# ALL Wind turbines under threat



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48596

"Landowners and farmers could face jail time or a $50,000 penalty for putting a wind turbine, regardless of whether it is for personal use or of a commercial scale, on their property without certification by the USFWS director."


dont understand this at all, someone somewhere must have been .............


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I figured people might want to read it for themselves, and see if it does say what that website says it does... so here is

H. R. 2337 proposed bill in printer format 

Angie


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Ask Ted And John Boy Kennedy. They were all hot about wind turbines till somebody wanted to put a farm on their island up there. (whats its name Nannytucket) Sudden dislike then. Couple that with all the enviros who were hollering for wind power in the 70-80 till they supposedly gettin this big bird kill from the birds flying into the props. Never can please any of those LWF'S


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

This Rahall seems to have been smoking some really bad weed.

Twenty years in the snatorium might help (maybe not)


----------



## Cash (Apr 24, 2007)

I assume Rahall sees wind power as a threat to West Virginia's coal industry? What other justification is there?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I was listening to a program about producing electricity.
According to the program the cost to produce electricity from the wind is just a little bit more than the cost of producing electricity from coal. The only advantage of the wind is less polution. With the new regs in the last few years coal fired plants are becoming a lot cleaner and polute less.

According to the program nuclear is the best bet we have for the future. There have been several discoveries in the last few years that make it even a better idea. The cost to produce electricity from nuclear plants is much lower than coal, natural gas, or wind.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Who ever the poster just above is its for shure he heard a bad program with all kinds of miss information and that this thread could\would go far adrift punching holes in to said program.

There fore back to the windy thread.

Its a sad state of affairs that "we" have oh so many poly-ticians that are totally bought out by "BIG Business". Of course Coal bought this guy out.
The informed folks I know are not saying that coal generation is "done".

So why does he\they come up with such an outlandish idea as this *bill* . . . . . . .????

I would trust this Randall dude about as far as I can toss my truck.

He doesn't seem to have any sence.
Anybody care to check how much "cents" coal put into his pocket . . . . ??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

pancho said:


> I was listening to a program about producing electricity.
> According to the program the cost to produce electricity from the wind is just a little bit more than the cost of producing electricity from coal. The only advantage of the wind is less polution. With the new regs in the last few years coal fired plants are becoming a lot cleaner and polute less.
> 
> According to the program nuclear is the best bet we have for the future. There have been several discoveries in the last few years that make it even a better idea. The cost to produce electricity from nuclear plants is much lower than coal, natural gas, or wind.


 "the only advantage of wind power is less pollution" LMAO. Wind generates NO pollution. No toxic byproducts, no spewing of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Of course, everything has its cost to manufacture, but the payoff is quick with wind energy. After a few years all the energy it took to produce the machine is paid back, the rest of its lifespan it generates electricity completely free of pollution.
So nuclear is going to make its big comeback, eh? Have these 'new discoveries' fixed the problem of dealing with toxic waste that remains radioactive and deadly for 10,000 years?
By the way, what ever happened with the nationwide nuclear waste repository? Any Nevadans know if they have opened Yucca Mountain?


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Wind power does produce polution. There are piles of rotting dead stinking birds under them things. Just ask any enviro.

I think you might want to talk to the US NAvy about Nuclear power. Seeing as how they have some 30 years experience and no major accidents. Even France which has a lot of nuclear power has been safe. COmpare the number of casualties from refineries and mines to nuclear. We should have done it years ago. But we were fear mongered out of it byt the radical LWLT


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i wonder how much co2 is created during the mining and refining process for nuclear energy? 

i don't see how it is possible that coal is so much cheaper than wind. i guess if you factor in the low cost of brutalizing 30 year old power plants as opposed to utilizing new wind gennies, the cost of coal may be cheaper now. how about when the coal facilities need replaced? we may as well bite the bullet and build new wind powered systems now. 

this new push for regulation is a joke and is designed to crush the home user as well as the wind industry as a whole. i am really getting sick and tired of corporations that want to control everything at the expense of the freedom to be self sufficient. regulate the wind and water so i cannot homebrew electricity. allow ownership of heirloom seeds so i cannot feed myself unless i buy seed each year or patronize GMO pushing grocery stores. what's next...taxing the sunlight if i build a solar powered system?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

greg273 said:


> "the only advantage of wind power is less pollution" LMAO. Wind generates NO pollution. No toxic byproducts, no spewing of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Of course, everything has its cost to manufacture, but the payoff is quick with wind energy. After a few years all the energy it took to produce the machine is paid back, the rest of its lifespan it generates electricity completely free of pollution.
> So nuclear is going to make its big comeback, eh? Have these 'new discoveries' fixed the problem of dealing with toxic waste that remains radioactive and deadly for 10,000 years?
> By the way, what ever happened with the nationwide nuclear waste repository? Any Nevadans know if they have opened Yucca Mountain?


I don't understand what is so funny about less pollution from wind power. I am sure it does not produce more.

The best any wind power generator has done to date is 33% production. It just works a third of the time. This increases the amount of payback time for the initial investment and does not pay for the maintenance.

Yes they have figured out a way of dealing with the toxic waste. They have two ways possible now. One is to recycle it. The second way is with new research the time has dropped from 10,000 years to 150-200 years. Quite a drop and it is expected to drop even more with more research. The recycle system seems to be the best bet. There are plans to bring in waste from other countries and recycle it. It will eliminate the need for other countries to develope a nuclear program.

There have many new developments in the last few years. If a person has not checked it out in the last 6 months there is a lot of new developments.

There is already some new nuclear plants that have applied for permits. It takes a while. By the time they get the needed permits there will be even less danger.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Good post MELOC.
Part of the thing about coal is that there is such a hugh amount of it >they say< . . . . .and I shure can't disput that.

Dead birds:
Yesterday many many folks saw the carcus of a very large
( I believe ) hawk. . . . .laying within inches of the payvement of the major 2 lane highway.

It was not done in by my wind turbines-----a mile away.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

IF people really want a decent source of energy. They would look at liquified NAtural gas. It cost about a dollar a gallon. and the air coming out the tailpipe is cleaner than the air in most cities. If you have natural gas coming to your house you can get a pumping station put in at your house. And virtually every engine can be modified to run on it. There is an almost unlimited supply of this stuff. Quite different from propane and methane. I have just been looking into it and don't have all the info yet.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Friends of ours has a Nat gas powered Chev truck, 305 (dual fuel really) and he luvs it. The only minor complain is it does lack a little power especially when the tank is almost empty (He says the pressure affects the amount of gas available to the metering system??) He just flicks it over to gasolin to pass or for big hills than back to Nat Gas to cruise. I dunno but he is saving noticable dollars. If you could fill up at home (assuming you get Nat gas to your home) or have a local source it'd be tempting at least for your V8's!!


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Ross said:


> Friends of ours has a Nat gas powered Chev truck, 305 (dual fuel really) and he luvs it. The only minor complain is it does lack a little power especially when the tank is almost empty (He says the pressure affects the amount of gas available to the metering system??) He just flicks it over to gasolin to pass or for big hills than back to Nat Gas to cruise. I dunno but he is saving noticable dollars. If you could fill up at home (assuming you get Nat gas to your home) or have a local source it'd be tempting at least for your V8's!!


The Natural gas powered is not the same as the liquefied. I listened to a discussion on it the other day. Couldn't catch it all. But they discussed that there is a difference between the two. I'm still searching for info. They put a gas line last year. Somehow this pumping station liquefies the stuff ???

Here is an article. I was wrong it can't be delivered through current pipeline. I don't understand how they determine cost in the article but they were talking about 1.00 a gallon the other day

http://www.retailenergy.com/hybrid/Liquified Natural Gas.htm


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I don't know much about gas, I assumed (probably incorrectly) that under pressure Nat Gas liquifies. My gas tech licenses are the next I want to get, I'm sure the courses will be an eye opener. Well they maybe after my WETT (wood energy technology transfer) ticket, I have jobs lined up for that one. 
Hope you'll post what you learn about liquid natural gass, it sounds interesting.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

http://www.answers.com/topic/liquefied-natural-gas


Basic Facts on LNG

LNG offers an energy density comparable to petrol and diesel fuels and produces less pollution, but its relatively high cost of production and the need to store it in expensive cryogenic tanks have prevented its widespread use in commercial applications. It can be used in natural gas vehicles, although these are more commonly designed to use compressed natural gas.

Conditions required to condense natural gas depend on its precise composition, the market that it will be sold to and the process being used, but typically involve temperatures between &#8722;120 and &#8722;170 degrees Celsius (pure methane liquefies at &#8722;161.6 Â°C) and pressures of between 101 and 6000 kPa (14.7 and 870 lbf/inÂ² [approx 1-60 atm]). High pressure natural gas that is condensed is then reduced in pressure for storage and shipping.

The density of LNG is roughly 0.41 to 0.5 kg/L, depending on temperature, pressure and composition. In comparison water has a density of 1.0 kg/L.

LNG does not have a specific heat value as it is made from natural gas, which is a mixture of different gases. The heat value depends on the source of gas that is used and the process that is used to liquefy the gas. The higher heating value of LNG is estimated to be 24 MJ/L at &#8722;164 degrees Celsius. This corresponds to a lower heating value of 21 MJ/L.

The natural gas fed into the LNG plant will be treated to remove water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and other components that will freeze (e.g., benzene) under the low temperatures needed for storage or be destructive to the liquefaction facility. Purified LNG typically contains more than 90% methane. It also contains small amounts of ethane, propane, butane and some heavier alkanes. The purification process can be designed to give almost 100% methane.

The most important infrastructure needed for LNG production and transportation is an LNG plant consisting of one or more LNG trains, each of which is an independent unit for gas liquefaction. The largest LNG train is the SEGAS Plant in Egypt with a capacity of 5 million ton per annum (mtpa). Exxon Mobil operating Qatargas stage 2, of which one train has a production ability of 5 mtpa. Other facilities needed are load-out terminals for loading the LNG onto vehicles, LNG vessels for transportation, and a receiving terminal at the destination for discharge and regasification, where the LNG is reheated and turned into gas. Regasification terminals are usually connected to a storage and pipeline distribution network to distribute natural gas to local distribution companies (LDCs) or Independent Power Plants (IPPs).

I


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Another website
'
http://www.lngfacts.org/


----------



## pixelphotograph (Apr 8, 2007)

The second way is with new research the time has dropped from 10,000 years to 150-200 years. Quite a drop and it is expected to drop even more with more research.

Im curious can someone give me a link to information as to where you are all getting your numbers from.
I liked to see the numbers on 10,000 years and the numbers on 150-200 years.
Some one please give me a quote to scientific evidence.
Thanks.


----------



## pixelphotograph (Apr 8, 2007)

http://inesap.org/bulletin20/bul20art30.htm
Radioactive waste can also be categorised by the decay period of its radioactive contents, a measure that is useful for waste disposal considerations. Very short lived substances with half lives measured in days or months, such as used for some medical purposes, need be stored for only relatively short periods to allow the radioactivity to decay to insignificant values. Short lived substances with half-lives measured in tens and even a few hundreds of years require confinement in near surface facilities for periods of several hundred years. It is only the long lived substances, contained principally in high level waste, that may require deep geological disposal for thousands of years.

What is strikingly dissimilar between the two energy sources is the enormous difference in the amount of fuel required to produce a specific amount of energy, and the quantity of waste produced. More than 10 000 times as much fossil fuel is required than uranium for the same energy output, with correspondingly larger quantities of hazardous waste. This is the dominating factor in any waste management comparison. This feature by itself decisively lessens the negative environmental impacts of radioactive waste compared to fossil fuel waste.

The energy produced from an equal amount of fuel is significantly lower for the fossil fuels than for the nuclear fuel. One kilogram of firewood could generate about 1 kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity. The approximate values for the other solid fuels and for uranium are:

* 1 kg coal: 3 kWh.
* 1 kg oil: 4 kWh.
* 1 kg uranium: 50 000 kWh (3 500 000 kWh if recycled). 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/rosen.htm

Either way nuclear is bad stuff.
Wind is clean.
I'd like to ask everyone here how many of you have actually been to the wind fields and seen all these supposedly dead birds???? I personally have been there and didnt see a single dead bird on the ground anywhere. Maybe they cleaned them all up? LOL 
I also had a grandmother who had a windmill for many years at her farm not once did I ever find a dead bird laying around it in all the years I grew up playing around it.
I'm not saying that birds dont fly into windmills and die sometimes I will admit that it may happen at times. I have seen an alligator in Lake Michigan so anything is possible. 
There seems to be alot of misinformation on both sides of the fence. Please people dont be sheep learn to do a little research and please get your sources from multiple sites. And no dont get all your research from the same type of wacko sites.
Golly I thought people had more sense than this. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I'm anti Nuke........ to a point, and that point is the waste disposal problem. But it's a problem we already own and must solve, so I haven't written off even more nukes as a viable energy source. Once the waste problem has a workable plan (note I don't expect risk free as no such thing exists) then build the plants! Heck 80% or better of France's power comes from nukes. 

I'm all for wind power too, the bird issue simplely needs a similar managment approach as airports use, never quite understood the problem there. 

As for wacko science sites, when main stream science can boast a perfect track record (and that will never happen) any science that challenges established thinking only adds to our collective betterment.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

> Radioactive waste can also be categorised by the decay period of its radioactive contents, a measure that is useful for waste disposal considerations. Very short lived substances with half lives measured in days or months, such as used for some medical purposes, need be stored for only relatively short periods to allow the radioactivity to decay to insignificant values.


I never understood why a nuclear facility couldn't dispose of it's own waste by somehow piping all this waste back into the reaction chamber. It's hard to imagine anything dangerous surviving inside something like that... but since I have misplaced my degree in nuclear engineering, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

Ross said:


> I don't know much about gas, I assumed (probably incorrectly) that under pressure Nat Gas liquifies. My gas tech licenses are the next I want to get, I'm sure the courses will be an eye opener. Well they maybe after my WETT (wood energy technology transfer) ticket, I have jobs lined up for that one.
> Hope you'll post what you learn about liquid natural gass, it sounds interesting.


I heard the same thing in research. I heard that hydrogen turns to a liquid at 6000psi and that methane was just under that but that for some reason, hydrogen was hard to contain and took special facilities.

I had thought about electrolysis from wind power and storing the oxygen and hydrogen in separate scuba tanks to avoid batteries. Also thought about a methane digester since I have animals. I realise there would be a loss from entropy but your everyday fella (me) could do that and store power.

It's hard to wade through the garbage to get to the gold sometimes, especially when some folks don't want other folks getting answers to their energy needs.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wind power is the cleanest but it is also the most undependable. Most people want electricity all the time, not just when the wind blows.

Of all of the power houses I have worked in I like hydro best. Usually very dependable, cheap after the initial investment, and able to come on line and up to full production in a very few minutes.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

. . ."Wade thru the garbage" . . . 

Ain't that the truth.
And that garbage very often runs rampent even here on HT.

I've been doing wind systems for a bunch of years and have heard most all the negative garbage about wind.

Kinda wonder why I keep reading here and then getting another headache from more MISinformation.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Jim no doubt your input helps get good info out there, here on Ht esp. AE is a pretty junior board so it's much appreciated. Still if you need a break from it take one.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

TNHermit said:


> Wind power does produce polution. There are piles of rotting dead stinking birds under them things. Just ask any enviro.
> 
> I think you might want to talk to the US NAvy about Nuclear power. Seeing as how they have some 30 years experience and no major accidents. Even France which has a lot of nuclear power has been safe. COmpare the number of casualties from refineries and mines to nuclear. We should have done it years ago. But we were fear mongered out of it byt the radical LWLT


Except for the subs they lost on the bottom of the ocean with nuclear missiles still aboard.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

pancho said:


> I don't understand what is so funny about less pollution from wind power. I am sure it does not produce more.
> 
> The best any wind power generator has done to date is 33% production. It just works a third of the time. This increases the amount of payback time for the initial investment and does not pay for the maintenance.
> 
> ...


Not sure about all of this research biz, but on the nuclear boom, it is happening. Especially in the southeastern areas of the country, tennesee, kentucky, virginias, carolinas.

Had a conversation with someone from the NRC recently, and this was the report. They're currently looking for engineers. Check out their website job bulletins.

NRC


----------



## Happy Utahn (May 19, 2007)

Nuclear waste is a disposal problem the likes of which we have not seen in any other industry. The stuff must be kept safe for ten times its half life-- in other words, 250,000 years. That's longer than our species has been on the planet (200,000 years). We only began planting seeds about 7.000 years ago. The Roman Empire lasted only 500 years. What government or civilization can claim to take responsibility for storing something that long? 

Even using recycling, you're not reducing the half-life, just extending the useful portion of its existence. Until there is a practical method in place for getting rid of the stuff, I can't get past the moral arguments against. Once there is (if there ever is), then I'd be willing to reconsider.

As to wind, I also have never seen a dead bird near a turbine. True, it doesn't run all the time, but it can be a useful part of an integrated energy solution. And the potential for using wind to generate hydrogen, which can then be used in fuel cells, is enormous. Current technology causes about a 50% loss of efficiency, but I'm betting that'll be easier to overcome than the nuclear waste problem.


----------



## dare2b (Sep 28, 2004)

pickapeppa said:


> Not sure about all of this research biz, but on the nuclear boom, it is happening. Especially in the southeastern areas of the country, tennesee, kentucky, virginias, carolinas.
> 
> Had a conversation with someone from the NRC recently, and this was the report. They're currently looking for engineers. Check out their website job bulletins.
> 
> NRC


That's right, business as usual: put the toxic stuff in the low income neighborhoods, not enuf $$$ there to successfully oppose them, and play up the JOB OPPORTUNITIES as a distraction from the very real risks.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> I figured people might want to read it for themselves, and see if it does say what that website says it does... so here is
> 
> H. R. 2337 proposed bill in printer format
> 
> Angie


Angie, the link is gone, but I found this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110UaIRpS it's called the `Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007'. It talks about coastal states. I didn't read it all, but I'm wondering if it only applies to coastal states. 

Do you have any more info on it?


----------



## WayneR (Mar 26, 2007)

What about the VWAT? Is that included also.

That just BLOWS :angel:


----------



## Happy Utahn (May 19, 2007)

Yep, it's real. You can get to the text of HR 2337 via this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02337: -- then click on the "text" link. See Subtitle D.

Sec. 231 says that standards will be set for all new wind projects, including surveys, siting standards, post-construction monitoring, etc. to be monitored and certified by USFWS.

Sec. 235(4) says, "(4) WIND PROJECT- The term `wind project' means any project in the United States that uses wind to generate electric power."


To write your representative, use: http://www.house.gov/writerep/


----------



## crafty2002 (Aug 23, 2006)

Well, I just wrote my representitive. I will also have my wife and daughter do so, along with many of my friends.
Dennis


----------



## PineRidge (May 2, 2006)

Cash said:


> I assume Rahall sees wind power as a threat to West Virginia's coal industry? What other justification is there?


Currently Mr "Nicky Joe" Rahall sits on both the resources and transportaion and industry comittees. He also represents WV's "coal field" region, including Logan and Mingo counties.

I looked into his funding but I could only see it broken down by different sectors, not individual companies. His largest single contribution was under "labor", which don't you know all those coal miners are union 

No one around here wants anything to with with renewable energy. Instead the poeple think it's ok for the companies to strip mine, pollute the environment, level the mountain tops out 'cause hey, they need a job. Never mind that WV has one of the highest cancer rates in the country, and we are being sued by other states (NY, MD and PA, maybe more?) for polluting their air with our coal fired plants. In my county there has been a moratorium on well drilling for years because all the gas drilling has polluted the water.

I give up. WV is a beautiful state, but it is slowing being destroyed because we are rich in resources and small in vision. Oh, and we want to bring all of you with us.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

You can well believe that nicky joes Swiss bank accounts are not for you to find out about.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'll have to admit, that I do believe in conspiracies...

however, I'm having a hard time swallowing the notion of the coal industry buying a representative that's going to squash the wind energy industry.

First off, there's this HUGE private investment, something on the order of, what, 10 or 20 years worth of electricity, that a person has to put up upfront, just to get a system running. IF, wind gennies cost nothing, and they produced round the clock, yeah, they'd be a threat.

Without massive govt. subsidies, solar or wind will be niche players... I bought my solar setup without any subsidies. (there is a federal subsidy right now...)


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Happy Utahn said:


> Yep, it's real. You can get to the text of HR 2337 via this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02337: -- then click on the "text" link. See Subtitle D.
> 
> Sec. 231 says that standards will be set for all new wind projects, including surveys, siting standards, post-construction monitoring, etc. to be monitored and certified by USFWS.
> 
> To write your representative, use: http://www.house.gov/writerep/



The fastest way to get rid of Sec. 231 is to add two words "coal mines" after wind projects. Do that after the bill gets past the conference committees so it's harder to remove.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

texican said:


> I'll have to admit, that I do believe in conspiracies...
> 
> however, I'm having a hard time swallowing the notion of the coal industry buying a representative that's going to squash the wind energy industry.
> 
> ...


I think it's a conspiracy alright, just not by the coal industry, it's by govt period. A wind turbine is one of the few sources of energy that most americans could make themselves if they really wanted to. This is not good for commerce. people need to spend, spend, spend to keep this overgrown govt afloat. Making your own energy is NOT acceptable in the U.S..

www.otherpower.com
www.fieldlines.com


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i wouldn't put it past the coal industry to back this. they stand to lose in the long run. not only is the small guy affected by this legislation, but the large windfarms may face more scrutiny. i would imagine this bill provides more ammo to fight windfarms. wind farms are big business too, and i would guess the coal industry feels threatened by the potential competition. i doubt building and maintaining windfarms is as labor intensive as mining for coal, so i bet there are mining unions supporting this as well.


----------



## Happy Utahn (May 19, 2007)

This little item is tacked onto a bill that uses billions in government money to subsidize turning coal into diesel-- basically a wish list for the coal industry, and perhaps a response to an earlier bill providing tax credits (that IMHO were ridiculously high) for wind. Check out what economist Charles Wheelan (love him or hate him) has to say about the "liquid coal" bill as a whole: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/35550


----------



## crafty2002 (Aug 23, 2006)

Frim the House of Representatives, he writes;;
Dear Mr. Phillips:
.......Thank you very much for your recent email. We need clean renewable energy sources, such as wind power. I fully support efforts to utilize solar, wind, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel and other means to get away from foreign fossil fuel. I will gladly give your thoughts every consideration "IF" H.R. 2337 comes before the House of Representatives for a vote. Thank you again for your email. With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,


Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
etc.


VHGJr/kac

This letter was personally signed by Mr. Goode and he wrote in ink at the end of it I am NOT(the Not is under lined) a cosponsor of HR 2337

So far, every time I have checked up on what and how he voted on bills, he has yet to vote different than the way I would have if I had the power to change things. 
Just maybe, and I did say, JUST MAYBE, if WE THE PEOPLE, were to work a little harder at making sure the ones we vote into office knew from the get go, that if they don't vote as per OUR WISHES, on every single bill that comes before them, they will be in the same unemployement situation as the hundreds of thousands of Americans are already, we might start turning things around.
Considering the fact that nearly all, if not all presidents start either as a govenor, Rep. or Sen., that should be our targets. If you stop and think about it, the percentage of people that actually votes, it wouldn't be a really huge step for "WE THE PEOPLE" to hand pick the ones that gets into the House of Representatives. I mean each office is held by people that represent a fairly small area compared to the area of the entire house or senate. 
This is about the 4th or maybe 5th reply I have recieved from the house and senate and I forget what it was right now, but there was something else that I say get stone walled because of letters and e-mails. 

I am thinking the computor may be the best tool for fighting for our rights and freedom. I mean, I am right now talking to people that6 I will never meet. Some of you I will, because I will be buying some rabbits soon and I am really getting into the chicken thing, lol., but for the most part, words, thoughts, pictures, etc., will be as close as we ever get. 
That doesn't mean we can't pull together a grassroots, kick a double S and take names sort of thing here. We are all peeved because the way things are going. Many people on here get on other furoms that is made up mostly of people that feel the same way as we do. 
I think a few minutes to send a few emails every now and then is a small price to pay for getting what we really want. Just let them know to do what is right or look for another job. 
And our city and county cousel is the first place to start. They are the ones that make the laws that directly effect our every day lives in our own homes and on our own land. Whether we can have a chicken or not. Whether 19 chickens is ok but 20 is way too many. 
Most of the time the city council in the city I live in, better than 50,000 people is voted in by less than 2,000 votes. I talked 9 people into voting in the last election here. 
From those 9 people, there ended up 31 people that voted that wouldn't have voted if it weren't for me getting in there and taking the time to talk to the first 9. 
No. The 31 people didn't change a thing. Not yet, anyway, but those 31 people, includeing myself and my wife, have expanded to over a hundred that I feel certain will vote the next time and we still have some time for the number to grow. 
This is the only way we will ever be at piece with ourselves. Because it is the only way we will ever be happy with the laws, because if we don't stop them now, we never will. 
We keep talking about WTSHTF. I believe we can stop that dead in it's tracts. If we don't, TS will HTF. :shrug: 
Dennis


----------



## crafty2002 (Aug 23, 2006)

Happy Utahn said:


> This little item is tacked onto a bill that uses billions in government money to subsidize turning coal into diesel-- basically a wish list for the coal industry, and perhaps a response to an earlier bill providing tax credits (that IMHO were ridiculously high) for wind. Check out what economist Charles Wheelan (love him or hate him) has to say about the "liquid coal" bill as a whole: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/35550


I don't know anything about the coal industry except it is like every other industry in the world. It is run buy the worst people in the world and none of the have dollar signs in their heads. It's millions, billions, and they are in a race to be they first trillionair. 
Other than that, I think coal based liquid fuel would be a good idea. I worked on powerplants that pulverize cold into a dust so fine in an hour it will filter through your cloths and turn your skin black.
It is dellevered through 16" to 24" coaldust pipes, (as they are called on powerhouses) and sprayed into the boiler and if you ever saw one actually working, and to know it was a powder of coal instead of a liquid fuel, you would be amazed. I am talking about something that looks like a cutting torch blowing in there, except the flame is about 100 feet long. 
We have enough coal to last a long time. Even with a 50 cent a gallon sub., IMHO, it sure beats fighting a war that is all about oil to start with. 
If they had did this 20 years ago, there more than likely wouldn't be a war right now. 
Nope. I am wrong. Forgive me. Because I know there are thousands of wells already capped off in the Gulf of Mexico, because I welded up some of them. 

Uncle. I give. But it is still a worthy cause. The oil we do have capped off won't start to last as long as the coal will. :shrug: 
Dennis


----------

