OT T Boone Pickens

Page 5 of 6  

dpb wrote:

I ran into an even worse one once. "If I told _me_ what I worked on and the results, I'd have to shoot myself". Did show the Powers that Be a big hole in their security though.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: ...

Well, at least the reactor security stuff wasn't nearly as painful to work with as DOE Q...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:02:07 -0400, "J. Clarke"

Wasn't that the standard for the WTC too?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

No idea, but note the problem wasn't the impact. If anything was remiss in the design it was the size and duration of fire which isn't in the scenario under discussion here anyway.
And with that this has become so far off track as to be worth marking to ignore any remainder of the thread....
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

What you know! If a jar of pickles can spontaneously explode and destroy twelve city blocks with massive fatalities and render the whole area a toxic pit, then spent fuel rods are similarly vulnerable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmmmm, I've never noticed a legal disclaimer at the end of the pickle aisle. I'll have to take better notice next trip.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

The problem is a power plant in Iowa is not much help for the power hungry area of East Massachusetts. You are also not likely to ever get any other kind of power plant there either without a fight from somebody
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are legitimate concerns with putting up windmills just anywhere. While I'm no fan of the Kennedys and you certainly can call them hypocrits because they run around advocating green solutions, I agree that they have a legitimate concern about putting up offshore windmills that destroy a pristine view. Here in NJ there was a plan to put 350ft high windmills offshore within sight of land. To me, that is unacceptable. The last thing we need to do is turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. We spend a huge amount of money here buying up open land and forest to keep it natural and from being developed. To then turn around and destroy one of the most priceless views makes no sense.
If they can be located beyond sight, then I have no problem with that. But even that gets blocked by environmentalists, who then moan about bird strikes, harm to fish, etc. I'd also seriously question the economics of offshore windmills as compared to other alternatives.
Heaven forbid someone has to look at a windmill. It's much more pleasant to look at smoke stacks, light poles and exhaust pipes. Houston Texas now gets 25% of it's electricity from windpower. Texas gets 10% of it's electricity from windpower. I doubt if .0005% of the people in Texas have seen a windmill.
We are also starting to get a lot of our water from the gulf of Mexico through desalination processes. Nobody seems to complain about that huge desalination plant on the coast. Phil Gramm was right, "we';ve become a nation of whiners". Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either welcome progress or shut up and accept your lot in life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What about the view from the water? We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves... :( :)
Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous argument to me...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

theirs and then everyone else is on their own.

Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like people used to do with trains.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

So the ships can come (and go :) ) in front of and behind the windmill...the cattle do here and people stop to take 'pichurs' ...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The point is to get any reasonable amount of power from windmills you need not, one "plant", not one ship, but thousands of them. And IMO, putting these 375 foot tall structures offshore and ruining the view when they are within sight of land is a major issue and would be a big mistake.
I already stated that here we have one nuke within 20 miles of my house. We have 3 more nukes in NJ. I'd be happy if they built more. I'd be happy if they opened up offshore to drilling, out of sight of land. I'd be OK with windmills located offshore out of sight from the beach. We have fall out in pollution from the coal fired plants to our west. We have major oil refineries supplying many other states with gasoline and diesel. Must we have to agree that windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you happy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

As long as you think we have to have them on the pristine plains, then yes, I do...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When did I ever say I thought you had to have windmills on the plains? Maybe you can't read and have me confused with Pickens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I can't tell _what_ you think, specifically on that particular subject -- you say one thing then the other attitude creeps back in it appears in a followup...
In reality, I wasn't speaking so much directly at you as trying to emphasize the point that there are views of open expanse out here in what most consider the nearly deserted middle and that it seems ok to most in populated areas (including Topeka and Kansas City) that those areas get visually polluted while somehow the seacoast or mountain retreat or whatever of the complainers are somehow sacrosanct. Meanwhile, of course, those same people are often among the most profligate users of the very power they want delivered to them w/o their having any burden.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

How's this for a plan: A federal regulation that says 90% of the power consumed within a state must be generated within the state (or within 24 miles of the state's coastline). If, for whatever reason (worry about pollution, esthetics, hazard to navigation, etc.) a state is unable to be self-sufficient, it can cut back its usage.
In the alternative, a federal tax on all electric power that crosses a state line, say, three-cents per kwh.
I'm in a state that produces about 105% of it's domestic needs (we sell a little bit to Mexico and Oklahoma). In fact, the city in which I live (8 million people in the metropolitan area) has no zoning. If someone wanted to build a power plant next door to me, well, that's okay.
As you might guess, I don't have much sympathy for those who screech NIMBY.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

So let's see, we have a state with huge amounts of hydropower and little population so we discourage them from selling their excess power to the adjacent states with large populations and little hydropower, instead encouraging those states to build their own, dirtier power plants. Now, remind me, what was the benefit of your plan supposed to be?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The trouble with that is it seems to filet a fairly large number of fish when the schools wander into the generator area. At least that was the argument I saw against it last year. If global warming doesn't do it, maybe KS can use tidal forces after the West Coast falls off the continent following The Big One.
Kurt (Better get ready to tie-up de boat in Idaho) Ullman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is interesting that when they asked him if he had a wind generator on his ranch he said no, they are butt ugly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.