backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by Grabo.. on Aug 8 at 4:54 AM


Construction on the Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC) began last week in California.  (Source: Terra Gen)

The project aims to provide 3 GW of power capacity, power 600,000 homes, and create thousands of green jobs.  (Source: Terra Gen)

Some environmentalists have vocally opposed the project, fearful that the turbins will kill local animals and otherwise damage the desert ecosystem.  (Source: Mojave Desert Blog)
Overcoming landowner and environmentalist protests, the 3 GW project commences

With the death of T. Boone Pickens' unprecedented wind farm project in Texas, the alternative energy industry was left with the glaring question of who would step up to the plate and take its place.  

That question appears to be answered, with the progress of the Alta Wind Energy Center.  Set to become the nation's largest wind power plant and among the largest in the world, the new installation is being constructed in Southern California.

Its tall turbines will blanket thousands of acres of Mojave Desert foothills.  They will be capable of producing 3 GW of electric power at peak -- enough to power approximately 600,000 homes.

The project is actually among the nation's oldest, dating back almost a decade.  It was long delayed due to lack of funding, protests from citizens fearful of damage to the desert ecosystem, and difficulties in implementing the high-power transmission wires needed to carry the power out of the desert.

It appears that the stars are at last aligning for the project.  After receiving $1.2B USD in new funding, the owner of the project, Terra Gen, just broke ground for the first time in the project's history.  Construction began in the Tehachapi Pass, 75 miles north of Los Angeles.  The construction will likely stretch through 2020 or later.

Billy Gamboa, a renewable energy analyst with the California Center for Sustainable Energy, says the installation will be a game changer for the industry.  He states, "It's a super-mega-project — it'll definitely set a precedent for the rest of the state and have a pretty large impact on the wind industry in general."

Ryan Wiser, a renewable energy analyst at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, concurs, stating, "Alta's an absolutely enormous project in probably the most promising wind resource area that remains in the state,.  It's the single biggest investment in California wind project assets in decades and is likely the largest the state is ever going to see."

The farm already has some of its necessary distribution deals in place.  Terra Gen has signed a contract with Southern California Edison, to buy 1.55 GW of power over 25 years from Alta.  That will allow it to power 275,000 homes purely on wind power.  That distribution alone more than doubles the previous record held by a 735 MW Texas farm.

The first round of construction will install 290 turbines across 9,000 acres.  That will create thousands of jobs and increase California's wind power production by 25 percent according to current estimates.  Denmark-based Vestas-American Wind Technology will manufacture the turbines for this round of construction.

In 2015, the next piece of the megafarm, an 300-turbine 830 MW monster, will come online.  That piece will use new ultra-wide turbines whose blades will be almost as wide as a football field.

Terra Gen purchased the property and the project rights for $325M USD from Australian Allco Finance Group, which went bankrupt in 2008.  After that Terra Gen had to overcome concerns from the Federal Aviation Administration that the turbines could interfere with flights from LA's Mountain Valley Airport.

While the company has finally received the permits it needs to complete the construction, it still is facing petitions from environmentalists and landowners.  One petition by the Old West Ranch Property Owners Assn. has over 1,000 signatures.  The group's president, Merle Carnes, complains, "We're not against green energy in any way, but there just comes a time when you say that this is my community and I don't want turbines encroaching in full view.  There's room somewhere else."

The 
Mojave Desert Blog, an environmental activist blog critical of the project, writes, "Energy firms and the federal government should invest in more research before we rush technology into action that kills thousands of birds and bats and replicating Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in our new century."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

daf
By IamJedi on 8/3/2010 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Some environmentalists have vocally opposed the project, fearful that the turbins will kill local animals and otherwise damage the desert ecosystem


Honestly, when will they (envio-nuts) be happy? The day that we all give up technology and go back into the wild? What these 'people' need to understand is that not everyone agrees with their idealism, but at least we are doing something that doesn't destroy nature as destructively as mining for coal/oil.

There has to be a balance, and I believe we've found it with wind, solar, and nuclear.




RE: daf
By Quadrillity on 8/3/2010 12:43:23 PM , Rating: 3
+ tidal, hydro, hydrogen


RE: daf
By NullSubroutine on 8/3/2010 3:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the United State's rivers that can be dammed as already been, hydro is not likely going to grow much.


RE: daf
By Quadrillity on 8/3/2010 4:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, like almost every type of renewable and clean energy of today, every little bit helps. All of the clean/free energy can surely compliment nuclear facilities very well.

In fact, if you are willing to invest over the years, you can EASILY build and maintain a house that rarely has to tap into the national grip. Granted, you will have to modify your lifestyle a bit; ie enjoy your 76-78 degrees instead of 70-72 in the summer.

It can be done. But are we willing?


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 7:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, if you are willing to invest over the years, you can EASILY build and maintain a house that rarely has to tap into the national grip. Granted, you will have to modify your lifestyle a bit; ie enjoy your 76-78 degrees instead of 70-72 in the summer.
Easily? Most people buy homes from builders. And most are NOT custom built (more expensive and more time consuming). A home built with energy efficiency in mind will cost more than a typical home because those materials cost more and finding a builder that will know this stuff costs more too.

Our best bet is energy efficient appliances, windows and HVAC and some solar. And that STILL costs tons of money. I've discovered that doing this yourself saves tons of money but some companies won't sell you stuff unless you're a professional so you're at the mercy of high labor prices and marked up equipment.


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 8:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Let me say that with lots of research, you can have DIY solar system for your home. I don't want it to sound like it's impossible.


RE: daf
By safcman84 on 8/4/2010 3:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
Initial investment is more, but the house will be cheaper to run in on a yearly basis.

Besides, you dont have to have a completely green house to reduce your carbon footprint, so investment doesnt have to be too much.

on a side note, i dont know about the USA but in Europe you can buy "pre-fab" houses that come the latest and best green isolation, solar panels etc for quite cheap, cos they are built in a factory and delivered in 3 parts that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. no need for builders with specialist knowledge and the house is built within a few weeks, not months like most european houses.


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/4/2010 3:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
on a side note, i dont know about the USA but in Europe you can buy "pre-fab" houses that come the latest and best green isolation
You can do the same here but there are typically restrictions on where you can build them. They are very high quality for the most part. Thought about doing that myself but I can get a regular house equally well built for the same price. Typically, pre-fabs are worth less than a regular home. If you go out an buy a plot of land, you can build whatever you want, for the most part, but if you live in the city, a plot of land is either ridiculously expensive or non-existent, and then there's the building type restrictions.


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/4/2010 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides, you dont have to have a completely green house to reduce your carbon footprint, so investment doesnt have to be too much.
I've looked into it and the initial investment is still pretty high. My other post wasn't necessarily talking about going all out. I even mentioned cutting back by just hitting some really crucial areas like windows, HVAC and appliances. Still costs a lot.


RE: daf
By Quadrillity on 8/4/2010 8:40:50 AM , Rating: 4
Well, my idea of "building a home" is being your own contractor, and only hiring professionals for the work that you can not do yourself. Personally, I want to be able to just buy/rent a cheap house or apartment beside/close to where I want to build one.

I'll have sub contractors pour the foundation, then I will raise the walls myself. Of course, I will be using compact-earth for my walls since the concept of packing dirt together is pure genius! Not only is it beautiful and super strong, but it's natural product and almost 100% insulating. You can not beat that!

The whole point is, if you take the time, energy, and patience; you will have a VERY nice house for less than just having someone slap a pre-fab together in a couple of months.

It's all about what you want ... I want to build and design almost every aspect of my home one day, so I guess I am way more involved then most of society. It is cheaper, and better in the long run. But as far as your reply, you are correct if you are implying that MOST people are lazy and don't care to know how to have a cheap but still VERY nice and efficient home.


RE: daf
By JediJeb on 8/4/2010 3:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Is that compact earth within some other outer skin for the walls? If not, where I live the rains would soon destroy them.

Right now I have a log home, though I would rather it was made of at least 8 inch thick cedar instead of the 6 inch pine the person that lived there before me used. Logs are also very good insulator, since here even when it is sub zero you can touch the walls inside and they are always warm to the touch. Mine does have problems in summer though since the roof was built too flat and the hot metal sits very close to the ceiling inside. I plan on remodeling and raising the pitch of the roof to give more dead space above for the summer heat to dissipate through, and put in active fans to help keep it cool. It is only 800 square feet so a single vent free fireplace(Natural Gas, 25,000 btu) keeps it toasty warm in the winter.

Houses can be built very energy efficient for a low cost. Three sides in the ground build on a hillside is also a very energy efficient style of construction. If I ever build another home it will be that or if it has to be a box framed home it will be 6 or 8 inch thick walls.


RE: daf
By Quadrillity on 8/4/2010 4:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that compact earth within some other outer skin for the walls? If not, where I live the rains would soon destroy them.

lol, yes of course! You have a double sided mold that you stamp layers of earth down into. After you remove the molds, the earth still holds together very tight, but you cover it plaster/concrete or whatever else you want to use. In fact, you pretty much have to use a pneumatic ram unless you want to do it by hand (would take a long time lol). It's actually best to use it in between a permanent wall barrier where it has nearly 100% insulation though. Really cool stuff...


RE: daf
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 4:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source. Unless you are thinking about fusion, but our grandkids might one day see that.


RE: daf
By Quadrillity on 8/3/2010 4:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source.


*sigh... I already knew this. I am referring to using hydrogen to run our cars with fuel cells instead of internal combustion engines. ~200 miles (or more) per cubic ltr. (tested and proven) is pretty damn good IMHO. The exhaust is water vapor. Instant torque. The only moving parts are the wheels!!! AMAZING.

However, we have a LOOOOOONG ways to go until this can become a reality lol. I hope that day does come though.


RE: daf
By tng on 8/3/2010 7:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, Methane for hydrogen production can be gathered at multiple sources where now it is considered a waste gas (sewage treatment plants, landfills, dairy farms). This can be converted to hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles and they will be a damn site better than a pure EV with all the drawbacks that they have.

Better yet I say the government should subsidize fuel cell vehicles and install a solar powered hydrolysis station for refueling the vehicle in everybody's garage. Ultimate money saver there.


RE: daf
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2010 12:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
They'll only be happy when all humans are dead. The problem is, that means they'll have to be too.

Until then, they just need to learn to be complacent as their utopia is an impossibility (well, it is possible, it just isn't a bright future to think about).

Nuclear is probably the best compromise for them--there are not dams messing with the fish nor are there wind turbines killing the (nutritious) birds. These days, you can keep your nuclear plants well contained and recycle the fuel that is on premesis with minimal environmental impact.


RE: daf
By dgingeri on 8/3/2010 1:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
There are people out there who just hate humanity and want us all dead. so, they fight to oppose everything we need to survive. It's not new. I'm sure Jane Fonda is one of them.


RE: daf
By bupkus on 8/3/2010 1:30:12 PM , Rating: 1
Idiot


RE: daf
By Kurz on 8/3/2010 1:41:07 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing he said was wrong.
They want to 'Reduce' the human Population.
They want to lower birth rates.

They want us to go back to the stone age when it comes to technology.

In effect they want us to die.


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about the rest of it but reducing the population or at least it's growth rate isn't a bad idea.

Obviously I can't really agree with the rest of their platform, but I admit I haven't heard the greenpeace schtick in a while from one of those street canvasers.


RE: daf
By Sahrin on 8/3/2010 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 3
I'll say to you what I say to everyone who thinks population control is a good idea: you first.

I want to protect the environment, I value biodiversity - but not ever at the cost of human lives, or human freedom of action. Your priorities are way out of whack if you actually believe that. And we all know the best kind of leadership is by example - so lead on my friend, I'll be *right* behind you.


RE: daf
By gunzac21 on 8/3/2010 2:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
i think the discussion was not about killing yourself but more about not having 7 kids... which quite frankly if everyone decided to do that this world would really go to hell. thats the population control they mean.


RE: daf
By lelias2k on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: daf
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 5:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you kidding? How are the rednecks going to live if they can't have 7 kids?


In America the "white" birthrate is the lowest among all ethnic and cultural groups. By a shocking amount actually. Which is who I assumed you were referring to when you used the term "redneck".

I guess it's easy to pick on whites though, nobody will call you a racist. African American and Latino birth rates, and illegitimate birthrates, are though the roof. It's honestly terrifying. But you wouldn't bring that up because that would be racist.


RE: daf
By Souka on 8/3/2010 7:03:21 PM , Rating: 3
Could you imagine IF American's did have 10+ kids for each couple? Talk about using up the world's energy resources!!!


RE: daf
By lelias2k on 8/3/2010 11:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
That's because they don't count kids with siblings and cousins. :p


RE: daf
By TSS on 8/3/2010 7:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't have a problem having only 1 or 2 kids, depending on what the best figure would be. It would solve 2 problems: overpopulation of the earth (maybe not now, but at this rate, soon enough), and population booms.

The latter considering the costs involved with taking care of the elderly. Which doesn't become a problem unless when a baby boom crosses over into that care, and there isn't a second boom to cover the costs. It's not about cost, but those people will end up suffering in that case, and all will suffer in the worst case. Which is something we will face up to very soon.

Every human has the right to live, but they should at the very least be concieved first. A stable population wouldn't be a bad thing to leave for our kids.

All of that said, we aren't the problem. The real problem is controlling India's and the whole of africa's population numbers. Some western nations will even see a population decline in the next few decades (at current rates).


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 9:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some western nations will even see a population decline in the next few decades (at current rates).
The US is pretty low as are most western countries. I believe Europe is in the negatives for birth rates. Can't get much lower than that. Third world countries have the super high birth rates but it would racist to tell them to slow it down a bit.


RE: daf
By lelias2k on 8/3/2010 11:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
It would be easier if instead of telling someone not to do something, we tried to educate them. ;)


RE: daf
By JediJeb on 8/4/2010 4:14:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The latter considering the costs involved with taking care of the elderly. Which doesn't become a problem unless when a baby boom crosses over into that care, and there isn't a second boom to cover the costs. It's not about cost, but those people will end up suffering in that case, and all will suffer in the worst case. Which is something we will face up to very soon.


This wouldn't be such a problem if the government stayed out of people business and pockets and let us provide for our own future needs. Instead the government as set it up so that two generations younger pay for your retirement needs. Had all those prior generations been educated in how to properly save for retirement and allowed to keep most of the money they earned then we would not be in the dire position we are in now.

It funny how you can go around the world and look at even the most backward societies which do not have things like social security and medicare yet their elderly are decently taken care of. Seems most places except modern societies respect the elderly. And for large families, I can say from experience, with my grandfather being one of 12 and my mother being 1 of 11, if anyone in our family suffers from a calamity like losing a house to fire or such, they don't have to worry about the government bailing them out, the family takes care of them until they are back on their feet. Families and communities are what should be taking care of people, not governments.


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 3:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa! settle down...
I was more talking about reducing the birth rate than population control.

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/3...

There is data that supports the idea that more educated individuals are less likely to have children and also tend to have less children when they do.

... Actually after re-reading my previous post I guess it could sound like I was advocating chopping off people's balls... I'd be upset too :-P


RE: daf
By lelias2k on 8/3/2010 4:27:22 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, you can't use big words like "birth rate" and expect people to understand you... ;)


RE: daf
By Hare on 8/3/2010 4:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is data that supports the idea that more educated individuals are less likely to have children and also tend to have less children when they do.


Correct. Imagine what that does to mankind in the long run. We are slowly evolving to be a bunch of morons as the dumb people outf*** the smart ones.

On a more serious note. Decreasing birth rate is not just family planning and forcing people to have only X number of kids. Just by having better vaccinations developing nations start growing slower? Why, because they don't have the systems and safety nets that we have so they make kids to take care of them when they get older and due to high child mortality rate they rather play it safe and get plenty of kids... As quality of life (health) gets better, family sizes decrease -> fact. Seems counter productive but it isn't. Making sure that less kids suffer from bad health and die early is a good way to improve our situation.


RE: daf
By OoklaTheMok on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 2:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
"stone age" might be far flung. But i read an article a looonnnngggg time ago about environmentalists working in africa that were attempting to dissuade the tribes from using genetically engineered crops and animals in lieu of their organic local alternatives.
This sounds great if your in a farm in Potomac or something or if you're talking about someone's victory garden in georgetown. But when the "frankenfood" that they are dissuading them from using is disease and pest resistant crops that can provide much more food for the generally starving local population... That's a lot to ask a reasonable person to support that.
One of the core needs of a growing and evolving society is access and surplus of food and housing. To send missionaries to those who don't have that trying to persuade them that they don't need it is wrong... to me at least.


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 9:48:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To send missionaries to those who don't have that trying to persuade them that they don't need it is wrong... to me at least.
If I were a tribal African and I saw a westernary coming my way, they'd get a spear chucked through the eye. Seriously, leave these people alone! Their way of life works for them and they don't need some 22 year old, middle class, junior in college, greenpeace wannabe, "I'm going to save the world!", wet behind the ears, used clothes wearing, Brentwood bitch telling them how to live their lives. Go plant a tomato farm in downtown Seattle or something.

African Tribal Dude: My name Kunta!
Westernary: Your name is Toby!

These bastards supposedly don't believe in slavery but they have NO problems removing your freedom of choice. Then pretending you still have it. If you have no freedom of choice, what are you? And don't give me that "I'm not telling you what to do" or "you can still buy light bulbs, just not these". Where do you people stop? Is it when those that refuse to bow to you are put in internment camps? Oh noes!! I'm not saying that Spuke! What happened to the Jews and Japanese was horrible!

Or are you too pussy to go that far. Instead choosing to brow beat (manipulate) people into submission. Hitler didn't start with gassing people at first either. Look at the Jim Crow era here in the good ole US. How do you get people to behave like they're slaves when slavery is illegal? Wait a minute Spuke, my ancestors were slaves, I'd never advocate that. Good!!!! Then you should promote freedom of choice, stay the fuck out of tribal anywhere, and learn to live with the things you can't control.

Assholes.


RE: daf
By bupkus on 8/3/2010 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want to 'Reduce' the human Population. They want to lower birth rates.
They want to 'Reduce' the human population by lowering birth rates.

But, I like your 'hands off' approach more. Lets increase the human birth rate exacerbating the shortages of food, drinking water and futile land resulting in more starvation, disease and war, destabilized political institutions and the tearing apart of our social fabrics.

BTW, most of the world is already in a decline into the stone age by these same forces you attribute to 'them' those dastardly environmentalists, tree-huggers, greenies, etc.


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 2:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want to 'Reduce' the human population by lowering birth rates.


Yeah I understood it as the same. I can't get behind the "greenies" complete agenda but I agree with this.
There is lots of data suggesting that birth rate's correlate to levels of education .
http://www.eubios.info/EJ124/ej124i.htm

What I find startling is that environmental groups tend not to show leniency or flexibility in their message to accomadate this. And I haven't seen evidence that they are proactively using this data to push for more access to education in "third world" countries and here in America. Instead they attempt to dictate to people what food they can't eat and completely halt a project (which might be the lesser of 2 evils, for example, the wind farm) even though it appears to be counterproductive to the point you mentioned.
These "greenies" and other political groups play "roles" and not their part. That's why I think its hard to get behind them.


RE: daf
By bupkus on 8/3/2010 8:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead they attempt to dictate to people what food they can't eat
I don't get your entire statement or where you think you read it from but if I were trying to understand your post I can only recall the belief that meat production uses considerably more resources than non-meat production. Other than that it just sounds like more BS about environmentalists. And quite honestly I don't give a ship about this preoccupation with environmentalists. How about using a little common sense about the limitations of every environmental system and its ability to rebound from overuse? Don't fixate on the damn messenger but instead think about the message.


RE: daf
By Solandri on 8/3/2010 4:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, I like your 'hands off' approach more. Lets increase the human birth rate exacerbating the shortages of food, drinking water and futile land resulting in more starvation, disease and war, destabilized political institutions and the tearing apart of our social fabrics.

There is no food or water shortage. There's plenty of drinking water and the world grows enough food to feed the world population many times over.

The problem is distribution. In many cases, getting the food and water to the people who need it is cost-prohibitive. One way to solve this problem is by reducing the human population. Unfortunately, many environmentalists see this as the only solution and take a "my way or the highway" approach when advocating.

An alternative solution is to improve transportation technology to where distribution costs fall enough to make it cost-effective to ship food and water to these locales. Another is to lower the cost of energy so the transportation costs drop as well, making it cost-effective to deliver these necessities. Yet another approach would be to foster economic development in these areas, increasing the productivity of these people. Then they can afford to have food and water transported to them.

There are lots of solutions to the problem. It's only when you have stopping technological progress as a side-goal that you fixate on just the "reduce human population" solution. The "overpopulation problem" is already fixing itself, as people in modern societies are naturally having fewer children (and Japan and some European countries are actually shrinking in population). It turns out that when you use technology to improve your productivity, you don't need to have a dozen kids to provide raw physical labor to help run the farm.


RE: daf
By bupkus on 8/3/2010 8:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Have you considered another option-- people migrating to prosperous countries? Just a small oversight.


RE: daf
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2010 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 1
I know a girl who has this attitude. That humanity is a plague. So I told her "Why don't you kill yourself then?". She said she was just not going to have kids as her way to help solve the problem. Yeah that'll work...

Glad you and I will be paying for the majority of this wind farm. With the subsidies these days, its all but free. At least the T. Boone Pickens farm pretty much was.

I'm also questioning the 3GW number. How much power are the first 290 smaller turbines providing? Because if the 300 larger turbines only do 830 MW, lets say the 290 smaller ones do 700 MW. We're still 1.5 GW short. And assuming roughly the same amount of land for the second set of turbines as the first, that's over 18,000 acres for 1.5 GW of power in the best case. That's crazy. How much space does a nuclear plant with lets say two reactors putting out 750 MW apiece take up? A hundred acres? Two hundred? If that? And you're still gonna need more land to hit the 3 GW figure.

Also I think the 1.5 GW of power over 25 years shows the reliability of this. If its so good, why won't they be buying all the power?


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 2:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think this thing is happening in phases so I think the 300 larger turbines are coming in 2014 but probably they have plans to develop after that.

quote:
The construction will likely stretch through 2020 or later.


Assuming that it doesn't take 6 years to do an implementation of 300 turbines??

As far as the nuclear plants. I agree with you, and apparently there will be development of more Nuclear power plants. But I think in North America at least this is probably one of the most ideal places for a wind farm. So, why not use it? Also energy companies with a lot of energy diversity tend to do very well. And, I believe, energy diversity is essential moving forward after the string of energy crises that's led us up to the point we are now. They buy this semi-sweet sh|t now (yes, that is subsidized) but it may spur a "whirlwind" (haha) of continued research and development that may lead to bigger more productive breakthroughs down the line.


RE: daf
By lelias2k on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: daf
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2010 2:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try find out how much money the US government gives the oil industry each year


Nothing close to what it gets back in taxes. How much is solar or wind tax kicking back to old Uncle Sam these days? Yeah that's what I thought.


RE: daf
By Suntan on 8/3/2010 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 3
They probably should have thought of that before building Riverside and all the other suburbs, etc. that were once nothing but a big desert ecosystem... Seems a little hypocritical.

-Suntan


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 1:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but I think it's a generational thing. I was talking to somebody about this the other day. I think younger people tend to be much more attracted to living in urban areas nowadays than people their age decades ago, when the american dream was the suburbs, a dog and 2 kids. Urban sprawl is not "fashion" anymore as my GF put it.
That being said, I think a "here on out" approach is acceptable.


RE: daf
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2010 2:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Urban areas are nice until you actually have kids, then you realize it truly would be great to have the additional space, privacy and comfort of a cul-de-sac in a neighborhood along with a yard. I really think it more depends on what stage of your life you are in.

I liked the city when I was young and single, now that I'm married with a kid, I really wouldn't mind at all moving up to the mountains or further out from the city to get away from all the traffic.


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 3:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, but I think in terms of social acceptance, people are much more willing to live in urban areas with kids even if they have the means to move out of the city. I think it definitely depends on what your nearby city is... ie Detroit. But for a lot of people now an apartment or rowhouse with a little backyard is not just acceptable but desirable.

I think that in most metro areas they don't have the opportunity or it's just not feasible to get a little place "out in the mountains". But I must admit it does sound nice, good luck to you ;-).


RE: daf
By Suntan on 8/3/2010 5:15:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I agree with you, but I think in terms of social acceptance, people are much more willing to live in urban areas with kids even if they have the means to move out of the city.


No, all you are really seeing is that *you* personally feel that way, and you just so happen to have moved into a neighborhood that all feels the same way you do about your choice of living location (surprise, surprise.)

The problem is that you are now of the misguided assumption that *everybody* feels the same way you do... Which in all honesty is quite similar to the problems being faced in the region that is the topic of the main article. A whole bunch of people voluntarily chose to set up camp and overpopulate a barren stretch of desert, landlocked by the sea on one side and a mountain range on the other, voluntarily imposed a number of national and state parks/forests to further separate them from the rest of the continent, where the geography suffers from prevailing winds coming off the ocean that locks all their smog and putrescence into the little desert bowl they chose to overpopulate and then began to b|tch and moan because the rest of the union doesn’t feel the same sense of urgency about their crap-predicament as they do.

-Suntan


RE: daf
By bupkus on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: daf
By Suntan on 8/3/2010 9:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your rant is misplaced as this person is only suggesting a preference for urban living.


Reading comprehension pal, he specifically said, "...people are much more willing to live in urban areas..." not "I prefer to live in urban areas."

As for the rest of your comments, they are quite irrelevant as the argument was not about "urban vs. suburban which is better to live in" the discussion was about people living in the suburbs needing to "subsidize" urban dwellers out of some misplaced view of "using more resources."

-Suntan


RE: daf
By Suntan on 8/3/2010 2:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, but I think it's a generational thing.


It has very little to do with the generation you come from. If you are sitting in your house (be it urban, suburban or rural) telling other people they shouldn’t develop land because “now it is too much” you are a hypocrite. Because it is pretty much 100% guaranteed that the house you live in was at one time some “untainted stretch of wilderness.”

Further, if you’re an eco-nut that sits there and complains about the excesses and wastefulness of others, I guarantee you I can find some other person that is even more eco-obsessed than you, such that they view (what you may consider as a responsible existence) as a blight on Mother Nature just the same as the things you despise.

Hippies = Hypocrites

-Suntan


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 3:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hippies = Hypocrites


I think that's a little too absolute to ever be true or if it is I think it would be meaningless because it would most likely implicate everyone else as hyprocrites in different manners.

I don't necessarily disagree that there is some level of hypocrisy inherent in an extreme environmentalist living a modern lifestyle in an industrialized country, but I was more speaking to people at least being aware of their environmental and societal impact. Just because their are the extremists and their agendas doesn't mean "normal" (whatever that is) people have to throw any thought about the environment out of the window. Most people try to be conscious of the environment in small ways everyday (turn off the water while brushing teeth, recycling, sh|t like that). There's nothing wrong with that, in my mind.

I didn't mention it earlier... but you brought up a good point. No I don't believe I have a real ethical right to rail against someone who leads a more excessive lifestyle than myself. BUT, I think that lifestyle should come at a cost.

Plus there are hidden costs (not environmental) associated with living in the burbs that often remains unaddressed.
I live in DC so it doesn't have a state govt... said captain obvious lol, but if I lived somewhere like... Philadelphia. It would suck that I would pay as much or more in taxes to support my city and state, while the state and federal govts typically pick up the tab for providing countless services to people who "choose" to live outside an urban area, typically because of their affluence.

A good example in this case would be transportation budgets, these are highly subsidized by the federal government and that's not including special "expansion" projects. Instead of those monies going into making a cool subway or tram system or something really beneficial to the city with it's millions of residents. It is typically used just to maintain the plethora of roadway that is sprawled across the surrounding countryside that services less residents.

So, outside the environmental impact, and not stating who is "good" or "bad" or where people "should" live. I just think these neighborhoods should pay a price fitting their social and economic burden for the luxury they 'chose'.


RE: daf
By Suntan on 8/3/2010 4:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, outside the environmental impact, and not stating who is "good" or "bad" or where people "should" live. I just think these neighborhoods should pay a price fitting their social and economic burden for the luxury they 'chose'.


Isn’t that what property taxes are for? Not to mention the notion of a progressive income tax? And if you own a car, you’re paying for the infrastructure through car registration taxes. If anything it is unfair that people owning cars should have to pay taxes to support public transportation that they will never use.

Further, I personally live in the far Southern part of the Twin Cities in Dakota County. Dakota County includes a fair potion of the Twin Cities “Urban” area but it also stretches down through suburban and significant rural areas. Now I live in a decent (but hardly lavish) suburb on the outskirts where crime is low and most people just want to live their lives, go to work and raise their children.

Here is how my County spends its funds:

http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/EA8AEEEF-6...

So 10% total went to transportation (including public transit, of which there have been substantial additions in the form of public mass transit infrastructure over the last year) while roughly 50% of it went to social services like welfare and cops/incarceration. At the expense of painting with a broad brush, how much of that 50% would you guess needed to be spent in my quiet little suburb? Yet my property taxes are footing the majority of the county’s funding... Hypocrite.

Honestly, how many times over should the Have’s continue to pay to satisfy the greedy, jealous, “I want some of that too” nature of the have-not’s?

-Suntan


RE: daf
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 10:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No I don't believe I have a real ethical right to rail against someone who leads a more excessive lifestyle than myself.
Define excessive lifestyle.

quote:
BUT, I think that lifestyle should come at a cost.
What costs are these people avoiding? Is it less taxes on fuel? Is it lower property taxes? Is it lower insurance?


RE: daf
By tng on 8/4/2010 10:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead of those monies going into making a cool subway or tram system or something really beneficial to the city with it's millions of residents . It is typically used just to maintain the plethora of roadway that is sprawled across the surrounding countryside that services less residents.
Whoa, backup there.

The maintenance "plethora of roadway" that you speak of is paid for by mainly gas taxes, the majority of which is paid for by the people who use the roads, not mass transit users!

Why should I, who have no use for some inner city subway system or light rail have to pay for those projects? Especially when it will come at the expense of the roads that I use to go to and from work daily?

If you want a cool subway or new mass transport system in your urban area, then the people that will use it should pay for it. Ongoing operations should be paid for with the fares and taxes on the people in the area that are connected with it, not the people out in the burbs who get no benefit from it.

Going back to the original problem is that the eco nuts that seem to live mainly in urban areas, would probably block projects like your cool new subway, or make it so expensive that it is not practical.


RE: daf
By nafhan on 8/3/2010 1:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, when will they (envio-nuts) be happy? The day that we all give up technology and go back into the wild?
Yes. Tool usage is what distinguishes us from animals AND MAKES US EVIL!!!!


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 1:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree with you (and I think most reasonable people would), extreme rhetoric, unfortunately, seems to be the typical discourse of American political theatre nowadays. Hyperbole and half-truths that support an extreme position get people's attention and often result in a much more moderate compromise.

I think environmental "due diligence" is a good thing and there will probably be money set aside for and special rules put in place to marginally offset the project's ecological impact. I think even people who aren't really into environmental issues agree it's fair. But its the extreme crazies that enable that with their rabble rousing, it's just annoying and reprehensible that the american public has to endure all the garbage and misinformation that leads up to a reasonable resolution.

It appears to be the status quo with X political or social group (republican, democrat, independent, T-people, environmentalist, free market jerks, communists).


RE: daf
By knutjb on 8/3/2010 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It appears to be the status quo with X political or social group (republican, democrat, independent, T-people, environmentalist, free market jerks, communists).
Why do you say "free market jerks" yet you don't apply the same derogatory slander towards any of the others?


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 3:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
My personal bias i guess, I have a strong dislike for suits. I'm not always a nice man... but you'll learn that about me... jk jk lol
Seriously though, that was kind of unfair since most of the other groups I don't particularly agree with either.

REVISED:
It appears to be the status quo with X political or social group ( elephant asses, donkey f*krs, indie pin heads, T-baggers, tree-huggers, free market jerks, communists ).

communists -> they kind of made a bad name for themselves already...


RE: daf
By theArchMichael on 8/3/2010 3:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
My personal bias i guess, I have a strong dislike for suits. I'm not always a nice man... but you'll learn that about me... jk jk lol
Seriously though, that was kind of unfair since most of the other groups I don't particularly agree with either.

REVISED:
It appears to be the status quo with X political or social group ( elephant asses, donkey f*krs, indie pin heads, T-baggers, tree-huggers, free market jerks, communists ).

communists -> they kind of made a bad name for themselves already...


RE: daf
By roadhog1974 on 8/3/2010 5:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, when will they (envio-nuts) be happy?


lump all of them into one bucket and you will get a mess
of contradictions.

You may as well ask, when will they (americans) be happy?\

and you will get the same answer.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki