A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What - Intelligent Thought?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 12th 07, 11:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

wrote in message
ups.com...

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).


Mutual funds mostly mid cap.

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.


It really doesn't pay to put your money into individual stocks unless you're
rich and can take the ups and downs of the market. Most market "experts" are
people who got in at the right time in the right market and think that they
got rich because they were smart instead of lucky.



Ads
  #42  
Old February 13th 07, 12:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
SLAVE of THE STATE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:38 pm, "
wrote:

I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
cost billions of lives. Where did you get that?


For whatever you say Tom's problems are here, your's are far worse.
Billions? Who knows? But don't do your typical "I can't see the
forest through the trees; Ben Franklin didn't say that" because of
your distaste for Tom.

If I were to play you in chess, I would beat you every time. That is
because you only see the state of the board at present, while I make a
point of looking ahead many moves.

For example, your solution to poverty is to "give" someone else's
money/assets to the impoverished. It never occurs to you to ask: "And
then what? And then what? And then what? ..."

Your
carbon load now scales more or less with your standard of
living and the vast majority of people in the world have
a fairly low standard of living, but they aren't about
to drop dead from their low carbon emissions.


Indeed. They'd more likely drop dead from industrialized nation's
reduction in carbon emissions, since they'll probably go from sweat
shop poor to dead poor. But heck, that'll only confuse you.

The problem is reconciling an attempt
to keep CO2 down with everybody's perfectly
understandable desire for an improved standard
of living.


No ****, that's the essence of the point. Even a blind pig can root
up a turnip occasionally.

Do something you've never done before. Go past square one.

Ask, "If 'we' reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy consumption,
what happens?"

"And then what? And then what? And then what? ..."

Can you do it? I always want to believe you can.




  #43  
Old February 13th 07, 12:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
SLAVE of THE STATE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 2:18 pm, "
wrote:

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).


I don't know about Canada, but the US is increasingly becoming a weird
Commie-Fascist hybrid poli-system. Which is to say, the guvmint makes
sure that the people who believe in something are encouraged not to
put up their own money, but instead, someone else's.

  #44  
Old February 13th 07, 01:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
SLAVE of THE STATE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:32 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?


Whichever is less.

Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars.


I think you're saying "our" energy supply is not "insecure," since
they'll always undercut on price. And here the guvmint said it is
insecure. Those ****ers -- they can never tell the truth. LOL

  #45  
Old February 13th 07, 02:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
SLAVE of THE STATE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:46 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

From:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html


Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost
basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or
may not be cost competitive.


You should make the argument that fossil fuels are incorrectly priced
because of external costs. That is one of the favorite buzz-words for
intervention.

And also:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandh...potential.html
That is a lot of purple and blue in the east. ouch. That essentially
means high transmission costs, something doubtfully considered when
putting one's best foot forward, as below (I propose a new convention
in rbr-speak: best foot forward == doctoring the data filter).

Notice how completely vague is "have the potential to supply more than
one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United
States." I'll bet it is, except when you start considering
constraints C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4....C_N, lim N-inf. I'll put money on
it that it is some theoretical calculation that won't come close to
being acheived in practice, no matter how much money you throw at it.

I have nothing against wind power, I think it is great, but I'll bet
it can only meet perhaps 10% of current demand, when matched to most
of its cost effective applications. Yet energy demand will continue
to grow. Wants are never satisfied.

Even though the site you linked is one big sales pitch, I wish you'd
read it a little more closely. There are a lot of very hard problems
to solve. The batteries, when used, aren't "clean, no pollution."
The storage problem alone is major. It isn't magic. If people want
to cut carbon, but not cause major dislocations, I think they'll have
to go nuke-u-lar. France has gone nuke-u-lar, and we luv France,
don't we?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandh...ch_accept.html
"The Technology Acceptance activity works to provide information about
wind energy technology and its potential benefits to the stakeholder
community, to allow informed decision-making, and to reduce undue
barriers to wind energy's use."

Lingo like "stakeholder community" should be setting off the bull****
bingo lights in your head.

  #46  
Old February 13th 07, 05:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in message
ups.com...

I have nothing against wind power, I think it is great, but I'll bet
it can only meet perhaps 10% of current demand, when matched to most
of its cost effective applications. Yet energy demand will continue
to grow. Wants are never satisfied.


The Altamont Pass in the San Francisco bay area is one of the most perfect
spots in the USA for windpower. This was the first place to install wind
turbines in large quantities. And yet the turbines operate less than 25% of
the time, cost so much to maintain that as soon as the generators become
obsolete (meaning no more parts made for them) they are abandoned.

Right now perhaps 5% of the wind turbines there are inoperable under any
conditions and another 5% of them have been completely abandoned. Since it
isn't economically feasible to tear them down, these eyesores polute the
countryside.

When they are running the noise from the generators disturbs people in the
town of Tracy some 20 miles downwind.

Windpower Inc has been sagging along for two decades or more and never made
enough money to even wink at. They could never have been founded if there
hadn't been huge federal tax subsidies that allowed people tax write-offs
many times their investments. As soon as those subsidies disappeared all of
the companies except Windpower went out of business and sold off their stuff
to Windpower who just barely can keep their heads above water by employing
only a couple of personnel.

Let me reinterate on this since the clown here don't really read that well -
it costs more to build the towers, build the generators, build the props,
the control circuits, the distributions and put them all together and
maintain it then they can profitably make in the lifetime of the wind
turbine. What's more, in higher winds these wind turbines must be locked
down because if they spin up too fast (such as with failed control
mechanisms) they explode into pieces and the flying pieces can take down
several other wind turbines or worse, start a domino effect.

I initially became interested in windpower in the 70's and followed it
pretty closely since my uncle had a couple of patents pertinent to windpower
at the time. After careful study of the problems and costs involved it
became clear that while better than no power at all - that's why cattle
wells used to be pumped by windmills - wind power is far too spotty to use.

As for batteries - Ford and GM both ran battery development programs for
over a decade trying to make practical batteries for automobiles. For looked
into liquid sulfer batteries and GM worked on lithium cells. They really
TRIED to find the last word in batteries and in fact they did. The problem
is that the last word is that batteries will never be a practical way of
storing power except in special circumstances such as an automobile where
they aren't discharged much and the fact that they have a limited practical
lifetime isn't objectionable since they're cheap.That is definitely not the
case for power storage systems.

What they're referring to as "batteries" these days are fuel cells, often
hydrogen fuel cells. The problem with these cells is that they are expensive
to build, have a fairly limited lifetime and require several energy
conversions to use. These conversions are the real problem since they make
the power storage inefficient compared to other means.

So fuel cells will only be used in special circumstances as well since they
use more power than they can store.

Now all of these systems can be used to some extent under special
circumstances that make them practical in limited applications. But they
will not REPLACE oil, coal, or other carbon based power. And that's what it
will take to become "energy independent".


  #47  
Old February 13th 07, 05:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 8:12 am, "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.




****head -

It's from the Department of Energy. They know more about it than you.

From:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html


Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are
aimed
at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.


Advantages
Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind
turbines
don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or
greenhouse
gasses.


Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.


Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
and the earth's surface irregularities.


Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
particular project.


Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners
make
rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.


Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a
cost
basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may
or
may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires
a
higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.


The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
demands.


Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from
cities
where the electricity is needed.


Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land
and
those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
generation.


Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is
some
concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
(visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
plants.



  #48  
Old February 13th 07, 05:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Fredburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default What - Intelligent Thought?


"Bill C" wrote in message
ups.com...
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


You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a fine
power source.


  #49  
Old February 13th 07, 05:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Fredburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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.



It is, however, unshakable Christian doctrine that man is sinful.

****ing bunch of Liberals.


  #50  
Old February 13th 07, 06:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ST
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 10:02 PM, in article
, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, ST wrote:
On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
. com, "Kurgan Gringioni"





wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST wrote:


It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......


Dumbass -


Ripping our economy to shreds?


Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?


Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.


In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
such, we have to get involved in ****holes like Iraq, a place where
we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
the entire continent of Africa.


Nice job of patriotism, you ****ing moron.


thanks,


K. Gringioni.


You do not know what I want you piece of ****.......
You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge




Moron -


You stated that clean energy would "rip our economy to shreds".

I gave you an example of how it wouldn't. Domestic wind power. Made by
Americans, paid for by Americans. Instead you want the status quo,
giving the money to Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia in
exchange for their oil.

Nice job of patriotism, you idiot.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


BULL**** assbag! You show me where I EVER said that! I SAID making drastic
changes to just OUR economy would be devastating.....

I NEVER said I am pro OPEC countries either.........

Nice try trust-fund baby.......

I see Mommy & Daddy's money went to a good cause. To teach you how to argue
on the Internet..

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.