Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John H." wrote in message
news ![]() 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. Right. They're getting rich off the prize money they give out. I get it. Really. I thought you plonked me a couple of times. Are you having filter trouble? -- Nom=de=Plume |
#43
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... 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? Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.. Something the left railed Bush for.. But it's ok for Obama, harryism... -- Wafa free again. You forgot to mention Bill Ayers' recent visits... or Rev. Wright's. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#44
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"H the K" wrote in message
... On 11/3/09 10:08 PM, Tosk wrote: Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far. If they were secret meetings, how would a jobless moron like you know about them? Maybe he's really in the CIA or NSA. Or, Occam's Razor would say.... -- Nom=de=Plume |
#45
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural beauty. Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used to it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#46
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "H the K" wrote in message ... On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again. Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley. Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of the National Park, however. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#47
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "H the K" wrote in message ... On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again. Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley. Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of the National Park, however. -- Nom=de=Plume Hetch Hetchy dam, but the valley was known as Little Yosemite Valley. One of our favorite lakes is Cherry Lake which is not very far away as the crow flys, but a long way by road. One of the Hetch Hetchy system lakes. |
#48
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#49
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... 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? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#50
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... 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? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Here you go... but feel free not to believe it. http://www.alaskatrekker.com/anwr.htm -- Nom=de=Plume |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |