View Full Version : The Goremons and alternative energy.

05-25-2010, 10:24 AM
Do not be fooled by the left's current bleating for wind power. Prior to the oil spill they opposed it vigorously, and I have no doubt they will again as soon as the spill recedes from the headlines.

The reality is that the far left has a long, broad, and deep history of opposing anything which promotes capitalism and empowers the individual with liberty ... which BTW lessens the powers of their ultimate God, the state.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My name is John Droz, jr, and I’m a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. I’m a member of the Sierra Club, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and the Resident’s Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, among others.

The main point of all of my documents is to educate citizens about the basics of industrial wind power, a highly complex technical matter. [A major belief of mine is the KISS (Keep It Simple) philosophy, and my writings attempt to incorporate that principle.]

What then? The objective would be for educated citizens to demand that their government only support (and allow on the grid) energy solutions that have been verified as legitimate using scientific methodology.

That is my key message here: we do have serious energy (and environmental) problems, and we should insist on Sound Scientific Solutions for such matters.

[Note 1: Wind energy is the more technically correct term, but since most citizens are more familiar with the phrase wind power, I will use the latter here.]
[Note 2: This is not a NIMBY issue for me, as no wind power projects are proposed for my community.]
[Note 3: “Industrial wind power” refers to large scale ventures designed to provide electrical power on a commercial basis. This is an entirely different product (for several technical reasons) from home or boat based wind power generators, which can sometimes make economic sense.]

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The ONLY legitimate reason industrial wind power should exist today is for it to live up to its promoter’s assurances that it will meaningfully (and affordably) help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2). However (since neither one of these conditions are being met), in almost all cases, wind power development is instead sold to a community based on the financial incentives offered by the developers.</span>

This, of course, is a completely different and unrelated consideration. As the picture on the right shows, the only thing green in this whole matter is the substantial profit being made by the developers and their paid supporters. So begins a series of serious incongruities.

It is an unfortunate indictment of our society today that so many important decisions are primarily based on “what’s in it financially for me.” One obvious consequence of this shortsighted and selfish perspective is that we get what we deserve.

To those people who say wind power is good because it brings money to their community, then we would expect them to be leading the charge promoting other local economic developments that would also bring money to their community, like: a regional landfill, a chemical plant, a prison for terrorists, etc.

I am STRONGLY in favor of reducing the pollutants of fossil fuel power facilities (like coal), and of aggressively investigating other good options for producing electricity. My main concern is that we should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — like some of the alternatives being promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.

A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source! In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits. (See near the bottom of this page for status of Common Sense.)

Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:

a) its technical performance, b) the economics of the power produced, and c) its FULL environmental impact.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.</span>

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/articles.html)


05-26-2010, 04:59 AM
But some will say, "El Dub ... even though the left is dishonest on wind energy, aren't all the hippie type and tree hugging leftists just in love with solar energy?"

Well, not if you listen to their reps in the senate:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AMBOY, Calif. — <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.</span>

But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants are likely to be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy. ...

The federal government made a competing commitment in 2005, though, when <span style='font-size: 14pt'>President George W. Bush ordered that renewable energy production be accelerated on public lands, including the Catellus holdings.</span>

The presentation over, the entourage rolled on to the next solar project site to hear the developer’s pitch. Mrs. Feinstein gave the developers a hearing but was not moved by their arguments, according to five people present on the tour. The senator seemed concerned about the visual effect of huge solar farms on Route 66, the highway that runs through the Mojave, they said. ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Another project, a huge 12,000-acre solar farm by Tessera Solar, was canceled last week, and the company cited Mrs. Feinstein’s opposition.</span>

Steven L. Kline, chief sustainability officer for Pacific Gas and Electric, called the proposed monument “prime territory” for solar development and noted that the loss of the planned solar projects would hurt his company’s efforts to comply with state renewable energy mandates. The utility was planning a solar farm in the monument area. ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California desert,” Mrs. Feinstein said in a statement. “This legislation strikes a careful balance between these sometimes competing concerns.” <span style="color: #3333FF"> That's actually funny, problem being that the double thinking Obamatronic brains implanted in the nutty 25% of the electorate will nod their collectivist heads in unison over it.</span></span> ...</div></div>

Now ... if we can't build solar plants in the middle of the desert, where are we going to build them?

These people are obviously not environmentalists ... they are anti-capitalist statists.

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/energy-environment/22solar.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=business)

05-27-2010, 05:34 AM
But El Dubb, with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about greenhouse gas emissions ... surely the left is behind atomic power?

Sorry, aren't ... never were ... probably never will be:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">May 2, 1977: 1,414 protesters were arrested at the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire.[39][37]

June 1978: some 12,000 people attended a protest at Seabrook.[37]

August 1978: almost 500 people were arrested for protesting at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California.[40]

March 28, 1979: The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, began undergoing what would become the most famous nuclear accident in U.S. history. The accident triggered protests around the world[29] and enhanced the credibility of anti-nuclear groups, who predicted an accident.[41]

April 8, 1979: 30,000 people marched in San Francisco to support shutting down the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.[42]

May 6, 1979: an estimated 70,000 people, including the governor of California, attended a march and rally against nuclear power in Washington, D.C.[42][43]

June 2, 1979: about 500 people were arrested for protesting construction of the Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant in Oklahoma.[37][44]

June 3, 1979: some 15,000 people attended a rally at the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island, New York, and about 600 were arrested.[45]

June 30, 1979: about 38,000 people attended a protest rally at Diablo Canyon.[46]

1979: Abalone Alliance members held a 38-day sit-in in the Californian Governor Jerry Brown's office to protest continued operation of Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, which was a duplicate of the Three Mile Island facility.[47] In 1989, Sacramento voters voted to shut down the Rancho Seco power plant.[48]

September 23, 1979: Almost 200,000 people attended the nation's largest antinuclear rally to date, staged on the then-empty north end of the Battery Park City landfill in New York City.[49] The New York rally was held in conjunction with a series of nightly “No Nukes” concerts given at Madison Square Garden from September 19 through 23 by Musicians United for Safe Energy.
June 22, 1980: about 15,000 people attended a protest near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California.[37]

September 1981: more than 900 protesters were arrested at Diablo Canyon.[50]

May 1984: about 130 demonstrators showed up for start-up day at Diablo Canyon, and five were arrested.[51]

1986: Hundreds of people walked from Los Angeles to Washington DC in what is referred to as the Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament; the march took nine months.[52]

February 6, 1987: More than 400 people were arrested at the Nevada Test Site, when nearly 2,000 demonstrators, including six members of Congress, held a rally to protest nuclear weapons testing.[53]

June 5, 1989: hundreds of demonstrators at Seabrook Station nuclear power plant protested against the plant's first low-power testing, and the police arrested 627 people for trespassing.[54]

April 20, 1992: 493 anti-nuclear protesters were arrested on misdemeanor charges, as demonstrators clashed with guards at an annual Easter demonstration against weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site.[55]

May 1, 2005: Anti-nuclear/anti-war march past the UN in New York, 60 years after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[56][57]

October 16, 2006: 26 people were arrested outside the Brattleboro offices of Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear; the demonstration drew about 200 people.[58]

April 2009: About 150 activists marched against the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and to urge lawmakers to back development of clean energy sources such as wind power and solar power; the marchers had gathered 12,000 signatures in support of closing Vermont Yankee.[59][60] </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States)


05-27-2010, 08:58 PM

Wait! Wait! Wrong song!