# Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels



## WillowTree (Mar 21, 2009)

WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.

Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.

Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.





Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com




Oh! how sweet,, no gas, no coal, no nuclear, kennedy don't want no windmills in his back yard and now feinstein don't want no damn solar panels either. you DUmb Democrats gonna freeze yer azzes off? How stupid can you get doyathink?


----------



## driveby (Mar 21, 2009)

Cap and Trade ftw ........


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 21, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
> 
> Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
> 
> ...



Bit of a broad brush there Willow. I love the idea of Nuclear and have supported it for most my life (since I learned about it) and I know many Democrat supporters who do.

So then we can say all Republicans are christofreaks intent on putting us back into the Dark Ages.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
> ...



Or we can live in reality where our CURRENT President is against Nuclear energy, and the democrats in Congress are against nuclear. A President that plans to bankrupt the coal fired power plants and gas fired plants as well as natural gas. Is against Nuclear and insists GREEN is the wave of the future. 

And then we get his own party ensuring no green gets built in any meaningful manner anywhere at all.

Great attempt at deflections though.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...





Pondering pointing out your huge and very visible mistake or letting someone else do it just for laughs ....









Aah hell, I never liked the pop star of a president, never will, never voted for him, and don't agree with anything he has offered yet ...

... clear enough fo you?



I'll be laughing at this idiotic post of RGS' for a loooong time now.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

Partisans are all the same, no matter what party or "ideal" they follow, so RGS ... I suppose you think I am against guns to, or that I think environuts have brains, perhaps you would like to tell me how I worship Affirmative Action ... damn ... this is funny.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



And yet your previous post was nothing more than a blatant attempt to run interference for this administration. Once again you stupid shit, OBAMA and the Democrats are opposed to Nuclear, and you and your couple friends do not change that. He has STATED he is against Nuclear as has the leadership of the Congress. He has STATED in plans to bankrupt Coal plants and that he intends to rape gas and natural gas plants as well.

And what do we get? We get HIS party, you know, the DEMOCRATS, opposing all efforts to create GREEN energy. No wind and no solar.

And we have you claiming otherwise.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2009)

This is hilarious.

You know Obama's wind farms will be blocked because those blades will chop butterflies and birds to bits


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2009)

Wait a minute.

They're talking about land that was bought and paid for to be set aside as conservation lands, right?

What?

Don't you guys BELIEVE in the sanctity _of contracts?_


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> Wait a minute.
> 
> They're talking about land that was bought and paid for to be set aside as conservation lands, right?
> 
> ...



The government doesn't believe in the sanctity of contracts so why should we?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Really ... so by reminding someone who mistakenly says all us Democrats do not blindly follow those in charge I am somehow defending Obama ... or as you said running interference? Odd, so then any Republican that disagrees with Jrs idiotic policies is also just running interference for Bush like all the liberal sheeple think? My, you are sheeple yourself if you think that.

The really funny thing is that you completely ignored the fact that I said I love nuclear energy, also the fact I don't give a shit about the "green" label. But you did show why I don't bother with supporting Republicans either, you don't even care what someone actually agrees with or not, you just care what party they are on. Thanks for proving my views on your narrow mindedness yet again.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> This is hilarious.
> 
> You know Obama's wind farms will be blocked because those blades will chop butterflies and birds to bits



You really expect those "green" morons to actually think about more than their slogans?


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a minute.
> ...


 
So that would be a "no".

So noted


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2009)

There's PLENTY of dessert out there.

Why must these things be put on CONSERVATION land?

Or are you all just choosing to ignore the one truly germane part of this story because it is inconvenient for your Republican whiny assed points of view?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



No, that was a question that you didn't answer.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> There's PLENTY of dessert out there.
> 
> Why must these things be put on CONSERVATION land?
> 
> Or are you all just choosing to ignore the one truly germane part of this story because it is inconvenient for your Republican whiny assed points of view?



Um ... actually I am not Republican and I don't think it's a good idea to use desert any more than forest for this. The desert has an ecosystem that is just as easily harmed by such things. This is why "green" freaks are so ignorant, they see that only areas with green in them as being natural and pure. Hate to break it to you but deserts have just as much life in them and are just as important to the environment as any forest.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> There's PLENTY of dessert out there.
> 
> Why must these things be put on CONSERVATION land?
> 
> Or are you all just choosing to ignore the one truly germane part of this story because it is inconvenient for your Republican whiny assed points of view?



Last I checked the land is in fact NOT set aside at all. Rather Feinstien WANTS it set aside. Do get your facts straight.


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > There's PLENTY of dessert out there.
> ...


 
You obviously missed the part where the land was bought by the Conservation group specifically AS conservation land.

Does that make a difference to you?


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...






while we're laughing at you because he got it exactly right 100% you are just too damn DUmb to see it.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...





it's irrelevant stupid, what you believe, you are powerless to build a nuclear plant correct? Yes you are, but Obamalama and the Democrats could build them and won't do you get the drift now? DUMMIE?


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...





Oh, another Kennedy move huh? How clever, now back to the original question. You DUmmies gonna freeze yer azzes off?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



So ... who do you think I voted for?


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...







I don't give a shit who you voted for. You gonna build a nuclear plant?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



You really are a partisan freak ... will you?

Oh, and we don't need any more built yet, just the ones that are already built used for a change, all they need is the okay to get operational. Thanks to some Democrats in the 80's.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 22, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Or we can live in reality where our CURRENT President is against Nuclear energy, and the democrats in Congress are against nuclear. A President that plans to bankrupt the coal fired power plants and gas fired plants as well as natural gas. Is against Nuclear and insists GREEN is the wave of the future.
> 
> And then we get his own party ensuring no green gets built in any meaningful manner anywhere at all.
> 
> Great attempt at deflections though.



Speaking of reality, and to be sure that we are all on the same page:

_The full complement of solar energy collection equipment built since 1974 produces about 0.08 percent of Americas energy8 parts in 10,000. Not even a tenth of 1 percent of our energy comes from solar power! 

Wind power falls into a similar range of energy production. The combined power-generating capacity of every single windmill (and there are thousands), every photovoltaic solar cell on every rooftop, and every thermal solar energy plant across America equals 0.4 percent of Americas energy consumption. That number is astounding for its smallness. Despite 30 years of Carterism, taxpayer subsidies, mandates forcing energy utilities to use alternative energy, and the hundreds of billions of dollars invested so far, green energy isnt even on the meter._
The Green Energy Dream | theTrumpet.com


----------



## xsited1 (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> There's PLENTY of *dessert *out there.
> 
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

Whatever Happened to Nuclear Power? | LiveScience


----------



## johnn1 (Mar 22, 2009)

we are officially a government of cowards


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2009)

editec said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Nope, it is Government land, it belongs to the people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Or we can live in reality where our CURRENT President is against Nuclear energy, and the democrats in Congress are against nuclear. A President that plans to bankrupt the coal fired power plants and gas fired plants as well as natural gas. Is against Nuclear and insists GREEN is the wave of the future.
> ...



I guess you missed the part where Obama plans to bankrupt Coal and gas fired plants and claims he will replace them with Green? THAT is the reality. Meanwhile every attempt to create Green power is opposed by high powered democrats.

0ver 60 percent of our electrical power comes from coal fired plants and Obama was clear, he plans to SHUT them down. Hope you enjoy living in the 1800's.


----------



## Caskey100 (Mar 23, 2009)

Jesus christ, I belive in saving endangered species and all but I would love to actually have electricity when oil is gone! Somethings gotta give I don't think them damn Solar Panels will affect those damn tortises.

Jesus Christ lets all freeze toegether.


----------



## Alpha1 (Mar 23, 2009)

Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels ???

Its amazing what freekin' hypocrites the Democrats are and how the Koolade makes their supporters literally blind to that fact...positively amazing.


----------



## oreo (Mar 24, 2009)

Unbelievable--but let's face it--what can we expect from a liberal democrat from CALIFORNIA?   Common sense is totally out of the question.   I imagine she'll have the entire--enept California state legislature behind her on this one too.

I was reading a green magazine a couple of months ago.  Same thing--enviromentalists OPPOSED a wind transmission line--that would be buried underground to help supply the electric needs of California.  They opposed it because it would have to be brought through national forest lands.  

You can never win with these liberal democrats. They will talk the talk for their (sheep herd)--but they will always come up with extremely poor excuse to never walk the walk.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 25, 2009)

Feinstein can lick my balls.  I've been saying this for years: turn our goddamn deserts into giant energy hubs.  Hell, give mexico, the sahara and every other desolate wasteland something worth producing.

Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says EU

Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says EU | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 25, 2009)

Shogun ... proof you don't know much, glaring at us right there. The desert is an important part of the ecosystem of he world, just because you think it's ugly doesn't mean it's worthless. Look into what it does for the world and how much of an impact it would have to absorb all the energy that the sands reflect, all the life you would destroy, and all the other benefits the desert offers us as a species.


----------



## Meister (Mar 25, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Feinstein can lick my balls.  I've been saying this for years: turn our goddamn deserts into giant energy hubs.  Hell, give mexico, the sahara and every other desolate wasteland something worth producing.
> 
> Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says EU
> 
> Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says EU | Environment | The Guardian




Well, I see that was well thought out.


----------



## Indiana Oracle (Apr 2, 2009)

As readers here know I am not a fan of The Prophet.  But I would encourage every member of the Congress to find his own special way to block the plans of the energy-feel-good crowd.  Then we will be left with using nuclear and recycling its spent fuel.

Taking up entire states with solar panels to replace a small part of our power needs is misguided, to put it kindly.

Nurclear is the only realistic, large answer on the public energy side.  Upgrade the grid (not referring to the Smart Grid idea) and voila, we can all drive electric cars all over the country.


----------



## RodISHI (Apr 2, 2009)

editec said:


> There's PLENTY of dessert out there.
> 
> Why must these things be put on CONSERVATION land?
> 
> Or are you all just choosing to ignore the one truly germane part of this story because it is inconvenient for your Republican whiny assed points of view?


And actually a lot of that desert land is still dirt cheap. No excuse for it not to be utilized with solar panels for energy. The turtles can snuggle up under them whilst looking for shade on those hot summer days.


----------



## deaddude (Apr 2, 2009)

Desert Tortoises don't need to look for shade on hot summer days. They spend most of their lives underground in estivation, only waking up every one or two years when it rains.

I really wish the media would publicize the opinions of desert ecologists instead of the opinions of politicians.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 2, 2009)

deaddude said:


> Desert Tortoises don't need to look for shade on hot summer days. They spend most of their lives underground in estivation, only waking up every one or two years when it rains.
> 
> I really wish the media would publicize the opinions of desert ecologists instead of the opinions of politicians.



People are too comfortable ignoring where they don't like to live. They'll die or kill each other to protect some cute fluffy bunny ... but heavens forbid they consider saving a reptile in the desert. It sucks ... environuts think they have all the answers while ignoring 90% of the world.


----------



## billyerock (Apr 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > There's PLENTY of dessert out there.
> ...






hate to break it to you ... solar cells do not pollute nor does wind generators nor do they destroy habitat


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 3, 2009)

billyerock said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I wonder why they don't just cover Cental Park with them then ?


----------



## billyerock (Apr 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Shogun ... proof you don't know much, glaring at us right there. The desert is an important part of the ecosystem of he world, just because you think it's ugly doesn't mean it's worthless. Look into what it does for the world and how much of an impact it would have to absorb all the energy that the sands reflect, all the life you would destroy, and all the other benefits the desert offers us as a species.



heres a big surprise solar panels doesn't effect the ecosystem nor does wind generators ...


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 3, 2009)

billyerock said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun ... proof you don't know much, glaring at us right there. The desert is an important part of the ecosystem of he world, just because you think it's ugly doesn't mean it's worthless. Look into what it does for the world and how much of an impact it would have to absorb all the energy that the sands reflect, all the life you would destroy, and all the other benefits the desert offers us as a species.
> ...



If they don't produce any effect on an ecosystem then why bother?  ( BTW--they DO effect the ecosystem ) Cover your back yard with solar panels and tell me how you lawn does this year .


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 3, 2009)

LOL ... Dillo is on the ball.

"They don't impact the eco system," nice environazis lie there. Anything you build impacts the ecosystem where you build it. Most desert dwelling species are burrowers, in case you don't know what that is, they live UNDER the sand during the day and come out at night. Two things will impact this and kill millions of species off in the desert, first, when do humans build things: in the day. Do you think they will spend the extra money to be sure there isn't anything in the land they are digging? Yeah, sure. Secondly the species that live in the desert are designed to live in a specific amount of space, like all species, it's the same effect, as Dillo said, if you would build them in say Yellowstone or Central Park.

As I said, envirnazis will ignore 90% of science and the world just to scam us all.


----------



## solar_energy (Apr 3, 2009)

California Solar Energy Industries Association supports the widespread adoption of solar thermal and photovoltaic systems by educating consumers, supporting solar legislation and conducting business in a professional and ethical manner.

CALSEIA is the CALifornia Solar Energy Industries Association.

CALSEIA was founded in 1977. It is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors elected by the membership.

CALSEIAs mission is to expand the use of all solar technologies in California and establish a sustainable industry for a clean energy future calseia.org



Companies who join CALSEIA are doing business in California or supplying products to California companies. The policies and programs in California affect their livelihoods.

CALSEIA is funded by memberships through annual membership dues

CALSEIA activities

    * Enact Legislation: to encourage removal of barriers and policies that help provide an open and competitive market
    * Create and/or Modify Regulations: to promote safety, durability, and a competitive market
    * Create and/or Maintain Incentives: to build the market to a size that allows the installed cost of solar energy to compete with non-renewable energy resources
    * Ethics: to encourage the ethical conduct of companies participating in the solar market. CALSEIA is not a law enforcement organization but it can provide resources to assist people to find the appropriate law enforcement organization.
    * Codes and Standards:  to ensure safety and reliability and to standardize requirements to reduce costs and improve construction efficiency

Types of Companies that are members of CALSEIA

Manufacturers, Contractors, Distributors, Engineers, Designers, Consultants, Utilities, Educational organizations, Local Governments

Types of solar technologies represented by CALSEIA

    * Solar thermal  for water heating, process heat, electric generation, cooling, space condition for residential and commercial applications
    * Solar electric (photovoltaic)  for electric generation on homes, businesses, and to the utility
    * Concentrating solar  for electric generation, process heat, and cooling
    * Solar pool heating  for recreational, athletic, municipal, and therapeutic pools in commercial, residential, and municipal pools


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Complete bullshit, RGS. I am for nuclear, particularly the fourth and fifth generation nuclear that is on the drawing boards. That changes not one whit that the cost of nuclear is skyhigh, and the building time a decade.

What I am not for is the situation like Three Mile Island. 

That Feinstein does not want solar on that particular area is something that I will have to look into. Of course, we have a section of Oregon that has wind, solar, and geothermal potential and would be glad to export power if we could get a grid into that area.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 4, 2009)

Three Mile Island was a fluke, unlike Chernoble which was poorly maintained ancient technology (the fault of their government at the time). Our current nuke plants are excellent, and have less than a 10% of meltdown, even if they did have a meltdown their precautions for such an event would prevent any serious damage. Unlike coal, which has a 30% chance of explosion and no way to contain the damage to the environment, no matter how advanced the technology gets. As for solar, wind, etc. (not geothermal, which is actually a decent alternative just rare), they cause more harm than most people are willing to acknowledge, even in the desert which has a delicate ecosytem like any other location. They are still far behind and would require way too much space (the primary impact on the ecosystems). Not only above ground but also below, which in the desert causes a bigger impact than the above ground portions since the desert life requires large areas under the soil/sand/rock to survive. This is why I hate econuts, they just don't really know much about the ecosystems they so violently defend.


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 11, 2009)

Kittenkoder, if I could ad something on Geothermal. Currently the most expensive power is geothermal. Its also unregulated and extremely polluting. Fortunately its all toxic heavy metals and radioactive materials so the pollution does not become airborne. Take a look at the dozen or so Geothermal plants on the Salton Sea. Each plant need a well, the wells are drilled 10,000 feet deep, to a pool of water sitting a bed of lave on the San Andreas fault. The wells are located up to three miles away from the plant, requireing a mile to three miles of 48" concrete lined steel pipes. Inside the pipes is the brine from the wells. One gallon of Brine weighs about 10 lbs compared to around 8 lbs for water. The extra 2 llbs is the toxic metals, cobalt 60, cesium, strontium, and a shitload of arsenic. The pipes travel along the Imperial valley farmland and the Pacific flyway for waterfowl. These pipes burst all the time, spewing the contents onto the farmland. The well is a violent well, it shakes and bounce three or four feet into the air, that shaking is transmitted up and down the pipeline all the way to the plant, tremendous stress, much damage, more maintenance required than any other source of power. The well are constantly moved as the pressure drops so they are constantly replacing the pipes. 

Maintenance of the plant requires opening of the systems allowing the toxins out. I know, I was there, I even suffered arsenic burns, arsenic on the skin only penetrates the first few layers of skin so I was not poisoned. I worked all night, a pool of contaminated water below the system we were inspecting, crickets walking across the tiny pool, they die before they get across. The ones not in the pool are kind of fine, they just get the poison on thier legs. This plant is on the Pacific flyway for birds, millions, they eat the crickets, how much contamination I do not know, I have seen a grid of farmland on the wall of Cal Energy (I believe cal energy sold thier interest) that showed which farmland was bought due to accidents. 

I have seen people dressed in more protective gear than I wear inside nuclear power plants. 

Geothermal is a toxic witches brew.


----------



## Maple (Apr 11, 2009)

I read that article and then heard one of those wacko environmentalists speaking that he does not want wind generation because a bird might fly into it. For you Obama fans out there, he is opposed to Nuclear energy and he most certainly won't let us drill for oil in our own country. 

I guess we will freeze in the winter and roast in the summer, we are supposed to go green and now they won't let us do anything. Same old B.S.


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 11, 2009)

Sad fact is that we wont need any power, we wont produce anything, we wont have jobs.

We will pay more, be taxed more, give more to the entire world.


----------



## RoadVirus (Apr 12, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
> 
> Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
> 
> ...



That's what happens when you involve envrionmentalists into the discussion. They whine and whine about how it'll endanger a species of bug or something even though it could stop global warming, which they also whine about.


----------



## oreo (Apr 12, 2009)

RoadVirus said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
> ...



Yep--in North Dakota--my friend told me her sister is leasing her land for wind-mill power.  They installed a bunch & then the enviromentalists showed up to tell her that the windmills were ruining the flight plan of birds.  She told them to take a hike--it was private property.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Three Mile Island was a fluke, unlike Chernoble which was poorly maintained ancient technology (the fault of their government at the time). Our current nuke plants are excellent, and have less than a 10% of meltdown, even if they did have a meltdown their precautions for such an event would prevent any serious damage. Unlike coal, which has a 30% chance of explosion and no way to contain the damage to the environment, no matter how advanced the technology gets. As for solar, wind, etc. (not geothermal, which is actually a decent alternative just rare), they cause more harm than most people are willing to acknowledge, even in the desert which has a delicate ecosytem like any other location. They are still far behind and would require way too much space (the primary impact on the ecosystems). Not only above ground but also below, which in the desert causes a bigger impact than the above ground portions since the desert life requires large areas under the soil/sand/rock to survive. This is why I hate econuts, they just don't really know much about the ecosystems they so violently defend.



Good God! Kitten, if I ever repaired a machine and assured my boss it had less than a 10% chance of failure, he would toss my ass right out the door.

We were all assured that Three Mile Island could not happen. We were assured that the Utilities were trustworthy to take all neccessary precautions to prevent such a thing from happening. 

Then when it happened, we were assured that it was not really that bad. And then found out it was a really damned close thing. At that point, the American Public decided that the people involved could not be trusted. And many still feel that way.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> Kittenkoder, if I could ad something on Geothermal. Currently the most expensive power is geothermal. Its also unregulated and extremely polluting. Fortunately its all toxic heavy metals and radioactive materials so the pollution does not become airborne. Take a look at the dozen or so Geothermal plants on the Salton Sea. Each plant need a well, the wells are drilled 10,000 feet deep, to a pool of water sitting a bed of lave on the San Andreas fault. The wells are located up to three miles away from the plant, requireing a mile to three miles of 48" concrete lined steel pipes. Inside the pipes is the brine from the wells. One gallon of Brine weighs about 10 lbs compared to around 8 lbs for water. The extra 2 llbs is the toxic metals, cobalt 60, cesium, strontium, and a shitload of arsenic. The pipes travel along the Imperial valley farmland and the Pacific flyway for waterfowl. These pipes burst all the time, spewing the contents onto the farmland. The well is a violent well, it shakes and bounce three or four feet into the air, that shaking is transmitted up and down the pipeline all the way to the plant, tremendous stress, much damage, more maintenance required than any other source of power. The well are constantly moved as the pressure drops so they are constantly replacing the pipes.
> 
> Maintenance of the plant requires opening of the systems allowing the toxins out. I know, I was there, I even suffered arsenic burns, arsenic on the skin only penetrates the first few layers of skin so I was not poisoned. I worked all night, a pool of contaminated water below the system we were inspecting, crickets walking across the tiny pool, they die before they get across. The ones not in the pool are kind of fine, they just get the poison on thier legs. This plant is on the Pacific flyway for birds, millions, they eat the crickets, how much contamination I do not know, I have seen a grid of farmland on the wall of Cal Energy (I believe cal energy sold thier interest) that showed which farmland was bought due to accidents.
> 
> ...


Geothermal 
Geothermal energy is the heat from the Earth. It's clean and sustainable. Resources of geothermal energy range from the shallow ground to hot water and hot rock found a few miles beneath the Earth's surface, and down even deeper to the extremely high temperatures of molten rock called magma. 

The Department of Energys Geothermal Technologies Program supports the U.S. geothermal industry in providing diversity, and therefore security, in domestic energy supply options.   This support also helps the industry maintain its technical edge in world energy markets, thereby enhancing exports of U.S. goods and services and U.S. job growth. Energy works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. 

The Office of Scientific and Technical Information maintains technical reports related to geothermal energy on its Geothermal Energy Technology (GET) subject portal.

Information on geothermal generation and capacity is available through the Energy Information Administration.

Department of Energy - Geothermal


----------



## alan1 (Apr 12, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
> 
> Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
> 
> ...



What happened to Ms 'We need alternative energy' Feinstein?
Feinstein Joins Democrats in Announcing Sweeping New Energy Legislation
snip,


> The recent spike in gas prices is one more illustration of why *our nation needs to end its addiction to oil, Senator Feinstein said.* We need hybrids on the road, *alternative fuels*, new technologies, and real leadership. Its not time for more of the same. Its time for a fresh approach -- one that will lead to higher fuel economy, *less reliance on foreign oil*, and a major reduction in greenhouse gases. This is the major challenge of this century. *How we address this issue will shape our nations future*.


Seems she doesn't want to actually address the issue now, does it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

Monday, March 23, 2009
Feinstein: Solar energy could destroy the Mojave Desert 
Increasing the nation's use of wind and solar power has been seen as an ideal way to protect the environment against pollution, oil spills, and nuclear waste. Now, however, fears are rising that the pressure to quickly ramp up large-scale production of alternative energy may in itself become a threat to fragile ecosystems. That is the concern of Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA, who announced last week that she intends to introduce legislation to declare part of the Mojave Desert a national monument, closed to further development. The area in question is a 500,000 acre parcel, once owned by the railroads and known as the former Catellus lands, which conservationists acquired between 1999 and 2004 and handed over to the federal government. The Bureau of Land Management has made the land available for any purpose except mining. Fourteen solar energy projects and five wind energy projects have now submitted applications to build there, though all the applications are years away from being approved. "This is unacceptable," Feinstein wrote in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "I urge you to direct the BLM to suspend any further consideration of leases to develop former railroad lands for renewable energy or for any other purpose."...Raw Story

The greenies continue their NIMBY ways, even on renewable energy.

The Westerner: Feinstein: Solar energy could destroy the Mojave Desert

500,000 acres. That is about 780 sq mi. A block of land 28 by 28 miles on the side. I do believe that there is a lot more desert than that in Southern California. At least there sure seemed to be when I was there last. 

People, there are a lot of areas that are ideal for solar, wind, and geothermal that are not sited in areas of special environmental concern.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> Sad fact is that we wont need any power, we wont produce anything, we wont have jobs.
> 
> We will pay more, be taxed more, give more to the entire world.



Gee, have you ever had a job?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> Kittenkoder, if I could ad something on Geothermal. Currently the most expensive power is geothermal. Its also unregulated and extremely polluting. Fortunately its all toxic heavy metals and radioactive materials so the pollution does not become airborne. Take a look at the dozen or so Geothermal plants on the Salton Sea. Each plant need a well, the wells are drilled 10,000 feet deep, to a pool of water sitting a bed of lave on the San Andreas fault. The wells are located up to three miles away from the plant, requireing a mile to three miles of 48" concrete lined steel pipes. Inside the pipes is the brine from the wells. One gallon of Brine weighs about 10 lbs compared to around 8 lbs for water. The extra 2 llbs is the toxic metals, cobalt 60, cesium, strontium, and a shitload of arsenic. The pipes travel along the Imperial valley farmland and the Pacific flyway for waterfowl. These pipes burst all the time, spewing the contents onto the farmland. The well is a violent well, it shakes and bounce three or four feet into the air, that shaking is transmitted up and down the pipeline all the way to the plant, tremendous stress, much damage, more maintenance required than any other source of power. The well are constantly moved as the pressure drops so they are constantly replacing the pipes.
> 
> Maintenance of the plant requires opening of the systems allowing the toxins out. I know, I was there, I even suffered arsenic burns, arsenic on the skin only penetrates the first few layers of skin so I was not poisoned. I worked all night, a pool of contaminated water below the system we were inspecting, crickets walking across the tiny pool, they die before they get across. The ones not in the pool are kind of fine, they just get the poison on thier legs. This plant is on the Pacific flyway for birds, millions, they eat the crickets, how much contamination I do not know, I have seen a grid of farmland on the wall of Cal Energy (I believe cal energy sold thier interest) that showed which farmland was bought due to accidents.
> 
> ...


http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull21-2/art1.pdf


MINING ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM
GEOTHERMAL BRINE
CalEnergy Mineral Recovery Project Creates Jobs and Increases Revenues
from Geothermal Power Operations in Californias Imperial Valley
Ted J. Clutter, Executive Director
Geothermal Resources Council
Davis, CA
On January 31, 1999, CalEnergy Operating Corp.
(CalEnergy) unveiled a $400 million expansion of their
geothermal power complex on the shores of the Salton Sea in
southern Californias Imperial Valley. The new construction
includes nearly 60 megawatts (MW) of new geothermal electrical
capacity, and a unique project to mine commercialgrade
zinc from geothermal brine produced for power
generation. CalEnergy is a subsidiary of Mid-American
Energy Holdings Co. (Des Moines, IA).
CalEnergy currently operates eight geothermal power


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 12, 2009)

Old crock, you are a lousy piece of dog excrement, yes, I have sunk to your level but as I said in another thread I will hound you until the day you explain why you willfully posted a lie.

I see your vile mouth, if I controlled the boards I would delete your name.

I do not.

You posted a lie and continue to do so, I aske for an explanation but alll you do is run from the truth.

Its people like you that I lived with in detroit in the 1960's

I could post links but its best that anyone who cares or thinks of themselves as educated  find the information themselves.

old rock is a bigot, sure he does not hate the n-word, but he has replaced the word ****** for something else.

old rock has posted lie after lie, check it out yourself.

I do not even care if you disagree with me, thats cool, but if you got a old rock on your side willingly posting lies than it hurts your point of view and gives me much fodder.

Even those who have a different idea such as mine must see that old crock hurts your cause.

Old crock posts lies, nothing more, I ask him to clarify and he only lies, does not respond.






old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

old crock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old crocks post here, I will have to spend hours looking for the answer like before and than I find out old rock willingly and knowingly posted a false report, not only did old man post the false report but old man had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

this kind of stuff makes me sick, further look at the vile old man says about others, and than we are suppose to take his word and if we dont we get old crokes vile mouth


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument.html


old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)


----------



## alan1 (Apr 12, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> Old crock, you are a lousy piece of dog excrement, yes, I have sunk to your level but as I said in another thread I will hound you until the day you explain why you willfully posted a lie.
> 
> I see your vile mouth, if I controlled the boards I would delete your name.
> 
> ...



You seem a little tense.
Take a deep breath and try to relax.
Where is Echo Zulu when we need somebody to diffuse things?


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 12, 2009)

I am stressed, and i do need to take a deep breath,. I am, breath deep, breath deep.

Is that a pic that is relevant. If it is we have much in common. 

I am intense, whoever you are. That does not dminsh the validity of my post.

And considering you avatar, we have much in common

I am married to a black woman and I am pure white, conservative, right wing christian, middle aged male. 

So, I do not post out of prejudice, each and every post  I submit has a meaning and addresses an issue. Old crock posted lies. Not an honest mistake, you can read the thread and see. Maybe he deleted the ugly damaging post but either way I busted him posting a false or lie while he Knew it to be false.

I do not care if you agree with my view or not, that said it does much harm to the posiions that are contrary to mine if old crock posts on your behalf and then you defend him.

SO TELL ME., WE YOU DISAGREEING OR WOULD YOU PREFER OLD CROCK NOT SPEAK FOR YOU

seriously, are you defending crock or will you make an arguement that is on your behalf

I can respect one, not the other.

Is old man guilty or innocent, are you on his side or is the faci you represent based on truth and conviction thus you will engage in debate or is vile spewed forth from ones mouth sufficient.

I am harsh, I bite like a dog, I give you the choice, not to agree with me, but to decide that old man and his bigotry are the tactics you choose or you represent your own ideas.

read my posts, read my links, disagree, I dont care, but if you let old crock speak on behalf of  your ideals and beliefs than you are easily shown to be a tool of the foo

I care to engage, if you think an old rock is your opinion, we got nothing more to say, as easily as I showed the dumb ass as a liar, its much more simple to show that anyone who defends a lie, is a liar. So, think again, do you want want to  defend the old croke or do you have a position to debate that you can offer a bit of insight or fact which makes me question my position.

I aint got to present a fact against the old man, I merely need to show that he did lie and will not address the facts.

you really are a moron if you do not present your own opinion


----------



## alan1 (Apr 12, 2009)

I let no man speak for me.
I do find fault with one that would use a persons name as means of insult, i.e. old crock vs old rock
It's so damn school yard punk 
Again, chill out and relax


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> I am stressed, and i do need to take a deep breath,. I am, breath deep, breath deep.
> 
> Is that a pic that is relevant. If it is we have much in common.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

Old Dog, I speak only for myself, trying to get other poster "on your side" is infantile. Like with everybody, I find areas of agreement and areas of debate. If you cannot stand the fact that I back up scientific discusions with articles from scientists, too bad.


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 12, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> I let no man speak for me.
> I do find fault with one that would use a persons name as means of insult, i.e. old crock vs old rock
> It's so damn school yard punk
> Again, chill out and relax




Yet he does speak for you, What do you say I do, I am not the best typsist nor do I spell the best, either way you must admit that I shoud address one as one addresses me. This is a simple message board in which you can not see the emotion in my face nor my body language. Being not one not of great oratory skills how do I address one that refers to me as "scurrilous lying crock of shit". If I inadvertently add the "c" that odd crock uses is that a legit in making a point. Does that not get your attention. If you choose simply to focus on my mistake or my intentional tactic does that not tell me something of you.

I can honestly say that I never ever did or said anything to my nieghbor Old roke until he drew first blood, he did not only draw first blood he stabbed me in the back 5 times. that is 5 times without me responding. So do not judge me and defend old rock. I find it vile and ugly, not what he says but that he speaks for you and he posts lies. He not only posted a lie but he withheld the true story and admited it. 

So go ahead and defend odd rock, but be aware he drew "FIRST BLOOD", not once, not twice, not three times, not four of five, but more, and more.

The best arguement you got is a man who willfully posts a false story and you defend this although in an indirect way, which to me is as ugly as what old man does.

School yard, sure, I cannot argue with that, but I can say it got your attention and if I do not see any more of a clarification on your part I will, through my tactics been able to see a bit about yourself.

I admit, my tacic will not show the total of your character but it does show me some.

1. you do not state a position on old rock knowingly posting a falsehood to promote your ideals.

2.That you would fault me for what old rock does to every user.

3. You find fault in me if I simply make a mistake in typing.

4. you do not go back and read old rock posts and than post. 

5. you fault one for style yet approve of the same style in another.


So, if at best you can say is I did not type rocks, or while thinking of how rock said I was a crock and I typed his name as crock, if thats your fault with me, does that not say something of you. 

So I am tense, I do want debate, I want the truth, dumb dock does not present the truth, if you do not allow no man to speak for you, than you should not speak for him, you can retract but you spoke for old rock, thus he speaks for.

old rock posted a willful lie, I have yet to see anyone say thats fucked up, not one soul. That tells me more of your position than my deliberate attempt to create a bit of interest in the disinformation liberals are posting

3


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > I let no man speak for me.
> ...



Lordy, lordy, we do fully understand where you are coming from. You have some serious problems there, my friend.


----------



## Meister (Apr 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> krotchdog said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Old Rock's, you could get the Pope to scream obscenities at you.  You have no room to talk.

PS...I doubt he's your friend...so don't be condescending


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > krotchdog said:
> ...



Why not


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 12, 2009)

Old cock, you read my thread, in it I asked for an explanation, I told you that if you did not respond I would hound you, you kicked  me five times before I did a thing to you. You do have a vile mouth and you are a bigot, if you do not like what I say you can go back, admit you lied, I will even allow that you can say it was a mistake, you could delete the false data, you could delete every post you lied in and that is all I asked, the fact that you do not is what is disturbing, you would have a dog chase at your heel, after you kicked me, you will lie about me, but your idealogy is so important that you must let a lie stand by a man who simply knowingly lied. 

How many other times have you used this man and why is your opinion so important in must be heard even if you only support it with lies. So simple to remove a post with proven false data ask the mod to do it. Your cause is not so just that you must lie to support it.

I aint going away old rock, I did not draw first blood, I aint been here that long, you cannot find and post comments from me that I can post such as odd rock has posted. Every where I see old rock post nine times out of ten its pure vile, my mind cannot even come up with such clever filth, old crock makes me feel ugly and want to shower.

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

old crock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old crocks post here, I will have to spend hours looking for the answer like before and than I find out old rock willingly and knowingly posted a false report, not only did old man post the false report but old man had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

this kind of stuff makes me sick, further look at the vile old man says about others, and than we are suppose to take his word and if we dont we get old crokes vile mouth


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument.html


old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

Old cock, you read my thread, in it I asked for an explanation, I told you that if you did not respond I would hound you, you kicked  me five times before I did a thing to you. You do have a vile mouth and you are a bigot, if you do not like what I say you can go back, admit you lied, I will even allow that you can say it was a mistake, you could delete the false data, you could delete every post you lied in and that is all I asked, the fact that you do not is what is disturbing, you would have a dog chase at your heel, after you kicked me, you will lie about me, but your idealogy is so important that you must let a lie stand by a man who simply knowingly lied. 

How many other times have you used this man and why is your opinion so important in must be heard even if you only support it with lies. So simple to remove a post with proven false data ask the mod to do it. Your cause is not so just that you must lie to support it.


----------



## Meister (Apr 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Because you show your ignorance


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 13, 2009)

Sweet, Old rock lies again, take that red line out its not mine. So do all Liberals lie, seriously, why should we take liberals serious when they take a post and change the words when they are challenged.

Is that what we must contend with, we not only have to tell the truth and educate the people but we also must contend with liars. 

Old Rock is a liar, old rock does post false stories, and now old rock will quote a user but change the quote to make someone look bad. Please tell my that liberals are not all irrational.

I like the definition of bigot, I see no conservative bigots, I am being serious, I see old rock as a bigot. so liberals, is old rock a liberal or a bigot, does old rock speak for you or not.

sad very sad, here is my original post.

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

old crock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old crocks post here, I will have to spend hours looking for the answer like before and than I find out old rock willingly and knowingly posted a false report, not only did old man post the false report but old man had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

this kind of stuff makes me sick, further look at the vile old man says about others, and than we are suppose to take his word and if we dont we get old crokes vile mouth


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument.html


old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

Old cock, you read my thread, in it I asked for an explanation, I told you that if you did not respond I would hound you, you kicked  me five times before I did a thing to you. You do have a vile mouth and you are a bigot, if you do not like what I say you can go back, admit you lied, I will even allow that you can say it was a mistake, you could delete the false data, you could delete every post you lied in and that is all I asked, the fact that you do not is what is disturbing, you would have a dog chase at your heel, after you kicked me, you will lie about me, but your idealogy is so important that you must let a lie stand by a man who simply knowingly lied. 

How many other times have you used this and why is your opinion so important it must be heard even if you only support it with lies. So simple to remove a post with proven false data ask the mod to do it. Your cause is not so just that you must lie to support it.


----------

