"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:0h8qs25i8r3po57cs7r5bc08tk1ksiomon{at}4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 05:46:14 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:hq9ls2hjo02g3uup8hb58mp8mja7l2ffrj{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:57:15 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >> >news:28ofs2dr5g336v37m66dg06ldqs6ar1u7e{at}4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >> But Nantucket is a special case, wild, beautiful, unique and
> >> >> wonderful. Meanwhile, farmers love turbines -- don't
interfere with
> >> >> farming, and provide extra income, so there are lots
of places where
> >> >> they'd be welcome, and they happen to have some of
the richest wind
> >> >> resources. The other resource-rich area -- which has
the advantage
of
> >> >> being located by our major population centers -- is the coast.
> >> >> Turbines could be located over the horizon, possibly
on floating
> >> >> platforms, although the electricity they produced
would cost a few
> >> >> cents per kW-hr more.
> >> >
> >> >Given that there are 300 million folks, there woud be
very few areas
in
> >the
> >> >country that would not run into
> >> >a) folks claiming not to want them there due to view,
lowered property
> >> >values, etc
> >> >b) are remote, unspoiled, and hence should not be
developed so as to
> >> >preserve its natural beauty.
> >> >
> >> >And there's this bunch:
> >> >http://www.wind-watch.org/affiliates.php
> >> >
> >> >Didn't see a organization listed for Oklahoma, but there
are quite a
few
> >> >others.
> >>
> >> Well, there are always NIMBY's. But their presence shouldn't keep us
> >> from making rational decisions which recognize that some areas have
> >> more scenic value than others. And, realistically, people are most
> >> likely to scream when there /is/ something of value.
> >
> >As they are in Texas, and the other locales. They cosnider what they have
to
> >be of value. You may disagree, of course.
>
> Hobson's choice, that. Every unspoiled vista -- and some spoiled ones
> -- is or are precious. But we have to make choices. And all I'm saying
> is that if a moustache must be drawn on a painting, spare the Mona
> Lisa.

Indeed.

>
> >> >> Similarly, I've long thought that nuclear plants
should be located
in
> >> >> remote, easily-evacuated areas, where there will be
little economic
> >> >> damage in the event of a meltdown or terrorist attack.
> >> >
> >> >Remote areas, once a key industry starts up, tend to not remain
remote.
> >>
> >> They would be remote by statute -- a place where nature could thrive.
> >
> >Which means that folks would most likely object to building a Nuke plant
> >with its associated infrastructure at that locale.
>
> More than would object to building it near a city?

Ask the Sierra Club about building a nuke plant in remote areas.
The remote area would likely be undeveloped, which means folks may want to
keep it that way.

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32