Jump to content

Alternative Energy


southsideirish71

Recommended Posts

1146131293_8451.jpg

Wind Turbines are a bit too close Teddys home

 

 

 

Bass said the Cape Wind project has been treated differently in Congress because powerful lawmakers and special interest lobbyists vacation on Cape Cod and treasure the ocean views.

 

''It's odd that the people who are against it are the people who have [scenic] views," Bass said. ''I'm sorry about that, but the project ought to rise or fall on its merits."

 

 

So we dont want oil because its bad, and we dont want nuclear power because its bad also, and now we dont want Windmils. So I guess we are against electricity then. Back up the truck, turn off the internet, lets go back to the caves.

Edited by southsideirish71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the ones that really pisses me off about some Democrats, including specifically the Kennedy's and Kerry.

 

There is basically no better place along the entire U.S. East Coast for a wind farm than off cape cod. None at all. Best wind, easiest access, etc.

 

But because there are so many rich people in the area, it's stuck in the courts and Congress, despite repeated efforts to get it started. Those rich people want nothing to do with wind turbines a good distance from their shoreline.

 

I don't know what the worst part about it is...the fact that all of their excuses for why they shouldn't be there are about 79% as stupid as the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq, or the fact that basically every other potential wind farm developer on the East Coast has been sitting around for years waiting to see what happens with this one, because if NIMBYism is allowed to work to stop a wind farm here, there's no reason to invest in a wind farm in any of the other locals on the East Coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There definitely should be wind farms of the coast of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and the Mass dems in Congress and the rest of the NIMBYs are selfish fools for opposing them. We should also have oil rigs off the coast of Florida, but for tourism-related reasons, the Governor of Florida, among other Floridians, doesn't want them there.

 

What's the Governor's name again? I forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 10:47 AM)
There definitely should be wind farms of the coast of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and the Mass dems in Congress and the rest of the NIMBYs are selfish fools for opposing them.  We should also have oil rigs off the coast of Florida, but for tourism-related  reasons, the Governor of Florida, among other Floridians, doesn't want them there. 

 

What's the Governor's name again?  I forget.

 

 

Too bad we care too much about Cariboo, 4 eskimos, a seal, 2 polar bears and a slab of ice in Alaska, because I hear they have oil up there also. Plus a pipeline to bring it home. But santa would be mad if Rudolf had to fly over an oil rig.

 

 

OMG The poor cariboo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 10:58 AM)
Too bad we care too much about Cariboo, 4 eskimos, a seal, 2 polar bears and a slab of ice in Alaska, because I hear they have oil up there also.  Plus a pipeline to bring it home. But santa would be mad if Rudolf had to fly over an oil rig. 

OMG The poor cariboo

 

Actually the caribou have increased dramatically since the pipeline was built.

 

As for an extra million barrels of oil a day.... who needs that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 09:01 AM)
1146131293_8451.jpg

Wind Turbines are a bit too close Teddys home

Bass said the Cape Wind project has been treated differently in Congress because powerful lawmakers and special interest lobbyists vacation on Cape Cod and treasure the ocean views.

 

''It's odd that the people who are against it are the people who have [scenic] views," Bass said. ''I'm sorry about that, but the project ought to rise or fall on its merits."

So we dont want oil because its bad, and we dont want nuclear power because its bad also, and now we dont want Windmils.  So I guess we are against electricity then.  Back up the truck, turn off the internet, lets go back to the caves.

 

 

lol

 

i've read about this before, it's the perfect example of who the democrats really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 02:25 PM)
lol

 

i've read about this before, it's the perfect example of who the democrats really are.

The perfect example of how Kennedy and Kerry really are. Sorry, i can't accept that as an indictment of an entire party.

 

Another good place for a wind farm - well offshore on the Great Lakes. Less ship traffic, plenty of wind, major cities nearby who need power... and Hudson Bay is even better. If we can just find a way to store the generated power chemically, we could put these things in the middle of the ocean and have them generate hydrogen for fuel cells. Just need to go get it, or have a flexible pipeline dropped to the floor of the lakebed. Neat trick, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 03:03 PM)
There are some windfarm projects on the Jersey shore. They haven't diminished tourism at all.

Dude, their excuses are complete nonsense. At the distance those things would be at from the shore, they would look like they were about a half inch tall. You could barely even see them. There would be no noise - they'd be too far away. Just having buildings in the area kills more birds than those things would. And some people have complained about the possibility of an oil spill from the lubricating oil, yet there's a shipyard or something a few miles down the coast which spilled vastly more oil than any of those turbines could ever spill a few years ago.

 

Every excuse they give about this project is shear nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 02:31 PM)
The perfect example of how Kennedy and Kerry really are.  Sorry, i can't accept that as an indictment of an entire party.

 

 

 

 

well, Kennedy is their most visible senator and Kerry was their nomination for president.

Edited by mr_genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*waits for another lame Chappaquiddick joke*

 

Kennedy would not be the most visible Democratic Senator.

 

I'd say you hear more about what Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer and even Joe Lieberman does on a regular basis than Kennedy.

 

And yeah, they both should shut up and frankly put a goddamn windmill in their compounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 04:10 PM)
I'd say you hear more about what Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer and even Joe Lieberman does on a regular basis than Kennedy.

 

And yeah, they both should shut up and frankly put a goddamn windmill in their compounds.

 

na, Kennedy seems to be the 'main guy' in the senate for the dems. The only one close would be Hillary.

 

and i agree, they need to shut up about the windmills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 10:47 AM)
There definitely should be wind farms of the coast of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and the Mass dems in Congress and the rest of the NIMBYs are selfish fools for opposing them.  We should also have oil rigs off the coast of Florida, but for tourism-related  reasons, the Governor of Florida, among other Floridians, doesn't want them there. 

 

What's the Governor's name again?  I forget.

 

 

Whats even better is the Chinese are drilling for oil just outside US territorial waters in that area. I guess if we dont want to drill for the oil the Chinese would be happy to take it all instead.

 

 

:rolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 01:16 AM)
Whats even better is the Chinese are drilling for oil just outside US territorial waters in that area.  I guess if we dont want to drill for the oil the Chinese would be happy to take it all instead.

:rolly

what's your source for this info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 06:52 PM)
what's your source for this info?

Wow, helping out Nuke, this is almost Fun.

 

Cuba has signed agreements with companies in several countries, including Spain, Canada and China, to explore potential oil and gas fields offshore -- where industry analysts have suggested there are at least 1.6 billion barrels of crude-oil reserves. So far those exploration efforts have proven disappointing, but efforts continue.

 

Under a 1977 treaty, Cuba's ''exclusive economic zone'' -- where it has free rein to extract resources -- extends about 50 miles from its own coast, halfway between Cuba and Key West, in the Florida Straits, said Kirby Jones, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association, which promotes the expansion of trade with Cuba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew that Castro was drilling as far offshore as he could, but I didn't realize he was doing it as a proxy for China. That's just great.

 

As far as ANWR is concerned, we'll be drilling there at some point, won't we? Might as well just bite the bullet and get it over with. Do what we can to minimize damage, but start the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 02:37 AM)
Wow, helping out Nuke, this is almost Fun.

 

 

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 03:21 AM)
Wow!  Working together with Balta?!  Say it aint so!

 

I hadn't read the article you quoted but they were talking about it at length on Fox News earlier this evening.

:lolhitting

 

Soxtalk is the greatest, and this is why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 01:12 PM)
Actually the caribou have increased dramatically since the pipeline was built.

 

As for an extra million barrels of oil a day.... who needs that?

 

Yeah, for a paltry 215 days. The amount of oil that could be recovered from ANWR would be so negligible on oil and gas prices that it'd be a complete waste. If you want massive amount of oil, it's in our own backyard in the form of Candaian oil sand and shale, anyways.

 

But, wait, a few days ago everyone hopped aboard the alternative fuels bandwagon and now is up for drilling in ANWR.

 

SHOCKING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 08:18 AM)
Yeah, for a paltry 215 days. The amount of oil that could be recovered from ANWR would be so negligible on oil and gas prices that it'd be a complete waste. If you want massive amount of oil, it's in our own backyard in the form of Candaian oil sand and shale, anyways.

 

But, wait, a few days ago everyone hopped aboard the alternative fuels bandwagon and now is up for drilling in ANWR.

 

SHOCKING.

See, this is why I hate the entire ANWR debate. I don't know if I've ever, in my brief life, seen a more pointless debate.

 

The 215 day number is just a stupid number. Seriously, it's nonsense. That's the number you get if you take the estimates for every barrel in ANWR and pump them out at exactly the rate at which the U.S. consumes oil. Not at the maximum rate at which oil could be extracted, but at some artificially high rate that would never happen, which is done entirely to make it seem like the oil wouldn't last very long. In reality, you'd probably be able to pump a million barrels or so per day for about 25 years, give or take the exact amount in there (The maximum is about 15 billion barrels, the minimum could be vastly less than that, as happened in Central Asia.)

 

(the right has an equal number of falsehoods they spout about ANWR, I'll shoot those down when someone brings them up)

 

And while Canadian Oil Shale does have a ton of oil in it, it's not an easy process to extract it. The stuff is incredibly polluting, first of all, because you're using energy to do the work the earth does in turning oil shale into oil. It's also a gigantic operation, on the scale of some of the largest mining operations on earth already, and that's for only a few million BPD. It's also vastly more expensive than the Saudi LSC that we've been so addicted to, to the point that it's only become profitable in the last few years. So yes, it's there, but if you want it to completely supply America's demand for oil, well first of all we're going to never see snow again, but secondly, it's going to take an absolutely massive investment in infrastructure in order to pull enough out. On the scale of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, and probably a lot of time too. We just aren't anywhere close to being able to use that as our primary fuel source yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 03:18 PM)
Yeah, for a paltry 215 days. The amount of oil that could be recovered from ANWR would be so negligible on oil and gas prices that it'd be a complete waste. If you want massive amount of oil, it's in our own backyard in the form of Candaian oil sand and shale, anyways.

 

But, wait, a few days ago everyone hopped aboard the alternative fuels bandwagon and now is up for drilling in ANWR.

 

SHOCKING.

The initial estimates on Prudhoe Bay way back when were 'paltry' too... and it's still pumping quite a bit of oil the last time I checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...