Do you believe in drilling?

[glockmail]

Well you could argue with reasoning like that?

If you could you would.

 

[wihosa]

Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.

Look, wind farms are going up all around the country but oil shale operations are not. If you want to talk about pie in the sky then talk about oil shale. The oil corps are trying like hell to make oil recovery from oil sands economincaaly feasible but even that is not panning out. Oil sands are much easier to mine and process than shale but still way more expensive a way to make electric power than simplt letting the wind turn the turbine for free.

Time to wake up now!

 

[busara]

That's not the way I read it. What I see is when Americans are told just some of the details of a socialized system, most back away. That points to an original question suggesting a utopian system, perhaps one where they would get the same benefits at lower cost. Of course, ABC doesn’t want us to see what the actual questions of the poll were. The link provided at the bottom of the article goes nowhere:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/results_healthcare031020.html

im glad you can interpret an article in the way that makes you feel most comfortable

 

[wihosa]

Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.

What a lame argument, wind power is demonstrably cheaper.

 

[glockmail]

What a lame argument, wind power is demonstrably cheaper.

I'm still waiting for your proof in the other thread.

 

[glockmail]

im glad you can interpret an article in the way that makes you feel most comfortable

I calls it likes I see it. So what happened to ABC's link?

 

[busara]

Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.

i guess oil shale is the only way to go

well, maybe not.

It's difficult and costly to get a final usable product from shale, and in the end it is "worthless" in Clemens' eyes. Worse, the process to turn shale oil into something desirable will be too polluting for air and water. "There's not even a dirty way of extracting oil from shale that's economically viable," he added. If so, Clemens said, Exxon would have done it back in the 1980s.

Will Oil Shale Turn into a Boon or Environmental Mess? - Science - redOrbit

 

[Bern80]

i guess oil shale is the only way to go

well, maybe not.

I never said it shale was great either. I simply pointed out that wind tubines aren't exacltey cost effective either.

Will Oil Shale Turn into a Boon or Environmental Mess? - Science - redOrbit

What I understand of oil shale mining operations I've seen are generally strip mine operations. Oil shale mining is already being conducted in the northern parts of Canada.
What I don't get is this mentality of a couple people (Wihosa and Kirk) that must abandon fossil fuels altogether. A simple exercise of putting things in perspective shows would show that just isn't neccessary.

First off, presumabely this whole get off fossil fuels deal is to prevent global warming. So right of the bat were being asked to do drastically alter our economy and standard of living for in idea that evidence is showing more and more probably isn't accurate. In following keep in mind that all the U.S. can control is the U.S.; Now CO2 makes up a very small fraction of the atmosphere, mans contribution to that CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 2% of that. The U.S. contribution to that 2% is also a fraction. So we get off fossil fuels, (unproven) man made global warming stopped right? Probably not see as how all we did is remove a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

Now going forward: We know the land required to meet the same power demands with wind and solar will have to be many times more than what is currently used with current power plants (and remember according to the two kooks nuclear, the cleanest of all is off the table). It is at this point that I contend they really haven't thought about the logistics of such a massive conversion to the point that they have pretty much lie to themselves to rationalize it (i.e animals love wind turbines

 

[glockmail]

I never said it shale was great either. I simply pointed out that wind tubines aren't exacltey cost effective either.





What I understand of oil shale mining operations I've seen are generally strip mine operations. Oil shale mining is already being conducted in the northern parts of Canada.
What I don't get is this mentality of a couple people (Wihosa and Kirk) that must abandon fossil fuels altogether. A simple exercise of putting things in perspective shows would show that just isn't neccessary.

First off, presumabely this whole get off fossil fuels deal is to prevent global warming. So right of the bat were being asked to do drastically alter our economy and standard of living for in idea that evidence is showing more and more probably isn't accurate. In following keep in mind that all the U.S. can control is the U.S.; Now CO2 makes up a very small fraction of the atmosphere, mans contribution to that CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 2% of that. The U.S. contribution to that 2% is also a fraction. So we get off fossil fuels, (unproven) man made global warming stopped right? Probably not see as how all we did is remove a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

Now going forward: We know the land required to meet the same power demands with wind and solar will have to be many times more than what is currently used with current power plants (and remember according to the two kooks nuclear, the cleanest of all is off the table). It is at this point that I contend they really haven't thought about the logistics of such a massive conversion to the point that they have pretty much lie to themselves to rationalize it (i.e animals love wind turbines

I say instead of listening to arrogant liberals who never risked their own capital or even graduated with a science degree, we ought to tell the damn politicians to get the hell out of the way and let the market decide what type of energy will be used to get us through the 21st century.

 

[trobinett]

It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.

Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.

All renewed drilling would accomplish is to delay the day of reckoning by a few years at best. And in the meantime, we cede leadership in the technologies of the future.

The truth is, the idea of drilling for oil as an answer to our energy needs is only good for the bumper sticker makers.

Yea, so says YOU, big fucking deal.

We were once the worlds leading oil producer, and in reality, if you care to do just A LITTLE research, we can be again.

You people, give up, jump ship, cut, and run. I'm just damn glad your not watching my "six".

What a bunch of fucking losers..................

 

[Denny Crane]

We know the land required to meet the same power demands with wind and solar will have to be many times more than what is currently used with current power plants (and remember according to the two kooks nuclear, the cleanest of all is off the table). It is at this point that I contend they really haven't thought about the logistics of such a massive conversion to the point that they have pretty much lie to themselves to rationalize it (i.e animals love wind turbines

I think that wind turbines are going to make a huge impact in my state, Maine. Land is something we have a lot of and evidently wind is something that we have a good supply of also. I'll post a few projects we have here to give you an idea of what I'm referring to.

Mars Hill:

The wind farm, when operating at full capacity, generates approximately 42 megawatts of power, enough to power 45,000 average Maine homes. Even at 35% capacity, the project generates enough power to accommodate at least 22,000 homes. The electricity produced from the Mars Hill Wind Farm results in a reduction of approximately 65,000 tons of carbon dioxide and over 350 tons of other damaging pollutants every year.
Mars Hill Wind Farm

This one in Franklin County:

TransCanada Corp's planned 132-megawatt wind power plant in Maine has won state approval and a federal permit is expected shortly, the company said on Wednesday.

The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission has granted unanimous approval to the $320-million Kibby Wind Power Project in Franklin County, not far from the Quebec border in northwestern Maine, the company said.

The project, which will involve building 44 three-megawatt wind turbine generators, is awaiting a permit from the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. It has already received local approvals.
TransCanada's Maine wind farm wins state approval | Environment | Reuters

Another ongoing Aroostook County project beside the one already operating:

Horizon Wind Energy hopes to build as many as 400 wind turbines in the farm fields and forests of Aroostook County, thereby transforming northern Maine from a producer of world-class potatoes to the premier exporter of wind energy in the northeastern United States

Four hundred turbines would generate roughly 800 megawatts of pollution-free electricity at capacity, enough to power more than one-third of Maine's homes at peak load on a hot summer day.

Because the power would feed into the New England grid, this premium-priced electricity potentially could offset dirtier, fossil fuel-burning power plants to the south. It also would move Maine a giant step toward greater energy independence.
www.windaction.org | Officials of Texas-based company negotiating with landowners

Here is a link to other potential projects in and around Maine:
www.windaction.org | Maine

There are concerns with some of the projects but sometimes Mainers are a bit hard to convince that change is a good thing. I think as economic times get tougher these projects will get more support.

 

[busara]

I calls it likes I see it. So what happened to ABC's link?

well, seeming as I'm not the web administrator for ABC.com, i have no idea. you think this shows youre right? whatever dude

 

[Bern80]

I think that wind turbines are going to make a huge impact in my state, Maine. Land is something we have a lot of and evidently wind is something that we have a good supply of also. I'll post a few projects we have here to give you an idea of what I'm referring to.

And that is exactley what boggles the mind. Why in God's name would we want to erect a bunch of eye sores in the middle of the few green areas we have left? I thought environmental whackos were whackos becuse they were rabid about preservering the environment. yet that can not be reconciled with the amount of land we will have to use up covered in turbines to replace the way we currently get power.

I'm a conservationist for god's sake. I like to go enjoy the outdoors and wild places. I don't know if you're anything like me or not but do you really want to see a wind turbine every place you look?

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm a conservationist for god's sake. I like to go enjoy the outdoors and wild places. I don't know if you're anything like me or not but do you really want to see a wind turbine every place you look?

I'm for conservation too, but within reasonable limits. Wind turbines are a fairly new concept up here but folks will come around and the examples I showed in previous posts show wind to be a feasible energy source.

 

[Bern80]

I'm for conservation too, but within reasonable limits. Wind turbines are a fairly new concept up here but folks will come around and the examples I showed in previous posts show wind to be a feasible energy source.

So there is no misunderstanding I think ultimately there isn't going to be just one thing used for energy. Despite are fringe friends on here would like, we aren't going to be able to completely stop use of oil for the foreseeable future. Things like solar panels I can get behind as they don't require significant land use and in most cases no additional land use.

But wind turbines? If drop fossil fuels all together is what you really want it's going to take a lot of turbines. In total area we are talking teh size of mid size states. Is that really what you want? There is a windfarm here as well about 45 minites from where I live it is probably an area about 10 square. If u could should me that could power a small city maybe sacrafcing that much habitat would be worth it. But they can't, they simply aren't reliable.

When you say people will 'come around' to wind turbines, what does that mean? They won't mind haveing an eye sore in their back yards? That they will get over the habitat that is destroyed for a relatively ineffecient form of elctricity?

In the future we will have to change the way and medium in which energy is used and possibily start haveing to make some sacrafices, but sacrafcing the huge amounts of open land for an inefficient power, non cost effective power source really shouldnt' be one of them.

 

[Chris]

I say instead of listening to arrogant liberals who never risked their own capital or even graduated with a science degree, we ought to tell the damn politicians to get the hell out of the way and let the market decide what type of energy will be used to get us through the 21st century.

Seems like T. Boone has the right idea, and he is a hard core Republican.

 

[glockmail]

well, seeming as I'm not the web administrator for ABC.com, i have no idea. you think this shows youre right? whatever dude

ABC is known for its leftist spin, and this appears to be more of the same. They are obviously hiding the truth.

Have you ever been called by a pollster? The questions can be worded to steer a response one way or the other. Since ABC won't come clean with what the actual poll questions were, I suspect that this was done here.

 

[glockmail]

Seems like T. Boone has the right idea, and he is a hard core Republican.

People are willing to pay more for renewable power. Pickens knows that, and more "power" to him. As long as the government doesn't mandate/ subsidize.

 

[busara]

And that is exactley what boggles the mind. Why in God's name would we want to erect a bunch of eye sores in the middle of the few green areas we have left? I thought environmental whackos were whackos becuse they were rabid about preservering the environment. yet that can not be reconciled with the amount of land we will have to use up covered in turbines to replace the way we currently get power.

I'm a conservationist for god's sake. I like to go enjoy the outdoors and wild places. I don't know if you're anything like me or not but do you really want to see a wind turbine every place you look?

are you against offshore windfarms as well?

i think cell towers and telephone/electric polls are eyesores, but nobody complains about them

 

[busara]

ABC is known for its leftist spin, and this appears to be more of the same. They are obviously hiding the truth.

Have you ever been called by a pollster? The questions can be worded to steer a response one way or the other. Since ABC won't come clean with what the actual poll questions were, I suspect that this was done here.

oh, obviously.

must be nice to simply dismiss any evidence that doesnt fit with your view. RGS is good at that as well


Majorities of Americans support universal healthcare, tech-pro policies
Public Opinion Snapshot: Universal Health Care Momentum Swells
Americans Favour Universal Health Care: Angus Reid Global Monitor
Universal Health Care Pros & Cons, Info, Description, Benefits – Insurance Specialists.com

ignore all of these sites. they must be lefty sites and dont represent the true will of the people. everybody actually hates the idea of all americans having access to health insurance, but they were all tricked into saying they supported it