2436RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
- Mar 15, 2004Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long. You
will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.
From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
being hit by wind turbine blades.
And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.
From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
> the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
> about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
> frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
> opinion is similar to the one i found at
> once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
> I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
> OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
> don't mention it anyway.
> here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
> forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
> general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
> if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
> am supposing from my limited information "cache":
> 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
> Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
> chronic threat to living organisms.
> 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
> reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
> lethal.); BUT, it is not.
> 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
> will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and greed.
> if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
> may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
> would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
> appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
> can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
> because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
> and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
> equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
> decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
> environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
> logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
> taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
> desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
> in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
> generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
> process is short-sighted.
> I sometimes wonder about these humans.
> Martian wanna-be.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>