|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
|
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 |