Welcome to PatsFans.com

Romney's Wind Energy Stance

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by scout, Aug 7, 2012.

  1. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    The answer my friend is blowing in the.... can't wait to hear Mitt's response on this one.

    Romney
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2012
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    Good wind power is inefficient and unreliable. Glad to see he is taking this stance instead of pandering.
  3. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    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.
  4. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    Wind energy blows.
  5. woolster22

    woolster22 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    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.

    Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
  6. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    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.
  7. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    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.

    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?

    Source link - FactCheck.org : Hot Air on Wind Energy
  8. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    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.
  9. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    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 sh!ts about the dark-ages sh!thole 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.
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance




    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.

    Energy Tribune- Understanding E = mc2
  11. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    13 - IMHO we have to look at the cost-benefit of our fossil fuels. Cool it will last us a few hundred years, but at what cost to the environment and town's and cities? I mean its awesome we have tons of Nat Gas, but how do you get it to market? Fracking seems to be a disaster and causes as many problems as it fixes. Is there a safe, clean alternative? Coal is dirty, but how truely clean is clean coal? And while I think we should at least give an honest look at drilling more of our own oil, realistically weighing the cost to the local environment is important. I dont want to leave my kids an America without pristine environments in some places. Do you?

    Not to mention, again, the internal combustion engine is more than a hundred years old. We can't find a true replacement for that? Sh!t we have replaced LPs with 8 tracks with cassettes with CDs with MDs and finally with Mp3s. That is 7 technological jumps in 90 years or so?

    The first step in the process is daunting to be sure. Alternative energy requires a paradigm shift for every one of us in this country. I personally am open to a phased approach.

    Example -
    Oil, Nat Gas and Coal account for X percent of energy at year 1, X-Y percent by year 5 and is phased to the lowest point by year 10.

    While at the same time Wind, Geo, Nuclear and any other form we can find ramps up at the same time.

    America is Team "we get things done". I mean we went from dreams of going to space to landing a man on the moon in less than 10 years. You're telling me we can't find alternatives to 19th century fuels? The truth is we can but deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, we don't want to.

    The technology aspect should take the least time if we were willing to throw the Fed behind it ala the Interstate Highway project. The more time consuming part will be infrastructure.

    In closing - "We have enough fossil fuels (Nat Gas, Coal and Oil) to last a few hundred years." isn't a reason to not pursue alternative energy and energy independence. It wasn't a reason 40 years ago either.

    This can has been kicked down the road since the 70s....the intersection of time, geopolitics and the environment say that it's time to start being serious about it.

    Just my 2 cents.

    D
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    There is no problem with fracking the EPA tried to make claims about a problem in Wyoming and withdrew it.

    CO2 isn't an issue and we have by and large solved the particulate emissions problems.

    If you are interested in the eco system see the type of waste generated by the mining of rare earth elements in China and the toxicity ot batteries and their disposal.
  13. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Re: Romney's Wind Engergy Stance

    I lived in one of the most polluted places on Earth for almost a third of my life, I know what that looks like, not to mention visiting China 12 times.

    Forgive me if I expect more of us.
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    F-ck wind...............
  15. woolster22

    woolster22 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    You can't be serious...millions of gallons of water (per well mind you) go into the ground with hundreds of chemicals, some of them considered proprietary, and therefore undisclosed. About a dozen are known carcinogens.

    The process results in what is essentially local tremors, but on an incredible scale (hundreds of thousands of wells in many states). We have a ***** of a time realising unintended consequences (see introducing species to an area to control a deemed pest), and this would make me nervous, but I dont know much about geology.

    I doubt the epa got involved, as they have no power given the exemptions Cheney pushed through in 04. The damages are real. If they weren't, gas companies wouldn't be shelling out cash for non disclosure agreements.

    China is ****ed. Plain and simple. Underground aquifers doing at rates of ten to twenty feet per year, villages at the end of the yangze (probably not close on spelling, the yellow river I believe) river have cancer rates ten times the global average. During the Olympics they were diverting water to Beijing for fountains, and left much of their farm land in drought conditions.

    Just because one country is worse, doesn't mean that what we are doing is acceptable.

    Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2012
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13


    Fracturing has ben used safely for 60+ years.


    There are people who oppose all sources of energy.


    Natural Gas Wind Solar you name it someone has a reason not to use it.


    Many are based on bad/no science.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>