News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #50 on: January 09, 2007, 07:26:15 PM »
How much are utility costs at a golf course?   Better yet, excluding the clubhouse, how much are the utility costs on a maintance staff for pumping water?   My course has 45 holes and when you're in the pump house (which is only 3 years old) its an amazing powerful room with the buzz of electricty.

My kids school (k-12) has costs of about $10,000 per month.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #51 on: January 09, 2007, 07:38:35 PM »
My own course (Avenel) here in Maryland was profiled in the Washington Post (five years ago?) during one particularly grueling DC summer draught as being the 10th largest consumer of water in the state.  I'm sure the associated electrical was equally staggering.

A rather dubious distinction!

JC

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2007, 07:40:52 PM »
I love you guys!  Geoffrey, if you are a moderate as you claim, I am glad I don't have to hear the rhetoric of the Left.  I just pray that you are a bit more scientific, objective, and perhaps prudent in your use of the taxpayers' money when it comes to research in your area of expertise.  You do not have a clue about the economics of energy production in general and oil in particular, but I bet you're a big hit in the NYC cocktail circuit.  ;)

BTW, wasn't it the Kennedys who mounted a successful campaign not so long ago to prevent a sea-based wind farm miles of their Cape Cod compound?  Tom Doak is right, not in my back yard.

I want to start this rant by stating that Lou Duran made this personal and brought Republican - Democratic Conservative, Moderate - Liberal politics into this discussion
Lou - On this you are an idiot  ;) (smilie inserted for the same effect as you did) Only you can make this political or insert the name Kennedy.  Who the hell cares what Kennedy, Bush or any other politician thinks on this subject.  They are all too cowardly to do the right thing. Economics of oil Lou - I would not be surprised if you denied that we have gone to war twice in the last decade and a half for foreign oil interests (Republican Bush vendetta wars to make this political enough for you).  Where do you figure that cost?  Where do you factor the cost of clean up of spills, air polution, healthcare costs for increased diesases related to polution.  Go ahead Lou - deny those economics of the costs of oil.  Deny that we are all beholden to foreign interests because of oil dependency.  Beholden enough to go to war for that while ignoring genoside and famine in non oil rich areas of the world. You would prefer those taxpayer costs compared to research for clean renewable energy.  God Bless America. Don't you want to build a new industry and create jobs?  Sorry but you are an idiot brainwashed by your bankrupt politics.

Just what about my last post #50 is it that you object to? There were no politics in it either.  Just a statemnet that a very small pilot project on tidal energy generation showed some initial success.

PS Lou - please don't label me moderate or anything else.  That went out the window when the worst president in our history (my prediction is getting better daily heh Lou), a deserter from the army reserve, a man who started a war/invaded a country who did nothing to attack us and on illegal terms that he knew were wrong.  Who sent young men and women off to die when he nor his daughters would do so.  Who flaunts and pushes his so called religious principals on the rest of us who feel differently.  My moderation went bye bye with the politics of Bush.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 08:55:33 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2007, 08:55:31 PM »
Wow, Geoffrey, beyond the invective, your words speak loud and clear.  As to you being a moderate, I never thought you were one.   It was you who tried to pass yourself as one.  Maybe it is just the company you keep, but I don't think Michael Moore has anything on you.

I only brought Kennedy up because he talks much like you do (even though I am told that he doesn't believe his own rhetoric), but balked at the prospect of having significant wind energy production well-off the coast from his compound.
Cowardly?  Perhaps.  Inconsitent and hypocritical, for sure.

As to oil, when you start reading by candlelight and riding a bike instead of driving an Audi, maybe you can take the moral high road.  Your simplistic view of economics and how the world works is really depressing and scary because I know you are well-educated in your field and a smart man.  That you should know better and don't is a cause of concern.

We fight wars for a number of reasons with preserving our way of life right up at the top.  Oil is an integral part of our economy and until someone figures out how to do energy better or we run out of it, it will continue to be the key commodity.  Without oil, our economy would collapse, not to say what would happen to government revenues.  The dirty little secret is that all levels of government are the biggest profiteers from the oil industry.  And only God knows what would happen to the environment if we had to do without oil.

Your side has successfully restricted domestic exploration since the Reagan years and totally stopped the development of nuclear power.  In effect, you guys have put a greater premium on maintaining foreign supplies open and put our country at risk.  Then you all have the gall to bitch about the consequences.  For shame.

BTW, no matter what you enbolden and how you twist, write, and re-write, the political nature of the post is yours in the context of the Middle East.  I guess that someone hacked-in into your computer and submitted the following under your name:

"Good thing the Texas White House is becoming as outdated as a buggy whip pretty soon."  
 
I repeat, I only brought up Kennedy as an example of someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk.  I for one would welcome a serious, apolitical energy debate which doesn't take anything automatically off the table.
 
     

« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 09:02:57 PM by Lou_Duran »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2007, 09:06:00 PM »
As do your words Lou- Amazing how something as simple as trying to develop energy independence using renewable and clean methods can bring the robber barrons out of the woodwork and in a huff.  Little do you realize that whole new industries can be generated.

We need and will need oil for the immediate and not so immediate future and unfortunately using automobiles is one use.  Why not try to eliminate other uses of oil where possible.  Your stance is incomprehensible.  Nuclear will be a disaster and you can't quote economics there either.  Factor in the decommission of the plants and the storage and decontamination whcih are currently not worked out and you have an economic disaster. Then factor in the terrorist threat to those plants and its even worse.

YOu brought up Kennedy because you wanted to interject politics and the conservitive agenda.  YOU STARTED DOWN THAT PATH AND YOU MADE THIS PERSONAL.

Clean renewaable energy should not be a political issue - unless that is the conservatives have a financial stake in the outcome and are on the side of the oil industry.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2007, 09:40:29 PM »
Geoff - I hope no one thinks that the earth is not well into an oil-use death spiral.  

Man will use alternate ways to transport, heat and power only when the cars stop working, their houses grow cold and the lights go out.  We as a species are opportunistic and reactionary.  As an engineer I admire the discovery process of innovatively new energy technologies.  But these will forever remain in the academic realm until the easier options are exhausted.

Tell me I can't light/heat my house without alternate means and you will soon see wind farms across the entire Lousiana Purchase.

JC

JohnV

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2007, 09:44:42 PM »
Lou,

Mitt Romney is also opposed to the wind farm that Kennedy opposes, which is why Kennedy snuck a rider into a bill that said the governor of Massachusetts had the final word on it.  I guess he is a flaming liberal also now?  Of course, the way he has backpedaled on gay rights now that he is running for the Republican Presidential nomination he might have changed his mind on that also.

Oh and that little move backfired on Teddy as the new governor is supposedly in favor of fhe wind farm. ;)

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2007, 10:57:07 PM »
Geoffrey,

Wait a minute, Partner!  Weren't you the one who told me awhile back that calling me an idiot among other similar things wasn't personal?  As I recall, you said it was aimed at my politics and not my person.  Yes, I am still scratching my head over that one.

I am all for having a diverse menu of energy options.  Wind could very well be part of the mix.  There is no silver bullet out in the foreseeable horizon to solve our energy problems, or so I am told by those who know much more about these things than I do.  Something to do with the physics of converting matter to energy, but, admitedly, this is well beyond my level of competence.

As for government subsidies of alternative energy sources, I was under the impression that your side deplores special interest groups and their lobbyists.  I am suspicious of most things our benevolent government does and I particularly dislike its power to selectively determine winners and losers.  My preference would be for the technologies to be developed without taxpayer contributions.  And yes, I understand the arguments made by NASA and academia for government support of pure research and some applications.

JVB,

I don't understand your reference to Mitt Romney.   However, if he was elected in Mass, his conservative credentials can't be too strong.  That a conservative would object to a green source of energy is not as dissonant as a socialist like Kennedy doing so.  Perhaps Romney doesn't believe that wind power is a feasible source.  Or maybe he parties with Ted and didn't want to see a 1" tall "statute" in the horizon while lounging over drinks.  What are the odds of the platforms going up?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 11:00:49 PM by Lou_Duran »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #58 on: January 09, 2007, 11:18:16 PM »
Lou

You conveniently side step questions about the true costs of oil.

Yes or No - Tax dollars by the hundreds of billions of dollars are used by the military to support the foreign oil fields including two recent wars and untold additional support to prop up dictatorships holding foreign oil fields tha tsupport our interests?

Yes or No - Health Insurance and Healthcare costs are raised from the effects of burning oil.

Yes or No - Pollution cleanup - mostly with tax dollars raises the true costs of oil?

All are subsidies of the oil industry.

Good try Partner!

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
No-one is innocent.
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2007, 07:33:23 AM »
Lou & Geoffrey

Oil is going to be around for quite some time.  Sure, its great to seek out alternatives if only because we should always be looking for ways to become more efficient.  In the meantime, wouldn't it seem prudent to use the technology and common sense available now to be more efficient?  The US doesn't use the amount of resources and create the amount of pollution because it needs to.  At least to some significant degree it is a matter of choice.  There is a load of room for increased efficiency that Americans as a society don't bother with.  So far as I can tell, the US is one of the few countries in the world that wraps its actions around phrases such as "held hostage by oil interests".  Sure we all need oil, but even without viable energy alternatives does American dependence on oil have to be so much more urgent than what other countries experience?  

Ciao

Cheap gas prices is one of the few bragging rights the US has left... The amount of people who need a Suburban or Excursion or any other of these blights on automotive transport is about 1 in 100. I have a child, a dog, a wife and a set of golf clubs. Equipment for a week's holiday can all be fit into an Audi A4 Avant if you just take 10 minutes to pack the car properly. Sometimes the wife rides on top, but I do what I can for the planet.  :)

Seriously though, this whole rhetoric of picking apart politicians private actions and using them as an excuse for not moving forward in the public sphere is in a word, inexcusable.

The new Democratic majority was elected by the people for one reason. To stop wasting our tax dollars on trying to create an idealized democratic system in parts of the globe of strategic interest to us.  Considering how oppositional our own politics has become, why are we  surprized that more than one person in these countries is not interested in our thoughts on how they should run their societies?

If the Iraq War and all it entails (summed up earlier in this thread by Geoff Childs) explains how you voted in last year's election, I encourage you to write your congressman/woman and remind them of that fact before they hand the White House another blank check to be paid off by your children, and their children, and...
Next!

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2007, 03:28:34 PM »
Geoffrey,

It is not about American society vs. the oil industry.  We are intimately involved in the oil industry either through employment, investment, consumption, and just everyday living.  Without oil, America and all developed countries would cease to exist as viable, growing societies.

It is impossible to allocate the true costs of defense to one industry just like it is to accurately estimate the benefits of oil production to the economy and our lifestyle.

In a world without oil, I am assuming that we would still maintain the armed forces in order to secure our safety and protect our vital interests.  To the best of my knowledge, the world experienced war and strife long before petroleum was used commercially, and, I suspect, will do so once the last economically retrievable drop has been produced.  Of course, being an idiot as you've suggested, I am probably all wrong and our children's children's children, on that fateful day, will all be singing "Imagine" and "We are the World" in perfect harmony.  I hope so.

On your other points, I was under the impression that the most oil related spills are cleaned up at the expense of the entity which caused them.  Also, the amount of taxes collected by governments all over the world for oil related products is staggering.  Gasoline alone has something like 40 to 50 cents per gallon tax here and much higher in other countries.  Add the lease revenues paid by oil companies, their corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, the shareholders' taxes on dividends and capital gains, automobile sales taxes, registration fees, and I could go on and on.

These are a whole bunch of taxes.  Perhaps the better question from the Left might be to what extent is "Big Oil" subsidizing government and politicians to ensure its survival?  By the way, I think that instead of subsidies, you might be really talking about externalities.

Sean,

No arguments with what you say.  By the way, what countries get more output per barrel than the U.S.?  Though rising energy costs are burdensome and regressive, it does have a positive impact on conservation.  

Anthony,

Have you really thought about what you just said?  There are a number of countries with cheaper gas and we can't keep their people from violating our borders.  Do you suppose they come here to pay more?

Oil is a commodity.  It is fungible.   UK and French companies do not pay more for their crude than we do.  Their governments just choose to tax the hell out of petroleum.  So, if you are suggesting that we have a thriving economy because inexpensive gasoline prices, are you saying that the Europeans with higher unemployment and lower growth are a bunch of stupids because they make theirs ungodly expensive?

BTW, I don't like it that you drive an Audi.  Perhaps you should think about a golf cart, or maybe taking public transportation on your trips.  Bikes are very green and they are great for your health.  Of course, this is just as nonsensical and inappropriate as you dictating to the SUV owner.

I do respect your right to write to your Congressman.  Go for it.  Let's pull out of Irag tomorrow, in six months, the sooner the better.  Let the various factions go at it.  What's a million people here or there?  Then we can show the world that at least one party is not all about that evil oil.    

   

Mike_Cirba

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2007, 03:42:56 PM »
Wow...

And I thought there was vitriol and acrimony over on the Merion threads!   :o ;)

ForkaB

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2007, 04:50:36 PM »
I see rekatively little vitriol here, Mike, just a little too much naivete.  Lou excepted, of course, as usual.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2007, 05:14:47 PM »
Mike,

Are you leveling this at me?  Sorry, but it is not my style to trade insults like it was routinely done in the Merion thread and how Geoffrey repeatedly has done on threads where I challenge him on his assertion about Bush and conservatives.  If my views threaten the cherished beliefs of others and they get their feelings hurt, perhaps they should question those beliefs or offer me substantive arguments how mine are mistaken.  Calling another an idiot, full of BS, and making up things that were never said to set up a straw man are not ways to reach an understanding (notice I didn't say agreement).

One other big difference with the Merion thread.  This one is of a very serious, substantive nature.  Wheter M & W should have received greater or less credit for the design of Merion is not only very arcane, but of little consequence including to the 10 or so people who really give a damn.  Our energy policy and what now happens in Iraq will affect millions and millions of lives.  The way we left Viet Nam and the subsequent massacres there and in Cambodia should give us all reason to pause before making emotional, unreasoned decisions.  

And with this I do bow out.  Gracias.  

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2007, 06:17:05 PM »
The way we left Viet Nam and the subsequent massacres there and in Cambodia should give us all reason to pause before making emotional, unreasoned decisions.  

And with this I do bow out.  Gracias.  

Those things happpened because we chose to escalate our military committment in Vietnam, involving other countries beyond Vietnam... That's how the whole Khymer Rouge thing happened in Cambodia. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more likelihood there is of this thing spreading to other countries. Eventually we have to leave and since the Sunnis and the Shias have disliked each other for a couple of centuries, I'm not sure what difference a year or two means... except a $1bn and about 4 or five American lives a day.

I am aware that there are several countries with cheaper gas than the US. BTW-the country you refer to (Mexico) lags far behind Venezuela and Nigeria in terms of cheap gas. I think more expensive gas is fine as long as the model of the cigarette industry is used... taxes are used to get people to stop using it.

For some reason, the development of alternative energy is thought of by the Cro-Magnons amongst us as homework, whereas this activity should be viewed as the thing that will keep our economy going.

P.S. I don't like that I drive an Audi either... it will be traded for a hybrid when the lease is over in a year.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 06:22:20 PM by Anthony Butler »
Next!

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #65 on: January 10, 2007, 06:40:32 PM »
Trade insults Lou – You were the one who mentioned my name specifically while I don’t recall mentioning you by name or implying anything directed at you until you attacked me.  I don’t need your lecture when I mention Bush.  I already know that you are somewhat right of John Birch and that’s fine but don’t go dancing around the facts and don’t deny that you started the personal attack.

As Anthony mentioned we are spending $1 BILLION per day directly to Iraq but that’s not affecting the economics of oil.  Do they teach Voodoo math in Texas?  The thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives count here too and this is nothing about saving the world or the region for democracy. You also imply that higher gas prices and US oil industry taxes are actually subsidizing the government.  HAH HAH HAH – Voodoo economics of the right.  It’s totally laughable. Where did the Clinton surplus go to with the free spending Bush White House?  The man and his legacy is a laughing stock. The man illegally invaded a country that did not attack us and made a total shambles of their way of life, destabilized and area, created a haven for terrorists and you are lecturing us on how to get out  “Our energy policy and what now happens in Iraq will affect millions and millions of lives.  The way we left Viet Nam and the subsequent massacres there and in Cambodia should give us all reason to pause before making emotional, unreasoned decisions.  – HAH

Anthony had it right when he said ” For some reason, the development of alternative energy is thought of by the Cro-Magnons as homework, whereas this activity could be the thing that keeps our economy going.”   Aside from saving the environment and the subsequent costs of cleaning it up to make it habitable for human life  (if that’s even possible) some new companies that evolve from these technologies could be the Microsoft’s, Cisco’s and General Electric’s of the 21st century.

Adios for me too.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Wind Energy
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2007, 08:19:22 PM »
Lou,

I wasn't pointing to anyone...just to the general tone of the thread.


Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Worm has turned.
« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2007, 12:10:48 PM »
As Anthony mentioned we are spending $1 BILLION per day directly to Iraq but that’s not affecting the economics of oil.  Do they teach Voodoo math in Texas?  The thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives count here too and this is nothing about saving the world or the region for democracy. You also imply that higher gas prices and US oil industry taxes are actually subsidizing the government.  HAH HAH HAH – Voodoo economics of the right.  It’s totally laughable. Where did the Clinton surplus go to with the free spending Bush White House?  The man and his legacy is a laughing stock. The man illegally invaded a country that did not attack us and made a total shambles of their way of life, destabilized and area, created a haven for terrorists and you are lecturing us on how to get out  “Our energy policy and what now happens in Iraq will affect millions and millions of lives.  The way we left Viet Nam and the subsequent massacres there and in Cambodia should give us all reason to pause before making emotional, unreasoned decisions.  – HAH

Anthony had it right when he said ” For some reason, the development of alternative energy is thought of by the Cro-Magnons as homework, whereas this activity could be the thing that keeps our economy going.”  

I know the Clintons and Bush family are all buddy-buddy, but after last night's fiasco, I'd swear that the White House is working on Barack Obama's election campaign. In presenting the obvious counterpoint to the proposed Iraq "plan" he's starting to like mighty presidential...
Next!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back