Agriculture works just fine under the wind mills and the birds do have eyes.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > <[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]> <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> <[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]> > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [Get Copyright Permissions] > <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> E-Mail > <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Print > <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Save > <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Post > <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get > > > Photos > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get > Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > <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 - > > > > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
