Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Hot Air and Wind

Page 1 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Apr 2010, 7:06 am

A project to construct wind turbine "farms" off of the coast of Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts has been tangled in federal, state and local litigation for at least ten years. The Obama administration is supposed to resolved the difficulties or put a halt to the project this year.

The wind of of Nantucket is very steady and if the turbine complex were constructed it would prove power to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That is clean, renewable, sustainable energy. The project was opposed by such worthies as the late Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts and the late Walter Cronkite. They complained it spoiled the view and constituted a danger to the sea gulls. Right.

Most of the opposition is from yupp-dom with houses on the beach front. They want a clear unobstructed view of the ocean while the rest of us freeze in the dark. Way to go, yuppy scumoids!

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Apr 2010, 7:32 am

ruveyn wrote:
A project to construct wind turbine "farms" off of the coast of Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts has been tangled in federal, state and local litigation for at least ten years. The Obama administration is supposed to resolved the difficulties or put a halt to the project this year.

The wind of of Nantucket is very steady and if the turbine complex were constructed it would prove power to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That is clean, renewable, sustainable energy. The project was opposed by such worthies as the late Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts and the late Walter Cronkite. They complained it spoiled the view and constituted a danger to the sea gulls. Right.

Most of the opposition is from yupp-dom with houses on the beach front. They want a clear unobstructed view of the ocean while the rest of us freeze in the dark. Way to go, yuppy scumoids!

ruveyn


With the Republicans going insane and the Democrats going crooked the seagull vote is important.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

15 Apr 2010, 8:04 am

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Apr 2010, 8:19 am

zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Apr 2010, 12:07 pm

Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


It isn't fright. It is a rather elitist attitude bordering on Luddism.

That is a reasonable basis for having reservations about nuclear generation of electricity. There are genuine safety concerns and concerns about dealing with the waste products. But the aesthetic and pseudo ecological objections to wind turbines are pure poppycock. There might be a few seagulls chopped up by the blades that that will not lead to seagull extinction.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Apr 2010, 12:42 pm

Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


Actually, in the book Red Mars, the character Ann Clayborne is worried that windmills will destroy the planet Mars.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Apr 2010, 1:39 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


Actually, in the book Red Mars, the character Ann Clayborne is worried that windmills will destroy the planet Mars.


There's not a hell of a lot to destroy on Mars.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Apr 2010, 2:10 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


Actually, in the book Red Mars, the character Ann Clayborne is worried that windmills will destroy the planet Mars.


There's not a hell of a lot to destroy on Mars.


The character of Ann Clayborne from Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars wrote:
It's clear what you all think about this, we've gone over it many times before, and nothing I've said makes any difference to you. Here you sit in your little holes running your little experiments, making things like kids with a chemistry set in a basement, while the whole time an entire world sits outside your door. A world where the landforms are a hundred times larger than their equivalents on Earth, and a thousand times older, with evidence concerning the beginning of the solar system scattered all over, as well as the whole history of a planet, scarcely changed in the last billion years. And you're going to wreck it all. And without ever honestly admitting what you're doing, either. Because we could live here and study the planet without changing it -- we could do that with very little harm or even inconvenience to ourselves. All this talk of radiation is bull and you know it. There's simply not a high enough level of it to justify this mass alteration of the environment. You want to do that because you think you can. You want to try it out and see -- as if this were some big playground sandbox for you to build castles in. A big Mars jar! You find your justifications where you can, but it's bad faith, and it's not science!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !



jeffhermy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 144

15 Apr 2010, 2:17 pm

We got Wind Turbines in Solano County and I personally think they look fascinating, I don't see why people hate them, PUT THEM IN, they are cooler than stupid beaches.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Apr 2010, 2:20 pm

Wind turbines do look nice actually.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Apr 2010, 7:29 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


Actually, in the book Red Mars, the character Ann Clayborne is worried that windmills will destroy the planet Mars.


There's not a hell of a lot to destroy on Mars.


The character of Ann Clayborne from Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars wrote:
It's clear what you all think about this, we've gone over it many times before, and nothing I've said makes any difference to you. Here you sit in your little holes running your little experiments, making things like kids with a chemistry set in a basement, while the whole time an entire world sits outside your door. A world where the landforms are a hundred times larger than their equivalents on Earth, and a thousand times older, with evidence concerning the beginning of the solar system scattered all over, as well as the whole history of a planet, scarcely changed in the last billion years. And you're going to wreck it all. And without ever honestly admitting what you're doing, either. Because we could live here and study the planet without changing it -- we could do that with very little harm or even inconvenience to ourselves. All this talk of radiation is bull and you know it. There's simply not a high enough level of it to justify this mass alteration of the environment. You want to do that because you think you can. You want to try it out and see -- as if this were some big playground sandbox for you to build castles in. A big Mars jar! You find your justifications where you can, but it's bad faith, and it's not science!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !


I don't get the virtue of preserving an entire planet as an archeological museum. The universe is continuously and spontaneously changing one way or another. Why not push it into a favorable shape?



bully_on_speed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 890

15 Apr 2010, 7:44 pm

now im no enviromentalist by no means, but im not seeing a negitive reguarding these fans so whats the con of the project im not seeing


aside from crippling our power infrastructure



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Apr 2010, 11:08 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


Actually, in the book Red Mars, the character Ann Clayborne is worried that windmills will destroy the planet Mars.


Solar particle storms and low gravitation have already destroyed Mars as a habitable planet.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Apr 2010, 12:57 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

It's not just for nuclear reactors anymore.


I doubt if anybody is frightened that a wind turbine might overheat and kill a couple of thousand people.


Actually, in the book Red Mars, the character Ann Clayborne is worried that windmills will destroy the planet Mars.


Solar particle storms and low gravitation have already destroyed Mars as a habitable planet.

ruveyn


Actually, Ann's deal was that she didn't want Mars to be Terraformed. Making it habitable would, to her, destroy the precious barrenness of the rock.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

16 Apr 2010, 12:59 am

Since when is a barren habitat THAT precious? <.<



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Apr 2010, 1:00 am

phil777 wrote:
Since when is a barren habitat THAT precious? <.<


I don't know, but there will always be somebody who cries "Global Warming!! !" whenever the sun is out.