"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