| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
This is interesting....
On Nov 3, 1:27*pm, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote: In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116 @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. *We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. *I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. *The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. *There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound * * * * * * * * * Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: *7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine...  -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration? Bull... This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and acres... http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar- array.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_ 33.jpg Compared to this... http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic the areas in china where they make these panels is? Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for the environment. Lovely site, isn't it? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images.... I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and vegetation. In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no effect at all on the animals. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived and a producing well is very inobtrusive. |
|
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
On Nov 3, 1:57*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:27*pm, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116 @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. *We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. *I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. *The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. *There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound * * * * * * * * * Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: *7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration? Bull... This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and acres.... http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar- array.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_ 33.jpg Compared to this... http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic the areas in china where they make these panels is? Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for the environment. Lovely site, isn't it? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images.... I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in the western USA than I care to remember. *The wildlife paid very little attention to them. *In fact, one of the greatest dangers was not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. *I've been on rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and vegetation. In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. *Rig sites are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no effect at all on the animals. Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to wildlife movement. *By contrast, drilling operations are short lived and a producing well is very inobtrusive.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, that's true. I guess we should not think about any new technology, just stick our heads in the sand and drill. Oh, and mine oil sands so that the land can look like this: http://tinyurl.com/yjdsyuo Isn't that lovely? |
|
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 1:27*pm, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116 @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. *We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. *I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. *The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. *There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound * * * * * * * * * Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: *7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration? Bull... This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and acres... http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar- array.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_ 33.jpg Compared to this... http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic the areas in china where they make these panels is? Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for the environment. Lovely site, isn't it? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images... I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and vegetation. In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no effect at all on the animals. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived and a producing well is very inobtrusive. Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo, poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to "be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false... -- Wafa free again. |
|
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
On Nov 3, 2:23*pm, Tosk wrote:
In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7 @p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 1:27*pm, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116 @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. *We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. *I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. *The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. *There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound * * * * * * * * * Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: *7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration? Bull... This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and acres... http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar- array.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_ 33.jpg Compared to this... http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic the areas in china where they make these panels is? Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for the environment. Lovely site, isn't it? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images... I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in the western USA than I care to remember. *The wildlife paid very little attention to them. *In fact, one of the greatest dangers was not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. *I've been on rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and vegetation. In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. *Rig sites are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no effect at all on the animals. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to wildlife movement. *By contrast, drilling operations are short lived and a producing well is very inobtrusive. Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo, poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to "be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You're against solar power why? |
|
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
On Nov 3, 4:37*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? |
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
On Nov 3, 4:28*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:34:47 -0500, NotNow wrote: wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays I have seen are basically at ground level. Did you see Obama at Arcadia the other day. They were waist high on him. BTW I am curious to see what a hurricane does to those things. Nah, they are quite high mostly because they have to move in all directions to line up with the sun. Also, there's enough room between them to drive maint. trucks. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu....files.wordpre.... Not thesehttp://www.naplesnews.com/videos/detail/president-obamas-speech-arcadia/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But they are off of the ground, and there is ample room between them for animals to move through, plus there is even grass growing there, so all of the positions the conservatives have against solar power are dismissed, thank you for the picture! |
|
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Ok, if we're going to discuss this, let's discuss it. This is a state-of-the-art home solar panel array. http://www.swsports.org/images/Solar%20Panels.jpg http://www.swsports.org/images/Solar%20Panels%2001.jpg This is a semi-static array - meaning that it's mechanically adjusted every month (13 times a year to take advantage of Fall leaves) to take maximum advantage of the sun's angle. Over a period of a year, including bad weather days, it produces just under 30 kWh/month. The house behind it uses roughly 18/22 kWh/month (call it 20 kWh/month) so the power bank is +10 kWh/month or 120 kWh/year. Bit of teminology. The power "bank" is power that is returned to the generator/supplier on a daily basis. This "bank" can be drawn on when generation is low or non-existant. The entire system is not quite "off-the-grid" because in periods of extended bad weather - over a year, it's about break even in terms of power generated/power used with a slight balance in favor of the system - estimated at 5 kWh/year. Note that you aren't paid for the extra power - it's "banked". Basically a wash in terms of power generation/power used. That sounds really good at first blush - free electricity over time. Well, not so much. Cost of the panels: $60,000. Cost of the mechanical installation (steel mounts, concrete bases, labor): $11,500. Cost of the regulated control system: $7,000 Cost of the RCS installation: $3,000 Permit: $1,000. Sub total: $82,500 State tax adjustment/rebate: - $5,000 Sub total: $77,500 Local property tax assessment adjustment: +$7,000 Total: $84,500 Not much of an investment when you consider that his bill, including all the various charges, fees, taxes, etc., is about $120/mth. |
|
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... On Nov 3, 2:23 pm, Tosk wrote: In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7 @p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 1:27 pm, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116 @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration? Bull... This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and acres... http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar- array.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_ 33.jpg Compared to this... http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic the areas in china where they make these panels is? Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for the environment. Lovely site, isn't it? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images... I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and vegetation. In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no effect at all on the animals. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived and a producing well is very inobtrusive. Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo, poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to "be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You're against solar power why? I live near one of the largest wind farm areas in the world. The complaints are they kill lots of raptors. And they do. They are high enough that the cows and 4 legged critters do not get hit, but the birds going after the huge rodent populatin are decimated. Go to the Oil Patch of Calif. Taft. Oil pipes and pumps everywhere. Seems to be ok for the rodents, birds and coyotes. Not a lot of deer in the desert. |
|
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
wrote in message
... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) Depends on the wildlife. Some do, some don't. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? They are eminently demonizable. They're not exactly environmentally conscious, but we need them for now. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Well that was interesting... | General | |||
| Well, that was interesting... | General | |||
| A visit with an interesting guy who builds an interesting boat.... | General | |||
| Interesting way to help the Bay... | General | |||
![NotNow[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
