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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Mar 5 9:57 AM
    • 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 2 of 11 , Mar 7 8:45 PM
      • 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 3 of 11 , Mar 14 11:42 AM
        • 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 4 of 11 , Mar 14 1:07 PM
          • 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 5 of 11 , Mar 15 8:34 AM
            • 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 6 of 11 , Mar 15 8:38 AM
              • 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 7 of 11 , Mar 16 5:42 AM
                • 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 8 of 11 , Mar 16 11:24 AM
                  • 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.