Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Fwd: Bobby, stand with us today:



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Energy Nation" <info@energynation.org>
Date: July 31, 2013 5:20:06 PM GMT-06:00
To: <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: Bobby, stand with us today:

Dispatch from Energy Nation

Bobby --

You're probably sick of hearing about how "biofuels are better for the environment."

We know we are -- so we want to make sure everyone knows the facts and takes action.

Here are the top 5 reasons biofuel mandates in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are actually bad for the environment:

  1. Producing and consuming corn ethanol could double greenhouse gas emissions over the next 30 years.
  2. 19,000,000 more acres of corn have been planted this year than were planted 7 years ago. Using more land for corn takes a major toll on America's grassland and wetlands.
  3. We'll need to convert another 30 to 60 million acres of land into farmland by 2022 to meet the rising biofuel requirements that the RFS demands.
  4. Ethanol contains 33% less energy per gallon than gasoline, lowering your car's fuel economy.
  5. It takes 3 to 6 times the water to produce ethanol than to produce gasoline.

It's clear this mandate isn't working. Help us repeal it today.

Thank you for your support,
The Energy Nation Team

We Are Energy Nation

Energy Nation brings together the hard-working people of America's oil and natural gas industry to ensure our voices are heard by our nation's policy makers. We are the employees, retirees, vendors, and suppliers who develop and deliver the energy that fuels the American economy and way of life.

We're talking about energy in America online. Join the conversation. EN Facebook Twitter LinkedIn GooglePlus YouTube

View Email in Browser | Update Your Preferences | Unsubscribe | 1220 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005-4070

tradeoff is that to give up the Keystone Pipeline and replace that power with solar thermal power would require over 100 of these 3,500 acre plants. Or, to think of it another way, 3.5 days of flow through Keystone XL would provide the annual energy equivalent of the BrightSource project. | keeptheshuttleflying.com

http://keeptheshuttleflying.com/?p=889&preview=true&preview_id=889&preview_nonce=c400dcc9fb


Sent from my iPad

Monday, July 15, 2013

Inept leaders in dc

After spending all the money/effort on shuttle, developing the most capable vehicle on earth, placing Hubble & ISS in orbit, the ignorant fools in dc place it in a museum. This also places Hubble & ISS in danger. Additionally, ISS can't be operated as efficiently. What a bunch of idiots/morons running this country! Their ineptness is destroying many areas of the US economy.

Sent from my iPad

Friday, July 12, 2013

Fwd: Should the EPA have control over your gas tank?



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Livingston" <eletter@news.personalliberty.com>
Date: July 12, 2013 10:08:56 AM GMT-06:00
To: Bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Subject: Should the EPA have control over your gas tank?
Reply-To: eletter@personalliberty.com

Should the EPA have control over your gas tank?

Bobby, thanks for subscribing since 01/16/2012View as Webpage | White List Us | Unsubscribe

Personal Liberty

Dear Bobby,

Please find below a special message from our friends at Energy Citizens. They have some important information to share with you.

Sincerely,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, Personal Liberty Digest™
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™



Dear Bobby:

Every week, Americans across the nation rely on their cars, trucks, and SUVs to get to work, take their kids to school, and run their businesses. Almost every week, hard-working Americans need to stop at their local gas station to fuel up.

The last thing we need to worry about is what "blend" of fuel the EPA thinks we should put in our gas tanks.

But that's not what Congress was considering when they passed the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The standard mandated that gradually increasing amounts of biofuels be blended into gasoline and diesel. However, when they set this arbitrary amount, they didn't realize that the amount of gasoline and diesel we are using is steadily decreasing. In short, there is not enough gasoline and diesel to absorb the biofuel.

We need to tell Congress that the Renewable Fuel Standard is not the right answer for American's energy strategy.

Failure to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard this year will create big problems for American consumers:

  • Ethanol blends above 10% could damage millions of vehicles on the road today and void engine warranties;
  • Higher ethanol blends could harm gas station infrastructure;
  • The economic damage will impact everyone.
The answer is clear: The RFS is an unworkable federal mandate that must be repealed. Take action today!

Sincerely,

Energy Citizens


TO UNSUBSCRIBE:
You subscribed to Personal Liberty Digest™ on 01/16/2012 and are receiving this email at Bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com because you indicated an interest in receiving special updates and offers from Personal Liberty Alerts. We hope you'll find these updates interesting and informative. But if you'd rather not receive them, click here. You will be immediately removed from our database. Remember, your personal information will never be rented or sold and you may unsubscribe at any time.


Personal Liberty Digest
P.O. Box 1105
Cullman, AL 35056

Our Privacy Policy

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Green energy is truly a myth!

Percentage by source (fossil, nuclear , wind, solar) are:
Fossil: 86%
non fossil: hydroelectric 6%
                   Nuclear.        8%
                   Others.          0.9%

Other—– solar, wind , geothermal, wood, waste

Bho says drilling not the answer.  Looking at these numbers, the USA and world are going to RUN out if we don't use fossil fuels.  Green energy is truly a myth.  Simple as that.  Look at the fossil reserves below in the USA .  Apparently, bho is not very intelligent—I sort of had that feeling

It was estimated by the Energy Information Administration that in 2007 primary sources of energy consisted of petroleum 36.0%, coal 27.4%, natural gas 23.0%, amounting to an 86.4% share for fossil fuels in primary energy consumption in the world.[4] Non-fossil sources in 2006 included hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 8.5%, and others (geothermal, solar,tide, wind, wood, waste) amounting to 0.9%.[5] World energy consumption was growing about 2.3% per year.

Levels of primary energy sources are the reserves in the ground. Flows are production. The most important part of primary energy sources are the carbon based fossil energy sources. Coal, oil, and natural gas provided 79.6% of primary energy production during 2002 (in million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe)) (34.9+23.5+21.2).
Levels (proved reserves) during 2005–2007
Coal: 997,748 million short tonnes (905 billion metric tonnes),[13] 4,416 billion barrels (702.1 km3) of oil equivalent
Oil: 1,119 billion barrels (177.9 km3) to 1,317 billion barrels (209.4 km3)[14]
Natural gas: 6,183–6,381 trillion cubic feet (175–181 trillion cubic metres),[14] 1,161 billion barrels (184.6×109 m3) of oil equivalent
Flows (daily production) during 2006
Coal: 18,476,127 short tonnes (16,761,260 metric tonnes),[15] 52,000,000 barrels (8,300,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day
Oil: 84,000,000 barrels per day (13,400,000 m3/d)[16]
Natural gas: 104,435 billion cubic feet (2,960 billion cubic metres),[17] 19,000,000 barrels (3,000,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day
Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above
Coal: 148 years
Oil: 43 years
Natural gas: 61 years
Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic proved reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)[citation needed]
Coal: 417 years
Oil: 43 years
Natural gas: 167 years

However, a recent  technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves,

and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is  light, sweet oil,

those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16  PER BARREL !!!!!!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy  for 2041 years straight.

And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then  this next one should – because it's from 2006 !!!!!!

U. S. Oil Discovery  – Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online -  4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains  lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world.

It is more than 2  TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted.

With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore  drilling?

They reported this stunning news:

We have more oil  inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here  are the official estimates:

8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

18  times as much oil as Iraq

21 times as much oil as Kuwait

22 times  as much oil as Iran

500 times as much oil as Yemen

and it's all  right here in the Western United States !!!!!!

HOW can this BE? HOW can  we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked  all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are  letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.  WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil  in this very compact area than the entire Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION  barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in  the world today, reports The Denver Post.



Sent from my iPad

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Fwd: Very dumb move by bolden/garver/bho ----such low intellect ----unbelievable !!



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob & Emile Martin <bobandemileinoakwood@gmail.com>
Date: June 16, 2013 12:46:06 PM GMT-06:00
To: bobbygmartin1938.casper@blogger.com, bobbygmartin1938.casperx@blogger.com, bobbygmartin1938.caspers@blogger.com
Subject: Very dumb move by bolden/garver/bho ----such low intellect ----unbelievable !!

Very dumb move now complete. Read to see extent of damage to USA space program!
On the Early Retirement of the Space Shuttle

File image.
by George W. Jeffs
for Launchspace
Bethesda MD (SPX) May 17, 2011
A Symbol: An in-space ballerina and hypersonic flying marvel, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is almost impossible for others to duplicate and continues to generate international admiration and respect for U.S. technical capabilities.
Full Potential Not Yet Realized: The multi-functional Orbiter has performed "as designed" on all assignments including reentry and a key role in the International Space Station (ISS) assembly. Like any new manned system, as crews and engineers become more familiar (like a helicopter) performance "in the box" improves and extending-the-box opportunities are identified. So far the Orbiter has operated generally within the box.

Too Young For Retirement: Each remaining Orbiter has many missions and years of life remaining. The Orbiter was designed for a one hundred mission life with a factor of four (i.e. 400 flight potential). It has experienced low flight rates and has not been structurally overloaded (maximum loads occur during the boost phase and high wind shear situations have been avoided through pre-flight meteorological observations) and receives a complete examination and any necessary refurbishment between each flight.

The System is Safe for Continued Man Flights: No critical failures have originated from within the triply redundant Orbiter itself but like any spacecraft designed for light-weight, it is vulnerable to abuse (e.g. SRB O rings, ET insulation debris); these are now known and addressable problems. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME)s were my principal safety concern through the development years but their flight record has been excellent and it may be that the integrity of recovered, refurbished rocket engines is as good as or even better than new ones. Some rocket engine incipient failures may lie undetected in ocean graves.

Real Usability Through "Landing With Dignity": Turnaround man hours are costly for the Orbiter, not the least demanding being the heat shield preparation and changes are continually being made to improve the situation. Even so, this relatively light-weight, first generation radiant heat shield is itself reusable and obviates having to pay for a new vehicle and other ancillary costs such as ocean recovery for every flight. Note: In depth reviews of "flown" Apollo command modules concluded that second flights of the hardware would be too costly at that time.

New Space Initiatives Depend On The Orbiter For Identification and Pursuit: The on-orbit assembly option for a deep space manned system became more viable upon completion of the International Space Station (ISS) using the Orbiter. An "Orbiter" segment of a deep space system would be used in assembly activities, on-orbit transfers, tug functions and most importantly for the crew Earth-to-orbit and orbit-to-Earth transfer. Reliance on an Orbiter for re-entry would eliminate configuration constraints on size and shape and the weight of items such as parachutes, heat shields and landing impact structure and the energy needed to transport this otherwise useless added weight throughout the entire deep space mission. This approach essentially would trade-off these advantages against the development of an additional propulsion module for return from deep space to high/low Earth orbit. The present Orbiter would be a key mechanism in the early development of such an on-orbit assembled system.

The Shuttle Continues to Be An Intriguing Candidate For "Commercialization": The system is presently operational. Its payload-to-orbit delivery and other capabilities are well documented. Its risks are known and assessable for payload insurance and crew-safety considerations and industrial elements are already doing much of the work in many areas. Bailing, leasing and/or other type of agreement for use of government equipment (Orbiters, pads, control centers, etc.) is probably feasible in some arrangement. Needed is an industry, NASA-government, Congressional meeting of the minds on all related elements including government flight requirements, (e.g. ISS servicing) and commercial pricing policies. If such a government hand-off to industry could be affected it would, of course, keep the Shuttle Program available for another decade or two should presently unforeseen government needs arise (even today it would be most helpful to have Apollo supply and rescue vehicles that serviced Skylab available for use on the ISS).

U. S. Taxpayers Have Not Yet Realized Their Full Return-on-Investment (ROI) From the Shuttle System:

+ It really works; it is not just a briefing chart promise.

+ It has much life remaining and could be the key to the identification and development of new systems.

+ It is man-rated and safe–probably as safe as any manned system will be-no others will get over one hundred flights down the learning curve.

+ The infrastructure is in place and operational and has provided industry through extensive, hands-on participation with the depth of training necessary to assume total system accountability.

+ To replace the Orbiter capabilities will take decades and billions.

Decommissioning the Space Shuttle should be postponed indefinitely.

George W. Jeffs is the former President of Space and Energy Operations [including Shuttle Orbiter, Integration and Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)] at Rockwell International. He is also the former President of the Space Division, North American Aviation-Rockwell International [including Apollo Command and Service Modules and the Space Shuttle Orbiter]. He is also a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings.

Share This Article With Planet Earth
del.icio.us Digg Reddit
YahooMyWeb Google Facebook

Related Links
Launchspace
Space Analysis and Space OpEds

Search All Our Sites – Powered By Google

Building a Heavenly Palace in outer space
Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Apr 29, 2011
China's permanent space station, the Heavenly Palace, is to be launched into orbit within a decade. According to Chinese media reports, the 60-ton craft will include a central module and two laboratories, for a crew of three. So, it's really more like a country cottage than a palace. This all-Chinese project was unveiled earlier this week in the capital, Beijing. To the public at home, the … read more

Sent from my iPad