Why environmentalists annoy me...

[GreenScoutII]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33419910/ns/us_news-environment/

Ok. I think most of us agree we need to develop ways to generate electricity other than fossil fuels. I for one think it would be great not to need to import oil from the middle east, or to use coal for powerplants. I'm all for the so called green energy. Lets do it! Cool!

One would think if a conservative leaning, Libertarian, semi-Redneck like me can get behind windfarms, the tree huggers would be going ape-shit crazy over the prospect of clean energy powered by nothing more than the wind. No, of course not. Now these Birkenstock wearing libtards are fighting the developers of the wind farm over a stupid bat..

What the hell do they want????

[Irving]

There is a lot of this actually. Before the bats, people were complaining about how they looked. I also hear that they are pretty loud as well, so not only do they take up a ton of space, but they are loud and can dominate a landscape.

Also, I've seen a bunch of lawsuits from things killing birds, but all those cases have some sort of negligence involved. One case, for example, some oil company didn't properly secure the lids to some oil canister or something, birds were flying in, getting stuck and dying. There is clear negligence there, but with the windmills, they work exactly as they are supposed to, so no one is to blame.

I'm with you Greenscout. People don't seem to be able to figure out that there will never be one answer that will satisfy every problem. It is like the unobtainium of environmentalism.

[BigMat]

What the hell do they want????

I believe it is the end of the human race they are looking for, something like a mass suicide, but SUV owners first, when they are all dead, then the hippies with kill themselves. Trust them, It's for the animals.

As much as I love nature, and I do, I also understand the nature of opportunity cost, which seems to have eluded some of our noble dirty brethren. I am all for saving the planet with wind farms, solar power plants or what have you. Seems like a great way to get ourselves outa the Middle East and Venezuela and it creates a ton of great jobs for a lot of hard working Americans. That said, it pisses me off when left leaning environmentalists don’t want to pay the price, just demand it elsewhere. Like when Massachusetts didn’t want the wind farms off shore as it ruined their views from their million plus dollar palaces[BooHoo], yet they are more than willing to demand it happen in someone else’s back yard.

[Irving]

I heard about the off shore wind farm thing, but am always confused about that. What, exactly, is there to see 10 miles out in the ocean?

[StagLefty]

I heard about the off shore wind farm thing, but am always confused about that. What, exactly, is there to see 10 miles out in the ocean?
Trained dolphins with AR's shooting the Russian fishermen scooping up all the fishies !!

[Batteriesnare]

Trained dolphins with AR's shooting the Russian fishermen scooping up all the fishies !!

I've heard of the Navy training sea animals, but that's just badass!

[roberth]

Wind power and solar have massive inefficiencies. They take up alot of usable space, they are unsightly, wind and cloud cover are unpredictable and therefore unreliable. These pie in the sky ideas are not practical or cost efficient. Has anyone besides me seen those damn ugly windmills east of the intersection of hwy 93 and hwy 128, I don't want that shit blocking my view of the mountains, nor do I want the sun reflecting off of thousands of solar panels in my face.

Fossil fuels provide the best most efficent solution currently and we have plenty of resources here in North American which could put a dent in the unemployment picture.

Nuclear power would be the best solution for generating electricity, but 'gasp', it's nuclear so it's evil.

The 'nature nazis' need to do a few things themselves, get off the grid, stop using ANYTHING that is delivered, built, or uses fossil fuels. This means no cars, computers, poly fleece or cotton clothing, running water, etc. I think it'd be funny to see algore walking barefoot across tennesee.

As to the question 'What do they want' - they want the rest of us to suffer while they bathe in the comfort of their hypocrisy.

[Mtn.man]

Ed Tv

[Mtn.man]

I like solar panels,, have put in Many solar gates and am currently installing solar on my garage/shop for my floor heat and what ever else I can do.

[roberth]

Mtn.man wrote: I like solar panels,,

They have their place in small applications. What I'm talking about is the substitution of a coal fired electrical plant with wind turbines or solar panels.

[BigMat]

I agree that they aren't a perfect replacement for coal fired, but there is still plenty of use for them.

For example, down in Arizona there is a ton, a ton, of land that has no use, just arid crap desert that is a billion degrees from pretty and would not be hurt at all to have a solar plant, especially the smaller solar thermal variety. We had something in the range of 8 billion sunny days a year if memory serves. Even if it is just to help push the technology along it doesn't hurt. Mind you, Southern Arizona doesn't have oil, or coal, or water for hydroelectric or farming, but it does have sun and wind, might as well use it.

[Marlin]

They have their place in small applications. What I'm talking about is the substitution of a coal fired electrical plant with wind turbines or solar panels.


Yep,, Neither one is efficiant enough.. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine..(I know..[ROFL1])

When I did those couple of "solar farms" last year, Talking with the "experts" I found out that those things are just now to the point of being able to convert 40% of the sunshine to useable energy. The rest just bounces back..

Also, from what I gathered, at this point in time,other than research or, small applications, They really aren't good enough to justify the cost.. It would take 45 years for the one over by Arvada res. to pay for itself.. The panels only last 7-10 years at best, so guess what..

I agree it is a good idea,, It just isn't going to happen for many years..

[esaabye]

The problem with the solar in the desert is the water and transmission costs. The wind also presents much of the same transmission cost issues. The people who need power tend not to live in the type of places where solar and wind work well.

In my mind, the only long-term solution will be Nuclear but that will not happen while the "no growth" environmentalists have sway. I do think that oil and NG will have long term rolls to play for generations to come as will solar and wind, but each will fit niche needs.

[GunTroll]

...... I think it'd be funny to see algore walking barefoot across tennesee....

As one who now lives in TN.....He better stay out of my yard. NO Liars welcome to walk across my green grass with their dirty nasty bare feet! I got a deterrent for those!

To come off a bit extreme.....I feel its my God given right to deplete as much as I can the natural resources of this earth as I feel necessary! Yep I'm no "green" lover!

I find it funny these lefties feel ok to pass along the burden of mass amounts of debt to our future generations but feel obligated to save energy for them. Losers!

[GreenScoutII]

I seem to have stirred up some strong opinions here.

Origionally, my post was to point out the ridiculous and contradictory nature of the enviromentalist/animal rights thought processess. As some of you replied, there are no perfect solutions. For every potential means of generating power, there are drawbacks. Solar, at least at this point, is inefficent. Fossil fuels pollute to varying degrees and are a finite commodity. I personally don't see much of a down side to wind turbines or nuclear power. However, there is a public perception of nuclear as being dangerous and wind towers as being aesthetically unacceptable. As such, neither option is likely to reach its full potential.

One of my cheif frustrations during the presidential debates last year was the polarization of the two parties on issues of energy. The Dems, predictably, were pushing solar, wind, geo thermal, etc. The Reps were pushing for developing our own petroleum resources. A lot of us were thinking that all of these are good ideas. Why should we have to do one or the other? Why not develop and use every option available to us?

As far as fossil fuels are concerned, I agree they are the least expensive, most efficent way to produce energy right now. I don't believe this should preclude us from developing alternatives now. My big beef with oil is that it makes our enemies rich. We pump literally BILLIONS of dollars into the middle east, specifically Saudi Arabia. Lets not forget, most of the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 were Saudis. Energy independence is a critical issue to our national security. As such, every idea presented as a means to contribute to this end should be given due consideration and evaluated scientifically. This process will affect a much more usefull means of solving a problem that will impact all of us eventually than dismissing any of these ideas meerly for policical reasons.

[Elhuero]

I don't know why the U.S. lets anybody tell us what to do. Saddam had the right idea... "Wow, that's a peachy oil field. I'll take it!"

[roberth]

GreenScoutII wrote: I seem to have stirred up some strong opinions here.


Yes, I feel pretty strongly about this, especially when the utterly contrived notion of 'save the planet' is used by some trust funded, green idiot driving a Humvee or Tahoe whilst texting away about some evil capitalist.

When nature nazis started practicing what they preach, there will be more for the rest of us.

I agree with you that we need to work on other energy sources and further refine the ones we're using now.

This is a link to oil consumption and imports - I linked to the imports page
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

I agree with you about the middle east, sometimes I think we're there to provide oil security for the rest of the world at our expense.

[GreenScoutII]

Yes, I feel pretty strongly about this, especially when the utterly contrived notion of 'save the planet' is used by some trust funded, green idiot driving a Humvee or Tahoe whilst texting away about some evil capitalist.


Yeah, that chaps my ass too... I have sometimes thought only someone completely detached and separated from the realities of life can have the attitudes and beliefs some of these folks do. Of course, some of them believe they are somehow special and the rules/restrictions they would place on the rest of us shouldn't apply to them.

Thanks for posting the link. Its good information.

[SA Friday]

I'm all for ethanol, but then again I'm biased. I'm related to almost everyone in the second least populated county in Nebraska.

[ColoEnthusiast]

Nuclear power would be the best solution for generating electricity, but 'gasp', it's nuclear so it's evil.
There's your answer right there.
We invented nuclear power and we are amazingly adept at utilizing it safely and efficiently.
Unfortunately, because of false information and scare tactics we are afraid to use it heavily.
The FRENCH are the highest users of nuclear power per-capita, with well over 70% of their power generated this way. Yes, the French, embarrassing huh?
As for windmills, even Warren Buffet learned it is not the way to go and backed away from his massive order of them and last I read was trying to find a way to dispose of them. The windmill farms actually are bad for wildlife, especially bats as they seem to affect their "radar". Bats are not just important for killing bugs, etc, but actually aid in polenation as well. I do believe in windmills, though, for people who live far away from power and are looking for a way to generate on a small scale.
There is so much talk about electric cars, but there is nothing being done about upgrading our generating capacity and power handling to prepare for it. Who would want to buy an electric car if B.O. gets his way and electricity prices double or more. Defeats the purpose, with no sort of financial benefit in doing so.
The supposed logic is monumentally stupid. Heavily tax "oops, carbon offset" people to stop using fossil fuels and then massively tax "oops, carbon offset" them away from electric power as well. All with no feasible plan to generate the power or allow oil drilling that this country needs to regain energy independence and continue to be a first world nation.
Strangely, B.O. is ok with drilling in Brazil and our tax dollars have been appropriated to subsidize their drilling.

[Ed_S]

I agree nuclear is the way to go and yes the French are way ahead of everyone on this and their safety record is good.

The fossil fuel arguement is interesting. Our great leader (not) wants us to reduce our oil consumption yet wants to build more coal fired power plants! Go figure. Does anyone want to remind him that coal too is a finite resource!

While I'm at it, hybrids! Ever notice how they never advertise all the 'nasties' that are used to make the batteries and how we are going to dispose of them once they are finished!

Another alternative is to use methane from all the landfills since we seem unable to get away from them too!

I could go on but I'm off to drive my 13mpg Trailblazer SS before the hippies try to ban that:)