US takes firm stance on Nuclear Weapons, then flip flops! - Page 2

cpal_747 · 07-27-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

I was expecting this picture next. Yes, nuclear power is much cleaner when it is handled properly. Any technology has it's faults. It just happens that your position, (assuming you even have one and aren't just ranting again) putting windmills and solor panels all over the countryside, is impracticle and wont solve our enegery problems.

As usual with ALL your positions on most things, you have NO solutions, therefore your positions are irrelevant rantings about the realities confronting society.

Carry on!

This form of power is much dirtier and much more of an eyesore than anything nuclear.

When this finally has problems and falls over the environment will be destroyed for at least 1 minute until someone cleans it up. Quite the difference to the still uninhabitable area around Chernobyl. Don't worry Jim, in about 10,000 years, you may be able to move into that cheap Condo at Chernobyl!

Criton · 07-27-2005, 04:20 PM

Cpal, your position is interesting. I'd love to explore it further but I get the impression you rather blather than discuss. But in case you can do something other than shoot wildly from the hip, I'll ask for your comments on wind power.

A U.S. power generator recently contracted to build a 200 MW wind farm for a cost of $250 million. The wind farm will occupy approximately 50 sq. miles. Most of the land on which it will be located will be largely useless for other productive purposes, except for grazing. The windfarm will consists of 130 separate wind turbines connected to each other and the power grid by miles of cable. Now if Canada were to replace the Nanticoke coal plant with wind power, it would need to install more than 4,000 MW of wind turbines if the turbines are able to operate at 90 percent capacity. In reality, wind turbines generally only operate at 50 to 60 percent of capacity due to variable weather conditions and the intense maintence required for this equipment. Consequently, to achieve the same electricity output as the Nanticoke plant, you would need at least 6,000 MW of wind turbine capacity. This represents the equivalent of 3,900 wind turbines, requiring approximatley 1,500 square miles of territory. Does this sound viable to you?

Mike Mather · 07-27-2005, 04:41 PM

One thing we have here is space

Just a little humour

STEVEJ · 07-27-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

As usual with ALL your positions on most things, you have NO solutions, therefore your positions are irrelevant rantings about the realities confronting society.

Carry on!

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert hydrogen or hydrogen rich fuels into electricity and heat without combustion. Their structure is similar to a battery, however the are lighter and never need charging or replacing. They can consistently produce electricity as long as they are supplied with hydrogen and oxygen.

Fuel cells are small and modular, therefore fuel cell power plants can provide electricity for a wide variety of applications.. They are used to power vehicles driven by electric motors, operating at 40% - 80% efficiency, far greater than spark ignition engines. Fuel cell stationary power plants are smaller, quiet and have fewer pollutants and emissions than fossil fuel power plants and therefore better suited for urban environment.
CARRY ON!

Criton · 07-27-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEVEJ

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert hydrogen or hydrogen rich fuels into electricity and heat without combustion. Their structure is similar to a battery, however the are lighter and never need charging or replacing. They can consistently produce electricity as long as they are supplied with hydrogen and oxygen.

Fuel cells are small and modular, therefore fuel cell power plants can provide electricity for a wide variety of applications.. They are used to power vehicles driven by electric motors, operating at 40% - 80% efficiency, far greater than spark ignition engines. Fuel cell stationary power plants are smaller, quiet and have fewer pollutants and emissions than fossil fuel power plants and therefore better suited for urban environment.
CARRY ON!

The only problem with this technology its that you will need massive quantities of Hydrogen. Hydrogen can be easily extracted from water. Unfortunately, to accomplish this you will need massive quantities of coal and/or natural gas. So you don't get away from fossil fuel issue after all.

cpal_747 · 07-27-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Cpal, your position is interesting. I'd love to explore it further but I get the impression you rather blather than discuss. But in case you can do something other than shoot wildly from the hip, I'll ask for your comments on wind power.

A U.S. power generator recently contracted to build a 200 MW wind farm for a cost of $250 million. The wind farm will occupy approximately 50 sq. miles. Most of the land on which it will be located will be largely useless for other productive purposes, except for grazing. The windfarm will consists of 130 separate wind turbines connected to each other and the power grid by miles of cable. Now if Canada were to replace the Nanticoke coal plant with wind power, it would need to install more than 4,000 MW of wind turbines if the turbines are able to operate at 90 percent capacity. In reality, wind turbines generally only operate at 50 to 60 percent of capacity due to variable weather conditions and the intense maintence required for this equipment. Consequently, to achieve the same electricity output as the Nanticoke plant, you would need at least 6,000 MW of wind turbine capacity. This represents the equivalent of 3,900 wind turbines, requiring approximatley 1,500 square miles of territory. Does this sound viable to you?

I think that our friend from Calgary summed it up quite nicely.

N2272V · 07-27-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo von Tucher

Here´s my input: While WW III is going on and increasing, maybe we should work on a device that captures all the energy provided by the blasts of suicide bombers, car bombers and all other bombers around. Then Iraq would not only provide Oil for G.W.Bush but especially Baghdad would turn into a really eficient power plant...

Well Von Duschbag, as your previous suppositions and predictions have never been right, I would be safe to bet one million dollars that this scenario will never play out.

Once again you take absurd and extreme positions to make irrelevant points about things that will never be.

Carry on looney tune!

N2272V · 07-27-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

I think that our friend from Calgary summed it up quite nicely.

Another clueless response to a detailed analysis provided by Criton based on facts and the reality of the alternative. Am I suprised by this? Heck no.

When confronted with unrealistic positions Liberals take on things environmental, they just go back to postulating nonsense.

Basically, what Criton was attempting to explain to you is that this "alternative" is not only extremely costly and maintenance heavy, but you would have to have HUGE forests of these unsightly towers to produce a fraction of the power a coal fired or nuclear plant can provide.

You know that this lacks feasibilty yet you hang on to your positions like a drowning person clinging to a twig in the water.

Carry on!

richie154 · 07-27-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

Well Von Duschbag, as your previous suppositions and predictions have never been right, I would be safe to bet one million dollars that this scenario will never play out.

Once again you take absurd and extreme positions to make irrelevant points about things that will never be.

Carry on looney tune!

Stage III it, blowhard.

Chansen · 07-27-2005, 05:40 PM

Lets all fart at once! Methane now there is gas for yea.

N2272V · 07-27-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richie154

Stage III it, blowhard.

Only a simple moron like you could be so dumb as to respond to my posts with such irrelevant remarks.

Richie, if my postings bother you THAT much, do EVERYONE a favor and just put me on your ignore list. You're nothing more than an irrelevant little wannabe who can't resist talking tough on a toy forum.

I am beginning to think you are some kind of little pervert who gets off on verbal abuse.

You are dismissed tweedle DUMB.

richie154 · 07-27-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

Only a simple moron like you could be so dumb as to respond to my posts with such irrelevant remarks.

Richie, if my postings bother you THAT much, do EVERYONE a favor and just put me on your ignore list. You're nothing more than an irrelevant little wannabe who can't resist talking tough on a toy forum.

I am beginning to think you are some kind of little pervert who gets off on verbal abuse.

You are dismissed tweedle DUMB.

You're not Stage III compliant. Please correct the issue.

Takeo von Tucher · 07-27-2005, 07:38 PM

I could even imagine Jimmy sitting in front of his monitor with a slightly swollen red/blue pumping head of anger going through our "liberal" posts

(just like sponge bob sometimes)...

Pal! Plug it in! It might be an interessting energy source!

Criton · 07-27-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

I think that our friend from Calgary summed it up quite nicely.

Just as I figured. You're nothing but a half-full bladder. Did you ever figure out where the $43 Billion came from genius? How about Canada's GDP growth rate over the past year?

cpal_747 · 07-28-2005, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Just as I figured. You're nothing but a half-full bladder. Did you ever figure out where the $43 Billion came from genius? How about Canada's GDP growth rate over the past year?

You were blathering on about how much space you would need for the wind turbines, Mr. Mather rightfully pointed out that lack of space is not a problem in the Great White North, now what is the problem with that. Do you realize that Canada is physically larger than the US?

I don't have to worry about the 43 trillion since I won't be the one paying it back. Just keep burying your head in the sand and wait for another "tax and spend" democrat to get elected so you can have another surplus so that you can finally start paying back what GW is spending for his little trip over to Iraq. I really have no idea off the top of my head what the GDP growth rate is, and since it's a rhetorical question, you're gonna tell me anyway. I got a question for you, which of the G8 countries are currently running surpluses and which are running deficits?

Criton · 07-28-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

You were blathering on about how much space you would need for the wind turbines, Mr. Mather rightfully pointed out that lack of space is not a problem in the Great White North, now what is the problem with that. Do you realize that Canada is physically larger than the US?

I don't have to worry about the 43 trillion since I won't be the one paying it back. Just keep burying your head in the sand and wait for another "tax and spend" democrat to get elected so you can have another surplus so that you can finally start paying back what GW is spending for his little trip over to Iraq. I really have no idea off the top of my head what the GDP growth rate is, and since it's a rhetorical question, you're gonna tell me anyway. I got a question for you, which of the G8 countries are currently running surpluses and which are running deficits?

Oh MY! Canada's running a budget surplus! Yippeeee! Maybe your government can use some of it to hire more doctors so we don't have so many Canadians flooding over our borders to have their plantars warts removed.

It's funny that you don't know what Canada's GDP growth rate is. Back before the election you seemed to spend quite a bit of time talking about how bad the U.S. economy is. I would think that before you start bitching about somebody else, you'd take a close look at yourself first.

N2272V · 07-28-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo von Tucher

I could even imagine Jimmy sitting in front of his monitor with a slightly swollen red/blue pumping head of anger going through our "liberal" posts

(just like sponge bob sometimes)...

Pal! Plug it in! It might be an interessting energy source!

Once again you couldn't be more wrong (which is par for you). I sit here laughing at how retarded you really are. Only someone as retarded as you would think that ANYONE could take this forum serious enough to get bent out of shape about it.

The truth is I feel kind of sorry for you that you live in such a deluded, racist, clueless state. The irony of it is that you actually think you are an intellect. Now THAT is funny.

Carry on looney tune!

cpal_747 · 07-28-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Oh MY! Canada's running a budget surplus! Yippeeee! Maybe your government can use some of it to hire more doctors so we don't have so many Canadians flooding over our borders to have their plantars warts removed.

It's funny that you don't know what Canada's GDP growth rate is. Back before the election you seemed to spend quite a bit of time talking about how bad the U.S. economy is. I would think that before you start bitching about somebody else, you'd take a close look at yourself first.

Before we talk about crossing the border for medical treatment, how about we talk about prescription drugs, or even illegal drugs. We got a lot of both up here and which puritanical, hypocritical nation do you think wants what we have in abundance? Although didn't GW say that our prescription drugs were bad and scary and that the good old Yankee doodles shouldn't be crossing the border to get them?

Criton · 07-28-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

Before we talk about crossing the border for medical treatment, how about we talk about prescription drugs, or even illegal drugs. We got a lot of both up here and which puritanical, hypocritical nation do you think wants what we have in abundance? Although didn't GW say that our prescription drugs were bad and scary and that the good old Yankee doodles shouldn't be crossing the border to get them?

Nah, I think I'd rather talk about all of the Canadians coming over here to get medical treatment and Canada's anemic GDP growth rate. I'm getting kind of tired of constantly focusing on the U.S., aren't you? By the way, where exactly does Canada get most of its prescription drugs from?

cpal_747 · 07-28-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Nah, I think I'd rather talk about all of the Canadians coming over here to get medical treatment and Canada's anemic GDP growth rate. I'm getting kind of tired of constantly focusing on the U.S., aren't you? By the way, where exactly does Canada get most of its prescription drugs from?

You must be one of those rare Americans that can actually find your country on a map of the world. I am happy to see that you are not so US-centric that are capable of talking about Canada. If you can learn about some of the politics in BC we could have a grand old time talking.

As for your drug questions, I'm surprised that none of the rabid liberal journalists asked Bush that question when he was making his moronic statements. Then again, picking just one of his statements to focus on, you leave out a whole lot of other juicy gems.

N2272V · 07-28-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

Before we talk about crossing the border for medical treatment, how about we talk about prescription drugs, or even illegal drugs. We got a lot of both up here and which puritanical, hypocritical nation do you think wants what we have in abundance? Although didn't GW say that our prescription drugs were bad and scary and that the good old Yankee doodles shouldn't be crossing the border to get them?

No facts here! Just a bunch of babbling and useles rhetoric mixed with a blend of distortion and lies.

Carry on looney tune, you're on a roll!

N2272V · 07-28-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

You must be one of those rare Americans that can actually find your country on a map of the world. I am happy to see that you are not so US-centric that are capable of talking about Canada. If you can learn about some of the politics in BC we could have a grand old time talking.

The ole American's are ignorant argument. Gotta love this one. Kind of like calling someone a jackbooted Nazi. It's use is to direct a dabate away from one's lack of facts or history.

Ignorant comes to mind when I read stupid statements like this one.

The fact that many American's can't find things on a map can be directly attributed to the Liberal's who are entrenched in our education system. Thanks for reminding us of another Liberal bastion that needs re-working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

As for your drug questions, I'm surprised that none of the rabid liberal journalists asked Bush that question when he was making his moronic statements. Then again, picking just one of his statements to focus on, you leave out a whole lot of other juicy gems.

Gotta love it when a moron calls President Bush a moron. I guess this would be what you would call, lacking in credibility.

Carry on Looney tune!

07-27-2005, 04:20 PM	#52
Criton Master Collector Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Silver Spring, MD USA Posts: 756	Cpal, your position is interesting. I'd love to explore it further but I get the impression you rather blather than discuss. But in case you can do something other than shoot wildly from the hip, I'll ask for your comments on wind power. A U.S. power generator recently contracted to build a 200 MW wind farm for a cost of $250 million. The wind farm will occupy approximately 50 sq. miles. Most of the land on which it will be located will be largely useless for other productive purposes, except for grazing. The windfarm will consists of 130 separate wind turbines connected to each other and the power grid by miles of cable. Now if Canada were to replace the Nanticoke coal plant with wind power, it would need to install more than 4,000 MW of wind turbines if the turbines are able to operate at 90 percent capacity. In reality, wind turbines generally only operate at 50 to 60 percent of capacity due to variable weather conditions and the intense maintence required for this equipment. Consequently, to achieve the same electricity output as the Nanticoke plant, you would need at least 6,000 MW of wind turbine capacity. This represents the equivalent of 3,900 wind turbines, requiring approximatley 1,500 square miles of territory. Does this sound viable to you?

07-27-2005, 04:41 PM	#53
Mike Mather Scots and Proud of it! Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Posts: 108	One thing we have here is space Just a little humour

07-27-2005, 05:40 PM	#60
Chansen Insane Collector Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Parker, CO Posts: 2,963	Lets all fart at once! Methane now there is gas for yea.

07-27-2005, 07:38 PM	#63
Takeo von Tucher Senior Collector Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 419	I could even imagine Jimmy sitting in front of his monitor with a slightly swollen red/blue pumping head of anger going through our "liberal" posts (just like sponge bob sometimes)... Pal! Plug it in! It might be an interessting energy source!