|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On 2/12/07 2:18 PM, in article
, " wrote: 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. Dork! That is just a sales pitch! you know...... Like the guy selling tapes to get rich! If it was that great now WHY don't they do it themselves instead of selling the startup to someone else? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in
: You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a fine power source. Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind. -- Bill Asher |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On 2/12/07 8:17 PM, in article
, "Kurgan Gringioni" wrote: 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. Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial 100K investment right????? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
In article , ST wrote:
On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article , "Howard Kveck" wrote: In article , ST wrote: And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical windbags. The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane that will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House says so too. What's the deal? _________________ "As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency. "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue." _________________ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php And: _________________ "The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi. "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. _________________ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/ Try to keep up. Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments! !!!!! Seriously, Steve, why is it so hard to comprehend the above info? Pelosi said she was fine to take commercial flights - the security issues are what this is about. Did you have a problem with Dennis Hastert using the same military flight arrangements when he was Speaker of the House? The only difference is that she would need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further. It's really pretty simple. By the way: And your Queen Bitch Pilosi No issues with women in power, Steve? -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Howard Kveck" wrote in message ... In article , ST wrote: And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical windbags. The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane that will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House says so too. What's the deal? The fact that she wanted to fly it to Virginia from Washington DC? I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would take commercial flights. The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and the White House believe she should fly on a military plane for security reasons. Former Speaker Dennis Hastert had the same arrangement - the difference being the plane Pelosi is to use needs greater fuel capacity for the longer flights. What's the deal? If you want to complain about a politician flying in military planes, why didn't you complain about George W. Bush using an S-3B Viking to get to the USS Abraham Lincoln back on 22 May, 2003? -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "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. Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)? They were marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal combustion engines was in the 1880s. 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. There were a bunch of articles in many publications that seemed to indicate that we would be using fling cars by now. They were wrong. So were those articles. Does it seem reasonable to cherry pick those to suit your agenda and not mention the ones that talked about the flying cars? There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhe The earth isn't something that is easily effected by man. Here your brush it aside, but earlier you were catastrophizing about the loss of billions of lives. Hmm. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
ST wrote:
To teach you how to argue on the Internet.. Now there's an entrepreneurial opportunity for rbr. Charge dumbasses (I mean clients) to argue over the Internet. Perhaps we can even get funding from the special olympics. |
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 12:52 AM |
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 7 | September 30th 03 04:55 PM |