Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Slash27 on January 25, 2008, 09:07:40 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_colombia
$300 a barrel oil??:huh
-
You know, put an Iraqi accent on Chavez and he sounds like...
-
I love the smell of regime change in the morning.
-
Esse? You loco man?
Serious though, does anyone but me find it slightly amusing who Chavez has supplanted Kim Jung over in NK when he was being a yappy dog for so long about having the bomb. Then he piped down for a few years - and now our little funny paratrooper is the yappy little dog of the hour.
-
If there was only a way we could get off foreign oil. Oh wait, there is! Bio-fuel from algae and cellulosic ethanol. Hillary in 08!
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
If there was only a way we could get off foreign oil. Oh wait, there is! Bio-fuel from algae and cellulosic ethanol. Hillary in 08!
And you really think Hillary is going to be able to do anything about it.
Her in NJ in a recent poll the polls found Hillary led the list in two categories.
The person who people were most likely to support.
AND the person who people were the LEAST likely to support.
Just what we need. another decisive president who wont be able to get congress to go along with them.
But to get back on topic. Switching over to something else is still YEARS away. not to mention there is going to have to be some sort of standard to make it viable.
That's going to have to be decided even before any decision to make a switch is made.
A process that in Washington typically takes years.
then its going to take years before all the infrastructure is in place not to mention the changeover in all the vehicles,boats and aircraft to support such a switch.
In short. Oil isn't going anywhere any time soon. Nor is our dependency on it.
Not to mention even if we did switch the oil industry will still be vital to our interests.
All you need do is look around you and take into consideration just how many things you use that you yourself consider a "must have" that are made out of plastic.
Then just look around and count all the things you see made out of plastic
Plastic being the second leading byproduct of the oil industry. Oil will still be considered to be vital to our national interests.
You see TALKING about getting off of foreign oil is one thing. Particularly if your a politician trying to get into office. Makes for a great soap box rant.
Actually doing it.
Is entirely another matter.
If only it were that simple.
When someone says "we can just switch to this. or use that instead"
and gives no farther details on exactly how they are going to accomplish this. Its a clear sign of someone claiming to be able to do something who hasnt completely thought it through.
-
But algae produces oil. We would still get oil, but instead of coming from other countries, we would make it in our deserts.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
But algae produces oil. We would still get oil, but instead of coming from other countries, we would make it in our deserts.
And what wouldc the price be? per barrel of this Bio oil as compared to the stuff we pump out of the ground?
that was a serious question
But still. Its going to take years and probably billions of dollars to create the amount of infrastructure to build the kind of facilities needed to produce these kind of fuels in sufficient quantities and inexpensively enough to make it viable.
No matter which way its sliced. Even if we decided today to go that route
Our dependancy on foreign oil isnt going anywhere anytime soon.
And again. you still have to get the knotheads in Washington to agree to do this and how and to who and where the money is going to go to do it.
A proccess which can only be discribed as painstakingly slow at best.
Mark my words. even if Hillary were elected. and even if the Democrats had 100% control over the House and Senate. We will still be dependant on foreign oil and very little whill have changed on that front.
Im not saying that its not a great idea. It may very well be THE idea of the millinium.
But Hillary wont be able to get any more done then has any othe president over the last 40 years.
almost all of whom have made oil a major part of their campagn issues
-
anything you can make from oil, you can make from coal.
-
Originally posted by john9001
anything you can make from oil, you can make from coal.
Any benefit you get from burning something made from coal, you can get cheaper from just burning coal in the first place.
That's the problem with pretty much all the alcohol and hydrogen economy proposals right now. The energy out of those processes is barely more than the energy put into it.
Biofuel has promise, but it's a long road going from getting a few drops of oil out of sludge in a lab to making, refining, and distributing millions of gallons of a useful product at a reasonable price.
Solar has the same basic problem as alcohol right now... It takes a LOT of energy to make a solar panel, so a solar panel is essentially an expensive battery since you're just transferring energy production from the solar cell factory to wherever you put the finished solar panel. Solar cell efficiency gains is making this less and less of an issue, but you can pretty much measure the energy it takes to build a solar cell by looking at it's cost... If it costs $20,000 to make enough solar panels to run your house, you can pretty much estimate that it cost approximately $20,000 of bulk-rate-priced electricity/gas/oil/etc to make the sucker and park it on your roof. That's a lot of energy that went into that solar cell, and it'll take decades to get that much energy back out of it.
The way to boost solar efficiencies enough to make it worthwhile is to park the solar cells up in space, but then you're faced with the energy costs of flinging the power plant up into orbit. Again, those costs are coming down so combined with the efficiency and weight improvements of the required technology, space based power generation via solar power and microwave beaming may approach the tipping point where you get back more than you put in, and the generated power comes at a reasonable price.
Further digging the grave for alcohol production is that as more farmers accept govt handouts to make alcohol instead of food, the price of food will go up. You can make all the solar cells you want without affecting the price of a burrito or sandwich, but switching food production to whatever biomass is currently popular for conversion to alcohol will directly increase food prices. So you pay three times for that alcohol - first, with taxes that go towards alcohol production incentives, second for increased food prices, and third when you buy the stuff at the pump (which is also subsidized at the refinery and fuel production level).
And oh yea, alcohol sucks up water so you need a whole new infrastructure to transport and store the stuff because equipment that works just fine with petroleum products will rust out FAST when you run alcohol through it.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Any benefit you get from burning something made from coal, you can get cheaper from just burning coal in the first place.
It tends to clog up fuel pumps though.
-
I've seen reports of 100,000 gallons per acre of oil from algae reactors. A new research facility is being built in Texas just for this.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Any benefit you get from burning something made from coal, you can get cheaper from just burning coal in the first place.
i was not talking about burning the coal, gasoline and plastics can be made from coal and cellulose, and we not talking about the cost, we talking about eliminating the dependence on oil.
as for "solar cells", thin film photovoltaics is a major breakthrough in production costs.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I've seen reports of 100,000 gallons per acre of oil from algae reactors. A new research facility is being built in Texas just for this.
That sounds ridiculous. Unless of course, we're talking about over a period of 1000 years.
-
100,000 gallons per acre per year.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4438360
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
100,000 gallons per acre per year.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4438360
Not bad, but at what octane?
-
Coal and Crude Oil are depleting Natural Resources. Going to Coal puts you further behind than sticking with Crude Oil. There is about 30 years worth of Crude Oil left. Debate it all that you want, but the time will come when it's gone, or wells must be drilled even deeper to reach to old Prehistoric Swampland/Marshland. It's simple Geology. The MAJORITY of it, is in the Middle East.
Hillary, ANY Democrat and ANY Republican will NOT get the changeover from Crude Oil anytime soon. Why? The Oil Companies and Auto Makers will not allow it. Within 10 years you will see Linde AG sell more of it's locations to Airgas, they already sold the majority of it's Bulk Filling Stations to Airgas. Funny, the Govt. wanted to break up Linde AG "because they were a Monopoly", but now Airgas has 85% of the Bulk Gas Stations in the US.
The key to giving the Middle East the finger is to use Hydrogen or Water. Use a renewable resource and they are on there knees like Jenna Jameson. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell is a good start and could be up and running within 7 years.
Coal is pointless for automobiles. I won't even waste time naming all of the pitfalls.
I haven't been to a Citgo (Venezuelan) Gas Station in about 8 years. They used to put water in their gas. Personally, Chavez is a moron who doesn't deserve the attention that he constantly gets.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And what wouldc the price be? per barrel of this Bio oil as compared to the stuff we pump out of the ground?
that was a serious question
But still. Its going to take years and probably billions of dollars to create the amount of infrastructure to build the kind of facilities needed to produce these kind of fuels in sufficient quantities and inexpensively enough to make it viable.
No matter which way its sliced. Even if we decided today to go that route
Our dependancy on foreign oil isnt going anywhere anytime soon.
And again. you still have to get the knotheads in Washington to agree to do this and how and to who and where the money is going to go to do it.
A proccess which can only be discribed as painstakingly slow at best.
Mark my words. even if Hillary were elected. and even if the Democrats had 100% control over the House and Senate. We will still be dependant on foreign oil and very little whill have changed on that front.
Im not saying that its not a great idea. It may very well be THE idea of the millinium.
But Hillary wont be able to get any more done then has any othe president over the last 40 years.
almost all of whom have made oil a major part of their campagn issues
At worst case it wont cost anymore than what we are paying now and should be much cheaper. (like $1 gal).
My uncle is in a test program and is growing algae oil with the University of Florida. Bio fuel will only cost us more if the farmers lobby has their way and pushes corn based ethanol. (that's one of the biggest scams out of Washington right now).
Also the US is in the process of building I think 3 bio refineries, Bush signed the bill last year, you just didn't hear much about it. Even Bush and co know we need to replace oil, but they don't like to publicly admit it. The wheels are slowly in motion but they are already rolling.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The key to giving the Middle East the finger is to use Hydrogen or Water.
Water does not burn.
Burnable hydrogen is not abundant. It must be manufactured.
To break the molecular bond in water to free it's hydrogen takes more energy than burning the hydrogen.
Freeing hydrogen from hydrocarbon compounds is less efficient than just burning the hydrocarbons as is.
Hydrogen is just a way of storing energy produced by other means.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Water does not burn.
Burnable hydrogen is not abundant. It must be manufactured.
To break the molecular bond in water to free it's hydrogen takes more energy than burning the hydrogen.
Freeing hydrogen from hydrocarbon compounds is less efficient than just burning the hydrocarbons as is.
Hydrogen is just a way of storing energy produced by other means.
You missed the message and current goings on within my last post. BTW, a gentleman in England is running his car off of water as a fuel source. I'll have to dig around for the link.
Coming up with excuses to stay with a fuel that will be eliminated is far from intelligent. E85 is a joke and the majority of the corn used today, is from Govt. subsidized farms. Gee, I wonder who is coming out on the better end of a fuel that "burns cleaner"?
It's a good game of shell game to the consumer. You're supposed to feel great about a "cleaner burning fuel", rather than "come up with alternative fuel sources".
FWIW, I used to work in the Gas Industry. My "underlying theme" will happen. Watch. All of the signs today, point to it happening. Also, freeing Hydrogen is easy for Linde AG. They already have the World's Premier Acetylene Conversion System. Get yourself some Limestone (instead of traditional Coal) and viola! Acetylene.
This technology is being implemented right now to do the same for Hydrogen. It's about time someone (a shame it's a German run Company and not the US) realizes where the future lies.
-
I wonder how many people know that our nation is not dependent on anyone for oil. Perhaps we should unlock the reserves we are not allowed to tap into, that'll screw up his market.
Use theirs, hold onto ours. :)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The key to giving the Middle East the finger is to use Hydrogen or Water. Use a renewable resource and they are on there knees like Jenna Jameson. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell is a good start and could be up and running within 7 years.
Hydrogen? Are you kidding?
Where do we get hydrogen, without starting with something else?
Seriously, it takes energy to crack hydrogen out of water, and not a trivial amount either. Then you have to store and transport the stuff, and it's a lot more hazardous and difficult to do that than it is to transport the fuels we already have. And the ones we already have go kablooi every once in a while even though we've been doing it for many decades now.
Hydrogen sure as heck isn't a renewable resource, since it takes a lot of industrial effort and energy input just to get the hydrogen in the first place, let alone move it anywhere or store it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
BTW, a gentleman in England is running his car off of water as a fuel source. I'll have to dig around for the link.
If you actually believe that, then you're quite possibly the most gullible person who uses these forums. Seriously. Chemistry and physics don't work that way.
If such an engine were to exist, you can bet that it would not be confined to single examples of slightly eccentric brits who won't actually let anyone see how they have managed to defy every known law of physics to run a vehicle off of water.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Hydrogen? Are you kidding?
Where do we get hydrogen, without starting with something else?
Seriously, it takes energy to crack hydrogen out of water, and not a trivial amount either. Then you have to store and transport the stuff, and it's a lot more hazardous and difficult to do that than it is to transport the fuels we already have. And the ones we already have go kablooi every once in a while even though we've been doing it for many decades now.
Hydrogen sure as heck isn't a renewable resource, since it takes a lot of industrial effort and energy input just to get the hydrogen in the first place, let alone move it anywhere or store it.
Hydrogen is all around us. I know how much energy is needed. Again, I worked with Hydrogen.
This isn't the 30's and the Hindenburg isn't around. Oh yeah, I'm not gullible. IIRC, he is getting 75mpg.
-
Originally posted by ROC
I wonder how many people know that our nation is not dependent on anyone for oil. Perhaps we should unlock the reserves we are not allowed to tap into, that'll screw up his market.
Use theirs, hold onto ours. :)
How long do you think our "reserves" would last at our current usage?
Bottom line is this. Folks are so lazy, they'd rather vote for the same lies they hear over and over. Same applies to here, they'd rather think like sheep and "go with the flow".
Venezuela would NOT be affected at all. They pay .75 a gallon for Gasoline.
-
I've seen the water-car. Its just a car with a huge battery and a water tank. The energy from the battery releases the hydrogen from the water, powering a combustion engine.
-
I have the solution for america!
First, we need to develop a means to generate power from fat. That way more than half of the US population can simply plug their cars into their belly and make good use of that lard.
The other half is solved by developing a means of generating power from methane. In this manner, men simply need to sit on a specially modified gas-trapping seat and fart as much as they want.
4 problems solved at once. Damn im a genious ;)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Snip~
I haven't been to a Citgo (Venezuelan) Gas Station in about 8 years. They used to put water in their gas.~Snip
Since water and fuel don't mix, how so?
Someone at the gas station running a water hose to the underground tanks?
Someone at the refinery injecting water into the fuel tankers?
...or maybe the condensation buildup is just not being monitored and controlled at the gas station (regardless of country or company of origin) like it should be?
-
it's something new citgo is trying, it's called "aqua-gas".
-
Originally posted by eagl
Hydrogen? Are you kidding?
Where do we get hydrogen, without starting with something else?
Seriously, it takes energy to crack hydrogen out of water, and not a trivial amount either. Then you have to store and transport the stuff, and it's a lot more hazardous and difficult to do that than it is to transport the fuels we already have. And the ones we already have go kablooi every once in a while even though we've been doing it for many decades now.
Hydrogen sure as heck isn't a renewable resource, since it takes a lot of industrial effort and energy input just to get the hydrogen in the first place, let alone move it anywhere or store it.
Your kidding right? I can make hydrogen with 2 copper rods and a 9V bat and a cup of water.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Since water and fuel don't mix, how so?
Someone at the gas station running a water hose to the underground tanks?
Someone at the refinery injecting water into the fuel tankers?
...or maybe the condensation buildup is just not being monitored and controlled at the gas station (regardless of country or company of origin) like it should be?
Sweet sarcasm, good to see you know the answer but just feel "feisty".
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Sweet sarcasm, good to see you know the answer but just feel "feisty".
Actually you made a statement about water in the gas.
It's a comment ("They used to put water in their gas.") I've heard more than a few times (Yours was the first I've heard from Citco though).
Any fact(s)/theories to support your statement or are you just blowing smoke here?
-
Originally posted by Megalodon
Your kidding right? I can make hydrogen with 2 copper rods and a 9V bat and a cup of water.
Tell us that you were tired and didn't really understand eagl's post you quoted or are you just suffering from a momentary lack of reading comprehension?
-
Originally posted by Megalodon
Your kidding right? I can make hydrogen with 2 copper rods and a 9V bat and a cup of water.
Exactly. That's the point. You have to expend energy to MAKE hydrogen. So energy has to be bottled up *somewhere*, sent to you, where you once again convert it from it's original form to yet another form.
That is inefficient. It's also why solar cells don't "make" electricity quite yet - it takes so much energy to make a solar cell to begin with, that it takes one heck of a long time to get as much energy back as it took to make the thing in the first place.
What that means is in effect, hydrogen and solar cells are no better than another form of battery - they take energy actually produced in one place, and let you expend it elsewhere. That's great if you're located somewhere that makes it very difficult to transport original-source electricity (in space or so far out of town that they won't run power lines to your shack, or in an area experiencing energy utilization that exceeds distribution capacity), but it's not so efficient for other things like driving a car around town. That's why there is such a great economic case to be made for hybrid gas-electric cars - they still run on original-source energy (petrochemicals) but they use batteries to use that source more efficiently.
It's also why pure plug-in electric cars aren't such a good idea yet. Making efficient batteries and lugging them around still uses so much energy that it isn't practical or more efficient than other hybrid designs for anything except very short-haul conditions. Making and then hauling around enough batteries to go very far is just not efficient enough. Plug-in cars are great for golf carts and utility use anywhere that is near enough to a socket so you don't need tons of batteries (such as electric tow vehicles at airports and factory vehicles) but for anything other than that, battery technology hasn't gone forward enough to make it more efficient overall than other concepts.
Of course, I am 100% in favor of forwarding multiple lines of research and development that can change the equation to make it so some of these other ways to grab, convert, store, transport, and use energy, but every one of those alternative energy "sources" must go through at least one full cycle, and any "source" that goes through two cycles is almost inherently doomed to be less efficient.
Capture the energy source from somewhere (mine coal, suck up oil, put up a wind turbine, make a river dam)
Convert the energy to something useful - Refine the oil, turn mechanical wind or water energy into electricity, etc.
Transport the energy - power lines, gas pipelines and fuel trucks, or shipping solar cells somewhere
Store the energy - You won't be using all that energy at once, so you must be able to store it cheaply and without degredation. Gas is relatively easy, alcohol (for example) sucks up water and hydrogen requires high pressure containment.
Use it efficiently - Burning stuff produces emissions and waste heat, electricity is fairly easy but certain items like consumer-grade motors suitable for vehicle use are still expensive.
You gotta go through the whole cycle and measure the cost and efficiency from start to finish. That is why hydrogen is such a bad idea right now - you gotta go through the capture - convert - transport - store cycle at least TWICE to get hydrogen to the user, since there is no such thing as a hydrogen well. You have to first capture-convert-transport-store-use some other energy source before you can even begin making hydrogen. That is not inherently efficient, even though the last step of using hydrogen is attractive even at the consumer level. But for it to get there, you gotta go through the whole cycle twice if not three times (gas to electricity to hydrogen). And that makes hydrogen a lot less useful.
-
This is why biofuel from algae is going to be the next big thing. The algae takes sunlight and CO2, and converts it into hydrocarbons. Send the algae to a refinery and viola! you have oil and gasoline.
-
welcome to the twenty first century.
"Honda also announced the development of next-generation solar cell panels made by Honda Engineering, a Honda subsidiary. The new solar panels feature a light-absorbing layer formed by a compound made of copper, indium, gallium and selenium (CIGS) which lowers the amount of electricity required for production process of solar cells, compared with ordinary silicone-crystal type solar cells. The electrolysis unit, which generates hydrogen from water, has been replaced with a new Honda-developed compact unit that achieves higher efficiency using a new Ruthenium based catalyst. Both the new solar cells and the new electrolysis unit are mounted on the Honda solar-cell powered hydrogen refueling station in Torrance, California to improve the total efficiency. "
the fuel is produced on site from sunlight and water.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
This is why biofuel from algae is going to be the next big thing. The algae takes sunlight and CO2, and converts it into hydrocarbons. Send the algae to a refinery and viola! you have oil and gasoline.
Lots of really smart people who didn't buy into the alcohol hype are also thinking that algae biofuels might be the next big thing. Heck, sci-fi writers have been talking about algae bio-whatever (fuel, food, plastics, etc) for the last few decades, and those guys make a living out of dreaming up the next big thing.
I am personally cautiously optimistic about the algae bio-fuels... A LOT of research still has to be done on making the entire cycle work efficiently, and all the leading companies are keeping their work very proprietary and close-hold, which will probably slow down the progress of the whole initiative. Still, it does seem to be a promising line of research. And really, that's all that's being done with it right now - research. The alcohol and hydrogen fans will beat up the bio-fuel guys all day on that point, because you can go out and (with a little effort) buy an alcohol or hydrogen burning car today, but you can't go out and buy a bio-fuel car and run it on algae produced fuel anywhere, unless you own a lab that's actually having some success with the process.
-
Originally posted by john9001
welcome to the twenty first century.
"Honda also announced the development of next-generation solar cell panels made by Honda Engineering, a Honda subsidiary. The new solar panels feature a light-absorbing layer formed by a compound made of copper, indium, gallium and selenium (CIGS) which lowers the amount of electricity required for production process of solar cells, compared with ordinary silicone-crystal type solar cells. The electrolysis unit, which generates hydrogen from water, has been replaced with a new Honda-developed compact unit that achieves higher efficiency using a new Ruthenium based catalyst. Both the new solar cells and the new electrolysis unit are mounted on the Honda solar-cell powered hydrogen refueling station in Torrance, California to improve the total efficiency. "
the fuel is produced on site from sunlight and water.
I guarantee you that they are using electricity and/or natural gas piped in from somewhere else. Guaranteed. No company in the world has boot-strapped solar cell production to the point where it is self-sustaining. Yes it's getting more efficient every year, but you still can't get enough power from a solar cell to make another solar cell. No way, not yet.
-
On biofuels... CNN has a report on possible negative environmental impacts from biofuels.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html
It looks like they're focusing on ethanol production, although the article is very careful to say "biofuel" rather than "alcohol" even though that's what they really mean. Turning food crops into alcohol, and destroying endangered environments to plant more crops to be turned into alcohol and burned.
It is interesting that this process (trashing forests to plant stuff and then burning the results) is being funded by the very same people who have been decrying this exact same thing for decades. Oops. Thank you very little Mr. Gore.
-
If I remember my chemistry right you can make Hydrogen by dropping magnesium into hydrochloric acid. Not sure if its viable as I have no idea where magnesium is found or how much is available, or what produces hydrochloric acid and how much energy is involved.
running electric current through water to produce hydrogen loses energy. I remember doing it in chemistry class and we measured the energy amounts going in, and the potential energy of combusting the hydrogen produced. its not a huge loss of energy but its a loss. Maybe if we combine solar and hydrogen it would work.
As I said in another thread, my school gets 100% of its power from eco-friendly hydro-electric plants. these dams are designed so that they have almost no impact on the river they are in. They are just extremely expensive to build.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Actually you made a statement about water in the gas.
It's a comment ("They used to put water in their gas.") I've heard more than a few times (Yours was the first I've heard from Citco though).
Any fact(s)/theories to support your statement or are you just blowing smoke here?
Meijer Inc was nailed for putting water in their gas about 6 years ago.
Citgo is 5 cents cheaper than any other station around me, but, I'll never support em.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
If I remember my chemistry right you can make Hydrogen by dropping magnesium into hydrochloric acid. Not sure if its viable as I have no idea where magnesium is found or how much is available, or what produces hydrochloric acid and how much energy is involved.
running electric current through water to produce hydrogen loses energy. I remember doing it in chemistry class and we measured the energy amounts going in, and the potential energy of combusting the hydrogen produced. its not a huge loss of energy but its a loss. Maybe if we combine solar and hydrogen it would work.
As I said in another thread, my school gets 100% of its power from eco-friendly hydro-electric plants. these dams are designed so that they have almost no impact on the river they are in. They are just extremely expensive to build.
You are correct. But a few other's have yet to feel the need to reduce the dependency on Crude Oil.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hydrogen is all around us. I know how much energy is needed. Again, I worked with Hydrogen.
This isn't the 30's and the Hindenburg isn't around. Oh yeah, I'm not gullible. IIRC, he is getting 75mpg.
1. Hydrogen, bound up in molecules, is all around us, but you need to release it from the molecular bonds to make it a fuel.
2. Water is the result of H combustion, so you need to reverse the combustion in order to release the H from its watery bond.
3. It takes more energy to release hydrogen from the water molecule than you get from burning the hydrogen you produce. If this were not the case, perpetual motion would be possible. It ain't.
4. It takes less energy to produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
5. As the fuel is so abundant as to be virtually free, why would this man in England need to get 75 mpg? 5 mpg woul be fine with me.
6. When something sounds too ood to be true, it is.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
5. As the fuel is so abundant as to be virtually free, why would this man in England need to get 75 mpg? 5 mpg woul be fine with me.
6. When something sounds too ood to be true, it is.
But why do we pay for bottled water?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
But why do we pay for bottled water?
I don't.
There is a wonderful Penn and Teller "Bovine Excrement" episode that deals with bottled water.
But as Einstein said, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."