I found a new cheap way of carbon sequestration. Instead of pulling the carbon out of the air, let's just leave it in the ground. Can I get a Nobel prize?
Andy Goodell 1894 Charlotte Creek Road Oneonta, NY 13820 (603) 831-0356 http://geekguyandy.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Miller Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Sustainable Tompkins County listserv' Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] Subsidies for Alternative Production orConservation? Which is more cost effective? I'm an optimist on the future of energy usage and conservation (maybe a roughly equal investment for both) and on the production side see nuclear and distributed power (such as the Endurance S250 I'm installing with 50% cost paid by gov incentives) as the primary direction we can and should take. CO2 sequestration should be pursued where practicable. Nuclear waste in stable storage such as salt mines is a relatively safe (safe enough, and safer than coal plants when the climate change impact is factored in) and the newer designs have all but eliminated operating risks. Then there is the long shot of fusion power within 50 years that should be included in long range planning and investment. John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kevin millar Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Subsidies for Alternative Production or Conservation? Which is more cost effective? Steve, I have serious questions that even the maximization of wind power and other renewable alternatives will make a significant dent in our dependence on coal, oil or nuclear sources to deliver the currently accepted level of energy production, delivery, use and future expectations of same. If we do not concentrate on using less energy, much less, then all the tax incentives for alternatives will just deliver short term gains in a losing attempt to meet an unrealistic demand. The safety and esthetics do matter, but what I am more concerned about is whether or not we are throwing money ( tax incentives ) in the wrong direction to bandaid a longer term and more serious issue, ie unreasonable power production, delivery and usage expectations? Kevin Ed Cope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hurray, Nick. Good job. At 11:12 AM 3/12/2008 -0400, you wrote: >(This bounced - not sure why...) > >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:06:48 -0400 >From: "Stephen Nicholson" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Wind turbine safety zone > >Safety zones will certainly prevent an accident. But why do we need to make >wind farms the safest place in the world? I imagine insurance adjusters >would say that parking your car in the lot to go hiking is much more >dangerous. Trees shed ice and branches all the time, and "widow-makers" are >not a rural myth. How can we allow airplanes to fly overhead, full of >people? > >The calculated risks of installing a Wind Farm must be weighed against the >risks of continuing to burn coal to make electricity. Everyday we plug in >appliances, narrowly averting electrocution, then fuel up our cars with a >highly flammable liquid, and proceed to drive away at a fatal rate of speed. > >My belief is that the known risks of using nuclear and coal power make it >imperative that we install as many wind turbines as possible, calculating >that the odds of a fatal accident, or damage to the environment, is orders >of magnitude less with wind. I say "Throw caution to the Wind". >Steve > > >> > >> > >> > Incidents like this may be rare, but that is not the point. The point >> > is that because they may occur, there needs to be saftey zones. >> > >> > The question for which I seek an answer is what is a reasonable safety >> > zone? Is it feasible to co-locate hiking trails and wind turbines? >> > Were a cluster of wind turbines placed at the top of Connecticut Hill, >> > how would that affect the public's access? >> > >> > --Cris >> > >> > The Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance (TREEA) is committed to >> > furthering discussion and exploration of alternative energy options within >> > our region. For more information about TREEA, visit our website: >> > www.treea.org >> > >> > > > >-- Stephen C. Nicholson 220 Yaple Rd. Berkshire, NY 13736 607-539-6923 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance (TREEA) is committed to furthering discussion and exploration of alternative energy options within our region. For more information about TREEA, visit our website: www.treea.org _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
