No cost to reducing emmissions?

[M.Dancer]

Posted 1/4/2005 11:17 PM Updated 1/5/2005 3:23 PM

Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

By John Ritter, USA TODAY

ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. — The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.

By Ben Margot, AP

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...ills-usat_x.htm

Thanks, but I gave up doing Woody's homework for him.......

[M.Dancer]

it's getting laughable in here

Yes.....you do provide comic relief

[ScottSA]

it's getting laughable in here

too bad the issue is one of life and death for the planet

So instead of laughing Woody, why don't you teach us all about non-polluting energy? Go ahead, this is your chance to show everyone to be "flat wrong".

[geoffrey]

again, flat out wrong --- the real bottom line is we can create enough electricity to meet our needs without causing pollution - and what is it that keeps us from doing so? fools who are trapped in backward thinking and luddite devotion to technologies that no longer serve, but in fact, hinder and hold back mankind

Wind power in Alberta is maxed out, anymore would risk system stability without additional import or fossil fuel generation capability.

Building windmills is nice (well, not for the thousands of birds and bats they slaughter, but hey, who cares about the birds), but you need to build a coal plant at the same time for when the wind isn't blowing.

There is no practical way to have 100% emissions free generation unless you go with nuclear... which is not feasible because of a limited fuel supply and the issue of how to get rid of waste that remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

[Guthrie]

again, flat out wrong --- the real bottom line is we can create enough electricity to meet our needs without causing pollution - and what is it that keeps us from doing so? fools who are trapped in backward thinking and luddite devotion to technologies that no longer serve, but in fact, hinder and hold back mankind

Wind power in Alberta is maxed out, anymore would risk system stability without additional import or fossil fuel generation capability.

Building windmills is nice (well, not for the thousands of birds and bats they slaughter, but hey, who cares about the birds), but you need to build a coal plant at the same time for when the wind isn't blowing.

There is no practical way to have 100% emissions free generation unless you go with nuclear... which is not feasible because of a limited fuel supply and the issue of how to get rid of waste that remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

between all the available alternative methods of producing electricity, OTEC, wave, geothermal, solar etc - we could be 70% emissions free in a matter of months --

Germany has a nice program for clean energy.

[B. Max]

between all the available alternative methods of producing electricity, OTEC, wave, geothermal, solar etc - we could be 70% emissions free in a matter of months --

Germany has a nice program for clean energy.

No you would be backrupt by then.

The charge time I quoted for the fancy golf cart was correct. There will only be a handful of people who will buy them, and after a time they will go extinct.

[Riverwind]

between all the available alternative methods of producing electricity, OTEC, wave, geothermal, solar etc - we could be 70% emissions free in a matter of months --

BS. Industry cannot move that fast even if there was an infinite amount of money.

[geoffrey]

between all the available alternative methods of producing electricity, OTEC, wave, geothermal, solar etc - we could be 70% emissions free in a matter of months --

Germany has a nice program for clean energy.

We'd also all be job free. Do you not realise how much of Canada's economy is directly and indirectly attributed to fossil fuels? That's all we have going for us right now.

It's not *cheap* to switch when you calculate the lost incomes, lost social programs (for you lefties), ect. ect..

[B. Max]

It's not *cheap* to switch when you calculate the lost incomes, lost social programs (for you lefties), ect. ect..

Yeah we could be just like the rest of the third world leftist run backwaters.

[Guthrie]

between all the available alternative methods of producing electricity, OTEC, wave, geothermal, solar etc - we could be 70% emissions free in a matter of months --

Germany has a nice program for clean energy.

We'd also all be job free. Do you not realise how much of Canada's economy is directly and indirectly attributed to fossil fuels? That's all we have going for us right now.

It's not *cheap* to switch when you calculate the lost incomes, lost social programs (for you lefties), ect. ect..

How many buggy whip makers are there in Canada? - You managed to switch from buggy industries, eh?

trying to stop progress by saying it's going to cost jobs is just the very definition of Luddite

"lost income, lost social programs" - actually there will be a net job increase and no effect on social programs at all -

[Hydraboss]

Are you like Poly's illegitimate half-brother? Have you ever heard of a guy called Newton?

Once upon a time, there were these really smart guys called scientists. Scientists set about to prove things by using other things called facts. One of the things they proved with these so-called facts was that you neither create nor destroy matter, only change it. Another crazy thing they proved with facts was that you cannot build a magical perpetual motion machine; it takes energy to make energy. Zero cumulative pollution energy generation is impossible. That, too, was proven using facts.

Did you read the thread on banks controlling the universe? It's really cool, and some other people like you hang out there.

[Guthrie]

Are you like Poly's illegitimate half-brother? Have you ever heard of a guy called Newton?

Once upon a time, there were these really smart guys called scientists. Scientists set about to prove things by using other things called facts. One of the things they proved with these so-called facts was that you neither create nor destroy matter, only change it. Another crazy thing they proved with facts was that you cannot build a magical perpetual motion machine; it takes energy to make energy. Zero cumulative pollution energy generation is impossible. That, too, was proven using facts.

Did you read the thread on banks controlling the universe? It's really cool, and some other people like you hang out there.

The first thing you need to learn is the difference between conservation of energy and zero pollution. No one is promoting any perpetual motion machine --- and it is just flat out inane to say "it takes energy to make energy," since energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Most important, the science you are attempting to cite here, has absolutely nothing to do with pollution.

Pollution is NOT an unavoidable consequence of energy use. Whoever sold you that bill of goods was not your friend.

[M.Dancer]

and it is just flat out inane to say "it takes energy to make energy," since energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Poor Woody......He just doesn't get it.

Woody, Fire is energy. You burn something to make fire......

Solar power is energy.....you burn, smelt, toxify something to make solar panels.........

Wind power is energy....you burn, smelt, toxify something to wind turbines.......

[B. Max]

Guthrie has listened to to many Art Bell programs.

[margrace]

It becomes obvious that there are posters on here who are instructed to deny, deny, deny global weather changes. There is no use debating with them because they have a mission, to do as they have been told.

[B. Max]

It becomes obvious that there are posters on here who are instructed to deny, deny, deny global weather changes. There is no use debating with them because they have a mission, to do as they have been told.

Here we go, get out the tinfoil hats and kool-aid.

[ScottSA]

It becomes obvious that there are posters on here who are instructed to deny, deny, deny global weather changes. There is no use debating with them because they have a mission, to do as they have been told.

Here we go, get out the tinfoil hats and kool-aid.

Shhhh...I'm still waiting for my check from the Deny Global Warming Bushitlerburton Foundation.

[Guthrie]

Guthrie has listened to to many Art Bell programs.

is this an effort to ignore the science? I've heard of Art Bell but have never listened to any of his programs.

Clean energy? does Bell talk about it? I thought he was into UFO's

the guy who talked about clean energy and who inspired me was Albert Einstein -- maybe you've heard of his approach to science???

[B. Max]

Guthrie has listened to to many Art Bell programs.

Clean energy? does Bell talk about it? I thought he was into UFO's

It's the same thing.

[Guthrie]

Guthrie has listened to to many Art Bell programs.

Clean energy? does Bell talk about it? I thought he was into UFO's

It's the same thing.

so, it's your ability to differentiate between the two which fails in this discussion

[Guthrie]

It becomes obvious that there are posters on here who are instructed to deny, deny, deny global weather changes. There is no use debating with them because they have a mission, to do as they have been told.

Are there members of this board who make a living from industrial polluters? Is that their issue, their own jobs? How sad for them

[M.Dancer]

It becomes obvious that there are posters on here who are instructed to deny, deny, deny global weather changes. There is no use debating with them because they have a mission, to do as they have been told.

Are there members of this board who make a living from industrial polluters? Is that their issue, their own jobs? How sad for them

Isn't it enough to be a joke? Must you try to be a fool too?

Still waiting for a source btw, that offers cars a cheap to own and run as conventional cares, as you ....claim!

[ScottSA]

the guy who talked about clean energy and who inspired me was Albert Einstein -- maybe you've heard of his approach to science???

Why not tell us all about Einstein's theories and how they relate to today's technology Woody?

[B. Max]

Are there members of this board who make a living from industrial polluters? Is that their issue, their own jobs? How sad for them

That would probably account for 3/4 of the country never mind this board.

Are there those on this board who contribute nothing, produce nothing of any real value, have no job and live off welfare.

All original wealth comes from the ground through four core industries without which there would be nothing else and all the retoric of the left wing lunatic fringe can not change that.

[noahbody]

If you work in a toy factory, it's a good idea not to try to ban the use of plastic. Canada's economy is fossil fuels. Take them out of the equation and Rod Black will be doing "save the children" from Canada.