Windmills Take Toll on Wildlife

Los Angeles Times ^ | December 8, 2003 | Rone Tempest

[discostu]

You've shown me that your arogance far exceeds your knowledge. And your refusal to show the slightest amount of evidnece of your claims shows you KNOW that wind power isn't there yet.

[biblewonk]

I'm not arrogant but I am a bit frustrated. You simple refuse to acknowledge that wind energy is within a couple of pennies of the cheapest sources is a pretty viable thing. You make it sound like wind power is still 20 cents per kwhr.

[discostu]

So you're "rebuttal" is to mention some idiotic claim of some idiotic radio jaw flapper I've already stated on this thread I don't listen to (and don't even know if he really made it, and given how fast and lose you are with the facts I seriously doubt it) just to "refute" it. STRAWMAN.

More insults and outright LIES. I've told you why I don't think wind power iu ready for the here and now. I never said I don't like them, I've even said I think they WILL BE the right answer in the future. Too bad your reading comprehension is too abysmal to understand that means I do like them I just realize they aren't ready for prime time.

Then you raise a 100% unrelated red herring. Thanks for proving beyond any possible doubt that you have not one single fact to back up your position. Go back and do some reading, then you'll learn the truth: wind power has promise but that promise is not yet realized.

[discostu]

The land is used up, get over it.

[discostu]

Where have I said that?! Nowhere. I aknowledged that wind power was cheap in dollars. You are LYING!

[upcountryhorseman]

If they're so competitive, why do they need subsidies?

[biblewonk]

You sure got up on the wrong side of the bed today. I'll pray for you.

[discostu]

Don't pray for me, just don't lie about what I said. It's right there on my profile page, I hate lies and the people who tell them. I never said the dollar cost of wind power was bad, I even aknowledged that it was good, but the land cost is too high and the reliability too low. Those have been my complaints the entire time and they've been made very clearly. When you lied about my position that made you an enemy and so you shall remain until you retract and apologize.

[biblewonk]

That's a good question until you realize that there are subsidies and tax breaks for the other sources also. Look at some of the things on the current energy bill, I'm sure it's posted around here somewhere. The first one that always comes to my mind is the 35 billion dollar black lung fund for coal.

[biblewonk]

-- from what you said earlier-- Let's see we have an energy source that costs almost as much to build as a nuclear power plant, costs almost as much to maintain as a nuclear power plant, takes up much more space than a nuclear power plant (like 10 to 100 times the space), and produces an insignificant portion of the electricity (like 1/100 to 1/1000 the electricity). Sounds like a silly energy source to me.

I guess you don't understand what you are posting then. This implies a very very expensive form of energy. It would have to be about a thousand times as exensive as a nuke, but as I said, you don't understand what you are saying. No wonder you get offended when I actually understand it and sum up.

[discostu]

And by the data you presented that is correct, the dollar costs for wind and nuclear are about the same: they're both cheap over the long haul with a big initial investment. Problem is in the space of one good windfarm you could put multiple nuclear power plants and get more energy.

[biblewonk]

And by the data you presented that is correct, the dollar costs for wind and nuclear are about the same: they're both cheap over the long haul with a big initial investment. Problem is in the space of one good windfarm you could put multiple nuclear power plants and get more energy.

As I said before, you are stating that a billion dollars worth of windpower produces 1/100 to 1/1000 the power as a billion dollar nuke. Is that not what you meant?

[discostu]

I was talking about LAND. Get it LAND. You're the one that keeps bringing in dollars. I'm talking LAND, where wind power is GROSSLY inefficient. LAND. Can youu finally get that through your skull?! LAND.

[biblewonk]

Well you sure said it wrong. I think it is your skull that has a problem is you can't express yourself and then get mad at people who read what you say instead of what you mean. And then you want an apology and declare someone as your enemy. You need some medication or something.

[discostu]

No you read it wrong, because you know the land issue is a loser you continue to try to recast what I wrote to be about the money. Typical action for people who know they're wrong, spin the conversation away from their weakspots. Then when I aknowledged the dollar cost similarities you were stuck, so you LIED and said I didn't aknowlesge the dollar cost similarities. All I need is for you to take a long walk off a short peer. You lied. You know it. I know it. You're not going to aknowledge it so you should just go away.

[biblewonk]

I'm rubber and your glue. That's what you did to me and added pissyness to boot.

[discostu]

No. I told you I wouldn't consider wind power a viable alternative until it had the same land/ wattage efficiency as nuclear power. You then started talking about dollars, I aknowledged the dollar cost was similar, then you LIED and said I inflated the dollar cost. And now you're resorting to childish insults to cover your LIES. Just walk away, I've seen your true colors and am not impressed.

[newgeezer]

Oh, well. FR's full of them. I have to admit, though, this one's unique. "Watts per acre" is a novel way of looking at it.

Surely his home uses up no more than 100 sq ft. of "LAND" per person. Any more than that would be a waste, wouldn't it? By the same token, most highways aren't nearly as efficient as train tracks.

The guy must lose a lot of sleep over all the LAND wasted.

But, since I'm not talking about Altamont Pass, I'm off-topic.