procuradorfiscal | 4:37 p.m. Jan. 30, 2012 Tooele, UT You
know, The brand new LDS meeting house I attend here in Farmington, Utah
[commissioned specifically by the LDS 1st Presidency and presiding
Bishop]is not only Eco-Friendly, but is off the grid, and is 100% solar
powered.It is the proto-type of all future LDS meeting houses to be
used throughout the world. You should be more mindful who you are
calling "radical".You might be very syrprised to wake-up one day
and find yourself on the wrong side of the fence in this debate....Brother.
Re: "Besides -- Why burn COAL in broad daylight?"Uh . . .
because we need the energy?Industry -- including the manufacture of
windmills and solar panels, both of which require enormous amounts of energy --
would shut down if we didn't.Agriculture would be deprived of the
advanced fertilizers and irrigation systems it needs to supply the world with
food if we didn't, leading to the starvation of millions.Our
standard of living -- including our patience with radical greenies and
"occupiers" trying to shut us down -- would suffer dramatically if we
didn't.The world's standard of living -- including new health,
medicine, and nutrition standards for babies in much of the developing world --
would be heavily degraded if we didn't.Duh!And radical
Democrat greenies accuse Republicans of advocating dirty water, depleted lands,
and fouled air. NOTHING would produce those results faster than the destruction
of the American economy these radicals demand.
We will be using all forms of energy for awhile. I just viewed the DOE website
and they currently have 30.0 billion in loan guarantees for alternative energy
and nuclear. Let the process work including private investment and our society
will balance its needs and energy output. Keep the not in my back yard people
under control and use sound logic and science for permitting.
The United States has already gone a long way toward renewable energy sources -
drive across south central Texas - it's a wind turbine forest literally. But
coal will be necessary for another 50 years at least for base load.
Lets make use of the geothermal energy in yellowstone. This is cleaner than coal
and just as reliable.
Our modern society requires abundant, reliable, inexpensive energy 24/7. Wind
and solar cannot meet those needs and unfortunately the wind isn't there to take
up the slack when the sun goes down. Our abundant (200 year, 400 if you include
Alaska)supply of coal generates 45% of our electricity. A
significant portion of our coal goes to make steel, used to make electric cars,
wind turbine towers, and equipment used to make biofuels. We could instead use
wood charcoal from our own forests like they did in Brazil (at the expense of
the Amazon rain forest) before they imported coal from the US. We
could always use whale oil to light our homes when solar energy fails. Whale oil
is a biofuel and renewable.
RE: LDS Tree-HuggerWhich is uglier? A hole in the ground that can be
capped when you are done with some dirt roads around it or a forest of grey
steel towers?If your looking to the preserve the look and feel of a
landscape underground mining is the way to go.As an amateur nature
photographer I'll take the underground mining over your wind turbine forests and
solar panel seas any day!
LDS Liberal,When do YOU use the most electricity in YOUR home,
during the day or during the evening?If YOU work for a living, as
you've told us before, then what are you doing at home in the middle of the
day?Do you really think that all of the other "working
people" are at home in the middle of the day consuming electricity, or are
they at work, with the lights out at home?
Mike Richards | 6:07 a.m. Jan. 27, 2012 South Jordan, Utah Bill
Barron, of Citizen's Climate Lobby, has platitudes, not answers. Which is worse
on the environment, coal or the heavy metals required for the batteries required
to store wind and solar energy?=============== Hint:Electricity use is HIGHEST during the DAY.The wind blows day and
night.i.e., NO batteries are required.It's not an
ALL-or-NOTHING decision.Besides -- Why burn COAL in broad daylight?
Look, the letter is right. Have we abandoned innovation and progress? If we
have clean alternatives, shouldn't we pursue them? New industry means new
Maybe coal will be phased out someday. But it SHOULDN'T be FORCED out -- it
should happen only because other forms of energy become economically competitive
(on their OWN -- not because of government subsidies skewing the picture).Coal should be seen as a great benefit, not as a curse or a problem, and
we need it for the foreseeable future (along with nuclear). Go ahead and
expand the Alton mine. The issues that the Sierra Club is complaining about
have already been examined and are without merit.
There is no such thing as "clean" energy.We can only do
our best to minimize the impact of energy extraction on the environment. Individuals using any modern conveniences while supporting the "no
blemish on lands surrounding our National Parks" attitude are
hypocritical.We all need energy to function in the modern world. All
forms of energy, including nuclear, leave an environmental footprint both in
their extraction and in their consumption.Get off of your high
re: Demo Dave,What is YOUR alternative? Are you a proponent of
"heavy metals"? Are you a proponent of nuclear energy? Are you a
proponent of storing temporary power in batteries so that you can run your
lights at night?Where do you stand in the practical world that we
live in? Or, are you just another "naysayer" who wants us
to believe that we live 100 years in the future?
It's okay to burn coal now because it's "clean" coal. Yeah, right.
If the letter writer would agree that a nuclear power plant is the only clean
alternative that could produce as much as a coal power plant, I would support
him.But if he thinks cluttering the landscape with thousands of
windmills or making electricity unaffordable by using solar power is a better
alternative, we'll part ways.Environmental impact is only one of
many factors we must consider, not the singly important one.
If people want to hillary about coal and everything else go back to the horse
and buggy days.
Bill Barron, of Citizen's Climate Lobby, has platitudes, not answers. Which is
worse on the environment, coal or the heavy metals required for the batteries
required to store wind and solar energy? For that matter, is Mr. Barron for or
against electric vehicles. If he's for them, then he's for both coal fired
plants that are required to generate the electricity needed by those vehicles
and he's for the heavy metals required for the batteries those vehicles use.Until he comes up with a non-toxic way to store wind generated and solar
generated electricity, all he's really doing is telling us to go back to the
stone age.Or, is he for the only PRACTICAL alternative to coal -