Calling All Liberals.

[bodypilot90 0]

I guess you have forgot Clinton drop the ball when offered Bin Laden, how many times. Guess he had other intrest in the oral I mean Oval office

[billvon 3,092]

> I guess you have forgot Clinton drop the ball when offered Bin Laden . . .

Not at all; while he did try to get Bin Laden on at least one occasion, he passed up at least two other chances.

Of course Bush has him beat there, too - he let Zarqaui get away three times.

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

NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Not at all; while he did try to get Bin Laden on at least one occasion, he passed up at least two other chances.

and you think this is good?

[billvon 3,092]

>and you think this is good?

Tried to get him once = good
Passed up two chances to get him = bad
Bush passes up three chances to get Zarquai = bad

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I guess you have forgot Clinton drop the ball when offered Bin Laden, how many times. Guess he had other intrest in the oral I mean Oval office

Clinton was not a great President, but he was not a bad president. He will, on the other hand, go down in history as a great president, because of the stark contrast between him and the men who preceeded and succeeded him. In other words, because he was sandwiched between to Presidents Bush.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ahegeman 0]

I don't need a lesson on how to lower my utility bills or how I could use alternative power. The fact is that many people simply have no choice but to use power from the grid, to claim otherwise is just silly. Not only do we have a right to use power from utilities, we have a right to enter into that agreement with the utility without being forced to pay artificially high rates due to silly government regulations. There is nothing wrong, nor particularly illiberal, with attempting to minimize government interference in a business transaction between two entities.

While we're on the subject Bill, how much did your home power system cost? How much did it lower your electric bills by? How long can it be expected to last? What sort of maintenance is required?

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

you may not be able to personally put up a wind turbines, but maybe the association would consider it to lower their own electricity bills.

It would not be economically feasable. As far as I know, there is no large, or even moderate, scale power plant running on wind or sun without significant government subsidies. The amount of money the association would spend putting up the turbines would not justify the savings.

Quote

Wind turbines could probably be disguised as windmills for decoration. They disguise cell phone towers that way.

Cell towers don't have huge blades swinging at high speed on them.

Quote

And perhaps you could talk to your city council representative about getting the city to put up the turbines on city owned land to benefit the entire community? Or maybe your county could do something? Get enough of your neighbors involved by pointing out how it will benefit them, and point out to your local government officials how it can benefit them personally, and people will listen.

Same economic problem as before. Plus, wind turbines aren't all they're cracked up to be environmentally speaking. They require huge amounts of land. Remember little Icarus? Those blades are murder on birds, especially raptors coming to feed on the carcasses of birds that have been thwacked already.

Quote

For example, when I talked to the apartment management about solar power, I used the fact that the residents would have greatly reduced electricity bills if solar power were used in the apartments. That's an awesome selling point here where the electricity rates are so high.

The electricity rates are so high because of the government regulation I was referring to earlier.

Don't get me wrong folks, I'm all for greener power, and I don't like the environmental damage of some power sources more than anyone else. I'm just realistic about our situation right now. Green power technology will improve with time and overtake conventional power sources on its own without having to be forced, especially in a functioning market, and that will be a good thing. Given the proximity of my job to the power generation industry, that's all I'm gonna say about it.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[billvon 3,092]

>The fact is that many people simply have no choice but to use power
>from the grid, to claim otherwise is just silly.

The first place I installed a solar cogenerator was in an apartment in San Diego. It was north-facing, so it required a clever frame. The rental office gave me some grief until I told them what it was for - after that they entered into a sort of uneasy truce with me.

Again, you can make up reasons you can't put in solar power (or go to school, or get a job, or whatever) but I find that every time someone says that, someone much worse off just does it.

I'm sure there are people who live in a 30 foot deep cave in Duluth somewhere with no sunlight at all. If that's the case, they can move, or they can buy power from a company that sells renewable energy, or they can use all LED and CF lights to cut their electric bills down to nothing. Or they can continue to use regular utility power if they so choose. Up to them.

>Not only do we have a right to use power from utilities . . .

You might want to check the constitution on that one.

>we have a right to enter into that agreement with the utility without
> being forced to pay artificially high rates due to silly government
> regulations.

Again, I don't think they've passed that amendment yet. You will pay whatever they ask. If you don't like it, make your own. If you do like it, pay it. Your choice.

>There is nothing wrong, nor particularly illiberal, with attempting
>to minimize government interference in a business transaction
>between two entities.

Above you were talking about some sort of government mandate (your 'right') to supply you with cheap power free of any restrictions. I am against such meddling. You pass only those laws needed to protect the public (i.e. emissions and safety laws) and then let the utilities charge you whatever they want. In the long run, allowing a free market will reduce your bill overall.

>While we're on the subject Bill, how much did your home power
>system cost? How much did it lower your electric bills by?

I have three systems (mainly because I like fiddling with them.) The primary system cost me around $5000 and supplies 95% of my usage averaged over the year. The other two were dirt cheap because I got good deals and built them piecemeal. None cost over $2000. All three supply roughly 250% of my power usage (in other words I send 2.5 times more power to the grid than what I use.) My agreement with the utility doesn't cover them paying me; generally you have to generate over about 50 kilowatts before they will pay you to generate. So I end up paying about $3 a month service charge, but no power bills per se.

>How long can it be expected to last? What sort of maintenance is required?

Systems 1 and 2 should last forever. The panels all have 30 year warranties, and the inverters have 20 year warranties. There are no wear items on them. About the only maintenance I ever do is hose off the panels if they get dusty - dust cuts output by about 10%. Hasn't been an issue of late.

System 3 has batteries. They should last 15-20 years based on one power outage a year (about average around here.) They cost about $50 a battery to replace, so that's $400 every 15 years or so.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

As far as I know, there is no large, or even moderate, scale power plant running on wind or sun without significant government subsidies.

Small scale co-generation is economically feasible, on a personal level, though. I know, because I did a fair bit of research and some number crunching on replacing my roof with solar tiles. My net decision was that when it comes time to replace the roof anyway, I'll put generating tiles on the sunnier half of the roof. I expect it to be worth the extra cost (surprisingly little, actually) in materials within 5 years. Obviously, that's going to vary a lot depending on where you live (how sunny it is, what the cost of electricity is, etc), but in some places it's certainly feasible.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,092]

>As far as I know, there is no large, or even moderate, scale power
>plant running on wind or sun without significant government subsidies.

Wind power is currently cheaper than natural gas power. They are going in at a pretty good rate; in 2003 alone, 1.7 gigawatts of wind were installed, which is more generation capacity than a large nuclear power plant. The only big issue is running power lines to the grid; good locations (high windy areas near power lines) are hard to come by. As they are built this will ease. Once you get the feeder lines in, cost of commissioning new turbines goes way down.

>Same economic problem as before. Plus, wind turbines aren't all
> they're cracked up to be environmentally speaking. They require
> huge amounts of land.

?? A 2 megawatt turbine has about a 100 square yard footprint. Farmers are making some money by leasing space in their fields to power companies in windy states.

>Remember little Icarus? Those blades are murder on birds,
> especially raptors coming to feed on the carcasses of birds that
> have been thwacked already.

Agreed, but cellphone towers and powerlines have the same problems. The problem is that birds are used to seeing (and avoiding) trees and cliffs, not guy wires, power lines or turbine blades. Given the difference in area taken up by power lines vs turbines, we've got a long way to go before we even cause 1% of the deaths caused by power lines.

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

Wind power is currently cheaper than natural gas power. They are going in at a pretty good rate; in 2003 alone, 1.7 gigawatts of wind were installed, which is more generation capacity than a large nuclear power plant. The only big issue is running power lines to the grid; good locations (high windy areas near power lines) are hard to come by. As they are built this will ease. Once you get the feeder lines in, cost of commissioning new turbines goes way down.

All of these projects lean heavily on government subsidies, either directly or in the form of significantly accelerated depreciation tax breaks. Also, a dozen states have laws requiring power companies to generate a percentage of their power through renewable means. That these companies are abiding by these laws and taking advantage of government assistance proves nothing about the real viability of wind power.

Quote

A 2 megawatt turbine has about a 100 square yard footprint.

A 310 MW wind project going into Iowa using 207 GE turbines required 20,000 acres. A typical power plant's output of 1.5GW would require over 150 square miles of land at that rate. And that even assumes the turbines are always running at max output.

Quote

Agreed, but cellphone towers and powerlines have the same problems. The problem is that birds are used to seeing (and avoiding) trees and cliffs, not guy wires, power lines or turbine blades. Given the difference in area taken up by power lines vs turbines, we've got a long way to go before we even cause 1% of the deaths caused by power lines.

I partially agree with you here. But think about how many birds 150 square miles of wind turbines would take out. But yeah, probably much less than power lines. At the North American Falconers Association field meet last year in Kansas 13 falconers out of just a couple hundred lost their birds to power lines in one weekend. Imagine how many wild ones are lost in a year.

Edited to add:
The Sierra Club calls wind turbines the "cuisinarts of the air".

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But think about how many birds 150 square miles of wind turbines would take out. But yeah, probably much less than power lines. At the North American Falconers Association field meet last year in Kansas 13 falconers out of just a couple hundred lost their birds to power lines in one weekend. Imagine how many wild ones are lost in a year.

There are some interesting unforseen consequences of that issue.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

Again, you can make up reasons you can't put in solar power (or go to school, or get a job, or whatever) but I find that every time someone says that, someone much worse off just does it.

You live in CA, the state with the most generous assistance to homeowners for installing home power systems. By how much did the taxpayers of CA subsidize the cost of your toy? $10K? $20K?

Quote

Above you were talking about some sort of government mandate (your 'right') to supply you with cheap power free of any restrictions. I am against such meddling. You pass only those laws needed to protect the public (i.e. emissions and safety laws) and then let the utilities charge you whatever they want. In the long run, allowing a free market will reduce your bill overall.

Where did I say I had a right to cheap power? No meddling, let the market figure it out. We agree! If green power is better, I can go there. Wonderful. If only it were actually a free market.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Clinton was not a great President, but he was not a bad president. He will, on the other hand, go down in history as a great president, because of the stark contrast between him and the men who preceeded and succeeded him. In other words, because he was sandwiched between to Presidents Bush.

No not really unless we let the liberal press to rewrite history.

[bodypilot90 0]

you missed my point, He believes that we owe him a education complete with health care and should not have to work for it. My point is there are options he is not even looking at other than living of others. We are not talking unemployment insurance since he is talking 4 year degree or more. I've even forwarded him a school in kentucky that is free. Told him about a career he has to invest less than $300 and works full time and school one night a week and will make more than a school teacher (HVAC tech)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I'm sure there are people who live in a 30 foot deep cave in Duluth somewhere with no sunlight at all."

A heat pump would probably suit them better, ideal for heating big spaces like caves.
Point being, there are different solutions for different situations.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[billvon 3,092]

>All of these projects lean heavily on government subsidies, either
>directly or in the form of significantly accelerated depreciation tax breaks.
> Also, a dozen states have laws requiring power companies to generate a
> percentage of their power through renewable means. That these
> companies are abiding by these laws and taking advantage of
> government assistance proves nothing about the real viability of wind
> power.

The reason electrical utility power became such a success here in the US was the rural electrification project, a government-sponsored program to bring power lines to the country. Before that, wind was huge. Most farmers used wind to pump their water, and most appliances sold to farms ran on 32 volts because that's the voltage the Jacobs windmill generator put out.

So it may well be that wind is not viable without government subsidies in your book - if that's the case, then traditional utility power isn't either. It took rural electrification to overcome the inertia (and practicality) of wind power in the plains states; it will likely take another government program to swing the tide back. If that ends up benefiting the US (i.e. less dependence on foreign oil, less pollution, fewer coal deaths) then it may well be worth it.

Or you can take the other approach - get rid of regulation completely (except safety and environmental) and let the market do its job. But to do that you have to:

1) make sure external costs are included in power costs. If a coal power plant causes damage to buildings via acid rain (for example) THEY pay to clean it up, not the city.

2) eliminate ALL subsidies, including subsidies like the $2 billion a year that goes to the oil industry and the $3+ billion that goes to the coal industry. To do otherwise is to use governmental power to guarantee the status quo.

3) Level the playing field in terms of emissions. No more new source review nonsense, and no more loopholes - every power plant meets EPA emissions requirements, period, or they get shut down.

I'm OK with either approach, personally. I generally prefer a free market, but the government does have an interest in reliable power that does not kill too many people, so it's reasonable for them to have some say in what goes on.

>A 310 MW wind project going into Iowa using 207 GE turbines required 20,000 acres.

Right, but you can then farm 19,500 of those acres. They're like ski lifts - you have to deal with the poles, but the land beneath them is still 100% usable for most applications.

>The Sierra Club calls wind turbines the "cuisinarts of the air".

And I'm sure the ELF will blow up a few.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I have three systems (mainly because I like fiddling with them.) The primary system cost me around $5000 and supplies 95% of my usage averaged over the year. The other two were dirt cheap because I got good deals and built them piecemeal. None cost over $2000. All three supply roughly 250% of my power usage (in other words I send 2.5 times more power to the grid than what I use.) My agreement with the utility doesn't cover them paying me; generally you have to generate over about 50 kilowatts before they will pay you to generate. So I end up paying about $3 a month service charge, but no power bills per se.

Do you have any general information on selling back power to power companies? Does anyone know if the minimum generated varies from company to company, or state to state, or is it pretty much the same all over the country (US)?

Also, does anyone know how these modifications affect home value? The house in question is in central florida.

One of my friends is seriously considering making this modification to his house, but his justification was that it could pay for itself in power sell back.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you missed my point, He believes that we owe him a education complete with health care and should not have to work for it.

No, That is not what I said. Nobody would get anything for free Think of it as society cosigning a loan that will be invested in a matter as to virtually guarantee a boost in lifetime earning potential. We already have several smaller systems in place, such as the Pell Grant program, or the GI Bill. Generalizing such programs so that they apply to all citizens helps eliminate loopholes, and allows administration to be more efficient. So more students get assistance with each dollar spent.

Quite simply, education and knowledge is the key to the future. If we think we can continue keeping education low on our list of priorities that every citizen should have access to, we will be unable to maintain economic superiority through this century. To think otherwise, I believe is terribly shortsided. We have to think ahead to the next several decades, and not just the next several years.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,092]

>Do you have any general information on selling back power to power companies?

Most states have "net metering" laws. This means that if you send power back during the day and use it at night, they average it all (over an entire year) and you only pay the net amount that you use.

The trick, therefore is to 1) reduce your usage as much as possible (compact flourescents etc) then 2) install the smallest system that will generate enough power to offset your usage most years. Systems like that cost $5-10K, are easy to install and maintain, and pay for themselves by reducing/eliminating power bills. Their one draw

Some places allow you to combine this with TOU (time of use) metering. This means you get more credit for power generated during the day since power is in demand during those times, and you pay less at night when power is cheap. In a place like this, system costs are even lower since you don't need to offset all your power usafe.

Very few states/utilities have payback policies where they pay you for power you produce. Understandable; utilities are not in the business of paying their customers.

>Also, does anyone know how these modifications affect home value?

Per a local real estate agent it's now a selling point but its effect is not well known in terms of $$. It's like someone who has a trout stream in their backyard - it's a great selling point if the buyer likes to fish, otherwise not so much. A few developers in San Diego are adding solar systems to new houses and charging a premium for them - and they're getting it. Whether this is due to people wanting solar or just a hot real estate market is unclear though.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Most . . . though.

Thanks. I will pass the info on. IMO it's still a good idea even if he can't sell back power, considering the short time it would take to offset cost with savings.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lindsey 0]

When I read your posts, I can't help but remember how idealistic I was when I went to college--a very small liberal arts college, with a whole slew of very politically active professors and students. Heh....I remember once espousing the social welfare policy views of Mimi Abramovitz--one of the most left-leaning individuals on the planet, I imagine, and defending her perspective to my mother and little brother....lol.

Even though I strongly disagree with most of those viewpoints today, I'm glad I studied and came to understand what that socialist feminist attitude is about. I couldn't have developed my own informed positions without that understanding.

I think that holding such left-leaning perspectives requires a lot more thought than holding very conservative attitudes does. But it's also easy to think yourself into forgiving things that don't need to be forgiven. Some things just don't work. Just because it would be wonderful if the country were better-educated, it doesn't necessarily follow that hard-working people should foot the bill, for instance. Just because it would be nice if there were no homeless people, it doesn't follow that the rest of us should necessarily pay for their housing and getting them on their feet.

It would be nice if people were better educated. It would be even nicer if people took responsibility for themselves, imho.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Nightingale 0]

Bill-

Where's a good place to find LED lights? I'd love to replace the lighting I've got in my apartment!

[billvon 3,092]

>Where's a good place to find LED lights?

120VAC LED lights are still horrendously expensive. 12VDC LED lights are a lot cheaper but need a transformer or something. Note that LED's are NOT more efficient than good compact flourescents at high power levels; their strength is that a .1 watt light is just as efficient as a 100 watt light, so they're great for small sources. But above about 10 watts, CF's are more efficent.

Some sources:
http://www.ccrane.com/120-volt-led-light-bulb.aspx
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/Catalogpages2/lights2.htm
http://www.realgoods.com/renew/shop/product.cfm?dp=3002&ts=1032200&kw=LED
http://www.superbrightleds.com/MR16_specs.htm

[Nightingale 0]

ok. I've already got the fluorescent bulbs. I'll stick with those.