Thread:

Libtards

Originally Posted by Old Texan

I suppose we should give Rammy a break.....They don't study Hydrogen until next semester.

On a side note, Has He transferred to Berkley yet??

Originally Posted by AzMandella

Ahh but most of us know that is nothing but steam comming out of there. But the libbies will have a comercial about polution and use a pic like this to show how bad the emisions are.

Welllllllll, after all, water vapor is the most prominent green house gas by a factor of like 10 to 1 in round numbers...

Ever hear the term SULTRY HEAT???

If you all want to FEEL green house gasses go to Manaus Brazil... In the middle of our winter (their summer)... You can FEEL the green house gas WATER...


On the solar front, the prices will continue to come down Redneck, one of our close friends engineers the ovens for the leading company that builds the ovens to grow the lower grade silicon rods that are used to build solar arrays (one of the main costs in the array)... Cool technology but he admits being an insider that the cost is still WAY over being on the grid/electric...

NOW IF I bought a piece of land in the boonies of SW missouri and put up a cabin for hunting I would have NO problem using a bank of car batteries and a small self installed wind/solar array versus paying the massive cost AND deposits of having power brought to a property that I would use four or five times per year...

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Doc, your right in saying that the raw materials to get hydrogen are nearly free. And I never said cars, submarines, etc are not curently being powered by hydrogen. What most people forget in the hydrogen equation is the energy required to come up with hydrogen does not make it a vialble option. That is why I said you don't get something for nothing.

I like the way that Iceland does it... Pretty darn cool... Shell Royal Dutch has built out all of the infrastructure there, know why??? Becuz they can make a buck...

Google it... I think we could do a bit of that here in the U.S....

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Doc, your right in saying that the raw materials to get hydrogen are nearly free. And I never said cars, submarines, etc are not curently being powered by hydrogen. What most people forget in the hydrogen equation is the energy required to come up with hydrogen does not make it a vialble option. That is why I said you don't get something for nothing.

That's the issue with most attempts to harness alternatives. Plus ready availability and distribution.

Ram we all want cleaner and better, but too many, especially in government and enviro nutz, think we have to completely halt existing sources or alternatives will be ignored. To me, that's BS thinking and the main reason we can't get a workable plan going.

I brought up submarines because technology was available back in WWII to capture hydrogen given off by batteries. We're working on it.

Too many folks today are impatient on technology and don't stop and think that viable electricity generation is just over a century old, far less for practical usage. We're getting there but we still are far off on from junking fossil fuels. Internal combustion technolgy and clean techniques are getting better everyday but the media refuses to emphasize the progress. My biggest gripe with the left is the unrealistic view that we can force progress and their ignorance and/or refusal to see how far we have moved forward.

A plan that's been talked about but enviros fight it, is building mega clean coal plants in the western states at the source of huge lignite supplies. We could save money and much more on damage from rail transportaton and send the nation's power out on high lines. Even with the extended grid it's ecologically smarter. But today's politics shoot down common sense planning.

We'll have dilithium crystals just as soon as we can get up into space.....

We have Nuke power here in missouri HOWEVER with our rural co-op electric provider the present stats are that they get 80% of their power from coal and 1% from wind... If Obama puts the squeeze on the coal power plants where does that leave us??? Just 1 % from wind and the ole Carnahan family made sure that they got fat off of Barry's GO GREEN push. Robin and Russ scored $100,000,000 for his wind farm... Dontcha just love the hypocrisy and nepotism of the DEMS??? I guess the favoritism is OK when they are going GREEN...

Originally Posted by zombie

LOL!! Yep there are some pretty grumpy sourpuss guys on here!! Maybe some of them need a 'scrip for some of that medical weed! Maybe then the windmills would look groovy to them as well LMAO.. crabby PRF old farts

I love the idea of the bucolic windmill such as those found in a painting of Holland.
Unfortunately the reality is 400' tall behemoths, by the hundreds. Or in FL's case thousands. The "plan" here calls for 14,000 spread over 900 miles of coastlines. Which means we won't be able to use the beach. A nuke plant takes (WAG) 1% the space of solar/wind.

Originally Posted by Moneypit

So, is it the batteries associated with the wind generators that make them expensive,

I am a windsurfer, I love wind. If everyone lived next to a dependable 40-50 mph wind, we wouldn't need power plants. Unfotunately wind is not dependable, and it is usually not that strong.
I'm all for the concept of having solar/ wind for individual homes. Mildly against the giant subsidized commercial projects.
The problem is that libs are pursuing a dream while neglecting urgent reality. So the govt. should get out of the biz.

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Keep dreaming about hydrogen. You don't get something for nothing.

True. Most of the hydrogen cells used in cars get their hydrogen from - GAS! It is more useful to think of hydrogen as a type of battery than a generator of power.
From the OT links:
It features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens proton exchange membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. The submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising
Although hydrogen-oxygen propulsion had been considered for submarines as early as World War I, the concept was not very successful until recently due to fire and explosion concerns. In the Type 212 this has been countered by storing the fuel and oxidizer in tanks outside the crew space, between the pressure hull and outer light hull. The gases are piped through the pressure hull to the fuel cells as needed to generate electricity, but at any given time there is only a very small amount of gas present in the crew space.

No mention of cost. But hydrogen was chosen more for stealth than anything else.

Originally Posted by Old Texan

That's the issue with most attempts to harness alternatives. Plus ready availability and distribution.

Ram we all want cleaner and better, but too many, especially in government and enviro nutz, think we have to completely halt existing sources or alternatives will be ignored. To me, that's BS thinking and the main reason we can't get a workable plan going.

Agreed. Looked like your first response was tryin to start an argument, and you can't have one cuz you haven't paid.

A plan that's been talked about but enviros fight it, is building mega clean coal plants in the western states at the source of huge lignite supplies.

Those plants should be built. And we are now selling that coal to China, dangit.

Originally Posted by 2manymustangs

they get 80% of their power from coal and 1% from wind... If Obama puts the squeeze on the coal power plants where does that leave us??? Just 1 % from wind

Exactly. Triple your wind/solar and your at 3%. Great.
How can these fockers get elected when they announce ahead of time their intention to create an energy shortage.

Originally Posted by ram78d10

Doc, your right in saying that the raw materials to get hydrogen are nearly free. And I never said cars, submarines, etc are not curently being powered by hydrogen. What most people forget in the hydrogen equation is the energy required to come up with hydrogen does not make it a vialble option. That is why I said you don't get something for nothing.

You are aware the first gallon of gasoline was far more expensive given the cost of drilling, transportation, refining, delivery, etc??? Right???
Nuclear energy is very affordable in comparison to coal power but it started off as the most expensive energy known to man.
Natural gas didn't seep out of the ground into canisters or pipelines at first.
Coal power, in just lives lost, may be the most expensive of all, everything considered but all of these have used the economy of scale to become far more affordable and now profitable. Why on earth, with water as the resource, would hydrogen power not also prove a wise course of research to explore. You're a smart guy so I know you understand this principal but I felt, after your comment it bore repeating.