WIND

[salvelinusfontinalis]

You right on there. I know my case here is the exception and not the rule.

I would be willing to bet that 50 percent could make the switch. That then I think would do one of 3 things.

Lower demand and raise supply on current energies...forcing the price to become lower.

Raise the price so those companies could try to keep the same profit margin.

Put them under all together and screw people that are poor.

With the rate of pollution, the devastation environmentally to get these resources and the high cost to everyone....We do need to do something. That I think is plain to see.

Oh and I know you werent blaming me. I thought it was an interesting conversation. One we all should have with someone else and with ourselves.

 

[pcray1231]

Yes, if people made that switch, you would lower demand. In lowering demand, the energy companies would immediately lower supply. Of course, existing renewables wouldn't be shut down, the cost has already been paid, and the fuel is free! Thus they'd shut down the sources that require fuel/money to run. The existing infrastructure would immediately lean more heavily on hydro, existing nuclear, solar, and wind.

Since wind is being built at an astounding rate thanks to government and private funds, I don't think that would stop. You'd have decreasing demand combined with increasing wind capacity, constantly allowing more coal, oil, and gas plants to go offline. The excess capacity would also greatly ease a transition to electric or perhaps hydrogen cars to replace gasoline.

Yes, the fossil fuel companies would fall on hard time and lots of people would be out of work. But the solar panel manufacturers and wind turbine manufacturers, intallers, etc. would boom. Thats part of the choice we have.

All that has to happen is that people make the choice that they're willing to pay more for energy...

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Haha if I had my way I wouldn't even own a cell phone. My wife makes me have one.

A funny story and maybe its part of the problem.

One Christmas we went to Scranton to visit and exchange gifts with my wifes family. We were actually in Moscow.

My wifes 10 year old cousin got a Ipod, and X-box and a new razor cell phone. She is badly spoiled and I leaned over and said to my wife....what does a 10 year old need a cell phone for?

Well I asked the girl. What are you going to do with that? She said Call her friends. I had to wonder at this point what 10 year olds would talk about that is so important that they need to be in constant contact.

I told her I didnt have my first cell phone until I was 25 and didnt even want it then, but my wife made me get it.

She got wide-eyed and asked....What did you do when you wanted to make a call?

I leaned in and said.........I put a Quarter in a machine.

This is the way we raised our kids. In an instant gratification type society. So it does not surprise me that your probably correct with your comments pcray. Your right, most people would take option 2.

 

[pcray1231]

Its easy to talk a big game on what we collectively should do. But we blame the big bad companies, as if its their decision, and we do nothing to make that decision ourselves.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

For me it is 🙂
Once i have the money I promise ill make the switch. Until then its all I can do. Poor people can't make that switch. My wife and I have never in the 10 years we been together, been on a vacation. I admit I spend a good bit in gas to do the things I love but thats about it. My wife still yells at me sometimes that I never ever buy myself much of anything. I do buy new fly line once a year though 🙂

Again I don't deny or disagree with much of anything you have said.
People that have the money, don't switch and I don't know why.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Now dang ya and your post edit ;-)

Your right I shouldn't blame the companies....I should blame the people. That much you got me to see.

I just need a way to point 500,000 million fingers at once now rather than one :lol:

 

[pcray1231]

It is a little more complicated. We're talking about home energy use here. But that ignores the fact that industry uses as much or more energy than households. Most of us use more energy at work than we do at home. Thus, our employers have to make that decision too. Which means they'll have to pay more, which means their customers have to be willing to pay more. Businesses can't just eat cost and expect not to be replaced by another company who doesn't. Expenditures are less than or equal to revenue.

So what that comes down to, is that if you truly want to be green, you not only have to be willing to pay for more energy, but more for goods and services too. That fly rod would be a few extra bucks.

It still boils down to the consumer who is making the decisions and deciding what's important. If being green is important, the consumer will pay $200 for a fly rod from a clean rod manufacturer rather than $180 from a dirty manufacturer, and the dirty manufacturer will go out of business. If being green isn't important to the consumer, then he'll buy the $180 rod and the clean manufacturer will go out of business. The consumer decides which businesses succeed and which ones fail. The big, bad CEO is merely trying to predict what decision the consumer will make.

It's the same as with buying energy directly, but adds the necessity of knowledge. The consumer must not only place priority on the environment and be willing to show that priority with his wallet, but he also must be knowledgable on what effects his buying decisions are having. All the good intentions in the world don't help a thing if the consumer doesn't have a clue which choice is better for the environment.

We fail that on all fronts. We're not willing to learn the consequences of our decisions. And even if we do know the consequences, we're not willing to avoid them with our wallets. Apathy. Nothing will change until we do. Big business just makes an easy scapegoat...

 

[FruitingBodies]

Osprey: I, too, wonder what the creatures would do around a structure like that. Windmills generate infrasonic noise and humans have issues with infrasonic noise at certain levels. The Wind Turbine Syndrome is something turbine producers are familiar with but I have yet to see any significant research published on the topic. There is, however, research on what infrasonic noise does to captive fish...decreases growth rate and creates hormonal deficiencies. Time will tell.

 

[tomgamber]

You sound like one of those PETA guys...I spent an entire day on a farm with a guy who let them build them there. They aren't really that noisy, and the farmer doesn't mind them. But them I can tune out the noise my sharkskin line makes when I cast too. I just think it another thing to #OOPS# about. If someone wants to generate electricity using the wind, so what. Not any worse then using the rivers and the warming of waters, extinction of species due to interrupted spawning routes and noise and they are still using it quite efficiently.

 

[pcray1231]

I honestly have no idea about infrasonic noise. But if you're looking for the source with no drawbacks whatsoever, you ain't gonna find it.

 

[FruitingBodies]

Tom, you sound like one of those #OOPS#bag guys. Do you have anything pertinent to add to the conversation other than uninformed opinionated crap?

Seeing how you had to be schooled on the oil spill, why don't you do yourself, and PAFF, a favor and actually use the resource you engage and inform yourself before you post here; it's called the internet and it's chock full of resources. And insinuating...well...having observed your ineptness, why would you be capable of understanding basic communications and be able to return basic communication.

Did I once say anything about NOT using wind for energy? Nope. If you don't know about infrasonic noise, here's a thought, look it up. *gasp* If you still don't understand the implications, why not ask a question instead of yammering on about nothing.

No wonder PAFF has the reputation it does. The assholishness abounds.

 

[mike_richardson]

I live in the town of Portage and there are acutually windmills within close range of where i hunt. They are land intensive but with all of the Acid Mine Drainage and problems like thatin the area it is nice to see something green happening. The animals dont really mind them and i see a lot of deer around the grass and open areas that are created for the mills.


In highschool i was a water quality tester trying to find ways of cleaning up this A.M.D. Some of the water we tested had a PH of 2 coming out of boreholes or under slag coal piles.

Some theories we had were to connect the bore holes together and have one discharge and install a wetland to filter out some of the minerals and balance the ph. There is a cement facility near my town that we were going to try to put limestone in the stream to raise the ph.

We were trying to get a grant when i graduated and haven't heard any new news.


It kills me to see TROUT RUN in portage completly orange when the ph is low and iron oxide is present or completly white like when the ph is up and the aluminum precipitates.

Sorry i got off topic but Between TROUT RUN and the LITTLE CONEMAUGH RIVER these both could be excellent trout streams and be benificial to the area.