Cheeseburger in Paradise Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Hey, I have been to a turkey slaughter house, smell lingers in your sinuses for days. Still can't eat packaged turkey from Smithfield. The killing process wasn't bad, just the smell. Pigs are worse. It is the smell of feathers hitting the heat, in this case the hot water used to soften the skin before the birds hit the high speed rollers that rub off the feathers. Smell is special and I am sure the water was cleaned right before we got there. The place was immaculate.... The water was around 200 degrees, so no bacteria could survive. An incinerator might not be so bad, but the smell prior to it would linger with you. Soylent green (sp). 686232[/snapback] I'e been to a Tyson's hog plant, I'll second what you said. The place is immaculate, far cleaner than any other manufacturing plant I have ever been in, including a Nestles Toll House Cookie dough plant. The smell outside the hog plant was terrible, but strangelyy enough there was very odor inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 There is no bigger con job being fed to the American Public right now than the benefits of "wind power." Read up: http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html http://www.savejonesbeach.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I had ranted about Kennedy's hypocrisy in this thread (about 2/3 way down). http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=45441&st=80 Wind power is a bit complicated though not too much. I can write a longwinded article but will try to make it short. Building wind farms today does not make inherent economic sense compared to building a gas-fired or coal-fired power plant. What this means is that the cost is too high and the payback due to the ACTUAL electricity generated is not good. The only reason wind farms are being built in the recent past (in the US) is due to tax subsidies. I had done a quick analysis and it looks like they can make sense without subsidies if natural gas prices stay consistently above ~$11/MMBTU (currently $7.2/MMBtu). Sure gas prices spike in winter but they have to stay that way in summer (peak power demand) and most of the year to help wind look attractive. Problem with wind is that it doesn't blow all of the time (duh) and you still need a base-load generating plant using gas or coal or nuclear. Which means you are double investing (almost). While conventional plants have uptime of ~90%, effectiveness of wind plants is 10-20% (the percent of time it is actually generating what it is supposed to). Advantage is that when it does generate, you are not burning a fossil fuel thus cutting back on consumption of that fuel and not polluting the environment. Does it cause environmental damage ? Maybe, but studies from both sides of the debate are largely biased so no one knows for sure. My personal opinion is that the number of birds killed in this blender-in-the-sky is miniscule compared to natures own forces (predators etc.) I am sure a scientific and unbiased study will prove that the emissions reduced wil balance out the ill effects of a few chopped up birds. Bottom line - everything boils down to economics and wind, as of today, is not inherently economical. We are better off going with nuclear or clean coal technology (IGCC) for future power plants. Back to the topic of the Kennedy's. My beef with their protest is that on the one hand politicians start screaming for weaning us off the dependence on foreign oil (and in the future foreign gas). And on the other hand, they protest wind farms. The only reason is that instead of seeing the pristine sunrise through their sozzled eyes, they will see giant fans. To preserve their aesthetic view, they are willing to sacrifice the well intentioned efforts of those working to make Cape Cod wind a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I had ranted about Kennedy's hypocrisy in this thread (about 2/3 way down). http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=45441&st=80 Wind power is a bit complicated though not too much. I can write a longwinded article but will try to make it short. Building wind farms today does not make inherent economic sense compared to building a gas-fired or coal-fired power plant. What this means is that the cost is too high and the payback due to the ACTUAL electricity generated is not good. The only reason wind farms are being built in the recent past (in the US) is due to tax subsidies. I had done a quick analysis and it looks like they can make sense without subsidies if natural gas prices stay consistently above ~$11/MMBTU (currently $7.2/MMBtu). Sure gas prices spike in winter but they have to stay that way in summer (peak power demand) and most of the year to help wind look attractive. Problem with wind is that it doesn't blow all of the time (duh) and you still need a base-load generating plant using gas or coal or nuclear. Which means you are double investing (almost). While conventional plants have uptime of ~90%, effectiveness of wind plants is 10-20% (the percent of time it is actually generating what it is supposed to). Advantage is that when it does generate, you are not burning a fossil fuel thus cutting back on consumption of that fuel and not polluting the environment. Does it cause environmental damage ? Maybe, but studies from both sides of the debate are largely biased so no one knows for sure. My personal opinion is that the number of birds killed in this blender-in-the-sky is miniscule compared to natures own forces (predators etc.) I am sure a scientific and unbiased study will prove that the emissions reduced wil balance out the ill effects of a few chopped up birds. Bottom line - everything boils down to economics and wind, as of today, is not inherently economical. We are better off going with nuclear or clean coal technology (IGCC) for future power plants. Back to the topic of the Kennedy's. My beef with their protest is that on the one hand politicians start screaming for weaning us off the dependence on foreign oil (and in the future foreign gas). And on the other hand, they protest wind farms. The only reason is that instead of seeing the pristine sunrise through their sozzled eyes, they will see giant fans. To preserve their aesthetic view, they are willing to sacrifice the well intentioned efforts of those working to make Cape Cod wind a reality. 687104[/snapback] I've been reading alot on Green River and the deposits there. What's your take on that stuff? Is it fiscally viable? Some of the stuff I've seen says that there are three to eight times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I had ranted about Kennedy's hypocrisy in this thread (about 2/3 way down). http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=45441&st=80 Wind power is a bit complicated though not too much. I can write a longwinded article but will try to make it short. Building wind farms today does not make inherent economic sense compared to building a gas-fired or coal-fired power plant. What this means is that the cost is too high and the payback due to the ACTUAL electricity generated is not good. The only reason wind farms are being built in the recent past (in the US) is due to tax subsidies. I had done a quick analysis and it looks like they can make sense without subsidies if natural gas prices stay consistently above ~$11/MMBTU (currently $7.2/MMBtu). Sure gas prices spike in winter but they have to stay that way in summer (peak power demand) and most of the year to help wind look attractive. Problem with wind is that it doesn't blow all of the time (duh) and you still need a base-load generating plant using gas or coal or nuclear. Which means you are double investing (almost). While conventional plants have uptime of ~90%, effectiveness of wind plants is 10-20% (the percent of time it is actually generating what it is supposed to). Advantage is that when it does generate, you are not burning a fossil fuel thus cutting back on consumption of that fuel and not polluting the environment. Does it cause environmental damage ? Maybe, but studies from both sides of the debate are largely biased so no one knows for sure. My personal opinion is that the number of birds killed in this blender-in-the-sky is miniscule compared to natures own forces (predators etc.) I am sure a scientific and unbiased study will prove that the emissions reduced wil balance out the ill effects of a few chopped up birds. Bottom line - everything boils down to economics and wind, as of today, is not inherently economical. We are better off going with nuclear or clean coal technology (IGCC) for future power plants. Back to the topic of the Kennedy's. My beef with their protest is that on the one hand politicians start screaming for weaning us off the dependence on foreign oil (and in the future foreign gas). And on the other hand, they protest wind farms. The only reason is that instead of seeing the pristine sunrise through their sozzled eyes, they will see giant fans. To preserve their aesthetic view, they are willing to sacrifice the well intentioned efforts of those working to make Cape Cod wind a reality. 687104[/snapback] I love having SME's on the board. Both of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I've been reading alot on Green River and the deposits there. What's your take on that stuff? Is it fiscally viable? Some of the stuff I've seen says that there are three to eight times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. 687596[/snapback] If you mean the oil shale deposits, I have not studied the situation much. A bit less confident here than on the other topics. I believe the reserves are indeed plentiful but technology to draw oil from it is far from economically viable right now. Sort of like the Canadian oil sands were a few years back. I have heard that with current technology, it starts being viable with oil at $120/barrel. It is chemically very messy and we might see serious efforts to improve that technology as oil passes $100/barrel. But as with everything, we will never know how much of that oil is really recoverable until it becomes atleast partially commercial. Sorry I don't know this in much detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I love having SME's on the board. Both of 'em. 687608[/snapback] Thanx, CTM. Feel free to engage me in any energy-related topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 If you mean the oil shale deposits, I have not studied the situation much. A bit less confident here than on the other topics. I believe the reserves are indeed plentiful but technology to draw oil from it is far from economically viable right now. Sort of like the Canadian oil sands were a few years back. I have heard that with current technology, it starts being viable with oil at $120/barrel. It is chemically very messy and we might see serious efforts to improve that technology as oil passes $100/barrel. But as with everything, we will never know how much of that oil is really recoverable until it becomes atleast partially commercial. Sorry I don't know this in much detail. 687813[/snapback] US News had a good article on it, i'll see if I can find a linky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts