Moral support needed for a "liberal" traped in Wichita

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Leu

Like.... canceling legislation for the Holcomb power plants for "global warming". Global warming isn't man made.

Overwhelming scienfitic consensus has shown man has been a significant contributor to atmopsheric CO2 increases since the industrial revolution. The big money plays will be engineering and tech companies that find ways to increase energy efficiency in just about everything from: large scale appliances/manchinery, small and large engines, architectural designs of buildings, and energy sources. No, I don't believe we should continue to be burning lots of coal for electricity given the known health and environmental costs of doing it. The Plains is the Saudi Arabia of wind. Wind energy uses no water from the Ogallala Aquifer and emits no sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, radiation, or mercury.

[Wing Feathers]

Originally Posted by Leu

Global warming isn't man made.

Amen. I trust my PhD acquaintance, who has studied this for a long time and has tons of data showing it is a natural occurrence.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by drinkme

Amen. I trust my PhD acquaintance, who has studied this for a long time and has tons of data showing it is a natural occurrence.

I will accept the 97% scientific consensus anyday of the week.

[Leu]

Global warming occurs naturally. Explain the Holocene Maximum. A three thousand year period (iirc) that had a much higher than average temperature. Higher than now. We're much more likely on the brink of another ice age than horrible global warming. They didn't have cars all of that time ago.

....Greenland used to BE... Green. We weren't killed off then. Greenland could be Greenland again someday. And again, we won't be dead. We'll just have more land for growing crops.


On windpower. You assume that because I support the construction of a coal powerplant that I don't support wind power.

Wind is great! ... as a supplement, because there's no guarantee that it will always be blowing. I drove to Hays this morning, and half of that windfield was dead and non-operable. Dunno about you, but last i checked they only generate power when they are turning.

Coal plants generate power 100% of the time. Also, the Holcomb plant would have brought WORK, which we NEED.

On the Aquifer, we are pumping water back into the ground thanks to the heavy rains this season. At least in Wichita, we are. We have a lot of work to do to put the aquifer back, but at least we are rebuilding it.

And finally, about radiation, mercury, blah blah blah.


....how many of those little twisty fluorescent bulbs do you have in your home? Those have mercury. Do you know how to properly dispose of them? Does most of the populous?--No they don't. And as all of those micro fluorescents go to the trash dumps, our water source that we're diligently working on replenishing is going to be tainted, poisoned, etc, thanks to "green thinking" by "saving energy".

I'm going to simply state: Even the co-founder of GreenPeace, Patrick Moore, says the environmental movement is a crop of bulls%$t. The giant burning ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away is the cause of any global warming we experience....since its a giant ball of hydrogen fusion 93 million miles away, spitting out more energy per second than all powerplants on earth combined and throughout history combined have ever made. The environmental movement has become nothing but an ex-pinko-commie movement.

If you have any regard to just how stupid the environmentalist movement is, go look at Al Gore's house. Look at his carbon footprint, flying everywhere instead of telecommuting everywhere. Look at how much he 'cares' about the environment by putting more of a carbon footprint on this planet's atmosphere per year than many people do in their lifetimes. Look at his house compared to the Bush ranch in Walker Texas. GB's ranch has solar panels, and is heavily insulated. Gore's has a carbon footprint-per month-more than the average american house puts out per YEAR.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is the Liberal Do$#he bag Way. If he really believed that global warming was real, himself, don't you think he would live like it? Set an example? He won a Nobel Prize and can't practice what he preaches. But he "means well" for "everyone else's sake", so it''s all ok, right?

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Leu

Global warming occurs naturally. Explain the Holocene Maximum. A three thousand year period (iirc) that had a much higher than average temperature. Higher than now. We're much more likely on the brink of another ice age than horrible global warming. They didn't have cars all of that time ago.

....Greenland used to BE... Green. We weren't killed off then. Greenland could be Greenland again someday. And again, we won't be dead. We'll just have more land for growing crops.


On windpower. You assume that because I support the construction of a coal powerplant that I don't support wind power.

Wind is great! ... as a supplement, because there's no guarantee that it will always be blowing. I drove to Hays this morning, and half of that windfield was dead and non-operable. Dunno about you, but last i checked they only generate power when they are turning.

Coal plants generate power 100% of the time. Also, the Holcomb plant would have brought WORK, which we NEED.

On the Aquifer, we are pumping water back into the ground thanks to the heavy rains this season. At least in Wichita, we are. We have a lot of work to do to put the aquifer back, but at least we are rebuilding it.

And finally, about radiation, mercury, blah blah blah.


....how many of those little twisty fluorescent bulbs do you have in your home? Those have mercury. Do you know how to properly dispose of them? Does most of the populous?--No they don't. And as all of those micro fluorescents go to the trash dumps, our water source that we're diligently working on replenishing is going to be tainted, poisoned, etc, thanks to "green thinking" by "saving energy".

I'm going to simply state: Even the co-founder of GreenPeace, Patrick Moore, says the environmental movement is a crop of bulls%$t. The giant burning ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away is the cause of any global warming we experience....since its a giant ball of hydrogen fusion 93 million miles away, spitting out more energy per second than all powerplants on earth combined and throughout history combined have ever made. The environmental movement has become nothing but an ex-pinko-commie movement.

If you have any regard to just how stupid the environmentalist movement is, go look at Al Gore's house. Look at his carbon footprint, flying everywhere instead of telecommuting everywhere. Look at how much he 'cares' about the environment by putting more of a carbon footprint on this planet's atmosphere per year than many people do in their lifetimes. Look at his house compared to the Bush ranch in Walker Texas. GB's ranch has solar panels, and is heavily insulated. Gore's has a carbon footprint-per month-more than the average american house puts out per YEAR.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is the Liberal Do$#he bag Way. If he really believed that global warming was real, himself, don't you think he would live like it? Set an example? He won a Nobel Prize and can't practice what he preaches. But he "means well" for "everyone else's sake", so it''s all ok, right?

Well, I don't mean to turn this into a political diatribe so I will summarize my responses to your points.

"Wind is great! ... as a supplement, because there's no guarantee that it will always be blowing. I drove to Hays this morning, and half of that windfield was dead and non-operable. Dunno about you, but last i checked they only generate power when they are turning."

Wind can be a much larger supplement than it currently is. The renewable portolio standard should be upped to over 30% at least for all Great Plains states. The wind turbine blade technologies are always advancing and achieving greater MW output levels all the time.

"Coal plants generate power 100% of the time. Also, the Holcomb plant would have brought WORK, which we NEED."

Western Kansas has some of the lowest unemployment levels in the country. 90% of the electricity would be used by greedy Front Range consumers and not Kansans. Workers would be imported from other areas for the initial construction project with far fewer permanent jobs.
Wind energy creates many more long-term jobs overall and spread over a much wider area. It is decentralized instead of centralized. I thought Republicans hated mass centralization? Well, that is exactly what they profess to like with respect to the way our current electricity grid is set up.

"On the Aquifer, we are pumping water back into the ground thanks to the heavy rains this season. At least in Wichita, we are. We have a lot of work to do to put the aquifer back, but at least we are rebuilding it."

This is one year. The long-term trends point to a continued decline in the aquifer because of overuse for irrigation derived agriculture made possible by huge subsidies. Most irrigated corn is used for the massive feedlot operations. Any increase in temperature will only yield higher evaporation rates which equals a greater stress on the aquifer itself. Midwest style agriculture out on the High Plains is not sustainable in the long-term and everyone realizes this.

"And finally, about radiation, mercury, blah blah blah."

I don't think you have ever lived on top of a large coal power plant. The risks are externalized to the consumer as well as environmental destablization. Cheap electricity comes at a relatively high health and environmental price.

...."how many of those little twisty fluorescent bulbs do you have in your home? Those have mercury. Do you know how to properly dispose of them? Does most of the populous?--No they don't. And as all of those micro fluorescents go to the trash dumps, our water source that we're diligently working on replenishing is going to be tainted, poisoned, etc, thanks to "green thinking" by "saving energy"."

This is a very outdated argument. I have used CFLs for years and have recycled them all for years. CFLs have MINISCULE amounts of mercury compared to those old-fashioned flouorescent tubes that are everywhere.
Consumers save money by using CFLs which in turn means less reliance on the coal generator which spews lots of mercury into the atmosphere. In fact, energy generated from coal accounts for over 50% of all mercury emissions. That is why most don't eat any fish caught from water bodies in many parts of the US these days.

"I'm going to simply state: Even the co-founder of GreenPeace, Patrick Moore, says the environmental movement is a crop of bulls%$t. The giant burning ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away is the cause of any global warming we experience....since its a giant ball of hydrogen fusion 93 million miles away, spitting out more energy per second than all powerplants on earth combined and throughout history combined have ever made. The environmental movement has become nothing but an ex-pinko-commie movement."

I am a independent-minded fiscal conservative. I think many would agree that it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST to encourage energy efficiency, energy conservation, and embrace new technologies. We have future generations to think of as well. Electricity demand continues to rapidly grow with global population increasing. I think that the federal government has had an insidious relationship with big coal and big oil for far to long. They should be paying the externalized costs for their product and not the consumers. Low income consumers should also get breaks on their KWH rates and be more easily eligible to benefit from energy audits, or energy efficiency upgrades on the house they live in.

"If you have any regard to just how stupid the environmentalist movement is, go look at Al Gore's house. Look at his carbon footprint, flying everywhere instead of telecommuting everywhere. Look at how much he 'cares' about the environment by putting more of a carbon footprint on this planet's atmosphere per year than many people do in their lifetimes. Look at his house compared to the Bush ranch in Walker Texas. GB's ranch has solar panels, and is heavily insulated. Gore's has a carbon footprint-per month-more than the average american house puts out per YEAR."

I could care less about the political figureheads. I take the initiative myself to live a mostly self-sufficient lifestyle off the land. I live in the woods on 12 acres of land. I grow a lot of my own food, I belong to the local community supported agriculture association, I heat with wood selectively cut off my land, my house is passive solar with a propane backup. My house is also small . It is under 1500sqft. Unfortunately, many are hypocrites and short-term thinkers in this "me, me" society we live in these days. If you want to see a prime example of conspicuous consumption head on over to JOCO. These people are big spending and big consuming "conservatives," who probably don't even know what the word "conservation" actually means.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is the Liberal Do$#he bag Way. If he really believed that global warming was real, himself, don't you think he would live like it? Set an example? He won a Nobel Prize and can't practice what he preaches. But he "means well" for "everyone else's sake", so it''s all ok, right?"

Hypocrites exist on both sides on the ideological spectrum. That is why I am proud to be an Independent on most issues. The right vs left conundrum has polarized the whole country and left us in bad shape.

I will believe in the scientific consensus until a new consensus comes along.

[Leu]

Wind can be a much larger supplement than it currently is. The renewable portolio standard should be upped to over 30% at least for all Great Plains states. The wind turbine blade technologies are always advancing and achieving greater MW output levels all the time.[/quote]

Again, I don't disagree with you on the wind power. It's great ...as a supplement. Again, they do not run all of the time. We are a society that needs it .... all the time. Driving up to Hays this morning, I saw all of those awe inspiring turbines. Again... half were not even spinning a little bit.

When wind actually runs 100% of the time, then we can completely ween ourselves off of other energy sources. Wind power is awesome. I agree that we should have more. I agree that we are the Saudi Arabia of Wind Power. ... but there is simply no way to make those turbines spin all of the time, and no amount of greater efficiency out of them will ever replace the constant power that coal or nuclear can give us. ...And I simply do not have a clue how you can dispute this in any logical way.

"Coal plants generate power 100% of the time. Also, the Holcomb plant would have brought WORK, which we NEED."

Western Kansas has some of the lowest unemployment levels in the country. 90% of the electricity would be used by greedy Front Range consumers and not Kansans. Workers would be imported from other areas for the initial construction project with far fewer permanent jobs.
Wind energy creates many more long-term jobs overall and spread over a much wider area. It is decentralized instead of centralized. I thought Republicans hated mass centralization? Well, that is exactly what they profess to like with respect to the way our current electricity grid is set up.

I'm not a Republican, first. Second, there would still be an influx of jobs to the Holcomb area. Is it necessarily true that the people who get those jobs are local to begin with? No. But where are they going to live? Holcomb. Which means, it brings in jobs. As far as the original construction, there are undoubtedly going to be a great deal of subcontractors from the local area that get brought in. In the mean time, once the plant is build, people have to run it. And once those people live there, that will generate more local income, and give more reason for local businesses to build up.

"On the Aquifer, we are pumping water back into the ground thanks to the heavy rains this season. At least in Wichita, we are. We have a lot of work to do to put the aquifer back, but at least we are rebuilding it."

This is one year. The long-term trends point to a continued decline in the aquifer because of overuse for irrigation derived agriculture made possible by huge subsidies. Most irrigated corn is used for the massive feedlot operations. Any increase in temperature will only yield higher evaporation rates which equals a greater stress on the aquifer itself. Midwest style agriculture out on the High Plains is not sustainable in the long-term and everyone realizes this.

Yeah, we do over use the hell out of it. Honestly, we need to do more to pump water back into the aquifer than we already are. Probably by a good 100x than what we're doing. But at that point you're talking about mass desalinization and water transport from the oceans.

"And finally, about radiation, mercury, blah blah blah."

I don't think you have ever lived on top of a large coal power plant. The risks are externalized to the consumer as well as environmental destablization. Cheap electricity comes at a relatively high health and environmental price.

There is such a thing as clean coal. There are scrubbers in those stacks that can pull out so many more pollutants than they could even last year. They're talking about 0% carbon emission power plants, by pumping the carbon directly into green houses. ... which is exactly what earth's biohabitat is anyways. Trees eat CO2.

...."how many of those little twisty fluorescent bulbs do you have in your home? Those have mercury. Do you know how to properly dispose of them? Does most of the populous?--No they don't. And as all of those micro fluorescents go to the trash dumps, our water source that we're diligently working on replenishing is going to be tainted, poisoned, etc, thanks to "green thinking" by "saving energy"."

This is a very outdated argument. I have used CFLs for years and have recycled them all for years. CFLs have MINISCULE amounts of mercury compared to those old-fashioned flouorescent tubes that are everywhere.
Consumers save money by using CFLs which in turn means less reliance on the coal generator which spews lots of mercury into the atmosphere. In fact, energy generated from coal accounts for over 50% of all mercury emissions. That is why most don't eat any fish caught from water bodies in many parts of the US these days.

CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury : ENERGY STAR

Ok, so 1,000,000 CFL's is 2.2 pounds. I will concede your point.

"I'm going to simply state: Even the co-founder of GreenPeace, Patrick Moore, says the environmental movement is a crop of bulls%$t. The giant burning ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away is the cause of any global warming we experience....since its a giant ball of hydrogen fusion 93 million miles away, spitting out more energy per second than all powerplants on earth combined and throughout history combined have ever made. The environmental movement has become nothing but an ex-pinko-commie movement."

I am a independent-minded fiscal conservative. I think many would agree that it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST to encourage energy efficiency, energy conservation, and embrace new technologies. We have future generations to think of as well. Electricity demand continues to rapidly grow with global population increasing. I think that the federal government has had an insidious relationship with big coal and big oil for far to long. They should be paying the externalized costs for their product and not the consumers. Low income consumers should also get breaks on their KWH rates and be more easily eligible to benefit from energy audits, or energy efficiency upgrades on the house they live in.

Again, I completely agree with you here. It IS in the public interest to encourage and promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and embrace new technologies. But if it was really in the interest of the public, more people would CARE enough to know about EBM Technology. I see wind turbines as a 'we're doing the right thing for the environment and making people feel good but having more of a reason for outrageous electrical costs to cover the initial cost of more wind turbines. Part of the reason that Nikoli Tesla died alone and broke. Thanks to the 'powers that be', "If I can't put a meter on it and sell it, I will not fund it".

Before we can become a 'TRUE' 'clean energy' society, we HAVE to oust the powers that be that force us to rely on fossil fuels and other means.

"If you have any regard to just how stupid the environmentalist movement is, go look at Al Gore's house. Look at his carbon footprint, flying everywhere instead of telecommuting everywhere. Look at how much he 'cares' about the environment by putting more of a carbon footprint on this planet's atmosphere per year than many people do in their lifetimes. Look at his house compared to the Bush ranch in Walker Texas. GB's ranch has solar panels, and is heavily insulated. Gore's has a carbon footprint-per month-more than the average american house puts out per YEAR."

I could care less about the political figureheads. I take the initiative myself to live a mostly self-sufficient lifestyle off the land. I live in the woods on 12 acres of land. I grow a lot of my own food, I belong to the local community supported agriculture association, I heat with wood selectively cut off my land, my house is passive solar with a propane backup. My house is also small . It is under 1500sqft. Unfortunately, many are hypocrites and short-term thinkers in this "me, me" society we live in these days. If you want to see a prime example of conspicuous consumption head on over to JOCO. These people are big spending and big consuming "conservatives," who probably don't even know what the word "conservation" actually means.

Heh. You actually sound more like me than I originally thought. I haven't had a reason to grow my own food, but I've been looking into it. Most of the issue is time, in that I do not have enough of it given my status as a college student. I think we both just mistook each other for crazy lefty liberals. Heh. I honestly envy your self sufficiency, and its something that I look forward to being someday.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is the Liberal Do$#he bag Way. If he really believed that global warming was real, himself, don't you think he would live like it? Set an example? He won a Nobel Prize and can't practice what he preaches. But he "means well" for "everyone else's sake", so it''s all ok, right?"

Hypocrites exist on both sides on the ideological spectrum. That is why I am proud to be an Independent on most issues. The right vs left conundrum has polarized the whole country and left us in bad shape.

I will believe in the scientific consensus until a new consensus comes along.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ | NewsBusters.org
UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort | NewsBusters.org
Harvard Paper Calls Al Gore a Hypocrite | NewsBusters.org
The Global Warming Scam
The Global Warming Hoax And Scam « New World Liberty
February 2003: Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam - by Joseph L. Bast - Heartlander (this one especially)

Many of the scientists that are part of that 'consensus' you mention were reeled in and want off the list. They were claimed as the 'consensus of leading world scientists' so that a political body could get its stuff rammed down the throats of many of the world's countries.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Leu

Again, I don't disagree with you on the wind power. It's great ...as a supplement. Again, they do not run all of the time. We are a society that needs it .... all the time. Driving up to Hays this morning, I saw all of those awe inspiring turbines. Again... half were not even spinning a little bit.

When wind actually runs 100% of the time, then we can completely ween ourselves off of other energy sources. Wind power is awesome. I agree that we should have more. I agree that we are the Saudi Arabia of Wind Power. ... but there is simply no way to make those turbines spin all of the time, and no amount of greater efficiency out of them will ever replace the constant power that coal or nuclear can give us. ...And I simply do not have a clue how you can dispute this in any logical way.



I'm not a Republican, first. Second, there would still be an influx of jobs to the Holcomb area. Is it necessarily true that the people who get those jobs are local to begin with? No. But where are they going to live? Holcomb. Which means, it brings in jobs. As far as the original construction, there are undoubtedly going to be a great deal of subcontractors from the local area that get brought in. In the mean time, once the plant is build, people have to run it. And once those people live there, that will generate more local income, and give more reason for local businesses to build up.



Yeah, we do over use the hell out of it. Honestly, we need to do more to pump water back into the aquifer than we already are. Probably by a good 100x than what we're doing. But at that point you're talking about mass desalinization and water transport from the oceans.



There is such a thing as clean coal. There are scrubbers in those stacks that can pull out so many more pollutants than they could even last year. They're talking about 0% carbon emission power plants, by pumping the carbon directly into green houses. ... which is exactly what earth's biohabitat is anyways. Trees eat CO2.



CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury : ENERGY STAR

Ok, so 1,000,000 CFL's is 2.2 pounds. I will concede your point.



Again, I completely agree with you here. It IS in the public interest to encourage and promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and embrace new technologies. But if it was really in the interest of the public, more people would CARE enough to know about EBM Technology. I see wind turbines as a 'we're doing the right thing for the environment and making people feel good but having more of a reason for outrageous electrical costs to cover the initial cost of more wind turbines. Part of the reason that Nikoli Tesla died alone and broke. Thanks to the 'powers that be', "If I can't put a meter on it and sell it, I will not fund it".

Before we can become a 'TRUE' 'clean energy' society, we HAVE to oust the powers that be that force us to rely on fossil fuels and other means.



Heh. You actually sound more like me than I originally thought. I haven't had a reason to grow my own food, but I've been looking into it. Most of the issue is time, in that I do not have enough of it given my status as a college student. I think we both just mistook each other for crazy lefty liberals. Heh. I honestly envy your self sufficiency, and its something that I look forward to being someday.



Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ | NewsBusters.org
UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort | NewsBusters.org
Harvard Paper Calls Al Gore a Hypocrite | NewsBusters.org
The Global Warming Scam
The Global Warming Hoax And Scam « New World Liberty
February 2003: Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam - by Joseph L. Bast - Heartlander (this one especially)

Many of the scientists that are part of that 'consensus' you mention were reeled in and want off the list. They were claimed as the 'consensus of leading world scientists' so that a political body could get its stuff rammed down the throats of many of the world's countries.

"Again, I don't disagree with you on the wind power. It's great ...as a supplement. Again, they do not run all of the time. We are a society that needs it .... all the time. Driving up to Hays this morning, I saw all of those awe inspiring turbines. Again... half were not even spinning a little bit."

I agree the problem is with the big publically traded electric utilities who are mostly content with the status quo. They support more coal generators, nuclear generators, etc. Only within the past few years have many utilities even embraced EE to reduce overall electrcity demand growth and peak load periods. I think if cooperative electric providers partnered up with wind energy companies the total percentage of electricity generated through renewables would go way up. The big hurdle is overcoming the lack of transmission line infrastructure in many rural areas. This would likely take federal funds for expansion if we really want to see a greater overall development of large-scale wind farms. I would like to see this occur as my relatives own a ranch in rural NW Kansas. They would be favorable to the idea of wind turbines on their property, but an inadequate rural electric grid prevents any potential development from occurring.

"I'm not a Republican, first. Second, there would still be an influx of jobs to the Holcomb area. Is it necessarily true that the people who get those jobs are local to begin with? No. But where are they going to live? Holcomb. Which means, it brings in jobs. As far as the original construction, there are undoubtedly going to be a great deal of subcontractors from the local area that get brought in. In the mean time, once the plant is build, people have to run it. And once those people live there, that will generate more local income, and give more reason for local businesses to build up."

I am not denying that their will be an influx of jobs to SW Kansas due to the construction of this coal plant. That is good. Unfortunately, coal plants do not conjure up spin-off industries that generate related jobs. Also, coal plants have a relatively short lifespan, and Holcomb will be even shorter. You see, the coal plant designed to be built at Holcomb uses pulverized coal technology. This is outdated technology when you realize IGCC is the next generation technology. Also, federal regulations on CO2 are coming soon regardless of which administration is at the helm. The permit approval for actual construction of Holcomb might be held up as a result. The notion that Kansas would get 100% of the pollution and 10% of the electricity angered many Kansans, including my relatives. The Front Range is greedy and ignorant when it makes profligate grabs of land to claim water rights for their exponentially increasing population. That is also not sustainable


"There is such a thing as clean coal. There are scrubbers in those stacks that can pull out so many more pollutants than they could even last year. They're talking about 0% carbon emission power plants, by pumping the carbon directly into green houses. ... which is exactly what earth's biohabitat is anyways. Trees eat CO2."

The part they don't want you to know is how the coal is mined. Much is strip mined or mined through mountaintop removal in the Applalachian Mountains. Much of the Appalachian coal is shipped to China for consumption because they have less stringent environmental regulations. Most coal in the US that is burned in power plants comes from the Powder River Basin region of Wyoming and Montana. These areas experienced a huge boom this decade because of the insidious relationship the Bush administration had with big oil and big coal at the expense of environmental protection. Google- mountaintop removal to see the destruction. I have talked with many people in this region and a good many are against it. It is wrecking their communities long-term survival even if it generates some short-term jobs.




"Before we can become a 'TRUE' 'clean energy' society, we HAVE to oust the powers that be that force us to rely on fossil fuels and other means."

I used to live in eastern Kansas. Westar makes big money that most benefits the corporate top guns at the expense of public health. They don't care. It's all about the $$$$. Westar is a publically traded electric utility company.

"Many of the scientists that are part of that 'consensus' you mention were reeled in and want off the list. They were claimed as the 'consensus of leading world scientists' so that a political body could get its stuff rammed down the throats of many of the world's countries"

All scientists are validated to their own scientifically derived viewpoints on the issue. Even if climate change was not a pressing concern, everyone could agree that we need to be less dependent on Middle East oil, focus on a array of energy efficiency measures, encourage green building throughout our industrial, commercial, and residential housing stock, and buy locally grown foods. Doing those things reduces our energy consumption, lowers our "carbon footprint," and increases quality of life.

[Leu]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

"Again, I don't disagree with you on the wind power. It's great ...as a supplement. Again, they do not run all of the time. We are a society that needs it .... all the time. Driving up to Hays this morning, I saw all of those awe inspiring turbines. Again... half were not even spinning a little bit."

I agree the problem is with the big publically traded electric utilities who are mostly content with the status quo. They support more coal generators, nuclear generators, etc. Only within the past few years have many utilities even embraced EE to reduce overall electrcity demand growth and peak load periods. I think if cooperative electric providers partnered up with wind energy companies the total percentage of electricity generated through renewables would go way up. The big hurdle is overcoming the lack of transmission line infrastructure in many rural areas. This would likely take federal funds for expansion if we really want to see a greater overall development of large-scale wind farms. I would like to see this occur as my relatives own a ranch in rural NW Kansas. They would be favorable to the idea of wind turbines on their property, but an inadequate rural electric grid prevents any potential development from occurring.

The only real fix is for energy to become unprofitable. Take a look at the very first link in my last post. Here.

"I'm not a Republican, first. Second, there would still be an influx of jobs to the Holcomb area. Is it necessarily true that the people who get those jobs are local to begin with? No. But where are they going to live? Holcomb. Which means, it brings in jobs. As far as the original construction, there are undoubtedly going to be a great deal of subcontractors from the local area that get brought in. In the mean time, once the plant is build, people have to run it. And once those people live there, that will generate more local income, and give more reason for local businesses to build up."

I am not denying that their will be an influx of jobs to SW Kansas due to the construction of this coal plant. That is good. Unfortunately, coal plants do not conjure up spin-off industries that generate related jobs. Also, coal plants have a relatively short lifespan, and Holcomb will be even shorter. You see, the coal plant designed to be built at Holcomb uses pulverized coal technology. This is outdated technology when you realize IGCC is the next generation technology. Also, federal regulations on CO2 are coming soon regardless of which administration is at the helm. The permit approval for actual construction of Holcomb might be held up as a result. The notion that Kansas would get 100% of the pollution and 10% of the electricity angered many Kansans, including my relatives. The Front Range is greedy and ignorant when it makes profligate grabs of land to claim water rights for their exponentially increasing population. That is also not sustainable

You made me nod a little, which means you made a point. I'm not sure if its enough for me to concede it entirely, but I hear you on this for sure.

"There is such a thing as clean coal. There are scrubbers in those stacks that can pull out so many more pollutants than they could even last year. They're talking about 0% carbon emission power plants, by pumping the carbon directly into green houses. ... which is exactly what earth's biohabitat is anyways. Trees eat CO2."

The part they don't want you to know is how the coal is mined. Much is strip mined or mined through mountaintop removal in the Applalachian Mountains. Much of the Appalachian coal is shipped to China for consumption because they have less stringent environmental regulations. Most coal in the US that is burned in power plants comes from the Powder River Basin region of Wyoming and Montana. These areas experienced a huge boom this decade because of the insidious relationship the Bush administration had with big oil and big coal at the expense of environmental protection. Google- mountaintop removal to see the destruction. I have talked with many people in this region and a good many are against it. It is wrecking their communities long-term survival even if it generates some short-term jobs.

Ok, Mountaintop mining is disgusting. Very wasteful.

"Before we can become a 'TRUE' 'clean energy' society, we HAVE to oust the powers that be that force us to rely on fossil fuels and other means."

I used to live in eastern Kansas. Westar makes big money that most benefits the corporate top guns at the expense of public health. They don't care. It's all about the $$$$. Westar is a publically traded electric utility company.

On the flip side, a corporation would be the only ones that could fund the eventual move to more free energy sources because of the technological advancement required.

"Many of the scientists that are part of that 'consensus' you mention were reeled in and want off the list. They were claimed as the 'consensus of leading world scientists' so that a political body could get its stuff rammed down the throats of many of the world's countries"

All scientists are validated to their own scientifically derived viewpoints on the issue. Even if climate change was not a pressing concern, everyone could agree that we need to be less dependent on Middle East oil, focus on a array of energy efficiency measures, encourage green building throughout our industrial, commercial, and residential housing stock, and buy locally grown foods. Doing those things reduces our energy consumption, lowers our "carbon footprint," and increases quality of life.

I agree that it is important to get rid of our dependency is important. But I think that getting rid of our dependency should be for the sake of removing our dependency---NOT for the sake of the scam that is global warming.