On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:44:30 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

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...5-220d7cf8c519
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 we need to do is just do it - no pussy footing around. The real
problem is that there are too many lawyers wanting to make a buck or
two by obstructing permits. And you have a group of environmentalists
who hate everything other than technology that doesn't even exist yet.

Or even technology that does exist for that matter. I recently read
an article (somewhere - maybe CaliBill posted it or knows of it) where
a company wanted to build a pilot sun/wind farm in some desolate area
of California - nothing around for miles, minimally invasive, no
protected plant species or animals to speak of and the project was
killed because of the Serria Club's (and others) objection to spoiling
the "natural beauty" of the area.

That's what has to stop.

On Nov 3, 6:44*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:44:30 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
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 we need to do is just do it - no pussy footing around. *The real
problem is that there are too many lawyers wanting to make a buck or
two by obstructing permits. *And you have a group of environmentalists
who hate everything other than technology that doesn't even exist yet.

Or even technology that does exist for that matter. *I recently read
an article (somewhere - maybe CaliBill posted it or knows of it) where
a company wanted to build a pilot sun/wind farm in some desolate area
of California - nothing around for miles, minimally invasive, no
protected plant species or animals to speak of and the project was
killed because of the Serria Club's (and others) objection to spoiling
the "natural beauty" of the area.

That's what has to stop.

I have no problem with solar as long as people stop believing it is
somehow without environmental problems.
BTW, an average oil well or gas well requires far less maintenance
than a wind turbine so the roads are used far less. As far as the
view is concerned, I'd rather have oil or gas wells than wind
turbines.
Of course, given the choice between tourism in Florida and oil/gas
wells in the Gulf, I'd easily choose oil/gas as being far cleaner than
tourism. My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

In article ,
says...

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?

Again, the hypocrisy shows it's head... I wonder how these folks here
can keep saying these things as they get slammed with facts..

--
Wafa free again.

In article d58153e7-3f18-43a1-a9dc-
,
says...

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?

What the **** are you talking about. Nobody said anything about "kill
them all". You keep planting red herrings in your arguments and putting
words in folks mouths, it's just crazy. The point is you all cry when a
caribou has to walk under or around a pipe or pumping station, but if a
republican tries to hunt a bigger predator, you go nuts, just because
it's a republican. It's Harry all over again, and again...

--
Wafa free again.

In article ,
says...

"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.

Well Loogie, most of your arguments have been smashed while I was away..
Lets see, I supported Clinton today, admitted I was wrong yesterday,
agreed with Obama last week... Who is the one here who can not or will
not step over party lines and gets their info from a couple of talking
heads?... Ain't me...

--
Wafa free again.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:44:30 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

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...5-220d7cf8c519
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 we need to do is just do it - no pussy footing around. The real
problem is that there are too many lawyers wanting to make a buck or
two by obstructing permits. And you have a group of environmentalists
who hate everything other than technology that doesn't even exist yet.

Or even technology that does exist for that matter. I recently read
an article (somewhere - maybe CaliBill posted it or knows of it) where
a company wanted to build a pilot sun/wind farm in some desolate area
of California - nothing around for miles, minimally invasive, no
protected plant species or animals to speak of and the project was
killed because of the Serria Club's (and others) objection to spoiling
the "natural beauty" of the area.

That's what has to stop.


Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty.
We sure don't need it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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?

There you go with the words again, Loogy.

Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort.

Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make
sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that
lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of?

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!

You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.