... OIL has Doubled in One Year! $120 bbl While NASA Dreams of Moon Rocks!

Alain Fournier wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Poetic Justice wrote:
: :
: :Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
: :we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
: :
:
: And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
: systems?
:
:Negligible.
:

Prove it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Do you
understand weather patterns well enough to know what will happen when
a butterfly flaps its wings in central Kansas? The answer is "no, we
don't, which is why weather is a chaotic system".

If we don't know that, how can you blithely say that taking gigawatts
of energy out of weather systems will have "negligible" effect on
those weather systems?

:
: Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
: doing" scheme?
:
:A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
:a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
:seam to be a big problem. So we know that having many windmills
:won't be a serious problem for weather patterns.
:

We have nowhere near the number of sequoia trees that people are
proposing for windmills and not in any of the same places. Do you
seriously believe there would be no weather or climate effects if we
cut them all down?

What you mean is you HOPE it won't be a serious problem or have some
untoward effect on rainfall, etc.

Yours is the same kind of argument that has been offered for each new
technology throughout history. Many of them then surprise us when
they produce bad side effects.

Hell, your same argument can be (and probably was) offered for why
large numbers of coal fired power plants aren't a problem.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Call Me Ishmael wrote:

Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.

What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?



On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....

So you have to maintain two systems.... how much carbon does it take to care
for two seperate power systems than just one ?

Since they are making 5% via wind, that implies they are making 95% some other
way.
I think the 5% is a average over a year's time.... on still days 0% is coming
from wind, on very windy days more than 5% of it is being made via wind, and
it averages out at 5%.
States sell electric power to each other, so if the wind farms out turning out
much power, it can come into the state from other sources.
My state of North Dakota is starting to build more wind farms - as we are the
windiest state in the nation and have vast areas of basically empty and flat
farmland that the wind generators can be built on.



You seem to find the threads I start worth jumping in on.
Would that make you a hypocrite?

A troll is typically a post that is not well-meaning.
So compare my posts to your replies to me?
Which is well-meaning, and which is not?





Pat

On May 10, 6:12*pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message

dakotatelephone...







Call Me Ishmael wrote:

Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.

What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?

On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....

So you have to maintain two systems.... how much carbon does it take to care
for two seperate power systems than just one ?

Since they are making 5% via wind, that implies they are making 95% some other
way.
I think the 5% is a average over a year's time.... on still days 0% is coming
from wind, on very windy days more than 5% of it is being made via wind, and
it averages out at 5%.
States sell electric power to each other, so if the wind farms out turning out
much power, it can come into the state from other sources.
My state of North Dakota is starting to build more wind farms - as we are the
windiest state in the nation and have vast areas of basically empty and flat
farmland that the wind generators can be built on.

You seem to find the threads I start worth jumping in on.
Would that make you a hypocrite?

A troll is typically a post that is not well-meaning.
So compare my posts to your replies to me?
Which is well-meaning, and which is not?





Pat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The installed wind electric capacity in the US was 16.8 Gw in 2007,
roughly 17 three mile island sized pwrs or more than three 5GW spss.
If wind comprises more than 20% of generation, problems with supply vs
demand become important but could be handled with pumped storage,
pressurised air or more exotic possibilities.

The subject is relevant. Should treasure be spent on earthbound green
power of known fiscal risk, that can be advanced incrementally, or on
what most people would consider to be 'pie in the sky'.

Poetic Justice wrote:

Pat

Is the land *dual use* wind generator/food crops? Or does the wind
farm just farm wind?

The ones I've seen are dual use, with the tower for the wind turbine
coming out of a field, surrounded by a fenced-in area at its base of
around 150 feet on a side. Since everything is pretty much flat in the
eastern half of the state, it's very easy for tractors and combines to
navigate around the wind turbines as they do their farming, or cattle to
graze on the land if ranching is done.


More land out of truck farming use would raise food costs even more
than now with Alcohol grains pushing out the Food.

It's a matter of size; even thousands of wind towers would take up only
a very small fraction of the state's farming area (plus they could be
built on land that was unsuitable for farming), besides which, we are at
nowhere near maximum farming capability at the moment.
The high food prices at the moment are due to several factors, including:

1.) Many farmers devoted large areas of farmland to corn production as
its sales price rose when it used for ethanol production. This in turn
meant that less area was devoted to wheat production, causing its price
to rise.
2.) Corn served as a staple feed source for farm animals such as cattle,
pigs, and chickens - causing their prices to also increase as the price
of corn increased.
3.) Farm production uses a large amount of oil and natural gas derived
products, such as fuel for the farm machinery, oil-based insecticides
and herbicides, as well as nitrogen fertilizers...so as the price of oil
rose so did production costs.
4.) Getting the raw farm produce to the places where they are processed
into foods, and from there to market, requires moving large amounts of
heavy product (such as grains) via either truck or railway. Since both
these use diesel fuel, and that has gone way up in price, this also adds
to the final price of the food.

At least in the case of #1, things should get better fairly
shortly...the rising price of wheat has led to more planting of it this
year, and the rising price of corn is making ethanol production by that
means increasingly uneconomic.
I think the whole corn-produced ethanol process is going to be looked
back on as a major mistake, although other means might be very feasible
The wild switchgrass that naturally grows in abundance in our state
could be harvested after only comparatively minor input in regards to
fertilization and care.
Its energy output per energy input in its production is 20 times greater
than that of corn.
Since the switchgrass will regrow every year without needing to be
reseeded, will grow on poor quality land, and can serve as cattle feed
also, it really has great potental for solving a lot of problems at once.

Pat

Richard Casady wrote:
The area occupied by the tower is tiny compared to even a small farm.
It would interfere somewhat with growing grain, no effect on grazing.


About the only problem you'd hit round here would be with birds.
We have vast numbers of ducks and geese migrating over the state at
night in spring and fall, and some of those are bound to hit the blades
on the wind turbines. This might be able to be prevented by either
mounting high intensity LEDs on the blades themselves or illuminating
them via floodlights on the ground near the turbine, so that the birds
could see them in the night and avoid them.

Pat

Totorkon wrote:
The installed wind electric capacity in the US was 16.8 Gw in 2007,
roughly 17 three mile island sized pwrs or more than three 5GW spss.
If wind comprises more than 20% of generation, problems with supply vs
demand become important but could be handled with pumped storage,
pressurised air or more exotic possibilities.

The subject is relevant. Should treasure be spent on earthbound green
power of known fiscal risk, that can be advanced incrementally, or on
what most people would consider to be 'pie in the sky'.


I've got Johnathan killfiled, as I consider him off his rocker...but
Earthbound versus space-based power generation is a interesting question
as far as cost-versus-benefits goes.
Certainly the Earth-based systems are a lot easier and cheaper to do
maintenance on, and also easier to tie into the present power grid.
This is a interesting project: http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
Also, there was a recent development regarding "superinsulators" that
could surround superconducting power cables:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News...MSD080404.html

Pat

On May 11, 7:06*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Totorkon wrote:
The installed wind electric capacity in the US was 16.8 Gw in 2007,
roughly 17 three mile island sized pwrs or more than three 5GW spss.
If wind comprises more than 20% of generation, problems with supply vs
demand become important but could be handled with pumped storage,
pressurised air or more exotic possibilities.

The subject is relevant. *Should treasure be spent on earthbound green
power of known fiscal risk, that can be advanced incrementally, or on
what most people would consider to be 'pie in the sky'.

I've got Johnathan killfiled, as I consider him off his rocker...but
Earthbound versus space-based power generation is a interesting question
as far as cost-versus-benefits goes.
Certainly the Earth-based systems are a lot easier and cheaper to do
maintenance on, and also easier to tie into the present power grid.
This is a interesting project:http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
Also, there was a recent development regarding "superinsulators" that
could surround superconducting power cables:http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News...MSD080404.html

Pat

The problem with a solar updraft tower is that it is only about half a
percent efficient, and that 1000m tower would have 200m on the Burj
Dubai.

One thing space solar power does have is a fairly good energy return
on energy investment. Even with losses of close to 60% from the
electrolysis and liquification of H2, a power satellite could put its
twin in orbit in under two years.

A Gw year (Gwyr?) is worth about $1G, or will be soon. That works out
to about half the cost of delivery at the going rate, about $20000/Kg
for a 25yr lifespan, 25000 ton 5Gw sps. At $2000/Kg to leo the sps
option merits serious study.

The developement of space solar to power ion drives and hall thrusters
for robotic missions and equipment transport would have independant
merit, but so much the better if this ties into what should be NASA's
ultimate pie pan in the sky purpose. Absurd, possibly; audacious...
well that was part of the job discription that resulted in tranquility
base.

As per dumbfounded usual, most here are all quite certifiably crazy,
and otherwise running decades behind the fossil, thorium and renewable
energy ball. I guess your having been continually snookered to death
and “no child left behind” dumbfounded past the point of no return is
what suits your incest cultivated Borg like clown collective, as
representing 99.9% of these mostly bogus and otherwise pretentious
Usenet/Groups that’ll go along with anything DARPA or otherwise
Semitic Third Reich, that which you have custom made in charge of
protecting and sustaining your bogus past, your LLPOF present and
thereby unavoidably skewed to death future, on behalf of all-out
protecting your status quo butts, or bust.

No wonder we’re headed for the truly hard times of either WWIII and/or
that of our self inflected demise. The American version of being dumb
and dumber has come home.

Since the laws of physics haven't changed, and the technology of
obtaining clean and renewable energy has existed for decades, where's
the supposed all-American form of our can-do action that's doing to
fix everything, by delivering those badly needed terawatts of
affordably clean and renewable energy in any sufficient surplus (w/o
ENRON or ExxonMobile getting any piece of the action)?

Do any of you silly folks have a viable collective plan of action? (I
didn’t think so)

Is there ever going to be a Usenet collective mindset, other than auto-
destructive? (I didn’t think so)

Even those terribly space consuming Mook PV farms, intended for mostly
creating his commercial volumes of supposedly cheap H2, would have
become a thousand percent better off than anything coming out of this
pathetic anti-think-tank group of spooks, moles and rusemasters of the
faith-based naysay puppet-master kind. It seems your _ New World
Order _ will have arrived, except with no good reason for the rich and
powerful to share squat, at least not at one cartel motivated cent
less than the global market will bare.

You do realize the conventional fossil oil reserves are getting down
towards those foreseeable dregs, plus artificially made spendy as hell
alternatives (such as oil shale or even coal gasification), that for
the most part we’re being continually lied to by those of our very own
bipolar greedy and arrogant kind (usually pretend-atheists that only
act as though a Zionist would).

With the energy sucking needs of China being in charge of our global
spot-energy markets, the ongoing fossil sprint for all the profits
that can be extracted from us is stuck on full speed ahead, whereas we
should expect local energy and food to double in cost by the next year
from now (in many nations it has already more than accomplished just
that within less than the last year of inflation), with most of
everything else increasing by as much as 50%. For us that’ll
represent less than 64 years worth of 6400% energy inflation, making
brown-nosed minions and clowns like yourselves very happy campers.

God forbid, you wouldn’t want to rock your trickle-up policy of that
trusty mainstream good ship LOLLIPOP, now would you. You’d much
rather topic/author stalk, bash and continue to lie through your
infomercial spewing butt-cheeks. PR infowar hype on behalf damage-
control is apparently the best this group of brown-nosed clowns can
muster.
. - Brad Guth


On May 6, 6:17 pm, "jonathan" wrote:
I'M MAD AS HELL......

It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.

Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
give or take ten?

I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
Bush upon taking office.

This is what history will say I believe.

Everyone will be looking at our new shiny moon base much like we see
the ISS now. Doing /nothing/ except consume every available dollar just
to keep the thing flying. And they'll say it's clear the choice for the moon
over SSP was a result of two things.

The military: seeking the 'high ground' in the missile defense race.

Corruption: the big contractors preferring another "Bridge to Nowhere"
As they can promise NOTHING in return for the mega-bucks.
They haven't promised to cure anything, fix anything
or create anything beneficial to the taxpayers except
for the 'thing' itself Another ISS, existing only for the
sake of it. "Have Faith" The NASA administrator says...

There can be no other conclusion, that amidst a new global consensus
and awakening on the rapidly warming earth, we abandoned a visionary
long-term program, Space Solar Power, that could revolutionize
the future of this planet. A program that could not only address the
rapidly diminishing oil reserves, but also tackle greenhouse gasses
and global warming.

A single program, Space Solar Power, that could directly effect two of
greatest global threats. Not to mention all that flows from these
two threats, such as wars over oil, economic growth and national
security.

This was the program timeline when Bush canceled SSP

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT)

a.. 2005: ~100 kW, Free-flyer, demo-scale commercial space
b.. 2010: ~100 kW Planetary Surface System, demo-scale, space exploration
c.. 2015: ~10 MW Free-flyer, Transportation; Large demo, solar clipper
d.. 2020: 1 GW Free-flyer, Full-scale solar power satellite commercial spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power_Exploratory_Research_a...

By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".

Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.

But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.

Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?

I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
as well.

Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
long term public and Congressional support.

A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
..lack of backbone.

Jonathan

s

As per Usenet/Group dumbfounded usual, most here are all quite
certifiably crazy, and otherwise running decades behind the fossil,
thorium and renewable energy ball. I guess your having been
continually snookered to death and “no child left behind” dumbfounded
past the point of no return is what suits your incest cultivated Borg
like clown collective, as representing 99.9% of these mostly bogus and
otherwise pretentious Usenet/Groups that’ll go along with anything
DARPA or otherwise Semitic Third Reich, that which you have custom
made in charge of protecting and sustaining your bogus past, your
LLPOF present and thereby unavoidably skewed to death future, on
behalf of all-out protecting your status quo butts, or bust.

No wonder we’re headed for the truly hard times of either WWIII and/or
that of our self inflected demise. The American version of being dumb
and dumber has come home.

Since the laws of physics haven't changed, and the technology of
obtaining clean and renewable energy has existed for decades, where's
the supposed all-American form of our can-do action that's doing to
fix everything, by delivering those badly needed terawatts of
affordably clean and renewable energy in any sufficient surplus (w/o
ENRON or ExxonMobile getting any piece of the action)?

Do any of you silly folks have a viable collective plan of action? (I
didn’t think so)

Is there ever going to be a Usenet collective mindset, other than auto-
destructive? (I didn’t think so)

Even those terribly space consuming Mook PV farms, intended for mostly
creating his commercial volumes of supposedly cheap H2, would have
become a thousand percent better off than anything coming out of this
pathetic anti-think-tank group of spooks, moles and rusemasters of the
faith-based naysay puppet-master kind. It seems your _ New World
Order _ will have arrived, except with no good reason for the rich and
powerful to share squat, at least not at one cartel motivated cent
less than the global market will bare.

You do realize the conventional fossil oil reserves are getting down
towards those foreseeable dregs, plus artificially made spendy as hell
alternatives (such as oil shale or even coal gasification), that for
the most part we’re being continually lied to by those of our very own
bipolar greedy and arrogant kind (usually pretend-atheists that only
act as though a Zionist would).

With the energy sucking needs of China being in charge of our global
spot-energy markets, the ongoing fossil sprint for all the profits
that can be extracted from us is stuck on full speed ahead, whereas we
should expect local energy and food to double in cost by the next year
from now (in many nations it has already more than accomplished just
that within less than the last year of inflation), with most of
everything else increasing by as much as 50%. For us that’ll
represent less than 64 years worth of 6400% energy inflation, making
brown-nosed minions and clowns like yourselves very happy campers.

Screw the laws of physics and exclude whatever truth doesn’t go along
with the cloak of your Old Testament ruse. God forbid, you folks as
minions of DARPA wouldn’t want to rock your trickle-up policy of that
trusty mainstream good ship LOLLIPOP, now would you. You’d much
rather topic/author stalk, bash and continue to banish the truth as
you continually lie through your infomercial spewing butt-cheeks. PR
infowar hype on behalf of damage-control is apparently the best this
group of incest cloned brown-nosed clowns can muster.
. - Brad Guth


On May 6, 6:17 pm, "jonathan" wrote:
I'M MAD AS HELL......

It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.

Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
give or take ten?

I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
Bush upon taking office.

This is what history will say I believe.

Everyone will be looking at our new shiny moon base much like we see
the ISS now. Doing /nothing/ except consume every available dollar just
to keep the thing flying. And they'll say it's clear the choice for the moon
over SSP was a result of two things.

The military: seeking the 'high ground' in the missile defense race.

Corruption: the big contractors preferring another "Bridge to Nowhere"
As they can promise NOTHING in return for the mega-bucks.
They haven't promised to cure anything, fix anything
or create anything beneficial to the taxpayers except
for the 'thing' itself Another ISS, existing only for the
sake of it. "Have Faith" The NASA administrator says...

There can be no other conclusion, that amidst a new global consensus
and awakening on the rapidly warming earth, we abandoned a visionary
long-term program, Space Solar Power, that could revolutionize
the future of this planet. A program that could not only address the
rapidly diminishing oil reserves, but also tackle greenhouse gasses
and global warming.

A single program, Space Solar Power, that could directly effect two of
greatest global threats. Not to mention all that flows from these
two threats, such as wars over oil, economic growth and national
security.

This was the program timeline when Bush canceled SSP

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT)

a.. 2005: ~100 kW, Free-flyer, demo-scale commercial space
b.. 2010: ~100 kW Planetary Surface System, demo-scale, space exploration
c.. 2015: ~10 MW Free-flyer, Transportation; Large demo, solar clipper
d.. 2020: 1 GW Free-flyer, Full-scale solar power satellite commercial spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power_Exploratory_Research_a...

By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".

Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.

But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.

Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?

I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
as well.

Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
long term public and Congressional support.

A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
..lack of backbone.

Jonathan

s

wrote in message
...
It, probably won't remember an idiot Bush at all.

Of course not- but history will remember both Bush presidencies, with
distinction.

Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?

Not since Clinton left office.


I can't think

Well stated.


Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
long term public and Congressional support.

Write a check, then.

..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
..lack of backbone.

Then you don't want a Democrat elected.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **