The libs are now trying to keep us from hooking it to the grid and turning it on . . . the wind generators THEY wanted in the first place. Worried about the birds now. What the #%!! are we supposed to do? Move back into caves or kill ourselves for mother earth?
Ah, "liberals." Where else can you find such a comedy resource, other than, perhaps, "conservatives?"
I have a solution for such people as this: Build a community that meets their environmental goals (if that's even possible) and require them to live and work there for a few years . They don't get to travel to the next town to shop at their Wal*Mart and buy coffee from their *$'s, and so-on. They have to live w/in the energy means they've been insisting everybody does.
CD,
Here's some numbers for your alternate energy source, in this case wind. A while ago I was asked to do a quick look at using wind power to replace 1400MW of nuke power. Nothing fancy, just a quick assessment.
The current wind generators are rated at anywhere from 1/2 MW to 2 MW. Manufacturers are promising 5 MW generators in the future, so I used 5. They only have an efficiency of 30% at best so I used that. At 5MW and 30% efficiency you would need 960 windmill towers. They require a minimum of 5 rotor diameters separation between them and rotor diameters are about 433'. If you do the math that equates to about 472 miles of windmills just to replace one large nuke. If you used todays size generators it would more than double that. If you put the windmills in a farm pattern you would need in excess of 13,000 acres! And none of that counts the space required for the storage batteries that don't exist today to store the energy for when the wind is not blowing.
I'm for drilling for oil now, no matter what the quantity - and hey, what about coal.
CD,
Here's some numbers for your alternate energy source, in this case wind. A while ago I was asked to do a quick look at using wind power to replace 1400MW of nuke power. Nothing fancy, just a quick assessment.
The current wind generators are rated at anywhere from 1/2 MW to 2 MW. Manufacturers are promising 5 MW generators in the future, so I used 5. They only have an efficiency of 30% at best so I used that. At 5MW and 30% efficiency you would need 960 windmill towers. They require a minimum of 5 rotor diameters separation between them and rotor diameters are about 433'. If you do the math that equates to about 472 miles of windmills just to replace one large nuke. If you used todays size generators it would more than double that. If you put the windmills in a farm pattern you would need in excess of 13,000 acres! And none of that counts the space required for the storage batteries that don't exist today to store the energy for when the wind is not blowing.
I'm for drilling for oil now, no matter what the quantity - and hey, what about coal.
I have better numbers than that. I will show them.
By the way, who told you I was against nuclear or coal?
I am about what makes sense... drilling for oil does not. You also might want to check your numbres about the amount of oil used to supply energy to homes. It is not the percentage you think it is. Much of it comes from coal.
- CD
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator (at large soon)!!
Thanks for the article CD...I particularly liked this part: Though offshore drilling conjures up fears of catastrophic spills, the petroleum industry rightly argues that safety measures have improved considerably in recent years. A 2003 report by the National Research Council found that only 1% of the oil that entered U.S. waters came from petroleum operations, like the offshore drilling platforms that run in the Gulf of Mexico — which also weathered Hurricane Katrina without massive spills. If it can be done in an environmentally friendly fashion — and with oil companies themselves footing the bill — opening up some new territory to drilling might be worth it. The reality is that our economy will run on petroleum for the foreseeable future, and that while investing in alternatives is the only way to secure truly low-cost energy over the long-term, we'll still need oil for decades more.
Spot on. What is wrong with oil companies making money? You make it sound as if they are stealing from us and that if they drill, we lose. The reality is that every million barrels of oil they pull out of American reserves is $140 million bucks that we don't send to Saudi Arabia...that doesn't serve to lower the value of our dollar...that doesn't fund IED's from Iran.
They also pay us for their leases, create jobs for Americans and pay tsaxes on their profits which CURRENTLY average 8% of sales (abou double their long term average). These profits are still less than what many companies average like Coca Cola. Let's hit the soft drink industry up for some alternative energy funding since they really have obscene profits!
I have better numbers than that. I will show them.
By the way, who told you I was against nuclear or coal?
I am about what makes sense... drilling for oil does not. You also might want to check your numbres about the amount of oil used to supply energy to homes. It is not the percentage you think it is. Much of it comes from coal.
- CD
CD, I never said you were against nuclear or coal, where did that come from?
Thanks for the article CD...I particularly liked this part: Though offshore drilling conjures up fears of catastrophic spills, the petroleum industry rightly argues that safety measures have improved considerably in recent years. A 2003 report by the National Research Council found that only 1% of the oil that entered U.S. waters came from petroleum operations, like the offshore drilling platforms that run in the Gulf of Mexico — which also weathered Hurricane Katrina without massive spills. If it can be done in an environmentally friendly fashion — and with oil companies themselves footing the bill — opening up some new territory to drilling might be worth it. The reality is that our economy will run on petroleum for the foreseeable future, and that while investing in alternatives is the only way to secure truly low-cost energy over the long-term, we'll still need oil for decades more.
Spot on. What is wrong with oil companies making money? You make it sound as if they are stealing from us and that if they drill, we lose. The reality is that every million barrels of oil they pull out of American reserves is $140 million bucks that we don't send to Saudi Arabia...that doesn't serve to lower the value of our dollar...that doesn't fund IED's from Iran.
They also pay us for their leases, create jobs for Americans and pay tsaxes on their profits which CURRENTLY average 8% of sales (abou double their long term average). These profits are still less than what many companies average like Coca Cola. Let's hit the soft drink industry up for some alternative energy funding since they really have obscene profits!
I run a business too. Busineses must make money to stay in business. I have no problem with them making money. DO not confuse my side of this with feeling that we should take from oil companies. That is absurd.
HOWEVER....
It has been insinauted, per your Bumper sticker, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS. That is a lie. It will help no one but the oil companies. Do I begrudge them for wanting to make money? Nope. But I do bear a grudge with the obvious marketing scheme behind it that insinuates that YOU (as a consumer) will benefit out of it. You will NOT.
But of course, if the Bumper sticker said, "Help your oil company make more money, drill here," I am not sure it would have the same mass appeal.
Follow the money trail, Cam. Follow the money trail.
And do not start spouting off about job creations and tax dollars. I can quote at LEAST that amount of numbers or more by nuclear plants, coal industry, solar, geothermal, and wind. Matter of fact, I could surpass them.
- CD
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator (at large soon)!!
I just found this, may be a bit off topic saltwater fuel.
[IMG][/IMG]
__________________ S/V Scheherazade
-----------------------
I had a dream, I was sailing, I was happy, I was even smiling. Then I looked down and saw that I was on a multi-hull and woke up suddenly in a cold sweat.
It has been insinauted, per your Bumper sticker, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS. That is a lie. It will help no one but the oil companies. Do I begrudge them for wanting to make money? Nope. But I do bear a grudge with the obvious marketing scheme behind it that insinuates that YOU (as a consumer) will benefit out of it. You will NOT.
But of course, if the Bumper sticker said, "Help your oil company make more money, drill here," I am not sure it would have the same mass appeal.
Follow the money trail, Cam. Follow the money trail.
Actually I believe that bumper sticker CD. Any increase in the supply of oil will result in lower prices THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD BE if oil was scarcer. The few cents a gallon you quote represents savings from the current prices not the even higher prices there will be if this oil is not brought on the market. Furthermore...if speculation represents 25% of the current price bubble...good news on additional supply will serve to help burst that bubble...just as OPEC increasing production would. Not saying any of this will be truly meaningful...but can say that price will be even higher in the future without these supplies...and who knows how big tey actually will be?
And do not start spouting off about job creations and tax dollars. I can quote at LEAST that amount of numbers or more by nuclear plants, coal industry, solar, geothermal, and wind. Matter of fact, I could surpass them.
So what???...a job is a job and more is better!!! I don't see this point at all. You keep looking at this whole thing as a trade off...like oil is a slice of the pie that takes away from the rest of the pie. The reality is that there is no pie...only business opportunities of a diverse nature that companies will pursue to their own advantage in all areas.
- CD
Drill Here, Drill Now Pay Less
Dig Here, Dig Now Pay Less
Nuke Here, Nuke Now Pay Less
Build Solar, Wind, Alternative Energy Here, Build NOW...Pay MORE!!
Drill Here, Drill Now Pay Less
Dig Here, Dig Now Pay Less
Nuke Here, Nuke Now Pay Less
Build Solar, Wind, Alternative Energy Here, Build NOW...Pay MORE!!
I think you're just trying to get CD riled up for the weekend!
Lemme see if a country boy can get it straight.
If we don't drill and eventually tighten the market up (it's called supply and demand in every class I ever took) the oil companies make less and the consumer pays the same or less...
- and if we do drill it won't benefit the consumer at all (ignoring the fact that we'd have a oil supply in 15 years that we do not have now) just make profits for the oil companies?
I'm sure that makes sense in the city, but where I grew up it's nonsense.
If I was selling water and my well was going dry I'd sure as heck plant a well somewhere else and get more water to sell - that my friends is business 101 in the sticks.
If I'm selling water to you for 10 cents a gallon and a customer who's thirstier than you offers me 15 cents a gallon, guess what my new price is? That's called economics 101.
If I know my well is running empty, or a whole lot of thirsty people are about to become customers I do everything I can to get rights to land and drilling permits to make a new well. That's called management 101.
In common sense 101 we learned all that, it wasn't even an advanced course.
Free lessons available. It appears some of you need them.
. They don't get to travel to the next town to shop at their Wal*Mart and buy coffee from their *$'s, and so-on. They have to live w/in the energy means they've been insisting everybody does.
.
