Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.



Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is
a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it.
More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts)
is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary
attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons
grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe,
(the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic
waste in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.



Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a
very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than
half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear.
Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive;
doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium
and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also
the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin


There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't
particularly valuable. Not enough rain.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is).
My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't
particularly valuable. Not enough rain.

Casady


No... didn't mean to imply that. I believe they use pit and shaft mining.
I'd prefer it over coal for sure.

http://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/erhs/...ining_info.htm

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic
waste in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?
Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin


I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.


Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a
very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than
half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear.
Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive;
doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium
and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also
the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin


There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compare it to coal mining. Actually burning coal releases more
radioactive nucleotides into the atmosphere than any reactor. Compare
the mining to pipeline breakages, tanker groundings, and the mess that
drilling can produce.

Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic
waste in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so
as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?
Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great
to capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to
offset their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in
other reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than
AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin


I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra
every month for clean energy.


Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is
a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More
than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is
nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary
attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons
grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe,
(the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction
stops)......


Cheers
Martin


There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is).
My main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compare it to coal mining. Actually burning coal releases more radioactive
nucleotides into the atmosphere than any reactor. Compare the mining to
pipeline breakages, tanker groundings, and the mess that drilling can
produce.

Cheers
Martin



I think that given the current alternatives, it's a technology that should
be revisited. Clearly, safety and storing/destroying the byproduct are the
most important concerns. From what I've read, the radiation from mining
uranium is equivalent to mining granite.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com