OP
ßöмßäяðîëя
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #24,802
    I know. I was just stating the facts.
    Ohh, I know.
    They can have wind turbines on agricultural land.

    I'm also against ethanol as it drives up food prices, so hopefully they will scrap that program and use the money to fund the wind power projects. Perhaps give some incentive for the Plaines' farmers to work with such companies.
    Fuck wind, use it for Breeder Nuclear Reactors.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,527
    ßüякε;1880521 said:
    Yea, Andrew, i thought you were talking about agricultural farms the other day. Doesn't change my position, but you should clarify.
    Well yeah. Corn, wheat, soybeans, cattle, et cetera.

    All of those farms could handle wind turbines scattered throughout.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,680
    They can have wind turbines on agricultural land.

    I'm also against ethanol as it drives up food prices, so hopefully they will scrap that program and use the money to fund the wind power projects. Perhaps give some incentive for the Plaines' farmers to work with such companies.
    Duh. The problem is you have to have significant wind on your farm in order to have functioning wind turbines on the land. That and you need a lot of land.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,527
    Duh. The problem is you have to have significant wind on your farm in order to have functioning wind turbines on the land. That and you need a lot of land.
    "Duh". Don't have to tell a Meteo major that.

    ßüякε;1880532 said:
    What, are you going to have 10 or 15 of them? You would need hundreds.
    "Duh"..

    ßüякε;1880534 said:
    Ohhh, much cheaper, but breeder reactors produce very little waste and are as powerful as ~100,000 wind turbines.
    A diversified power generation portfolio is the way to go though.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,680
    Wind power is cheaper as far as I know.
    It's cheaper once you get the turbines up and going. But a significant wind farm, say 50 turbines, can cost $60 million plus land purchasing costs. The benefits come in the long run, which is why significant subsidies would be very beneficial to getting wind going.

    That and more statistical research done to combat the false aviary threat that is spread by the yuppies. And rich people off the Cod need to get their heads outta the asses and let us throw up some offshore farms.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,680
    ßüякε;1880561 said:
    All the helium?

    Okay....
    They still produce nuclear waster. They just produce less of it. And until we're turning our nuclear waste into glass (France does it) it's not a good idea to seriously invest in nuclear technology especially when our only storage facility happens to reside over one of the largest aquifers in the country.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,830
    Right now I am laughing my ass off at Sarbanes-Oxley and how irrelevant it was to all the belly-up businesses and the economic collapse.

    (Seeing Andy's 'tar, I started thinking "Goldman SOX")
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 667)