Guest column: Governor, please do not authorize Klamath dam removal

mdbuilder wrote:

It's stark reality that the needs and wishes of rural Oregonians are of little or no concern to the politicians in Salem. We are mere anecdotes, superfluous incidentals that hardly warrant notice. Our governor and his merry men are so insulated from us hicks, he seems almost put-out to think there's actually taxpayers living outside the Willamette Valley. As things are now we are a segment of society that are taxed but don't enjoy any meaningful representation.
Kulongoski's disgusting subservience to the enviro-nazis is a slap in the face to all hard working, rural Oregonians who don't have time to stroke his ego or buy his favor. We're working hard to survive while he and his hangers-on are plotting the next headline grabbing "green initiative" that may seem to save a cockroach but at a backbreaking cost to rural Oregonians. His only concern is to post environmental 'victories' in order to secure a place on the national, political stage.
I hope that this next election cycle will bring conservatives out of the woodwork to shout down this decadent democrat majority and return Oregon government to a realistic, conservative path that serves all it's citizens.

smudge wrote:

Listen up folks...we have a Californian in our midst, lecturing on "What's Good for Oregon!" Never mind the current state of affairs to our neighbor to the south, Don knows what's good for fish, snails and slugs, but he doesn't have a clue about hydrating crops.
Oregonians know all-to-well, that Sleepy Ted naps in the left butt-cheek pocket, of every eco-fascist in the Northwest!

Don Quixote wrote:

<quoted text> You are a walking, talking contradiction. By removing the dams, all Oregonians will benefit which is a Republican concept, whereas keeping the dams in place will only service a few "hicks". Pretty much a democratic concept. Actualy we could have the best of both worlds with dam removal. First the overall health of the river would improve (less silt behind dams, more fish equals diverse ecosystem). Second, less farming close to the river means less pesticide, fertilizer run off. Over good for the majority.
Now how about the rural hick, where does their benefit come in? Less dependent upon the government for their water (independence is always good). Less conflict with the environmental groups. Upgrading of infrastructure (new wells, irrigation equipment) means stimulating the local economy (usually with federal money).
That is just some of the few benefits that come to mind.

mdbuilder wrote:

<quoted text>
How about lower power bills. Not only will we have to pay extra for power that has heretofore gone elsewhere, we have to pay for the dam removal.
Your cavalier attitude is typical of a liberal who sees no problem in spending other people's money. If you're so keen on the idea, feel free to send a monthly check to Pacific Corp for the next ten years.

Don Quixote wrote:

<quoted text> I doubt that those dams generate much electricity any more, all that smudge er silt built up behind them! Check out Martin Burgers "energy bridge" as a new and better way to generate power, without a dam. Link: http://cleantech.com/news/4671/blue-energy-ro...

smudge wrote:

Don't confuse the earth goddess crowd with facts md. They are in a perpetual stone-age nirvana.
Hydroelectric power generation costs about a nickel per kwh. Check out the costs of wind and solar!
LMAO

mdbuilder wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you suppose all that "smudge er silt" will end up?
"PacifiCorp president Bill Fehrman noted hydroelectric energy is “green” in the sense that it does not produce carbon. PacifiCorp says the dams produce 161 megawatts, enough electricity to power 70,000 homes. The company claims a coal fired plant would burn 350,000 tons of coal to produce an equivalent amount of power."

smudge wrote:

Don't confuse the earth goddess crowd with facts md. They are in a perpetual stone-age nirvana.
Hydroelectric power generation costs about a nickel per kwh. Check out the costs of wind and solar!
LMAO

mdbuilder wrote:

<quoted text>
Sometimes I think these earthers don't think past the view.
Of course, when you're on the dole or a wealthy idiot, the cost of anything to anyone else, is immaterial.

Don Quixote wrote:

<quoted text>
All that sludge should be dredged before the dams are breached.
The fossil fuel replacement for these dams will be LNG, that's what the ruby pipeline is all about. It's another environmental disaster, just like the dams, except it isn't built yet. Are you so naive to think it is just a coincidence that Warren Buffet is behind both projects, dam removal and pipeline?

Don Quixote wrote:

<quoted text>
A nickel a kwh eh? I suppose that includes all the long term costs like loss in tourist dollars, or having to reimburse tribal people because we killed their river.
It's not easy being stupid these days, since we, our children, don't have any more chances left.
Yeah, I have checked out solar and wind, going on my second place now, works just fine. In fact this comment comes to you via solar. Don't mind the cost either have already payed back the capital and intrest on both systems.
Free energy baby!
Better than so called "green" hydro, still paying for that "50" years later!

mdbuilder wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you suggest Einstein? Move? Let the land 'heal itself', live 'naturally'? You're an idiot all right, totally ignoring the needs of the people who live here. No hydro, no gas? I guess we just plug into a current bush, eh?
Naive? You bottled-water drinking slug. The bottom line is, once those dams are gone, we have to pay extra no matter who or what provides the alternative power, and we start paying 10 years before the dams are gone! Get it? You sit there in your little zit of a town telling me how to live? Would you roll over to higher power bills to appease a bunch of drunken, poaching featherheads? Not me. They sold their claim to this land long ago. Now they smell a golden opportunity spurred on by a bunch of pussy P.C. politicians, to claim 'rights' they don't have. Piss on them and you.
Where do you get your power, hot air?

smudge wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, a nickel, aka 5 cents, you moron!
Long term costs? More stupid is...
Tourists come for water sports. Plenty of fishing, swimming, water skiing, boating, and picnicking, BEHIND the dam.
WRONG...you are proof-positive, that's it is easy for an idiot to be stupid!
Great, you have wind and/or solar, BUT, you aren't running a compressor off of it. You don't have the capacity to provide the power surge.
"Free?" Big deal...you spent $3500, and now, you can light a 40 watt buld! LMAO!
While your green machine can provide voltage, it doesn't provide the wattage.
Good luck on a 100 degree day, but then again, you'll be in your cave, eh?!

Don Quixote wrote:

<quoted text>
I get my power from the sun and the wind, thank you very much.
The Pacific North West gets 18% of their power from hydro, so your theory of higher power bills doesn't hold much water, just like your beloved dams.
Why don't you stat saving for your very own solar/wind system now? That way in ten years you'll be ready.

mdbuilder wrote:

<quoted text>
Bingo! How did I know you were a bark eater?
You might as well be a cave dweller extolling the virtues of no-paint walls and good insulation.
Not everyone chooses to live at the mercy of flimsy equipment and uncooperative weather.
Your opinions and suggestions are worthless to contemporary Americans.
Do you have a full time job?