NBC Showcases Man “Changing Parties” Over “Bush Energy Policies”

Media Research Center ^ | 12-5-03 | Medial Reseach Center

[Iconoclast2]

By niche source I mean less than 5% of the generating capacity. I used the term windmill loosely. I am, in fact, professionally involved with large scale wind farms, which I regard as generally wasting taxpayer funds.

[3Lean]

"has angered and now linked three very different interest groups: environmentalists, ranchers, and hunters.”

Any hunter or rancher who links up with the environmentalists is certifiably insane. That is like getting in a car with a suicide bomber because you are both heading for the same building.

[biblewonk]

My mind isn't right ? Who is it that wants to count on a source of power that is not reliable ? Ever been to Palm Springs ? About 1/3 of the windmills are operating on any given day, with or without the wind blowing. And than lets talk about the visual pollution of seeing thousands of 200 foot high windmills trashing up the landscape. What happens at night when the wind stops blowing, do you go back to candles and a fireplace ?

Yer mind still ain't right. If a single windmill could power the entire country half the time, and predictably due to weather forcasting, you still seem to be willing to write off the source completely. Me, I'd just as soon see that source of clean power used and conserve on the other sources of fuel need for the other plants when the wind is blowing.

Guess what, the wind is always blowing somewhere, therefore 3 such imaginary windmills could power the whole country all of the time. As it turns out, coal isn't really that horrible for the environment and hydro produces 10 percent of our needs pretty handily so we don't have to spend all of our money replacing them right now. But I and about 80 percent of the people anywhere near a windmill are very willing to see wind power start taking up more and more of the load.

[biblewonk]

By niche source I mean less than 5% of the generating capacity. I used the term windmill loosely. I am, in fact, professionally involved with large scale wind farms, which I regard as generally wasting taxpayer funds.

Very interesting!

I suspect that you may be aware that wind provides 18 percent of all the power consumed in Denmark and that number is still growing. In Germany which has the weakest winds in europe they produce, I believe, about 4 percent of their power from wind, and they use a lot of power.

Using todays technology we could produce all 3 quads of electricity that this country uses from Texay, N Dakota, and Nebraska. Yes this is equivalent kwhrs but not necessarily as demanded. Still the point is clear that the potential of wind to produce vast amounts of power for less than we pay for gas fired power is there.

[Area51]

Some night watch them and count how many times when reporting on the Administration the refer to the President
as Mr. Bush instead of President Bush.

That Idiot that reports from the whitehouse Does it every time.

Of course they could have got a bigger Clinton DNA sample off his chin than they took off Lewinsky's dress.

[Iconoclast2]

European governments are even more prone to waste the scarce resources of their countries on politically correct "investments" that our government is.

The Danes, in particular, have taken it as a policy goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 20%, and wind power only because rational when evaluated by reference to such irrational constraints, as documented in http://www.akf.dk/eng/wind.htm. That document reports (as of 1996):

"The production costs of the most efficient windmills on the present market (600 kW) are DKK 0.32 per kWh if they are located on average sites. This figure includes back-up costs of DKK 0.04 per kWh. Production costs of a conventional power plant are DKK 0.24-0.25 per kWh."

Thus the Danes rationalize stealing 30% higher energy costs from their citizens in service of the international environmentally-driven socialist Revolution. From my perspective, it stinks. These folks are the Pharisees of our day.

[tbpiper]

My 'partial response' was actually a 'short' response, having been pared down for lower capacity comprehensions. As far as 'armchair Capitan Kirks', said capitan was only an actor,whereas Neil Armstrong, for instance, was actually in space! Unless, of course you buy into the story that the whole thing was staged on a movie set. But I don't even think you're that stupid.

Not knowing of you understand the concept of 'forcing function', I'll give you a couple of examples:
WWI & WWII were forcing functions for advances in medicine and aviation. We would not have the petroleum industry today, had Henry's Ford not been so popular.

The manned space program was a forcing function for the technologies needed to make it work. The computer was not invented by the space program, but its development was heavily pushed by the need for greater computing power. I'm sure a true conservative will grasp the entrepenurial picture.

NASA has a technology utilization program. There are many processes and patents essentially 'free for the taking' to someone enterprising enough to develop a business from them. That is just one way we can reap the benefits of billions of 'foolishly spent' dollars. You really ought to keep up with things.

[biblewonk]

Sorry but your data is way outdated. No one is installing 600 kw turines anymore, well very nearly no one. Try and find something from 2002ish. Today the average turbine being installed is about 1.5 mw.

The government has tax policies on just about everything. The purposefully manipulate the free market every minute of the day to control it. Referring to the Pharisees is clever but not the least bit honest.

I don't believe in letting the almighty dollar make all of our nations decisions. I leave that to people that want to legalize and tax prostitution and let our steel industry go overseas if they can do it cheaper. I'm not willing to let the dollar decide our morality, or national defense strategies, or our energy policy. There are bigger factors to consider.

[newgeezer]

Once again, you have said in so many words that you were just blowing smoke in that previous post when you said we "would not have" computers if it weren't for the space program. In case you couldn't tell, I comprehended that just fine.

As for the rest of your blather,

[Iconoclast2]

What moral questions are involved in energy policy? More precisely, what moral principle or gain justifies picking the pockets of your neighbors to build windmills? Are you one who worships at the altar of Kyoto?

[biblewonk]

What moral questions are involved in energy policy? More precisely, what moral principle or gain justifies picking the pockets of your neighbors to build windmills? Are you one who worships at the altar of Kyoto?

I can't have been that unclear. I was making an analogy that allowing the cost of electricity to be the only deciding factor as to the source is analogous to allowing the financial value of taxed prostitution be the only factor in deciding if it is the right thing to do.

I actually don't believe in global warming and wrote the editor of windpower monthly magazine that I thought it was a big mistake mentioning it all the time. I stated that wind power should be promoted on it's real value as clean, limitless, cost effective energy. Lyn didn't agree with me and thought global warming was/is a real problem.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Compare that to a semi on the road."

Hmmm, Ok, but why would you compare wind power with a semi?

Shouldn't you compare wind power to a coal burning power plant or a nuke plant?

[biblewonk]

The comparison is about bird kill. Do we stop driving cars for the sake of birds? No one even considers it. Yet, people accuse windmills of being bird-o-matics. They aren't.

[Mad Dawgg]

"The comparison is about bird kill. Do we stop driving cars for the sake of birds? No one even considers it. Yet, people accuse windmills of being bird-o-matics. They aren't."

No we don't stop driving cars because there is no viable alternative to moving about our country with out using some form of fast moving vehicle.

However, there are a number of viable alternatives to Wind Mill Power production that do not chop up birds in the process.

[tbpiper]

Comprehend what? Would you please show me where I was 'blowing smoke' in my last post?

[newgeezer]

Comprehend what? Would you please show me where I was 'blowing smoke' in my last post?

LOL. Why would I bother? Among other things, it appears you just might be saddled with (as you so deftly termed it) a "lower-capacity comprehension."

I guess my first clue should have been that it seems you failed to grasp even the simplest point, where my use of the term "armchair Captain Kirks" referred to fans of (such as yourself) not participants in (such as your example, Neil Armstrong) the manned space program!

Live long and prosper, Cap'n.

[tbpiper]

where my use of the term "armchair Captain Kirks" referred to fans....

What you said:
manned space program amounts to precious little more than publicly-funded, pork-barrel joyrides for a lot of so-called "conservative," armchair Captain Kirks.

Again, to keep it within the bounds of your comprehension, the essence of your sentance was:
manned space program amounts to.......joyrides for a lot "armchair Captain Kirks.

You might have said 'proxy joyrides', or 'voyeuristic joyrides, but, failing to comprehend the meaning of the word joyride, you wrote what you wrote.

Point is, you can't refute any of the examples I offered. You can’t point to any market forces that would have given us the computer as rapidly as the space program. So don’t bother, it would just give you a headache anyway.

[newgeezer]

You might have said 'proxy joyrides', or 'voyeuristic joyrides, but, failing to comprehend the meaning of the word joyride, you wrote what you wrote.

Nice try, but "armchair" Captain Kirks means they're not participants. Look it up.

Believe it or not, I had initially typed, "vicarious joyrides for ... armchair Captain Kirks." However, I decided that was redundant. I just now looked up "armchair" and, by golly, it turns out I was right.

But, as it turns out, due to your own (as you put it yourself) failing to comprehend the meaning of the word "armchair," you seem to be one for whom redundancy is necessary. My bad for giving you too much credit.

("voyeuristic"?! LOL!)

As for refuting your "examples", they have nothing to do with my point, which has always been to say your initial statement -- that we WOULD NOT HAVE the PC if it weren't for the manned space program -- was so much smoke-blowing ("b*llsh*t," if that helps you understand). "Heavily pushed" or not, if you have something to back up your b*llsh*t that we WOULD NOT HAVE the PC if not for manned space flight, bring it on.

Face it, you're not as smart as you think.

[tbpiper]

Face it, you're not as smart as you think.

Well, Rosebud, I've made my case. I did comprehend 'armchair' but your misuse of it with 'joyride' caused some confusion. You're not as literate as you think.