ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Good wind power is inefficient and unreliable. Glad to see he is taking this stance instead of pandering.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Good wind power is inefficient and unreliable. Glad to see he is taking this stance instead of pandering.
Nice of you to say so, because good ole' Mitt has never waffled. Like an Oak! Stands firm on his convictions. So, when he visits Iowa (swing state) he will stand firm and tell those folks wind power is inefficient and unreliable.
It is at a minimum a step in the right direction. Oil, natural gas, coal all need to be replaced in some fashion. Oil is largely imported and finite, coal is finite and the same with NG. All I'd them are harmful to the environment. The whole tracking process is absurd to be frank. They pump chemicals and sand thousands of feet into the earth to break up shale and release the gas. In 2004 they received an exemption from the clean air and drinking water drinking water acts.
In places where this drilling has taken place some citizens have been able to light their tap water on fire. Turn the faucet on, hold a flame and be quick to turn the faucet off before you torch your house. Numerous known carcinogens (and they may be the friendly chemicals going into the ground) feet pumped down, along with volatile hydrocarbons, formaldehyde (or some minor variation), all get pumped into the ground without regulation or over sight.
Of the millions of gallons of water/chem/sand slurry pumped into the ground, about half finds its way to the surface...where it is dumped into what is essentially a holding pond, free to leech back into the ground and water shed. Some companies employ the practice of misting this contaminated water into the air, so that it will evaporate faster...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to cut the dependence on foreign oil, however, at the coast of our water supply, hell no. Is the process cheap and effective? Apparently. But when people living close to wells are suffering brain damage from toxins being released into the air and from drinking contaminated water, what good is it?
I highly recommend the documentary gasland. Was on hbo a while ago and is incredibly disturbing.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to cut the dependence on foreign oil, however, at the coast of our water supply, hell no. Is the process cheap and effective? Apparently. But when people living close to wells are suffering brain damage from toxins being released into the air and from drinking contaminated water, what good is it?
I highly recommend the documentary gasland. Was on hbo a while ago and is incredibly disturbing.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
The point of living close to the areas brings, bingo. In other words, we are for this energy because we do not get any of the negative consequences (not in my backyard).
The naysayers of wind energy are turning a blind eye toward innovation. Some of us, are just wanting research and development in this area. Special interest groups are supplying propaganda. Really, because if one were to hop into a time travel machine and tells society of mars, the moon, computers, airplanes, atomic bomb, etc. you'd be heading to Belleview. Well not Belleview, as that is too progressive, probably prison.
The point of living close to the areas brings, bingo. In other words, we are for this energy because we do not get any of the negative consequences (not in my backyard).
The naysayers of wind energy are turning a blind eye toward innovation. Some of us, are just wanting research and development in this area. Special interest groups are supplying propaganda. Really, because if one were to hop into a time travel machine and tells society of mars, the moon, computers, airplanes, atomic bomb, etc. you'd be heading to Belleview. Well not Belleview, as that is too progressive, probably prison.
Scout - quick discussion point on the naysayers.
While I am all for revamping the energy sources we currently use (oil, coal) with cleaner renewable resources (wind, geothermal and if we ever found a way to deal with the waste, nuclear although truth be told I would prefer we spend $$ on cold fusion technology) is it really that feasible to think wind could play that big a part in our energy policy?
From what I can gather (link below for further reading) the DOE did some research on Wind and whether it could feasibly replace coal. The numbers are sorta staggering to be honest. Snippets below.
Quote:
Another way to look at the practical problem of locating wind turbines is given in a Department of Energy report from last May. It concluded that to produce enough wind power to satisfy only 20 percent of U.S. demand (less than half of what coal plants fulfill) would require land-based turbines and related infrastructure that would take up an area "slightly less than the area of Rhode Island."
So to get a wind farm(s) to produce just half of the energy we currently get from coal, it would take an area the size of RI. Does that seem like the most realistic and sound policy?
Another snippet:
Quote:
But what would it take to go beyond 20 percent, and replace all the coal-fired plants that now account for nearly half the nation’s electricity? And to do that using only wind farms in waters off the U.S. East Coast?
The highest-producing offshore wind turbine installation in operation, Nysted Wind Farm in Denmark, has 72 turbines and a capacity of 165.6 megawatts. Assuming that 40 percent of that capacity can actually be realized, we figure those turbines put out an average of about 66 megawatt hours in an hour. Producing enough power to account for all of what is now put out by coal-fired plants in the U.S. would require 3,540 installations of that size, comprising well over 250,000 individual turbines.
So to make off shore wind truly feasible (and replace all coal) first would have to build the farms close enough to shore to a) not have the water be too deep (something like less than 30 meters +/- 120 feet and b) have them close enough to not need huge transmissions wires which add to the cost of the getting the product on the grid.
However there in lies the catch. MA is obviously one of our more liberal states, so one would assume would be all for wind, but in fact people generally aren't, because of the "aesthetic pollution" (a similar argument is made by many when it comes to nuke plants and oil refinery). Not too mention, what is the time frame for getting a quarter million turbines built and online?
I guess my question is, what can we really expect return wise (see energy produced) from wind? By all accounts it is an expensive process to get up and running and the rate of return (energy out/energy in) isnt that great (compared to cheap dirty alternatives - just a fact, not justifying cheap and dirty).
As I said, I am all for bringing our energy policy into the 21st century. We are still using "19th century technology" by and large in this country and pay the price for it in terms of economic prosperity, national security and the footprint we leave on this planet. I think our energy policy should incorporate all types of energy sources; including fission nuclear power.
I guess I'm just a pie in the sky type on this topic. Our history is loaded with examples of people getting together doing great things. Hell we went from being solely terrestrial based beings to the Saturn V in what 66 years? Why overly press on wind (what I would call a low hanging fruit)? Throw some brains and some federal bucks into cold fusion development.
We all talk about leaving our kids and their kids a better planet than we have. What better way to do that than to develop an energy source that is limitless (as matter in the universe is limitless) and produces no waste other than heat?
While I am all for revamping the energy sources we currently use (oil, coal) with cleaner renewable resources (wind, geothermal and if we ever found a way to deal with the waste, nuclear although truth be told I would prefer we spend $$ on cold fusion technology) is it really that feasible to think wind could play that big a part in our energy policy?
From what I can gather (link below for further reading) the DOE did some research on Wind and whether it could feasibly replace coal. The numbers are sorta staggering to be honest. Snippets below.
So to get a wind farm(s) to produce just half of the energy we currently get from coal, it would take an area the size of RI. Does that seem like the most realistic and sound policy?
Another snippet:
So to make off shore wind truly feasible (and replace all coal) first would have to build the farms close enough to shore to a) not have the water be too deep (something like less than 30 meters +/- 120 feet and b) have them close enough to not need huge transmissions wires which add to the cost of the getting the product on the grid.
However there in lies the catch. MA is obviously one of our more liberal states, so one would assume would be all for wind, but in fact people generally aren't, because of the "aesthetic pollution" (a similar argument is made by many when it comes to nuke plants and oil refinery). Not too mention, what is the time frame for getting a quarter million turbines built and online?
I guess my question is, what can we really expect return wise (see energy produced) from wind? By all accounts it is an expensive process to get up and running and the rate of return (energy out/energy in) isnt that great (compared to cheap dirty alternatives - just a fact, not justifying cheap and dirty).
As I said, I am all for bringing our energy policy into the 21st century. We are still using "19th century technology" by and large in this country and pay the price for it in terms of economic prosperity, national security and the footprint we leave on this planet. I think our energy policy should incorporate all types of energy sources; including fission nuclear power.
I guess I'm just a pie in the sky type on this topic. Our history is loaded with examples of people getting together doing great things. Hell we went from being solely terrestrial based beings to the Saturn V in what 66 years? Why overly press on wind (what I would call a low hanging fruit)? Throw some brains and some federal bucks into cold fusion development.
We all talk about leaving our kids and their kids a better planet than we have. What better way to do that than to develop an energy source that is limitless (as matter in the universe is limitless) and produces no waste other than heat?
You have a lot more knowledge on the subject then me. I don't know what the answer is, but any solution will have to be filtered with the bombardment of special interests and the not in my backyard fraction. I just know we can do better then fossil fuels, which if one really adds up the expenses (war, natural resouces, environment) it results in a lot more then the pump price.
Then, I look at the original title, and know Romney is not going to be the one who leads us, or even moves toward alternate energy.
You have a lot more knowledge on the subject then me. I don't know what the answer is, but any solution will have to be filtered with the bombardment of special interests and the not in my backyard fraction. I just know we can do better then fossil fuels, which if one really adds up the expenses (war, natural resouces, environment) it results in a lot more then the pump price.
Then, I look at the original title, and know Romney is not going to be the one who leads us, or even moves toward alternate energy.
Honestly I don't think there is "one right answer" on this topic...I think it is a multiple choice exercise, with Wind being one of the correct choices.
We can do much better than fossil fuels....I mean honestly at this point, what benefit does it have? Pricing wise it doesn't benefit the consumer, environmentally the issues are clear and it requires us to give two *****s about the dark-ages *****hole which is the ME.
To me it comes down to one thing, as long as producing fossil fuels continues to be a profit making machine for Exxon-Mobil et all, there will be no desire to pursue new forms of energy. And that is a situation which crosses the aisle. Our government is broken. Too much money and influence from too small a group of people/entities, not too mention being a politician is now a lucrative profession/ life long career when in reality it was and should have been a temporary form of civil service.
Pols are people too (and some, crappy people) and people are dumb like foxes....they wouldn't dare bite the hand the feeds them.
Honestly I don't think there is "one right answer" on this topic...I think it is a multiple choice exercise, with Wind being one of the correct choices.
We can do much better than fossil fuels....I mean honestly at this point, what benefit does it have? Pricing wise it doesn't benefit the consumer, environmentally the issues are clear and it requires us to give two *****s about the dark-ages *****hole which is the ME.
To me it comes down to one thing, as long as producing fossil fuels continues to be a profit making machine for Exxon-Mobil et all, there will be no desire to pursue new forms of energy. And that is a situation which crosses the aisle. Our government is broken. Too much money and influence from too small a group of people/entities, not too mention being a politician is now a lucrative profession/ life long career when in reality it was and should have been a temporary form of civil service.
Pols are people too (and some, crappy people) and people are dumb like foxes....they wouldn't dare bite the hand the feeds them.
We have enough fossil fuels (Nat Gas, Coal and Oil) to last a few hundred years. CO2 is not a pollutant it is required for plant growth.
The so called alternative energy sources will never provide enough energy to replace fossils while things like thorium & fusion reactors are worked out.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
5Likes
Romney's Wind Energy Stance
Linear Mode
