Coal the Culprit - not Oil

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Guess I should have written my post in green. Speaking of "green"...these folks want to remove dams, get rid of coal burning plants, HATE nuclear power...

They don't like to talk about how many raptors the wind generators chew up...

And the solar thing just isn't working out.

Back to kerosene lamps and wood stoves?

So, I'm "green"! Thanks! And Bush Sr. said he was an environmentalist...

I will be glad to talk about how many raptors - and other birds - the wind generators chew up. It isn't many if -- IF -- you are careful with design and siting.

For the record, both Paul & I have wood burning "appliances" - I'm sure there are people in Oregon who don't but I don't think I know many of them - one guy in an apt. is all I can think of...

Solar can and is working out quite well -- Oregon is trying to get solar chip plants sited here. And some areas have doubled their solar reliance. The total amount is quite tiny, but it is and will be a huge growth industry.

And, Paul, what Obama said was he didn't see how the coal co.s could survive -- even under a cap and trade system.


Big losers in this will be WV (esp. since Byrd is gone), KY, etc. - the big coal states. WY, MT are also big coal states but it is dirtier coal. WY at least has lots of gas and oil.

Certainly, people are going to have to take another look at nuclear. A French style single best design would help. But there is still the waste problem.

This does promise some relief to car owners....
Of course, there are many other reasons to reduce our reliance on crude from "places that don't like us very much."

[pwd72s]

I have friends living "off the grid"...above Cascadia, OR...giant solar array, small windmill, all the off the grid goodies. Still, Jean was complaining about the cost of diesel for the generator...

Sorry, but the "green" energy sources just aren't there yet when it comes time to supplying need.

Tidal generators? They show promise, but the "greens" promptly filed suit to prevent even a small experimental program here.

I have to agree with Walter Williams, who calls "greens" Watermelons. Green on the outside, red in the middle.

[Dennis Kalma]

Gee, I wished I actually believed that global warming was caused by people, I could then get all excited about this stuff.

I would be curious to see what proportion of total global emissions was caused by small, inefficient sources (e.g. the crappy coal fired plant in China somewhere) and what is caused by other sources.

Dennis

[RWebb]

CO2 emissions from a poorly designed XX MW coal plant are not a lot lower than from a well designed one of the same XX MW. Don't confuse CO2 with particulates!

There are virtually no climate scientists who believe as you do, Dennis. You might want to do a search on carbon cycles. I posted a diagram here aweek or so ago, and that could get you started.

Paul - your statements re "green" energy sources just aren't there yet is true - depending on what you mean -- but the whole idea is to make the future better, is it not? We didn't have cars 150 years ago... We didn't have micro-surgery 40 years ago.

[Dennis Kalma]

Go read the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn....then come back in talk in about 5 years.

It is bad science, based on modelling at best, terms of research are too short. It is just neo-paganism....and complete and utter BS.

But it probably belongs on a different forum where I do not frequent...

Dennis

[lukeh]

I never understood the global warming debate and I think many miss the point. Humans may or may not be causing it. But either way why would we want anything pumping crap into the air we breath? Just seems like common sense that you wouldn't want to pollute the air we breath or water we drink. Like so much else in human history, we don't worry about stuff until it's too late.

[RWebb]

more on bird - windmill interactions

20 of the nation’s top science-based conservation and environmental groups and wind energy companies formed the American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI) to address concerns of environmental impact from wind projects. The members of the AWWI range from Sierra Club and National Audubon to Vestas and GE.

AWWI's stated goals: “Facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat. The institute will do this through research, mapping, mitigation and public education on best practices in wind farm siting and wildlife-habitat protection. AWWI is a first-of-its-kind collaboration between non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government agencies and other industry representatives.”

A new president has been hired. He starts next month and his first goal: hire a research director.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Dennis Kalma

Go read the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn....then come back in talk in about 5 years.

It is bad science, based on modelling at best, terms of research are too short. It is just neo-paganism....and complete and utter BS.

But it probably belongs on a different forum where I do not frequent...

Dennis

- Was that directed at me?

I have read that and other of his works, and have taught from them.

It sounds like you do not understand what science is at all -- much less "bad" science.

[BGCarrera32]

Supercharged Hummer

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally Posted by BGCarrera32

Supercharged Hummer

Coal fired.

[m21sniper]

My V-8 928S gets about 10mpg.

[RWebb]

Is that a Supercharged Hummer... with Snow Tires?

[Jim727]

Originally Posted by lukeh

I never understood the global warming debate and I think many miss the point. Humans may or may not be causing it. But either way why would we want anything pumping crap into the air we breath? Just seems like common sense that you wouldn't want to pollute the air we breath or water we drink. Like so much else in human history, we don't worry about stuff until it's too late.

Finally, someone who can see the obvious!