On 11/5/09 12:58 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.



I vote for burying the nuke crap in JustHateaTosk's back yard, where it
won't do any genetic damage.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Gosh, with your vast knowledge, it shouldn't be hard for you to show
such a place.

I'd be very interested.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.

You folks take the cake.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting
hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease
kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid
of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did
that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next
election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in
the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.


?? Are you saying we shouldn't try to ensure proper long-term storage for
nuclear waste? And, are you now claiming that adverse, human caused, climate
change is happening?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24 pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have
our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the
Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to
that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Gosh, with your vast knowledge, it shouldn't be hard for you to show
such a place.

I'd be very interested.


There are something like 4000 near Palm Springs.

There are nearly 5000 at Altamont Pass.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article
77l6f5l26tavkfmujjnpsf996v
,

om says...

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

Bunch of bull****.. As of
now, thousands of
facilities move hot stuff,
how many accidents have you
heard of. Oh, I know, only
spent stuff will cause
crashes.. But think of all
the jobs saves as these
thousands of facilities now
have to store and guard it
separately... snerk The
security of these thousands
of plants is in the
billions...


It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.

You folks take the cake.



--
Wafa free again.

On 11/5/09 6:13 PM, Tosk wrote:


On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

Bunch of bull****.. As of
now, thousands of
facilities move hot stuff,
how many accidents have you
heard of. Oh, I know, only
spent stuff will cause
crashes.. But think of all
the jobs saves as these
thousands of facilities now
have to store and guard it
separately...snerk The
security of these thousands
of plants is in the
billions...





Oh, look...Tuskie is now an expert on the transportion and storage of
nuclear waste! Why, I'll bet he majored in nuclear physics until he was
kicked out of high school.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:50:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting
hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease
kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid
of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did
that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next
election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in
the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.


?? Are you saying we shouldn't try to ensure proper long-term storage for
nuclear waste? And, are you now claiming that adverse, human caused, climate
change is happening?

Please learn to read.

Sheeesh!
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/5/09 6:13 PM, Tosk wrote:


On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

Bunch of bull****.. As of
now, thousands of
facilities move hot stuff,
how many accidents have you
heard of. Oh, I know, only
spent stuff will cause
crashes.. But think of all
the jobs saves as these
thousands of facilities now
have to store and guard it
separately...snerk The
security of these thousands
of plants is in the
billions...





Oh, look...Tuskie is now an expert on the transportion and storage of
nuclear waste! Why, I'll bet he majored in nuclear physics until he was
kicked out of high school.



I guess using the word "apparently" was too complicated.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:52:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24 pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have
our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the
Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to
that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Gosh, with your vast knowledge, it shouldn't be hard for you to show
such a place.

I'd be very interested.


There are something like 4000 near Palm Springs.

There are nearly 5000 at Altamont Pass.

Did they add a few thousand since July?

http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=California

lol
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H