Please sign this petition

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

how many times can you post in a thread without actually contributing anything??

prove me wrong ... just once ... you come on here and just post stuff but you back up absolutely nothing ... i see you still haven't backed up your accusation that i make up stuff ... either rescind it or back it up ... until then - you are contibuting zero ...

to everyone else - happy to discuss tomorrow ...

why should I repeat everything mamma is saying? he has owned you this whole time. what makes it even funnier is that everything mamma posts is pure common sense. something you are severely lacking.

like he said. step out of the theoretical world and join our side.

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...

maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...

the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...

The problem is if you just say, we are good for 25 years and don't start doing planning things well in advance, 25 years will come and people will be like "what are we supposed to do now?". Besides the longer you wait the more things cost (especially the labour required to build a power plant).

tybird

polaris wrote:

can you point me to any link that still shows this being debated? ... everything i've ever read says otherwise ...

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/OffShoreBirdLifeStudy.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7350.html

http://www.birdlife.org/action/change/europe/habitat_directive/windfarm_position_12_05.doc

http://www.nhbs.com/birds_and_wind_farms_tefno_138759.html

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/10/wind_farms_generate_bird_worri.html

http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/bird_unfriendly_wind_farms

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windenergy.htm

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy_wind_testimony.htm

polaris

tybird wrote:

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/OffShoreBirdLifeStudy.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7350.html

http://www.birdlife.org/action/change/europe/habitat_directive/windfarm_position_12_05.doc

http://www.nhbs.com/birds_and_wind_farms_tefno_138759.html

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/10/wind_farms_generate_bird_worri.html

http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/bird_unfriendly_wind_farms

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windenergy.htm

http://www.abcbirds.org/policy_wind_testimony.htm

ok ... i got thru the first few and they all reference the same study and say the same thing ...

as with any development - site selection is critical - obviously, if you are building in a nesting ground - it will be impactful however, i think we are discussing mortality rates with birds ... they are relatively low ...

plus, some of those studies were conducted a while ago - in many instances now - during peak migratory periods - turbines are shut down for those periods to further reduce the risk ...

http://www.currykerlinger.com/windpower.htm

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The problem is if you just say, we are good for 25 years and don't start doing planning things well in advance, 25 years will come and people will be like "what are we supposed to do now?". Besides the longer you wait the more things cost (especially the labour required to build a power plant).

well ... 25 years is easily reached assuming we implement a comprehensive plan ... put the money you would save in building one nuclear reactor and let ingenuity take place ... look at what the oil embargo of 73 did for fuel efficiency in cars ...

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

why should I repeat everything mamma is saying? he has owned you this whole time. what makes it even funnier is that everything mamma posts is pure common sense. something you are severely lacking.

like he said. step out of the theoretical world and join our side.

obviously, i would expect you to say something like this ... absolve yourself from actually having to say anything of relevance ... if what you say is true - why post at all other then to antagonize and be a prick? ... to give you perspective - i can jump into a conversation you are having with someone and type essentially the same words - what does it accomplish? ... think about it ...

in any case - we all live in our own worlds - i take some comfort in knowing it isn't the same as yours ...

tybird

polaris wrote:

ok ... i got thru the first few and they all reference the same study and say the same thing ...

as with any development - site selection is critical - obviously, if you are building in a nesting ground - it will be impactful however, i think we are discussing mortality rates with birds ... they are relatively low ...

plus, some of those studies were conducted a while ago - in many instances now - during peak migratory periods - turbines are shut down for those periods to further reduce the risk ...

http://www.currykerlinger.com/windpower.htm

A mouthpiece for the wind industry, nice touch. :rolleyes:

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

obviously, i would expect you to say something like this ... absolve yourself from actually having to say anything of relevance ... if what you say is true - why post at all other then to antagonize and be a prick? ... to give you perspective - i can jump into a conversation you are having with someone and type essentially the same words - what does it accomplish? ... think about it ...

in any case - we all live in our own worlds - i take some comfort in knowing it isn't the same as yours ...

I try to debate with people who at least can recognize common sense.

in the decades to come, we will not be able to survive on conserving and wind power alone. oil will be gone. coal and gas are also limited resources but more importantly destroy the ozone layer. so those are out. that leaves us with renewables and nuclear power. we are going to need both.

you keep falling back to the fact that everyone on this earth is going to conserve 10%. lets just assume thats not going to happen. for some odd reason you do. try and deal with facts or "worst case scenarios". otherwise its like debating with someone who is trying to convince me we will live on mars in the next 50 years. its not going to happen.

810wmb

dude, you mean we're not gonna live on mars?

bummer

mammasan

polaris wrote:

there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...

maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...

the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...

I believe there is a need to build next generation nuclear plants. We need to start weening ourselves off of oil like yesterday. We already know that renewable energy sources will not be enough to satisfy our energy needs even with conservation. Why wait till the oil supply starts dwindling or till oil reached $150 a barrel. Next generation nuclear plants will take about 10 years to construct so we are already behind the ball. The more we wait the worse our energy situation will become. To state that we should just wait and conserve and then see what happens 10 years down the road is simply irresponsible in my mind. There is no way in heaven or hell that renewable alternative energy will be capable of carrying the entire energy burden for this country, specially in large urban centers and industrial centers. The kilowatt output is just not suffiecient enough. Next generation reactors are safer, more effecient, and cleaner than current day reactors and they are ready to start being built now. Time for idealism is over. It's time to face reality that nuclear power is a necessity and we need to get moving before we really fuck ourselves. We need to start replacing coal, gas, and oil fire power stations with renewable energy and nuclear power plants. Conservation and renwables alone are not the answer.

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

I try to debate with people who at least can recognize common sense.

in the decades to come, we will not be able to survive on conserving and wind power alone. oil will be gone. coal and gas are also limited resources but more importantly destroy the ozone layer. so those are out. that leaves us with renewables and nuclear power. we are going to need both.

you keep falling back to the fact that everyone on this earth is going to conserve 10%. lets just assume thats not going to happen. for some odd reason you do. try and deal with facts or "worst case scenarios". otherwise its like debating with someone who is trying to convince me we will live on mars in the next 50 years. its not going to happen.

They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.

Kel Varnsen

spiral out wrote:

They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.

They already have that, they are called black outs (or to a lesser extent rolling blackouts). From a purely annoyance factor shutting off power would lead to things like traffic lights going out, spoiled food in refrigerators, cooking being ruined as electric ovens and stoves shut off and every clock in your house needing to be reset. The thing about power is a majority of the time we have enough capacity to meet demand (right now at least, the future is a whole different story), but it is that couple of hours of the day on the hottest day of the year where demand goes to an all time high. Those would be the only times you would need to worry about it and you can’t really cut out people’s power when they need it the most. Switching it off when demand is low really wouldn't do anything but annoy people.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.

so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?

Didn't you know it's the corporations fault they we have a need for energy at all. I love how people blame corporations at every single turn. Maybe people should realize that the greatest demand on our energy grid comes from home heating and air conditioning not the big bad corporations.

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?

No the corps need the power.

But then Kel made the point of fridges and cooking which was not somthing i gave thought to. We could have other means to power traffic lights, like generators or wind turbines.

I'm not really for or against nuclear power, it's not something i have really read up on, so haven't formed an opinion.

But i think we expect things to just be there and thats not good.

polaris

tybird wrote:

A mouthpiece for the wind industry, nice touch. :rolleyes:

uhh ... did you read these consultants credentials? ... also, they highlight the same problematic site as the papers you mentioned ...

polaris

mammasan wrote:

I believe there is a need to build next generation nuclear plants. We need to start weening ourselves off of oil like yesterday. We already know that renewable energy sources will not be enough to satisfy our energy needs even with conservation. Why wait till the oil supply starts dwindling or till oil reached $150 a barrel. Next generation nuclear plants will take about 10 years to construct so we are already behind the ball. The more we wait the worse our energy situation will become. To state that we should just wait and conserve and then see what happens 10 years down the road is simply irresponsible in my mind. There is no way in heaven or hell that renewable alternative energy will be capable of carrying the entire energy burden for this country, specially in large urban centers and industrial centers. The kilowatt output is just not suffiecient enough. Next generation reactors are safer, more effecient, and cleaner than current day reactors and they are ready to start being built now. Time for idealism is over. It's time to face reality that nuclear power is a necessity and we need to get moving before we really fuck ourselves. We need to start replacing coal, gas, and oil fire power stations with renewable energy and nuclear power plants. Conservation and renwables alone are not the answer.

if i'm not mistaken - you are voting for ron paul are you not? ... if so, is that your realism at work or your idealism?

the difference is - is that your concept of inevitability is much different then miine ... we cannot continue to live the way we are ... it's as simple as that - if you think the fix is pouring tons of money into something that is unsustainable - i respectfully disagree ...

and my attitude isn't a wait and see ... it's in conjunction with energy plans developed by numerous organizations ... that secure energy needs into the future while weening ourselves from greenhouse gas/polluting sources ...

mammasan

polaris wrote:

if i'm not mistaken - you are voting for ron paul are you not? ... if so, is that your realism at work or your idealism?

the difference is - is that your concept of inevitability is much different then miine ... we cannot continue to live the way we are ... it's as simple as that - if you think the fix is pouring tons of money into something that is unsustainable - i respectfully disagree ...

and my attitude isn't a wait and see ... it's in conjunction with energy plans developed by numerous organizations ... that secure energy needs into the future while weening ourselves from greenhouse gas/polluting sources ...

My support of Ron Paul is my realism. The reality that the US can longer operate as it has and that Ron Paul is the only candidate who openly admits to this and is the only one willing to address the problem.

The problem with these energy policies is that they are unrealistic. They are based off the theory that people will reduce consumption by 10%. You cannot base an energy policy off of that because you cannot control people's consumption. You need to creat a policy that has the ability to grow as consumption will and can provide energy, free of interruption, to meet the demand. A policy based on conservation and renewable energy sources cannot meet that. That is where the need for a consistant source comes in to pick up the slack for renewables. That source is nuclear. It may not be as clean as solar, wind, etc... but it is far more reliable and can be the back up to periods when renewables fall short of demand because of weather, ie windless days, nighttime, and/or cloudy/rainy days or fall short because they simply lack the ability to generate enough kilowatts to meet demand.

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

The problem with these energy policies is that they are unrealistic. They are based off the theory that people will reduce consumption by 10%. You cannot base an energy policy off of that because you cannot control people's consumption. You need to creat a policy that has the ability to grow as consumption will and can provide energy, free of interruption, to meet the demand. A policy based on conservation and renewable energy sources cannot meet that. That is where the need for a consistant source comes in to pick up the slack for renewables. That source is nuclear. It may not be as clean as solar, wind, etc... but it is far more reliable and can be the back up to periods when renewables fall short of demand because of weather, ie windless days, nighttime, and/or cloudy/rainy days or fall short because they simply lack the ability to generate enough kilowatts to meet demand.

Agreed. You can legislate energy conservation. The problem is unless you want to take a super hard line (like where you limit the amount of kids people can have which would be political suicide if anyone tried it), there is no way you can use legislation to limit population growth. So even if you were able to use laws to get a 10% drop in energy use per household, if your population goes up by 10% you are still in a situation where you need more power.

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Agreed. You can legislate energy conservation. The problem is unless you want to take a super hard line (like where you limit the amount of kids people can have which would be political suicide if anyone tried it), there is no way you can use legislation to limit population growth. So even if you were able to use laws to get a 10% drop in energy use per household, if your population goes up by 10% you are still in a situation where you need more power.

True that and I don't believe that the government has any business in legislating the energy consumption of it's people.