http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9952873-feds-propose-allowing-wind-farm-developer-to-kill-golden-eagles
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9952873-feds-propose-allowing-wind-farm-developer-to-kill-golden-eagles
Quote from: chapman on January 04, 2012, 04:21:39 PM
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9952873-feds-propose-allowing-wind-farm-developer-to-kill-golden-eagles
I think Vanderbilt can help them formulate a game plan for that.
With all of the Golden Eagles in Wisconsin and near the Marquette Campus that should impact us immensely.
fucking wind farms are useless crap anyways
we should be tearing those things down
Quote from: Ari Gold on January 04, 2012, 10:08:01 PM
fracking wind farms are useless crap anyways
we should be tearing those things down
Hi, I'm ignorance.
Oh, I'm sorry, we've already met.
Such a substantive response from Hards. :-\
Quote from: warrior07 on January 05, 2012, 02:45:28 PM
Such a substantive response from Hards. :-\
Hards should go live along Hwy 41 on the way to FDL. I'm sure he'd love wind farms then.
Quote from: ringout on January 05, 2012, 02:55:48 PM
Hards should go live along Hwy 41 on the way to FDL. I'm sure he'd love wind farms then.
There are plenty more closer to home, and in far greater quantity.
I don't see the downside at all.
Ya...what's wrong with wind farms? Cheap. Renewable. Clean.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 05, 2012, 07:51:54 PM
Ya...what's wrong with wind farms? Cheap. Renewable. Clean.
Except when it's in your back yard. ;)
Quote from: MUMac on January 05, 2012, 07:54:27 PM
Except when it's in your back yard. ;)
If I lived in the country, my home would have wind power. Since I live in the city and there are plenty of regulations regarding such things I can't put up my own.
I guess the argument is that they are 'eye sores'?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 06, 2012, 08:56:16 AM
If I lived in the country, my home would have wind power. Since I live in the city and there are plenty of regulations regarding such things I can't put up my own.
I guess the argument is that they are 'eye sores'?
I guess none of the anti-wind folks have ever seen an oil refinery? Not exactly picturesque. Oh, but those are located somewhere else so I guess they are ok.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 06, 2012, 08:56:16 AM
If I lived in the country, my home would have wind power. Since I live in the city and there are plenty of regulations regarding such things I can't put up my own.
I guess the argument is that they are 'eye sores'?
Not my argument. Admittedly, playing off on the "NIMBY" response on this topic I have seen so many times. I work with people involved in the wind power industry. Sometimes setting up a wind farm can get irritatingly difficult because some people want it, but just don't want to see or hear it.
I would also consider some type of renewable energy for my home, if I have it built. I would not retrofit an existing home, at this time. Unfortunately, the cost/return/benefit makes that decision for me.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 06, 2012, 09:17:57 AM
I guess none of the anti-wind folks have ever seen an oil refinery? Not exactly picturesque. Oh, but those are located somewhere else so I guess they are ok.
As I stated in a response to Hards, it is not solely "anti-wind folks" who have that response ...
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 05, 2012, 04:38:13 PM
There are plenty more closer to home, and in far greater quantity.
I don't see the downside at all.
No downside? Then everyone who wants windfarms should be required to live within a mile of a windfarm.
Windfarms are Cuisinarts for migrating birds, particularly Raptors. scientifically studied fact
If they were actually cheap, we would source more energy from them. They are only "cheap" because of government subsidies and "1st world problems" type guilt people want to buy an indulgence for.
Quote from: MUMac on January 06, 2012, 10:32:26 AM
Sometimes setting up a wind farm can get irritatingly difficult because some people want it, but just don't want to see or hear it.
Quote from: ringout on January 06, 2012, 10:48:21 AM
No downside? Then everyone who wants windfarms should be required to live within a mile of a windfarm.
See: http://dailyreporter.com/2011/04/22/poll-finds-strong-support-for-wind-energy-in-wis/
Poll from April of 2011 showing that 77% of Wisconsin residents would like to see more wind energy in the state... but then when wind farms are actually proposed, they face some vehement opposition. (See Brown County a few years ago, Manitowoc changed its zoning laws several years ago to specifically ban wind farms, the examples are endless, even just in this state). It is definitely a NIMBY subject.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 05, 2012, 07:07:00 AM
Hi, I'm ignorance.
Oh, I'm sorry, we've already met.
This is why liberals rub me the wrong way. They have a belief and if you don't agree with them, they call you stupid, ignorant, or worse. Just have a conversation.
Wind farms have a downside, as do electric cars, hybrids, etc. I see GM is recalling 8000 Chevy Volts now because of issues. What do you do with the battery disposal? All the extra electricity needed comes from burning more coal, more hydro, etc.
For wind farms, they have pros and cons, but they are not a slam dunk case. If it's not windy, do you realize they turbines have to be powered by outside sources and actually produce a carbon footprint? If it's too windy, they shut them down. They do a wonderful job of killing birds in some parts of the country and some scientists have recently presented research that the wind farms are causing medical problems in some people.
From an efficiency perspective, they are horrible unless you have a huge subsidy from good old Uncle Sam. They can't stand on their own and be profitable to build and run no different than electric cars can. The subsidies are what drives them. Also some heavily cooked up numbers that some journalists worth their salt have started to publish. In the UK recently, it was shows that wind farms are generating 22% of what the actual megawatts they were supposed to yield and pitched to the citizenry. This has led much of the industry to counter that the wind farms were built in the wrong places. Part of that is NIMBY, which isn't surprising. Much like trains and light rail. They are loved by one portion of society and over promised to the hilt in terms of passenger ridership, cost to build and overall benefits, but that never stops the lying to get those boondoggles built as saviors of the planet.
Quote from: shiloh26 on January 06, 2012, 11:35:43 AM
See: http://dailyreporter.com/2011/04/22/poll-finds-strong-support-for-wind-energy-in-wis/
Poll from April of 2011 showing that 77% of Wisconsin residents would like to see more wind energy in the state... but then when wind farms are actually proposed, they face some vehement opposition. (See Brown County a few years ago, Manitowoc changed its zoning laws several years ago to specifically ban wind farms, the examples are endless, even just in this state). It is definitely a NIMBY subject.
77% of residents favoring something does not make it the right thing to do. My question remains. Would you choose to live in a wind farm?
Quote from: Hoopaloop on January 06, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
This is why liberals rub me the wrong way. They have a belief and if you don't agree with them, they call you stupid, ignorant, or worse. Just have a conversation.
Wind farms have a downside, as do electric cars, hybrids, etc. I see GM is recalling 8000 Chevy Volts now because of issues. What do you do with the battery disposal? All the extra electricity needed comes from burning more coal, more hydro, etc.
For wind farms, they have pros and cons, but they are not a slam dunk case. If it's not windy, do you realize they turbines have to be powered by outside sources and actually produce a carbon footprint? If it's too windy, they shut them down. They do a wonderful job of killing birds in some parts of the country and some scientists have recently presented research that the wind farms are causing medical problems in some people.
From an efficiency perspective, they are horrible unless you have a huge subsidy from good old Uncle Sam. They can't stand on their own and be profitable to build and run no different than electric cars can. The subsidies are what drives them. Also some heavily cooked up numbers that some journalists worth their salt have started to publish. In the UK recently, it was shows that wind farms are generating 22% of what the actual megawatts they were supposed to yield and pitched to the citizenry. This has led much of the industry to counter that the wind farms were built in the wrong places. Part of that is NIMBY, which isn't surprising. Much like trains and light rail. They are loved by one portion of society and over promised to the hilt in terms of passenger ridership, cost to build and overall benefits, but that never stops the lying to get those boondoggles built as saviors of the planet.
This is a great summary. Too bad the proponents of windfarms will not give it any credence.
Quote from: ringout on January 06, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
This is a great summary. Too bad the proponents of windfarms will not give it any credence.
Actually, its a lot of conservative think tank drivel, but you, being a conservative would think that way.
I'm not sure what Chevy Volt has to do with wind farms, but hey if he wants to make a point that's fine I guess.
I don't see why it is a bad thing that wind farms are subsidized by the US government. Most conventional forms of energy are highly subsidized as well. Its a moot argument.
My guess is "Hoopaloop" is taking his notes from my old friend who had a lengthy debate about global warming with me in PMs.
Personally, I'm done with this conversation since it has probably creeped into the 'no politics' area.
Quote from: ringout on January 06, 2012, 01:07:59 PM
77% of residents favoring something does not make it the right thing to do. My question remains. Would you choose to live in a wind farm?
Where would you rather live? Next to an oil refinery or next to a windfarm?
Of course "neither" is the easy answer but if you had to pick one which would it be?
Quote from: Hoopaloop on January 06, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
They do a wonderful job of killing birds in some parts of the country and some scientists have recently presented research that the wind farms are causing medical problems in some people.
What do you define as a 'wonderful' job?
They kill less than cars, windows, or even power lines. Orders of magnitude less. I mean, there are stupid arguments, and then there is this argument.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 06, 2012, 02:19:25 PM
Where would you rather live? Next to an oil refinery or next to a windfarm?
Of course "neither" is the easy answer but if you had to pick one which would it be?
Nice straw man.
Who lives next to an oil refinery? No one. People do, though, live next to, or near, wind farms.
Having a goal to go green is admirable. Insisting on throwing money away on inefficient green technology when we're trillions in debt is suicidal. We need jobs. Even if we can dramatically cut government entitlements, we need tax revenues. We're sitting on tons of known energy reserves that can help with both problems while also easing national security concerns (reliance on Middle Eastern oil). Under normal conditions, I think the coutry benefits from the debate between drillers and environmentalists. These are anything but normal conditions. Drill baby drill.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 06, 2012, 02:13:46 PM
Actually, its a lot of conservative think tank drivel, but you, being a conservative would think that way.
I'm not sure what Chevy Volt has to do with wind farms, but hey if he wants to make a point that's fine I guess.
I don't see why it is a bad thing that wind farms are subsidized by the US government. Most conventional forms of energy are highly subsidized as well. Its a moot argument.
My guess is "Hoopaloop" is taking his notes from my old friend who had a lengthy debate about global warming with me in PMs.
Personally, I'm done with this conversation since it has probably creeped into the 'no politics' area.
Is there a reason for the quotations? Is it tied to the PM you just sent me?
The Chevy Volt was put in there simply to show that the same crowd advocating for all these initiatives as world savers don't seem to look at how inefficient they are, how troublesome they can be down the road, how costly they are and the negatives associated with them.
The reasons given were not from a conservative think tank, but from newspaper articles that are easy to find. Suppose for a second that the newspaper articles came from conservative think tank, does that make them wrong? You seem to be saying that anything from that type of source would be wrong. Is that how you view things. Your way or the highway? Wasn't that my original beef to begin with, that folks tend to be so myopic in their beliefs that anything coming from a side that they are ideologically opposed to is automatically wrong, thus the throwing out of YOU ARE IGNORANT comments like you had earlier in this thread.
Quote from: Hoopaloop on January 06, 2012, 03:01:45 PM
Is there a reason for the quotations? Is it tied to the PM you just sent me?
The Chevy Volt was put in there simply to show that the same crowd advocating for all these initiatives as world savers don't seem to look at how inefficient they are, how troublesome they can be down the road, how costly they are and the negatives associated with them.
The reasons given were not from a conservative think tank, but from newspaper articles that are easy to find. Suppose for a second that the newspaper articles came from conservative think tank, does that make them wrong? You seem to be saying that anything from that type of source would be wrong. Is that how you view things. Your way or the highway? Wasn't that my original beef to begin with, that folks tend to be so myopic in their beliefs that anything coming from a side that they are ideologically opposed to is automatically wrong, thus the throwing out of YOU ARE IGNORANT comments like you had earlier in this thread.
No, they are not necessarily wrong, but they should be taken as highly suspect. Clearly.
Why are you getting so upset? My response to his silly comment was equally silly, I guess the tongue and cheek nature of it was missed.
Quote from: MUMac on January 06, 2012, 02:47:22 PM
Nice straw man.
Who lives next to an oil refinery? No one. People do, though, live next to, or near, wind farms.
You are kidding right? Literally millions and millions of people live near oil refineries. Maybe "next to" wasn't the best choice of words.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 06, 2012, 02:57:16 PM
Having a goal to go green is admirable. Insisting on throwing money away on inefficient green technology when we're trillions in debt is suicidal. We need jobs. Even if we can dramatically cut government entitlements, we need tax revenues. We're sitting on tons of known energy reserves that can help with both problems while also easing national security concerns (reliance on Middle Eastern oil). Under normal conditions, I think the coutry benefits from the debate between drillers and environmentalists. These are anything but normal conditions. Drill baby drill.
Here is a man with common sense. Well stated.
We have trillions of barrels of oil in the USA that can be had with drilling, take us off dependency from overseas, create massive jobs, and much of it can be done in a clean way. Green jobs are great, they are also financial losers without great subsidization. The country is broke and cannot afford wasting money by propping up jobs that yield $0.30 in return for every $1 spent. You only continue to make the economic picture worse by pushing through non-sustainable solutions.
Wind power has been around since the 12th century in powering man's endeavors. Horse power even longer. Without gov't subsidies, this idea would be laughed out of the room. The legitimate question is whether it is worth those subsidies and what the tradeoffs are. If you pour money into this area, you have to give up something somewhere else. That something else may be profitable, may create jobs that are not subsidized, and may provide tangible security benefits. That is the debate. Cost, efficiencies, and the tradeoffs.
The fact of the matter is that wind farms actually increase carbon emissions because they require spin reserve energy when the wind isn't blowing. They do not replace coal plants, nuclear plants, hydro plants. In fact, they require additional capacity from them to power turbines when the wind isn't blowing. Well stated here. http://www.sunjournal.com/guest-columns/story/881821
People like Hards are frauds. Hards would get his panties in a twist over any suggestions about building a nuclear power plant for the first time in this country in 30-40 years. It's an unbelievably clean technology that fuels much more than half of the energy of a country like France. But that's too modern for a luddite fraud, I'm sure.
Quote from: warrior07 on January 06, 2012, 03:36:49 PM
People like Hards are frauds. Hards would get his panties in a twist over any suggestions about building a nuclear power plant for the first time in this country in 30-40 years. It's an unbelievably clean technology that fuels much more than half of the energy of a country like France. But that's too modern for a luddite fraud, I'm sure.
I am actually pro-nuclear. But thanks for playing.
Great. Then I'm sure you'll agree that after we build a few hundred nuclear power plants in this country we won't need technology from the 1,000's anymore.
Quote from: Hoopaloop on January 06, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 06, 2012, 02:57:16 PM
Having a goal to go green is admirable. Insisting on throwing money away on inefficient green technology when we're trillions in debt is suicidal. We need jobs. Even if we can dramatically cut government entitlements, we need tax revenues. We're sitting on tons of known energy reserves that can help with both problems while also easing national security concerns (reliance on Middle Eastern oil). Under normal conditions, I think the coutry benefits from the debate between drillers and environmentalists. These are anything but normal conditions. Drill baby drill.
Here is a man with common sense. Well stated.
Obviously NOT Chico's. ;D
I believe these laws will only apply in Southern Mississippi, where the Golden Eagles are traditionally weaker and come in substantially larger numbers.
Quote from: warrior07 on January 06, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
Great. Then I'm sure you'll agree that after we build a few hundred nuclear power plants in this country we won't need technology from the 1,000's anymore.
We'll all be long dead before this country builds a "few hundred" nuclear power plants.
Not saying that's right, but I'm afraid it's the reality.
Eagle...tastes like chicken. ;D
Eagle...tastes like chicken
I actually find it closer to Spotted Owl
Hey guys.. no politics allowed.
At least none of that liberal nonsense.
to try to stay as apolitical as possible - the subsidy argument only holds water depending on how far back down the energy trail you'd like to track. subsidies and the government picking winners is exactly how we got into the energy situation we're in today. just because wind energy is newer wouldnt make its emergence any more the result of government subsidies as anything else.
whoop
whoop
whoop
whoop
whoop
whoop
Hoopaloop/warrior07/lenny's --> Applause. Well Said
Sultan: I was really starting to agree with you on your hangin posts...
Hards:
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvf4vs0Y4t1r7r4x2o1_250.gif)