This is topic Very good read about something very important to us predator hunters. in forum Politics forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000351
Posted by Aznative (Member # 506) on February 26, 2008, 06:15 AM:
My son found this link to a very good read about something we all need very badly to go predator hunting, oil. The last two day trips I've made this year involved traveling approximately 200 miles. I hope this guy is right.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 26, 2008, 10:11 AM:
I have no problem with the concept of abundant supplies. Whackos are always fearing we will run out. Actually, that thought makes them happy, in spite of the fact that there seem to be new discoveries daily.
Inorganic would make a whole lot of people look stupid.
I'm moving this topic. LB
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on February 26, 2008, 06:01 PM:
Have any of you seen the commercial concerning "alternative energy sources"; one has a kid holding a sugar beet, blubbering about how great sugar beet gas would be if we just planted more. The other segment has a fellow stating"with all the other alternative fuel sources.....why oil?"
Can anyone tell me, what other alternative energy source can match the economy, efficiency and availablity of oil? If it's out there, I want to gas up!....as long as it's cheaper,efficient and there is as much of it as good old sweet crude!
Posted by 20gauge (Member # 2113) on February 26, 2008, 06:45 PM:
You're not going to become a keyboard commando are you? Get back out there and keep killing stuff!
BTW, don't overlook Fig Newtons and olives as a potential energy source....I experienced a powerful, if not clean, propellant effect last night.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 26, 2008, 06:53 PM:
Vic, Read this:
Junk Science: A Green Sings the Renewable Energy Blues
Monday , July 30, 2007
By Steven Milloy
Rockefeller University’s Jesse Ausubel introduced his new article on renewable energy by openly worrying about “hereticide” — the all-to-common historical phenomenon of putting heretics to death.
As a long-time Green, Ausubel has good reason to be concerned given his article condemns renewable energy as “wrecking” the environment.
“Renewables are not green,” is how Ausubel begins the article published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology. It’s a remarkable statement coming from someone who beat his fellow Greens to global warming alarmism by at least 10 years.
Ausubel’s Rockefeller University bio says that he “was one of the main organizers of the first U.N. World Climate Conference (Geneva, 1979) which substantially elevated the global warming issue on scientific and political agendas” and that he “played major roles in the formulation of both U.S. and world climate-research programs.”
Ausubel’s remarkable article, however, may very well cost him whatever exalted status he may have had in the Green movement, which is likely to brand him an out-and-out traitor to the cause.
But the Green’s loss is a big gain for the rest of us — particularly those interested in sensible energy and environmental policy as opposed to ill-considered, pie-in-the-sky hopes for a renewable energy-powered civilization.
Ausubel calculated the amount of energy produced by various renewable energy sources — including hydroelectric, biomass, wind and solar power — in terms of power output per square meter of land disturbed.
If you could collect the average annual rainfall of the 900,000-square-kilometer Canadian province of Ontario — about 680,000 billion liters of water — and store it behind a dam 60 meters tall, you would produce about 11,000 Megawatts of electricity — which is only about 80 percent of the output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations, Ausubel says.
In other words, this works out to a power production rate of 0.012 watts per square meter of land. It would take 1 square kilometer of land to provide enough electricity for about 12 Canadians, according to Ausubel, who says this inefficiency is a key reason for the reduced demand for hydroelectric power.
Biomass is an even worse renewable source of energy than hydroelectric power in terms of ecological harm.
Large-scale power generation from biomass would require that “vast areas be shaved or harvested annually,” Ausubel says. It would take 2,500 square kilometers of prime Iowa farmland to produce as much electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant.
“Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal,” Ausubel stated in a media release. “Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares.” He added.
Wind power? While it’s much less land intensive than biomass, that’s not saying much. A 770-square-kilometer area would only produce as much electricity as a single 1,000 Megawatt nuclear plant.
A wind farm the size of Texas would be required to extract, store and transport annual U.S. energy needs. “Every square meter of Connecticut” would have to be turned into a wind farm to provide all of New York City’s electricity demands.
Solar power is also quite a land hog. As photovoltaic cells are only 10 percent efficient and have seen no breakthroughs in 30 years, U.S. electric consumption would require a 150,000-square kilometer area of photovoltaics, plus additional land for electricity storage and retrieval.
The photovoltaic industry would have to step up its production by 600,000 times to produce the same amount of power as that generated by single 1,000 Megawatt nuclear plant.
Aside from land misuse, Ausubel also raises the other undesirable consequences of renewables: wind power produces low-frequency noise and thumps, blights landscapes, interferes with TV reception, and chops birds and bats; dams kill rivers; and solar power would require that large areas of land be essentially “painted black” with photovoltaic cells.
In terms of resource use, the infrastructure of a wind farm takes five to 10 times the steel and concrete used in a 1970-vintage nuclear power plant.
The first part of Ausubel’s heresy closes with a sobering assessment: “Cheerful self-delusion about new solar and renewables since 1970 has yet to produce a single quad of the more than 90 quadrillion BTU of total energy the U.S. now yearly consumes. ... Let’s stop sanctifying false and minor gods and heretically chant ‘Renewables are not Green.’”
The second part of Ausubel’s heresy, which will have to be addressed in more detail at another time, is his prescription for nuclear power.
Greens traditionally oppose nuclear power wherever and whenever they can. Even those Greens that say it’s time to consider nuclear power seem to be paying no more than lip service to the concept — witness the lack of progress on greenhouse gas-free nuclear power despite all the hoopla about the supposed fossil fuel-caused manmade climate change.
But Ausubel says that, “Like computers, to grow larger, the energy system must now shrink in size and cost. Considered in watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.”
In a time when those who question the Green agenda are scurrilously defamed and routinely intimidated — just for the sin of expressing contrary opinions — the Green Ausubel should be applauded for having the courage to stand up and speak the truth: that renewable energy wasn’t, isn’t and ought not ever be.
Respond to writer
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Posted by 20gauge (Member # 2113) on February 26, 2008, 08:16 PM:
Ausubel's premise, which I don't think Milloy fully appreciates (or wants you to) is economy of scale. As an example- Vic could (and does) benefit from renewable energy sources on his place, but New Yuck City is going to need a little more than that.
Ausubel says... Nukes are green! He's right, but only with respect to acres per kilowatt... in that regard nothing beats the Atom Heart Mother (Pink Floyd reference). Don't forget the waste though. You probably won't, because that waste will be around for thousands of years. For nukes, we are going to need considerable development in waste storage, safety and security but, arguably, we might as well put our research dollars towards that as well as anything.
Here's some Milloy-free Ausubel. You'll notice that he does not totally divorce himself of natural, alternative energy sources:
"Renewables are not green. To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, water and biomass, cause serious environmental harm. Measuring renewables in watts per square metre that each source could produce smashes these environmental idols. Nuclear energy is green. However, in order to grow, the nuclear industry must extend out of its niche in baseload electric power generation, form alliances with the methane industry to introduce more hydrogen into energy markets, and start making hydrogen itself. Technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their conditions of evolution. Like computers, to grow larger, the energy system must now shrink in size and cost. Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors".
By competitors, I suspect he means the emerging fig and olive energy industry. We're young, but anticipate EXPLOSIVE growth.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 26, 2008, 09:16 PM:
I'm able to figure that out all by myself.
Now, if we can just get the country to quit wasting resources on this recycling bullshit.
Good hunting. LB
PS, the problem is easy to see, just like who is really responsible for the subprime mess. Mortgage bankers, the greedy SOB's should all be hung by their thumbs. They didn't lose a dime.
We should have addressed the spent fuel storage problem a long time ago instead of giving the whackos a cause. Yucca Mountain looks like a perfectly reasonable solution to me, but we have these computer programers and kindergarten teachers that seem to know a lot more and have more "concerns" than the designers. These are the kind of fruitcakes that would oppose striking a nail with a hammer for fear of starting an uncontrollable chain reaction.
Posted by skoal (Member # 1492) on February 27, 2008, 07:15 AM:
Posted by 20gauge (Member # 2113) on February 27, 2008, 07:44 AM:
Please Skoal, that image is much too graphic.
After last night, I am still a little unsteady. It felt (and sounded) like my lower intestine had seperated and exited through my rectal orafice. Not wanting to disturb the spouse further, I postponed flushing until morning. At first light I performed my usual matudinal ablutions and glanced casually into the turlet. I was taken aback by what appeared to be blood and bits of flesh. After an elementary forensic examination I realized that it was just pimentos. I may try it again, but will forego the heavy cream this time. I really do need to go shopping.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 27, 2008, 08:18 AM:
You two keep that up and your buddies are going to vote you off the island. Especially that cat box close up! Pimentos my ass!
Once again I applaud your (combined) efforts in setting the banal bar at a new (and exciting) level.
Good hunting. LB
Posted by 20gauge (Member # 2113) on February 27, 2008, 08:23 AM:
Come on Leonard. Every post can't be full of venom and vitriol. As head honcho, the health and well being of the membership should be of premier importance to you.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 27, 2008, 08:26 AM:
Yes, and you are on the short list for HM slacker of the year. Get to work.
Posted by skoal (Member # 1492) on February 28, 2008, 07:55 AM:
Leonard
Regarding the new and (exicting) level in what direction should one strive to go ,You have left us without direction.
In setting this bar are we looking to raise the bar as in high jump,or are we thinking limbo?
Questioning.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 28, 2008, 10:27 AM:
That's right, I haven't. Consider yourself pushed out of the nest. chirp, chirp!
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0