"John H." wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?

Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.

Two things come immediately to mind.

One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem
to
be failing miserably.

A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.

Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.

Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.

Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet

Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound

Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon

Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon

Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon

You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.

Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.

What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area
for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.

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

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


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

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

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

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

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

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

Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!

You keep showing yourself for what you are.

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


Right. They're getting rich off the prize money they give out. I get it.
Really.

I thought you plonked me a couple of times. Are you having filter trouble?

--
Nom=de=Plume