Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.


Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Moron.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:08:54 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.

Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Proving once again, that you didn't read it - just the head line.

Moron.

You have truly gone right off the rail - what happened to the witty,
urbane and civil Harry the K?

Oh right- never existed.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:08:54 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.
Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Proving once again, that you didn't read it - just the head line.

Moron.

You have truly gone right off the rail - what happened to the witty,
urbane and civil Harry the K?

Oh right- never existed.


I read the article, Tom. All of it. I understood it. I also understand
that the road towards energy independence is strewn with potholes.

"Clean coal technology." What a laugh. I've seen the coal/power company
commercials touting a line from Obama about clean coal technology. Even
funnier.

Nuclear is fine with me. I live only a few miles from a nuke plant, and
there is talk it is to be expanded with an additional reactor. Great.
Really.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:58:55 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.

It's his way of taxing the 'under $250,000' group without their
knowledge. The poor and uneducated will simply blame it on the energy
providers - large corporations. Obama, of course, will go along with
that ploy and so will Brian Williams.

Every Obama policy has one thing at its core - the ability to attract
votes.
--

John H

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:58:55 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

You know, I keep hearing all this chicken little stuff about Cap and
Trade and stimulus, and blah, blah.
First off, there is no Cap and Trade. Hasn't even gone through
Congress.
Then there's the fact that what one joker says, like the guy quoted,
means didley squat. Let's see those power bill increases actually
happen. They won't. Politically and economically unfeasible.

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Sticky little facts again rear up. Obama has been and still is behind
clean coal. Look up FutureGen and the resume of the Steven Chu.
Bush killed the clean coal project, and Obama and Chu restarted it
with $1 billion a month or so ago.
Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.
Can't force nukes on the folks, gotta bring them along.
Especially the lefties. You'll never get the real tree huggers.
They're like the Bush and Obama haters. Motivated by jerking knees
only. Have to just write them off.

Just think about it - that's all.

What I think is that all the work being done with alternative energy
is good. I haven't forgotten last year's $150 a barrel oil and +$4.00
gas.
Won't fix the economy though. Need more manufacturing.
Cap and Trade could be an end around outright tariffs.
Sorry China, you won't play on the same emissions field, don't try to
sell your stuff here. We'll just have to start manufacturing again.
Elegant solution, even if it looks something like a sledge hammer.

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

You know, I keep hearing all this chicken little stuff about Cap and
Trade and stimulus, and blah, blah.
First off, there is no Cap and Trade. Hasn't even gone through
Congress.
Then there's the fact that what one joker says, like the guy quoted,
means didley squat. Let's see those power bill increases actually
happen. They won't. Politically and economically unfeasible.

Interesting take.

If you are basing it on a political will, well, it has been passed by
the House. What the Senate does with it is still in doubt I'll grant
you that, but the Dems do have the majority and can pass it if they so
choose.

However, it does not negate the fact that if it does pass, which it
will in some form or another, it's going to have a negative impact on
the economy.

I'm in favor of neutral energy in terms renewable resources, but in my
opinion we're moving in the wrong direction with this. Boone Pickens
had a great idea for wind power and it would have really provided one
hell of a lot of energy. Comitted a sizable amount of his personal
money to the project - $8 billion was going to be the total investment
to build generators, towers, etc. Funny thing about that - to build
the transmission lines, get approvals, EPA clearances, legal
assistance for economic and environmental impact statements,
right-of-ways and not including some emminent domain issues was going
add an additional $4 billion to the project which was an conservative
estimate - it was probably going to cost more. He said it himself - it
would be a money loser instead of a money maker and who the hell is in
business to lose money?

It's going to require some thought and Cap and Trade isn't it. The
Eurozone is moving away from Cap and Trade slowly - that's gotta tell
you something.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Sticky little facts again rear up. Obama has been and still is behind
clean coal. Look up FutureGen and the resume of the Steven Chu.
Bush killed the clean coal project, and Obama and Chu restarted it
with $1 billion a month or so ago.

I can only say that Obama has stated, outright, that he will bankrupt
coal fired generators.

With respect to Steven Chu, this is the same guy who didn't know that
as head of the Department of Energy, he was in charge of oil/gas
drilling policy. I wouldn't put a lot in his basket.

Then there's this from the Futuregen site.

"What kind of coal will FutureGen use?

FutureGen has been designed to operate at its best using either of two
primary types of coal: bituminous (e.g. Ill#6, Pit#8) and
subbituminous (e.g. Powder River Basin). However, the plant is being
designed to operate on other coals such as lignite. The Alliance plans
to test a wide variety of coals during its operation, to better
understand how these coals perform in near-zero emission gasification
operations."

Let's start with Powder River Basin coal. That type of coal is largely
strip mined with a 1 to 1 recovery rate - meaning that there isn't a
lot of material to back-fill as is required in other strip mining
opertions - meaning that the land cannot be recovered.

Add to this to your "fact" - this is a culturally sensitive are for
First Americans and opening more than the already 15 mines in the area
will be fought on several levels from enviromental to cultural. Winona
LaDuke is heading up a local environmental and cultural challenge to
opening up any more mines and the Sierra Club, along with the Greens,
are funded and ready for a fight.

With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

Do you think that environmental groups are going to allow high volume
mining for gasification plants? Or that these types of coal also
affect pro-inflammatory genes that are not completely understood yet?

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...rst-nightmare/

Ahem... :)

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....

Sun power. Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
it via microwave to Earth. :)

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:31:16 -0400, Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:



With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

So you're anti-coal? You sure are coming up with enough arguments
against it. And here you were just calling Obama anti-coal.
I don't get it.
I didn't read about oxidative stress, got other stress to deal with.
The point of the FutureGen project is clean coal. That means
virtually zero emissions and useful byproducts instead of the crap
being put in the air and dumped in ash pits to run into rivers.
Chu says that a current coal burning plant puts 100 times more
radioactivity into the air than a nuke, which I've previously read is
the least of its ills, and we all know about acid rain.
Current coal is no free ride.
Another thing, like Cap and Trade, clean coal doesn't exist. Yet.
And I don't know if it will work, or be practical if it does.
I'm no expert on this stuff, just reporting what I read.
I like the idea of tapping all that coal. Anything that tides us over
until something else comes up - and doesn't make us captives of the
oil-rich countries.
And like I said, I think we will start building nukes. That's my
preference if they can't get enough juice from wind and solar, which
they probably can't without turning the country into wall-to-wall
windmills and mirrors.

Do you think that environmental groups are going to allow high volume
mining for gasification plants? Or that these types of coal also
affect pro-inflammatory genes that are not completely understood yet?

Every greenie group will have scare tactics. Nothing new.
"Pro-inflammatory genes?" WTF?
If we listen to every wacko theory about why not to do something,
we'll all melt into puddles of jelly.
I've seen plenty of those anti-coal ads here.
Look like pure greenie to me. They'd have me hand cranking a
generator to run my blender.
But they didn't stop this yet
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...l-project.html

Looks to me like the lefties are hammering Obama because of clean coal
power, and the righties are hammering him because of green power.
Part of the job.
I haven't looked deeply into the details of any of this.
I'll let the fanatics go after it. It'll work itself out - though it
might take the lights dimming out to make it happen.
That's about all I know. Or want to for now anyway.
You got me going on a spurt of "knowledge-seeking" but there's so
much self-serving crap on the net, it's tiring making heads or tails
of it.

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:33:03 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...rst-nightmare/

Ahem... :)


You don't expect me to look at a blog for facts?
Might as well just listen to you (-:
I went to Wiki for Chu.
Better than a blog.
nana-nana-nana.

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:31:16 -0400, Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:



With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

So you're anti-coal? You sure are coming up with enough arguments
against it. And here you were just calling Obama anti-coal.
I don't get it.

No - you misunderstood my intent - or perhaps I didn't make myself
clear.

I'm pointing out that there are many associated problems with
obtaining the right kinds of coal to make gasification work.

I didn't read about oxidative stress, got other stress to deal with.
The point of the FutureGen project is clean coal. That means
virtually zero emissions and useful byproducts instead of the crap
being put in the air and dumped in ash pits to run into rivers.

Again - my point is that there is no such thing as "clean" coal in the
sense that evironmental and NIMBY types accept.

Chu says that a current coal burning plant puts 100 times more
radioactivity into the air than a nuke, which I've previously read is
the least of its ills, and we all know about acid rain.
Current coal is no free ride.

Neither is "clean" coal.

And like I said, I think we will start building nukes. That's my
preference if they can't get enough juice from wind and solar, which
they probably can't without turning the country into wall-to-wall
windmills and mirrors.

Agreed - that would be my preference.

Hell, if France can do it, why can't we?

Do you think that environmental groups are going to allow high volume
mining for gasification plants? Or that these types of coal also
affect pro-inflammatory genes that are not completely understood yet?

Every greenie group will have scare tactics. Nothing new.
"Pro-inflammatory genes?" WTF?

Immunological disorders - which I'm something of an amateur expert on
as I have two of them - one a T-cell disorder and the RA.

If we listen to every wacko theory about why not to do something,
we'll all melt into puddles of jelly.

This isn't whacko science - it's a proven fact - medical science.

I've seen plenty of those anti-coal ads here.
Look like pure greenie to me. They'd have me hand cranking a
generator to run my blender.
But they didn't stop this yet
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...l-project.html

So on the one hand he wants to capture carbon dioxide but on the other
he's afraid of radiation.

Ok.

Looks to me like the lefties are hammering Obama because of clean coal
power, and the righties are hammering him because of green power.
Part of the job.
I haven't looked deeply into the details of any of this.
I'll let the fanatics go after it. It'll work itself out - though it
might take the lights dimming out to make it happen.
That's about all I know. Or want to for now anyway.

Well, look at it this way - you can tell what the crap is and what the
crap isn't. A self-aware citizen is what you want to be and if you
have to search through the crap to find the truth, that's what it
takes. It's not hard.

You got me going on a spurt of "knowledge-seeking" but there's so
much self-serving crap on the net, it's tiring making heads or tails
of it.

That's the whole point of discussion isn't it? :)

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:29:59 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:33:03 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...rst-nightmare/

Ahem... :)


You don't expect me to look at a blog for facts?

And what facts were wrong?

Might as well just listen to you (-:

Funny - Mrs. Wave says that to me all the time. :)

I went to Wiki for Chu.

Stick with the blog - it's probably more accurate.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:34:42 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
|you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....
|
|Sun power. Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
|it via microwave to Earth. :)

That's ridiculous stuff of science fiction..... Roddenberryesque.

I'm thinking of something more practical, like maybe a Zero Point
Module.

True.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Speaking of which (discussion), I find *some* elements of U.S. Sen.
Lamar Alexander's proposals to build 100 new nuke plants in the next 20
years...admirable.

http://tinyurl.com/kwnlds

He presented it in much more detail yesterday at the NPC.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:34:42 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
|you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....
|
|Sun power. Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
|it via microwave to Earth. :)

That's ridiculous stuff of science fiction..... Roddenberryesque.

I'm thinking of something more practical, like maybe a Zero Point
Module.

True.


All you need is the exciter from The Man with the Golden Gun and, of
course, a blonde who looks like Britt Ekland. The plot was only ok, but
the scenery (geographical, not just Ekland-ish) was spectacular.

And what's the name of Thailand's largest island? Don't forget to
pronounce it.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

H the K wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html


"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.


Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Moron.

I just rented a car for a week, drove from Denver to Minneapolis. The
rental car company wanted to know if I wanted to buy carbon credits? I
thought to myself about their offer. What benefit do I receive from
purchasing carbon credits? None, nada, zero, zip. I still have to pay
the same money for the rental car. I still have to pay the same money
for gas regardless of where I purchase it. I get absolutely no economic
benefit from paying carbon credits.

Before you pass judgment I was driving where every gas station had a
sign on the pump stating that the "fuel" contained at least 10% ethanol.

Saw some very nice windmills out on I-90 and I-94. Not enough of them to
make a dent in anything but the farmers power costs to pump water around
his 5000 to 10,000 acre farm. Too far away from civilization to push any
volts to any city of any size. And, you can't burn a metal windmill when
it is 30 below zero.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:40:59 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:31:16 -0400, Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:



With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

So you're anti-coal? You sure are coming up with enough arguments
against it. And here you were just calling Obama anti-coal.
I don't get it.

No - you misunderstood my intent - or perhaps I didn't make myself
clear.

I'm pointing out that there are many associated problems with
obtaining the right kinds of coal to make gasification work.

Right. And they say similar about nukes, and automobiles, etc, etc.
This gets back to where maybe I haven't made myself clear.
Clean coal ain't here yet, and until they do more work all the
arguments against it don't hold water.
I did not believe that space shuttle contraption thing would fly.
I highly doubt the production model clean coal generating plants will
be worse polluters than what we have now. If it even happens.

I didn't read about oxidative stress, got other stress to deal with.
The point of the FutureGen project is clean coal. That means
virtually zero emissions and useful byproducts instead of the crap
being put in the air and dumped in ash pits to run into rivers.

Again - my point is that there is no such thing as "clean" coal in the
sense that evironmental and NIMBY types accept.

Yep.


Every greenie group will have scare tactics. Nothing new.
"Pro-inflammatory genes?" WTF?

Immunological disorders - which I'm something of an amateur expert on
as I have two of them - one a T-cell disorder and the RA.

My sympathies to you. But it wasn't clean coal that caused it.
Again, if the trade-offs are too great, and that includes public
health, it won't happen.
But it does look like there are more gassification plants in the
works. Non-co2 sequestering probably.
Which doesn't meet the Obama/Chu definition of clean coal.
BTW, I'm not advocating clean coal.
I'm content to let it all play out by means of the usual economic,
scientific and political arguments.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...l-project.html

So on the one hand he wants to capture carbon dioxide but on the other
he's afraid of radiation.

Ok.

As I said, I don't think he's afraid of radiation, except that from
glowing political hot potatoes. Easier to sell coal.
The anti-coal crowd is much smaller than the anti-nuke crowd.

Well, look at it this way - you can tell what the crap is and what the
crap isn't. A self-aware citizen is what you want to be and if you
have to search through the crap to find the truth, that's what it
takes. It's not hard.

No, as long as one's truth doesn't run up against another's, and it
ends up in endless politically-driven arguments.

You got me going on a spurt of "knowledge-seeking" but there's so
much self-serving crap on the net, it's tiring making heads or tails
of it.

That's the whole point of discussion isn't it? :)

Right.
After further googling, it came up tails. You lose (-:

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.
The first thing out of a socialist is taxation to solve problems...your
problems...mine...no theirs. Micromanagement using our money. They
haven't thought of what they would do when we run out of money to give them.
This Cap And Trade is a sham. They don't even know what everybody threw
into it.
It is a massive tax scheme and that's all.
Every special interest group that could afford a phone call has their
hands in it.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:41:09 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

After further googling, it came up tails. You lose (-:

10-4.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Jul 14, 1:51*pm, H the K wrote:
Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:



On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:34:42 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
|you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....
|
|Sun power. *Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
|it via microwave to Earth. *:)

That's ridiculous stuff of science fiction..... *Roddenberryesque.

I'm thinking of something more practical, like maybe a Zero Point
Module.

True.

All you need is the exciter from The Man with the Golden Gun and, of
course, a blonde who looks like Britt Ekland. The plot was only ok, but
the scenery (geographical, not just Ekland-ish) was spectacular.

And what's the name of Thailand's largest island? Don't forget to
pronounce it.

Herr Krause. Thailands largest island is Phuket. Which is pronounced
"POO-ket" or "PEW-ket"

Either is a correct pronunciation.