But they will and you know they will. We will find the equivalent of spiking trees by groups like ELF sabotaging the windmills and solar panels because of the migratory birds. And I would assume West Texas is also good for other things as well. Don't they have agriculture there now? Where are you going to put that?
RichardForbes wrote: > West Texas would be an option, if the ecologists don't ruin it by > worrying about migratory birds. > > On Jun 28, 10:46 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Where are you going to put all of them. When you look at what they >> produce from acres of solar panels and windmills, which are dependent on >> the wind blowing at a certain minimum speed even to work at all and then >> the noise they make disturbs the fauna of the area, what would be enough >> of them. Add to that all the NIMBY of those who live where the >> windmills would work andyou have a problem, especially when the NIMBY >> folks are congressmen and senators (Kerry, Kennedy, Frank, Markey ring a >> bell?). Then there is the storage and transportation problem of the >> product which is not working well yet either. I can see doing research >> on these methods but I cannot see stopping the production of what we >> know works and the outlawing of other means of production which we know >> can produce what is required while the research is going on. That is >> what has been going on with out congressmen and senators and the >> no-drilling legislation. We hear that it will take 10 years to bring >> the wells on line - and we have been hearing this for years now. If >> they had drilled when the subject first came up, the wells would be >> online now and we would not be dependent on foreign oil now but I guess >> our betters missed that point. >> >> >> >> Mark wrote: >> >>> Gee dick.... there are not enough of them... >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, dick thompson >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> And they are not capable of meeting even a small percentage of the >>> US use of electricity. Nor will they be able to in the near future. >>> >>> I was talking about the carbon credits. The credits are used to >>> plant trees, not windmills. Guess you missed that point. >>> >>> Mark wrote: >>> >>>> Dick, >>>> >>>> Just what are you talking about..... Alternative energy sources >>>> exist NOW. just go to Palm Springs and look at the hill sides... >>>> anybody can count the numbers of wind turbines.. no science >>>> involved. A geo-thermal plant is easily identified as is a >>>> nuclear plant and a hydoelectric dam, hearing people KNOW the >>>> difference between an electric car and a gas/diesel motor (the >>>> deaf look for the tail pipe or lack thereof) There is NO mystery >>>> in accountability. You simply use oil profits to put itself out >>>> of business. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM, dick thompson >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> How would you do that and how would you enforce it. >>>> >>>> Reminds me of the carbon trade/carbon credits scam. You pay >>>> x amount of dollars to plant trees somewhere and that gives >>>> you the right to trash the regulatory laws about energy use. >>>> At what point do you prove that those dollars actually >>>> planted trees that are going to be taken care of and replace >>>> the carbon you used up. That part of the equation is >>>> missing. Do you think that those peons who plant the trees >>>> are going to insure that they grow and prosper? If you don't >>>> enforce the one side of the equation, then you do not have an >>>> equation at all, you have a scam, and that is what it is. >>>> Same principle with your suggestion. I can throw x amount of >>>> dollars at alternate energy source research but unless it is >>>> actually tracked to make sure it is used as it is supposed to >>>> be then it is garbage. Look at the AGW conference that was >>>> held earlier this year. They held it in Bali and the >>>> attendees all flew in on their private jets for a week of >>>> swanning around a fancy resort and making soundbites about >>>> all the good they were doing. Then they got back in their >>>> private jets and flew elsewhere to tell us we need to >>>> conserve energy and use one sheet of toilet paper and pay >>>> twice as much in gas tax and pay more for heating and cooling >>>> because it is for the good of the environment and for the >>>> cheeellllddddrrrreeeennnn. Thank you Algore. >>>> >>>> THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keith, who owns and therefore profits from oil exploration and >>>>> subsequent drilling has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not it is >>>>> actually done or even allowed. If the Gringo-American people >>>>> actually >>>>> had a vested interest in oil and its profits (not just the taxes >>>>> from >>>>> its use) you could bet that derricks would be springing up all >>>>> over >>>>> the place as well as refineries and piping systems. Why should >>>>> they >>>>> take the chance on despoiling the natural beauty of an area just >>>>> to >>>>> have a multinational take the money and run ?? Unfettered >>>>> drilling >>>>> and profit taking by oil that stayed at home would be a great >>>>> boon and >>>>> even the looneys know that and would, I'm sure, be in favor >>>>> especially >>>>> if a portion of that profit would be used solely for developing >>>>> alternative energy and eventually CLOSING the wells and >>>>> refineries. >>>>> The Chinese get it.... but they despoil OTHER countries and areas >>>>> to >>>>> accomplish the goal of garnering profit for their Government. >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 6:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Holly, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know what your comment has to do with our Nation having a >>>>>> comprehensive energy plan. The Chinese at the behest of Cuba >>>>>> is getting >>>>>> ready to start drilling just a few miles off of our coastline >>>>>> for oil. We >>>>>> are not, because of the current Administration, who has refused >>>>>> to allow for >>>>>> more oil exploration, and instead is "capping and trading" >>>>>> energy, under >>>>>> some policy based on fraudulent, non-existent scientific data >>>>>> that claims we >>>>>> are "Globally Warming". >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, I haven't seen you up in arms about our current lack of a >>>>>> comprehensive energy plan. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Hollywood >>>>>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> KIT, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Chinese and Cubans are communists, they own the oil >>>>>>> industry in >>>>>>> their respective countries. They might well pay a private Corp. >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> explore for and even bring up the product (oil) but the Govt.'s >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> China & Cuba OWN it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 5:33 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would we want the government involved in regulating this? >>>>>>>> Why would >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> want the government involved in "capping or trading" energy? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is our government not encouraging a Comprehensive Energy >>>>>>>> Policy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> promotes alternative energies while also attempting to allow >>>>>>>> for private >>>>>>>> entities to explore for more oil reserves, as are the Chinese >>>>>>>> and Cubans >>>>>>>> right off of our coast? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, ConservativeJack < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > [email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't see anything surprising here. Alternative Energy >>>>>>>>> providers say >>>>>>>>> this is a good thing and that it will all be peachy in the >>>>>>>>> end. >>>>>>>>> The companies that stand to lose billions or even eventually >>>>>>>>> be put >>>>>>>>> out of business, claim it's doom and gloom. >>>>>>>>> What else would anyone expect to be said by the opposing >>>>>>>>> sides? >>>>>>>>> So the choice is I can believe one or the other, based on >>>>>>>>> what I WANT >>>>>>>>> to believe, or I can believe that both are stating things in >>>>>>>>> terms >>>>>>>>> that suit their own interests and that things will probably >>>>>>>>> end up (as >>>>>>>>> always) neither as bad or good as predicted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 10:35 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Get Copyright Permissions] >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >>>>>>>>>> E-Mail >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >>>>>>>>>> Print >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >>>>>>>>>> Save >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >>>>>>>>>> | Post >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >>>>>>>>>> Get >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Photos >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >>>>>>>>>> Get >>>>>>>>>> Reprints >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reuse Options >>>>>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Winners and losers emerge in climate bill >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By CHRIS KAHN >>>>>>>>>> AP Energy Writer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the >>>>>>>>>> climate >>>>>>>>>> legislation that's winding through Congress would create a >>>>>>>>>> parallel >>>>>>>>>> >> ... >> >> read more ยป- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
