On Wednesday 23 March 2005 12:26, Mike Carrell wrote:
Stephen wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you
can't squeeze it out fast enough:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Fascinating.
Does anyone here know what the
Standing Bear wrote:
When the oil runs out, we will
go nuclear. There will be some civil problems
as folks for and against the nuclear option 'interact', but the
nuclear
option will be excersized.
All else remaining as it is, this would not do us a bit of good. Oil is
only used for
At 02:28 pm 22-03-05 -0800, you wrote:
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't
squeeze it out fast enough:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
They have no wine. Time to wheel out the five water pots. 8-)
Frank Grimer
Terry Blanton wrote:
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you
can't squeeze it out fast enough:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Fascinating.
Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on
global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy
At 8:34 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you
can't squeeze it out fast enough:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Fascinating.
Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on
Edmund Storms wrote:
I wonder why the article ignores
the fact that deuterium is the only energy source that is in sufficient
amount with a sufficiently high energy density?
Actually, I believe the energy density and availability of uranium would
be enough to produce all the energy we need for a
Stephen wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you
can't squeeze it out fast enough:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Fascinating.
Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on
global warming? Lack
At 11:29 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Research on runaway global warming, due to
methane release and high altitude water vapor, is undervalued due to a type
2 error. Failing to asses the risk early enough has a catastrophically
high negative value. The
This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:39:21
-0700:
Hi,
I wonder why the article ignores the fact that deuterium is the only
energy source that is in sufficient amount with a sufficiently high
energy density? What does it take to make this fact part of government
policy?
10 matches
Mail list logo