This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#187633 by gbheil
Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:07 am
PaperDog wrote:
sanshouheil wrote:Screw it . . . F150

I could not even get my battle rifle in one of those toy cars.
Much less my tools.


Your broke down at 2am in a driving sleet storm on a long stretch of farm to market road.

Whom do want to see.
Peter pan in his toy car or my 4WD F150 ?

The big boom is natural gas but you won't hear about it from the government blow jobs.
They want you to think we are running out of fuel.

It is simply not true.


IF you make a living off the use of the truck, F150 is an excellent purchase.

FYI I have seen more F150s broken down than I ever saw a toy car like mine broke down...

I get @ 40 mpg, I can take winding , hilly country back roads/ dirst or pavement more nimbly and a heck of a lot faster than the F150 could. I will admit that on the dirt roads its a hazard to the cowling underneath, But all and all, Im thinking time critical emergencies are never an issue ...I can sneak around pretty much any traffic jam (if I have to) without creating havoc and bottle necks ...AND my lil toy car is a babe magnet! :) ...Not that I use it for that , of course... :shock: And the draw back is it only draws babes that have a death wish and love speed.. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Pretty much any morning on the side og ol bloody 31

#187656 by PaperDog
Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:03 pm
sanshouheil wrote:
PaperDog wrote:
sanshouheil wrote:Screw it . . . F150

I could not even get my battle rifle in one of those toy cars.
Much less my tools.


Your broke down at 2am in a driving sleet storm on a long stretch of farm to market road.

Whom do want to see.
Peter pan in his toy car or my 4WD F150 ?

The big boom is natural gas but you won't hear about it from the government blow jobs.
They want you to think we are running out of fuel.

It is simply not true.


IF you make a living off the use of the truck, F150 is an excellent purchase.

FYI I have seen more F150s broken down than I ever saw a toy car like mine broke down...

I get @ 40 mpg, I can take winding , hilly country back roads/ dirst or pavement more nimbly and a heck of a lot faster than the F150 could. I will admit that on the dirt roads its a hazard to the cowling underneath, But all and all, Im thinking time critical emergencies are never an issue ...I can sneak around pretty much any traffic jam (if I have to) without creating havoc and bottle necks ...AND my lil toy car is a babe magnet! :) ...Not that I use it for that , of course... :shock: And the draw back is it only draws babes that have a death wish and love speed.. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Pretty much any morning on the side og ol bloody 31


Its not the cars...Its that road...Its cursed... Sort of like the bermuda triangle...Dont they know to just go around it? :lol: :lol: :lol:

#187660 by Kramerguy
Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:35 pm
Solar is not a farce. It is deemed far more expensive because the environmental impact is not factored in, nor are the subsidies that big oil and coal gets. Take those away and I'd love to see a real and viable comparison.

Here's a wiki article that explains solar with no real bias. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but it also doesn't fear-monger about solar either, it's balanced, which is something we need far more of in our searches for information anymore.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/To_what_exten ... uel_energy

At the moment, sadly, fossil fuel energy (electricity from coal, oil and gas-burning power stations) is far more effective and economic since the environmental impact is completely neglected. As well, fossil fuels are subsidized (tax cuts) much more than alternative energy.

This is because there is as yet no charge on the colossal amount of carbon emissions and other pollution (nitrous gases, carbon monoxide) that are produced at every stage of the fossil fuel production right up to its final burning. When governments can agree on a correct price that carbon emitters have to pay, then the true price of electricity (much higher than it is now) will encourage governments and private citizens to do what they can to generate solar photo-voltaic and wind energy.

Companies have set up solar farms using various ways of harnessing the sun's energy and converting it into electricity. There are many farms in place all over the world.

Private citizens may find it worth while to:
Use solar hot water in their homes (fairly efficient technology). About 80% of the water heating can be derived from solar without getting into complicated systems.
Install PV solar panels to generate some electricity to reduce their demand on the common grid supply. 100% can be generated, but costs may make it prohibitive. PV panels last 40+ years, with about 1% production loss every year. Warranties are typically 20 years.
Install solar air heating to heat their homes during the winter (supplementary heating to existing heating).
Large wind energy is generally cheaper than solar, but requires more maintenance (high winds can damage them).

#187668 by Slacker G
Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:54 pm
Look at the Solar array and the price. They claim generation of 300MW with two arrays. That would be like having two coal burning power plants side by side without a fraction of the output Now there are some HUGE solar farms generating more today but nothing compared to coal burning plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

Average coal plant generation is 667 megawatts (MW) and an average age of 40 years.

Unless my math sucks that is 4 Solar farms to produce the power of one coal plant. And yet with coal burning plants we have still had energy shortages during hot summers.

Look at the real estate it takes for a solar farm. Compare that with the real estate of a coal based plant.

#187793 by Prevost82
Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:56 pm
Slacker G wrote:Look at the Solar array and the price. They claim generation of 300MW with two arrays. That would be like having two coal burning power plants side by side without a fraction of the output Now there are some HUGE solar farms generating more today but nothing compared to coal burning plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

Average coal plant generation is 667 megawatts (MW) and an average age of 40 years.

Unless my math sucks that is 4 Solar farms to produce the power of one coal plant. And yet with coal burning plants we have still had energy shortages during hot summers.

Look at the real estate it takes for a solar farm. Compare that with the real estate of a coal based plant.


yea ... I guess we'll just skip over the pollution part of the equation .. on a coal plant ... right Slacker ... cause you believe in clean coal technology ...

#187797 by Slacker G
Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:33 pm
Prevost82 wrote:
Slacker G wrote:Look at the Solar array and the price. They claim generation of 300MW with two arrays. That would be like having two coal burning power plants side by side without a fraction of the output Now there are some HUGE solar farms generating more today but nothing compared to coal burning plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

Average coal plant generation is 667 megawatts (MW) and an average age of 40 years.

Unless my math sucks that is 4 Solar farms to produce the power of one coal plant. And yet with coal burning plants we have still had energy shortages during hot summers.

Look at the real estate it takes for a solar farm. Compare that with the real estate of a coal based plant.


yea ... I guess we'll just skip over the pollution part of the equation .. on a coal plant ... right Slacker ... cause you believe in clean coal technology ...


Yeah. And you're one of those brain dead greenie morons that actually believe that man causes global warming. You have to be brain dead to believe that crap when records show that the earth was warmer BEFORE we had all the cars, factories and power plants. Got an answer for that one? Oh yeah, since the earth has been going through a cooling phase it's "climate change" now. Some of you people gullible as they come and stupid beyond belief.

#187798 by DainNobody
Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:47 pm
well to be fair to both greenies, and earth rapers, we do have electricity producing coal power plants that use "scrubbers" to clean the exhaust, but the scrubbers do not work on sulphurized coal.. let's put our heads together and advance scrubber technology.. :lol:

#187802 by Mike Nobody
Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:04 am
Slacker G wrote:Look at the real estate it takes for a solar farm. Compare that with the real estate of a coal based plant.


Yeah, that desert real estate under sunlight is really scarce. :lol:

#187857 by Prevost82
Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:14 pm
Slacker G wrote:
Prevost82 wrote:
Slacker G wrote:Look at the Solar array and the price. They claim generation of 300MW with two arrays. That would be like having two coal burning power plants side by side without a fraction of the output Now there are some HUGE solar farms generating more today but nothing compared to coal burning plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

Average coal plant generation is 667 megawatts (MW) and an average age of 40 years.

Unless my math sucks that is 4 Solar farms to produce the power of one coal plant. And yet with coal burning plants we have still had energy shortages during hot summers.

Look at the real estate it takes for a solar farm. Compare that with the real estate of a coal based plant.


yea ... I guess we'll just skip over the pollution part of the equation .. on a coal plant ... right Slacker ... cause you believe in clean coal technology ...


Yeah. And you're one of those brain dead greenie morons that actually believe that man causes global warming. You have to be brain dead to believe that crap when records show that the earth was warmer BEFORE we had all the cars, factories and power plants. Got an answer for that one? Oh yeah, since the earth has been going through a cooling phase it's "climate change" now. Some of you people gullible as they come and stupid beyond belief.


Man is not the only thing that is causing G.W. but if we have the means to mitigate some of our cabon foot print without killing the economy then I'm for it. I don't want my kids and grandkid to inherit a polluted world.

If the coal plants switched to NG (2/3 less carbon) and then ran the NG through Bloom energy technology, reducing the NG required by 2/3 for similar output, ... it doable and affordable

#187858 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:40 pm
Kramerguy wrote:Solar is not a farce. It is deemed far more expensive because the environmental impact is not factored in, nor are the subsidies that big oil and coal gets. Take those away and I'd love to see a real and viable comparison.

Here's a wiki article that explains solar with no real bias. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but it also doesn't fear-monger about solar either, it's balanced, which is something we need far more of in our searches for information anymore.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/To_what_exten ... uel_energy

At the moment, sadly, fossil fuel energy (electricity from coal, oil and gas-burning power stations) is far more effective and economic since the environmental impact is completely neglected. As well, fossil fuels are subsidized (tax cuts) much more than alternative energy.

This is because there is as yet no charge on the colossal amount of carbon emissions and other pollution (nitrous gases, carbon monoxide) that are produced at every stage of the fossil fuel production right up to its final burning. When governments can agree on a correct price that carbon emitters have to pay, then the true price of electricity (much higher than it is now) will encourage governments and private citizens to do what they can to generate solar photo-voltaic and wind energy.

Companies have set up solar farms using various ways of harnessing the sun's energy and converting it into electricity. There are many farms in place all over the world.

Private citizens may find it worth while to:
Use solar hot water in their homes (fairly efficient technology). About 80% of the water heating can be derived from solar without getting into complicated systems.
Install PV solar panels to generate some electricity to reduce their demand on the common grid supply. 100% can be generated, but costs may make it prohibitive. PV panels last 40+ years, with about 1% production loss every year. Warranties are typically 20 years.
Install solar air heating to heat their homes during the winter (supplementary heating to existing heating).
Large wind energy is generally cheaper than solar, but requires more maintenance (high winds can damage them).



I am actually a dealer for solar depot. I have done a few installs.
I would love to take advantage of all the government subsidies and rebates,,,, If I twisted the system enough your taxpayer dollars would pay for my system.
I have one big problem,,, I have some big beautiful trees that would have to be destroyed to make a solar system viable for me.

Let me ask you a question Kramer,,, Should I kill all these huge 100 year old trees that filter the air and produce tons of clean OX, just to put up a few selfish solar panels?
Give me a break here. Maybe I should just get a government subsidy for protecting the the planet by NOT GOING GREEN.
Think about it.

#187863 by JCP61
Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:11 am
Mike Nobody wrote:
Slacker G wrote:Look at the real estate it takes for a solar farm. Compare that with the real estate of a coal based plant.


Yeah, that desert real estate under sunlight is really scarce. :lol:


"no man loves the desert, there is nothing in the desert, no man loves nothing"
Prince Faisal

also there in no infrastructure to produce maintain and transport this power.
but feel free to make the investment if you believe it is so easy.

#187868 by VinnyViolin
Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:03 am
GLENNY J wrote:
Kramerguy wrote:Solar is not a farce. It is deemed far more expensive because the environmental impact is not factored in, nor are the subsidies that big oil and coal gets. Take those away and I'd love to see a real and viable comparison.

Here's a wiki article that explains solar with no real bias. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but it also doesn't fear-monger about solar either, it's balanced, which is something we need far more of in our searches for information anymore.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/To_what_exten ... uel_energy

At the moment, sadly, fossil fuel energy (electricity from coal, oil and gas-burning power stations) is far more effective and economic since the environmental impact is completely neglected. As well, fossil fuels are subsidized (tax cuts) much more than alternative energy.

This is because there is as yet no charge on the colossal amount of carbon emissions and other pollution (nitrous gases, carbon monoxide) that are produced at every stage of the fossil fuel production right up to its final burning. When governments can agree on a correct price that carbon emitters have to pay, then the true price of electricity (much higher than it is now) will encourage governments and private citizens to do what they can to generate solar photo-voltaic and wind energy.

Companies have set up solar farms using various ways of harnessing the sun's energy and converting it into electricity. There are many farms in place all over the world.

Private citizens may find it worth while to:
Use solar hot water in their homes (fairly efficient technology). About 80% of the water heating can be derived from solar without getting into complicated systems.
Install PV solar panels to generate some electricity to reduce their demand on the common grid supply. 100% can be generated, but costs may make it prohibitive. PV panels last 40+ years, with about 1% production loss every year. Warranties are typically 20 years.
Install solar air heating to heat their homes during the winter (supplementary heating to existing heating).
Large wind energy is generally cheaper than solar, but requires more maintenance (high winds can damage them).



I am actually a dealer for solar depot. I have done a few installs.
I would love to take advantage of all the government subsidies and rebates,,,, If I twisted the system enough your taxpayer dollars would pay for my system.
I have one big problem,,, I have some big beautiful trees that would have to be destroyed to make a solar system viable for me.

Let me ask you a question Kramer,,, Should I kill all these huge 100 year old trees that filter the air and produce tons of clean OX, just to put up a few selfish solar panels?
Give me a break here. Maybe I should just get a government subsidy for protecting the the planet by NOT GOING GREEN.
Think about it.

Maybe you can work out a compromise with this kid's idea, and hang your panels on the branches of your trees ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nches.html

:D

#187871 by Paleopete
Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:40 am
For now, most European countries remain opposed to hydraulic fracturing, the process of using sand, water and chemicals pumped at high pressure to fracture dense rock formations to release oil and natural gas.


OK let me get this straight...you break up huge chunks of the rock this continent is sitting on to extract the oil, and you think that is acceptable...

So what happens then? Instead of sitting on top of a solid foundation the continent is sitting on top of one that is broken up into a thousand pieces. All those now smaller chunks of rock can now move around when the tectonic plates squeeze harder, which they will forever do, and in a fairly short time we'll see new earthquakes and volcanoes where none existed before...

This is ludicrous. Has anyone, anywhere considered the geologic implications of all of this? The oil we've been pumping out of the ground for many years IS THERE FOR A REASON. Removing it has to have serious long range repercussions. You're removing large reservoirs of liquid from the ground, allowing everything on top of it to move. No, encouraging it to move. Now they want to break up chunks of the rock too. Just a couple of years ago they started doing this, and less than 6 months ago we saw a pretty scary earthquake in Virginia. Geologically speaking, Virginia is not far from Texas, that earthquake could very well have been caused by major changes in the overall pressure level of the part of tectonic plate nearby, allowing an existing fault to move around. Or causing it to move.

This is not just imagination. When army engineers decided to dump toxic waste a few years ago by pumping it into the ground at high pressure it caused local and immediate earthquakes. They stopped and so did the quakes. I'll have to get out my book and look up when and where, but it was not all that long ago, within the past 30 years I think, and in the Colorado area if I remember correctly. Maybe Arizona...but I think it was Colorado.

I've been wondering for years, long before reading about this, what effect oil drilling would have. Now this process comes along and it's really scary. Breaking up large chunks of the rock this continent sits on sounds like a very bad idea. Especially if you do it by creating increased areas of high pressure. That pressure has effects in every direction, and allows the rock you're breaking up to be squeezed back together later, and no oil left for lubrication...

Any changes like this in one area can and do affect the adjoining tectonic faults. Smash up the rock in one area and allow it to squeeze together, the portion of the plate next to it can move more easily. Right now this might not be a major issue, the north American continent is basically one huge plate. But what happens when the fault lines have something like this to allow sudden changes?

I know someone will mention California, but that's a different situation. The Pacific plate is spinning slowly counter-clockwise. Curves in the San Andreas fault are causing it to catch at some points, like a ratchet, it's not a straight line. When one of those curved areas lets go, you have an earthquake. 5000 years from now a good sized chunk of California will be part of Alaska. L A is part of it.

In the central part of the country the picture is much different. The whole thing is reacting to what's going on out west, and there's another plate to the east that is pushing another direction. Fault lines are weak spots in those plates. Some have seen no movement for thousands or even millions of years. Crushing the rock underneath us will wake them up. Any changes in one place will allow a dormant fault next to it to move around. I'm wondering if this is already showing itself by way of the earthquake in Virginia?

What happens if you pour concrete around an explosive charge, then set off that charge. If the whole thing is large enough, it might not do more than vibrate the upper surface. Maybe a few cracks. But give it a few years. Those cracks widen, more appear, heavy traffic above causes the now powdered inner structure to weaken even more, and eventually it gives way. This is what is happening to the huge chunk of rock we're living on. They're breaking up large pockets of rock that are already under stress from the natural movement of the huge plates the surface of the planet is made of. Sure, those plates are 40 miles thick, one drilling spot is just a small area. But what kind of new fractures is this causing? What effects is it having on existing ones?

This process is a very bad idea. Even worse than pumping oil out to begin with. when you pump out the oil you remove that lubrication and create a hole the existing rock can now try to fill. Bad idea...break up that rock and cause more fractures? Even worse.

Man has found another way to quicken his destruction of the planet. This will cause geological changes man will regret for many generations...if we survive it at all...

#187887 by Slacker G
Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:32 pm
If "global warming" had not been gobbled up by the gullible, perhaps they would have accepted that "the sky is falling in".

And if they had pushed the theory that the sky is falling in instead of global warming, the insider traders in congress would have invested in iron umbrellas.

Then the global warming gullibles would have bought into that and they would be carrying around iron umbrellas.

Doesn't the fact that they discontinued "global warming" for climate change when the temperature of the earth began cooling tell you anything?

Doesn't the fact that the temp is going through the same cycles on the other planets in our solar system tell you anything?

Doesn't the fact that it is cooling as we have more carbon generation and more cars in the world tell you anything?

I would suggest that these same people would demand "clean air filters" on the asses of livestock if they had them:) :)

#187888 by Kramerguy
Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:33 pm
GLENNY J wrote:
I am actually a dealer for solar depot. I have done a few installs.
I would love to take advantage of all the government subsidies and rebates,,,, If I twisted the system enough your taxpayer dollars would pay for my system.
I have one big problem,,, I have some big beautiful trees that would have to be destroyed to make a solar system viable for me.

Let me ask you a question Kramer,,, Should I kill all these huge 100 year old trees that filter the air and produce tons of clean OX, just to put up a few selfish solar panels?
Give me a break here. Maybe I should just get a government subsidy for protecting the the planet by NOT GOING GREEN.
Think about it.


For every house under the trees, there's an acre of desert in Nevada, Utah, AZ, NM, TX that can house an array that can transmit into the local grids to balance your load in your local grid.

In response to another post-
Coal burning produces mercury particles, which are NOT completely filtered out. No matter what percentage they SAY gets filtered, enough mercury gets into the air and carries anywhere from 2ft to 1000 miles and then is rained down into the environment, soaked into the soil, rivers, lakes, underground water supplies, none are safe. You wonder why all fresh-water fish have mercury in them? Why most salt-water fish do? It's an amazing amount of it too, not some microscopic amount.

And tuna, which might now be the most dangerous fish to eat- one can of it can potentially have enough mercury in it to reduce an adult's IQ by 3 points. But there's no warning labels. No industry testing. No oversight as to WHY that is...

But imagine what that does to a pregnant woman.. eating tuna, drinking the water, etc..

And they sit in congress scratching their heads, wondering why autism and ADHD rates are skyrocketing.. why social security is bursting at the seams with inadequacies because it wasn't designed to handle an epidemic of 1 in 66 people being disabled for life by ONE of many birth defects...

Yeah, keep burning coal, ignore the warning signs all around you. The cost of continuing down our path is far worse than the cost of more expensive green energy (which will drop in cost over time, as everything does, and we know that too).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests