Wind tower plant in Bismarck less cer...

Wind tower plant in Bismarck less certain

There are 37 comments on the TwinCities.com story from May 15, 2010, titled Wind tower plant in Bismarck less certain. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Plans for a wind tower manufacturing plant in Bismarck have become less certain because of the slowing of wind energy development.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Peter

Houston, TX

#21 May 15, 2010
Minn wrote:
<quoted text>
How old is the "technology" of burning flammables?
The point of the history lesson, which clearly bypassed you, is that windpower is not some hippy invention. It's a proven technology that's been around for centuries.
You people are just reactionaries. You never just examine an idea on its merits. You first look to see if a liberal (by your standards meaning anyone who isn't a hate-filled reactionary) and if they're for it, you're against it.
Nothing more than that. Instead of being thoughtful, you just scream and act like luddites.
But that still, for some bizarre reason, requires subsidy. It fails on its own merits, that's why the government dollars. Try again.
Peter

Houston, TX

#22 May 15, 2010
Minn wrote:
Last word troll.
Brilliant come back. I accept your surrender.
hmmmmmmm

Elk River, MN

#23 May 15, 2010
Could it be because wind energy isn't efficient? We need to stop this silly green movement.
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#24 May 15, 2010
hmmmmmmm wrote:
Could it be because wind energy isn't efficient?
Cheaper than nukes. You support nukes?
hmmmmmmm wrote:
We need to stop this silly green movement.
Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,
Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz and Hugo Chavez
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#25 May 15, 2010
Peter wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant come back. I accept your surrender.
Last word troll.
Peter

Houston, TX

#26 May 15, 2010
Minn wrote:
<quoted text>
Last word troll.
Brilliant, simply brilliant. Maybe we can win you a subsidy too!
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#27 May 15, 2010
Last word troll strikes again! Mental!
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#28 May 15, 2010
According to FEMA's website, Texas has been the site of 13 "major disaster declarations" since Perry took office following George W. Bush's departure in 2001. That includes five instances of severe storms and flooding, two tropical storms, one "extreme wildfire threat," and Hurricanes Claudette, Rita, Dolly, and Ike.(Texas received significant federal assistance following Hurricane Katrina, but it did not appear on FEMA's website in the "major disaster declaration" category.)

David Riedman, a public information specialist at FEMA, explained to me that a major disaster declaration is issued when a governor "determines the state's resources are overrun." From that point forward, the federal government, under federal law, is required to reimburse the state for at least 75 percent of the cost of recovery. Help is primarily targeted at rebuilding roads and bridges, debris removal, and reparing damage to public buildings. In the relief efforts that are still under way from the damage done by Hurricane Ike, the federal government is reimbursing Texas for 100 percent of all expenses, according to Riedman.

In fact, since FEMA's record-keeping began, Texas has received federal disaster assistance more times than any other state.
Peter

Houston, TX

#29 May 15, 2010
Minn wrote:
According to FEMA's website, Texas has been the site of 13 "major disaster declarations" since Perry took office following George W. Bush's departure in 2001. That includes five instances of severe storms and flooding, two tropical storms, one "extreme wildfire threat," and Hurricanes Claudette, Rita, Dolly, and Ike.(Texas received significant federal assistance following Hurricane Katrina, but it did not appear on FEMA's website in the "major disaster declaration" category.)
David Riedman, a public information specialist at FEMA, explained to me that a major disaster declaration is issued when a governor "determines the state's resources are overrun." From that point forward, the federal government, under federal law, is required to reimburse the state for at least 75 percent of the cost of recovery. Help is primarily targeted at rebuilding roads and bridges, debris removal, and reparing damage to public buildings. In the relief efforts that are still under way from the damage done by Hurricane Ike, the federal government is reimbursing Texas for 100 percent of all expenses, according to Riedman.
In fact, since FEMA's record-keeping began, Texas has received federal disaster assistance more times than any other state.
Ain't government great? It's doing just a grand job of subsidizing stupid behaviors like building right up against the ocean and leaving our border ocean so that we fill up with poor vulnerable people. You make really compelling arguments for making government bigger. Gosh, a few more of your posts and I might become a liberal.
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#30 May 15, 2010
Texas - bites the hand that feeds it.

They are a stain upon our nation's reputation.
Sugaree

Saint Paul, MN

#31 May 15, 2010
i heard a statistical analysis that said, per kilowatt hour coal receives subsidies of 16 cents; wind and "renewables" receive subsidies amounting to $23 (dollars) per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. I'll let you guys look it up for me, but i'm sure it's true.

16 cents vs.$23 dollars. that's a huge difference.
Peter

Houston, TX

#32 May 15, 2010
Minn wrote:
Texas - bites the hand that feeds it.
They are a stain upon our nation's reputation.
Finally, I got through to you, make government smaller. You should see the handiwork of government subsidy in Galveston Bay. Yep, government money goes to build houses on Galveston Island. Hurricanes then wash houses and their contents into Galveston Bay creating an environmental disaster. Oh, the ocean side fares well too. Those couches 2 miles off shore on the ocean flloor? Yep, subsidized. Thanks!
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#33 May 16, 2010
Some people help, some people are in the way. Such is life.

“Celebrate Liberty and Freedom”

Since: Sep 09

Mpls

#34 May 16, 2010
If wind was a viable option private sector parties would invest in it. Instead mandates and govt are the only reason it exists. Coal and oil pay billions in taxes to the govt each year while the pays out to support wind. Enough said
Sugaree wrote:
i heard a statistical analysis that said, per kilowatt hour coal receives subsidies of 16 cents; wind and "renewables" receive subsidies amounting to $23 (dollars) per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. I'll let you guys look it up for me, but i'm sure it's true.
16 cents vs.$23 dollars. that's a huge difference.
Peter

Houston, TX

#35 May 16, 2010
Tank Murdoch wrote:
If wind was a viable option private sector parties would invest in it. Instead mandates and govt are the only reason it exists. Coal and oil pay billions in taxes to the govt each year while the pays out to support wind. Enough said <quoted text>
Same government silliness as ethanol. Taxpayer subsidies run about $.50/gallon and we essentially prohibit buying dramatically cheaper and more environmentally friendly ethanol (sugar based) from Brazil. We're also now burning 25% of our corn crop for trips to the mall in SUVs. Cool too how we're depleting water tables and using giant amounts of additional pesticides to make the stuff, all because of the convergence of the farm lobby, energy policy, and too much taxpayer money. Ain't it great when government decides winners and losers?
Magic

Long Lake, MN

#36 May 16, 2010
Peter wrote:
<quoted text>
Same government silliness as ethanol. Taxpayer subsidies run about $.50/gallon and we essentially prohibit buying dramatically cheaper and more environmentally friendly ethanol (sugar based) from Brazil. We're also now burning 25% of our corn crop for trips to the mall in SUVs. Cool too how we're depleting water tables and using giant amounts of additional pesticides to make the stuff, all because of the convergence of the farm lobby, energy policy, and too much taxpayer money. Ain't it great when government decides winners and losers?
Actually we are burning up all that corn based ethonol in E85 vehicles mandated by Gobernut!!! Notice all the E85 Gobernut vehicles. Majority of SUVs burn petro based gas.

Peter

Houston, TX

#37 May 16, 2010
Magic wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we are burning up all that corn based ethonol in E85 vehicles mandated by Gobernut!!! Notice all the E85 Gobernut vehicles. Majority of SUVs burn petro based gas.
God, I wasn't even thinking about that ridiculous E85. I was just thinking about the everyday sort of government stupidity with 10% ethanol! Thanks for the extra laugh.

The libs don't think about another little detail of burning food. My car now comes ahead of Apu's stomach somewhere in Ogabogaland when it comes to the global food chain. He already comes after us at the dinner table, now the farm lobby and liberals have put my car ahead of him too. But that moral question appears to be a bit over their heads.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Bismarck Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I just received a $115,000 bill for an open rec... Apr 18 Archie 2
What does Trump mean for America? (Sep '17) Apr 17 Josh 5
Justine Fowler Apr 3 Eradicus 1
News Police arrest more than 5 illegal immigrants in... Mar '18 spytheweb 1
Gov Doug burgum Feb '18 Upstate ny 1
News Fox Island residents express concerns over floo... Jan '18 old geezer 1
News Drunk driver takes responsibility, shares his m... Dec '17 TopMod15 1

Bismarck Jobs

Personal Finance

Bismarck Mortgages