Article

2004-06-06 Down Under

Aussie al-Qaeda supporter sez his group is growing

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-06-06 12:22:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sheik Omran is also a close personal friend of Abu Qatada, which tells you everything you need to know about him.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2004-06-06 2:04:38 AM|| 2004-06-06 2:04:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Bet you the 2.6 mil is coming from Soddi and other such Mohammedan holes.

Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-06-06 7:05:46 AM|| 2004-06-06 7:05:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 part of his organisation, has allegedly tried to raise millions of dollars in Saudi Arabia to expand its operations in Sydney

In honor of Ronnie - I can only say two words... Fuel Cells, baby. Fuel cells. Ronnie ended the cold war by building a bigger and better military that ultimately bankrupted the funding of the Communist war machine. We can bankrupt the funding of militant Islam and it's madrassas by building fuel cells.

Posted by B 2004-06-06 7:23:30 AM|| 2004-06-06 7:23:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 And what energy source do you propose for the fuel cells? Because most of what I have read assumes the energy magically appears. Otherwise I agree with your sentiment, and the only current technically feasible answer is nuclear power.

Posted by Phil B 2004-06-06 8:03:26 AM|| 2004-06-06 8:03:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 peace and love to you phil. Let's just step away from the oil. If it disappeared tomorrow we'd find a way to heat our homes and move our people within a year.

All's I'm saying is let's put our money where it really counts: fuel cells; nuclear; trash conversion; water wheels...what difference does it make? Let's just move away from the oil and let the Saudi princes eat cake.

Posted by B 2004-06-06 8:16:47 AM|| 2004-06-06 8:16:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Theoretically(techologically not feasable,yet)fuel cells can operate on water.
A fuel cell generates electricity by seperating hydrogen fron oxygen,then recombing.With ehaust emisions consisting of water vapor.
The reason gasaline or diseal is preferred for fuel cells now is because of the higher hydrogen content and ease of seperation.I was watching Tactical to Practical(History Channel,hosted by Hunter Elis former FA-18 pilot)The U.S.Army has a couple of fuel cell prototype vehicles up and running.Germany has a couple of subs that operate on fuel cell tech.

Posted by Raptor 2004-06-06 9:46:32 AM|| 2004-06-06 9:46:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sorry Raptor, but you clearly have no idea how a fuel cell works. A fuel cell works by taking a substance(s) that can be converted into other substances and yield (electrical) energy in the process. An example is hydrogen combined with oxygen to create water and yielding energy.

Fuel cells do not solve the 'where does the energy come from in the first place' problem' and as I have pointed out before they in fact make the problem a lot worse, by requiring substantially more energy inputs. SDB has a good (if somewhat long) post today on this topic.

Posted by Phil B 2004-06-06 10:06:26 AM|| 2004-06-06 10:06:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Raptor is right that we can run fuel cells off water, BUT first the hydro has to be seperated from the water, and this is an energy intensive activity ( more than you get from the hydro in the fuel cell) only way to produce the terrawats we would need is more nuke plants ( or lean how to dig REALLY deep holes)

Posted by dcreeper 2004-06-06 12:05:51 PM|| 2004-06-06 12:05:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The problem with alternative energy is that the original energy conversion to get the fuel is expensive. The energy from oil came from the sun millions of years ago. It is in effect a solar energy account that we are drawing from now. To get the hydrogen and oxygen separated from water requires electrolysis, which takes energy from somewhere. TANSTAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I learned that in 7th grade.

Steve DenBeste has an excellent essay on the magnitude of the problem. He discusses the problem of converting just 1% of daily US energy consumption to alternative sources.

www.denbeste.nu

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-06 12:40:57 PM|| 2004-06-06 12:40:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 You are so right AP! Rule #1 of thermodynamics is TANSTAFL, Rule #2 says you cannot even break even, and Rule #3 says there ain't no other game in town!

We simply cannot put up enough solar and wind generation to make a decent dent in our huge demand. Their inefficincies and maldistributions would requre even more losses in gigantic energy storage systems.

The only local and short to med term sources are our huge coal supply, the Canuck tarsands, and good old North American uranium. Let's get digging!

Posted by Craig 2004-06-06 1:35:23 PM|| 2004-06-06 1:35:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Clean coal burning fuel cell.

From a comment by Jos Bleau at FuturePundit:
Direct carbon conversion fuel cells are likely the best way to double powerplant efficiency.
"The reaction yields 80 percent of the carbonâoxygen combustion energy as electricity. It provides up to 1 kilowatt of power per square meter of cell surface areaâa rate sufficiently high for practical applications. Yet no burning of the carbon takes place.
"âWhat if we could nearly double the energy conversion efficiency of fossil fuels in electric power generation over the conversion efficiency of todayâs coal-fired power plantsâwhich is about 40 percentâand thereby cut the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt almost in half?â asks lead researcher John Cooper, scientific capability leader for electrochemistry and corrosion in Lawrence Livermoreâs Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate. âAnd what if we could produce a pure carbon dioxide byproduct for sequestration or industrial use at no additional cost of separation while avoiding the air pollution problems associated with combustion?â
And there's no advantages to large scale operations so powerplants could be much closer to users, cutting distribution/transmission costs while making the whole system much more robust.
More here:
http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/carbon_con.html

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-06-06 2:04:48 PM|| 2004-06-06 2:04:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Which would be easier- to move us away from the oil- or to move the Saudis away from the oil? See .com for more details.

Posted by Grunter 2004-06-06 2:10:27 PM|| 2004-06-06 2:10:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 gee, if there's no living Saudis, we'd be within rights to take ownership, right?

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-06 3:33:47 PM|| 2004-06-06 3:33:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 In the long term, we need to squeeze more efficiency from existing petroleum supplies and to develop alternative forms of energy that the whole world can use. This strengthens Japan and emerging nations. Concentrations of energy supply in the hands of psychopaths is not an option. This will reqire the efforts of our best minds. Thought the energy issue is becoming a crisis, I also look at it as a challenge and an opportunity. I do not see the innovative future of US energy being solved by the Dems or Republicans. The people will have to lead in this one. The Dems and Republicans have sold their collective souls out long ago.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-06 3:59:08 PM|| 2004-06-06 3:59:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 TANSTAFL

WTFU?
Free Huey! Free Mumia! Free Willie Horton!

Please more talk about driving into the sea.

Posted by Shamu 2004-06-06 6:17:24 PM|| 2004-06-06 6:17:24 PM|| Front Page Top

17:52 Ernest Brown
12:26 Ernest Brown
12:22 Ernest Brown
12:09 Aris Katsaris
11:59 Ernest Brown
11:54 Ernest Brown
10:57 virginian
10:38 Aris Katsaris
10:33 virginian
10:08 Phil B
09:55 Aris Katsaris
09:35 Aris Katsaris
09:34 Ernest Brown
09:13 Raptor
02:17 .com
01:49 Aris Katsaris
01:42 Long Hair Republican
01:27 .com
01:14 someone
01:07 Aris Katsaris
01:02 Aris Katsaris
00:56 .com
00:51 badanov
00:51 Aris Katsaris