Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#109 Aug 17, 2012
Jen Ward wrote:
<quoted text>
That land should be preserved for all who want to enjoy it. Tourism, in the long run, can bring in much more money than a one-time coal raping of the land.
Well then you wouldn't be allowed to build a house and retire there anyway with that train of thought.
Claud

Charleston, WV

#110 Aug 17, 2012
Jen Ward wrote:
<quoted text>
That land should be preserved for all who want to enjoy it. Tourism, in the long run, can bring in much more money than a one-time coal raping of the land.
I agree with that statement. Windmills produce 20 percent of Iowa's electricity. Windmills are the cleanest form of producing energy as I understand it, and produces no waste, however they have to be placed wear their is ample wind. I said a while back that remote coast lines would be the perfect place for windmills since their is constant wind. As for the birds I do have a concern. I think that a cage around the propellers should solve that problem. I think under ground coal mining should be the only way to mine coal. Their would be more jobs for miners,and more than enough to employ displaced mountain top removal employees if they desired to get certified and go under ground ground. I don't want to make anybody mad, but I feel very strongly about this issue. Destroying are beautiful state isn't doing anybody no good except outside interest. I'm for more under ground mining jobs, and preserving our beautiful state. I cant see where anybody could honestly disagree with my comments. I mean nobody no harm. May God Bless the coal miners, and may God bless the USA.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111 Aug 17, 2012
Jen Ward wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out the technology and don't just rely on solar. Do the research and realize there are many other ways and methods including wind, methane production ( http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustai... ) and microhydropower and more. The sky is the limit and unlike the break even point with a Prius, if you do it right savings can be much sooner. And with the rapid advent of technology it's becoming cheaper by the day to get off the grid ... comfortably.
Like I said I'm a penny pincher who also loves economics. It is not cost effective or else I would have already switched. Politics and technology will never fully be able to defeat coal, the only thing that can is economics.
It is economics that has caused the Solyndra debacle. Yes lets claim wind power will bring American jobs when we can't even compete in the market of producing wind mills with China. So on and so forth.
You got a little silly at the end claiming "rapid invent of technology" making it "cheaper by the day". Sure it might be cheaper than it was ten years ago, but it's still not cost effective.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#112 Aug 17, 2012
Jen Ward wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick shift from the subject to myself but that's what I love about you, Mr. Conservative. Today I have you caring about the environment or at least pretending to be a tree hugger
I just can't fathom you being against coal pollution but being alright with lithium ion pollution and the murder of birds, all while trying to say you don't just have an agenda against coal.
Just be honest it will get you further in debates/conversations.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113 Aug 17, 2012
Claud wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with that statement. Windmills produce 20 percent of Iowa's electricity. Windmills are the cleanest form of producing energy as I understand it, and produces no waste, however they have to be placed wear their is ample wind. I said a while back that remote coast lines would be the perfect place for windmills since their is constant wind. As for the birds I do have a concern. I think that a cage around the propellers should solve that problem. I think under ground coal mining should be the only way to mine coal. Their would be more jobs for miners,and more than enough to employ displaced mountain top removal employees if they desired to get certified and go under ground ground. I don't want to make anybody mad, but I feel very strongly about this issue. Destroying are beautiful state isn't doing anybody no good except outside interest. I'm for more under ground mining jobs, and preserving our beautiful state. I cant see where anybody could honestly disagree with my comments. I mean nobody no harm. May God Bless the coal miners, and may God bless the USA.
Where will they put the slate and byproducts from all of this underground mining? Do you think coal from underground produces less pollution when it's burned than surface mined coal? Is this all just an aesthetic argument on your part because you think something looks pretty? Even though you don't own it, do you feel that no one should be allowed to own it and do what they see fit with it?
I wish I could protest all of the things and people around here that I don't find aesthetically pleasing.
JHG

Barboursville, WV

#114 Aug 17, 2012
ive been minin coal for 34 years. if you dont support coal than you are a dop head on wellfair. if you dont support coal than set in the dark turn of your pcs and dont drive ye cars. if you see a coal miner in town you should think him for his hard work and dedicashin so you can have elektristy and pwr. by god those tree hugers are jelaous because i made 135 thousand last year minin coal. so kiss my coal minin a**
clmnr

Norwalk, OH

#115 Aug 17, 2012
Claud,

Did you know that windmills need a force to turn them. This is velocity multiplied times the density. The air is too warm at the coast line to turn them at locations in which it is feasible to be applicable to the grid. Where it is cold enough to actually turn the windmills, the power loss over the grid is to great.

I am sure you know this all this since you are all knowing.

If windmills were feasible, they would not need subsidized or mandated. People do not realize the problem with windmills typically, the payback rate is less than the cost of capital. Also windmills have upkeep and need a major rebuild after 12 years and replaced after 20.

This where someone who is for windmills says a generic unspecific one liner instead of using facts to refute me.
Claud

Charleston, WV

#116 Aug 17, 2012
Rudy Waltz wrote:
<quoted text>
Where will they put the slate and byproducts from all of this underground mining? Do you think coal from underground produces less pollution when it's burned than surface mined coal? Is this all just an aesthetic argument on your part because you think something looks pretty? Even though you don't own it, do you feel that no one should be allowed to own it and do what they see fit with it?
I wish I could protest all of the things and people around here that I don't find aesthetically pleasing.
I think they should use it for for a base for the new highway system thats supposed to be built across the United States. That should work for a while. Of course I don't think underground coal burns cleaner, you no better than that. I do appreciate the beauty of the mountains and its terrain which reclamation cant reproduce back as beautiful as original. I think that the land is leased, and mineral rights, and coal are owned, but I don't think mine operators should be allowed to destroy the entire land that the coal is under. If someone actually owned the land I suppose they should be able to do with it as they pleased as long as it wasn't harming anyone, or endangering the environment. As far as I'm concerned you can protest anything or anyone you wish, you have that right. I think you do a pretty good job of it myself. Like if you want to protest morons and fat people, thats your business. I don't feel like I was arguing, I was just stating facts. Hell Rudy I'm still working on my GED, you ask me some pretty hard questions, I tried to answer the best I could.
Claud

Charleston, WV

#117 Aug 17, 2012
clmnr wrote:
Claud,
Did you know that windmills need a force to turn them. This is velocity multiplied times the density. The air is too warm at the coast line to turn them at locations in which it is feasible to be applicable to the grid. Where it is cold enough to actually turn the windmills, the power loss over the grid is to great.
I am sure you know this all this since you are all knowing.
If windmills were feasible, they would not need subsidized or mandated. People do not realize the problem with windmills typically, the payback rate is less than the cost of capital. Also windmills have upkeep and need a major rebuild after 12 years and replaced after 20.
This where someone who is for windmills says a generic unspecific one liner instead of using facts to refute me.
You are wrong http://solarelectricityhandbook.com/Solar-Art...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#118 Aug 18, 2012
Claud wrote:
<quoted text>I think they should use it for for a base for the new highway system thats supposed to be built across the United States. That should work for a while. Of course I don't think underground coal burns cleaner, you no better than that. I do appreciate the beauty of the mountains and its terrain which reclamation cant reproduce back as beautiful as original. I think that the land is leased, and mineral rights, and coal are owned, but I don't think mine operators should be allowed to destroy the entire land that the coal is under. If someone actually owned the land I suppose they should be able to do with it as they pleased as long as it wasn't harming anyone, or endangering the environment. As far as I'm concerned you can protest anything or anyone you wish, you have that right. I think you do a pretty good job of it myself. Like if you want to protest morons and fat people, thats your business. I don't feel like I was arguing, I was just stating facts. Hell Rudy I'm still working on my GED, you ask me some pretty hard questions, I tried to answer the best I could.
You know I have nothing but respect for a man such as yourself claud. The land is owned usually by large companies who then lease the land to mining companies.
clmnr

Norwalk, OH

#119 Aug 18, 2012
Claud wrote:
Again, someone's bias opinion does not equate to facts. I did not see ROI mentioned anywhere. Plus the article speaks in generalities and looks like supplemental sales info.
Claud

Charleston, WV

#120 Aug 18, 2012
clmnr wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, someone's bias opinion does not equate to facts. I did not see ROI mentioned anywhere. Plus the article speaks in generalities and looks like supplemental sales info.
Try reading the whole article. Hint. Near the end of article. I could show you some pictures. Their is no argument as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly not against coal. But I am for clean supplemental energy. I am for clean coal technology also. As a matter of fact, I think in about two years coal will rebound through exports to China and India. As a mater of fact, I plan on investing heavily into coal companies.
Claud

Charleston, WV

#121 Aug 18, 2012
Rudy Waltz wrote:
<quoted text>
You know I have nothing but respect for a man such as yourself claud. The land is owned usually by large companies who then lease the land to mining companies.
I have the up most respect for you to Rudy. You have been a great inspiration to me. I admire your intellectuality.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#122 Aug 18, 2012
Claud wrote:
<quoted text>Try reading the whole article. Hint. Near the end of article. I could show you some pictures. Their is no argument as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly not against coal. But I am for clean supplemental energy. I am for clean coal technology also. As a matter of fact, I think in about two years coal will rebound through exports to China and India. As a mater of fact, I plan on investing heavily into coal companies.
It's not going to take that long. It's already happening. Kentucky's governor just signed a contract with India to increase exports there. Even though India produces it's own coal it doesn't have enough to meet their demands. Some people fail to realize just how many people there are in the world that don't even have access to electricity yet.
Claud

Nitro, WV

#123 Aug 18, 2012
Rudy Waltz wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not going to take that long. It's already happening. Kentucky's governor just signed a contract with India to increase exports there. Even though India produces it's own coal it doesn't have enough to meet their demands. Some people fail to realize just how many people there are in the world that don't even have access to electricity yet.
The sooner the better. I cant wait. I think we will be selling more coal than ever before. China is building more coal fired power plants. China and India is wear the most population is and they will be needing more energy than the United States ever thought about needing, thats not to mention food. Just think, when China and India starts their industrial revolution, how much energy they will need. You're right Rudy, It wont be to much longer.
clmnr

United States

#124 Aug 18, 2012
Claud wrote:
<quoted text>Try reading the whole article. Hint. Near the end of article. I could show you some pictures. Their is no argument as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly not against coal. But I am for clean supplemental energy. I am for clean coal technology also. As a matter of fact, I think in about two years coal will rebound through exports to China and India. As a mater of fact, I plan on investing heavily into coal companies.
I did read the article, and no where in the article does it outline return on investment nor does it talk in a manner that is feasible industrial use. It does mention that these could be used for supplimental power or residential useage. As in the example of maintaining batteries. That is great and all, but it does not state any quantitiative (NUMBERS) in the article.
If windmills were feasible, there would not be a need for subisidies to install and/or operate them.

I am still waiting to read an article that quantitatively outlines how windmills are economically feasible without subsidies or government mandates. Certain states require a percent green energy and in those states the consumer's power bill is multiple that of states that utilize coal.
Claud

Nitro, WV

#125 Aug 18, 2012
clmnr wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read the article, and no where in the article does it outline return on investment nor does it talk in a manner that is feasible industrial use. It does mention that these could be used for supplimental power or residential useage. As in the example of maintaining batteries. That is great and all, but it does not state any quantitiative (NUMBERS) in the article.
If windmills were feasible, there would not be a need for subisidies to install and/or operate them.
I am still waiting to read an article that quantitatively outlines how windmills are economically feasible without subsidies or government mandates. Certain states require a percent green energy and in those states the consumer's power bill is multiple that of states that utilize coal.
I was stating a fact about windmills being used on coastal lands. You stated it was to warm their to do it . I stated you was wrong. you're still wrong, and I proved it. I never once said anything about feasibility. Seems to me you just want to argue and disagree with everything I say. Maybe you should back up and reread my post. Man up and admit you was wrong, or just keep on showing your ignorance so that no one will take you seriously. You're starting to remind me of someone else on here, but Im not going to say who.
Claud

Charleston, WV

#126 Aug 22, 2012
I guess I shut clmnr up. I wasn't arguing, just stating facts.
Soccrmom

Danville, WV

#127 Aug 23, 2012
claud is da man !!
Claud

Huntington, WV

#128 Aug 23, 2012
Soccrmom wrote:
claud is da man !!
Thank you very much. I appreciate your contribution to the forum. You help make it happen man. I'm still working on my GED, its taking a lot longer than I thought, but I'm determined to pass one of these days.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bigson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Josh and Della? Fri beatsme 1
Housing help Fri just saying 3
94-year-old Ashford woman without water Fri creeker 1
Madison area school sports Feb 26 Mark 3
Jessica White, what do yall think about her ??? Feb 26 nasties 2
joey & larry charles what do they have in common Feb 25 true 3
Lady for a FWB Feb 25 Looking2 1
Bigson Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Bigson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:39 pm PST