- Thread starter
- #61
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lol
- Thread starter Sinatra
- Start date
Charles Stucker
Senior Member
- Oct 13, 2009
- 2,071
- 226
- 48
Yes, badly regulated Electricity is atrocious, that is why I originally pointed out that cronyism would make such inefficient. California is a large state with a huge electrical market. Small wonder that someone was able to insert massive graftThe most regulated and governmentally controlled power distribution system in the country was in Kahleeforneeahhh. It was the cause of the highest costs anywhere in the country, the closure of virtually every power company in that state, the dismal failure of buying power on the open market at the highest rates, the political end of the career of Grey Davis and the election of Ahrnold.
For regulation to work a method must be found to make graft uncommon, and to insure the regulators are knowledgeable about the electric power industry.
We have "free market" where I live. Along with regular loss of power because the distribution network is not maintained. Wonder how the "free market" will address that? Do you have an answer?
Yes, badly regulated Electricity is atrocious, that is why I originally pointed out that cronyism would make such inefficient. California is a large state with a huge electrical market. Small wonder that someone was able to insert massive graftThe most regulated and governmentally controlled power distribution system in the country was in Kahleeforneeahhh. It was the cause of the highest costs anywhere in the country, the closure of virtually every power company in that state, the dismal failure of buying power on the open market at the highest rates, the political end of the career of Grey Davis and the election of Ahrnold.
For regulation to work a method must be found to make graft uncommon, and to insure the regulators are knowledgeable about the electric power industry.
We have "free market" where I live. Along with regular loss of power because the distribution network is not maintained. Wonder how the "free market" will address that? Do you have an answer?
Living in the real world teaches that the "Free Market" that works is actually one that is pretty well regulated.
The problem in Kahleeforneeahhh was that the government put limits on the costs to be charged to the end users. This capped the potential and eliminated the possiblity that money could be made. As a result, finding that no money could be made, the producers simply stopped playing the game so the State was forced to buy the power on the Spot Market at stupendously high rates.
Regulation of how the free market works as opposed to the levels at which the free market works is how a well regulated free market does work well and does allow prosperity for those who participate.
As an aside, Nancy Pelosi is from the Golden State and was either in a coma during this mess or is just granite brained stupid as she now promises that the cost of health care will never go up and the services will never go down. Learning disability or swindler? You make the call. What happens when the doctors stop playing the game?
On "Free Markets", I've said here before that an unregulated economy is one in which the unarmed guy gives his money to the guy who has the guns. In a completely regulated economy, everybody gives their money to the government (which has the guns). Either extreme end works the same for those like me that have to play the game. The middle range of regulation is the place that works the best.
As we move to either end, the air is cut off to the engine and the economy slows. Less regulation allows abuse and over regulation stifles creativity. Oddly enough, the lesser regulation of the 90's led to our lawmakers passing laws that defined methods of abuse. We may discover the main architects of this by the rewards given out. Charlie and Chris have some nice houses, Plural for both, on the salaries of public servants.
Either we pay these guys way too much, others pay these guys too much or these guys just plain steal from whomever they can dupe.
As one of the duped, I'm getting a tad pissed off.
By examining previous data, Ben Franklin made pretty shrewd deductions about weather a year in advance, which helped make Poor Richard's Almanac a hit back in the 18th century.My local weatherman can't tell me with any reliability whether or not it'll rain, er...um...I mean snow, next week.
But change his name to "climatologist" and he can tell me what the weather is going to be next year!
Climatologists predict a general climatic pattern, not a specific weather event, so the math is actually a bit more deterministic. However Solar activity is the Number One determinant in the climate and I know of no way to control solar output.
Someone else that understands it.
mal
Diamond Member
It's not just the ocean off the Northeast coast that is super-warm this summer. July was the hottest the world's oceans have been in almost 130 years of record-keeping.
The Records from 1890 were Fairly High Tech then?...
I did NOT Know that.
peace...
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Taking the Ocean’s Temperature
“The ocean’s a big place, and it’s not doing the same thing everywhere,” says Willis. “In some places, it’s warming. In some places, it’s cooling, and the quantity we need is the average over the whole thing.” Getting that average has entailed overcoming several challenges, the biggest of which is probably learning how to take the ocean’s temperature everywhere.
“There’s a long history of shipping back and forth between the U.S. and Europe,” Willis explains. As a result, temperatures in the North Atlantic have been studied carefully over the last century. Ships often dropped thermistors—devices that exhibit rapid changes in electrical resistance based on small temperature changes—along their routes. Although this approach yielded excellent temperature records for some areas, it offered far from universal coverage. “The Pacific is a huge ocean, and even if you count all the shipping lanes—the places where people go all the time—there are still big gaps.” Sparsely sampled as it historically has been, however, the Pacific ranks above what Willis calls the “worst place for sampling”: the Southern Ocean.
Earth's Big Heat Bucket : Feature Articles
“The ocean’s a big place, and it’s not doing the same thing everywhere,” says Willis. “In some places, it’s warming. In some places, it’s cooling, and the quantity we need is the average over the whole thing.” Getting that average has entailed overcoming several challenges, the biggest of which is probably learning how to take the ocean’s temperature everywhere.
“There’s a long history of shipping back and forth between the U.S. and Europe,” Willis explains. As a result, temperatures in the North Atlantic have been studied carefully over the last century. Ships often dropped thermistors—devices that exhibit rapid changes in electrical resistance based on small temperature changes—along their routes. Although this approach yielded excellent temperature records for some areas, it offered far from universal coverage. “The Pacific is a huge ocean, and even if you count all the shipping lanes—the places where people go all the time—there are still big gaps.” Sparsely sampled as it historically has been, however, the Pacific ranks above what Willis calls the “worst place for sampling”: the Southern Ocean.
Earth's Big Heat Bucket : Feature Articles
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The real measurement of temperature in the Atlantic began with Ben Franklin.
Annotated History of the Gulf Stream Current In actual observations of the Gulf Stream
In 1768, when Benjamin Franklin, then-postmaster general for the American colonies, traveled to London, where he was questioned by British authorities about why letters took much longer to get to New York than to New England ports when the two locations were ‘‘scarcely a day's sail apart" and why westward mail from Europe to America took weeks longer than the east-bound ships from America. Franklin could not offer an immediate answer but began an investigation. His first piece of evidence was actually in his own journal. Franklin recalled a curious occurrence in 1726 while sailing from London to Philadelphia. After several weeks at sea, Franklin noted that the color of the ocean water began to change. There were "hot damp winds," along with "an abundance of grass" and other seaweed visible in the water. To Franklin, the warmer air and warmer water suggested that the ship must be very near the coast, but the ship’s captain scoffed at that idea. And, indeed, after six days, the ocean water regained its former darker color, and the hot wind and abundant seaweed disappeared. The ship was nowhere near the coast. Franklin had no explanation for the peculiar changes in the character of the ocean he had seen in the mid Atlantic, but later in 1769, that was about to change. (Study Place: Ben Franklin and the Gulf Stream)
Franklin thought of another source of information. His cousin, Timothy Folger, an American whaling captain. Folger knew exactly why there was a delay in mail delivery. Folger informed Franklin that American whalers were well-acquainted with the Gulf Stream. They knew whales could be found along its plankton-rich boundaries. They also knew travel back to New England whaling ports could be hastened by sailing north of the powerful push of the current. Folger said Americans had frequently told British captains about the futility of fighting the current (running against the current could cost a ship as much as 70 miles a day in westward progress) and how to avoid it, but that they had ignored the advice. ‘‘They were too wise to be counseled by simple American fishermen." (The Atlantic Coastline: The Gulf Stream)
Franklin asked Folger to sketch the current on a map, which he then had printed and presented to the Lords of the Treasury, who in turn passed it along to their captains. In the light of later research, including satellite observations in the late 20th century, the Franklin-Folger chart proved a remarkably accurate portrayal of the path taken by the Gulf Stream. Unfortunately, most of the packet ship captains ignored the new charts, and mail service between Europe and America continued to lag. All the original copies of the Franklin-Folger chart were soon lost (one was finally located in a French library in 1978), but subsequent versions were published in France in the early 1780s and in Philadelphia in 1785. (NOAA and Ships of Opportunity on the Northeastern Continental Shelf)
Franklin, being the scientist that he was, became intrigued by the idea of a "stream" existing in a large body of water such as the Atlantic ocean. Therefore, in 1775 during his return voyage from England to the colonies, Franklin took temperature measurements of the ocean water from two to four times per day (Van Doren). From his readings, he could determine whether a vessel was in or out of the stream, and even approximately how close or distant a ship was from America. Franklin proposed that, "This Stream is probably generated by the accumulation of water on the eastern coast of America between the tropics, by the trade winds that constantly blow there . . ." He also recorded that the western bank of the stream is significantly cooler (shallower water) than the eastern bank. He reasoned that the velocity of the stream gradually slowed as it flowed north, but could maintain its relative warmth to the colder North Atlantic. Franklin is generally given credit for correctly explaining the stream's cause. Franklin even suggested the name "Gulf Stream," even though it is a huge, circular motion in the Atlantic Ocean and has little to do with the Gulf of Mexico.
In 1776, the American Congress appointed three commissioners to travel to France in order to gain French support in the American Revolution. Franklin was chosen as one of the commissioners. On 26 October, Franklin left Philadelphia on board the Reprisal. "The indomitable old man, who was almost certain to be hanged for high treason if the Reprisal should be captured, noted the temperature of air and water every day, again studying the Gulf Stream" (Van Doren). Franklin did not return to America until 1785. On this trip, he again took daily measurements of the water temperature and notes concerning the currents, water color and gulf weed content. He also wrote Maritime Observations on this trip. This work included his notes on the Gulf Stream's causes and uses as well as a multitude of other information about sailing the oceans. (Van Doren). (Benjamin Franklin and the Gulf Stream)
In the mid 1800's, Matthew Fontaine Maury and his contemporaries used equipment to measure water temperature, buoyancy and current speed information from around the world. He distributed special logs, each with 12 blank pages in the back, to Navy and merchant captains to record data from their travels. Maury and his staff analyzed the notes from the crossings and generated the first edition of ‘‘Wind and Current Charts’‘ in 1847. Captains who were once reluctant to take part in Maury's study began to take notice when crossing times began to be dramatically reduced. One captain cut 35 days off a 110-day journey to Rio de Janeiro. Maury offered the charts for free to anyone who would send in data. His work was the foundation for much of the research over the next century. Oceanographers poured over reports of derelict ships and floating debris, a peril to navigation and a treasure-trove of information. As the location of the flotsam was plotted and the drifting debris was tracked, scientists gradually began to realize that currents formed oceans, not the other way around.
Annotated History of the Gulf Stream Current In actual observations of the Gulf Stream
In 1768, when Benjamin Franklin, then-postmaster general for the American colonies, traveled to London, where he was questioned by British authorities about why letters took much longer to get to New York than to New England ports when the two locations were ‘‘scarcely a day's sail apart" and why westward mail from Europe to America took weeks longer than the east-bound ships from America. Franklin could not offer an immediate answer but began an investigation. His first piece of evidence was actually in his own journal. Franklin recalled a curious occurrence in 1726 while sailing from London to Philadelphia. After several weeks at sea, Franklin noted that the color of the ocean water began to change. There were "hot damp winds," along with "an abundance of grass" and other seaweed visible in the water. To Franklin, the warmer air and warmer water suggested that the ship must be very near the coast, but the ship’s captain scoffed at that idea. And, indeed, after six days, the ocean water regained its former darker color, and the hot wind and abundant seaweed disappeared. The ship was nowhere near the coast. Franklin had no explanation for the peculiar changes in the character of the ocean he had seen in the mid Atlantic, but later in 1769, that was about to change. (Study Place: Ben Franklin and the Gulf Stream)
Franklin thought of another source of information. His cousin, Timothy Folger, an American whaling captain. Folger knew exactly why there was a delay in mail delivery. Folger informed Franklin that American whalers were well-acquainted with the Gulf Stream. They knew whales could be found along its plankton-rich boundaries. They also knew travel back to New England whaling ports could be hastened by sailing north of the powerful push of the current. Folger said Americans had frequently told British captains about the futility of fighting the current (running against the current could cost a ship as much as 70 miles a day in westward progress) and how to avoid it, but that they had ignored the advice. ‘‘They were too wise to be counseled by simple American fishermen." (The Atlantic Coastline: The Gulf Stream)
Franklin asked Folger to sketch the current on a map, which he then had printed and presented to the Lords of the Treasury, who in turn passed it along to their captains. In the light of later research, including satellite observations in the late 20th century, the Franklin-Folger chart proved a remarkably accurate portrayal of the path taken by the Gulf Stream. Unfortunately, most of the packet ship captains ignored the new charts, and mail service between Europe and America continued to lag. All the original copies of the Franklin-Folger chart were soon lost (one was finally located in a French library in 1978), but subsequent versions were published in France in the early 1780s and in Philadelphia in 1785. (NOAA and Ships of Opportunity on the Northeastern Continental Shelf)
Franklin, being the scientist that he was, became intrigued by the idea of a "stream" existing in a large body of water such as the Atlantic ocean. Therefore, in 1775 during his return voyage from England to the colonies, Franklin took temperature measurements of the ocean water from two to four times per day (Van Doren). From his readings, he could determine whether a vessel was in or out of the stream, and even approximately how close or distant a ship was from America. Franklin proposed that, "This Stream is probably generated by the accumulation of water on the eastern coast of America between the tropics, by the trade winds that constantly blow there . . ." He also recorded that the western bank of the stream is significantly cooler (shallower water) than the eastern bank. He reasoned that the velocity of the stream gradually slowed as it flowed north, but could maintain its relative warmth to the colder North Atlantic. Franklin is generally given credit for correctly explaining the stream's cause. Franklin even suggested the name "Gulf Stream," even though it is a huge, circular motion in the Atlantic Ocean and has little to do with the Gulf of Mexico.
In 1776, the American Congress appointed three commissioners to travel to France in order to gain French support in the American Revolution. Franklin was chosen as one of the commissioners. On 26 October, Franklin left Philadelphia on board the Reprisal. "The indomitable old man, who was almost certain to be hanged for high treason if the Reprisal should be captured, noted the temperature of air and water every day, again studying the Gulf Stream" (Van Doren). Franklin did not return to America until 1785. On this trip, he again took daily measurements of the water temperature and notes concerning the currents, water color and gulf weed content. He also wrote Maritime Observations on this trip. This work included his notes on the Gulf Stream's causes and uses as well as a multitude of other information about sailing the oceans. (Van Doren). (Benjamin Franklin and the Gulf Stream)
In the mid 1800's, Matthew Fontaine Maury and his contemporaries used equipment to measure water temperature, buoyancy and current speed information from around the world. He distributed special logs, each with 12 blank pages in the back, to Navy and merchant captains to record data from their travels. Maury and his staff analyzed the notes from the crossings and generated the first edition of ‘‘Wind and Current Charts’‘ in 1847. Captains who were once reluctant to take part in Maury's study began to take notice when crossing times began to be dramatically reduced. One captain cut 35 days off a 110-day journey to Rio de Janeiro. Maury offered the charts for free to anyone who would send in data. His work was the foundation for much of the research over the next century. Oceanographers poured over reports of derelict ships and floating debris, a peril to navigation and a treasure-trove of information. As the location of the flotsam was plotted and the drifting debris was tracked, scientists gradually began to realize that currents formed oceans, not the other way around.
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #68
Old Crock going off half cocked.
What happened to you in the Geothermal thread, in that thread the last post is mine calling old crock a half cocked liar, how come old crock wont post there.
In the geothermal thread old crock used scientific america as a source to refute my source yet old crock did not check to see that scientific america used my source, I used G. Bloomquist which is the same source as the scientific america article. Bloomquist states geothermal is very expensive, he not only states this he is the expert on geothermal in which everyone uses. Old Crock claimed Bloomquist was wrong than cited Bloomquist as the source.
It is real clear Old Crock is a moron. The following is what Old Crock sources and than ignores. If geothermal is so cheap why the subsidies
The following is the article Old Crock posted as fact and now Old Crock disagrees with Old Crock's own source
Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American
So with massive subsidies for geothermal and proposed taxes on fossil fuels who will pay the price, ordinary americans, everyone will see their electric bill skyrocket while the IDIOTS like OLD CROCK act like they know what they are talking about.
My ariticle I sourced explains the financial problem in detail, Scientific America concurs with my post, Old Crock disagrees with my post yet cites his source as Scientific America, Scientific America disagrees with Old Crock yet Old Crock sourced the article.
So many costs of geothermal are hidden, when someone speaks of geothermal being competitive they are ignorant to the trickery employed to make geothermal competitive from subsidies and tax breaks as well as pokiticians passing laws mandating the use of this extremely expensive power source.
all this is from old crock, old crock has made the point that geothermal is too expensive yet old crock is too stupid to know what old crock posted.
What more can I say, dirty corrosive steam, geothermal plants pollute, its a fact, a hard fact to find on line, I will have to address pollution caused by geothermal plants after I finish quoting old crocks ariticle...
So according to old crock we need government mandates, taxes on fossil fuels, higher energy prices, subsidies, and we must ignore or hide the true cost of geothermal.
Now how about pollution
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/saltonsea/documents/applicant_files/2002-12-26_RESPONSE_CURE_1.PDF
so what does this mean, in simple terms the geothermal plants in calipatria california on the salton sea are constantly exploding spilling toxic brines onto the dirt, this than blows onto the aspargus field where most the aspargus is grown. This is unregulated toxic waste contanimating farm land. Do a google map search on the calipatria, cal energy, leathers, salton sea,. zoom in and look at the satelitte view, you will see dead earth right next to bright green asparagus fields.
and in closing the pollution from geothermal is radioactive. pipes explode all the time at geothermal plants, unregulated, unreported explosions emmitting radioactive material into our farmland.
Thank you old crock and you environuts, you assholes dont do your homework, you all got a bunch of empty ideas on what makes you feel good.
Your support of geothermal allows a major corporation to pollute the earth with radioactive material from a geothermal plant.
What happened to you in the Geothermal thread, in that thread the last post is mine calling old crock a half cocked liar, how come old crock wont post there.
In the geothermal thread old crock used scientific america as a source to refute my source yet old crock did not check to see that scientific america used my source, I used G. Bloomquist which is the same source as the scientific america article. Bloomquist states geothermal is very expensive, he not only states this he is the expert on geothermal in which everyone uses. Old Crock claimed Bloomquist was wrong than cited Bloomquist as the source.
It is real clear Old Crock is a moron. The following is what Old Crock sources and than ignores. If geothermal is so cheap why the subsidies
The following is the article Old Crock posted as fact and now Old Crock disagrees with Old Crock's own source
Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American
Combine a new U.S. president pushing a stimulus package that includes $28 billion in direct subsidies for renewable energy with another $13 billion for research and development, and the picture for renewable energy—geothermal power among the options—is brightening
So with massive subsidies for geothermal and proposed taxes on fossil fuels who will pay the price, ordinary americans, everyone will see their electric bill skyrocket while the IDIOTS like OLD CROCK act like they know what they are talking about.
That does not mean companies are rushing to build geothermal plants: There are a number of assumptions in the geothermal figure. First, there are the tax incentives, which save about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Those won't necessarily last forever, however—although the stimulus bill extended them through 2013.
Second, the Credit Suisse analysis relied on what is called the "levelized [sic] cost of energy," or the total cost to produce a given unit of energy. Embedded within this figure is an assumption that the money to build a new geothermal plant is available at reasonable interest rates—on the order of 8 percent.
In today's economic climate, that just isn't the case. "In general, there is financing out there for geothermal, but it's difficult to get and it's expensive," Geothermal Energy Association director Karl Gawell told ScientificAmerican.com recently. "You have to have a really premium project to get even credit card interest rates."
That means very high up-front costs. As a result, companies are more likely to spend money on things with lower front-end costs, like natural gas–powered plants, which are cheap to build
My ariticle I sourced explains the financial problem in detail, Scientific America concurs with my post, Old Crock disagrees with my post yet cites his source as Scientific America, Scientific America disagrees with Old Crock yet Old Crock sourced the article.
There's another significant issue: finding geothermal resources. In that way, the geothermal industry has the same challenges as the oil and gas industry. The Credit Suisse analysis doesn't factor in exploration costs, which can run hundreds of thousands of dollars for per well.
So many costs of geothermal are hidden, when someone speaks of geothermal being competitive they are ignorant to the trickery employed to make geothermal competitive from subsidies and tax breaks as well as pokiticians passing laws mandating the use of this extremely expensive power source.
Another potential stumbling block is reliability. Both the Credit Suisse and WGA studies assume that geothermal power plants are producing electricity virtually 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Larry Makovich, vice president and senior power advisor at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, believes this is an exaggeration. "They're assuming that if you put a megawatt of geothermal capacity in you're going to run over 95 percent of the hours in the year," Makovich says. "Here's the catch: if you look at actual electric production of geothermal in the U.S., it runs 62 percent of the time."
all this is from old crock, old crock has made the point that geothermal is too expensive yet old crock is too stupid to know what old crock posted.
What prevents geothermal plants from running continuously is the sometimes harsh nature of the steam on which they depend. "When you take steam out of the Earth it is different from taking steam out of a boiler from a coal or natural gas plant," Makovich says. "It's got a lot of other stuff in it." That "stuff" can include everything from silica and heavy metals to ammonia, depending on the source.
Geothermal advocates hope that many of these caveats become moot. A tax on the carbon emitted by power plants that rely on fossil fuel, for example, could increase the cost of coal so much that geothermal's issues become unimportant. A carbon cap-and-trade system similar to the one used in Europe would do the same.
What more can I say, dirty corrosive steam, geothermal plants pollute, its a fact, a hard fact to find on line, I will have to address pollution caused by geothermal plants after I finish quoting old crocks ariticle...
And state mandates that a certain percentage of energy come from green and renewable sources already seem to be having an effect
Geothermal advocates hope that many of these caveats become moot. A tax on the carbon emitted by power plants that rely on fossil fuel, for example, could increase the cost of coal so much that geothermal's issues become unimportant. A carbon cap-and-trade system similar to the one used in Europe would do the same.
So according to old crock we need government mandates, taxes on fossil fuels, higher energy prices, subsidies, and we must ignore or hide the true cost of geothermal.
Now how about pollution
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/saltonsea/documents/applicant_files/2002-12-26_RESPONSE_CURE_1.PDF
Air Quality
1. Please revise the fugitive dust erosion emissions in Table G-1 to use an emission
factor of 0.11 ton/acre-month or to include additional emissions from on-site and offsite
cut and fill.
Response:
Subject to the above-referenced General Objections and Qualifications, and without
waiving the same, Applicant responds:
The MRI Report provides four levels of analysis for estimating fugitive dust emissions.
A level 1 analysis using the 0.11 ton/acre emission factor is not appropriate for the
Project because the area and amount of earthmoving is known. A level 2 MRI fugitive
dust analysis appropriate for the SSU6 Project is summarized as follows:
Part 1 - 80 acres * 0.011 tons/acre-month = 0.88 tons/month
0.88 tons/month * 0.2 (80% control) = 0.176 tons/month
= 0.277 gm/sec
(Based on 20 days/month and 8 hours/day work schedule)
The general area of the site where earthmoving activities occur which could cause
fugitive dust emissions is 80 acres. Activities that occur outside the 80 acres including
construction of well pads, pipelines, etc. include minimal earthmoving activities with
no cut/fill activities proposed, therefore, the MRI erosion emission factor of 0.011
lbs/acre-month does not apply to these activities.
An 80% control efficiency is being applied to the emission factors due to the mitigation
measures that will be enforced on the Applicant during the construction period. The
fugitive dust mitigation plan was described in detailed in Section 5.1.4 of the AFC.
Also refer to Cure Data Response 4 for additional information.
Part 2
Total onsite cut/fill = 105,000 cubic yards (AFC section 5.3.2.1.1).
105,000 cubic yards * 0.059 tons/1,000 cubic yards = 6.20 tons uncontrolled
6.20 tons/6 months * 0.2 (80% control) = 1.24 tons controlled
Total offsite cut only = 62,000 cubic yards (AFC section 5.3.2.1.1)
62,000 cubic yards * (0.22 tons/1,000 cubic yards) = 13.64 tons uncontrolled
6.82 tons/6 months * 0.2 (80% control) = 2.73 tons controlled
This activity occurs for 6 months, refer to Table 3.4.2
Total from all cut and fill activities = 3.97 tons/6 months
so what does this mean, in simple terms the geothermal plants in calipatria california on the salton sea are constantly exploding spilling toxic brines onto the dirt, this than blows onto the aspargus field where most the aspargus is grown. This is unregulated toxic waste contanimating farm land. Do a google map search on the calipatria, cal energy, leathers, salton sea,. zoom in and look at the satelitte view, you will see dead earth right next to bright green asparagus fields.
70. The disposal of filter cake would require at least one and perhaps more daily truck
trips. These trips are not acknowledged in the traffic and transportation section of
the AFC. Filter cake is radioactive and contains high levels of arsenic and other
metals. (AFC, Table 3.3-6.) An accident could result in significant public health
impacts. Thus, please provide an analysis of the impacts of an accident involving a
filter-cake truck, or, alternatively, provide the information required to prepare such
an analysis, e.g., number and type of trucks per day, destination, and route
and in closing the pollution from geothermal is radioactive. pipes explode all the time at geothermal plants, unregulated, unreported explosions emmitting radioactive material into our farmland.
Thank you old crock and you environuts, you assholes dont do your homework, you all got a bunch of empty ideas on what makes you feel good.
Your support of geothermal allows a major corporation to pollute the earth with radioactive material from a geothermal plant.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Mdn 2000mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #70
Old crock, why not address your post, pretty good how I used your source, pretty hard to argue with stuff you post, talk about a fool.
Its morons like old crock that are destroying the earth, here I can show facts as posted by old crock disprove old crocks statements, old crock unwittingly proves himself wrong. talk about an idiot.
Its morons like old crock that are destroying the earth, here I can show facts as posted by old crock disprove old crocks statements, old crock unwittingly proves himself wrong. talk about an idiot.
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #71
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/saltonsea/documents/applicant_files/2002-12-26_RESPONSE_CURE_1.PDF
Geothermal, clean energy and safe, not by a long shot, here the corporation is claiming there system will prevent contamination of a critical wetland, its impossible, one its impossible to do an effective examination of the inner pipe, the pipes are miles long 48" in diameter, the inspection alone would take a team of hundreds of men and the amount of data collected would be staggering. Currently cal energy has done thickness gauging at best, that have yet to use an advance ultrasound technique. Further these pipes burst, literally explode, so cal energy is proposing putting a pipe in a pipe and telling us this makes it safe. You cant put the well head in a pipe, that is impossible so what will they do to prevent the well heads from exploding?
This stop-gap measure addresses leaks, not explosions.
Radioactive waste and heavy metal contanimation is what the pipe in a pipe is being proposed to resolve.
The pipeline that carries brine over the wetlands from the Plan to OB3 will be
contained within a second, outer carbon steel pipeline. The chamber between the
inner and outer pipes will be monitored to detect a potential leak in the inner brinecarrying
pipe. The outer carbon steel pipe would be designed to contain brine that
might leak from within the inner pipe before the inner pipe could be shut down, at
which time brine collected in the outer pipe would be bled off and disposed of in
proper fashion.
(b)
Geothermal, clean energy and safe, not by a long shot, here the corporation is claiming there system will prevent contamination of a critical wetland, its impossible, one its impossible to do an effective examination of the inner pipe, the pipes are miles long 48" in diameter, the inspection alone would take a team of hundreds of men and the amount of data collected would be staggering. Currently cal energy has done thickness gauging at best, that have yet to use an advance ultrasound technique. Further these pipes burst, literally explode, so cal energy is proposing putting a pipe in a pipe and telling us this makes it safe. You cant put the well head in a pipe, that is impossible so what will they do to prevent the well heads from exploding?
This stop-gap measure addresses leaks, not explosions.
Radioactive waste and heavy metal contanimation is what the pipe in a pipe is being proposed to resolve.
- Thread starter
- #72
Old Crock going off half cocked.
What happened to you in the Geothermal thread, in that thread the last post is mine calling old crock a half cocked liar, how come old crock wont post there.
In the geothermal thread old crock used scientific america as a source to refute my source yet old crock did not check to see that scientific america used my source, I used G. Bloomquist which is the same source as the scientific america article. Bloomquist states geothermal is very expensive, he not only states this he is the expert on geothermal in which everyone uses. Old Crock claimed Bloomquist was wrong than cited Bloomquist as the source.
It is real clear Old Crock is a moron. The following is what Old Crock sources and than ignores. If geothermal is so cheap why the subsidies
The following is the article Old Crock posted as fact and now Old Crock disagrees with Old Crock's own source
Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American
Combine a new U.S. president pushing a stimulus package that includes $28 billion in direct subsidies for renewable energy with another $13 billion for research and development, and the picture for renewable energygeothermal power among the optionsis brightening
So with massive subsidies for geothermal and proposed taxes on fossil fuels who will pay the price, ordinary americans, everyone will see their electric bill skyrocket while the IDIOTS like OLD CROCK act like they know what they are talking about.
That does not mean companies are rushing to build geothermal plants: There are a number of assumptions in the geothermal figure. First, there are the tax incentives, which save about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Those won't necessarily last forever, howeveralthough the stimulus bill extended them through 2013.
Second, the Credit Suisse analysis relied on what is called the "levelized [sic] cost of energy," or the total cost to produce a given unit of energy. Embedded within this figure is an assumption that the money to build a new geothermal plant is available at reasonable interest rateson the order of 8 percent.
In today's economic climate, that just isn't the case. "In general, there is financing out there for geothermal, but it's difficult to get and it's expensive," Geothermal Energy Association director Karl Gawell told ScientificAmerican.com recently. "You have to have a really premium project to get even credit card interest rates."
That means very high up-front costs. As a result, companies are more likely to spend money on things with lower front-end costs, like natural gaspowered plants, which are cheap to build
My ariticle I sourced explains the financial problem in detail, Scientific America concurs with my post, Old Crock disagrees with my post yet cites his source as Scientific America, Scientific America disagrees with Old Crock yet Old Crock sourced the article.
So many costs of geothermal are hidden, when someone speaks of geothermal being competitive they are ignorant to the trickery employed to make geothermal competitive from subsidies and tax breaks as well as pokiticians passing laws mandating the use of this extremely expensive power source.
all this is from old crock, old crock has made the point that geothermal is too expensive yet old crock is too stupid to know what old crock posted.
What more can I say, dirty corrosive steam, geothermal plants pollute, its a fact, a hard fact to find on line, I will have to address pollution caused by geothermal plants after I finish quoting old crocks ariticle...
So according to old crock we need government mandates, taxes on fossil fuels, higher energy prices, subsidies, and we must ignore or hide the true cost of geothermal.
Now how about pollution
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/saltonsea/documents/applicant_files/2002-12-26_RESPONSE_CURE_1.PDF
Air Quality
1. Please revise the fugitive dust erosion emissions in Table G-1 to use an emission
factor of 0.11 ton/acre-month or to include additional emissions from on-site and offsite
cut and fill.
Response:
Subject to the above-referenced General Objections and Qualifications, and without
waiving the same, Applicant responds:
The MRI Report provides four levels of analysis for estimating fugitive dust emissions.
A level 1 analysis using the 0.11 ton/acre emission factor is not appropriate for the
Project because the area and amount of earthmoving is known. A level 2 MRI fugitive
dust analysis appropriate for the SSU6 Project is summarized as follows:
Part 1 - 80 acres * 0.011 tons/acre-month = 0.88 tons/month
0.88 tons/month * 0.2 (80% control) = 0.176 tons/month
= 0.277 gm/sec
(Based on 20 days/month and 8 hours/day work schedule)
The general area of the site where earthmoving activities occur which could cause
fugitive dust emissions is 80 acres. Activities that occur outside the 80 acres including
construction of well pads, pipelines, etc. include minimal earthmoving activities with
no cut/fill activities proposed, therefore, the MRI erosion emission factor of 0.011
lbs/acre-month does not apply to these activities.
An 80% control efficiency is being applied to the emission factors due to the mitigation
measures that will be enforced on the Applicant during the construction period. The
fugitive dust mitigation plan was described in detailed in Section 5.1.4 of the AFC.
Also refer to Cure Data Response 4 for additional information.
Part 2
Total onsite cut/fill = 105,000 cubic yards (AFC section 5.3.2.1.1).
105,000 cubic yards * 0.059 tons/1,000 cubic yards = 6.20 tons uncontrolled
6.20 tons/6 months * 0.2 (80% control) = 1.24 tons controlled
Total offsite cut only = 62,000 cubic yards (AFC section 5.3.2.1.1)
62,000 cubic yards * (0.22 tons/1,000 cubic yards) = 13.64 tons uncontrolled
6.82 tons/6 months * 0.2 (80% control) = 2.73 tons controlled
This activity occurs for 6 months, refer to Table 3.4.2
Total from all cut and fill activities = 3.97 tons/6 months
so what does this mean, in simple terms the geothermal plants in calipatria california on the salton sea are constantly exploding spilling toxic brines onto the dirt, this than blows onto the aspargus field where most the aspargus is grown. This is unregulated toxic waste contanimating farm land. Do a google map search on the calipatria, cal energy, leathers, salton sea,. zoom in and look at the satelitte view, you will see dead earth right next to bright green asparagus fields.
70. The disposal of filter cake would require at least one and perhaps more daily truck
trips. These trips are not acknowledged in the traffic and transportation section of
the AFC. Filter cake is radioactive and contains high levels of arsenic and other
metals. (AFC, Table 3.3-6.) An accident could result in significant public health
impacts. Thus, please provide an analysis of the impacts of an accident involving a
filter-cake truck, or, alternatively, provide the information required to prepare such
an analysis, e.g., number and type of trucks per day, destination, and route
and in closing the pollution from geothermal is radioactive. pipes explode all the time at geothermal plants, unregulated, unreported explosions emmitting radioactive material into our farmland.
Thank you old crock and you environuts, you assholes dont do your homework, you all got a bunch of empty ideas on what makes you feel good.
Your support of geothermal allows a major corporation to pollute the earth with radioactive material from a geothermal plant.
This is one of the most decisive thrashings of fact vs folly I have yet to see on USMB.
Old Rocks - you been nuked pard...
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #73
Geothermal energy is not green, tell us how green energy as in geothermal is clean when this is just a partial list if pollutants:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/saltonsea/documents/applicant_files/2002-12-26_RESPONSE_CURE_1.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/saltonsea/documents/applicant_files/2002-12-26_RESPONSE_CURE_1.PDF
Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, /selenium,
Silver, Thallium, Vanadium
Strontium, Cesium
Acetone, Benzene, Phenyl bromide, Chlorobomomethane, Dischlorobromomethane, Tribromomethatne, Mehtyl bromide, Mek, Methyl
ethyl ketone, n-Butylbenzene, tert-Butylbenzene, Carbon disultide, Carbon tetrachloride, Chlorobenzene, Chloroethane, 2-
Chloroethyl vinyl ether, Chlorform, p-Chlorotoluene, o-Chlorotoluene, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroporpane, Dibormochloromethane,
EDB, Debormomehtane, o-Dichlorbenzen, etc, etc, etc, (so I gave up at the "D's")
Benzene, Chlorbenzene, 1,1-Dichloroethene, MTBE, Toluene, Trichloroethene
Reactive Cyanide
Radium 226, byproduct of the decay chain is lead 210
Radium 228 byproduct of the decay chain is THORIUM 228
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Geothermal pollution: Does geothermal energy cause pollution?
Geothermal electricity generation does involve a small amount of geothermal pollution in that the steam coming up from below ground carries some toxic gases, but in most plants these gases, as well as the steam, are condensed and reinjected into the ground so the effect on the environment is negligible. There are no CO2 emissions from geothermal energy so it is a much better source of electricity than coal or natural gas or nuclear (or even large-scale hydro generation which requires the flooding of large areas of land).
Geothermal heating and cooling only causes pollution to the extent that the electricity source required to run a geothermal heat pump may come from a polluting source such as coal. However, the amount of electricity used for geothermal heating and cooling is typically about a quarter the electricity that would be required to heat or cool the same space with electrical heaters and conventional air conditioning. And if you install a home geothermal heat pump and buy your electricity from a green electricity supplier, then you don't have to worry about either geothermal pollution from the heat pump system, or pollution from the electricity used to run it.
Geothermal electricity generation does involve a small amount of geothermal pollution in that the steam coming up from below ground carries some toxic gases, but in most plants these gases, as well as the steam, are condensed and reinjected into the ground so the effect on the environment is negligible. There are no CO2 emissions from geothermal energy so it is a much better source of electricity than coal or natural gas or nuclear (or even large-scale hydro generation which requires the flooding of large areas of land).
Geothermal heating and cooling only causes pollution to the extent that the electricity source required to run a geothermal heat pump may come from a polluting source such as coal. However, the amount of electricity used for geothermal heating and cooling is typically about a quarter the electricity that would be required to heat or cool the same space with electrical heaters and conventional air conditioning. And if you install a home geothermal heat pump and buy your electricity from a green electricity supplier, then you don't have to worry about either geothermal pollution from the heat pump system, or pollution from the electricity used to run it.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
There is one field in the Salton Sea that has pollution problems due to inadaquete design. Iceland, Italy, and many sites in the US produce virtually pollutionless geothermal.
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #76
There is one field in the Salton Sea that has pollution problems due to inadaquete design. Iceland, Italy, and many sites in the US produce virtually pollutionless geothermal.
You are a fucking dumbass, you know nothing, the pollution of geothermal has nothing to do with design, if you bothered to get off your lazy ass you would know that.
Why not address how you claim your source trumps my source when your source is my source, explain, we are all waiting.
How about explaining what in the design is a problem.
Further if you had took the time to read your article as well as mine you would see the characteristics of each geothermal field are unique, you cannot compare one to the other.
If you also care to notice I concentrate on the 8 geothermal power plants in Brawley/Calipatria.
Eight plants, which one do you care to speak of?
You are an idiot, did you read the articles you posted, there are C02 emissions, boy are you dumb.
These are the pollutants, the source states that these pollutants are removed by the truckload daily.
Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, /selenium,
Silver, Thallium, Vanadium
Strontium, Cesium
Acetone, Benzene, Phenyl bromide, Chlorobomomethane, Dischlorobromomethane, Tribromomethatne, Mehtyl bromide, Mek, Methyl
ethyl ketone, n-Butylbenzene, tert-Butylbenzene, Carbon disultide, Carbon tetrachloride, Chlorobenzene, Chloroethane, 2-
Chloroethyl vinyl ether, Chlorform, p-Chlorotoluene, o-Chlorotoluene, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroporpane, Dibormochloromethane,
EDB, Debormomehtane, o-Dichlorbenzen, etc, etc, etc, (so I gave up at the "D's")
Benzene, Chlorbenzene, 1,1-Dichloroethene, MTBE, Toluene, Trichloroethene
Reactive Cyanide
Radium 226, byproduct of the decay chain is lead 210
Radium 228 byproduct of the decay chain is THORIUM 228
Check that out old crock, Benzene, please do tell how Benzene is not a pollutant.
Pipes burst at every plant at the Salton Sea frequently, how frequently is impossible to know, the plants are pretty much unregulated. do a google map search on the south end of the salton sea, you can find the "leathers" plant, you can find all eight plants, you can literally see some dead land around some of the plants, I was hoping I could see the pipelines to the well heads but I could not. Either way nothing grows on the site and some of the fields around the plant have been contaminated and are dead.
Old Crock, you know nothing of everything you cut and paste, you dont even read your own cut and pastes hence you sourced an article which I quoted that showed you are full of shit.
One plant, tell us which plant, what is the name of the plant, what is the design flaw, you are such a lousy liar. So go ahead, tell us.
Last edited:
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #77
Old Crock went off half cocked and made this enormous lie:
Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI
non-utility electical generation The Energy Advocate
http://www.geothermal.org/articles/greenhousegases.pdf
So again, Old Crock must tell a lie, anyone beleive this asshole. Seriously, I call the guy a moron, an idiot, an asshole because that is the best way to describe this fool, repeatedly telling lies and its up to those who know to read old crock's lousy sources or to its up to us to read what old crock doesnt read as in his scientific america article, its up to us to do the reading that old dumbass the crock of shit dont read himself.
here old crock says there are zero emmissions, ignoring the solid waste that is emitted from geothermal, solid waste in the form of tons of dust that is radioactive. Pure poison. And I am just getting started, think all I posted is all that is to be said, far from it.
Old Crock, lies again and I give three sources to show Old Crock knows nothing of Energy or Global Warming.
For the moment we will pretend the miniscule power output comares to the "line loss" of a coal power plant.There are no CO2 emissions from geothermal energy so it is a much better source of electricity than coal or natural gas or nuclear (or even large-scale hydro generation which requires the flooding of large areas of land).
Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI
Emission of “greenhouse gases” into the environment has become an increasing concern.
Deregulation of the electrical market will allow consumers to select power suppliers that utilize
“green power.” Geothermal power is classed as “green power” and has lower emissions of
carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity than even the cleanest of fossil fuels, natural gas.
However, previously published estimates of carbon dioxide emissions are relatively old and need
revision. This study estimates that the average carbon dioxide emissions from geothermal and
fossil fuel power plants are: geothermal 0.18 , coal 2.13, petroleum 1.56 , and natural gas 1.03
pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour respectively
non-utility electical generation The Energy Advocate
Somewhat surprisingly, the hot air that carries the heat from the earth at geothermal sites also contains carbon dioxide, CO2, the Greenhouse Gas that sends anti-technologists into a frenzy. The suite of 20 geothermal sites from which Southern California Electric is obligated to buy electricity produces 730 tonnes of CO2 for every gigawatt-hour (
http://www.geothermal.org/articles/greenhousegases.pdf
More importantly, improved and increased
injection to sustain reservoir resources
has diminished the CO2 released
from geothermal power plants. Benoit and
Hirtz (1994) reported that CO2 emissions
from the Dixie Valley geothermal plant in
northern Nevada had decreased from 0.152
pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of
electricity produced in 1988 to 0.093
lbmCO2/kWh in 1992.
Steam that feeds dry
So again, Old Crock must tell a lie, anyone beleive this asshole. Seriously, I call the guy a moron, an idiot, an asshole because that is the best way to describe this fool, repeatedly telling lies and its up to those who know to read old crock's lousy sources or to its up to us to read what old crock doesnt read as in his scientific america article, its up to us to do the reading that old dumbass the crock of shit dont read himself.
here old crock says there are zero emmissions, ignoring the solid waste that is emitted from geothermal, solid waste in the form of tons of dust that is radioactive. Pure poison. And I am just getting started, think all I posted is all that is to be said, far from it.
Old Crock, lies again and I give three sources to show Old Crock knows nothing of Energy or Global Warming.
mdn2000
Rookie
- Banned
- #78
Geothermal pollution: Does geothermal energy cause pollution?
Geothermal electricity generation does involve a small amount of geothermal pollution in that the steam coming up from below ground carries some toxic gases, but in most plants these gases, as well as the steam, are condensed and reinjected into the ground so the effect on the environment is negligible. There are no CO2 emissions from geothermal energy so it is a much better source of electricity than coal or natural gas or nuclear (or even large-scale hydro generation which requires the flooding of large areas of land).
Geothermal heating and cooling only causes pollution to the extent that the electricity source required to run a geothermal heat pump may come from a polluting source such as coal. However, the amount of electricity used for geothermal heating and cooling is typically about a quarter the electricity that would be required to heat or cool the same space with electrical heaters and conventional air conditioning. And if you install a home geothermal heat pump and buy your electricity from a green electricity supplier, then you don't have to worry about either geothermal pollution from the heat pump system, or pollution from the electricity used to run it.
Hey, half cocked, old crock, your source is nothing more than fly shit, absolutely no information, its simply says "geothermal is greeeeeeeen", that aint a source, its pure bullshit, you would be shut out of any university or high school presenting nothing more than a talking point as proof. So who are the experts these fools use, what is the articles source.
You did this with wind power old crock , I followed your source and the source was nothing more than an environut talking point.
Old Crock says wind farms in oregon can supply all the power for seattle and portland yet they are building 26 more wind farms. Old Crock has yet to provide any data or information that proves this wild claim.
Anyhow, I enjoy the fact that the Liberal/Marxist are devoid of intellect.
If I actually believed in global warming or green energy, I would tell old crock to take a hike and keep his mouth shut, Old Crock is demonstrating how the Global Warming debate is nothing more than "hot air".
The Liberals are old crock, boy are liberals a joke.
Yes, badly regulated Electricity is atrocious, that is why I originally pointed out that cronyism would make such inefficient. California is a large state with a huge electrical market. Small wonder that someone was able to insert massive graftThe most regulated and governmentally controlled power distribution system in the country was in Kahleeforneeahhh. It was the cause of the highest costs anywhere in the country, the closure of virtually every power company in that state, the dismal failure of buying power on the open market at the highest rates, the political end of the career of Grey Davis and the election of Ahrnold.
For regulation to work a method must be found to make graft uncommon, and to insure the regulators are knowledgeable about the electric power industry.
We have "free market" where I live. Along with regular loss of power because the distribution network is not maintained. Wonder how the "free market" will address that? Do you have an answer?
Chances are your 'free market' is regulated. When de-regulation was on the horizon, utility companies had to split and make 'transmission' companies. Because there was little or no income for 'transmitting' electricity, the electrical grid was not maintained as well as it was previously. Now, utlities that have small sections of buswork to the grid are being told they have to install a seperate area of control and an additional personel to operate the 'bus' (a copper pipe or bar that is used as a conductor). This will increase the costs and decrease the efficiency of power generation and transmission (thank your gov).
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Old Crock went off half cocked and made this enormous lie:
For the moment we will pretend the miniscule power output comares to the "line loss" of a coal power plant.There are no CO2 emissions from geothermal energy so it is a much better source of electricity than coal or natural gas or nuclear (or even large-scale hydro generation which requires the flooding of large areas of land).
Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI
Emission of greenhouse gases into the environment has become an increasing concern.
Deregulation of the electrical market will allow consumers to select power suppliers that utilize
green power. Geothermal power is classed as green power and has lower emissions of
carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity than even the cleanest of fossil fuels, natural gas.
However, previously published estimates of carbon dioxide emissions are relatively old and need
revision. This study estimates that the average carbon dioxide emissions from geothermal and
fossil fuel power plants are: geothermal 0.18 , coal 2.13, petroleum 1.56 , and natural gas 1.03
pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour respectively
non-utility electical generation The Energy Advocate
Somewhat surprisingly, the hot air that carries the heat from the earth at geothermal sites also contains carbon dioxide, CO2, the Greenhouse Gas that sends anti-technologists into a frenzy. The suite of 20 geothermal sites from which Southern California Electric is obligated to buy electricity produces 730 tonnes of CO2 for every gigawatt-hour (
http://www.geothermal.org/articles/greenhousegases.pdf
More importantly, improved and increased
injection to sustain reservoir resources
has diminished the CO2 released
from geothermal power plants. Benoit and
Hirtz (1994) reported that CO2 emissions
from the Dixie Valley geothermal plant in
northern Nevada had decreased from 0.152
pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of
electricity produced in 1988 to 0.093
lbmCO2/kWh in 1992.
Steam that feeds dry
So again, Old Crock must tell a lie, anyone beleive this asshole. Seriously, I call the guy a moron, an idiot, an asshole because that is the best way to describe this fool, repeatedly telling lies and its up to those who know to read old crock's lousy sources or to its up to us to read what old crock doesnt read as in his scientific america article, its up to us to do the reading that old dumbass the crock of shit dont read himself.
here old crock says there are zero emmissions, ignoring the solid waste that is emitted from geothermal, solid waste in the form of tons of dust that is radioactive. Pure poison. And I am just getting started, think all I posted is all that is to be said, far from it.
Old Crock, lies again and I give three sources to show Old Crock knows nothing of Energy or Global Warming.
Coal puts over 2 lbs of CO2 into the air for every kwh produced, gas, over 1 lb for every kwh produced. And you equate that to 0.093 lb per kwh of geothermal?
CO2 Emissions Report
Similar threads
- Replies
- 95
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 155
- Replies
- 362
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 176
- Views
- 526
- Replies
- 220
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 129
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8029
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-