Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

Expand Messages
  • chasmauch@aol.com
    Here is an interesting commentary on our unhappy energy situation. Charlie Here is an interesting commentary on our unhappy energy situation. Charlie ... From:
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is an interesting commentary on our unhappy energy situation.
      Charlie
    • Paul Archer
      While I fully agree with the article s assumption that should we run out of energy resources, the world will take a giant step backwards, I have two issues
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        While I fully agree with the article's assumption that should we run out of
        energy resources, the world will take a giant step backwards, I have two
        issues with the tone of inevitablity in the article.

        First, the drying up of our petrochemical resources will force a switch to
        renewable energy sources, as well as nuclear energy (like it or not) at some
        point. We will not simplywake up one day to find that all the oil is gone,
        and that we have been plunged into darkness. It will be a (relatively)
        gradual process. (I do agree that sooner is much, much better than later,
        though.)


        Second, there is a fair bit of evidence that we will *not* be running out of
        petrochemicals any time soon. Conventional wisdom says that we are nearing
        depletion of our reserves--but conventional wisdom also says that
        hydrocarbons are biogenic in nature. That is to say, that hydrocarbons are
        produced by the breakdown of biological materials deposited millions of
        years ago. (While we romanticize this as decayed dinosaurs, it's widely
        believed to be primarily mosses, which were the dominant life form on this
        planet (in terms of sheer bulk) for millions of years.)
        There is, however, a growing body of evidence that hydrocarbons are, in
        fact, non-biogenic in nature. Hydrocarbons have been found in meteorites
        and in deep wells in igneous rock where no organic sediment was present.
        There are also chemical clues in petrochemical (which, as someone with
        no grounding in chemistry other than what was forced upon me in high
        school, I don't quite follow) that point to a non-biogenic origin.
        This means that:
        1) Hydrocarbons are found much deeper in the planet's crust than
        people have been looking.
        2) There is a greater supply (by orders of magnitude) than most
        people think.
        3) We won't be running out any time soon.
        4) The conventional wisdom about where to look for oil will have to
        be thrown out the window, which will take a while, as oil
        companies finally start *really* looking for alternative
        places to drill, and because major shifts in the basics of
        any scientific discipline are always mightily opposed.


        Unfortunately, it's not easy to find a lot of material on the subject right
        now. One paper I did find is here:
        http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

        Paul Archer


        10:06am, chasmauch@... wrote:

        > Here is an interesting commentary on our unhappy energy situation.
        > Charlie
        >

        --------------------------------------------------------
        Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

        Paul's Corollary:
        Never trust a computer that's been repaired by its user.
        --------------------------------------------------------
      • HARRISON, HEATHER L. (JSC-ZR) (MEI)
        Actually, that paints a grimmer picture to me. I am actually more afraid of finding out that we have an order of magnitude greater supply than we currently
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually, that paints a grimmer picture to me.
          I am actually more afraid of finding out that we have an order of magnitude
          greater supply than we currently think that running out one day. If we run
          out soon, at least that puts a cap on the amount of hydrocarbon-based
          pollution we can create. I fear the truly widespread, indiscriminant
          killing of an ecological collapse more than a war over oil. With a limit
          not in our sites, what motivation does the non-conscientious have to move
          towards renewable?


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Paul Archer [mailto:tigger@...]
          Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:04 AM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming


          While I fully agree with the article's assumption that should we run out of
          energy resources, the world will take a giant step backwards, I have two
          issues with the tone of inevitablity in the article.

          First, the drying up of our petrochemical resources will force a switch to
          renewable energy sources, as well as nuclear energy (like it or not) at some
          point. We will not simplywake up one day to find that all the oil is gone,
          and that we have been plunged into darkness. It will be a (relatively)
          gradual process. (I do agree that sooner is much, much better than later,
          though.)


          Second, there is a fair bit of evidence that we will *not* be running out of
          petrochemicals any time soon. Conventional wisdom says that we are nearing
          depletion of our reserves--but conventional wisdom also says that
          hydrocarbons are biogenic in nature. That is to say, that hydrocarbons are
          produced by the breakdown of biological materials deposited millions of
          years ago. (While we romanticize this as decayed dinosaurs, it's widely
          believed to be primarily mosses, which were the dominant life form on this
          planet (in terms of sheer bulk) for millions of years.)
          There is, however, a growing body of evidence that hydrocarbons are, in
          fact, non-biogenic in nature. Hydrocarbons have been found in meteorites
          and in deep wells in igneous rock where no organic sediment was present.
          There are also chemical clues in petrochemical (which, as someone with
          no grounding in chemistry other than what was forced upon me in high
          school, I don't quite follow) that point to a non-biogenic origin.
          This means that:
          1) Hydrocarbons are found much deeper in the planet's crust than
          people have been looking.
          2) There is a greater supply (by orders of magnitude) than most
          people think.
          3) We won't be running out any time soon.
          4) The conventional wisdom about where to look for oil will have to
          be thrown out the window, which will take a while, as oil
          companies finally start *really* looking for alternative
          places to drill, and because major shifts in the basics of
          any scientific discipline are always mightily opposed.


          Unfortunately, it's not easy to find a lot of material on the subject right
          now. One paper I did find is here:
          http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

          Paul Archer


          10:06am, chasmauch@... wrote:

          > Here is an interesting commentary on our unhappy energy situation.
          > Charlie
          >

          --------------------------------------------------------
          Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

          Paul's Corollary:
          Never trust a computer that's been repaired by its user.
          --------------------------------------------------------




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Paul Archer
          That s an issue I ve considered as well. The good news, should we find out that, indeed, we do have greater reserves than we thought, is that these reserves
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            That's an issue I've considered as well. The good news, should we find out
            that, indeed, we do have greater reserves than we thought, is that these
            reserves are potentially going to be deeper and harder to get to than
            currently known deposits. That means it's going to cost more, and therefore
            tip the scales in favor of renewables.

            paul


            11:21am, HARRISON, HEATHER L. (JSC-ZR) (MEI) wrote:

            > Actually, that paints a grimmer picture to me.
            > I am actually more afraid of finding out that we have an order of magnitude
            > greater supply than we currently think that running out one day. If we run
            > out soon, at least that puts a cap on the amount of hydrocarbon-based
            > pollution we can create. I fear the truly widespread, indiscriminant
            > killing of an ecological collapse more than a war over oil. With a limit
            > not in our sites, what motivation does the non-conscientious have to move
            > towards renewable?
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Paul Archer [mailto:tigger@...]
            > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:04 AM
            > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
            >
            >
            > While I fully agree with the article's assumption that should we run out of
            > energy resources, the world will take a giant step backwards, I have two
            > issues with the tone of inevitablity in the article.
            >
            > First, the drying up of our petrochemical resources will force a switch to
            > renewable energy sources, as well as nuclear energy (like it or not) at some
            > point. We will not simplywake up one day to find that all the oil is gone,
            > and that we have been plunged into darkness. It will be a (relatively)
            > gradual process. (I do agree that sooner is much, much better than later,
            > though.)
            >
            >
            > Second, there is a fair bit of evidence that we will *not* be running out of
            > petrochemicals any time soon. Conventional wisdom says that we are nearing
            > depletion of our reserves--but conventional wisdom also says that
            > hydrocarbons are biogenic in nature. That is to say, that hydrocarbons are
            > produced by the breakdown of biological materials deposited millions of
            > years ago. (While we romanticize this as decayed dinosaurs, it's widely
            > believed to be primarily mosses, which were the dominant life form on this
            > planet (in terms of sheer bulk) for millions of years.)
            > There is, however, a growing body of evidence that hydrocarbons are, in
            > fact, non-biogenic in nature. Hydrocarbons have been found in meteorites
            > and in deep wells in igneous rock where no organic sediment was present.
            > There are also chemical clues in petrochemical (which, as someone with
            > no grounding in chemistry other than what was forced upon me in high
            > school, I don't quite follow) that point to a non-biogenic origin.
            > This means that:
            > 1) Hydrocarbons are found much deeper in the planet's crust than
            > people have been looking.
            > 2) There is a greater supply (by orders of magnitude) than most
            > people think.
            > 3) We won't be running out any time soon.
            > 4) The conventional wisdom about where to look for oil will have to
            > be thrown out the window, which will take a while, as oil
            > companies finally start *really* looking for alternative
            > places to drill, and because major shifts in the basics of
            > any scientific discipline are always mightily opposed.
            >
            >
            > Unfortunately, it's not easy to find a lot of material on the subject right
            > now. One paper I did find is here:
            > http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html
            >
            > Paul Archer
            >
            >
            > 10:06am, chasmauch@... wrote:
            >
            > > Here is an interesting commentary on our unhappy energy situation.
            > > Charlie
            > >
            >
            > --------------------------------------------------------
            > Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.
            >
            > Paul's Corollary:
            > Never trust a computer that's been repaired by its user.
            > --------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            -------------------------------------------------------------
            witzelsucht (vit'sel-zoocht) [Ger.]
            "A mental condition characteristic of frontal lobe lesions
            and marked by the making of poor jokes and puns and
            the telling of pointless stories, at which
            the patient himself is intensely amused."
            From Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 26th edition.
            -------------------------------------------------------------
          • Roxanne Boyer
            I agree that we will probably never run out of fossil fuels However, they are becoming more expensive to extract and of poorer quality, except for what is in
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 7, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree that we will probably never run out of fossil fuels  However, they are becoming more expensive to extract and of poorer quality, except for what is in the Middle East. Even with the taking over of Iraq, OPEC was not intimidated and continues to raise prices.  The time is coming (statistical models show about 2040, unless a step change occurs) when oil & gas will just be to expensive to burn.  The cost of renewables is becoming more competitive every year.  I believe that Generation X and Y will experience major changes in the energy industry.  Many will experience economic "depression" compared to previous generation, but I doubt many will go hungry.  America is still a contry full of vibrant, creative, industrious people that can solve problems and create new opportunities.  I hope the next big area of national research funding will be solar related (after the fuel cell and national security fads blows over). 
               
              Also, a thought on wind.  Wind power has tremendous potential as an economic renewable energy.  I am disturbed by the fact that Wind Turbines kill birds and this fact has stumped wind farm projects along the coast - Galveston for example.  I have seen the massive flocks during migrations and have a hard time imagining a line of turbines in the way.  A few thoughts... 1) A few hundred birds may die each year; a small number compared to the massive animal life lost each year due to oil spills.  2) It seems we could invent something that would keep the birds away from the turbines.  3) It seems we could place the turbines in places away from major migration paths (or do the birds use the same wind that we want to harness?).
               
              -Chris 
               
            • classified
              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
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 14, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                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.

                Terry.
                Martian wanna-be.
              • Jim & Janet
                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
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 14, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  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/
                  Jim Duncan

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                  To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                  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
                  >
                  http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                  > 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.
                  >
                  > Terry.
                  > Martian wanna-be.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Andy
                  In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats being hit by wind turbine blades.
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 15, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
                    being hit by wind turbine blades.

                    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
                    3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

                    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.

                    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
                    628270c2.html

                    Andy

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
                    Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    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/
                    Jim Duncan

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                    To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                    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
                    >
                    http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                    > 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.
                    >
                    > Terry.
                    > Martian wanna-be.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >






                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Andy
                    Opps, 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
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 15, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Opps, 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.

                      Andy

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
                      Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      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.

                      http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
                      3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

                      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.

                      http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
                      628270c2.html

                      Andy

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
                      Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      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/
                      Jim Duncan

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                      To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                      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
                      >
                      http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                      > 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.
                      >
                      > Terry.
                      > Martian wanna-be.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >






                      Yahoo! Groups Links








                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • C.C. Foster
                      If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species. Birds
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 16, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and
                        birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species.
                        Birds and bats flying into windmills seems to be an imaganary issue.

                        <html><div><FONT face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">Claude
                        Foster</FONT></div></html>




                        >From: "Andy" <andy@...>
                        >Reply-To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                        >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                        >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0600
                        >
                        >Opps, 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.
                        >
                        >Andy
                        >
                        >-----Original Message-----
                        >From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
                        >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
                        >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        >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.
                        >
                        >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
                        >3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006
                        >
                        >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.
                        >
                        >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
                        >628270c2.html
                        >
                        >Andy
                        >
                        >-----Original Message-----
                        >From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
                        >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
                        >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        >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/
                        >Jim Duncan
                        >
                        >----- Original Message -----
                        >From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                        >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                        >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
                        > >
                        >http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                        > > 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.
                        > >
                        > > Terry.
                        > > Martian wanna-be.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        _________________________________________________________________
                        FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
                        http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
                      • Richard D. Kelley
                        Only the dumb birds will die. ... From: C.C. Foster [SMTP:c_c_foster@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 AM To: hreg@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE:
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 16, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Only the dumb birds will die.


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: C.C. Foster [SMTP:c_c_foster@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 AM
                          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

                          If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and
                          birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species.
                          Birds and bats flying into windmills seems to be an imaganary issue.

                          <html><div><FONT face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">Claude
                          Foster</FONT></div></html>




                          >From: "Andy" <andy@...>
                          >Reply-To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                          >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                          >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0600
                          >
                          >Opps, 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.
                          >
                          >Andy
                          >
                          >-----Original Message-----
                          >From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
                          >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
                          >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          >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.
                          >
                          >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
                          >3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006
                          >
                          >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.
                          >
                          >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
                          >628270c2.html
                          >
                          >Andy
                          >
                          >-----Original Message-----
                          >From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
                          >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
                          >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          >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/
                          >Jim Duncan
                          >
                          >----- Original Message -----
                          >From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                          >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                          >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
                          > >
                          >http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                          > > 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.
                          > >
                          > > Terry.
                          > > Martian wanna-be.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          _________________________________________________________________
                          FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
                          http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/




                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.