|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one. Surely you mean ass-hat. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:53:53 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote: Curtis L. Russell wrote: Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one. Surely you mean ass-hat. BTW, I have to admit, I don't understand the purpose of the commercial, except to reinforce to current viewers that they should keep watching ESPN. I haven't seen it aired anywhere else and to a generally non-sport person like my wife (she basically knows cycling, ACC basketball and a bit of ACC football), the references make no sense. As far as she is concerned (AFASIC), yeah, the Spurs, whoever they are, don't have a chance this year, in whatever sport they play. They did mention Lance and marathoning, though. Me, I watch to see people bludgeoned unconscious in hockey games. Cycling could use more of that stuff. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry. I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to being economically viable even without subsidies and that with economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable in the near future - without subsidies. Then by all means why don't you invest in them. Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one. Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy they return? I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without subsidies". |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
t... Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin Redwoods would remain unchanged. Collateral damage is a terrible thing. But what the heck does this have to do with bicycle racing? The same sort of collateral damage is occurring in bike racing - wild imaginations making drugs more important than anything else. Let's face it Mike, when the whack jobs are in control of everything, the whole world is whacky. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
Tom Kunich wrote:
snip Tom: I just read in Nature the full 4th report is out, Nature lists 600 authors, representatives from 113 governments, and 620 expert reviewers. So the 1500 number wasn't all that far off. Also, it didn't take them all that long to reconcile the executive summary with the full report. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0701...070129-15.html Interestingly, that link will redirect to: http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEar...ation/USAMustB eDestroyed.html you will also want to read http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEar...ation/UseHuman sAsFood.html -- Bill Asher |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
wrote in message
ups.com... On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin Redwoods would remain unchanged. it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is invented by you. Do you really think so? The USA provides about 60% of the surplus food in the world. Most of the conveniently arable land in the world is now under cultivation. While we could expand farming it becomes considerably more expensive and because the farmed areas are marginal they become far more sensitive to climatic variations. In another location I did the math that showed that we presently grown about 16% of the corn and soybeans that would be required to TOTALLY replace oil use in this country. And at the present rates of energy use growth it would be a much smaller percentage before we could even switch production over. If we were to remove the entire corn and soybean output from our food production it would almost wipe out our surplus food production. Entire areas of Africa and Asia that are presently being supported by the surplus food in the world would be without food so that white middle class Americans could feel like they're saving the world. Do you suppose those people would quietly starve to death? Digging deep into your own intellect what would YOU think would be the result of cutting off the food supply to massive areas of the world? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070123-2.html "To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017." Here's a little analysis of that - the US presently uses approximately 9 million barrels of oil PER DAY. The cracking process is pretty efficient but let's say that a 44 gallon barrel of oil will only make 30 gallons of gasoline. That means that each day the US uses about 270 million gallons of gasoline a day. Let's round that off to 300 million since we're really conservative with the efficiency of conversion. This means that we're using 110 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Also we're using some billion tons of coal every single year. You see that number up there? The 35 billion gallons? That's pure bull**** since that would be some one third of present day gasoline usage and as I pointed out we don't grow that much corn. Of course they're talking about using "sawgrass" since it grows more efficiently. Well, that's the present story. Because, you see, it doesn't grow more efficiently. Grass is water and energy intensive. While it grows very rapidly when conditions are good, it strips most of the energy out of the ground and continuous plantings of it would soon deplete the soil making the land it is growing on pretty worthless. But exactly how difficult is THAT to figure out? Where would the energy in the grass come from? The carbohydrates would require a lot of fertilizers and water since grass has a lot of surface area to plant mass. What's more, we already know that presently there IS NO bacteria capable of converting grass to ethanol with anything like efficiency. The word is that they would have to completely redesign the bacteria for these purposes from the ground up. And we have absolutely no idea how to do such a thing. So we're looking at least a ten year project just to design the bacteria that will convert sawgrass to ethanol and then any farmer would tell you that the marginal areas they're talking about for growing sawgrass would soon be depleted and untenable. Photovoltaics never return their production costs in energy generation. The only sources of energy which is clean and efficient is nuclear energy. We are in great need of about a thousand nuclear generators over the USA and then we'd be in a position to cut oil and coal use by a lot. But the bottom line is this - if you expect to use the US surplus of food to replace our present use of fuels then you had better be ready for a world war. And it won't be a nice small clean war. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On Feb 12, 4:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in messagenews:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax .com... On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry. I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to being economically viable even without subsidies and that with economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable in the near future - without subsidies. Then by all means why don't you invest in them. Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one. Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy they return? I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without subsidies". dumbass, you could've made the same claim about the canadian oil industry. it crept along for years on massive govt. subsidies ...until the time was right. now it's booming. of course it pollutes like a mother****er. in ontario it's relatively easy for a schmoe to get into the wind energy game. if you can get the permit to build one you can run your meter backwards : http://greenbreeze.ca/energyfaqs.html and perhaps even sell energy : http://greenbreeze.ca/energystandard.html but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course they can still be wrong). lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold) have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where i'd put my money. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Paul Cassel" wrote in message
. .. Tom Kunich wrote: At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing it and that therefore man is evil. No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause of this. Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input into the situation. It seemed to peak about 1940 and started back down at the point when man's increasing use of energy was at it's highest growth. By 1970 the hysterics were claiming Global Cooling would kill the majority of mankind. I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said that. Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one area - leftist political propaganda. Shortly after the greenies were screaming about the coming ice age the temperature started back up again. And lo and behold but now WE'RE the cause of the heating. There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhe The earth isn't something that is easily effected by man. While I'm certain that we're having some effects, most of them are highly localized and the sum of them is buried in the noise of natural climatic variation. While man probably is having the sum zero effect on climate change he most certainly could have a serious effect if he starts fiddling with the climate. One suggestion is that we build a more efficient carbon fixing plankton and release it into the oceans. While the amount of carbon in the atmosphere CAN'T rise too much (it will level off around 400 ppm) cutting too much CO2 out of the atmosphere COULD be done and would have some very serious consequences. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:g%%zh.63335$Oa.38502@edtnps82... "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message k.net... At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing Caught your limit on that one, Tom. But I have an unlimited license..... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On Feb 12, 11:48 am, Curtis L. Russell
wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry. I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to being economically viable even without subsidies and that with economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable in the near future - without subsidies. Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They don't know **** and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal commie plotters. Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people with no understanding of engineering would go there. Bill C |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ? | [email protected] | Racing | 21 | October 14th 06 02:15 PM |
[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design | Ernst Noch | Racing | 63 | September 1st 05 06:25 PM |
Intelligent comment | Mikefule | Unicycling | 25 | July 21st 05 03:05 AM |
more intelligent computers | Miles | General | 7 | December 8th 04 01:52 AM |
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 7 | September 30th 03 04:55 PM |