Another reason ...

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iboisb$7mt$2@news.eternal-september.org:

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or
the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this
country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"
are >> the ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic
vitality.

Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control
over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you
that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up
so bad?

Uh... you obviously didn't read what I wrote.

you wrote a bunch of nonsense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9E305ADB72408jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ibnge2$rve$2@news.eternal-september.org:

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of
this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
country's economic vitality.

I disagee.
the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,
and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and prosperity.

WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE OUTLAWED?
WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.

Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your conservative
Weltanschauung?

The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that Americans have
traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to FORCE people to buy
smaller cars.

And government is not the best for determining what is best
for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.

I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so that
people won't be forced to purchase products that might be dangerous to their
health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety Commission. After all, the
best way to find out if your child might strangle itself in a crib is to
give the child a chance and see what happens.

One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But of
course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a
/terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?

FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of
lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be.
there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.

FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the Federal
government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is typical.
Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution or Bill of
Rights /actually/ say.)

You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books that
controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy, how many
pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase. This was
necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and supplies they
needed. DO YOU OBJECT?

We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of our
energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of WW II.
What would you have us do about this? Wait until energy becomes so expensive
that people are forced to use less -- and American industry is further
damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to use less NOW?

When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy your
precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.

-----------------------

Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use
more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or the
bulbs themselves.

It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government to
prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based tungsten
lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for them /right
now/.

However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps
(especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in a
refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on only
briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in replacing
such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't consume anywhere
nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:50:29 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
wrote:

are you familiar with CAFE? Corporate Average Fuel Economy law,that
manadates higher MPG for passenger vehicles?

the one that was responsible for more people buying TRUCKS AND SUVs with
far worse fuel economy,and for clogging our roads with even bigger
landbarges.

That was government's way of forcing better mileage. It didn't work very
well.

CAFE is a problem, but that wasn't the original reason for consumers
to buy over SUV/truck monsters. It was the "gas guzzler tax" of 1978.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_guzzler_tax>
<http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/>
<http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm>
The buyer of a new vehicle pays $1,000 to $7,700 in taxes to the feds
if it doesn't get at least 22 mpg. However, if the vehicle is over
6000 lbs GVW, it's exempt as a light truck and no taxes are charged.

For a 6000 lb GVW behemoth SUV, that should pay the $7,700 tax, at
$3/gallon, that's 2000 gallons of gas. With a 12 mpg typical gas
mileage for a big SUV, that's 72,000 miles. The average driver burns
12,000 to 20,000 miles per year. Not paying this tax would therefore
pay for all the gasoline consumed in the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of
operation. Since this tax generates considerable revenue, the feds
wouldn't even think of fixing the counter incentive problem.

It's quite a sales pitch:
Buy this new oversized gas guzzler, and the money you save
will pay for the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of driving.

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ibp13d$sno$2@news.eternal-september.org:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9E305ADB72408jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ibnge2$rve$2@news.eternal-september.org:

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort
of stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our
freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability
of this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
country's economic vitality.

I disagee.
the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,
and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and
prosperity.

WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE
OUTLAWED? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.

show me where I said that you said any of that.

Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your
conservative Weltanschauung?

why do you ASSume things that have not been said?

The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that
Americans have traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to
FORCE people to buy smaller cars.


And government is not the best for determining what is best
for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.

I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so
that people won't be forced to purchase products that might be
dangerous to their health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety
Commission. After all, the best way to find out if your child might
strangle itself in a crib is to give the child a chance and see what
happens.

that Safety Commission is one more thing(of many) Federal government should
NOT be involved with. If people want those services,companies will spring
up to provide them,like Consumer Reports.

One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But
of course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a
/terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?


FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of
lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be.
there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.

FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the
Federal government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is
typical. Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution
or Bill of Rights /actually/ say.)

Bullshit.
regulating TRADE between the states has nothing to do with auto fuel
economy. that Interstate Commerce clause has been abused almost as much as
the "provide for the general welfare" comment on the Preamble.

You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books
that controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy,
how many pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase.
This was necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and
supplies they needed. DO YOU OBJECT?

There was a WAR being fought. there's provision for that,it makes
sense,and it was for a limited time.

We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of
our energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of
WW II. What would you have us do about this?

DEVELOP OUR OWN ENERGY SOURCES. Instead of blocking them off.

Wait until energy becomes
so expensive that people are forced to use less -- and American
industry is further damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to
use less NOW?

When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy
your precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.

Our nation is being "reduced to third-world status" by people like you,who
have government interfere in everything. Our status began dropping when we
began accepting socialism.

-----------------------

Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use
more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or
the bulbs themselves.

I disagree. the Federal government has NO BUSINESS in this area.

It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government
to prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based
tungsten lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for
them /right now/.

However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps
(especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in
a refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on
only briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in
replacing such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't
consume anywhere nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.

Yeah,force people to change instead of building more nuclear power plants
and having cheap reliable electricity.

You need to move to commie-land.
Then you can force people to do as you want them to do.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[LSMFT]

Arfa Daily wrote:

Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ? Well,
here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started
it all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has
been getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the
ballast enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there,
have just cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging
down, in a semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and
decorative lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that
has been forced on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green
issues with a dubious foundation in fact.

I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and
swear by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...

I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
"book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent,
fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
(for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ...
d :-\

Arfa

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short
warm up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?



--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

LSMFT wrote:

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short
warm up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?

Have you ever seen stone wheels on a car, and cartoons don't count?
Do you ever think before posting stupid, meaninless analogies?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:29:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.

I wasn't referring to real commercial vehicles. My comments are in
reference to what would normally be considered a large passenger car
(such as an SUV or crew/family pickup), that has been "fattened" to
exceed 6000 lbs to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax.

My long gone 1972 Internationl 3/4 ton 1210 pickup, with service
boxes, had a GVW on the stick of 6300 lbs. However, when I weighed it
empty for the weight sticker at the dump, with 24 gallons of gas, and
all the tools and junk I could hide inside the boxes, they gave me a
sticker for 6200 lbs. If I had been in the drivers seat, it would
have hit 6300 lbs.

A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth
is at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Tax_benefits_in_the_United_States>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:29:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.

I wasn't referring to real commercial vehicles. My comments are in
reference to what would normally be considered a large passenger car
(such as an SUV or crew/family pickup), that has been "fattened" to
exceed 6000 lbs to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax.

My long gone 1972 Internationl 3/4 ton 1210 pickup, with service
boxes, had a GVW on the stick of 6300 lbs. However, when I weighed it
empty for the weight sticker at the dump, with 24 gallons of gas, and
all the tools and junk I could hide inside the boxes, they gave me a
sticker for 6200 lbs. If I had been in the drivers seat, it would
have hit 6300 lbs.

The StepVan was my service truck. it had a 292 inline six, and got
more that 22 miles per gallon with a couple tons of cargo.

A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth
is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Tax_benefits_in_the_United_States

The down side is it makes you look like an impotent fool when you
drive one. 'Viagra on wheels!'


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"LSMFT" <boleyn7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:znVDo.15923$Ou2.6814@newsfe20.iad...

Arfa Daily wrote:
Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ? Well,
here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started
it all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has
been getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the
ballast enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there,
have just cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging
down, in a semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and
decorative lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that
has been forced on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green
issues with a dubious foundation in fact.

I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and
swear by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...

I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
"book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent,
fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
(for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ...
d :-\

Arfa

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short warm
up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your
car?



--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

And where did I ever say "one bad bulb" ? I actually said, if you took the
trouble to read the post properly, " - but my continuing experience, judged
from when they first
appeared, right up until now - "

Does that perhaps suggest to you that I have been trying different types
from all manner of manufacturers in all sorts of countries, for the last 15
years or more ? Yes, some do have a 'short warm up period' but that is still
massively long compared to an incandescent, which reaches its maximum light
output in a few mS - for all intents and purposes, instantly. There are some
places where CFLs have their uses, but for me, not many of them are inside
the house. If you like them, and want to fill your house with them, that's
fine. I however, don't.

But more than anything, I object to self-obsessed greenie politicians,
trying to force me to use them, based largely on a misconceived notion that
the things are 'eco-friendly'. If countries embraced nuclear power
generation in the way that France for instance, has, then there would not be
any need to mandate this nonsense, nor to cover the countryside and
coastline with stupid ugly and noisy windmills, and now to carpet the rest
of the countryside, in ridiculously inefficient photovoltaic panels ...

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE of
Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race meeting.
Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could sometimes just
hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated part of the country.
Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of aircraft, etc.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Baron]

Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2@news.eternal-september.org...

Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of power
that they generate. And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind,
they don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

On what Dave says about the distant sound of aircraft etc, it's strange how
that noise is missed when it's not there. When I was a kid, my mother had
ticking clocks all over the house. You never noticed them when they were
running, but if one had stopped, you could hear that it had, as soon as you
walked through the front door.

Likewise, did you notice it when the volcano grounded all the air traffic ?
It was preternaturally quiet outside ( I live in the countryside, so it's
quite quiet anyway). Even the birds and other animals seemed unnaturally
quiet, so presumably, they could hear that there was nothing to hear as
well, and they didn't like it. When we had that earthquake a couple of years
back in the early hours, I was sitting here at the computer, and some
minutes before it rumbled through under the house, the cows in the field
behind the house, as well as owls and foxes, went bananas, so I guess they
must have been able to sense it coming.

Arfa

 

[Brenda Ann]

"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2@news.eternal-september.org...

Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air, and
not air moving them.. BIG difference!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Brenda Ann wrote:

"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2@news.eternal-september.org...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air, and
not air moving them.. BIG difference!

Have you seen any of the videos of them failing in high winds and
exploding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Brenda Ann" <newsgroups@fullspectrumradio.org> wrote in message
news:IdGdnYGbZscmeXzRnZ2dnVY3go2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2@news.eternal-september.org...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air,
and not air moving them.. BIG difference!

I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available. Even then, you
have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the power that you
generate, to anywhere that it's needed. In the UK, and most of Europe, there
just isn't enough year round sun of any intensity, to make the projects
feasible, which is why other countries in the EU have tried it, and rejected
it. But of course, the dumb old UK have got to give it a go themselves,
rather than learn from others' mistakes ...

Likewise, what use are thousands of windmills that don't generate for at
least 50% of the time, due to the winds being either too low in speed or,
staggeringly, too high ! I haven't looked much into the practicalities of
the tidal windmills that are now being installed, but it strikes me that the
maintenance costs of these are likely to be rather high, and the lifetime in
corrosive salt water, comparatively short.

We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean and
practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people have such a
problem with it. The French don't. When we are all sitting shivering in our
houses because some eastern bloc altercation has cut off our gas supplies,
and waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to blow, the French will be
chortling away, offering to sell us even more of their nuclear power than
they do now, at even more inflated prices. I appreciate that there are
potential issues with recycling waste nuclear material, but I am sure that
these are not insurmountable.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all about
responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst such
scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of the original
concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the public these
technologies by way of the hysterical global warming issue (trends now
indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we were being told back in
the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if any foundation in fact, is
making huge amounts of money for companies who are having their products
built by the biggest industrial polluters in the world, and don't actually
give a toss about green issues ...

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <owlEo.118903$zz4.81541@newsfe04.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they don't
cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? Little of what man
does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

Well, wind power was one of the earliest forms of energy man used for
moving things - sailing ships, windmills, etc. Well before steam was
harnessed.

Perhaps solar power saps the sun's rays too? ;-)

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[baron]

Brenda Ann Inscribed thus:

"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2@news.eternal-september.org...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and
noisy windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the
NE of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car
race meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you
could sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very
isolated part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant
sound of aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van
in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are
spiracle types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating
windmills with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are
moving air, and not air moving them.. BIG difference!

Yes I agree. It annoys me that that the objectors try to use noise
pollution from wind farms as a method of garnering support. I won't
deny that the visual aspect is intrusive.

We have a group locally, only four or five people that want to ban wind
farms. They are using the arguments above as a method of trying to
bully the local residents into agreeing with them. The laughable thing
is the wind farm in question is going to be built more than ten miles
from the village. In addition its a fairly wooded area, so people
aren't going to be able to see them anyway !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[baron]

Arfa Daily Inscribed thus:

"Brenda Ann" <newsgroups@fullspectrumradio.org> wrote in message
news:IdGdnYGbZscmeXzRnZ2dnVY3go2dnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Baron" <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2@news.eternal-september.org...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3.71109@newsfe24.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and
noisy windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the
NE of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car
race meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you
could sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very
isolated part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant
sound of aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van
in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are
spiracle types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating
windmills with giant fans, which make much more noise because they
are moving air, and not air moving them.. BIG difference!

Hi Arfa,

I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are
against 'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs
to be combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to
get forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got
a country below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.
Even then, you have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the
power that you generate, to anywhere that it's needed. In the UK, and
most of Europe, there just isn't enough year round sun of any
intensity, to make the projects feasible, which is why other countries
in the EU have tried it, and rejected it. But of course, the dumb old
UK have got to give it a go themselves, rather than learn from others'
mistakes ...

Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !

Likewise, what use are thousands of windmills that don't generate for
at least 50% of the time, due to the winds being either too low in
speed or, staggeringly, too high ! I haven't looked much into the
practicalities of the tidal windmills that are now being installed,
but it strikes me that the maintenance costs of these are likely to be
rather high, and the lifetime in corrosive salt water, comparatively
short.

Yes maintenance costs bother me too. I wonder how long it will be
before we start scrapping systems because of those costs.

We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean
and practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people
have such a problem with it. The French don't.

I agree the French have embraced the Nuclear nettle and have taken huge
steps to protect the plants from attack by terrorists and the like.
I've seen first hand the twenty foot, triple razor wire, barrier fences
and the deep ditches between them. All the cameras and IR lighting
used to monitor the area. Not small areas either ! The one that I
visited was a 20Km drive just to get around it. They are not very
visible either, having lots of trees and such planted around reduces
its visual impact. Unlike a UK power station, you could drive right
past a French one and not even know it was there.

When we are all sitting
shivering in our houses because some eastern bloc altercation has cut
off our gas supplies, and waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to
blow, the French will be chortling away, offering to sell us even more
of their nuclear power than they do now, at even more inflated prices.
I appreciate that there are potential issues with recycling waste
nuclear material, but I am sure that these are not insurmountable.

Hasn't the Uk government just got into bed with EDF on the basis that
the French will share there Nuclear technologies, or they hope they
will. Either way EDF will maximise the extraction of profits from the
UK populace to pay for it !

And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all
about responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst
such scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of
the original concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the
public these technologies by way of the hysterical global warming
issue (trends now indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we
were being told back in the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if
any foundation in fact, is making huge amounts of money for companies
who are having their products built by the biggest industrial
polluters in the world, and don't actually give a toss about green
issues ...

Arfa

Agreed ! The feudal system is alive and well... The serfs will pay !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.

The tax situation also matters. I have a friend who lives near Philadelphia,
who put an array up on his single family house. He is nowhere near a desert.

His nominal income tax rate is around 33%. He bought a $30,000 dollar
array and was able to take it off of his income tax, so that reduced the
price to $20k.

He was able to get another $10k off in state tax credits and grants.

Because of the "cap and trade" law, his power company is paying him for the
right to claim that his array provides power to "the grid" as if they were
doing it, which nets him $2,500 a year. They also pay him per killowat hour
he does put onto the grid.

It's not 100% free electricty as it has no storage capability, so it becomes
cloudy, or during the night, he has to buy electrcity. For saftey reasons,
it shuts down if the main electricity goes out.

The array has a long term warranty and is insured as part of his homeowner's
policy. So basicly, he has invested $10k for a $30k array, and after 4 years,
anything he gets from it in cap and trade fees, reduced electrical bills,
and additional value on his house is free.

Around 2000, a co-worker who lived in the UK (same company, different offices),
was looking at using special heating cells designed to heat GPS satellites
from "earthshine". His estimate that for 3000 UKP total investment, he
would save 450 UKP a year in gas.

I'm not sure where he lived, it was withing motorcycle commuting distance
of "The City".

I lost touch in 2002, I wonder if it worked? I expect that UK heating gas
bills have gone up in 10 years.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it.