|
The right wingers won't like this!
On 6/26/12 12:05 PM, JustWait wrote:
That's why I have him blocked now again, these people are like irrational children here... You are by far the least rational person posting in rec.boats. |
The right wingers won't like this!
On Jun 26, 1:20*pm, "Califbill" wrote:
"North Star" *wrote in message ... On Jun 26, 9:51 am, Oscar wrote: On 6/26/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/25/2012 6:51 PM, Oscar wrote: On 6/25/2012 5:44 PM, wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in messagenews:e78eu79sv2re36jrsl1rshc0hoei5m8cni@4ax .com.... You are making the same argument that automobiles will never replace horses. Electricity is likely to be the next fuel, but one thing is a sure thing: petroleum is going out. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not for quite a while, I don't think. Electricity and battery powered automobiles are simply examples of energy generated by other means and converted to electricity and/or stored in batteries. *If the current fascination with "green", electric powered cars grows, *we will see the cost of generating the energy required to charge them rise. * The bulk of raw energy is still in the form of fossil fuels and the conversion process adds additional energy and cost requirements. Those who think they are being "green" by driving a battery powered car have been fed a line of BS. *It might make them feel good or give them some sense of being environmentally friendly, but the truth is they are more environmentally "unfriendly" than friendly. Lithium Ion batteries are the best technology we have to date and they are an environmental hazard the likes of which we haven't yet to fully experience. Solar and wind can't come close to meeting the demand and nuclear is still a political hot potato. * Here's where the energy used to produce electricity in the USA comes from: http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...eneration_sour... Eisboch All of that seems quite obvious. Batteries will likely NOT be the most efficient storage medium, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in the interim. Oil is on its way out. Period. Unless somebody can give me a viable alternative, I'm sticking with electricity as the next fuel. Electricity is a product made from mostly fossil fuels. Shhhhh, that's not as impressive at the cocktail parties... You stupid fool! I guess you've never heard of hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.? Or is it that FOX or your insanity is telling you that they don't exist? You're the fool. With the exception of nuclear, the generators you mention are VERY MINOR players. Your arguments are not arguments at all.. Just cries for attention. What are you babbling about? In a few short years of building we now get almost 30% of our electricity generated from windmills and hopefully the remainder when we can figure out how to harness the power of the Fundy tides. Renewable endless supply... much more than this province will ever need. *Maybe we'll sell a few megawatts to y'all south of the border. --------------------------------------- You live in an area that does not require a lot of electricity. *Not much manufacturing, etc. *if you can get 30% of your power from wind. *As to Bay of Fundy. *How you going to get around the eviros to build the generating stations? We'll ship them off to kalifornia. |
The right wingers won't like this!
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:53:12 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:35:56 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:15:56 AM UTC-4, North Star wrote: On Jun 26, 9:51*am, Oscar wrote: On 6/26/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/25/2012 6:51 PM, Oscar wrote: On 6/25/2012 5:44 PM, wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in messagenews:e78eu79sv2re36jrsl1rshc0hoei5m8cni@4ax .com... You are making the same argument that automobiles will never replace horses. Electricity is likely to be the next fuel, but one thing is a sure thing: petroleum is going out. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not for quite a while, I don't think. Electricity and battery powered automobiles are simply examples of energy generated by other means and converted to electricity and/or stored in batteries. *If the current fascination with "green", electric powered cars grows, *we will see the cost of generating the energy required to charge them rise. * The bulk of raw energy is still in the form of fossil fuels and the conversion process adds additional energy and cost requirements. Those who think they are being "green" by driving a battery powered car have been fed a line of BS. *It might make them feel good or give them some sense of being environmentally friendly, but the truth is they are more environmentally "unfriendly" than friendly. Lithium Ion batteries are the best technology we have to date and they are an environmental hazard the likes of which we haven't yet to fully experience. Solar and wind can't come close to meeting the demand and nuclear is still a political hot potato. * Here's where the energy used to produce electricity in the USA comes from: http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...eneration_sour... Eisboch All of that seems quite obvious. Batteries will likely NOT be the most efficient storage medium, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in the interim. Oil is on its way out. Period. Unless somebody can give me a viable alternative, I'm sticking with electricity as the next fuel. Electricity is a product made from mostly fossil fuels. Shhhhh, that's not as impressive at the cocktail parties... You stupid fool! I guess you've never heard of hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.? Or is it that FOX or your insanity is telling you that they don't exist? You're the fool. With the exception of nuclear, the generators you mention are VERY MINOR players. Your arguments are not arguments at all. Just cries for attention. What are you babbling about? In a few short years of building we now get almost 30% of our electricity generated from windmills and hopefully the remainder when we can figure out how to harness the power of the Fundy tides. Renewable endless supply... much more than this province will ever need. Maybe we'll sell a few megawatts to y'all south of the border. What are you babbling about? In the scheme of things, your province isn't even a speck on the electricity map. Besides: "At the end of 2011, wind power generating capacity was 5,265 megawatts (MW), providing some 2.3% of Canada's electricity demand." "In provinces like Nova Scotia, where only 12% of electricity comes from renewable sources..." ~snerk~ Does that mean that we should stop looking for alternatives to fossil fuels? Or do you think we should continue to try to develop long term solutions to the problem which IS fossil fuels? No, it means that bonnie was making up numbers, and even if his province got 100% of their power from windmills, it would be a tiny percentage of the power that the USA uses. It had absolutely nothing to do with your two questions. Why would you come to such an erroneous assumption? Because you and most conservative types here poo poo any type of new technology. I often wonder why? Wrong on two accounts... I haven't poo-poo'd anything, and pointing out the problems and shortcomings in some of the new technology isn't a poo-poo. It's reality. I work in technology... love and embrace it. But as an engineer, I do think logically. The current crop of electric cars meet a narrow slice of the driving population's needs, and few of them can justify, or afford, to spend $30-50k on one. Until we get that breakthrough that makes them acceptable alternatives, they will be novelties that don't make sense or are out of reach for most people. A good, common sense article: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/will-...vive-in-the-us You do realize, then, that new technology takes time to improve upon? Look at the automobile in general. It sure isn't the same as Henry's model A! |
The right wingers won't like this!
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 6/26/12 8:55 AM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... Which has nothing to do with the fact that "we can do better" with electricity in the future. ---------------------------------------------------------------- With the exception of nuclear power generation and the possible futuristic development of hydrogen fuel cells, there is really nothing on the horizon now or in the foreseeable future that will replace fossil fuels as being the primary source of electrical energy production. Having been involved in an industry that has seen three major spikes of solar power interest, (the first being in the late 70's), the efficiency of solar panels has gone from from about 8 percent to about 15-18 percent in the last 35 years. It needs to be triple that to be a realistic contender to replace fossil fuels. Wind? Forget it. The largest operational wind turbine (in Germany) produces 5MW of power under ideal conditions (wind speed of 30 mph). Most of the time the output is much less. The USA uses 3,741,000,000 MW/hr/yr of electrical power as things are now. That doesn't include replacing fossil fuel sources with wind generated power to charge batteries in automobiles. I know you of all people are not closing the door on future breakthroughs. ---------------------------------------------------- Oh, I am sure there will be major breakthroughs but probably not involving any energy programs currently being explored. Solar and wind are viable, but they can only supplement current electric production in a small way. Add the requirements of nation of electric powered autos (replacing gas and diesel) and the electrical production requirements go clear out of sight. I don't know what it will be. Hydrogen cells? Plasma generators? It's all theoretical and many, many years away from serious implementation. In the meantime, I think we will be dependent on fossil fuel sources ... coal, natural gas and oil supplemented with solar, wind and geothermal for a long time to come. |
The right wingers won't like this!
On 6/26/12 12:05 PM, JustWait wrote:
Because it's that shrill kind of deflection that they live on... I am waiting for him to come out, screaming, hands waving in the air, "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, WHO IS GOING TO SAVE THE CHILDREN"!!!! That's why I have him blocked now again, these people are like irrational children here... Times sure have changed. In biblical days, when an ass like JustWait spoke, it was considered a miracle. |
The right wingers won't like this!
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:53:12 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:35:56 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:15:56 AM UTC-4, North Star wrote: On Jun 26, 9:51 am, Oscar wrote: On 6/26/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/25/2012 6:51 PM, Oscar wrote: On 6/25/2012 5:44 PM, wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in messagenews:e78eu79sv2re36jrsl1rshc0hoei5m8cni@4ax .com... You are making the same argument that automobiles will never replace horses. Electricity is likely to be the next fuel, but one thing is a sure thing: petroleum is going out. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not for quite a while, I don't think. Electricity and battery powered automobiles are simply examples of energy generated by other means and converted to electricity and/or stored in batteries. If the current fascination with "green", electric powered cars grows, we will see the cost of generating the energy required to charge them rise. The bulk of raw energy is still in the form of fossil fuels and the conversion process adds additional energy and cost requirements. Those who think they are being "green" by driving a battery powered car have been fed a line of BS. It might make them feel good or give them some sense of being environmentally friendly, but the truth is they are more environmentally "unfriendly" than friendly. Lithium Ion batteries are the best technology we have to date and they are an environmental hazard the likes of which we haven't yet to fully experience. Solar and wind can't come close to meeting the demand and nuclear is still a political hot potato. Here's where the energy used to produce electricity in the USA comes from: http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...eneration_sour... Eisboch All of that seems quite obvious. Batteries will likely NOT be the most efficient storage medium, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in the interim. Oil is on its way out. Period. Unless somebody can give me a viable alternative, I'm sticking with electricity as the next fuel. Electricity is a product made from mostly fossil fuels. Shhhhh, that's not as impressive at the cocktail parties... You stupid fool! I guess you've never heard of hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.? Or is it that FOX or your insanity is telling you that they don't exist? You're the fool. With the exception of nuclear, the generators you mention are VERY MINOR players. Your arguments are not arguments at all. Just cries for attention. What are you babbling about? In a few short years of building we now get almost 30% of our electricity generated from windmills and hopefully the remainder when we can figure out how to harness the power of the Fundy tides. Renewable endless supply... much more than this province will ever need. Maybe we'll sell a few megawatts to y'all south of the border. What are you babbling about? In the scheme of things, your province isn't even a speck on the electricity map. Besides: "At the end of 2011, wind power generating capacity was 5,265 megawatts (MW), providing some 2.3% of Canada's electricity demand." "In provinces like Nova Scotia, where only 12% of electricity comes from renewable sources..." ~snerk~ Does that mean that we should stop looking for alternatives to fossil fuels? Or do you think we should continue to try to develop long term solutions to the problem which IS fossil fuels? No, it means that bonnie was making up numbers, and even if his province got 100% of their power from windmills, it would be a tiny percentage of the power that the USA uses. It had absolutely nothing to do with your two questions. Why would you come to such an erroneous assumption? Because you and most conservative types here poo poo any type of new technology. I often wonder why? Wrong on two accounts... I haven't poo-poo'd anything, and pointing out the problems and shortcomings in some of the new technology isn't a poo-poo. It's reality. I work in technology... love and embrace it. But as an engineer, I do think logically. The current crop of electric cars meet a narrow slice of the driving population's needs, and few of them can justify, or afford, to spend $30-50k on one. Until we get that breakthrough that makes them acceptable alternatives, they will be novelties that don't make sense or are out of reach for most people. A good, common sense article: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/will-...vive-in-the-us You do realize, then, that new technology takes time to improve upon? Look at the automobile in general. It sure isn't the same as Henry's model A! ----------------------------------------------- Actually the new, modern car is not as efficient as the Model T Ford. More comfortable, safer, but the Model T averaged 25 mpg. That was a real average, not an EPA faux number. Our coal and fuel oiled fired power plants are not much different technology from 100 years ago. I retired from the high tech world. Even hold a patent. So in 40+ years of working in computers I saw a vast increase in power and efficiency. Cars have not kept up. The Prius Hybrid is closer to a technology leap than most other vehicles. But other than stop and go traffic, there are a bunch of cars that get better mileage. Early 1900's had a bunch of electric vehicle makers. Got about same distance on a charge as a 2012 electric car. Better engine efficiency through electronic controls, but about the same kilowatt hours available then and now in the car. Until we either build more nuclear plants or come up with viable fusion reactors we are not going to be able to charge the amount of electric cars you think will be on the road. Plus the new batteries need to be much better and a whole lot less toxic to manufacture. |
The right wingers won't like this!
"North Star" wrote in message
... On Jun 26, 1:20 pm, "Califbill" wrote: "North Star" wrote in message ... On Jun 26, 9:51 am, Oscar wrote: On 6/26/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 6/25/2012 6:51 PM, Oscar wrote: On 6/25/2012 5:44 PM, wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in messagenews:e78eu79sv2re36jrsl1rshc0hoei5m8cni@4ax .com... You are making the same argument that automobiles will never replace horses. Electricity is likely to be the next fuel, but one thing is a sure thing: petroleum is going out. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not for quite a while, I don't think. Electricity and battery powered automobiles are simply examples of energy generated by other means and converted to electricity and/or stored in batteries. If the current fascination with "green", electric powered cars grows, we will see the cost of generating the energy required to charge them rise. The bulk of raw energy is still in the form of fossil fuels and the conversion process adds additional energy and cost requirements. Those who think they are being "green" by driving a battery powered car have been fed a line of BS. It might make them feel good or give them some sense of being environmentally friendly, but the truth is they are more environmentally "unfriendly" than friendly. Lithium Ion batteries are the best technology we have to date and they are an environmental hazard the likes of which we haven't yet to fully experience. Solar and wind can't come close to meeting the demand and nuclear is still a political hot potato. Here's where the energy used to produce electricity in the USA comes from: http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...eneration_sour... Eisboch All of that seems quite obvious. Batteries will likely NOT be the most efficient storage medium, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in the interim. Oil is on its way out. Period. Unless somebody can give me a viable alternative, I'm sticking with electricity as the next fuel. Electricity is a product made from mostly fossil fuels. Shhhhh, that's not as impressive at the cocktail parties... You stupid fool! I guess you've never heard of hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.? Or is it that FOX or your insanity is telling you that they don't exist? You're the fool. With the exception of nuclear, the generators you mention are VERY MINOR players. Your arguments are not arguments at all. Just cries for attention. What are you babbling about? In a few short years of building we now get almost 30% of our electricity generated from windmills and hopefully the remainder when we can figure out how to harness the power of the Fundy tides. Renewable endless supply... much more than this province will ever need. Maybe we'll sell a few megawatts to y'all south of the border. --------------------------------------- You live in an area that does not require a lot of electricity. Not much manufacturing, etc. if you can get 30% of your power from wind. As to Bay of Fundy. How you going to get around the eviros to build the generating stations? We'll ship them off to kalifornia. ------------------------------------- Not likely. We are a net exporter. |
The right wingers won't like this!
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 6/26/12 8:55 AM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... Which has nothing to do with the fact that "we can do better" with electricity in the future. ---------------------------------------------------------------- With the exception of nuclear power generation and the possible futuristic development of hydrogen fuel cells, there is really nothing on the horizon now or in the foreseeable future that will replace fossil fuels as being the primary source of electrical energy production. Having been involved in an industry that has seen three major spikes of solar power interest, (the first being in the late 70's), the efficiency of solar panels has gone from from about 8 percent to about 15-18 percent in the last 35 years. It needs to be triple that to be a realistic contender to replace fossil fuels. Wind? Forget it. The largest operational wind turbine (in Germany) produces 5MW of power under ideal conditions (wind speed of 30 mph). Most of the time the output is much less. The USA uses 3,741,000,000 MW/hr/yr of electrical power as things are now. That doesn't include replacing fossil fuel sources with wind generated power to charge batteries in automobiles. I know you of all people are not closing the door on future breakthroughs. ---------------------------------------------------- Oh, I am sure there will be major breakthroughs but probably not involving any energy programs currently being explored. Solar and wind are viable, but they can only supplement current electric production in a small way. Add the requirements of nation of electric powered autos (replacing gas and diesel) and the electrical production requirements go clear out of sight. I don't know what it will be. Hydrogen cells? Plasma generators? It's all theoretical and many, many years away from serious implementation. In the meantime, I think we will be dependent on fossil fuel sources ... coal, natural gas and oil supplemented with solar, wind and geothermal for a long time to come. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fuel Cells could make an electric car viable. But we still need to generate the hydrogen for the fuel cells. and that takes energy. We can get a lot from natural gas, but the better way would be electrolysis of water. Requiring more electricity. |
The right wingers won't like this!
In article m,
says... On 6/26/2012 8:38 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:51:50 -0400, Oscar wrote: On 6/25/2012 5:44 PM, wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... You are making the same argument that automobiles will never replace horses. Electricity is likely to be the next fuel, but one thing is a sure thing: petroleum is going out. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not for quite a while, I don't think. Electricity and battery powered automobiles are simply examples of energy generated by other means and converted to electricity and/or stored in batteries. If the current fascination with "green", electric powered cars grows, we will see the cost of generating the energy required to charge them rise. The bulk of raw energy is still in the form of fossil fuels and the conversion process adds additional energy and cost requirements. Those who think they are being "green" by driving a battery powered car have been fed a line of BS. It might make them feel good or give them some sense of being environmentally friendly, but the truth is they are more environmentally "unfriendly" than friendly. Lithium Ion batteries are the best technology we have to date and they are an environmental hazard the likes of which we haven't yet to fully experience. Solar and wind can't come close to meeting the demand and nuclear is still a political hot potato. Here's where the energy used to produce electricity in the USA comes from: http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...table_2010.gif Eisboch All of that seems quite obvious. Batteries will likely NOT be the most efficient storage medium, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used in the interim. Oil is on its way out. Period. Unless somebody can give me a viable alternative, I'm sticking with electricity as the next fuel. Electricity is a product made from mostly fossil fuels. Yes, at this time, it is. We can do better, in the future. Electricity is not a fuel now, nor will it be in the future. We should go back further, like before the wheel was invented. Why did those ******* Neanderthals have to come up with new things? The old things were good enough. Whiner! What these geniuses like Harry an idiotBoater don't understand is that we need to find a better way of generating electricity. They haven't figured out that electricity can't generate electricity for any sustained period of time. Cracking Hydrogen takes a lot of electricity. You still need to fuel to produce the electricity to crack the hydrogen. The process requires more energy to crack the hydrogen than it produces. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com