PDA

View Full Version : Wind VS Oil



Gayle in MD
05-25-2010, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Offshore oil vs. offshore wind ... who wins?

by: Karl Burkart


How many offshore wind turbines could have been bought for the cost of 1 Deepwater Horizon? The answer is enlightening.


In my fact-digging on the now sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig, I came across a stat about the construction and operational costs of BP's failed rig which was to tap an estimated 7 billion barrels of oil from two recent oil discoveries (the Kaskida and the Tiber) over a 25-year period. According to Morningstar analysts (who published a study back in March), the projected investment for both wells was between $8 billion and $12 billion U.S.

So that got me thinking, just how much offshore wind could be bought for the equivalent $12 billion investment? My back of the envelope calculations were enlightening. Here we go ...

1. What is the cost of offshore wind power?
We have a good comp in the form of Alpha Ventus, a 12-turbine project off the shores of Germany which was recently completed. The project was the first of its kind and as might be expected, it ran over budget. According to Spiegel, the total project cost $282 million (it was estimated at just under $200 million) which includes upkeep costs over 25 years. Alpha Ventus is a 60 megawatt array, enough to power about 50,000 U.S. homes or 550 million kilowatts of electricity per year (a typical U.S. home uses 11,000 kilowatts).

2. How many turbines can $10 billion buy?
Projecting that the next few big offshore projects will drop in price as manufacturing and grid infrastructure improves, let's say a 60 megawatt project will go for $200 million. Divide that by $12 billion and you get sixty 60-megawatt wind projects, or about 33 billion kilowatts of power capacity per year.

3. How many electric cars does that power?
A typical American drives 12,000 miles per year. The latest plug-in electric vehicles (like the much-anticipated Tesla Sedan) use about 370 wH's per mile. The typical U.S. driver would need 12,000 x .37 = 4,440 kilowatts per year. Divide 33 billion by 4,440 kilowatts and you get about 7.4 million electric vehicles that could be powered each year by a $10 billion wind investment.

4. How many cars could Deepwater Horizon have fueled?
44 gallons of gasoline are made from each barrel of crude. Deepwater Horizon was to produce 7 billion barrels of crude over its 25 year life span. 7 billion x 44 = 308 billion gallons of gas divided by 25 years = 12. 3 billions gallons of gas per year. Let's say as cars become more efficient the average U.S. car goes up to a 26 mpg average. 26 mpg x 12.3 billion = 320 billion miles. Divide that by our 12,000 mile national average and you get 26.7 million gas cars per year from the $10 billion offshore drilling investment.

5. What's the end cost for the consumer?
You can see why as a nation we like oil so much ... it yields about 3-4 times more transportation power per dollar invested. But it's important to note that the cost of gasoline for the end-user is considerably higher than electricity. In the end the consumer pays dearly for all that convenient fossil fuel. Right now gasoline is about $3 per gallon and the typical car gets 22 mpg. So the typical gasoline mile costs us about 13.6 cents or $1,632 per year (oil). Grid electricity is about 10 cents per kilowatt, so one mile on electricity costs only 3.7 cents, or $444 per year (wind). If you figure that 7.4 million Americans would be saving $1,188 per year, that is about $8.8 billion going back into the U.S. economy rather than into the grubby hands of foreign oil companies like BP.

6. What if you factor in environmental costs?
Now if we start factoring in the massive cleanup costs, it changes the game significantly. Current estimates are putting the BP cleanup bill at $22.6 billion. This figure will be matched (at least) by U.S. taxpayers in the form of government assistance programs. So that puts the total Deepwater Horizon pricetag at $55 billion ($10B + $22.5B + $22.5B), assuming it's even possible to clean up the spill.

7. Comparing apples and lemons ...
As an exercise, let's stay that instead of sinking on Day 1, the Deepwater Horizon sunk halfway though its lifespan. It would have powered 13.4 million cars at a cost of $55 billion ... about $4,100 per car (oil). Our wind turbines would have powered 3.7 million cars at $10 billion or about $2,700 per car (wind). Since "windspills" have never been known to cause any impact whatsoever and oil spills are quite frequent (according to NOAA in one sample year there were 257 oil spills) this seems more than a fair comparison and puts wind in the lead both from the perspective of investment and consumer spending.

Of course, this sad little number game will never make up for the incalculable losses to the fishing industry, the tourist industry, the health of wetlands, the survival of wildlife, the carcinogens that are now leaking into the water systems of Gulf residents — all things for which BP will never pay. We, the American people however, will pay those prices for a very, very long time to come.

You get my drift ... it is time to change the way we think about offshore energy resources and start switching to safe, clean wind power.
</div></div>

LWW
05-25-2010, 10:13 AM
Then why is the far left fighting against wind? And solar? And nuclear? And Shale oil? And hydroelectric?

Find the answer and you will find enlightenment.

LWW

pooltchr
05-25-2010, 10:24 AM
How many cars, boats, trucks, aircraft buses, and trains could we have running if we did away with oil and converted to wind energy????

Steve

Deeman3
05-25-2010, 12:14 PM
Why was Ted Kennedy so opposed to a resource that would solve all our energy needs? Did Teddy hate New Orleans? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
05-25-2010, 12:21 PM
This one:

http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wind-powered-car.jpg

LWW

wolfdancer
05-25-2010, 01:35 PM
I can't figure out which of the clueless wonders el ww/el stevo, that posted behind you, wrote the dumbest reply...(Dumb and dumber). In the interest of fairness I'll call it a tie, and they can share the booby prize.
The both have the same compulsive need to reply to your posts where you just quote from an authorative source....and they both think a line or two of Bubba logic....."your Mom wears jockey shorts" is enough to offset an expert's opinion...not that I know about that authors credentials....but they would do the same here if Einstein was posting.
that's why I always favored golf over pool. You might run into a handful of "Bubbas" on the GC over the course of a summer. There's usually that many every night and twice that on the weekends, in every pool room.
My definition of a Bubba....you don't have to be a southerner to qualify....some loud mouthed jerk, with s**t for brains that believes he knows everything about everything. ... there was an old saying that read "warning: engage brain before putting mouth in gear"....apparantly, they never read it, or their clutch is slipping
I think it is really (O'Reilly?) charming lately that when one posts...the other backs him up....it's kind of like an internet echo, but one where the words get lost in translation..but it's the thought that counts and as the line goes in Pritzi's Honor....them two are "thinkers" Often they are the only two posters on the thread...but it's understandable..while they seem to have short term memory loss, and think they are posting new and original content... we have all read the same crap for a few years now:
"Wah, the left ain't as smart as we iz, Wah, the left wants to elect some Nazi/Commie/dictator, ...some effete, pinko, commie, intellectual, elitest, to replace good Christian, home schooled,people like our
"Hey there, Georgie Boy" who had his wings clipped, before he got them...and "Mr. Top Gun" hisself,Dickie,.... also Ann, course Ann is no longer a member of the old boys club...she just couldn't "measure up" anymore....and the "legend before her time, Miss Musher, 1992" the one, the only (Thank God) clueless, dogsled lady....who stopped one too many hockey pucks with her head....before her time. Perhaps in a few years, they will offer a coure at Nome U. ...a study on how this obscure lady, with the brains of an obscure Wal-Mart greeter, became an obscure Gov..... it will be called "Palintology 101" They might also delve into how poor John McCain had the misfortune to be shot down twice in his life, once by the N.Vietnamese, and once by Sarah....I'm not sure which ensuing torture was greater....
And speaking of Oh'Reilly (I was)....he is on Tv, while these two are just watching, enthralled, and taking notes.....just because he can spin facts faster then a Maytag washer can spin clothes....they should have titled his show "Spin City"...too late now....but maybe "The Bullsh*t Factor" is still available
??? (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108)

pooltchr
05-25-2010, 02:01 PM
Wolfie, rather than blindly jumping to granny's defense, why not stop and actually think about it.

The disaster in the gulf is indeed a huge problem. Calling for a complete stop to offshore drilling would be even worse. Yes, in a perfect world, we would be able to give up oil, but the reality is, we need it to function. We can't stop drilling, just because it's dangerous. The technology does not yet exist to convert all of our energy to environmentally friendly sources.

Yes, we need to work on developing new technology, but at the same time, we have no choice but to continue with what we have.

Why does the left have such a difficult time understanding reality? We do not live in an ideal world, and being idealistic may sound nice in theory, but it doesn't freaking work!

Get real!

Oh yea, congratulations! You just scored more idiot points in one post than anyone in the history of the forum.
You are number ONE!
Steve

LWW
05-25-2010, 02:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolfie, rather than blindly jumping to granny's defense, why not stop and actually think about it.
Steve </div></div>

You lost him right there.

And, BTW, we are both well aware of the dumbest reply in the thread.

LWW

wolfdancer
05-25-2010, 03:29 PM
you don't like my posts....then complain to the admin..
To quote the immortal Sen. Foghorn Leghorn (think Jesse Helms)
"Go away son, you bother me."
Do me a favor and don't try to "educate" me. I was smarter then you are now....when I was in the 4th grade.I've forgotten most of what I have learned, and I'm still way more intelligent then you. course that is my opinion after reading your posts...and I might be wrong.....you could just be dumbing down your posts thinking this is just another bubba site? If someone else wants to buy into your "take" on current events....that's their problem....you are the last person on this board that I want to "listen" to. With the news coverage, on the various media that we have....why would you think you have something to offer that I am not aware of....true I don't read the Charlotte Observer...and don't get that take on reality....Send me your used copies and I'll find a use for them...like picking up dogcrap.
if you want to impress others with your worldly acumen...great....but after 72 years of sorting bs from facts....I ain't buying.
lately, I'm just able to read a line or two from your posts, before I feel my stomache churning. You seem to have struck a fine kinship with lww....and I'm happy for you both that you can read, enjoy, and learn from each other....and who knows....maybe your readership will grow....but without me.

eg8r
05-25-2010, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many offshore wind turbines could have been bought for the cost of 1 Deepwater Horizon? The answer is enlightening.</div></div>I think the Kennedy's are doing their darndest to make sure offshore wind farms don't affect their view of the ocean.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-25-2010, 04:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many offshore wind turbines could have been bought for the cost of 1 Deepwater Horizon? The answer is enlightening.</div></div>I think the Kennedy's are doing their darndest to make sure offshore wind farms don't affect their view of the ocean.

eg8r </div></div>


What have any of them done to stop renewable fuels? Got any links? Can you prove any actions taken by any of them to prevent wind farms?

IOW, prove it.

I suppose you haven't heard, Ed, that the Kennedy's have the entire Kennedy Compound up for sale. Why should they care, except maybe for their neighbors?

We must get off oil. We must!

Gayle in MD
05-25-2010, 04:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't figure out which of the clueless wonders el ww/el stevo, that posted behind you, wrote the dumbest reply...(Dumb and dumber). In the interest of fairness I'll call it a tie, and they can share the booby prize.
The both have the same compulsive need to reply to your posts where you just quote from an authorative source....and they both think a line or two of Bubba logic....."your Mom wears jockey shorts" is enough to offset an expert's opinion...not that I know about that authors credentials....but they would do the same here if Einstein was posting.
that's why I always favored golf over pool. You might run into a handful of "Bubbas" on the GC over the course of a summer. There's usually that many every night and twice that on the weekends, in every pool room.
My definition of a Bubba....you don't have to be a southerner to qualify....some loud mouthed jerk, with s**t for brains that believes he knows everything about everything. ... there was an old saying that read "warning: engage brain before putting mouth in gear"....apparantly, they never read it, or their clutch is slipping
I think it is really (O'Reilly?) charming lately that when one posts...the other backs him up....it's kind of like an internet echo, but one where the words get lost in translation..but it's the thought that counts and as the line goes in Pritzi's Honor....them two are "thinkers" Often they are the only two posters on the thread...but it's understandable..while they seem to have short term memory loss, and think they are posting new and original content... we have all read the same crap for a few years now:
"Wah, the left ain't as smart as we iz, Wah, the left wants to elect some Nazi/Commie/dictator, ...some effete, pinko, commie, intellectual, elitest, to replace good Christian, home schooled,people like our
"Hey there, Georgie Boy" who had his wings clipped, before he got them...and "Mr. Top Gun" hisself,Dickie,.... also Ann, course Ann is no longer a member of the old boys club...she just couldn't "measure up" anymore....and the "legend before her time, Miss Musher, 1992" the one, the only (Thank God) clueless, dogsled lady....who stopped one too many hockey pucks with her head....before her time. Perhaps in a few years, they will offer a coure at Nome U. ...a study on how this obscure lady, with the brains of an obscure Wal-Mart greeter, became an obscure Gov..... it will be called "Palintology 101" They might also delve into how poor John McCain had the misfortune to be shot down twice in his life, once by the N.Vietnamese, and once by Sarah....I'm not sure which ensuing torture was greater....
And speaking of Oh'Reilly (I was)....he is on Tv, while these two are just watching, enthralled, and taking notes.....just because he can spin facts faster then a Maytag washer can spin clothes....they should have titled his show "Spin City"...too late now....but maybe "The Bullsh*t Factor" is still available
??? (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108) </div></div>



LMAO! You are a scream!

Too funny! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I never read their posts. They're really not worth my time. Two pathological liars. Total ignore.....it's the only way. They have nothing intelligent to add, ever.

G.

pooltchr
05-25-2010, 09:43 PM
Try doing a little research on the subject. You will find that the cost of electricity generated by wind farms is far greater than what we get from gas, coal, and nuclear.

If you are unfortunate enough to get your electricity from one of them, you are paying a premium.......or getting subsidized, in which case, someone else is paying a premium.

Turns out wind is a rather expensive way to generate electricity.

Steve

wolfdancer
05-25-2010, 10:26 PM
Too bad you yourself can't factor in all the factors....like the fact that oil, gas are not considered renewable resources(you didn't know that?...when is the last time you saw a dinasour?)
Actually the Russians were way ahead of us in disproving that myth:
"In a study published in Nature Geoscience, researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden and the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington joined colleagues at the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology in publishing evidence that hydrocarbons can be produced 40 to 95 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. At these depths — in what’s known as Earth’s Upper Mantle — high temperatures and intense pressures combine to generate hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons then migrate toward the surface of the Earth through fissures in the Earth’s crust, sometimes feeding existing pools of oil, sometimes creating entirely new ones. According to Sweden’s Royal Institute, “fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.”
So,.... the earth IS renewing our oil supply...but at what cost...and I don't mean the pump prices..... it's like that old joke...I still have blank checks, so I must still have money in the account
wind itself is free....converting it to power might not be as cheap as depleting our natural resources....but PG&E has a "wind farm" in Ca.....so brighter people then you are working on getting the cost down. Maybe "you" should do a little research..., before you try to put others down for their posts....You would probably try to put down geothermal energy as well???
I'd quit posting if my posts depended, as yours do, on trying to belittle others to make myself look smart....

Qtec
05-26-2010, 03:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">11 March 09

Is the Stirlingshire community of Fintry the greenest village in Scotland?
Wind Energy

It could gain the unofficial title after four householders - who some dismissed as dreamers six years ago when they imagined a future powered by free, green energy - turned their plans into reality.

With more than £50,000 a year flowing into the community coffers from their very own wind turbine, which started operating 14 months ago, and is one of 15 in a nearby wind farm, the community has already felt the wind of change.

The 330 households are not fortunate enough to have eliminated electricity bills, but they are saving money. The 8000 MWh of electricity the turbine generates each year (enough to provide electricity to 1800 homes) is sold to the National Grid and the money earned pays off the turbine's building and running costs.

The leftover profits, between £50,000 and £100,000 a year, go to the Fintry Development Trust, which aims to reduce energy use in the village. It pays for all suitable properties to be fitted with free roof and cavity wall insulation. About half the households have benefited and the measures are having a major impact on energy use.

Prior to the insulation project, heating as well as electricity was estimated at 13,000 MWh; now it is 10,000 MWh, saving on average £600 a year per household.

Plans are now afoot to put in energy saving measures in those properties that weren't suitable for the insulation and also to help people pay for greener heating technologies.

"Fintry is off mains gas so a lot of people have oil or LPG, which are particularly expensive," says Gordon Cowtan, one of the brains behind the project and trust.

"So we're looking at low carbon forms, whether it's wood pellet-fuelled boilers or ground source heat pumps. There are grants available for these, but the capital costs are typically still £6000-£10,000, which is usually too much for people."

<u>Once the turbine's mortgage is paid off, the annual profits are estimated to rise to more than £400,000 for the rest of its 25-year lifespan.</u>

The project's success is testament to the benefits of so-called community distributed generation which, according to a new report, Power in Numbers, from the Energy Saving Trust, could meet 28% of Scotland's household energy demand more cheaply than at present.

It estimates that similar schemes could save 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year if they were rolled out. This equates to 15% of Scotland's annual household CO2 emissions. </div></div>

link (http://www.talentscotland.com/jobs.aspx?item_id=70083)

If we become less dependant on oil, that means less demand and the price will drop. Some people don't want that.

Q

eg8r
05-26-2010, 07:33 AM
Surely you don't think I just made it up did you...I took qtip's cue and went to his trusty google and typed "kennedy's against wind farm" and up popped plenty to go and read.

Here is a start... http://www.grist.org/article/capecod/

Now about them selling the compound, who cares. Wind farms are not a brand new idea and the Kennedy's along with the other elitist environmentalists on Cape Cod have all done their darndest to block this renewable energy source. Seems there is the same problem in the Great Lakes also.

eg8r

eg8r
05-26-2010, 07:36 AM
Here is a link about Uncle Ted himself back in 2006. Tell me were they selling the compound back then?

Uncle Ted flicking the finger at renewable energy... (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/)

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-26-2010, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">11 March 09

Is the Stirlingshire community of Fintry the greenest village in Scotland?
Wind Energy

It could gain the unofficial title after four householders - who some dismissed as dreamers six years ago when they imagined a future powered by free, green energy - turned their plans into reality.

With more than £50,000 a year flowing into the community coffers from their very own wind turbine, which started operating 14 months ago, and is one of 15 in a nearby wind farm, the community has already felt the wind of change.

The 330 households are not fortunate enough to have eliminated electricity bills, but they are saving money. The 8000 MWh of electricity the turbine generates each year (enough to provide electricity to 1800 homes) is sold to the National Grid and the money earned pays off the turbine's building and running costs.

The leftover profits, between £50,000 and £100,000 a year, go to the Fintry Development Trust, which aims to reduce energy use in the village. It pays for all suitable properties to be fitted with free roof and cavity wall insulation. About half the households have benefited and the measures are having a major impact on energy use.

Prior to the insulation project, heating as well as electricity was estimated at 13,000 MWh; now it is 10,000 MWh, saving on average £600 a year per household.

Plans are now afoot to put in energy saving measures in those properties that weren't suitable for the insulation and also to help people pay for greener heating technologies.

"Fintry is off mains gas so a lot of people have oil or LPG, which are particularly expensive," says Gordon Cowtan, one of the brains behind the project and trust.

"So we're looking at low carbon forms, whether it's wood pellet-fuelled boilers or ground source heat pumps. There are grants available for these, but the capital costs are typically still £6000-£10,000, which is usually too much for people."

<u>Once the turbine's mortgage is paid off, the annual profits are estimated to rise to more than £400,000 for the rest of its 25-year lifespan.</u>

The project's success is testament to the benefits of so-called community distributed generation which, according to a new report, Power in Numbers, from the Energy Saving Trust, could meet 28% of Scotland's household energy demand more cheaply than at present.

It estimates that similar schemes could save 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year if they were rolled out. This equates to 15% of Scotland's annual household CO2 emissions. </div></div>

link (http://www.talentscotland.com/jobs.aspx?item_id=70083)

If we become less dependant on oil, that means less demand and the price will drop. Some people don't want that.

Q </div></div>

Very true, and also, when we destablize the Middle East, the prices go up, and some people wanted that, very badly, as well.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
05-26-2010, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely you don't think I just made it up did you...I took qtip's cue and went to his trusty google and typed "kennedy's against wind farm" and up popped plenty to go and read.

Here is a start... http://www.grist.org/article/capecod/

Now about them selling the compound, who cares. Wind farms are not a brand new idea and the Kennedy's along with the other elitist environmentalists on Cape Cod have all done their darndest to block this renewable energy source. Seems there is the same problem in the Great Lakes also.

eg8r </div></div>


Hey Ed, after you acknowledge the damages from eight years of an oil cartel in the White House, including all of the lives lost, and limbs and brains damaged, billions, lost, just simply misplaced, incompetence, and unchecked spending and non stop lies, then we can discuss the Kennedy's, if you wish.

In the meantime, Ted Kennedy in in his grave. Patrick, is leaving his office. WTF are you righties going to do when you have finally no Kennedy's left to blame?

No president in our history prosecuted the damage against this country to the degree that W. did, except for maybe Ronald Reagan.

G.

eg8r
05-26-2010, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Ed, after you acknowledge the damages from eight years of an oil cartel in the White House, including all of the lives lost, and limbs and brains damaged, billions, lost, just simply misplaced, incompetence, and unchecked spending and non stop lies, then we can discuss the Kennedy's, if you wish.</div></div>So you don't want to talk about the subject of your own thread simply because the Kennedy's are trying to stand in the way of renewable energy in our country?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the meantime, Ted Kennedy in in his grave.</div></div>Thank goodness, it is right where he belongs. Too bad the rest of his family is continuing this fight against renewable energy.

eg8r

pooltchr
05-26-2010, 08:38 AM
There you go, posting right behind me, and butting into a conversation that didn't include you.....and you accuese me of doing that? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, woooofie!

You are about as relevent as a pimple on my a$$....slightly irritating, but ultimately not worth much consideration at all.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-26-2010, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Ed, after you acknowledge the damages from eight years of an oil cartel in the White House, including all of the lives lost, and limbs and brains damaged, billions, lost, just simply misplaced, incompetence, and unchecked spending and non stop lies, then we can discuss the Kennedy's, if you wish.</div></div>So you don't want to talk about the subject of your own thread simply because the Kennedy's are trying to stand in the way of renewable energy in our country?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the meantime, Ted Kennedy in in his grave.</div></div>Thank goodness, it is right where he belongs. Too bad the rest of his family is continuing this fight against renewable energy.

eg8r </div></div>

I know of no effort by any Kennedy that held up our nations efforts to move toward clean, renewable energy, and get off our dependence on foreign oil.

Wind farms do not have to be close enough to the shoreline, to destroy the beauty of the ocean, either.

The subject is Wind VS. Oil, not Reps, vs Dems. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif Lets both try to stick to the subject, OK?

G.

LWW
05-26-2010, 08:56 AM
Proof again ... if the party says 2+2=5 Gayle will believe that 2+2=5.

LWW

eg8r
05-26-2010, 10:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know of no effort by any Kennedy that held up our nations efforts to move toward clean, renewable energy, and get off our dependence on foreign oil.
</div></div>Open your eyes and read the links.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject is Wind VS. Oil, not Reps, vs Dems. Lets both try to stick to the subject, OK?</div></div>I mention Kennedy because he happens to be at the forefront of stopping the wind farm. I am all for wind working but I think we need a healthy dose of both. What happens though when Bush's Global Warming causes the wind to stop blowing?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-26-2010, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know of no effort by any Kennedy that held up our nations efforts to move toward clean, renewable energy, and get off our dependence on foreign oil.
</div></div>Open your eyes and read the links.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject is Wind VS. Oil, not Reps, vs Dems. Lets both try to stick to the subject, OK?</div></div>I mention Kennedy because he happens to be at the forefront of stopping the wind farm. I am all for wind working but I think we need a healthy dose of both. What happens though when Bush's Global Warming causes the wind to stop blowing?

eg8r </div></div>

That's a good question, since many scientists are saying that we've lost the battle, and the earth may fail to support human life, because of it, in the coming generations.

But, what we do know is that Jimmy Carter tried to warn us all decades ago, annd Republicans were saying, governmentg bad, regulations bad, oil good, and still saying, drill baby drill.

Now we are seeing much more of this....


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal inspectors have yet to get underground at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine, but they’ve already hit the operation with another nearly two dozen citations — all in the last two weeks.

U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors cited Massey’s Performance Coal Co. subsidiary for 23 different violations in a “spot inspection” that began May 14 and remains ongoing, according to the latest entries in MSHA’s online computer database.

Most of the citations related to violations MSHA inspectors found in the mine’s electrical systems — presumably problems that could be discovered without going underground — or to surface facilities at the Raleigh County operation.

Only three of the 23 citations were listed by MSHA inspectors as “significant and substantial.” No more serious enforcement orders were issued. But, complete details of these violations are not yet available. MSHA has yet to respond to my inquiry about this inspector or to a request for copies of the citations.

As of this morning, only about half of the violations were listed by MSHA as having been corrected.

</div></div>

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/20...per-big-branch/ (http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/05/26/massey-hit-with-more-violations-at-upper-big-branch/)


And this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">COVINGTON, La. (AP) -- Senior managers complained oil giant BP was "taking shortcuts" by replacing heavy drilling fluid with saltwater in the well that blew out, triggering the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to witness statements obtained by The Associated Press.

Truitt Crawford, a roustabout for drilling rig owner Transocean Ltd., told Coast Guard investigators about the complaints. The seawater, which would have provided less weight to contain surging pressure from the ocean depths, was being used to prepare for dropping a final blob of cement into the well.

"I overheard upper management talking saying that BP was taking shortcuts by displacing the well with saltwater instead of mud without sealing the well with cement plugs, this is why it blew out," Crawford said in his statement.

A spokesman for BP, which was leasing the rig Deepwater Horizon when it exploded April 20, killing 11 workers and triggering a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, declined to comment.

BP conducted tests Wednesday in preparation for its latest bid to plug the leaking well by force-feeding it heavy drilling mud and cement. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward said on NBC's "Today" show that he would decide Wednesday morning whether to allow crews to try the procedure called a top kill.

Meanwhile, the statements from workers ahead of a hearing in New Orleans Wednesday and a congressional memo about a BP internal investigation of the blast indicated warning signs were ignored. Tests less than an hour before the well blew out found a buildup of pressure that was an "indicator of a very large abnormality," BP's investigator said, according to the congressional memo.

Still, the rig team was "satisfied" that another test was successful and resumed adding the seawater, said the memo by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak to members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is investigating what went wrong.

There were other signs of problems, including an unexpected loss of fluid from a pipe known as a riser five hours before the explosion, which the memo said could have indicated a leak in the blowout preventer, a huge piece of equipment that should have shut down the well in case of an emergency. BP has cited its failure as a contributor to the blast.

Frustration is growing with BP and the federal government as several efforts to stop the leak have failed. At least 7 million gallons of crude have spilled into the sea, fouling Louisiana's marshes and coating birds and other wildlife.

President Barack Obama prepared to head to the Gulf on Friday to review efforts to halt the oil that scientists said seems to be growing significantly darker, from what they can see in an underwater video. It suggests that heavier, more-polluting oil is spewing out.

Ahead of his trip, Obama planned to address an Interior Department review of offshore drilling that is expected to recommend tougher safety protocols and inspections for the industry, according to an administration official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the public release Thursday of the findings of a 30-day review Obama ordered after the spill.

A new report from the Interior Department's acting inspector general alleged that drilling regulators have been so close to oil and gas companies they've been accepting gifts including hunting and fishing trips and even negotiating to go work for them.

The top kill BP is poised to try Wednesday involves pumping enough mud into the gusher to overcome the flow of the well.

Engineers plan to follow it up with cement that the company hopes will permanently seal the well. It may be several days before BP knows if it worked. Hayward earlier pegged its chances of success at 60 to 70 percent.

Bob Bea, an engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the procedure carries a high risk of failure because of the velocity at which the oil may be spewing.

"I certainly pray that it works, because if it doesn't there's this long waiting time" before BP can dig relief wells that would cut off the flow, Bea said.

---

Associated Press writers Mike Kunzelman in New Orleans, Jeff Donn in Boston, Ben Evans, Ben Feller, Fred Frommer and Erica Werner in Washington, and Holbrook Mohr in Jackson, Miss., contributed to this story.

</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/bp-shortcuts-witnesses-oil-spill_n_590209.html

And this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Los Angeles Times:

Some fishermen who have been hired by BP to clean up the gulf oil spill say they have become ill after working long hours near waters fouled with oil and dispersant, prompting a Louisiana lawmaker to call on the federal government to open mobile clinics in rural areas to treat them.

The fishermen report severe headaches, dizziness, nausea and difficulty breathing. Concerned by the reports, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking the agency's help providing medical treatment, especially in Plaquemines Parish, a southern region where many fishermen live.

</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/bp-shortcuts-witnesses-oil-spill_n_590209.html


And, while Republicans have been laughing about climate change, and yelling drill baby drill, our Ice Caps are melting, and we are moving toward more and more unstable climate, and more and more international consequences from fremaining dependent on foreign oil....


Bush, cut the cafe' standards.

Reagan took the solar panels off the White House.

Cheney cut secret deals with energy, then lied us into invadint Iraq, where big oil is wheeling and dealing to this day on refinaing oil....

WE NEED MORE REGULATIONS, NOT LESS!

But just try telling that to some bubba, who only watches FUX Noise, and calls conservationists, "Tree Hugges" and refusess to admit that we were lied into a devastating war in Iraq, to benefit Cheney and Bush's oil cronies....

Try pointing out that Republicans, for decades, have fought every conservationist effort, annd every effort to get off foreign oil, decades!

Just look how they're voting right now, trying to block tightening regulation on Wall Street, and on the Oil Industry.

At some point, people who vote Republican, are going to have to look their kids in the eye and admit, I voted against the party which has for decades supported getting off dirty fuels, conserving our energy resources, annd creating cleaner, renewable fuels.

Hey, who killed the electric car????? Who lowered the Cafe' Standards. Who sings the Republican deregulation mantra?

G.

eg8r
05-26-2010, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WE NEED MORE REGULATIONS, NOT LESS!</div></div>What will more regulations matter if we are not going to enforce the ones that are already there.

If Reagan would have left the solar panels on the White House, how would that have prevented this oil disaster?

You asked us both to stay on topic and one post later you are jumping all over the place but definitely not concerning yourself with the topic.


eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-26-2010, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WE NEED MORE REGULATIONS, NOT LESS!</div></div>What will more regulations matter if we are not going to enforce the ones that are already there.

If Reagan would have left the solar panels on the White House, how would that have prevented this oil disaster?

You asked us both to stay on topic and one post later you are jumping all over the place but definitely not concerning yourself with the topic.


eg8r
</div></div>

I am discussing the Republican policies which have held up our long needed commitment to create renewable, clean fuels.

This thread is, after all, about wind VS, and amazingly, your response was to blame the Kennedys, LOL...now I'm simply pointing out to you that your own party's mantra has long been against conservation efforts, against going toward cleanner, renewable fuels, against removing our dependece on foreign oil, against solar, against biofuels, against making moves toward cleaning up our environement, and getting off oil.

Drill Baby Drill.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif



G.

eg8r
05-26-2010, 11:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am discussing the Republican policies which have held up our long needed commitment to create renewable, clean fuels.

This thread is, after all, about wind VS,</div></div>Wind vs Oil is the same as Republican policies to you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">now I'm simply pointing out to you that your own party's mantra has long been against conservation efforts, against going toward cleanner, renewable fuels, against removing our dependece on foreign oil, against solar, against biofuels, against making moves toward cleaning up our environement, and getting off oil.
</div></div>Whether the Reps are against it or not does not change the fact that the Dems are certainly fighting against it as we speak.

Now, in one thread on the same day you have chosen to contradict a request of yours...Here was your post to me a little bit ago...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject is Wind VS. Oil, not Reps, vs Dems. Lets both try to stick to the subject, OK?</div></div>Maybe a few hours makes a difference to you.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-26-2010, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am discussing the Republican policies which have held up our long needed commitment to create renewable, clean fuels.

This thread is, after all, about wind VS,</div></div>Wind vs Oil is the same as Republican policies to you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">now I'm simply pointing out to you that your own party's mantra has long been against conservation efforts, against going toward cleanner, renewable fuels, against removing our dependece on foreign oil, against solar, against biofuels, against making moves toward cleaning up our environement, and getting off oil.
</div></div>Whether the Reps are against it or not does not change the fact that the Dems are certainly fighting against it as we speak.

Now, in one thread on the same day you have chosen to contradict a request of yours...Here was your post to me a little bit ago...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject is Wind VS. Oil, not Reps, vs Dems. Lets both try to stick to the subject, OK?</div></div>Maybe a few hours makes a difference to you.

eg8r </div></div>

It does, I'm getting tired. I've been doing math all day, and now I look up and it's time to start dinner.

Sorry if I'm not giving full attention....

Now where were we, oh yes, we were talking about how Republicans have traditionally blocked addressing our energy problems, and supported big business, against the best interests of the American Public, right?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
05-26-2010, 12:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now where were we, oh yes, we were talking about how Republicans have traditionally blocked addressing our energy problems, and supported big business, against the best interests of the American Public, right?</div></div>I thought you wanted to stick to the subject? No?

eg8r

pooltchr
05-26-2010, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">many scientists are saying that we've lost the battle, and the earth may fail to support human life,

G.

</div></div>

OMG...we have Chicken Little on the board!
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Global Warming!
Global cooling!
Carbon emissions!
Oil Spills!
Solar panels on the white house. (by the way, did you see who has decided to delay putting a solar panel field in the desert in California?)

Since we have already "lost the battle", perhaps it's time for you to seriously reconsider your stance on God....He might be all you have left to fall back on.


It's sad to see you get yourself all worked up like this over junk science. I have a feeling that the earth is going to survive just fine.

Steve

wolfdancer
05-26-2010, 04:08 PM
You ain't missing much. Most members here that care to engage in any political dialogue....want to discuss the pertinent issues...people like steve and lww believe that a personal attack, will somehow "win" the debate.
Since few now reply to his "informative" posts lately, and you and Hondo, all but ignore him....Steve is trailing my posts like a puppy dog in heat, trying to argue anything and everything: the advantages/disadvantages of daylight saving time, the mean temp in Antarctica, and the price of tea in Chins...for rep points on the "area 9" site?
For the most part I have him on ignore....but I have found a useful and therapeutic benefit from reading a few.....they will often induce peristalsis, so I'm no longer full of **** like him and lww. Say there's a thought....he ought to read his own posts.
I think he done caught OCD from reading too many of his mentor, lww's posts.
lww is the only one keeping score, though....and since he is his own "official" scorer....his win total claim is legendary over on that other unnamed site. (course legends are often disproved with facts, but...why ruin a good story)
I think Steve went to Jesse Helms elementary school, whose grad class had this as their theme:
"We don't smoke, we don't chew,
we don't go with girls that do.
Our class won a Bible!!"

pooltchr
05-26-2010, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You ain't missing much. Most members here that care to engage in any political dialogue....want to discuss the pertinent issues...people like steve and lww believe that a personal attack, will somehow "win" the debate. <span style="color: #FF0000">First personal attack of the post </span>
Since few now reply to his "informative" posts lately, and you and Hondo, all but ignore him....Steve is trailing my posts like a puppy dog in heat, <span style="color: #FF0000">second personal attack </span> trying to argue anything and everything: the advantages/disadvantages of daylight saving time, the mean temp in Antarctica, and the price of tea in Chins...for rep points on the "area 9" site? <span style="color: #FF0000">third personal attack </span>
For the most part I have him on ignore....but I have found a useful and therapeutic benefit from reading a few.....they will often induce peristalsis, so I'm no longer full of **** like him and lww. <span style="color: #FF0000">that makes four </span> Say there's a thought....he ought to read his own posts. <span style="color: #FF0000">there''s number five </span>
I think he done caught OCD from reading too many of his mentor, lww's posts. <span style="color: #FF0000">six, and still going strong </span>
lww is the only one keeping score, though....and since he is his own "official" scorer....his win total claim is legendary over on that other unnamed site. (course legends are often disproved with facts, but...why ruin a good story)
I think Steve went to Jesse Helms elementary school, whose grad class had this as their theme:
"We don't smoke, we don't chew,
we don't go with girls that do.
Our class won a Bible!!" <span style="color: #FF0000"> Lucky number seven</span> </div></div>

Did you want to enter into a <u>dialogue of pertinent issues </u>and just forgot when you got so wrapped up in all the personal attacks?

Funny, how you are most guilty of the things you accuse others of doing.

Get a mirror.

Steve

wolfdancer
05-26-2010, 08:30 PM
Get a life!
I keep wondering if you and the **** are being paid to take down this site with your insults and bragging.
you gotta admit that since you two and a few others have hijacked the board with the banal tripe that you post,the active membership is way down
By the way...it is you trolling myself and Gayle....I'm not interested enough to read any thread that you begin....for the most part

pooltchr
05-26-2010, 08:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I keep wondering if you and the **** are being paid to take down this site with your insults </div></div>

You make an entire post with at least 7, count 'em, 7 personal insults, and accuse me of posting insults???????????????

Yeah, you are right...one of us needs to get a life, but thank you, I already have one. Guess that leaves you.

Steve

wolfdancer
05-26-2010, 10:08 PM
just 7? I must be slipping. You are even more annoying then lww, as hidden inside that attention deficit disorder demagogue /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif(self proclaimed)....there is a spark of intelligence......At least he reads up on current topics and doesn't try to "wing it" as you do...
A Harvard Professor once wrote a paper on how we receive, interpret, then pass on info.....the experiment went something like this....he told a story to a pupil who then passed it on to another student who did likewise.....after X number of students had passed on the story, the last one had to repeat it back to the Prof. The story had become virtually unrecognizable...we all have our own bias and beliefs that effect the way we interpret data.......so your version of the news is way different then mine, even though we have heard or read the same report.....just be satisfied you were able to form an opinion about the report....and don't let it bother you that others may see things a little different....I don't care what you read into a news story.....you are welcome to your beliefs....just stop trying to force them on me....because they are crap imo....as mine must be to yours. But since I am not trying to "educate" others as you have claimed you are doing....I could give a f**k if you buy into mine
I could add that you could have been first to be told the story, and when asked to repeat it back.....he might think, WTF?....but propriety prevents me from doing so.
I trust this will be our last communication, ever? thanks for your cooperation.

LWW
05-27-2010, 04:34 AM
Congrats for seeing them for what they truly are.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-27-2010, 05:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now where were we, oh yes, we were talking about how Republicans have traditionally blocked addressing our energy problems, and supported big business, against the best interests of the American Public, right?</div></div>I thought you wanted to stick to the subject? No?

eg8r </div></div>

That's fine, what would you like to discuss about wind vs oil.

Gayle in MD
05-27-2010, 06:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WE NEED MORE REGULATIONS, NOT LESS!</div></div>What will more regulations matter if we are not going to enforce the ones that are already there.


<span style="color: #000066">IMO, we need to fully address our energy future in realistic terms. I think we must concentrate on removing the culture of corruption that existed throughout the Bush Administration, as regards the swinging door between corporate interests, and government oversight agencies. I believe that Democratics are already addressing that.

Additionally, we must continue to promote clean energy by removing any and all subsidies to dirty energy, and giving them to those who are in the lead, in their personal quests for making our environement safer, and cleaner through their own investments.

The biggest problem goings forward, in accomplishing nearly everything we need to address as regards using wind and solar, for example, is to organize a protest on the steps in front of the Supreme Court. Their recent ruling creates a huge barrier to our democratic principles, one vote, one person, is skewed when one person, one corporate CEO, can use multi billions, under cover, all the money he wishes to advance his business purposes, by bribing our representatives, and buying seats for those willing to take the bribes, regardless of whether his corporate intentions are in the best interests of the country. </span>

If Reagan would have left the solar panels on the White House, how would that have prevented this oil disaster?

<span style="color: #000066">Ed, it sent a message, and as during both Bush's, the message from all of our Republican Presidents, except for Nixon, was to maintain our dependence on oil, which is both unrealistic, and dangerous in today's world.

Further, had this country listened to Carter, who laid out the facts on how foreign oil dependence would impact our national security, going forward, and embraced a national commitment toward that effort, all those decades ago, maybe in fact, we would not be watching this disaster right now. </span>You asked us both to stay on topic and one post later you are jumping all over the place but definitely not concerning yourself with the topic.


eg8r
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">There is a lot of information in the article I provided. Your response was about the Kennedy's. If you decide to go that direction, there is plenty I can write about Republicans, whose hero Sara Palin, has a mantra of Drill Beby Drill.

If you review this thread, please notice who took the thread to partisan BS, and away from the subject.

Dee, brought up Ted Kennedy. From then on, the thread began to deterroriate from a serious subject about wind VS Oil, to the usual partisan BS, that is actually not at all constructive....

You and Dee, Sack, and Bobby, are about the only righties whose posts I read, BTW.....

G.</span>

pooltchr
05-27-2010, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I trust this will be our last communication, ever? thanks for your cooperation. </div></div>

One can only hope! You've made that promise in the past.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-27-2010, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't figure out which of the clueless wonders el ww/el stevo, that posted behind you, wrote the dumbest reply...(Dumb and dumber). In the interest of fairness I'll call it a tie, and they can share the booby prize.
The both have the same compulsive need to reply to your posts where you just quote from an authorative source....and they both think a line or two of Bubba logic....."your Mom wears jockey shorts" is enough to offset an expert's opinion...not that I know about that authors credentials....but they would do the same here if Einstein was posting.
that's why I always favored golf over pool. You might run into a handful of "Bubbas" on the GC over the course of a summer. There's usually that many every night and twice that on the weekends, in every pool room.
My definition of a Bubba....you don't have to be a southerner to qualify....some loud mouthed jerk, with s**t for brains that believes he knows everything about everything. ... there was an old saying that read "warning: engage brain before putting mouth in gear"....apparantly, they never read it, or their clutch is slipping
I think it is really (O'Reilly?) charming lately that when one posts...the other backs him up....it's kind of like an internet echo, but one where the words get lost in translation..but it's the thought that counts and as the line goes in Pritzi's Honor....them two are "thinkers" Often they are the only two posters on the thread...but it's understandable..while they seem to have short term memory loss, and think they are posting new and original content... we have all read the same crap for a few years now:
"Wah, the left ain't as smart as we iz, Wah, the left wants to elect some Nazi/Commie/dictator, ...some effete, pinko, commie, intellectual, elitest, to replace good Christian, home schooled,people like our
"Hey there, Georgie Boy" who had his wings clipped, before he got them...and "Mr. Top Gun" hisself,Dickie,.... also Ann, course Ann is no longer a member of the old boys club...she just couldn't "measure up" anymore....and the "legend before her time, Miss Musher, 1992" the one, the only (Thank God) clueless, dogsled lady....who stopped one too many hockey pucks with her head....before her time. Perhaps in a few years, they will offer a coure at Nome U. ...a study on how this obscure lady, with the brains of an obscure Wal-Mart greeter, became an obscure Gov..... it will be called "Palintology 101" They might also delve into how poor John McCain had the misfortune to be shot down twice in his life, once by the N.Vietnamese, and once by Sarah....I'm not sure which ensuing torture was greater....
And speaking of Oh'Reilly (I was)....he is on Tv, while these two are just watching, enthralled, and taking notes.....just because he can spin facts faster then a Maytag washer can spin clothes....they should have titled his show "Spin City"...too late now....but maybe "The Bullsh*t Factor" is still available
??? (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1108) </div></div>

Hilarious! You always make me laugh out loud. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Here we are in the midst of not oone, but two, national tragedies, both of which were results of getting government off the backs of big business, and the bubbas are still too stupid to see through the corporate take over of our country.

All deep water drilling must be stopped. the Financial, energy, annd health, food and drug industries, must be far more strictly regulated.

Even Bernie Sanders, a libertarian, BTW, and a man I often agree with, is calling for more government regulations across the board.

By moving away from dirty fuels, we can launch many jobs, save a fortune in energy costs, and clean up our environment, removiong such disastrous risks as what we are seeing right now in the Gulf.

Denmark, the cleanest country in the world, has already switched to natural gas, which in three years, we would be the largest iporters of, to the rest of the world, because we don't use it enough right here! And we have plenty natural gas, as T. Boone keeps telling us, 2/3 cleaner than oil.

It is absurd, to think there are still climate change idiot deniers like Palin out there, showing their total ignorance on the subject of energy, and climate change, and enough Bubbas to go out there and pay to listen to her BS.

Special interests have owned this country for far too long. The disastrous results, should be obvious by now, to everyone. what good is a free market, if it's power is directed against the public good, and only in thheir personal interest of greed. that's is not what "Free Market" means.

Regulate, Regulate, Regulate!

G.

pooltchr
05-27-2010, 07:21 AM
Who was it that forced the drilling further offshore, into deeper water????

(I don't blame you, I wouldn't want to answer a tough straightforward question like that either, if I were you)

Steve

eg8r
05-27-2010, 12:40 PM
I like the idea of using wind in Cape Cod and the Great Lakes. Why are we allowing the evil rich land owners to fight it tooth and nail?

eg8r

eg8r
05-27-2010, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here we are in the midst of not oone, but two, national tragedies, both of which were results of getting government off the backs of big business, and the bubbas are still too stupid to see through the corporate take over of our country.</div></div>An even bigger trajedy is that our current admin KNEW the previous admin allowed all this to happen and he still did nothing to fix it until a disaster prompted him to action (and vacation).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By moving away from dirty fuels, we can launch many jobs</div></div>What about all the jobs you will be losing from dirty fuels? Your job creation is at the expense of already great paying jobs. The two negate each other and there are NO new jobs created.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Denmark, the cleanest country in the world, has already switched to natural gas, which in three years, we would be the largest iporters of, to the rest of the world, because we don't use it enough right here! </div></div>Thanks to Sarah Palin our own national pipeline is on its way to a reality. This however is no big thing because all you care about is "renewable" energy and natural gas will run out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is absurd, to think there are still climate change idiot deniers </div></div>I think it is absurd to think there are still idiots that think climate change is due to humans instead of a very natural occuring event.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-27-2010, 01:33 PM
That's nice Ed. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Of course, much of my opinion is influenced by the studies I have made about all of the filth in our environment, from burning fosile fuels, and what it does to, not only cancer rates, but all sorts of other health consequences for our children, plants and animals, and happening because of chemicals, dirty fuels, not only oil and coal, but also the chemicals they use when one of these deep wells blows up.

The current Administration was in the throes of investigating all of our agencies, including MMS, DOI, EPA, all of them. I am glad that this president has altered his original stance on further deep water, and offshore, drilling, and has been on this disaster daily, from the outset, of the tragic events occuring in our Golf Waters, and surrounding states.

Literally hundreds of Federal government experts, have been there throughout this disaster, and President Obama, has had numerous discussions with experts in the field.

I am glad that he pulled together all of the experts from all over the world, to give their input, and their knowledge, instead of going off half cocked, and making a lot of huge mistakes, which could have included disastrous unintended consequences.

I'm also glad that he takes full responsibility, as president, for leading us in the correct direction, instead of just lying to us about his failures, like some previous presidents have done, namely, W. Bush, and Reagan.

Now that it has become extremely evident that BP lied through their teeth, all along, about the amount of oil that is actually escaping, we can address the realities of what we're dealing with, instead of trying to find solutions for a problem which turns out to be far greater than BP, and the others, admitted in the beginning.

Regardless, President Obama has nixed any new off shore drilling, until the oil industry can PROVE to the satisfaction of his panel of experts, that they can, in fact, appropriately handle future oil well explosions, and spills, efficiently and in time to avert such ecologically disastrous results, as we are seeing now, partially resulting from Bush's Culture Of Corruption of our oversight agencies, his removal of many requirements for a cleaner environment, and that he is going forward in wiping out that culture of corruption in the various regulatory agencies, which he inherited, as quickly as posible, and has already appointed a panel to investigate the entire problem....

We can only hope, that Republicans will stop blocking his appointees, as they have been doing, and doing in an unprecedented manner, and that Republicans will be able to grasp all of the dangers that we as Americans are facing, because of their continuous obstructionism, particularly to this presidents important appointees and agency heads.

G.

Deeman3
05-27-2010, 03:05 PM
While it would be nice to replace fossil fuels with wind, sun and even thermal power it is a marginal approach at best. That does not mean we should not or are not forced to try, as there will soon be no alternatives especially if oil safety and/or cost cannot be controlled.

It all comes down to BTU's and how mch we can get from a particular process and how much it costs in money, resources and pollution. We, in the auto industry, can reasonably increase fuel efficiency up to, perhaps, 60-80 MPG in small passenger vehicles and that can and will be done over the next two decades.

The problem comes with the effectivness (BTU's per whatever) in each technology. Oil is not a highly efficient fuel but much better than solar and wind. Even if they improve this to levels only expected by the most optimistic experts, it may replace 20% of our presnt usage in oil/coal in 20 years. Again, no reason we should not do this. However, thinking a super array of panels or large wind farms will do more is silly even to base science subject matter experts.

This means we will A: Pay ecologically or monitarily much more of our resources than we will have or a very large portion of the planet's population will have to "go away"! The expected growth of the world population exceeds our ability to provide alternative energy supplies even if we stay steady state on oil, something that we know if impossible because of dimishing supplies.

Who do we sacrifice? The third world is the easiest place to start and with the increased development of nukes in radical hands, part of the solution may come from that as it explodes in the Mid-East. NOw, yes there is a minor threat of them using them here but we are talking about a few big explosions in a couple of major population areas, not the destruction of the United States proper.

I don't blame Obama for the oil spill any more than the silly people who blamed Bush for Katrina should have in that case. I do see that Obama is seeking popular political (to his lower and lower audience numbers) instead of real hard choice solutions. His rally to increase energy costs to reduce comsumption while it will have some effect, is more of a move to control the money flow. He will put upa few windmills and fund a few battery campaigns along with taxing energy for redistribution but, in the end, he is a politician who is as mired in BP and GE as Bush ever was.

I didn't think my pointing out the fact that Teddy vigorously opposed windmills near his Cape Cod home was a cheap shot at all. He, above all, was a politician doing what they do, acting in self interest, as usual. Why is that unfair? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I think, if Obama really was clean on this and had our best interests at heart, he would/will get support from the bulk of senators and congressmen. Like the Health Care Bill, if he just makes a bigger pork and spend for his buddies at GE, he will either fail or push it through like Health care which only his base and further left are now supporting.

Still, I think Carvil was nuts about the rant he put on over Obama but figure this may have somthing to do with Hillary distancing herself from Obama recently.

Gayle in MD
05-27-2010, 03:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it would be nice to replace fossil fuels with wind, sun and even thermal power it is a marginal approach at best. That does not mean we should not or are not forced to try, as there will soon be no alternatives especially if oil safety and/or cost cannot be controlled.

It all comes down to BTU's and how mch we can get from a particular process and how much it costs in money, resources and pollution. We, in the auto industry, can reasonably increase fuel efficiency up to, perhaps, 60-80 MPG in small passenger vehicles and that can and will be done over the next two decades.

The problem comes with the effectivness (BTU's per whatever) in each technology. Oil is not a highly efficient fuel but much better than solar and wind. Even if they improve this to levels only expected by the most optimistic experts, it may replace 20% of our presnt usage in oil/coal in 20 years. Again, no reason we should not do this. However, thinking a super array of panels or large wind farms will do more is silly even to base science subject matter experts.

This means we will A: Pay ecologically or monitarily much more of our resources than we will have or a very large portion of the planet's population will have to "go away"! The expected growth of the world population exceeds our ability to provide alternative energy supplies even if we stay steady state on oil, something that we know if impossible because of dimishing supplies.

Who do we sacrifice? The third world is the easiest place to start and with the increased development of nukes in radical hands, part of the solution may come from that as it explodes in the Mid-East. NOw, yes there is a minor threat of them using them here but we are talking about a few big explosions in a couple of major population areas, not the destruction of the United States proper.

I don't blame Obama for the oil spill any more than the silly people who blamed Bush for Katrina should have in that case. I do see that Obama is seeking popular political (to his lower and lower audience numbers) instead of real hard choice solutions. His rally to increase energy costs to reduce comsumption while it will have some effect, is more of a move to control the money flow. He will put upa few windmills and fund a few battery campaigns along with taxing energy for redistribution but, in the end, he is a politician who is as mired in BP and GE as Bush ever was.

I didn't think my pointing out the fact that Teddy vigorously opposed windmills near his Cape Cod home was a cheap shot at all. He, above all, was a politician doing what they do, acting in self interest, as usual. Why is that unfair? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I think, if Obama really was clean on this and had our best interests at heart, he would/will get support from the bulk of senators and congressmen. Like the Health Care Bill, if he just makes a bigger pork and spend for his buddies at GE, he will either fail or push it through like Health care which only his base and further left are now supporting.

Still, I think Carvil was nuts about the rant he put on over Obama but figure this may have somthing to do with Hillary distancing herself from Obama recently. </div></div>

Interesting post, although some of it doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't know why you think Hillary is distancing herself from the president. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Also, I never blamed Bush for the hurricane hitting New Orleans, and it would be truly silly to suggest that anyone did. In doing so, you fail to acknowledge that that charge, was nothing more than a silly buzz line used by the right, to dilute the true incompetence which Bush displayed, throughout the aftermath.

I blamed him for being warned several days in advance, by the National Hurricane Center, that the levies would likely fail, and not taking charge of the situation enough to have had food, water, and busses at the ready, and then wasting millions after, on toxic trailors, which ended up sinking into the ground....after being warned, just like he was about 9/11, and failing to give a damn.

Obama has had to deal with BP's incessant lies throughout this disaster, but he has had hundreds of people working on this disaster non stop. This disaster has been his highest priority, since it occured.

This president does not avoid responsibility, nor does he blame others, when he has made a mistake. It took five weeks, before an independent panel of experts could even come up with the amount of oil that is escaping.

If you can't see the difference between him, and Bush, who after years of F-ups in Iraq, said he couldn't think of any mistakes he had made, then I can't say that gives me a feeling that you are fair in your other assessments.

As for our issues with energy, I suppose I have more faith in American ingenuity, than you do. the fact is, there are people who produce their own ennergy, and sell the reserves back to large energy companies. The fact is, there are other countries who are working on all sorts of energy options, and Republican Policies have kept us behind all of them.

The automobile industry, could have been building higher mileage automobiles for the last thirty five years.

Seems like our oil problems would have even more opporunities for solutions, had the automobile industry not been dragging their feet for decades, and had we not had Republican's Pro Oil, Pro Corporate ingterests, energy Policies, at the forefront, for the last over thrity years, we would be leading the world right now, instead of watching China beat us to the punch....

This, like all other challenges mankind has faced, can and will be solved, but we must keep the pro oil Republican/political cartel our of power, in order to go forward, and get more "Tree Huggers" into positions of power.

G.

pooltchr
05-27-2010, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the idea of using wind in Cape Cod and the Great Lakes. Why are we allowing the evil rich land owners to fight it tooth and nail?

eg8r </div></div>

Maybe we need the wind farms near Washington, or maybe nearby in Maryland....seems to be plenty of hot air being generated in that part of the country! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

wolfdancer
05-27-2010, 03:59 PM
Damn, I have forgotten so much of what I knew about the efficiency of combustion engines....I can't remember what the theoretical engine's name was that ran at 100% efficiency....thought it was the Otto engine....but
If I am remembering corectly...combustion engines have a low efficiency rating, due mainly to heat loss?....and that diesel engines have a higher rating???? I'll have to find someone with an M.E. degree that can answer that. What ever happend to Wankel and the ad "pitson engines go ..." I know the Wankel has a higher power output and a lower efficiency rating ( I knows 'cause I jes read it)
I'm guessing that we can't improve much on engine tech, just produce lighter cars that would then also help out on our population control problems?

Deeman3
05-27-2010, 04:51 PM
Yes, the 100% or pepetual motion machine. I am am M.E. and, despite my religous leanings, don't buy that for a second. Funny about efficiency, like the automobile most things are very inefficient at turning a fuel into power. The heat and friction both hurt the intenal combustion engine and Wankel Rotary was a nice idea that is actually used under other designs and names may have been a tad more efficient because simply of the rotary cylinder(s) not having to reverse like in a normal combustion engine but the savings were not large. It worked on a changing geometry method much like a compressor piston.

The problem be...:) There is an inate loss when thranmititng power in the form of rotary or linear force. Now, in for instance heating water, the solar power by the simple nature of it's rather direct collection and transfer is pretty efficient. However, in generating electricity the required surface area and use of mechanical force (turbines) makes it a very poor choice. Gayle said many people sell electricity back to grids. Yes, a few do but the entire state of Maryland would have to be blanketed with panels to supply much more than Baltimore.

It would be nice of Obama of it would have been of Bush to simply say, "We have to have reason." Not them jumping on the corn ethyinol bandwagon or simply completely ignoring the sheer waste and net environmental damage of electircal cars that, fired by coal fired electircal generators polutes even more than a modern engine.

As she said, we could have had cars that get 100 mpg years ago. That is whole nuther subject but we may lobby, like everyone, but have never failed to meet a mandate. The Dems take roughly the same amount of contributions as the Republicans. To some, one is o.k. but the other is wrong. So what's new? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I still say a smart development of new energy along with a large reduction in humans on the planet is the best alternative. Some may have a higher confidence in much, much higher magnitudes of efficiency (requred to work out) but a fantasy of impossible levels of output are like, well, thinking a man can live in a whale. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
05-27-2010, 05:06 PM
that was an insiders joke...the M.E. ref...
If I remeber right....there was a seal, or seal wear? problem with the Wankel... great idea on paper, but the maintenence and repair would dent one's budget.
I did study steam recip, and turbine engines at one time and fooled the CG into giving me a temp license....but that was long ago and now I wouldn't know the difference between a donkey boiler and a mule train.

LWW
05-28-2010, 05:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I blamed him for being warned several days in advance, by the National Hurricane Center, that the levies would likely fail, and not taking charge of the situation enough to have had food, water, and busses at the ready

G. </div></div>

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph ... why do you cling to such lies so tenaciously?

Here are the facts of the matter:

- Louisiana knew for years they would get hit again by a major hurricane, the feds appropriated money to them for levee improvements ... they used it to buile casinos and condos.

- Busses were there for the evac and were routinely leaving on a regular schedule ... empty or near empty.

- School busses were available for a last minute major evac ... and Nagin refused to use them.

- The corrupocratic demokooks who had ran Louisiana for ages accepted fed funds to stock shelters and prepare an evac and emergency plan and to have it in place and rehearsed. They certified they had done all of this. In reality they had done none of this.

Your incessant moan of B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! does nothing other than allow the guilty to roam free.

LWW