Even if you throw out the climate change issue, you are still left with one glarring problem, fossil fules are finite, and not the cheapest things to get ahold of.
I personally am more a fan of wind/solar. IMHO those wind turbines aren't all that bad, espically the personal ones you can get for a home. I live about an hour from a wind farm, and I enjoy the look of it when I go past. Maybe I am just weird. To me, seeing that just shows a step in the right direction.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I've Got The Power! (Poll)
I've Got The Power! (Poll)Follow
#27REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 27 2010 at 2:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 16,783 of your posts (as of this moment) to compete wit, it can't be that bad.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Hahaha, seriously? That's one of the stupider comments made on this forum, and you have some hefty competition.
16,783 of your posts (as of this moment) to compete wit, it can't be that bad.
Let's go over the facts: there is no existing model that can show conclusive correlation between C02 levels and climate change. There are conclusive models that can show correlation between climate change and other things (like sun cycles).
Buying in to the complete myth of man-made global warming doesn't make me the stupid one.
I don't dispute climate change. There's just not f'uck all we can do about it with stupid-assed emissions rules. There's no good reason for minimizing fossil fuel usage.
Even if Anthropomorphic Climate Change didn't exist as a factor at all in climate change, there's one good reason for emission rules.
Peak oil.
Oil has always been a finite resource.
Anthropogenic. Anthropomorphic climate change would be a personification of the phenomenon.
Even if you're illogical enough to believe the evidence of antrhopogenic climate change should be ignored, there's still the pollution to consider.
Even if you're illogical enough to believe the evidence of antrhopogenic climate change should be ignored, there's still the pollution to consider.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Anthropogenic. Anthropomorphic climate change would be a personification of the phenomenon.
Even if you're illogical enough to believe the evidence of antrhopogenic climate change should be ignored, there's still the pollution to consider.
Even if you're illogical enough to believe the evidence of antrhopogenic climate change should be ignored, there's still the pollution to consider.
Whoops, thanks, yeah, Anthropogenic. And yes. Pollution. Killing hundreds of thousands a year.
yossarian wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Realistically we could do far, far better either with solar/wind power or by conservation. Neither will eliminate fossil fuel use, and replacing that seems to me to be the primary goal (for a couple reasons).
Yes, but you can't go to wind because people like liberals on Nantucket don't like the view 30 miles out. And solar is right out because people like to turn on the lights when the sun is not out...
Building wind farms on million dollar vistas is untenable.
I'm not a large fan of Nuclear power myself, which is why I think that power should be produced locally and according to region. So say Solar on the west coast combined with bio-fuels made from algae. Midwest could use a combo of wind, and corn (not ethanol but burning corn cobs for heat), geothermal... so on and so forth. There's got to be a better way to break it down. Sure, it might be a little more work for the average citizen (which is why it'll never work) but we should be moving to a single (or even block wide) responsibility for personal power usage. It really doesn't cost that much to convert to a wind turbine (Or the like) over a long period.
Living next to a nuclear power plant wouldn't bother me. I'm already in Oak Ridge where we have 2 huge microwaves going anyway.
Also, they're working on nuclear power here, among other sources. I'm all for it.
Also, they're working on nuclear power here, among other sources. I'm all for it.
I'm all for nuclear power, but I think our facilities and designs need to be improved and updated. I hear the French have a very efficient nuclear program running.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
yossarian wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Realistically we could do far, far better either with solar/wind power or by conservation. Neither will eliminate fossil fuel use, and replacing that seems to me to be the primary goal (for a couple reasons).
Yes, but you can't go to wind because people like liberals on Nantucket don't like the view 30 miles out. And solar is right out because people like to turn on the lights when the sun is not out...
Building wind farms on million dollar vistas is untenable.
Vast amounts of land will be required for wind to become a significant source of energy. In the numbers I've seen on this issue, the land they are considering using has less face value then the value of the energy produced by the wind farm per year. Say you buy $10000 worth of land outright. It could produce more then $10000 per year. Much more. In fact, the numbers I've seen indicate the plan by T. Boone Pickens would have paid the people who host the wind farms more then their land was worth - per year - and not nearly all the land would have been used for wind. They would still raise cattle, or whatever, there.
However, as the article I linked indicated, the hang up is that it requires enormous investment by government to improve power lines to transport the power from these very rural parts to more urban parts. We are not talking about cross-the-nation (or half that). Just within Texas, as the example in the article indicates.
I live in a very silly part of the world. People here who have ocean views often live in associations with very strict rules to protect the value of their view. Literally, I have seen lawsuits over the construction of a swing set obstructing the view. It is from this background that it seems untenable to me to get a large number of folks to all agree to put in anything in expensive views: even if every person who currently lives there doesn't mind - some people who would have moved in will choose not to due to the "obstructed" view ergo property value declines.
Quote:
I live in a very silly part of the world. People here who have ocean views often live in associations with very strict rules to protect the value of their view. Literally, I have seen lawsuits over the construction of a swing set obstructing the view. It is from this background that it seems untenable to me to get a large number of folks to all agree to put in anything in expensive views: even if every person who currently lives there doesn't mind - some people who would have moved in will choose not to due to the "obstructed" view ergo property value declines.
Exactly. Liberal NIMBY. They're all for locking up repeat sex offenders for life, too, as long as you don't do it in their backyard. They like donating to homeless shelters, too, as long as they're in someone else's neighborhood.
yossarian wrote:
Vast amounts of land will be required for wind to become a significant source of energy. In the numbers I've seen on this issue, the land they are considering using has less face value then the value of the energy produced by the wind farm per year. Say you buy $10000 worth of land outright. It could produce more then $10000 per year. Much more. In fact, the numbers I've seen indicate the plan by T. Boone Pickens would have paid the people who host the wind farms more then their land was worth - per year - and not nearly all the land would have been used for wind. They would still raise cattle, or whatever, there.
However, as the article I linked indicated, the hang up is that it requires enormous investment by government to improve power lines to transport the power from these very rural parts to more urban parts. We are not talking about cross-the-nation (or half that). Just within Texas, as the example in the article indicates.
However, as the article I linked indicated, the hang up is that it requires enormous investment by government to improve power lines to transport the power from these very rural parts to more urban parts. We are not talking about cross-the-nation (or half that). Just within Texas, as the example in the article indicates.
That's a shame, because I'd imagine we could use the Dakotas for wind-farms and power most of the U.S.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
I live in a very silly part of the world. People here who have ocean views often live in associations with very strict rules to protect the value of their view. Literally, I have seen lawsuits over the construction of a swing set obstructing the view. It is from this background that it seems untenable to me to get a large number of folks to all agree to put in anything in expensive views: even if every person who currently lives there doesn't mind - some people who would have moved in will choose not to due to the "obstructed" view ergo property value declines.
Exactly. Liberal NIMBY. They're all for locking up repeat sex offenders for life, too, as long as you don't do it in their backyard. They like donating to homeless shelters, too, as long as they're in someone else's neighborhood.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
Has nothing to do with being liberal. just general NIMBY
Which just happens to rear its ugly head in hypocritical glory more often with liberals because they're the group asking and pushing so hard for the program in the first place.
yossarian wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
yossarian wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Realistically we could do far, far better either with solar/wind power or by conservation. Neither will eliminate fossil fuel use, and replacing that seems to me to be the primary goal (for a couple reasons).
Yes, but you can't go to wind because people like liberals on Nantucket don't like the view 30 miles out. And solar is right out because people like to turn on the lights when the sun is not out...
Building wind farms on million dollar vistas is untenable.
Vast amounts of land will be required for wind to become a significant source of energy. In the numbers I've seen on this issue, the land they are considering using has less face value then the value of the energy produced by the wind farm per year. Say you buy $10000 worth of land outright. It could produce more then $10000 per year. Much more. In fact, the numbers I've seen indicate the plan by T. Boone Pickens would have paid the people who host the wind farms more then their land was worth - per year - and not nearly all the land would have been used for wind. They would still raise cattle, or whatever, there.
However, as the article I linked indicated, the hang up is that it requires enormous investment by government to improve power lines to transport the power from these very rural parts to more urban parts. We are not talking about cross-the-nation (or half that). Just within Texas, as the example in the article indicates.
I live in a very silly part of the world. People here who have ocean views often live in associations with very strict rules to protect the value of their view. Literally, I have seen lawsuits over the construction of a swing set obstructing the view. It is from this background that it seems untenable to me to get a large number of folks to all agree to put in anything in expensive views: even if every person who currently lives there doesn't mind - some people who would have moved in will choose not to due to the "obstructed" view ergo property value declines.
If you want to build solar/wind farms, you need a pile of start-up capital, and then need to use some of it to work the Gov't into subsidizing power infrastructure in exchange for building in their location.
Just as Planned.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
I live in a very silly part of the world. People here who have ocean views often live in associations with very strict rules to protect the value of their view. Literally, I have seen lawsuits over the construction of a swing set obstructing the view. It is from this background that it seems untenable to me to get a large number of folks to all agree to put in anything in expensive views: even if every person who currently lives there doesn't mind - some people who would have moved in will choose not to due to the "obstructed" view ergo property value declines.
Exactly. Liberal NIMBY. They're all for locking up repeat sex offenders for life, too, as long as you don't do it in their backyard. They like donating to homeless shelters, too, as long as they're in someone else's neighborhood.
Not that it really matters, but the folks involved in the lawsuit are in the most conservative portion of California, perhaps one of the most conservative parts of anywhere in the USA. It's called Orange County. In southern california, at least, homeowner associations are very popular with the conservatives. See, for example, anything about the city of Irvine, CA.
I've heard of their housewives.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Not that it really matters, but the folks involved in the lawsuit are in the most conservative portion of California, perhaps one of the most conservative parts of anywhere in the USA. It's called Orange County.
That used to be the case, but not so much, anymore.
At any rate, when I originally referred to the opposition to windfarms blocking scenic vistas it was in relation to Nantucket, which couldn't be confused with conservative if you taught it Arabic and made it wear a burka.
Quote:
Yes, but you can't go to wind because people like liberals on Nantucket don't like the view 30 miles out.
Edit: By the way, I'm familiar with formerly conservative OC. I lived in Brea for a while back in the 90's.
Edited, Mar 1st 2010 3:51pm by MoebiusLord
Timelordwho wrote:
If you want to build solar/wind farms, you need a pile of start-up capital, and then need to use some of it to work the Gov't into subsidizing power infrastructure in exchange for building in their location.
This is exactly what T. Boone Pickens has, and did. Not really sure of his net worth, but he is a billionaire. He was going to not only sink a vast amount of wealth into the project, but he had the kind of political friends in Texas to get stuff done (note in the link I provide above that it is Texas which refuses to invest in the power lines needed, not congress). Clearly he is not some hippie. He's one of the original swiftboat guys. For him, this has little to do with the environment it is all about foreign oil and national security.
Quote:
For him, this has little to do with the environment it is all about foreign oil and national security making a buck with taxpayer subsidies.
FTFY
Maine has an active wind farm now, permits issued for another, a couple wind towers, and an impact study going on for an off-shore wind farm.
The biggest problem thus far, unforeseen in it's scope, has been the noise.
The biggest problem thus far, unforeseen in it's scope, has been the noise.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
For him, this has little to do with the environment it is all about foreign oil and national security making a buck with taxpayer subsidies.
FTFY
Indeed.
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 234
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (234)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I've Got The Power! (Poll)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC