Windmills!!

[shawn]

I have a question.What's the line between being passionate about a issue and being fanatical?

[bassackwards]

I have a question.What's the line between being passionate about a issue and being fanatical?

Start at pg. 1 and keeeep going... :shaking2:

[shawn]

I have a question.What's the line between being passionate about a issue and being fanatical?

Start at pg. 1 and keeeep going... :shaking2:

I did and Oh Boy!:-"

[lskiles]

"open up more regions on U.S. soil for oil and gas exploration in order to increase supply and start building nuclear power plants".... that's your plan?????

So in other words, don't build renewable energy sites in MY backyard...do it in someone elses?? Interesting. I'm starting to get the gist of this now. So..."oil and gas exploration" isn't gonna have an impact on the environment?? I bet it would if it were built on your hunting ground. See where I'm going with this. I'm not trying to be jerk, believe it or not, I just don't see the argument or discussion here.

The windfarms didn't just go up overnight. I'm sorry your hunting grounds were impacted. I'm not in favor of mowing down our natural habitat either, I just think we (you) need to think outside the box a little bit. Maybe you and I can agree to disagree. Until we can start producing energy on the toilet (better way of putting it) we need to explore renewable energy options (i.e. windmill farms, hydro electricity, etc.).

Is that better? Like I've said in past responses...I'm not going to get in a chess match of words with you. You obviously have done your homework on these issues. I appreciate the fact that you care about our environment, I don't agree with your delivery tactics (that's the part we agree to disagree on).

Got a fishing question???

Just thought I would stretch my neck out again for a few pop shots...

If we would have followed George W. Bush's energy plan from the beginning of his terms as president we would probably still be paying $0.99/gal for gas. Case in point: the oil we have in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Only a very small portion of the refuge would be impacted. It is not necessarily a negative impact either. The wildlife that all the enviro-nazis said would be harmed by the Alaskan Pipeline are actually benefited by the pipeline more vegetation grows there, herds are larger.

Using phrases like "mowing down our natural habitat" makes people fear not think, but fearmongers like Al Gore and his army of enviro-people love it when people feel instead of think.

Just my $.02
Lewis

[A9]

I have a question.What's the line between being passionate about a issue and being fanatical?

Personal decision

[Marc Martyn]

Just thought I would stretch my neck out again for a few pop shots...

If we would have followed George W. Bush's energy plan from the beginning of his terms as president we would probably still be paying $0.99/gal for gas. Case in point: the oil we have in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Only a very small portion of the refuge would be impacted. It is not necessarily a negative impact either. The wildlife that all the enviro-nazis said would be harmed by the Alaskan Pipeline are actually benefited by the pipeline more vegetation grows there, herds are larger.

Using phrases like "mowing down our natural habitat" makes people fear not think, but fearmongers like Al Gore and his army of enviro-nazis love it when people feel instead of think.

Just my $.02
Lewis

Here is my $.04-

Would you please layoff the term enviro-nazis! There are many families in the world that had first hand experience with the Nazis during WWII. Even the mention of them brings up bad memories. A member of my family was a survior of the death camps. Environmentalist are Not Nazis!

Now to your other misinformed statement-
We did follow W's plan and that is why we are paying outrageous fuel prices now. He and Cheney were backed heavily by the oil companies. Not surprising, since both of them are oil men.
Anytime there is a major conflict in the middle east, oil goes through the ceiling. It has nothing to do with the Arctic refuge.
Right now the price of oil is sky rocketing, just because of the current administrations rhetoric about Iran and WWIII.

[iPodrodder]

Just thought I would stretch my neck out again for a few pop shots...

If we would have followed George W. Bush's energy plan from the beginning of his terms as president we would probably still be paying $0.99/gal for gas. Case in point: the oil we have in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Only a very small portion of the refuge would be impacted. It is not necessarily a negative impact either. The wildlife that all the enviro-nazis said would be harmed by the Alaskan Pipeline are actually benefited by the pipeline more vegetation grows there, herds are larger.

Using phrases like "mowing down our natural habitat" makes people fear not think, but fearmongers like Al Gore and his army of enviro-nazis love it when people feel instead of think.

Just my $.02
Lewis

Here is my $.04-

Would you please layoff the term enviro-nazis! There are many families in the world that had first hand experience with the Nazis during WWII. Even the mention of them brings up bad memories. A member of my family was a survior of the death camps. Environmentalist are Not Nazis!

Now to your other misinformed statement-
We did follow W's plan and that is why we are paying outrageous fuel prices now. He and Cheney were backed heavily by the oil companies. Not surprising, since both of them are oil men.
Anytime there is a major conflict in the middle east, oil goes through the ceiling. It has nothing to do with the Arctic refuge.
Right now the price of oil is sky rocketing, just because of the current administrations rhetoric about Iran and WWIII.

I agree. I have done a ton (and I mean a TON) of research on WWII. The Holocaust is the most gruesome, horrific, terrible thing I can think about. Those concentration camps are the worst. Please don't use the term lightly. I have no personal or family affiliation with the Holocaust, but I can imagine how much worse it would be if I did.

[bassackwards]

Just thought I would stretch my neck out again for a few pop shots...

If we would have followed George W. Bush's energy plan from the beginning of his terms as president we would probably still be paying $0.99/gal for gas. Case in point: the oil we have in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Only a very small portion of the refuge would be impacted. It is not necessarily a negative impact either. The wildlife that all the enviro-nazis said would be harmed by the Alaskan Pipeline are actually benefited by the pipeline more vegetation grows there, herds are larger.

Using phrases like "mowing down our natural habitat" makes people fear not think, but fearmongers like Al Gore and his army of enviro-nazis love it when people feel instead of think.

Just my $.02
Lewis

Here is my $.04-

Would you please layoff the term enviro-nazis! There are many families in the world that had first hand experience with the Nazis during WWII. Even the mention of them brings up bad memories. A member of my family was a survior of the death camps. Environmentalist are Not Nazis!

Now to your other misinformed statement-
We did follow W's plan and that is why we are paying outrageous fuel prices now. He and Cheney were backed heavily by the oil companies. Not surprising, since both of them are oil men.
Anytime there is a major conflict in the middle east, oil goes through the ceiling. It has nothing to do with the Arctic refuge.
Right now the price of oil is sky rocketing, just because of the current administrations rhetoric about Iran and WWIII.

Let's not start "feeding on each other"...yet. I'm one of the FEW who actually like and support OUR President, I voted for him, his Dad and AGAINST that previous home-recker liar we had in there for 8 LOOONG years. I think the economy is strong, despite what the lefty's would say (oh boy, I can hear LR loading his "word gun" from here).

I agree with you Lewis, we should have follow W's plan from the start. Hard to do that when everyone's blaming him for the war.

God Bless America and God Bless our President!!!!!

[Marc Martyn]

Sam!!! You really aren't a SUV and BOAT!?:cheers:

Nice Avatar

[A9]

Well I decided to dig around for a better avatar. Largemouth bass this time courtesy of Lake Washington in the spring.....

Anyways, if littleriver does have this whole energy plan solved, I'd suggest that he quit talking about it to all of us and asking for debates and take it somewhere and do something with it...

[Marc Martyn]

The wind has died down considerably, hasn't it.

[lskiles]

Here is my $.04-

Would you please layoff the term enviro-nazis! There are many families in the world that had first hand experience with the Nazis during WWII. Even the mention of them brings up bad memories. A member of my family was a survior of the death camps. Environmentalist are Not Nazis!

Now to your other misinformed statement-
We did follow W's plan and that is why we are paying outrageous fuel prices now. He and Cheney were backed heavily by the oil companies. Not surprising, since both of them are oil men.
Anytime there is a major conflict in the middle east, oil goes through the ceiling. It has nothing to do with the Arctic refuge.
Right now the price of oil is sky rocketing, just because of the current administrations rhetoric about Iran and WWIII.

Sorry if I offended anyone’s sensibilities with the term enviro-nazi. I should have used the term enviro-fascists. It is less inflammatory and actually more correct.

As to my “misinformed statement” about energy policy. We never followed the policy mapped out by President Bush. I am a little surprised that you would say that, but only a little.

President Bush was also a baseball man (serveing as the Texas Rangers' managing partner) and that is probibly why baseball tickets have gone up in price. During his time there, the team traded away Sammy Sosa, who would go on to be a popular and prodigious home run hitter for the Chicago Cubs. Maybe that is why the Cubs lost to the Diamond backs in the National League Division Series. Darn those Bushes!!

God Bless America and God Bless George W. Bush

[Mr. Magler]

Uh-oh. It's getting awfully political in here....

littleriver - I appreciate your side of view, and don't mind that you disagree with me on so many things. It does bother me, however, that you could be so arrogant as to claim to have solved our energy problems. Your arrogance is also apparent in thinking that your WashingtonLakes.com thread had anything to do with the recent PSE deal with the Canadiens.

That leads me to a more general point that relates to this discussion: Our country is faced with so many unsolved problems like our energy and fuel shortages because of arrogance. There are so many solutions to these problems, but arrogant people claim to have solved a problem without really examining all of the possibilities or alternative solutions. An open mind goes a long way in solving a problem. Arrogant people on both sides of the fence will bark at each other all day long, but at the end of the day there's still a fence in the way. I'm certainly guilty of getting too one-sided on issues at times, but when that happens I try to stop myself and ask "Are you really listening to the other side with an open and unbiased mind". I find that I learn a lot more when I'm able to do that.

Case in point: On this issue of Nuclear Energy vs. Windmills I was concerned about the levels of Plutonium that could be leaked into the Earth. I researched high-level radioactive waste, the history of its disposal, and the pros and cons associated with it. As a result I feel that I have a better understanding of the pro-nuclear side of the energy production issue, and am less opposed to it than I was initially. It's not as safe as I'd like it to be, but there are permanent disposal methods being evaluated through science and engineering that will keep me interested in it as a possible solution to our energy crisis in the years to come.

I shouldn't touch this, but I can't resist.......Arrogance is also why we are in this god-awful quagmire of Iraq. Bush and his cohorts believed that Suddam had WMD's despite the most qualified weapons inspectors finding absolutely none in Iraq. Arrogantly and based on absolutely no intelligence the Bush Administration decided they new best, and were going to go put a "Boot in their ass". So they sent our young men over there, dropped some bombs (ironically), and hung a sign from an aircraft carrier saying, "Mission Accomplished". Then when they still couldn't find any weapons there, Bush told us we were actually there to "liberate" the people of Iraq and "spread democracy". Once again, arrogance was behind it. Only an arrogant person with complete disregard for the facts based on the history of democracy would think that he could just wave his hands and force democracy on an entire country.

[bassackwards]

Uh-oh. It's getting awfully political in here....

littleriver - I appreciate your side of view, and don't mind that you disagree with me on so many things. It does bother me, however, that you could be so arrogant as to claim to have solved our energy problems. Your arrogance is also apparent in thinking that your WashingtonLakes.com thread had anything to do with the recent PSE deal with the Canadiens.

That leads me to a more general point that relates to this discussion: Our country is faced with so many unsolved problems like our energy and fuel shortages because of arrogance. There are so many solutions to these problems, but arrogant people claim to have solved a problem without really examining all of the possibilities or alternative solutions. An open mind goes a long way in solving a problem. Arrogant people on both sides of the fence will bark at each other all day long, but at the end of the day there's still a fence in the way. I'm certainly guilty of getting too one-sided on issues at times, but when that happens I try to stop myself and ask "Are you really listening to the other side with an open and unbiased mind". I find that I learn a lot more when I'm able to do that.

Case in point: On this issue of Nuclear Energy vs. Windmills I was concerned about the levels of Plutonium that could be leaked into the Earth. I researched high-level radioactive waste, the history of its disposal, and the pros and cons associated with it. As a result I feel that I have a better understanding of the pro-nuclear side of the energy production issue, and am less opposed to it than I was initially. It's not as safe as I'd like it to be, but there are permanent disposal methods being evaluated through science and engineering that will keep me interested in it as a possible solution to our energy crisis in the years to come.

I shouldn't touch this, but I can't resist.......Arrogance is also why we are in this god-awful quagmire of Iraq. Bush and his cohorts believed that Suddam had WMD's despite the most qualified weapons inspectors finding absolutely none in Iraq. Arrogantly and based on absolutely no intelligence the Bush Administration decided they new best, and were going to go put a "Boot in their ass". So they sent our young men over there, dropped some bombs (ironically), and hung a sign from an aircraft carrier saying, "Mission Accomplished". Then when they still couldn't find any weapons there, Bush told us we were actually there to "liberate" the people of Iraq and "spread democracy". Once again, arrogance was behind it. Only an arrogant person with complete disregard for the facts based on the history of democracy would think that he could just wave his hands and force democracy on an entire country.

WOW...the first two paragraphs I was with you AND THEN....

You're right....we should have left Saddam in power, Iraq and the rest of the world was a lot better off with him around....UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

You and the rest of the fare-weather American's will be crying on your hands and knees as soon as we get attacked again on OUR SOIL....Why is it so hard for you all to get???? Seriously....answer that!!!! Do you want them to bring the fight over here??? If so, you better arm yourself, your country may need you (that is, if you can get your hands on a gun).

Good luck buddy!!! I'd suggest befriending a Republican to save your A** when the "poo" hits the fan.

-Desert Storm Vet

[A9]

WOW...the first two paragraphs I was with you AND THEN....

You're right....we should have left Saddam in power, Iraq and the rest of the world was a lot better off with him around....UNBIELABLE!!!!

You and the rest of the fare-weather American's will be crying on your hands and knees as soon as we get attacked again on OUR SOIL....Why is it so hard for you all to get???? Seriously....answer that!!!! Do you want them to bring the fight over here??? If so, you better arm yourself, your country may need you (that is, if you can get your hands on a gun).

Good luck buddy!!! I'd suggest befriending a Republican to save your A** when the "poo" hits the fan.

-Desert Storm Vet

Thanks for your service bassackwards. Whether we like or dislike the current war, we still need to support our troops and vets for their contributions to keeping our homeland safe and for allowing us to go on with everday life.

As for the rest of the thread, this has really taken on a different perspective right now! Politics and the war! I'd actually look forward to a discussion such as this one if one felt compelled to stick it in a new thread so this one could stay about "windmills" and "energy."

[Mr. Magler]

WOW...the first two paragraphs I was with you AND THEN....

You're right....we should have left Saddam in power, Iraq and the rest of the world was a lot better off with him around....UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

You and the rest of the fare-weather American's will be crying on your hands and knees as soon as we get attacked again on OUR SOIL....Why is it so hard for you all to get???? Seriously....answer that!!!! Do you want them to bring the fight over here??? If so, you better arm yourself, your country may need you (that is, if you can get your hands on a gun).

Good luck buddy!!! I'd suggest befriending a Republican to save your A** when the "poo" hits the fan.

-Desert Storm Vet

Thank you for your service in Desert Storm. Unlike our current involvement in Iraq, you served in a very well-planned war. Desert Storm was a perfect example of a justified war that was for the greater good. Iraq invaded another country unjustly, and we helped out. We had a chance to take out Suddam during that war, but you know why we didn't? Because the first Bush Administration did their homework. They knew that taking him out would have created, and I quote from a 1994 interview with Dick Cheney, "a US occupation of Iraq......a quagmire" (here is the interview I got that from - it's short, and well worth it: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18171.htm).

Suddam was a terrible dictator, and did terrible things to his people. The problem is, we had no way to make things better in Iraq after we took him down. In fact, we have created even more problems for the citizens of Iraq and for the rest of the world. Iraqis are dealing with even more public violence than ever before, because of the influx of terrorists into their country as a result of Suddam's regime not being there to keep the surrounding countries (and their terrorist organizations) at bay. The world is worse-off, because now we've helped skyrocket the number of Al-Qaeda recruits (among many other terrorist orginizations). Furthermore, Suddam was just one of the dozen terrible dictators in the world. By your logic we'd better take them all out one-by-one. Taking out an evil dictator is easy for a powerful nation like ours, but rebuilding a foreign nation is much more difficult (as is now painfully obvious in Iraq).

So you're right bass, the world was better with him around.

To say that I'm a fairweather American is a little strange. Disagreeing with one administration in no way makes me fairweather - I have never been for the US invasion of Iraq, and never will be. That in no way makes me any less American. The more you speak your mind, the more American you are in my opinion.

Attacking Iraq in no way decreased the chances of us getting attacked on "our soil". In fact, it increased the chances, because our occupation of Iraq has created thousands more American-hating terrorists than existed before our invasion. The way to keep from being attacked at home is by seeking out the people that actually attacked us, and whom are still threatening to attack us - Al-Qaeda. We exhausted all of our time and money in Iraq when we should have been focusing our efforts on finding Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. It has been and will continue to be the biggest blunder in US history.

You have the same "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that got us into this mess. Arrogance, my friend, is a very dangerous thing. Please read some of the 9/11 commission report (which has equal contribution of the facts from Republicans and Democrats). Specifically, read some of Richard Clark's reports that were completely ignored before and after we were attacked (Richard Clark was the counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council during the 9/11 attacks, and served as a security adviser since 1973 for both Republican and Democratic presidents). Bush completely ignored intelligence regarding Al-Qaeda, and instead focused his attention on Iraq. His unwavering attention to Iraq was not based on any facts nor intelligence that was brought to him by his advisers, but rather based on his gut feeling.

Again, thank you for your work in Desert Storm. The first Bush understood the importance of actually listening to his advisers, and devised a viable plan in that war. He used war as a last resort when one country invaded another. I only wish Bush#1 would have talked some sense into his little boy before he marched our boys off to a blind war without any goals.

P.S. I have befriended many Republicans, and I even would have voted for McCain if he'd gotten the nod from the other Elephants. I like the ones that actually use their brains and are willing to hear all sides before taking action, as opposed to the ones that shoot from the hips.

[Marc Martyn]

As for the rest of the thread, this has really taken on a different perspective right now! Politics and the war! I'd actually look forward to a discussion such as this one if one felt compelled to stick it in a new thread so this one could stay about "windmills" and "energy."

That is a good idea Sam. See the new topic in Off Topic

[Marc Martyn]

This thread is to be reserved for the discussion of alternative sources of energy.

[bassackwards]

Mr. Maglar...I responded to you in the "Politics & War" thread.

Thanks Marc :thumright

[littleriver]

OK. Bassackward favors renewables. Renewables are kind of a mixed bag and I don’t think it’s really meaningful to discuss them without getting into the bag and looking at each option individually.

In my mind “renewable energy”, “alternative energy”, and “soft path energy” are equivalent terms. If you don’t agree with that it’s fine I’m just mentioning it up front because I’ll probably jump around between the words in my narrative and I don’t want anyone to get confused.

Renewable energy sources include: Bio-fuels, conservation (both active and passive), wave, tidal, geothermal, biomass, Solar (both active and passive), and Wind. If anyone has one or two more to add or thinks one should be subtracted then that would be an interesting point to discuss.


I’ll discuss the options individually but think it’s important to highlight the contribution the various technologies (renewable and non-renewable) make toward our overall electrical energy production in this country and to describe some important technical challenges that all electrical energy distribution companies like PSE have to deal with every day.

In 2006 about 7% of our nation’s electrical power was generated by hydro, 49% by coal, 19% by nuclear fission, 20% by natural gas, 2% by other fossil fuels, and 3% by all other sources including renewables. 2 decades ago those percentages were almost identical except Natural Gas was around 10% and the “other sources” were about half what they were last year.

One of the major technological problems all Electrical Utility Companies have to deal with is the fact that electrical energy cannot be economically stored. Hydro projects can give you a certain amount of “virtual storage” but once a kilo-watt hour of electricity is generated it has to be used immediately or lost forever. All power utilities have employees called “power planners” and it’s their job to match resources with demand. Anyone who has ever looked at the electrical energy demand curve for a city for a typical day or week can readily see that this is not a very easy job. This “fact of life” must be understood up front when analyzing energy options. An electrical energy resource has a great deal more value when it can be turned on and off at the will of the power planner than it does when it just turns itself on or off whenever it feels like it.


Now let’s take a quick tour of the various renewable energy technologies that contribute less than 3% of the electrical energy used in our nation.


1. Biofuels: I’m mentioning this one even though it’s not being used for electrical energy production because I consider it a “renewable” and because, with the exception of adding ethanol to our gasoline, I’m an enthusiastic supporter of the bio-fuel industry. Lots to discuss on this subject but, for the sake of keeping this post under 100,000 words, let’s just note that any time you burn carbon based fuels you produce greenhouse gases, nitrous oxides and other noxious waste products and that bio-fuels are a carbon based fuel and move on. In other words, “yeah, ok.. they produce greenhouse gases, but I still like the option”.

2. Conservation: I mention conservation because most of the literature I’ve read regarding renewables seems to want to categorize it as an “energy source” even though it isn’t. Volumes could be written on this subject though so I just included it and noted my objection. Conservation in it’s old “waste not, want not” dictionary definition is a good thing. We should apply it to all areas of our lives. In regard to energy conservation as it’s defined today I support fee side “market driven” conservation policies (i.e. higher license fees for gas hog vehicle models, higher gas and electrical rates for homes and businesses that exceed reasonable consumption profiles, etc., etc.) as long as the “economic drivers” are reasonable but I oppose government subsidies for any kind of “politically defined” conservation behavior or hardware. I also oppose any public edict or policy that refers to or defines conservation as an “energy source”. And this isn’t because I don’t think conservation is a bad idea it’s simply because conservation isn’t an energy source. Further, conservation can be broken into “active” and “passive” forms. Active forms include riding a bike instead of driving a car to work, installing a heat pump, and/or purchasing a vehicle that gets 40 mpg instead of 8. Passive conservation includes going fishing at a lake that’s 5 miles from home instead of 100 in order to save on gas, keeping the house at 68F instead of 72F during the winter months, and/or opening the drapes on the south facing windows of your home during sunny winter days to capture the suns warmth. I support and encourage all of the above when they are done by individual choice but not when they are imposed by government dictate.

3. Wave and Tidal Power: These have been minor players in the energy equation over the years. Lots of talk but not much action. France built a tidal energy facility along one of it’s shorelines several decades back and I’m always reading about new ideas for harnessing the energy in ocean waves and the total energy available there is considerable. Generation technologies that tap wave and tidal sources should be researched and tested. If a particular technology or energy production scheme can demonstrate that it will generate energy in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner then it should be implemented. I just haven’t seen any such technologies and I have a difficult time imagining how any wave or tidal energy facility will be able to live in harmony with fishermen who want to fish the water where the facilities are located and the ships and boats and wildlife that want to operate in the same space. I’ve heard individuals talk about a tidal energy facility in the Tacoma narrows but the quantity of energy it would produce has to be balanced against the annoyance of having to go through locks whenever you want to run your boat up and down the sound and the impacts to shorelines and wildlife that would result from disrupted south sound tidal flows. As with most “soft path” technologies wave and tidal power schemes are always going to have high hardware investment and physical presence per unit of energy produced because though the total energy available in the tides and the waves is enormous it’s also very dilute.

4. Geothermal: This is an option that I once had some hope for but now I don’t think it will ever be anything but a marginal player (e.g. way less than 1%) in our energy scheme of things. The problem with geothermal is best summed up in a report I read several decades ago about geo-thermal power in Iceland. You find a geyser you build a plant and you get some steam and you generate some electricity and then the steam goes away and you go find another geyser. This is because the geo-thermal energy source is magma under the earth’s crust and even though this magma is very hot there really isn’t much new energy being generated to keep it that way. The magma is hot because it’s existed in an insulated environment over the eons since the formation of the planet and only small amounts of energy from the radioactive decay that keeps it molten are needed to do the job. Some day it may be possible to drop some high temperature tubing 4,000 miles into the core of the planet and pump water down so the heat can create steam to run turbines but I am highly skeptical. Let’s do the research though and if engineers can find a way then let’s take a serious look at it. Another point in regard to geo-thermal is that it may not really be renewable. When you take energy from the magma underneath the earth’s crust you kind of lose it forever so there is some question in my mind as to whether there is any “renewal” going on.

5. Bio-mass: 20 years ago bio-mass was all the rage but everyone eventually sort of figured o