"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:28ofs2dr5g336v37m66dg06ldqs6ar1u7e{at}4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:32:29 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:6g9ds295hfup3safka1nj94aujh3vgk2ep{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:34:12 GMT, Jeffrey MacHott
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
> >> >> "Josh Hill" 
wrote in message
> >> >> news:f4b7s2ta264pav38btnevcmft3opciinr1{at}4ax.com...
> >> >> 
> >> >>> Wind turbines, nuclear plants, cellulosic
ethanol, PEM fuel cells,
> >> >>> plug-in hybrids, geothermal heat pumps, and
basic conservation
> >> >>> measures are more than adequate to avert the most serious
consequences
> >> >>> of greenhouse gas emissions. Far from causing an
economic disaster,
> >> >>> the implementation of those technologies would
add little to our
> >> >>> energy costs -- but only if we start now.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It is nothing less than criminal that that is
not being done -- 
that
> >> >>> George Bush went back on the promise he made to
the American people
> >> >>> six years ago -- and that ideologues and
corporations continue to
> >> >>> confuse the public with their pseudo- and
anti-scientific rot.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are folks trying to do something. Heck, there
are folks trying
to
> >> >> establish a wind farm off Nantucket and they're
running into all
kinds
> >of
> >> >> resistance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dennis
> >> >
> >> >IIRC, one problem with wind farms is that windmills make
surprisingly
> >> >good bird swatters, because birds like to perch on the supports for
the
> >> >windmill, but when they attempt to take flight, the wind blows them
into
> >> >the blades.
> >>
> >> Not a problem anymore, as I understand it.
> >>
> >> The problem with Nantucket is different: this particular wind farm
> >> would blight a rare national treasure. Its an example of the right
> >> idea in the wrong place, the equivalent of erecting a skyscraper in
> >> Yellowstone National Park or the Grand Canyon.
> >
> >And there you hit on one of the problems. Pretty much regardless where
you
> >put the windfarm or nuclear power plant, someone who lives there will
> >consider it to be a blight.
>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> As so often, it's not that there aren't reasonable, common-sense
> solutions so much as that the system isn't very good at making
> sensible choices, e.g., many people won't accept the construction of
> nuclear plants anywhere, while industry and its paid-off politicians
> make irresponsible siting choices on the other.

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32