Story Comments
Posted by: BB64 1 year, 1 month ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
0%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, stop listening to your "experts" when it comes to hunting and numbers. There are over 20,000 polar bears today. In 1960 there were around 5000. That doesn't sound like they're dying off. In fact in Canada and Russia, they're increasing the hunting permits being issued. On the pain caused by hunting, any high powered rifle fired into a living thing isn't comfortable. From the ground or air, it's not painless. You take the best shot and make sure you kill the animal as fast and humanly as possible. I don't know where you're from but the DNR of Wisconsin through their ignorance and lefty morons released dozens of wolves in our northern woods. They're protected and the population has grown to well over 1000. Problem? They were supposed to go after the deer and wild turkeys. Instead they've attacked farms. We'll be seeing our first wolf hunts over the next couple of years. Then again, that doesn't cover the ones farmers shot because they were a danger to their animals or family members.
Reply
As to the bears and eating the young, that's very common in the wild. Have you not read or watched National Geographic? Why do you think momma bear is so protective of her young when there are other male bears around? They kill the off spring, even when it's their own. Rather than only getting you news from sites like this, read up on your topic first. Bears and wolves are not becoming extinct. Global warming is a scam. Ethanol and wind are total rip offs.-
100%
era1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As far as global warming being a scam,it took along time before people believed the earth wasn't flat.
Reply
The majority of science confirms global warming.Information has been stifled under the Bush administration. I live in the Florida Keys,an environmentally sensitive area.I'm seeing global warming here in the rising oceans,over fishing and dying reefs.
The drill,baby drill mentality is ignorance at it's most stunning
Sorry,it's an inconvient truth-
0%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the science doesn't explain anything we're seeing. Warming? Where? My home state didn't hit 100 degrees this year. We had the worst winter in 20 years. We're looking at another bad one too. All of your maps and plans failed to account for any of this. I'm still waiting for any of you to tell me what the proper temperature is supposed to be and the formula you used to come up with this. We know that for the first 2 billion years the earth was much warmer. Then is saw a number of coolings only to see warmings. What is the proper temperature supposed to be? 4 billion year old planet, 100 years of temperature.
Reply-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When's the last time Lake Erie froze solid where a person could drive on it? An ice breaker had to keep shipping lanes open for freight to travel across it. Hasn't happen since 1998 I know for sure. In the 1960-1990 it use to be a yearly event to drive across the ice to Kelly's Island. Do it now and you'll drown.
Reply
Just because it doesn't rain in New York doesn't mean it doesn't rain anywhere.-
0%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lake Erie? When did the fires go out... Just kidding. You're seeing a natural cycle of weather. Again, I go back to the science. You're basing your entire theory on 100 years of information. The planet, again based upon your science is over 4 billion years old. There simply isn't enough hard data to support your ideas. Your best computer mock ups failed to explain why some glaciers shrank while others increased. Your mock ups failed to explain the huge volcanoes under the North Pole and how that would effect the ice. Your models never explained the 110" of snow we had in Milwaukee last year. Why has Michigan's levels increased? In all of your models, the lake should go down, snow stop and temperatures increase. They haven't.
Reply
As for driving across the lakes in the winter, we also had an ice breaker stationed in Milwaukee but it wasn't needed well before the global warming scam.
Again, show me your hard data supporting this theory. Show me your proof that this is actually happening and that man is the cause. All you folks have done is hold a bunch of concerts and used tons of fuel and energy to promote this. Where is your verifiable evidence?
-
-
67%
era1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK,call it climate change! The ice caps are melting! The oceans are rising!
Reply
Climate change,if we ignore it will make terrorism look like a picnic
The hurricanes are getting more frequent and extreme.I've seen this in my lifetime.It's showing up in different areas,just because you don't see it in your home state doesn't mean it's not happening. The oil companies are spending millions so you will continue not to get it.You are perfectly brainwashed!
It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
era
Reply
As I see it, BB64 is on the oil company payroll. If I remember correctly, he works/worked in China building a plant to turn coal into a usable gas. Did not get all the information from his post but I would have to assume it could be used in automobiles as well as other places. In other words it wasn't clear whether the coal was turned into a form of gasoline or something like propane or many forms of petroleum products.-
Neutral
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, I work in many areas of energy. Mainly on the capital investment side. Gasoline processing, coal processing, nuclear plants and the like. I've build a few ethanol plants and even work with a wind generator builder outside of Chicago.
Reply
On the coal, I do support the conversion of coal to gasoline. It could be done rather easily but the left is afraid of it. In very simple terms, you crush the coal and turn it into a slurry. That slurry you refine just like sweet crude. It can be done for under $45/barrel. Also, you can control the carbon emissions and avoid using ethanol completely. But what fun would that be for your side.
As to China, we will have many plants doing this but they do not require any of the safeties or environmental protections we would use in the west. I am a big fan of this because if done here, the product would be 100% American made. American coal, American employees, and American profits all staying here. But like all liberals, you feel that nothing good ever comes from America.
-
-
-
-
100%
Sabretooth1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Actually the science doesn't explain anything we're seeing. Warming? Where? My home state didn't hit 100 degrees this year. We had the worst winter in 20 years."
Reply
First, read a book about the difference between weather and climate. Second, please do not debate on things you obviously know nothing about unless you care to explain what your field of expertise is regarding climate.-
0%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is yours?
Reply
I have a PhD in engineering and an MBA. When you talk of warming, you're talking of cycles and weather patterns. All science should be able to be proven. Where is your proof? I don't mean some fancy computer model that can be manipulated to favor one side or the other. The planet is 4 billion years old. You must have had data somewhere to base your conclusion on. I can't go to market with a product and not have some proof it will work. Where is your proof global warming actually exists and is caused by humans?
-
-
-
-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah but coal gasification is the way to go , right? All of you that don't have a stake in alternative energy keep saying the same old story line. "It takes more to produce alcohol that you get from it" That's a propaganda lie.
Reply
http://www.eesi.org/programs/agriculture/Energy%20...
As technology improves so will the cost of production come down. As for wind power generation, with technology advances, it is making great gains towards being more economical. Anyone that cannot see all sources of renewable energy being utilized along with petroleum is a fool.
Granted that Alcohol and wind aren't the complete answer but every BTU that doesn't come from another country is less we import. Every barrel of oil that is burned is one less we have for the future and there are to many products made from petroleum to just waste. But hey, why worry about tomorrow when we have today to live. Right?-
0%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, I've never heard of your group before. It is not a government run agency and is classified as a 527. That sends red flags up for me, especially when you realize my company builds plants and power stations. That would include ethanol plants too. They're efficient enough but the product they make isn't what they claim it is. Your study missed some very key issues. I grew up on a farm. Corn requires a lot of care and chemicals. While it mentioned some, it missed tons of others. Let's take them off for now. Let's talk about transport costs. Corn or ethanols can't be shipped by pipeline. Corn is corn so you understand that. But ethanol has too much oxygen and would breakdown the pipes and itself if shipped by pipe. There is the matter of fuel economy. For every percentage added to our modern cars, you lose that in fuel economy. 10% ethanol, 10% drop in mileage. I could provide you with the actual mileage data we provided congress showing this but I'm afraid they never released them. It didn't meet their needs. In our modern cars, we also create more carbon burning this fuel additive. The sensors have problems with it and fail more often. So again, how helpful was this additive? I mean to anyone other than ADM and their stock holders.
Reply
Tell you what, go down to Brazil and tell me how clean the air is. They burn ethanol only. Take a full breath and tell me how clean the air is. Should you survive, write me.
I do support coal based gas for the short term. Battery isn't there and solar may never.-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64
Reply
You're missing the point. The point is renewable. Gasoline was criticized when it first hit the market for automobiles because competitors made accusation that it would explode and blow people up in the autos. It's called propaganda.
Fuel efficiency of alcohol is being improved in automobiles like the Saab that uses e85 or gasoline and gets more power.
http://www.autonet.ca/autos/search/concepts/2006/0...
"Battery isn't there and solar may never."
Again the potential of the two together is great. I believe that a battery powered automobile with a solar panel array to recharge it would be great for a family to use around town. Technology is advancing every day.
-
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB - You sound so absolutely certain about the population of polar bears. In reality, even the scientists were unsure of the correct estimate. Technology, methodology, and funding were different. But numbers are more reliable now. We simply are not sure of the trend over the past 50-100 years.
Reply
Nonetheless, the consensus is that polar bear numbers have peaked.
The concern arises because of the alarming melt off of the Arctic ice shelf. This phenomenon is universally accepted by scientists. Surface area can be measured by satellite imaging and ice thickness can be determined by drilling and by submarine measurements of depth.
The hunting habits of polar bears (and therefore, the survivability) is totally dependent on the pack ice. The less the available ice, the less polar bears will eat and survive. We know from weight and size measurements that polar bears are now smaller than they used to be.
The greatest reason for species extinction in the modern world is not hunting, but habitat loss. That is exactly what is now happening to the polar bear's world in the Arctic. That is why scientists are predicting the ever increasing probability of extinction for these magnificent mammals. -
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB - Why are you shouting that global warming is a scam? Even your esteemed president Bush has finally admitted that there is global warming and that human activity contributes to the warming.
Reply
There is ample evidence all around us. The ice pack measurements of the Arctic, the Antarctic, and Greenland show it. The majority of glacier fields in the world are retreating. There has been observable migration of warm weather species drifting northward into territories they do not usually inhabit. There is warming of the ocean temperatures and large swaths of coral reefs are dying off. The weather patterns of hurricanes and typhoons is worsening.
As far as ethanol fuel is concerned, it has proven to be a disappointment. Ethanol is cleaner burning and produces less CO2 and no particulate pollution.
However, the CO2 balance is harmful because of the loss of natural forests eliminates the CO2 absorption by those trees and the tilling of the soil releases CO2. So overall we get a net gain in atmospheric CO2, rather than a decrease. Moreover, the use of corn in fuel generation raises the cost of corn as a food for much of the world's poor.
Wind generation seems to be a much more hopeful endeavor. The wind is always there. The technology is relatively cheap. And once the windmills are built, there is no more capital cost to the company. Other than minimal maintenance, you don't have to build or clean up anything else; labor costs for the work force is low; security and safety issues are almost nonexistant. The windmill just has to turn and generate profit. So don't count wind generation out yet. T. Boone Pickens may yet come out a huge winner.-
Neutral
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not a fan of Bush, let's get that straight from the start.
Reply
As to the weather patterns, we've seen this many times before. One area of coral grows while another dies off. Some is caused by illness others pollution while others we're not really sure. To say it's only global warming would be wrong.
On the Ethanol, it's a terrible solution for a problem we're not sure ever existed. As to cleaner, that would be wrong. When you take Ethanol by itself, perhaps but when you realize the amount of energy used to produce the stuff, it certainly has a larger carbon foot print than old fashioned gasoline.
Wind really is a lose lose. Wind generation requires a huge infrastructure. You don't just pop up a wind mill and have power. Well you do but what do you do with it? You lay more power lines, transformers, etc. Maintenance on the wind machines is also very high. Contactors, breakers, bearings and other mechanical items fail. You also need a fossil fuel or nuke plant somewhere on the grid to back up the wind when it isn't blowing fast enough to generate power. Taking everything into account, wind energy is a huge loser and has a much larger carbon footprint than the new clean burning coal plants.
On batteries, that's fine but what do you do when you have to replace them. They're costly to recycle and even more so if they're Lithium Ion. They're also very messy to build and many times are done in countries like China and India where its not uncommon to simply landfill the waste.
As to Pickens, like Gore he's realized he can make billions selling the "ecco" friendly solution to a problem that doesn't exist. He's a capitalist that has a pleasant way of selling his solution. Remember, the bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I will defer to you on the engineering issues.ou say you are a PhD in engineering. Nonetheless, my understanding is that the widnmill generated power will simply piggyback on to the colossal power grind that already exists across the country. The wind power will simply take over some of the power needs of the nation and allow the regular coal-burning generators to work less.
Reply
These facilities are lready there. Very few need to be constructed and only as our power needs increase with the population increase.
Nuclear power is fine by me. I have no fears about it. It simply is a much more expensive option. Nuclear currently accounts for less than 1% of the nation's electricity. Even with a massive construction effort over the next decade, it will only increase to about 2% of our needs.
Useful - yes. Panacea - no.
The other option to back up wind generation is solar energy. Photovoltaic material research is creating thinner, lighter, and more efficient (hopefully cheaper) films. This is even cheaper than windmill farms.
Well, the point that I am trying to make and that I have not articulated clearly is that there are good options other than drilling more either offshore or in ANWR.
We own only 3% of the wolrd's known oil reserves and we use 25% of the petroleum products in the world. Drilling more now will simply deplete our reserves that much sooner.-
100%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually drilling now and mining now using current technologies permits the time to develop the other alternatives. I'm a huge fan of nuclear. My company has offices throughout the world and we've built many plants in France. The 1 or 2% could easily be increased dramatically but with the current left in control, this will not happen any time soon. It's too bad.
Reply
On the wind mills, where the wind is, there really isn't the infrastructure available for a power grid of this nature. Wind is also very "dirty" power and requires lots of harmonic mitigation. In the long term, if it works, it's very expensive and very challenging to maintain. That is with our current level of technology. If that changes, then wind might be more successful.
On oil, I support the conversion of coal to gasoline. When crushed and turned into a slurry, it's processed for less money than crude oil and can be done more cleanly. Again, this is a fix for the short-term. But it gives us the breathing room to keep high paying jobs here and our profits too. Freeing some of that money surplus to develop new options. Win, win. Also, instead of spending gasoline tax money on bike trails and light rail, use it for what it was meant to be used on, new energy solutions and road repairs.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment positively. Is it really that bad of a comment?
Ratskii
sinophil49
fsev41
lvrofwolves
blowback
dissent
era
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.