Text 1541, 66 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 16:51:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1987.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kvf382dtue4ucibc2vpp0o97c26sjhf38g@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <bO2dnQ0xUZJHcOPZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:25:48 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <er1282thea065pl17227g7gt2pi9q8l3ur@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> That's a different issue, because the problem isn't with wind power
>> per se, but rather with responsible siting. Which is true of anything,
>> including a conventional power plant. I believed, and continue to
>> believe, that siting turbines off Cape Cod is the environmental
>> equivalent of building a skyscraper in the Grand Canyon. (Oh, it's
>> going to be in the distance, you'll barely notice it!) 

>      "Responsible siting"  which means NIMBY?? 

No, I don't live on Cape Cod -- haven't even been there since I was a
child -- and have in general little patience for NIMBYism: I'm talking
here about other peoples' back yards.

Check out these wind maps: there are plenty of sites in which the
turbines do no harm, e.g., in the vast untenanted farms of the Midwest
and off the east coast out of site of the shore, and in most cases I
don't think there's justification to put them there rather than where
they'll despoil natural vistas.

>But a glance at
>> a wind map shows that there are plenty of environmentally friendly
>> sites. Forex, much of our wind power is located off the East Coast,
>> which is fortunate because that's where much of the demand is, and
>> much of the hydroelectric storage capacity. And coastal turbines can
>> be located out of sight -- it costs a bit more, but not much. And
>> land-based turbines can be placed on large farms, where they won't be
>> seen by anyone but the farmer, don't interfere with agriculture, and
>> supplement the farmer's income, or in the desert, of which we have
>> plenty. There's no reason anyone need ever see a wind turbine unless
>> they go out of their way to.
>
>    Don't interfere with agriculure? Of course they do. You can't plant 
>things where they are standing. The construction compacts fields which 
>can impact on yeilds. You have to take land out production for access 
>roads for maintenance, out of production for poles, etc. to get the 
>electricity out.

A turbine and its access roads occupy only about a quarter of an acre
or 5-15% of the area of a wind farm; farmers just farm around them. It
seems that farmers and ranchers love them because they make lease
payments and can utilize land which is normally unproductive, e.g.,
the dry corners of pivot-irrigated plots.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                                               
                                   
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)