apparently influence how much that costs us.
ObSF-related [1]: _The Apocalypse Brigade_, in which a well-
meaning rich man removes the Saudi Arabian wells as a factor in the
oil business, along with a fair number of Saudi Arabians and a larger
number of guest workers.

James Nicoll

1: The oleo-margerine of ObSF. In this case, the author was a SF writer
before switching to thrillers.
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
JFK, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Kevin J. Maroney
2004-04-22 05:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Mark Atwood
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Though the Saudis can apparently influence how much that costs us.
Since oil is fungible and sold on a world market, if Euroasian/African
oil increases in price, American oil increases in price as well.
Funny, that.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | ***@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kip Williams
2004-04-22 10:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Maroney
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Mark Atwood
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Though the Saudis can apparently influence how much that costs us.
Since oil is fungible and sold on a world market, if Euroasian/African
oil increases in price, American oil increases in price as well.
Funny, that.
I'm laughin' all the way to the tank.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Bad enough having [expletive] flu, without being crucified." --John
Cleese (after Monty Python's Life of Brian)
AUWG
2004-04-21 15:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Atwood
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Yeah, I've heard that.
So why the hell are the Saudis dictating prices for anyone else's oil?

Time to end the grand scam of things.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
James Nicoll
2004-04-21 16:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Mark Atwood
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Yeah, I've heard that.
So why the hell are the Saudis dictating prices for anyone else's oil?
Because it's all one big market and cheap oil over there affects
how much people pay for oil over here.

ObWI: The Oil Market was rearranged to work like DVDs, with NorAm
engines unable to run on oil from the Middle East.

BTW, your .sig is improperly configured.

James Nicoll
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
JFK, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Mark Atwood
2004-04-21 17:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Mark Atwood
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Yeah, I've heard that.
So why the hell are the Saudis dictating prices for anyone else's oil?
For the same reason that if I'm sitting on bigass pile of, say,
copper, I can move the price of copper, even for the people I'm not
actually selling to and for the people who are not buying from me.

There is such a thing as a stupid question, and you just asked one.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
***@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Mark Atwood
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
Yeah, I've heard that.
So why the hell are the Saudis dictating prices for anyone else's oil?
They don't "dictate" the price. Everybody sells oil for as much as
they can get for it. The price is determined by global demand and
global supply. In the short term, demand is relatively inelastic, and
the Saudis are a swing producer with lifting costs in the range of
$2.00 per barrel, lower than almost anybody else's, as well as the
capacity to increase production fairly rapidly.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Atwood
Post by Keith F. Lynch
But I agree that the ideal is for everyone who is unhappy with the
House of Saud to choose not to buy their products. It works for me.
The vast majority of oil consumed in the US is produced domestically,
or imported from South America.
That's true, but it doesn't really matter. Oil is fungible, and it's
sold in a world market. The US buys oil from Venezuela and Mexico for
logistical reasons, but for all practical purposes, all the oil
produced in the world goes into one big barrel. (This is not true of
natural gas, or at least so I understand.)
--
Pete McCutchen
David G. Bell
2004-04-21 07:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
It's not as bad as that at the level of the farm, but some of the stuff
which has to come onto the farm consumes a lot of energy. At least
grain for alcohol doesn't remove so many nutrients from the land. I'm
not sure what the nitrate flow would be, but phosphate and potash could
be returned fairly easily. And I think the residues from the fermenter
would be nitrate rich, which would reduce, at least, one of the high-
energy inputs.

Don't forget the energy cost of distillation.

Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol. And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?

At world prices last summer, for near-farm use, grain was competitive
with coal as a fuel.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Alan Braggins
2004-04-21 10:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
It's not as bad as that at the level of the farm, but some of the stuff
which has to come onto the farm consumes a lot of energy. At least
grain for alcohol doesn't remove so many nutrients from the land. I'm
not sure what the nitrate flow would be, but phosphate and potash could
be returned fairly easily. And I think the residues from the fermenter
would be nitrate rich, which would reduce, at least, one of the high-
energy inputs.
Don't forget the energy cost of distillation.
Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol.
Apparently untreated sunflower oil can be used in some diesel engines,
though it's only economic to do so on a sunflower farm, if then.

(How specific is the US "gasoline"? I thought it was the equivalent
of UK "petrol", i.e. doesn't include diesel. I also thought tractors
were almost all diesel engines.)
Post by David G. Bell
And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
www.biodiesel.org says "glycerin (a valuable byproduct usually sold to
be used in soaps and other products)", but I imagine that if we were
trying to complete replace petroeum with renewables there might be
more of a surplus to deal with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerine lists some uses.

It's at least partly waste oil that has already been used for cooking
that gets treated for use as biodiesel, so in a sense the nutrient loss
from growing the crops for fuel is zero, since they were already grown
for food oil use anyway. Again, that might not scale.
David Dyer-Bennet
2004-04-21 17:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
Apparently untreated sunflower oil can be used in some diesel engines,
though it's only economic to do so on a sunflower farm, if then.
Still amusing, anyway.
Post by Alan Braggins
(How specific is the US "gasoline"? I thought it was the equivalent
of UK "petrol", i.e. doesn't include diesel. I also thought tractors
were almost all diesel engines.)
Yes, that's right. "Gasoline" is *not* "anything that goes in a car's
fuel tank", and does not include diesel. Neither does "gas" in
general use (though I wouldn't be shocked to hear somebody use "gas
up" informally to mean putting in diesel fuel, come to think of it).

The place it's done is still a "gas station" either way, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-***@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Alan Braggins
2004-04-22 12:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Post by Alan Braggins
(How specific is the US "gasoline"? I thought it was the equivalent
of UK "petrol", i.e. doesn't include diesel. I also thought tractors
were almost all diesel engines.)
Yes, that's right. "Gasoline" is *not* "anything that goes in a car's
fuel tank", and does not include diesel. Neither does "gas" in
general use (though I wouldn't be shocked to hear somebody use "gas
up" informally to mean putting in diesel fuel, come to think of it).
The place it's done is still a "gas station" either way, though.
We buy diesel at petrol stations. (Pumps are sometimes labelled
DERV, Diesel engined road vehicle, but just "diesel" seems more
common these days. DERV was more common when it was usually a
separate pump off to one side basically only for trucks, rather
than being an option on the main pumps.)
(By "we" I mean motorists here. Fuel for agricultural use has
different taxes and a persistent dye and penalties for using in
in non-agricultural vehicles and David Bell will know the details.)
David Dyer-Bennet
2004-04-22 17:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Post by Alan Braggins
(How specific is the US "gasoline"? I thought it was the equivalent
of UK "petrol", i.e. doesn't include diesel. I also thought tractors
were almost all diesel engines.)
Yes, that's right. "Gasoline" is *not* "anything that goes in a car's
fuel tank", and does not include diesel. Neither does "gas" in
general use (though I wouldn't be shocked to hear somebody use "gas
up" informally to mean putting in diesel fuel, come to think of it).
The place it's done is still a "gas station" either way, though.
We buy diesel at petrol stations. (Pumps are sometimes labelled
DERV, Diesel engined road vehicle, but just "diesel" seems more
common these days. DERV was more common when it was usually a
separate pump off to one side basically only for trucks, rather
than being an option on the main pumps.)
Never seen it called other than "diesel" here.
Post by Alan Braggins
(By "we" I mean motorists here. Fuel for agricultural use has
different taxes and a persistent dye and penalties for using in
in non-agricultural vehicles and David Bell will know the details.)
Agricultural fuel is, at that level of detail, just the same here.
I'm sure the details vary a bit, but I don't know them even for this
side of the pond.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-***@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Nate Edel
2004-04-22 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
We buy diesel at petrol stations. (Pumps are sometimes labelled
DERV, Diesel engined road vehicle, but just "diesel" seems more
common these days. DERV was more common when it was usually a
separate pump off to one side basically only for trucks, rather
than being an option on the main pumps.)
Most gas stations sell diesel here, although not all of them. It's fairly
consistently labelled "Diesel #2" (or #2 Diesel?) ... I am not sure what
Diesel #1 is although I have wondered if that was for larger trucks or
something... in any case it's not what's available at smaller stations.
--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Nate Edel
2004-04-21 23:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
(How specific is the US "gasoline"? I thought it was the equivalent
of UK "petrol", i.e. doesn't include diesel. I also thought tractors
were almost all diesel engines.)
Yes. Diesel is diesel, gas is gas. I have no idea if tractors are mostly,
almost all, or almost never diesel engines. I do know that some farm
equipment runs gasoline and not diesel, since using dyed (and non-taxpaying)
"farm gasoline" in automobiles is an issue in some agricultural issues.
--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Randolph Fritz
2004-04-21 19:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol. And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
Also, ethanol is an excellent "octane"-increasing fuel additive, with
few toxic combustion products. It is far superior, environmentally,
to most of the additives used for that purpose in automobile fuels.
It cannot, however, be patented, making it less profitable for the
chemical industry.

As for as running cars--my intution says that methane is the winner
there--easy to produce and transport. But a serious study of the
system costs and disadvantages alternative fuel technologies has not
been undertaken, to the best of my knowlege.

Randolph
r***@rosettacondot.com
2004-04-21 20:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by David G. Bell
Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol. And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
Also, ethanol is an excellent "octane"-increasing fuel additive, with
few toxic combustion products. It is far superior, environmentally,
to most of the additives used for that purpose in automobile fuels.
It cannot, however, be patented, making it less profitable for the
chemical industry.
Did the vaporlock problem with ethanol blends ever get solved? Used to be a
serious PITA during the last flirtation with gasohol. Everything fine, then
you get a seriously hot day, long drive, stuck in traffic and *cough,
splutter* you end up waiting an hour or two for everything to cool down.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-21 20:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by David G. Bell
Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol. And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
Also, ethanol is an excellent "octane"-increasing fuel additive, with
few toxic combustion products. It is far superior, environmentally,
to most of the additives used for that purpose in automobile fuels.
It cannot, however, be patented, making it less profitable for the
chemical industry.
As for as running cars--my intution says that methane is the winner
there--easy to produce and transport. But a serious study of the
system costs and disadvantages alternative fuel technologies has not
been undertaken, to the best of my knowlege.
Your intuition may be missing ona few cylinders. methane has
problems with storage for automobile. To get a decent
energy-per-pound you need to otehr compress the hell out of it
(requiring very heavy fuel tanks and possible mechanical explosive
failures) or cryogenic storage, with all the trouble that implies.

You also want a fuel with a reasoable vapor pressure. Too high and
your fuel evaporates away. Too low and engines have trouble running
in winter conditions. Probably the optimal compromise at this time
is a methanol-ethanol mix.

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
Randolph Fritz
2004-04-22 03:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
Your intuition may be missing ona few cylinders. methane has
problems with storage for automobile. To get a decent
energy-per-pound you need to otehr compress the hell out of it
(requiring very heavy fuel tanks and possible mechanical explosive
failures) or cryogenic storage, with all the trouble that implies.
Probably not for long-haul travel, but it might be suited for urban
vehicles and public transit systems--Linköping in Sweden runs its
buses entirely off biologically-produced methane. And most personal
automobile use is short-haul.
Post by Wilson Heydt
You also want a fuel with a reasoable vapor pressure. Too high and
your fuel evaporates away. Too low and engines have trouble running
in winter conditions. Probably the optimal compromise at this time
is a methanol-ethanol mix.
Perhaps the best short-term solution is to have vehicles which can
operate on multiple fuels?

Randolph
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-22 08:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Perhaps the best short-term solution is to have vehicles which can
operate on multiple fuels?
If you do that emission control becomes much more difficult and general
efficiency drops off too as the engine's combustion chaamber geometry
can't be optimised for a single fuel that burns in a particular way.

I used to have a dual-fuel car many years ago -- when burning autogas
it was noticeably more sluggish than when it was burning gasoline but
the cost of the autogas was much less due to lower Government taxes, not
because the fuel itself cost less than gasoline per kilometre travelled.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-22 17:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Perhaps the best short-term solution is to have vehicles which can
operate on multiple fuels?
In which case, they will operate poorly (compatred to single-fuel
vehicles) on each and every one of them.

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
Randolph Fritz
2004-04-22 19:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by Randolph Fritz
Perhaps the best short-term solution is to have vehicles which can
operate on multiple fuels?
In which case, they will operate poorly (compatred to single-fuel
vehicles) on each and every one of them.
Is this necessarily so? Or is it perhaps an engineering problem which
might be resolved?

Randolph
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-22 19:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by Wilson Heydt
In which case, they will operate poorly (compatred to single-fuel
vehicles) on each and every one of them.
Is this necessarily so? Or is it perhaps an engineering problem which
might be resolved?
Nope. Modern engines are fine-tuned for emission control and efficiency
but only for a single type of fuel and often only work well with a
particular formulation of that fuel. Some engines are deliberately
designed for multifuel capability -- military vehicles, for example
can't always rely on getting the right type of fuel so they can run on
almost anything but they are not efficient. The flexibility outweighs
the efficiency.

You're in the architecture business, yes? Imagine a multipurpose
building -- during the day it's a research library, in the evening it's
an auditorium for opera and at night it becomes a freezer store for
sides of beef. I'm not talking three different spaces under one roof but
a single volume that has to do all three jobs. Same with engines, sorry
to say.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Randolph Fritz
2004-04-23 03:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sneddon
You're in the architecture business, yes? Imagine a multipurpose
building -- during the day it's a research library, in the evening it's
an auditorium for opera and at night it becomes a freezer store for
sides of beef. I'm not talking three different spaces under one roof but
a single volume that has to do all three jobs. Same with engines, sorry
to say.
Well...that's a bit much. But, in fact, there are successful
multipurpose performing arts and community centers, for instance, so
it's not a completely hopeless idea.
Post by Robert Sneddon
Post by Randolph Fritz
Is this necessarily so? Or is it perhaps an engineering problem which
might be resolved?
Nope. Modern engines are fine-tuned for emission control and efficiency
but only for a single type of fuel and often only work well with a
particular formulation of that fuel. Some engines are deliberately
designed for multifuel capability -- military vehicles, for example
can't always rely on getting the right type of fuel so they can run on
almost anything but they are not efficient. The flexibility outweighs
the efficiency.
Most modern engines are based on decades-old designs; we do have a few
new tricks in our hat, these days--might it be possible to do
something new? Or might we imagine, for instance, a car with two
different kinds of fuel cells, and the rest of the systems unified?
Generally speaking, I regard combustion engines as an inelegant
solution to the problem of converting chemical energy to gross motion.

Or perhaps a modest loss in engine efficiency is an acceptable trade for
greater overall system efficiency in the use of energy.

Randolph
Mark Atwood
2004-04-23 04:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Or perhaps a modest loss in engine efficiency is an acceptable trade for
greater overall system efficiency in the use of energy.
*You* lobby for CAFE rollbacks then.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
***@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
David G. Bell
2004-04-23 06:31:23 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, in article
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by Robert Sneddon
You're in the architecture business, yes? Imagine a multipurpose
building -- during the day it's a research library, in the evening it's
an auditorium for opera and at night it becomes a freezer store for
sides of beef. I'm not talking three different spaces under one roof but
a single volume that has to do all three jobs. Same with engines, sorry
to say.
Well...that's a bit much. But, in fact, there are successful
multipurpose performing arts and community centers, for instance, so
it's not a completely hopeless idea.
Post by Robert Sneddon
Post by Randolph Fritz
Is this necessarily so? Or is it perhaps an engineering problem which
might be resolved?
Nope. Modern engines are fine-tuned for emission control and efficiency
but only for a single type of fuel and often only work well with a
particular formulation of that fuel. Some engines are deliberately
designed for multifuel capability -- military vehicles, for example
can't always rely on getting the right type of fuel so they can run on
almost anything but they are not efficient. The flexibility outweighs
the efficiency.
Most modern engines are based on decades-old designs; we do have a few
new tricks in our hat, these days--might it be possible to do
something new? Or might we imagine, for instance, a car with two
different kinds of fuel cells, and the rest of the systems unified?
Generally speaking, I regard combustion engines as an inelegant
solution to the problem of converting chemical energy to gross motion.
Or perhaps a modest loss in engine efficiency is an acceptable trade for
greater overall system efficiency in the use of energy.
Dual-fuel petrol/LPG is established technology, most engines needing to
start on petrol. One design element in some systems is a way of
adjusting ignition timing, since the optimum for the two fuels is a few
degrees different.

Modern engine designs use a lot of sensors and a computer to control
engine behaviour, and applying this technology to multi-fuel systems
will make a big difference. Fuel metering could still be a problem.

I think a combination of the flexibility of electronics with a new
physical design could make a difference. And, as you suggest, the
ability to use a variety of fuels could pay off in which fuels are used.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-22 21:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by Randolph Fritz
Perhaps the best short-term solution is to have vehicles which can
operate on multiple fuels?
In which case, they will operate poorly (compatred to single-fuel
vehicles) on each and every one of them.
Is this necessarily so? Or is it perhaps an engineering problem which
might be resolved?
Not being a member of the SAE, but having some engineering
background, I an reasonably confident that you can't simultaneously
set up a engine to run optimally on a variety of fuels. One otehr
poster has not things like ignition timing differences and carb
throat differences between a couple of fuels. To be truly
multifule, you'd either have to have separate tnaks and feed lines
for each unique fuel, or be able to run on random mixtures as well
(not to mention the difficulties of fuels requiring high-pressure
tanks vs. those that can be held at ambient temperature and
pressure).

Would you care to propose a method of delaing with all the factors
involved that will optimize for *each* fuel at least as well as a
signle-fuel engine?

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
Keith F. Lynch
2004-04-22 01:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph Fritz
As for as running cars--my intution says that methane is the winner
there--easy to produce and transport.
It's cheaper, more plentiful, and more clean burning than gasoline.
And it comes from the midwest rather than the mideast.

Unfortunately, it's only liquid under high pressures or very low
temperatures. So it's useful for stationary applications that can be
fed by a pipe, such as heating a home, but not nearly as useful for
cars and other mobile applications.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David G. Bell
2004-04-22 08:05:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by David G. Bell
Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol. And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
Also, ethanol is an excellent "octane"-increasing fuel additive, with
few toxic combustion products. It is far superior, environmentally,
to most of the additives used for that purpose in automobile fuels.
It cannot, however, be patented, making it less profitable for the
chemical industry.
As for as running cars--my intution says that methane is the winner
there--easy to produce and transport. But a serious study of the
system costs and disadvantages alternative fuel technologies has not
been undertaken, to the best of my knowlege.
Propane is getting more widely used, as it's not too difficult to fit a
system to a petrol engine, and there are some tax advantages in the UK.
It can be carried more easily on the vehicle, for one thing. Methane
(and hydrogen) have more problems. And propane already has a
distribution infrastructure.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Randolph Fritz
Post by Randolph Fritz
Post by David G. Bell
Alcohol has some advantages. Treated canola oil can be used in diesel
engines, though there is potentially a greater nutrient loss compared to
alcohol. And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
Also, ethanol is an excellent "octane"-increasing fuel additive, with
few toxic combustion products. It is far superior, environmentally,
to most of the additives used for that purpose in automobile fuels.
It cannot, however, be patented, making it less profitable for the
chemical industry.
No, but a process for producing ethanol more cheaply than the current
process could be patented.
Post by Randolph Fritz
As for as running cars--my intution says that methane is the winner
there--easy to produce and transport.
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, methane is a gas which must either be
liquefied at some expense or compressed.
--
Pete McCutchen
Marilee J. Layman
2004-04-22 00:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
And somehow you have to deal with the glycerine which is a
byproduct. Maybe a bit of lateral thinking on use as an industrial
feedstock?
The local private school that runs its buses on biodiesel made by
their students in the lab sells the glycerine to soap-makers. A lot
of hobbyist soap-makers buy glycerine in the store, and the school
sells it cheaper. (They get paid to take the french-fry oil away from
the fast food place, so they actually make money on their fuel,
although apparently dogs follow the french-fry smell of the exhaust.)
--
Marilee J. Layman
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
2004-04-21 09:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Well, can the tractors run on alcohol? Or be drawn by horses?

-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- ***@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
AUWG
2004-04-21 15:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Well, can the tractors run on alcohol? Or be drawn by horses?
There's also propane/natural gas. Don't know if they're the same thing
by different names, but propane's good enough for forklifts in
warehouses, and that's equally hard work for machines.

A lot of farms have fallen on hard times these days due to the economy,
awaiting buyouts and auctions that will turn their land into parking
lots for condos or make them part of huge conglomerate farms.
Booze-fuel could end that.

Seems to me that the rather vast numbers of annually freeze-ruined
veggies and fruits here in Florida could be added to the
booze-ingredient pile, as well as unsold grocery inventories.
Industrial-grade booze-making doesn't require absolutely-fresh veggies.

High-sugar crops could save farms and cause new ones to appear if there
were a viable market.
Screw the Arabs and their oil, their backstabbing politicking, and their
terrorists.
I'd use booze-fuel just to give them the finger, cut them out of our
economy, and reduce pollution.
We know it can be done, we have the tech. Oil's just been too damned
convenient and ridiculously profitable for too long.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-21 17:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Well, can the tractors run on alcohol? Or be drawn by horses?
There's also propane/natural gas. Don't know if they're the same thing
by different names, but propane's good enough for forklifts in
warehouses, and that's equally hard work for machines.
"Natural gas" is methane (CH4). Propane is CH3CH2CH3.
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the rather vast numbers of annually freeze-ruined
veggies and fruits here in Florida could be added to the
booze-ingredient pile, as well as unsold grocery inventories.
Industrial-grade booze-making doesn't require absolutely-fresh veggies.
Kudzu... Make paper out of the woody parts and biofuel out of the
rest. Nothing like turning a nuisance into a commercial asset....
Post by AUWG
I'd use booze-fuel just to give them the finger, cut them out of our
economy, and reduce pollution.
We know it can be done, we have the tech. Oil's just been too damned
convenient and ridiculously profitable for too long.
You do understand, don't you, that your fuel milage will drop around
20% to 25% per gallon? That needs to be factored into the per
gallon cost.

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
AUWG
2004-04-22 03:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
I'd use booze-fuel just to give them the finger, cut them out of our
economy, and reduce pollution.
We know it can be done, we have the tech. Oil's just been too damned
convenient and ridiculously profitable for too long.
You do understand, don't you, that your fuel milage will drop around
20% to 25% per gallon? That needs to be factored into the per
gallon cost.
No biggie. I don't commute, and the price of several-tankful travel is
whatever it is at the time, anyway.
And the price of a tankful of gas is soon going to go up drastically
enough that I guess I really don't care what booze-based fuel will cost
unless it's half again or more the price of petroleum-based fuels.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Nate Edel
2004-04-21 07:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
For the tractors themselves, I doubt that.

But if you combine _all_ the petrochemicals involved in the chain -- from
production of seed, fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, trucks to move the
seed, etc... -- it might very well end up a net energy sink rather than an
energy source.

Petrochemicals in fertilizer are a particularly big expense of energy in
western-style agriculture.
--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Lance Parkin
2004-04-21 11:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?

Lance
Alan Braggins
2004-04-21 13:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lance Parkin
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?
No, but _if_ they use more than they can be used to grow, what would
be the point? Either you need grain growing without tractors somewhere,
or you have more grain being grown with non-grained-fueled tractors
somewhere.
"Keith heard it claimed" is pretty weak as cites go though, even by
typical Usenet standards. Anyone got actual numbers?
AUWG
2004-04-21 14:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by Lance Parkin
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?
No, but _if_ they use more than they can be used to grow, what would
be the point? Either you need grain growing without tractors somewhere,
or you have more grain being grown with non-grained-fueled tractors
somewhere.
Who says the alcohol has to come from grain products?
We used to make it from all kinds of veggie stuff.
Could be a whole new industry based on kitchen scraps and unsold
produce. :)
Of course, we wouldn't want to become dependent on foreign yams... could
precipitate a whole new blood-for-yams war somewhere.
On the other hand, if Colombia could make as much on alcohol as
cocaine..?
Or if Afghanistan could replace its opium-production with booze?
Might solve a number of problems at once.
Just maundering.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Chris Malme
2004-04-21 15:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
On the other hand, if Colombia could make as much on alcohol as
cocaine..?
Or if Afghanistan could replace its opium-production with booze?
I can see the headlines.

"Drugs fuel turnaround in economic growth."
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
David G. Bell
2004-04-21 15:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by Lance Parkin
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?
No, but _if_ they use more than they can be used to grow, what would
be the point? Either you need grain growing without tractors somewhere,
or you have more grain being grown with non-grained-fueled tractors
somewhere.
Who says the alcohol has to come from grain products?
I don't think anybody, but grain-alcohol was the starting assumption.
It doesn't change the basic problems, but whole-crop harvesting and
fermentation might be more efficient.
Post by AUWG
We used to make it from all kinds of veggie stuff.
Could be a whole new industry based on kitchen scraps and unsold
produce. :)
It'd help if we got all the urban nitrates back on the farm too, since
nitrate fertiliser has such a high energy cost, and it would also
provide phosphate and potash. Trace element contamination is a risk,
particularly heavy metals, but biological contamination problems have
been sorted out by the sewage sludge industry.

But don't expect to be allowed to use the stuff on food crops.
Post by AUWG
Of course, we wouldn't want to become dependent on foreign yams... could
precipitate a whole new blood-for-yams war somewhere.
On the other hand, if Colombia could make as much on alcohol as
cocaine..?
Or if Afghanistan could replace its opium-production with booze?
Might solve a number of problems at once.
Just maundering.
Ultimately, while the mechanisms are different we would be returning to
the energy production/consumption relationships of the age of the horse.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-21 17:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Of course, we wouldn't want to become dependent on foreign yams... could
precipitate a whole new blood-for-yams war somewhere.
On the other hand, if Colombia could make as much on alcohol as
cocaine..?
Or if Afghanistan could replace its opium-production with booze?
Might solve a number of problems at once.
There is the minor matter of scaling...a ton of cocaine or opium
is a signifcant amount. A ton of oil or fuel alcohol is a miniscule
quantity. Remeber that oil is shipped in quantities ranging up to
at least 500,000 *tons* per ship.
Post by AUWG
Just maundering.
And, I'm afraid, rather poorly.

BEtter to make those opium farmers grow something useful and
profitable at home. (The difficulty being that growing opium
poppies is relatively easy and *very* profitable compared to otehr
availabel crops...which suggest that attacking the consumption side
of the equation is just about the only way to impact the profits on
the supply side).

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
AUWG
2004-04-22 03:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
Or if Afghanistan could replace its opium-production with booze?
Might solve a number of problems at once.
There is the minor matter of scaling...a ton of cocaine or opium
is a signifcant amount. A ton of oil or fuel alcohol is a miniscule
quantity. Remeber that oil is shipped in quantities ranging up to
at least 500,000 *tons* per ship.
Yeah, fine. At least we could give them the option of stopping heroin
production or being Agent-Oranged.
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
Just maundering.
And, I'm afraid, rather poorly.
Well, up yours with something sharp, dude. At least I started a thread
that isn't just more tired crap about Iraq and the shrub.
Post by Wilson Heydt
BEtter to make those opium farmers grow something useful and
profitable at home. (The difficulty being that growing opium
poppies is relatively easy and *very* profitable compared to otehr
availabel crops...which suggest that attacking the consumption side
of the equation is just about the only way to impact the profits on
the supply side).
Hm. We either want massive heroin production or we don't. If we don't,
we give them an option. If they take it, fine. If not, wipe out their
poppie crops and let the drug growers starve in empty fields.
And don't bother me with the "they're just poor, exploited, starving
natives now" speech. They can starve just as well on another crop.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-22 17:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
Or if Afghanistan could replace its opium-production with booze?
Might solve a number of problems at once.
There is the minor matter of scaling...a ton of cocaine or opium
is a signifcant amount. A ton of oil or fuel alcohol is a miniscule
quantity. Remeber that oil is shipped in quantities ranging up to
at least 500,000 *tons* per ship.
Yeah, fine. At least we could give them the option of stopping heroin
production or being Agent-Oranged.
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
Just maundering.
And, I'm afraid, rather poorly.
Well, up yours with something sharp, dude. At least I started a thread
that isn't just more tired crap about Iraq and the shrub.
Post by Wilson Heydt
BEtter to make those opium farmers grow something useful and
profitable at home. (The difficulty being that growing opium
poppies is relatively easy and *very* profitable compared to otehr
availabel crops...which suggest that attacking the consumption side
of the equation is just about the only way to impact the profits on
the supply side).
Hm. We either want massive heroin production or we don't. If we don't,
we give them an option. If they take it, fine. If not, wipe out their
poppie crops and let the drug growers starve in empty fields.
And don't bother me with the "they're just poor, exploited, starving
natives now" speech. They can starve just as well on another crop.
nope...not going to give that speech. I'll point out that the
poppies can be grown anywhere. Put the opium farmers in Afghaistan
out of business and the processors will get farmers somewhere else
to start production. After that, it's just a game of
'whack-a-mole', no matter what your political beliefs are.

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
AUWG
2004-04-22 20:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
And don't bother me with the "they're just poor, exploited, starving
natives now" speech. They can starve just as well on another crop.
nope...not going to give that speech. I'll point out that the
poppies can be grown anywhere. Put the opium farmers in Afghaistan
out of business and the processors will get farmers somewhere else
to start production. After that, it's just a game of
'whack-a-mole', no matter what your political beliefs are.
Well, you're definitely right about that.
As long as there's a high profit market, there'll be growers and
pushers.
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
We can also run herds of schoolkids through the clinics on tours to let
them see the effects of drugs. Might stop a few from trying them.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Wilson Heydt
2004-04-22 21:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
And don't bother me with the "they're just poor, exploited, starving
natives now" speech. They can starve just as well on another crop.
nope...not going to give that speech. I'll point out that the
poppies can be grown anywhere. Put the opium farmers in Afghaistan
out of business and the processors will get farmers somewhere else
to start production. After that, it's just a game of
'whack-a-mole', no matter what your political beliefs are.
Well, you're definitely right about that.
As long as there's a high profit market, there'll be growers and
pushers.
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
We can also run herds of schoolkids through the clinics on tours to let
them see the effects of drugs. Might stop a few from trying them.
That's *one* way to solve the problem, but this is an SF group...
One could modify the human genome to make human metabolism treat the
drugs as an inert substance. One could try to spread a
gene-modified version of the drug plants that doesn't produce the
drugs. One could develop a plant pathogen or destructive inset
vector taht would destroy the plants wherever they existed in
commercially viable quantities. One could develop a checmical with
better effects but without the problems. There are endless
possibilities....

One could even try to develop variations of teh drugs that are
significantly *more* lethal and make sure that those are cheap and
readily available.

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
Nancy Lebovitz
2004-04-23 18:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
Post by Wilson Heydt
Post by AUWG
And don't bother me with the "they're just poor, exploited, starving
natives now" speech. They can starve just as well on another crop.
nope...not going to give that speech. I'll point out that the
poppies can be grown anywhere. Put the opium farmers in Afghaistan
out of business and the processors will get farmers somewhere else
to start production. After that, it's just a game of
'whack-a-mole', no matter what your political beliefs are.
Well, you're definitely right about that.
As long as there's a high profit market, there'll be growers and
pushers.
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
We can also run herds of schoolkids through the clinics on tours to let
them see the effects of drugs. Might stop a few from trying them.
That's *one* way to solve the problem, but this is an SF group...
One could modify the human genome to make human metabolism treat the
drugs as an inert substance. One could try to spread a
gene-modified version of the drug plants that doesn't produce the
drugs. One could develop a plant pathogen or destructive inset
vector taht would destroy the plants wherever they existed in
commercially viable quantities. One could develop a checmical with
better effects but without the problems. There are endless
possibilities....
One could even try to develop variations of teh drugs that are
significantly *more* lethal and make sure that those are cheap and
readily available.
From what I've heard, opiate addicts can stay fairly functional if
they can get clean drugs at reasonable prices.

Imho, the right thing to do would be to make the stuff legal--having
huge amounts of money sloshing around outside legal systems doesn't
seem to be doing the world any obvious good. Then work on finding
safer ways to take the edge off physical addiction and if you want
to be utopian, figure out why so many people don't especially like
being conscious and see if there's a way to make being awake more
worthwhile.
--
Nancy Lebovitz ***@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers

Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Steve Glover
2004-04-23 10:30:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@atlantic.net>, AUWG <***@atlantic.net>
writes
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff,
check
Post by AUWG
give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics,
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
Post by AUWG
and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
Probably not literally (or at least not the users). There is plenty of
evidence from before they were banned to indicate that many doctors and
pharmacists managed to combine full time work with a discreetly handled
heroin or barbiturate habit.

Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07961 446 902
AUWG
2004-04-23 23:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Glover
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff,
check
Post by AUWG
give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics,
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
Maybe it'll be your car stereo one of 'em steals for drug money.
Better to just give it out free in a clinic, where they can shoot it and
die quietly, then be disposed of properly.
Post by Steve Glover
Post by AUWG
and watch the market literally kill itself off.
Probably not literally (or at least not the users). There is plenty of
evidence from before they were banned to indicate that many doctors and
pharmacists managed to combine full time work with a discreetly handled
heroin or barbiturate habit.
Well, of course all druggies are and will be docs and pharmacists.
That's a given, right? They never zone out and wander in traffic or
stand screaming at monsters in grocery stores or simply pass out and
decorate sidewalks or try to drive home right after dosing up. (all of
which I've seen them do at one time or other.)

That was a time before so many people had to commute to and from work in
cars.
Hope the junkie isn't driving your bus or train.
He can be YOUR doctor, if you want; at least he probably won't have an
aversion to prescribing all the meds you want.

Crap. 30-plus years of half-assed government efforts at a "drug war" are
enough. We just need a lot of rope and some trees.
It's time to get serious about cleaning up the drug problem.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Keith F. Lynch
2004-04-24 01:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff,
check
Post by AUWG
give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics,
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
Maybe it'll be your car stereo one of 'em steals for drug money.
Tobacco is more addictive than heroin or cocaine. How often do people
steal car stereos to support their cigarette habits?
Post by AUWG
Better to just give it out free in a clinic, where they can shoot it
and die quietly, then be disposed of properly.
Cigarettes are deadlier than heroin and cocaine, too. So is alcohol.
Post by AUWG
That was a time before so many people had to commute to and from
work in cars.
Should we also bring back alcohol prohibition?

Will you allow non-motorists to use alcohol and other recreational
drugs? Will you allow motorists to use them on weekends when they
won't be driving?
Post by AUWG
He can be YOUR doctor, if you want;
Like William Halstead, the pioneering surgeon, who used morphine every
day for decades? Sure.
Post by AUWG
Crap. 30-plus years of half-assed government efforts at a "drug
war" are enough.
I agree. Too many innocent lives have been hurt.
Post by AUWG
We just need a lot of rope and some trees.
How will you detect the drug users? Mandatory universal urine tests?
Those are 99% accurate, right?

That means that when used in a population of whom one in a thousand
uses drugs, nine out of ten positives will be *false* positives. For
every drug user writhing on the end of one of your ropes, there will
be nine completely innocent people. You could be one of them, if you
don't have the foresight to exempt yourself from the tests. One of
your loved ones could be one of them, in the unlikely event that you
have any loved ones.

About THREE MILLION Americans would be put to death under this scheme,
most of whom never used any illegal drug.

Thank you for helping to underscore why I believe the drug war is one
of the greatest evils of our time, and why I believe that the people
who support it are the enemies of liberty and of humanity.

If I made someone like you up, people would accuse me of exaggerating.
You're a cardboard villain right out of the trashiest pulp fiction.
Do you have a long mustache that you twirl? Do you tie young women
to railroad tracks? Do you have a headquarters in a volcano? Do you
have a tank full of sharks with lasers?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Nate Edel
2004-04-24 06:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Tobacco is more addictive than heroin or cocaine. How often do people
steal car stereos to support their cigarette habits?
Cigarettes are, however, a high theft retail item.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
Better to just give it out free in a clinic, where they can shoot it
and die quietly, then be disposed of properly.
Cigarettes are deadlier than heroin and cocaine, too. So is alcohol.
If you're not predisposed to alcoholism -- something which is generally
believed these days to be genetic -- alcohol is not physiologically
addictive. Nicotine, heroine, and cocaine all are.

I do know a handful of people who have started smoking and stopped easily; I
know a lot more who've had a hell of a hard time quitting.

I know two alcoholics; I also know a lot of people -- myself included -- who
drunk very heavily at points in their lives, and then gave up just because
the circumstances where heavy drinking was fun were no longer part of their
lives.
--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
AUWG
2004-04-24 11:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics,
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
Maybe it'll be your car stereo one of 'em steals for drug money.
Tobacco is more addictive than heroin or cocaine. How often do people
steal car stereos to support their cigarette habits?
You need to get out of that ivory tower more and maybe spend some time
at street level. I've seen people heave things through windshields to
get at a pack of cigarettes or some loose change in a car.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
Better to just give it out free in a clinic, where they can shoot it
and die quietly, then be disposed of properly.
Cigarettes are deadlier than heroin and cocaine, too. So is alcohol.
You have a slight obsession concerning smoking, don't you?
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
That was a time before so many people had to commute to and from
work in cars.
Should we also bring back alcohol prohibition?
Nope. Just confiscate cars when people are busted for DUI.
Oh, but that will make it hard for the drunks to get to work, won't it?
Too damned bad. Let them make other arrangements.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Will you allow non-motorists to use alcohol and other recreational
drugs? Will you allow motorists to use them on weekends when they
won't be driving?
I believe I mentioned handing out drugs for free at clinics.
On-site use, no driving involved. Use all you want, but don't expect to
walk out while stoned.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
He can be YOUR doctor, if you want;
Like William Halstead, the pioneering surgeon, who used morphine every
day for decades? Sure.
And, of course, all street-level drug users are equally competent under
the influence. For that matter, we could question whether Halstead was
really doing his best work while using.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
Crap. 30-plus years of half-assed government efforts at a "drug
war" are enough.
I agree. Too many innocent lives have been hurt.
Post by AUWG
We just need a lot of rope and some trees.
How will you detect the drug users? Mandatory universal urine tests?
Those are 99% accurate, right?
Don't care about the USERS. I was speaking of hanging pushers, but you
conveniently edited that out of the quote.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Thank you for helping to underscore why I believe the drug war is one
of the greatest evils of our time, and why I believe that the people
who support it are the enemies of liberty and of humanity.
Go have a snort of whatever you usually use and relax.
The lawyers are still running the country, so nobody's going to put a
rope around your neck this week.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
If I made someone like you up, people would accuse me of exaggerating.
You're a cardboard villain right out of the trashiest pulp fiction.
Do you have a long mustache that you twirl? Do you tie young women
to railroad tracks? Do you have a headquarters in a volcano? Do you
have a tank full of sharks with lasers?
Why don't you flounce your little self down to a rehab clinic and see
what they have to deal with on a daily basis?

Visit the ER on a holiday weekend and read the fatal accident statistics
between ambulance calls.

Take a walk through a dealer's neighborhood.
(Go alone if you want some excitement)

Just get some actual personal experience with the world beyond your
keyboard.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
Fictionwise: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Ebookad: http://tinyurl.com/2o5d6
Mobipocket: http://tinyurl.com/239v3
Powell's: http://tinyurl.com/388jc
Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbn
Kip Williams
2004-04-24 12:23:29 UTC
Permalink
AUWG wrote: [to Keith Lynch]
Post by AUWG
You need to get out of that ivory tower more and maybe spend some time
at street level. I've seen people heave things through windshields to
get at a pack of cigarettes or some loose change in a car.
Ivory tower? Wrong or right, that's not Keith...

Ah, here's the problem. The speech balloon is supposed to be coming out
of your mouth. That's on the front side, a couple of feet higher.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Bad enough having [expletive] flu, without being crucified." --John
Cleese (after Monty Python's Life of Brian)
Alan Woodford
2004-04-24 13:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
AUWG wrote: [to Keith Lynch]
Post by AUWG
You need to get out of that ivory tower more and maybe spend some time
at street level. I've seen people heave things through windshields to
get at a pack of cigarettes or some loose change in a car.
Ivory tower? Wrong or right, that's not Keith...
Ah, here's the problem. The speech balloon is supposed to be coming out
of your mouth. That's on the front side, a couple of feet higher.
Blast. Another keyboard full of orange juice.

I'm not sure whether to send you an award or the cleaning bill.

Alan Woodford
--
Men in Frocks, Protecting the Earth with mystical flummery!
Aaron Denney
2004-04-24 18:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Don't care about the USERS. I was speaking of hanging pushers, but you
conveniently edited that out of the quote.
That's not at all the impression that comes from reading what you wrote.
You never said one word about pushers, and did say lots about letting
users die.

Hint: don't talk about quotes being edited selectively when it's trivial
to actually check.
Post by AUWG
Take a walk through a dealer's neighborhood.
(Go alone if you want some excitement)
Of course, legalization would put all the dealer's out of business.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Richard Eney
2004-04-24 14:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Now, pay attention, people! There will be a pop quiz later to determine
how many of us can figure out who said what.

[snippety]
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Tobacco is more addictive than heroin or cocaine. How often do people
steal car stereos to support their cigarette habits?
It's also less expensive.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by AUWG
We just need a lot of rope and some trees.
How will you detect the drug users? Mandatory universal urine tests?
Those are 99% accurate, right?
That means that when used in a population of whom one in a thousand
uses drugs, nine out of ten positives will be *false* positives. For
every drug user writhing on the end of one of your ropes, there will
be nine completely innocent people.
Fans may be slans, but some of them can't do math. Not 9 of 10 false
positives, but one out of a hundred.

The ropes are just rhetorical embellishment. Surely somebody would have a
nasty enough sense of humor to perform the executions by lethal injection.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Thank you for helping to underscore why I believe the drug war is one
of the greatest evils of our time, and why I believe that the people
who support it are the enemies of liberty and of humanity.
There is no need to posit sinister motives when sheer stupidity is an
adequate explanation.

-- Dick Eney
Damien R. Sullivan
2004-04-24 17:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Tobacco is more addictive than heroin or cocaine. How often do people
steal car stereos to support their cigarette habits?
It's also less expensive.
...probably because it's legal.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Keith F. Lynch
How will you detect the drug users? Mandatory universal urine tests?
Those are 99% accurate, right?
That means that when used in a population of whom one in a thousand
uses drugs, nine out of ten positives will be *false* positives. For
every drug user writhing on the end of one of your ropes, there will
be nine completely innocent people.
Fans may be slans, but some of them can't do math. Not 9 of 10 false
positives, but one out of a hundred.
Let's do the math.
10,000 people. 10 of them use drugs. They're all tested. 99% accuracy,
let's say all 10 users are found. But, 1% error, -- so 1% of the 9990
non-users are falsely indicated as using drugs. So 99 or 100 false positives,
say 100, and 10 true positives, 110 total positives.

100 false positives out of 110, that's 10 out of 11. (99 out of 109 is pretty
close to that; 99/110 would have been 9 out of 10.)

So I'm afraid Keith's math is a lot closer than yours.

Of course, the drug use rate is claimed to be a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
Which itself suggests that widespread drug use isn't that big a problem. I
know people who do marijuana, only because they mention it. No way I could
guess, for most of them.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Thank you for helping to underscore why I believe the drug war is one
of the greatest evils of our time, and why I believe that the people
who support it are the enemies of liberty and of humanity.
There is no need to posit sinister motives when sheer stupidity is an
adequate explanation.
A stupid eroder of liberty is still an eroder of liberty.

-xx- Damien X-)
Nate Edel
2004-04-24 22:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Keith F. Lynch
How will you detect the drug users? Mandatory universal urine tests?
Those are 99% accurate, right?
That means that when used in a population of whom one in a thousand
uses drugs, nine out of ten positives will be *false* positives. For
every drug user writhing on the end of one of your ropes, there will
be nine completely innocent people.
Fans may be slans, but some of them can't do math. Not 9 of 10 false
positives, but one out of a hundred.
Keith's math seems approximately right to me. 99% accurate means of 1000
tests (if all are correctly negatives) 10 will be false positives.
--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Steve Heller
2004-04-24 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Crap. 30-plus years of half-assed government efforts at a "drug war" are
enough. We just need a lot of rope and some trees.
It's time to get serious about cleaning up the drug problem.
There was no significant "drug problem" before illegalization. Less so
than alcohol and tobacco today, in fact. They're the real killer drugs
in our society.

Steve
Del Cotter
2004-04-24 10:09:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Post by AUWG
Post by Steve Glover
Post by AUWG
give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics,
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
And add a nice hefty tax on top, to a) discourage users somewhat, and b)
give the rest of us some benefit for the misery abusers cause. The
percentage of tax that alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline attract would be
about right.

As economically savvy Bobs everywhere know, even outrageously-taxed but
legal drugs are way cheaper to buy than illegal drugs.
Post by AUWG
Maybe it'll be your car stereo one of 'em steals for drug money.
Are you under the impression drugs are intrinsically expensive, then? Do
you get drinkers and smokers stealing your car stereo for cigarette
money or beer money?
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the overwhelming volume of UBE, I am now rejecting *all* email
sent to ***@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
Steve Glover
2004-04-24 20:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Del Cotter
Post by Steve Glover
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
And add a nice hefty tax on top, to a) discourage users somewhat, and
b) give the rest of us some benefit for the misery abusers cause. The
percentage of tax that alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline attract would be
about right.
Thanks. I'd forgotten the third leg of the stool: "Legalise, license and
tax". I think the tax should be set a bit higher, though. If only to
stop eejits going out and buying too much just 'cos they can suddenly
afford to.

Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07961 446 902
Paul Ciszek
2004-04-24 17:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Glover
writes
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff,
check
Post by AUWG
give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics,
No. Charge the fair market price (Charlie, you still got those details?)
Post by AUWG
and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
Probably not literally (or at least not the users). There is plenty of
evidence from before they were banned to indicate that many doctors and
pharmacists managed to combine full time work with a discreetly handled
heroin or barbiturate habit.
Everyone seems to be dogmaticly claiming that drugs have no affect on
behavior. At one place I worked, substance abuse caused a man to begin
behaving like a hyperactive toddler in the acid etch room, and he had to
be fired on the spot before he killed himself or someone else.

Also, I think that many cocaine users, given access to unlimited quantites
of pure stuff, would kill themselves in fairly short order.

--
Please reply to: | "Mundus Vult Decipi"
pciszek at panix dot com | ("The world wants to be deceived")
Autoreply has been disabled | --James Branch Cabell
Damien R. Sullivan
2004-04-24 17:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ciszek
Everyone seems to be dogmaticly claiming that drugs have no affect on
behavior. At one place I worked, substance abuse caused a man to begin
I don't see that; they're just giving counterexamples to the dogmatic claim
that drugs always have horribly damaging affects on daily behavior.
Post by Paul Ciszek
behaving like a hyperactive toddler in the acid etch room, and he had to
be fired on the spot before he killed himself or someone else.
Illegal drugs can cause problems. Alcohol can cause problems. Too much
caffeine can cause problems. (Tobacco mostly just kills you.) Too much
stress or a wacky brain chemistry can cause problems.
Post by Paul Ciszek
Also, I think that many cocaine users, given access to unlimited quantites
of pure stuff, would kill themselves in fairly short order.
As opposed to the limited quanities of impure stuff they can get now, with
which they kill themselves in fairly short order.

-xx- Damien X-)
Steve Heller
2004-04-24 03:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
I'm afraid you would have to wait a very long time for that to happen.
Opiates, especially opium itself, aren't very toxic, much less so than
alcohol, and that takes decades to kill people.

But I agree that legalization (or, to be more precise,
re-legalization) is a good idea.

Steve
mike weber
2004-04-24 08:23:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:29:46 -0500, Steve Heller
Post by Steve Heller
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
I'm afraid you would have to wait a very long time for that to happen.
Opiates, especially opium itself, aren't very toxic, much less so than
alcohol, and that takes decades to kill people.
But it's not chronic use/toxicity that one hears of kiling users with
either opiates or alcohol -- it's the overdoses that shut down the
cardio-respiratory system, just as it's generally the radioactivity of
plutonium that gets you, not its undisputed chemical toxicity.
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber <***@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
David Dyer-Bennet
2004-04-24 19:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike weber
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:29:46 -0500, Steve Heller
Post by Steve Heller
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
I'm afraid you would have to wait a very long time for that to happen.
Opiates, especially opium itself, aren't very toxic, much less so than
alcohol, and that takes decades to kill people.
But it's not chronic use/toxicity that one hears of kiling users with
either opiates or alcohol -- it's the overdoses that shut down the
cardio-respiratory system, just as it's generally the radioactivity of
plutonium that gets you, not its undisputed chemical toxicity.
And reliable availability of drugs of consistent quality will greatly
reduce the rate of overdosing.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-***@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Seems to me that the only way to end the drug problem is to legalize the
stuff, give druggies all they can hold for free at walk-in clinics, and
watch the market literally kill itself off.
We can also run herds of schoolkids through the clinics on tours to let
them see the effects of drugs. Might stop a few from trying them.
You mean sort of like a "Scared Straight" program?
--
Pete McCutchen
Kevin J. Maroney
2004-04-22 05:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
(The difficulty being that growing opium
poppies is relatively easy and *very* profitable compared to otehr
availabel crops...which suggest that attacking the consumption side
of the equation is just about the only way to impact the profits on
the supply side).
Well, if we want to ensure that Afghan peasants remain poor and
starving, the easiest thing to do would be to legalize heroin
manufacture, distribution, and consumption in the US. Prices will
plummet worldwide in days, even if the producer countries don't
legalize it.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | ***@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Keith F. Lynch
2004-04-23 02:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin J. Maroney
Well, if we want to ensure that Afghan peasants remain poor and
starving, the easiest thing to do would be to legalize heroin
manufacture, distribution, and consumption in the US. Prices will
plummet worldwide in days, even if the producer countries don't
legalize it.
How much of the money users pay for drugs in US cities ends up in the
hands of Afghan peasants, anyway?

The DEA Museum claims that terrorism is financed by drug users. If
they really believe that, then they must believe that it's better for
thousands of innocent Americans to be burned and crushed than for an
adult to privately smoke a marijuana cigarette. Since, obviously,
legalizing drugs would put an end to any money flowing from users
to terrorists. And since they are not advocating legalizing drugs.

Their exhibit even contains genuine 9/11 debris, as if to underscore
exactly what they find preferable to you and I being allowed to choose
what to put in our own bodies.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson Heydt
BEtter to make those opium farmers grow something useful and
profitable at home. (The difficulty being that growing opium
poppies is relatively easy and *very* profitable compared to otehr
availabel crops...which suggest that attacking the consumption side
of the equation is just about the only way to impact the profits on
the supply side).
Or you could just legalize currently-illegal drugs.
--
Pete McCutchen
Alan Braggins
2004-04-22 12:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Post by Alan Braggins
Post by Lance Parkin
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?
No, but _if_ they use more than they can be used to grow, what would
be the point? Either you need grain growing without tractors somewhere,
or you have more grain being grown with non-grained-fueled tractors
somewhere.
Who says the alcohol has to come from grain products?
That would be a special case of the grain specified by the previous poster
involving "grown with non-grained-fueled tractors somewhere".
Damien R. Sullivan
2004-04-21 16:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Braggins
"Keith heard it claimed" is pretty weak as cites go though, even by
typical Usenet standards. Anyone got actual numbers?
"The Oil We Eat", Richard Manning, Feb 2004 Harpers. Says in 1940 the average
US farm produced 2.3 calories of food energy per calorie of fossil fuel
consumed. In 1974 it was 1:1; allegedly no one has looked closely since then.
David Pimentel at Cornell, "has estimated that if all of the world at the way
the US eats, humanity would exhaust all known global fossil-fuel reserves in
just over seven years. Some [detractors] have accused him of being off on
other calculations by as much as 30 percent."

-xx- Damien X-)
David G. Bell
2004-04-21 17:44:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Damien R. Sullivan
Post by Alan Braggins
"Keith heard it claimed" is pretty weak as cites go though, even by
typical Usenet standards. Anyone got actual numbers?
"The Oil We Eat", Richard Manning, Feb 2004 Harpers. Says in 1940 the average
US farm produced 2.3 calories of food energy per calorie of fossil fuel
consumed. In 1974 it was 1:1; allegedly no one has looked closely since then.
David Pimentel at Cornell, "has estimated that if all of the world at the way
the US eats, humanity would exhaust all known global fossil-fuel reserves in
just over seven years. Some [detractors] have accused him of being off on
other calculations by as much as 30 percent."
Here in the UK, for wheat, a yield of 10 tonnes per hectare is currently
taken to be the target. Farmers paying rent, or paying off a mortgage,
would need to better that.

This is about 4 tons per acre.

I understand that US wheat yields are about half that.

Of course, that extra yield doesn't come free. The fertiliser and
pesticide element of the energy cost is increased, and so is harvesting.
Combine harvesters used in the USA operate with much wider headers than
in the UK, and at what appear to be higher ground speeds.

But it certainly seems plausible, from my experience, that US farming is
less energy-efficient. And I have seen articles in the agricultural
press which suggest some US farmers are following a more European
approach to get higher yields, and by getting more grain from a reduced
cultivated area they are making a better profit. I can't give a
detailed cite for the reports I read, but I think it was in a magazine
called "The Furrow", published by John Deere.

Regular posters to RASFF have described agricultural practices in some
parts of the US, involving pesticide use, which are illegal in the UK
under the basic safety rules, and which would make a crop here
unsellable. So I believe that the energy efficiency of US agriculture
could be improved.

I wonder how much food the US imports?

In any case, food calories are not the significant figure for biofuel
production. Fermentation can produce alcohol from plant components we
cannot ourselves consume. Also, a significant proportion of US meat
production uses human-edible plantstuff. We are omnivores, and a diet
with a high meat content is less than optimal, with more risk of food
deficiency diseases. Likewise, a wholly vegetarian diet. The risks can
be dealt with, but a wholly vegetarian diet, widely adopted, would
damage the economics of milk production. Half of all cattle born are
male, only useful for meat production.

Unless you can get milk from a bull.

And meat animals can be fed to convert food we cannot ourselves eat, and
be fed from land which cannot grow crops.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Alan Braggins
2004-04-22 12:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
Regular posters to RASFF have described agricultural practices in some
parts of the US, involving pesticide use, which are illegal in the UK
under the basic safety rules, and which would make a crop here
unsellable.
Unsellable for food use, but possibly not for fuel use. Not that
pesticides in vehicle exhausts are a good thing, but they could be
destroyed (or largely so) in fermenting and distilling, or when
burnt in the engine (or catalyzed in the exhaust).
Post by David G. Bell
So I believe that the energy efficiency of US agriculture
could be improved.
If there are yield gains from "excessive" pesticide use, stricter rules
might make it less energy efficient. But if the stricter rules simply
avoid wasteage from careless usage then it should improve things.
Post by David G. Bell
damage the economics of milk production. Half of all cattle born are
male, only useful for meat production.
Unless you can get milk from a bull.
Changing the balance of sexes born might take less bioengineering.
David G. Bell
2004-04-21 13:04:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Lance Parkin
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?
I think I'd class it as a major engineering change.

Tractors produced these days run on diesel, and the engines have torque-
speed curves optimised for pulling. I'm not sure, but I think some of
that is a consequence of them being a diesel engine. Modern electronic
engine management may be able to get similar results from other sorts of
engine.

But I doubt the fuel injectors would run without major redesign. The
fuel lubricates the injector mechanism, and the injector mechanism also
depends on the viscosity of the fuel.

It's not as simple as changing carburretor jets, and using alcohol-
resistant seals in the fuel system, plus a bit of adjustment to ignition
timing.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-21 13:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lance Parkin
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
Is there something preventing tractors being built that run on grain
alcohol?
The cost of fuel, probably.

Any alcohol fuel infrastructure will concentrate distillation and
distribution away from the farms that grow the corn or other biomaterial
used to make the fuel. That means the tractors ploughing, sowing,
fertilising and harvesting the crop will get their alcofuel from a
distributor just as the foodcrop farmers get their diesel oil today.

If the farmer attempts to distill his own fuel on the farm from his own
crop he'll need money to build the distillation plant and time and
effort to operate it in a safe manner. The alcohol he produces won't
have the quality control and possible additives necessary for the
engines to work well and not get damaged. All in all it's better for him
to buy a quality product from a manufacturer who specialises in it and
has economies of scale working for them.

A genetically-modified fuel maize that doesn't need fertilizer would be
a good start towards making alcofuels cost-effective. It need not be
edible even to animals, just rich in sugars and high-yielding. Even then
it might not be competitive with geological oil.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Charlie Stross
2004-04-22 23:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
Post by Robert Sneddon
A genetically-modified fuel maize that doesn't need fertilizer would be
a good start towards making alcofuels cost-effective. It need not be
edible even to animals, just rich in sugars and high-yielding. Even then
it might not be competitive with geological oil.
It doesn't have to be; it will become competitive with geological oil in
due time, when the cost of extracting geological oil rises as accessible
reserves are played out.

The question is, will it be competitive with nuclear power?



-- Charlie
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-23 09:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Stross
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
[Re: alcohol as fuel]
Post by Charlie Stross
Post by Robert Sneddon
Even then
it might not be competitive with geological oil.
It doesn't have to be; it will become competitive with geological oil in
due time, when the cost of extracting geological oil rises as accessible
reserves are played out.
I've seen figures suggesting that if oil doubles in price to about 60
dollars a barrel then oilsands become worth exploiting for extraction
and there are a couple of hundred years of those in reserve at today's
consumption rates. OPEC (i.e. the Saudi princes) perform a knife-edge
balancing act controlling output and price to deliberately keep some
expensive oil sources off the market but as geological oil is used up
the price will inevitably drift up for the remaining stocks until it
becomes worth making the large capital investment required to start
boiling down the oilsands.
Post by Charlie Stross
The question is, will it be competitive with nuclear power?
Has anyone ever sat down and said "Let's design a *cheap* nuclear power
station"? Screw efficiency -- the fuel cost of running a nuke is a minor
part of the equation as far as I can see; a 2GW reactor burns about
10,000 tonnes of yellowcake ore a year after processing. They probably
spend more on the interest payments for the financing of the constuction
than they do for the fuel.

Containment structure? Build a pyramid. Lower the temperatures and
final loop steam pressures to put less load on the stressed components.
Etc. Etc. Safety is still top priority but if the system isn't run to
the ragged edge wwith spacecraft-quality components all round it might
still be cost-effective.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
David G. Bell
2004-04-23 10:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sneddon
Post by Charlie Stross
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
[Re: alcohol as fuel]
Post by Charlie Stross
Post by Robert Sneddon
Even then
it might not be competitive with geological oil.
It doesn't have to be; it will become competitive with geological oil in
due time, when the cost of extracting geological oil rises as accessible
reserves are played out.
I've seen figures suggesting that if oil doubles in price to about 60
dollars a barrel then oilsands become worth exploiting for extraction
and there are a couple of hundred years of those in reserve at today's
consumption rates. OPEC (i.e. the Saudi princes) perform a knife-edge
balancing act controlling output and price to deliberately keep some
expensive oil sources off the market but as geological oil is used up
the price will inevitably drift up for the remaining stocks until it
becomes worth making the large capital investment required to start
boiling down the oilsands.
Post by Charlie Stross
The question is, will it be competitive with nuclear power?
The French have just closed their last coal mine and are 80% nuclear for
power generation. But they're only the cheese-eating surrender monkeys,
so their example doesn't count.
Post by Robert Sneddon
Has anyone ever sat down and said "Let's design a *cheap* nuclear power
station"? Screw efficiency -- the fuel cost of running a nuke is a minor
part of the equation as far as I can see; a 2GW reactor burns about
10,000 tonnes of yellowcake ore a year after processing. They probably
spend more on the interest payments for the financing of the constuction
than they do for the fuel.
Containment structure? Build a pyramid. Lower the temperatures and
final loop steam pressures to put less load on the stressed components.
Etc. Etc. Safety is still top priority but if the system isn't run to
the ragged edge wwith spacecraft-quality components all round it might
still be cost-effective.
Ancient Egyptian nuclear power? Has anyone checked any mummies for
radioisotopes? And isn't gold a good shielding material?

More seriously, I wonder just how different the production/assembly
quality control is for modern petrochemical plants.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Steve Heller
2004-04-24 03:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Stross
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
Post by Robert Sneddon
A genetically-modified fuel maize that doesn't need fertilizer would be
a good start towards making alcofuels cost-effective. It need not be
edible even to animals, just rich in sugars and high-yielding. Even then
it might not be competitive with geological oil.
It doesn't have to be; it will become competitive with geological oil in
due time, when the cost of extracting geological oil rises as accessible
reserves are played out.
Only if it is a net energy source, which seems doubtful from what I've
read.
Post by Charlie Stross
The question is, will it be competitive with nuclear power?
There isn't that much U235 in the world to keep the nukes running very
long, especially if more are built. A fast breeder would fix that, but
somehow I don't see enough of those being built fast enough before we
run out of cheap oil.

Steve
Thomas
2004-04-24 11:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Heller
Post by Charlie Stross
The question is, will it be competitive with nuclear power?
Nothing is very competetive with nuclear power when you include
externalities. The OECD ran the numbers on it. Well placed dams
are cheaper, because they can douple as floodcontrol and thus have
positive net externalities, and everything else is a lot more costly.
But of course it is somewhat tricky to stick a reactor in a car.
Post by Steve Heller
There isn't that much U235 in the world to keep the nukes running very
long, especially if more are built. A fast breeder would fix that, but
somehow I don't see enough of those being built fast enough before we
run out of cheap oil.
This is just factually wrong. The _proven reserves_ of uranium ore are
sufficient to provide our total energy needs for centuries. In fact they
are so large that nobody really goes prospecting for more these days.
Well. The fact that the "Scrap cold war nukes" industry is big enough
to depress U-235 markets, and the canadians tripped over the richest
orebed ever, pushing prices even further down, might also have something
to do with it.
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-24 12:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas
The fact that the "Scrap cold war nukes" industry is big enough
to depress U-235 markets, and the canadians tripped over the richest
orebed ever, pushing prices even further down, might also have something
to do with it.
I ran some numbers a while back and discovered that if the entire
world's supply of nuclear weapons were recycled as fuel for power
reactors (assuming redesign to allow them to burn Pu239) they could feed
America's requirement for electrical power for only a few weeks.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Damien R. Sullivan
2004-04-24 17:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sneddon
I ran some numbers a while back and discovered that if the entire
world's supply of nuclear weapons were recycled as fuel for power
reactors (assuming redesign to allow them to burn Pu239) they could feed
America's requirement for electrical power for only a few weeks.
Can you put up the numbers?

-xx- Damien X-)
Robert Sneddon
2004-04-24 21:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damien R. Sullivan
Post by Robert Sneddon
I ran some numbers a while back and discovered that if the entire
world's supply of nuclear weapons were recycled as fuel for power
reactors (assuming redesign to allow them to burn Pu239) they could feed
America's requirement for electrical power for only a few weeks.
Can you put up the numbers?
Here's what I wrote, on the basis of some vaguely-remembered numbers
without much research into the fine details. Anybody else who refine the
numbers please do.

Total number of nukes in the world is about 9,000 (US about 5,000,
former SU a bit over 3,000, China maybe a thousand, Britain, France,
Israel, North Korea etc. another thousand or so all together). Each nuke
has about 8-10kg of Pu239 in it -- very few if any are old U235-style
nukes. You're looking at about 90 tonnes of Pu239 in total. There might
be more Pu239 in store here and there but it costs money to turn it into
weapons and there's no point.

Pu239 burns in a reactor funny but assuming you could use it as
enriched fuel (there's about 6% pure U235 in typical reactor fuel rods)
that 90 tonnes of pure Pu239 would make about 1300 tonnes of reactor
fuel pellets. A typical 1GW reactor takes about 80 tonnes of pellets and
will run for about a year on that load, maybe a little bit longer,
producing 1000 MW pretty well continuously. At the end of the run the
pellets are depleted but not exhausted -- maybe at 50% or less (I'm
guessing here). The total planetary warhead stock of Pu239 would
therefore power 16 reactors for a year, suppling 16GW. If the pellets
are recycled and the unburnt Pu239 reclaimed, then the 50% left would
supply another 16GW for a year.

This is rough back-of-the-envelope figures of course, but I'm probably
off low and not a factor of ten out. To contrast this, America burns a
terawatt of electricity, or 1000 GW, year in year out. The total
planetary population of nukes, if burned in reactors, would power the US
electricity grid for about 2 weeks.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Thomas
2004-04-24 23:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sneddon
Post by Thomas
The fact that the "Scrap cold war nukes" industry is big enough
to depress U-235 markets, and the canadians tripped over the richest
orebed ever, pushing prices even further down, might also have something
to do with it.
I ran some numbers a while back and discovered that if the entire
world's supply of nuclear weapons were recycled as fuel for power
reactors (assuming redesign to allow them to burn Pu239) they could feed
America's requirement for electrical power for only a few weeks.
That's rather counterintuitve, as the end of the cold war is commonly
plamed/credited with the drop in price of nuclear fuel. Of course the
demand from nuclear powerstations is pretty fixed, so maybe elimination
of military demand had a larger-than-you'd-expect effect on prices.

Hmm. Just checking, but you did pay attention to the fact that bombs
are _much_ more heavily enriched than fuel-rods are?

Wilson Heydt
2004-04-21 17:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Unless, as I've heard claimed, it takes more gasoline to run the
tractors to grow the grain to make the alcohol, than the alcohol
replaces.
There are rahter more serious problems than that with such a scheme.
The vapor pressure of ethanol is low enough that it really won't
work in standard engines at low temperatures.

Using ethanol has been used in Brazil as motor fuel though (but
that's a tropical country). In the US an ethanol/methanol mix would
work.

Therne there's the company that has a garbagte recycling system that
produces (among other things) the equivalent of a very light crude.
According to one estimate, if al the leftover organic debris from US
agriculture were fed through such systems, it would have a *net*
yield of enough oil to meet US consumption. Given that the system
can process sewage, too, the US could become a net *exporter*,
though if everyone adopted the tech, almost nobody would need to buy
any. There's a pilot plant running by now (so far as I know)
handling several tons of turkey guts and feathers per day.

The cool result would be oil independence without any new
drilling....

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUWG
Yeah. We'd all be better off if our cars ran on grain alcohol.
At least we'd be helping to keep our own farmers in business.
Except that somebody has to grow the grain to make the alcohol, and
then harvest the grain, and then turn the grain into alcohol. All
that takes energy, more than you get out of the alcohol that you come
up with at the end.

There's a reason why government subsidies are required to get people
to put ethanol in their gas tank.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
2004-04-24 14:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kristopher
April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm
Saudis said to boost oil output -- No. 1 oil exporter will
reportedly increase production before election in effort
to help Bush.
NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President
Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower
gas prices before November to help the president's
re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
If they really wanted to help Bush, wouldn't they be doing it *now*?
We've only got about six months before the election. Any real
economic impact will take some time to reverberate through the
economy. If oil goes to $15 per barrel in October, it will hardly
help Bush very much.

I recall reading an article which posited the opposite -- that the
Saudis are keeping oil prices high in order to sabotage Bush. Sure,
there are historical ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, but
he's taken a more pro-Israel line than they'd like, and they didn't
support the attack on Iraq. Nor do they want a Democratic Iraq next
door, particularly if it's successful. Given the way Bush has
departed from his father's path, they might very well consider him to
be a turncoat.

In fact, I suspect that they're not gaming the election at all, either
way. Demand is running high because of the US recovery and Chinese
growth. Production isn't on track in Venezuela because the nutcase
running their country has screwed up their oil infrastructure, and the
Saudis want high prices because their state is in real economic
trouble, and they need the money.
--
Pete McCutchen
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...