On Jul 24, 2:41*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

There are legitimate concerns with putting up windmills just
anywhere. * While I'm no fan of the Kennedys and you certainly can
call them hypocrits because they run around advocating green
solutions, *I agree that they have a legitimate concern about putting
up offshore windmills that destroy a pristine view.

Bull****. There are plenty of printine views, but few places windmills are
practical.

Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list? According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.





Here in NJ
there was a plan to put 350ft high windmills offshore within sight of
land.

Trust me. There are NO pristine views in New Jersey.

Thanks for the ignorant slam. Perhaps you can share with us where
you superior folks live so we can return the favor.




To me, that is unacceptable. * The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. * We spend a huge
amount of money here buying up open land and forest to keep it natural
and from being developed. * To then turn around and destroy one of the
most priceless views makes no sense.

Without the energy-producing apparatus, for twelve hours a day you won't be
able to see ANYTHING.

Last time I checked there are many viable and more practical ways to
produce electricity besides windmills. We get an insignificant amount
of power from them today and could easily continue to do so in the
future without any great calamity.








If they can be located beyond sight, then I have no problem with
that.

You may be sensible. Others will be upset. Just knowing they are out there
(somewhere) gets some folks all exercised.

But even that gets blocked by environmentalists, who then moan
about bird strikes, harm to fish, etc. *I'd also seriously question
the economics of offshore windmills as compared to other
alternatives.

That's a good point. Windmills are horribly expensive when compared to
hydrocarbon-based energy.

wrote:
....
Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list?

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it???

--

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:50:18 -0500, dpb wrote:

wrote:
...
Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list?

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...


IIRC, the voters (NE) didn't even want windmills off shore, so far
they were _out_of_site_out_of_mind_. You know, past the curve of the
Earth.

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it???

I say we put up thousand of fans off Cape Cod.

nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner, or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of miles
of land unihabitabe.

i am all for nuke power once they solve the waste problem.

On Jul 24, 4:50*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Meaning, exactly what? * That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list? * *

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it??? *

--


Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there. There
could be benefits that make them attractive as well. Some areas have
clearly agreed to have them. Palm Springs, CA is one example. If
the tax revenue base, jobs, etc makes them worthwhile and the locals
are OK with it, then it's fine with me. On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?

wrote:
....
... On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?

If you'll actually choose and do, no; I'd far prefer it over wind as
being the most reliable, cost-effective solution for central generation
even here. OTOH, it's that area of the country that has also shut down
at least one and forced another to never start up over nothing but
populist politics and NIMBY-ism.

The problem I have is that most who don't want option a, b, c, ... want
the benefits but none of the requirements to help with any alternative
option and are more than glad to let somebody else take their garbage
(so to speak). CA building in AZ comes to mind as does their incessant
water grab...

--

wrote:
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner, or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of miles
of land unihabitabe.

i am all for nuke power once they solve the waste problem.

We've been thru this before -- the waste problem is solved if the
obstructionists such as you would simply allow it. Recycle--the fuel
portion (including the fissile transuranics) goes back in the reactor
and the waste is physically reduced drastically in size and dealt with.

Much of the rest of the world has been doing so for 40 years or so now.

--

I wouldn't mind having a windmill in my back yard.


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:39:15 -0400, "jack" wrote:

He is worth Billions and is putting 10 Billion into Wind of his
own.

It is interesting that when they asked him if he had a wind generator
on his ranch he said no, they are butt ugly.

wrote:

On Jul 24, 4:50*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Meaning, exactly what? * That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list? * *

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it??? *

--


Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there. There
could be benefits that make them attractive as well. Some areas have
clearly agreed to have them. Palm Springs, CA is one example. If
the tax revenue base, jobs, etc makes them worthwhile and the locals
are OK with it, then it's fine with me. On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?

If they chose a viable alternative, then no. However I don't think
those same people would be willing to have a nuclear power plant with
100 miles, must less 50 miles.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:50 pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list?

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it???

--


Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there.

Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much smaller
ones. Windmills are everywhere.

People in Oklahoma are also used to oil wells. And Indians.

Oklahoma is Texas' attic; the place where we store all our crazy aunts.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



Oklahoma is Texas' attic; the place where we store all our crazy aunts.

So, how are things in Baja Oklahoma??? (G&D&R)

wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:50:44 -0500, dpb wrote:

The problem w/ the cost isn't the cost of the wind generation itself
some much , it's (as previously noted) the need to have the reserve for
when the wind isn't that is a sunk cost that much of the wind can't
overcome. If it's that secondary cost you're complaining of, then I'm
in full agreement.

I have made a point of going to see wind plants whenever I was near
one.
From watching them I am guessing they use the wind plant as a load
leveling source. When you witch them for a while you will see them get
feathered and speeded back up when there was no apparent change in the
wind. Usually it is only a few that get feathered.
I bet they do it because it is easier to adjust the output of these
wind generators than the bigger plants. They can keep the fossil
plants tuned for maximum efficiency (not a bad idea) and "waste" the
free wind.
These new ones are centrally controlled from miles away. The ones I
saw in Ontario were scattered all over, a couple here, couple there
with no apparent local supervision.

It's possible but afaik not a normal operation in most of the larger
wind farms. There's enough variability in the wind to effect their
output w/o it being apparent on the ground w/o actual instrumentation
(and, of course, the business end is 200-ft in the air, not at ground
level). There's more difficulty here when the full complement is
generating that the output variability causes voltage fluctuations on
the grid.

In the TX panhandle last summer they nearly had a grid loss incident
when generating at full capacity on a 100+F day and an unforecasted wind
shift line passed across one of the wind farms and caused it to go to
near zero output almost instantly. W/O it being planned they nearly
lost the whole system before reserve could catch up.

--

HeyBub wrote:
....
Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much smaller
ones. Windmills are everywhere.
....

A windmill here and there is a far cry from several hundred wind
generating turbines.

And, altho beside the point, the number of windmills is rapidly
dwindling as there is a use for solar that is catching on pretty quickly
where they haven't gone to submersible grid power (or in many places
they're making the move to solar from the grid). Water tables are lower
and windmills require a lot of maintenance.

--

"HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:50 pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list?

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it???

--


Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there.

Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much smaller
ones. Windmills are everywhere.

People in Oklahoma are also used to oil wells. And Indians.

Oklahoma is Texas' attic; the place where we store all our crazy aunts.

Watch it there. Texas is Oklahoma's basement where we store all the
junk.

Originally from Texas.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
...
Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much
smaller ones. Windmills are everywhere.
...

A windmill here and there is a far cry from several hundred wind
generating turbines.

For what they do, you only need one here and one there.

Besides, sometimes there's not enough wind to turn two windmills.


And, altho beside the point, the number of windmills is rapidly
dwindling as there is a use for solar that is catching on pretty
quickly where they haven't gone to submersible grid power (or in many
places they're making the move to solar from the grid). Water tables
are lower and windmills require a lot of maintenance.

Windmills require NO maintenance (except to turn the vane so they'll quit
pumping).

HeyBub wrote:
dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
...
Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much
smaller ones. Windmills are everywhere.
...

A windmill here and there is a far cry from several hundred wind
generating turbines.

For what they do, you only need one here and one there.

Besides, sometimes there's not enough wind to turn two windmills.

And, altho beside the point, the number of windmills is rapidly
dwindling as there is a use for solar that is catching on pretty
quickly where they haven't gone to submersible grid power (or in many
places they're making the move to solar from the grid). Water tables
are lower and windmills require a lot of maintenance.

Windmills require NO maintenance (except to turn the vane so they'll quit
pumping).


ANYTHING with moving parts requires maintenance. For that matter,
anything that sits outside, moving parts or not, eventually requires
maintenance. The trick is to make those required upkeep chores as cheap
and easy as possible.

--
aem sends...

wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:50 pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list?
No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.
And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't
compromised its ok if ours are, I take it???

--


Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there. There
could be benefits that make them attractive as well. Some areas have
clearly agreed to have them. Palm Springs, CA is one example. If
the tax revenue base, jobs, etc makes them worthwhile and the locals
are OK with it, then it's fine with me. On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?


One of the windest places in the North east is the top of Mt. Washington. Lets
put a bunch of windmills up there. Probably could power the whole NE.

Jim Rusling wrote:
wrote:

On Jul 24, 4:50 pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss
are so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most
people
would agree is a pristine view, is on the short list?

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the
NE
where there is the need for power...

...According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
power.

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines
aren't compromised its ok if ours are, I take it???

--


Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there.
There
could be benefits that make them attractive as well. Some areas
have clearly agreed to have them. Palm Springs, CA is one
example.
If the tax revenue base, jobs, etc makes them worthwhile and the
locals are OK with it, then it's fine with me. On the other hand,
if some other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of
the ocean and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with
that?

If they chose a viable alternative, then no. However I don't think
those same people would be willing to have a nuclear power plant
with
100 miles, must less 50 miles.

There are several nuclear power plants within 100 miles of here, they
don't bother me a bit. But the damned windmills that are popping up
annoy me no end.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote:
....
If it was a wind change they would all act in a similar way. I am
talking about 3 windmills and one or two just stop.
You can see the blades pitch to feather.

Whose design, do you know? The common German design used around here is
a fixed 22.5 rpm irrespective of wind speed from minimum to max for
voltage control. But again, these are large farms that are dispatched,
not scattered single onesy, twosy type of installations. But, each
turbine is monitored and can be controlled remotely.

Gray Co that I've mentioned before is 170 660KW Vesta for a total
installed capacity of 112.2 MW. Basic statistics are at
http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/c...y_county.shtml

A summary of it's operational potential -- I've done the same on a
monthly basis from EIA statistics over a six-year period and found
essentially the same values.

http://www.protecttheflinthills.org/...er%20Facts.pdf.
....
Wind is not a constant and dependable resource, even in the breezy regions of southwest
Kansas, said Bob Johnson, Executive Manager of Engineering & Energy Services with
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation.
“Wind generation must be backed up by an equal amount of other generation that is on-
line but held in reserve,” Johnson said. “Transmission systems are constrained and
service is often not available in a timely or cost effective manor.”
....
Johnson cited the Gray County Wind Farm, which has been operating for more than five
years near Montezuma, as an example of the “have” and “have not” story of wind power.
The largest wind farm in Kansas, it features 170 giant turbines with a generating capacity
of 110 megawatts. That’s enough electricity to power 33,000 homes.
The difficulty, Johnson said, is that potential is rarely reached.
Based on figures from 2005, 32 percent of the time the wind farm produced less than 11
megawatts, which would be 10 percent of its rated output. What’s more, 66 percent of
the time it produced less than 55 megawatts, or 50 percent of its rated output.
Surprisingly, 18 percent of the time, the farm produced virtually no energy. That’s
equivalent to more than one and one-fourth days each week.
....

I bet that once they have a lot of these scattered around and sending
data to the central site they can do a better job of seeing wind
changes. Couple that with doppler radars and you can do a great job of
tracking the wind.

I don't think Doppler radar can do dry air wind speed--it's the rain
particles entrained in the air that they measure afaik.

I do agree with the critics who say all of these wind and solar plants
need to be backed up at nearly 100% so the only real saving is fuel.

--

HeyBub wrote:
....
Besides, sometimes there's not enough wind to turn two windmills.

If there's enough to turn one, there's enough to turn as many as you
wish -- they don't interfere.

....

Windmills require NO maintenance (except to turn the vane so they'll quit
pumping).

Snicker, snort...

You've obviously never tried to keep a bunch of them running on a large
ranch...

--

On Jul 24, 6:37*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?

If you'll actually choose and do, no; I'd far prefer it over wind as
being the most reliable, cost-effective solution for central generation
even here. *OTOH, it's that area of the country that has also shut down
at least one and forced another to never start up over nothing but
populist politics and NIMBY-ism.

The problem I have is that most who don't want option a, b, c, ... want
the benefits but none of the requirements to help with any alternative
option and are more than glad to let somebody else take their garbage
(so to speak). *CA building in AZ comes to mind as does their incessant
water grab...

--

Just for the record, I live 20 miles from Oyster Creek, the oldest
operating nuke in the country. The state has a total of 4 nukes.
Also, NJ receives plenty of the fallout, eg mercury, from relatively
unclean coal fired electric plants in the midwest. And we have more
than our share of oil refineries as well. So, it's not like we are
avoiding our share of the energy solution. So, I don't think it's
unreasonable to be opposed to building offshore windmills in sight of
land. I'm OK with offshore drilling as long as it's out of sight of
land and building more nukes.

I do agree that a big part of the problem is exactly what you say, a
lot of people, especially the environmental extremists, don't want
option a, b, or c. Or else, like the Kennedy's they say we should be
doing c, but when it comes to actually doing it, then they start
bitching about that too. Typically, they then don't just say they
are opposed to it, instead they want endless studies of the whole
thing. In the case of windmills, it becomes we don't know what they
will do to birds, fish, etc. So, they just delay it to death.

A classic example of what you;re talking about is going on here right
now. Exxon-Mobil wants to build an offshore natural gas terminal.
It really amounts to little more than the end of a long pipeline. It
would be 23 miles offshore, out of sight with an undersea pipeline
running up north to Perth Amboy. A couple times a week tankers with
LNG would show up, connect and offload the NG. In the shore town
next to me, Manasquan, the council went on record condemning the whole
thing. They blasted NG as a dirty fuel from drilling for it, to
transporting it, to using it. Yet, probably 90% of the homes in
Manasquan are heated with NG. The local newspaper wrote an editorial
against it as well. They stated the risk of spills on the beach is
unacceptable. WTF? They don't even understand what LNG is. If it
did spill, it would instantly vaporize.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 23, 11:00 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
...
Not every state can do it. ...

They _can_, they simply don't have the will...

Some people have the will, but we have idiots for politicians


There are legitimate concerns with putting up windmills just
anywhere. While I'm no fan of the Kennedys and you certainly can
call them hypocrits because they run around advocating green
solutions, I agree that they have a legitimate concern about putting
up offshore windmills that destroy a pristine view. Here in NJ
there was a plan to put 350ft high windmills offshore within sight of
land. To me, that is unacceptable. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. We spend a huge
amount of money here buying up open land and forest to keep it natural
and from being developed. To then turn around and destroy one of the
most priceless views makes no sense.

If they can be located beyond sight, then I have no problem with
that. But even that gets blocked by environmentalists, who then moan
about bird strikes, harm to fish, etc. I'd also seriously question
the economics of offshore windmills as compared to other
alternatives.

Heaven forbid someone has to look at a windmill. It's much more pleasant to
look at smoke stacks, light poles and exhaust pipes. Houston Texas now gets
25% of it's electricity from windpower. Texas gets 10% of it's electricity
from windpower. I doubt if .0005% of the people in Texas have seen a
windmill.

We are also starting to get a lot of our water from the gulf of Mexico
through desalination processes. Nobody seems to complain about that huge
desalination plant on the coast. Phil Gramm was right, "we';ve become a
nation of whiners". Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either welcome
progress or shut up and accept your lot in life.

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one.

What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots

Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves...

Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--

In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one.

What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots

Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves...
This is also why people fight the idea of public beaches. They want
theirs and then everyone else is on their own.

Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--

Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is
forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I
know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port
because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like
people used to do with trains.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one.
What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots
Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves...
This is also why people fight the idea of public beaches. They want
theirs and then everyone else is on their own.

Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--

Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is
forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I
know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port
because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like
people used to do with trains.

So the ships can come (and go ) in front of and behind the
windmill...the cattle do here and people stop to take 'pichurs' ...

--

wrote:
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.

That has yet to be demonstrated...

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner, or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of miles
of land unihabitabe.
....

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to happen?

We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

--

dpb wrote:
wrote:
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.

That has yet to be demonstrated...

Uh, while I don't agree that they are particularly excellent terrorist
targets, the lack of demonstration is hardly reassuring.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner,
or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of
miles
of land unihabitabe.
...

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to
happen?

We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

He'd not talking about a nuclear explosion, he's talking about flying
something explosive into the waste retention area, thus scattering
high level waste over a wide area.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dpb wrote:
...

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to
happen?
We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

What you know! If a jar of pickles can spontaneously explode and destroy
twelve city blocks with massive fatalities and render the whole area a toxic
pit, then spent fuel rods are similarly vulnerable.

On Jul 25, 10:36*am, dpb wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. * The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. *
What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots
Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves... *
* This is also why people fight the idea of public beaches. They want
theirs and then everyone else is on their own.

Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? *It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--

* *Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is
forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I
know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port
because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like
people used to do with trains.

So the ships can come (and go ) in front of and behind the
windmill...the cattle do here and people stop to take 'pichurs' ...

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The point is to get any reasonable amount of power from windmills you
need not, one "plant", not one ship, but thousands of them. And
IMO, putting these 375 foot tall structures offshore and ruining the
view when they are within sight of land is a major issue and would be
a big mistake.

I already stated that here we have one nuke within 20 miles of my
house. We have 3 more nukes in NJ. I'd be happy if they built
more. I'd be happy if they opened up offshore to drilling, out of
sight of land. I'd be OK with windmills located offshore out of sight
from the beach. We have fall out in pollution from the coal fired
plants to our west. We have major oil refineries supplying many
other states with gasoline and diesel. Must we have to agree that
windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you
happy?

J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.
That has yet to be demonstrated...

Uh, while I don't agree that they are particularly excellent terrorist
targets, the lack of demonstration is hardly reassuring.

That they aren't is pretty much self-evident to anyone who knows
anything about them...there are far easier and more likely to be useful
targets as has been amply demonstrated already.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner,
or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of
miles
of land unihabitabe.
...

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to
happen?

We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

He'd not talking about a nuclear explosion, he's talking about flying
something explosive into the waste retention area, thus scattering
high level waste over a wide area.

I don't think he can make a credible scenario out of that, either...

--

dpb wrote:
....
I don't think he can make a credible scenario out of that, either...

As in every time he's brought this poopycock up before he eventually
reverts to the Chernobyl plume as his fallback which simply demonstrates
how little understanding of LWR physics and technology he has...

--

wrote:
....
... Must we have to agree that
windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you
happy?

As long as you think we have to have them on the pristine plains, then
yes, I do...

--

dpb wrote in :

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one.

What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots

Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves...

Oh, you mean the "Wal-Mart Babes" as I call them :-)


Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

dpb wrote:
...

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to
happen?
We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

What you know! If a jar of pickles can spontaneously explode and
destroy twelve city blocks with massive fatalities and render the
whole area a toxic pit, then spent fuel rods are similarly vulnerable.



Hmmmm, I've never noticed a legal disclaimer at the end of the pickle
aisle. I'll have to take better notice next trip.

Gee I don't know what Mark's problem is, but he clearly needs some kind of
help.
Someone should test the water in Park Ridge, IL.


Mark Ransley wrote...
He not only has a plan, but is one hundred billion times richer,
and smarter than you, and your idiotic post, and measly bank account.

He is worth Billions and is putting 10 Billion into Wind of his own.

What the **** has Buch done, answer nothing. This issue has been a
key to our demise for 50 years and no ****in government of mine has
done **** to not keep us from being held hostage to imported energy
from enemys. Gee we dont even have a upgraded insulation policy for
homes... Gee we still allow 82% non condensing boilers and furnaces to
be sold. In a country as we IMPORT 80% of our oil.

Did you know England many many years ago...blah, blah, blah




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.
That has yet to be demonstrated...

Uh, while I don't agree that they are particularly excellent
terrorist targets, the lack of demonstration is hardly reassuring.

That they aren't is pretty much self-evident to anyone who knows
anything about them...there are far easier and more likely to be
useful targets as has been amply demonstrated already.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a
airliner,
or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of
miles
of land unihabitabe.
...

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to
happen?

We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

He'd not talking about a nuclear explosion, he's talking about
flying
something explosive into the waste retention area, thus scattering
high level waste over a wide area.

I don't think he can make a credible scenario out of that, either...

Terrorists buy/rent/borrow/steal, say, a Cessna Caravan, load it up
with a ton and a half of Semtex, and fly it into the building.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Jul 25, 10:02*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... Must we have to agree that
windmills off the beach are a great idea too, *just to make you
happy?

As long as you think we have to have them on the pristine plains, then
yes, I do...

--


When did I ever say I thought you had to have windmills on the
plains? Maybe you can't read and have me confused with Pickens.

wrote:
On Jul 25, 10:02 pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... Must we have to agree that
windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you
happy?
As long as you think we have to have them on the pristine plains, then
yes, I do...

--


When did I ever say I thought you had to have windmills on the
plains? Maybe you can't read and have me confused with Pickens.

I can't tell _what_ you think, specifically on that particular subject
-- you say one thing then the other attitude creeps back in it appears
in a followup...

In reality, I wasn't speaking so much directly at you as trying to
emphasize the point that there are views of open expanse out here in
what most consider the nearly deserted middle and that it seems ok to
most in populated areas (including Topeka and Kansas City) that those
areas get visually polluted while somehow the seacoast or mountain
retreat or whatever of the complainers are somehow sacrosanct.
Meanwhile, of course, those same people are often among the most
profligate users of the very power they want delivered to them w/o their
having any burden.

--

Red Green wrote in
:

dpb wrote in :

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one.

past 12 miles,you can't see the platforms.


What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots

Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves...

Oh, you mean the "Wal-Mart Babes" as I call them :-)


Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--


oil spills are far more common from tankers than from oil platforms.
the oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico did not leak after Katrina.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.
That has yet to be demonstrated...

Uh, while I don't agree that they are particularly excellent
terrorist targets, the lack of demonstration is hardly reassuring.

That they aren't is pretty much self-evident to anyone who knows
anything about them...there are far easier and more likely to be
useful targets as has been amply demonstrated already.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a
airliner,
or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of
miles
of land unihabitabe.
...

And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to
happen?

We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear
explosion is simply not physically realizable.

He'd not talking about a nuclear explosion, he's talking about
flying
something explosive into the waste retention area, thus scattering
high level waste over a wide area.

I don't think he can make a credible scenario out of that, either...

Terrorists buy/rent/borrow/steal, say, a Cessna Caravan, load it up
with a ton and a half of Semtex, and fly it into the building.


will that plane carry 3000 lbs?
will the entire load of Semtex detonate? That's not such an easy task.
and explosions vent UPwards. The heavy fuel rods will be under water.
I doubt they would be scattered much,if at all.

and where does one FIND Semtex,a Czech explosive,in the US?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net