John Stossel Wind Power and NIMBY

[spec24]

Yay for Texas!!! If I were them I'd stop the highways from coming in the state too. Good for Texas!!!!

[spec24]

Charlesperalo the ocean is not Kennedy's property.

[dockecj]

Enviro-wacko response: Put them somewhere, where I don't have to look at them, in the less-affluent flyover country... 

[Charlesperalo]

Well look people have a right to there property anything that damages it is wrong.

[fafafohigh69]

How convenient for Stossel to mention Europe and California, and leave Texas, the republican stronghold, out. Fact is, more wind turbines in Texas than any other place on earth. Problem is, the North American electrical grid, which connects every state and Canada's electric together and can be borrowed in peak times doesn't include Texas. That's right, those paranoid seperatists refused to connect to the grid and pool energy resources with the rest of the country. That should've been the story

[CorpsmanUP87]

These liberal hypocrites, they want us to change our life style because it offends their beliefs, but when it comes to them adapting to their ideology, they refuse.

[ProgressiveEagle]

Only an idiot could think of ruining a beautiful place like Cape Cod. Anyone who's against this is my friend. Wind power produces only a very small quantity of energy, you can make a better deal saving the energy you already produce.

P.S. Many european are against wind farms.

[McBirdec]

love john

[FriendlyGeekClassics]

limousine liberals. THey are the worst

[packerfan748]

I'm so tired of these leftist fools like the kennedy stooge and walter krankenhouse, you can freaking barely even see it and what the hell does it matter, you cant surf to it, heck, you probably wouldnt even go that far in a boat anyway, its not disruptive in anyway, this stuff makes me so angry!!

[omt07]

What an useless human being! Every body want something, but no one wants to give anything. We want cheap alternative energy but we cannot drill for oil, no nuclear power, and no wind mills. How stupid this government can be.

[pimpdalyrical]

Look at that wretch Walters, you can just see the disdain on her. How dare Stossel expose the green commies like this!!

[rubbersole79]

I live in the rolling hills of the northern plains where roughly 300 windmills have been constructed in a 5 square mile area. The view of this beautiful Norman Rockwell - like landscape has been altered forever. But almost everyone is either in favor of them or at least tolerant, knowing that our small sacrifice is helping to clean up the planet and get us off foreign fuels.

But, that's us. Hicks that we are.

[chickatawbutt]

Gee, what a surprise, you mean Liberals are hypocrites. ?? Good work John. Oh yeah, according to Robert Kennedy Jr if you don't believe the global warming hoax you're the equivalent to a Nazi Holocaust denier.

[WockneysRedBarrel]

The critics of wind power in this video did not mention ONE WORD of what is their alternative to the turbines, not ONE, SINGLE, WORD.

[ArtfulDawdger]

@WockneysRedBarrel

That might have been their only argument. I dont care about noise or rich peoples views, but I still think wind is stupid based solely on the fact that we can boil water with uranium alot more efficiently.

[FantomShadowz]

I'm totally for wind power-what is the cost and reap of one large windmill, including it's service life? Ya please tell me how a 100' yacht or 100'x100' mansion is natural?

[ForTehNguyen]

Walter Cronkite is a national traitor for what he did to cover the Vietnam War during the Tet Offensive

[Mackingster]

rich liberals I am sure would love the rest of us, to go back to the middle ages. They on the other hand would live the same and have access to all the toys.

[rmcdaniel423]

HYPOCRITES!!

[PR13STG0RD0]

What a load of elitist shit! Old hypocrites! They look nice! WTF? Why would you be against wind turbines? What a bunch of bastards holding back green energy for the oil barons!

[Darthbelal]

I love it, the Kennedy's and their ilk like the idea of windfarms, somewhere ELSE.......

[mccarrpo]

Very typical of NIMBYISM.

[JHoff1991]

Holy crap. (lol)

If that is not rich liberalism at its worse, I don't what is.

[bluetwinky]

My take on the situation is that as peoples attitudes have and are changing the NIMBY problem will lessen. Democracies respond to peoples attitudes. Which is why nuclear construction halted in the US.

There are those who see Madoff, Enron, and the Banking meltdown, as a failure to regulate, aka deregulation.

Absent the courts, which are part of the government, Mr. Madoff would be free to do as he pleased.

In my view setting efficiency standards makes good sense.

[LordVigeous666999]

yeah, but what brought Madoff to light? it was private action

What brought Enron to light? It was private action.

And deregulation? So, how come the regulations were bigger AFTER they deregulated, than before?

They call it DE-regulation, what it actually is, is RE-regulation. which doesn't mean that they reduced it

[sirellyn]

LordV is absolutely right.  Bush didn't really deregulate anything. Loopholes were created along with more laws, government branches and federal aid, but nothing was really rescinded. Laws were written on top of more laws and negated aspects of previous laws while making it much more complex.

When you hear "deregulation" on the news the above is what they mean. When you say it (like most) you mean dropping important laws that helped people. That never happened.

[bluetwinky]

Would you agree to the term misregulation being applicable?

[sirellyn]

Sure, "misregulation "sounds better. The point is on the public side I hear people shouting more regulation on one side and less on the other. Both actually want the same thing. They want the crooks caught with fair rules. Ideally simple rules.

I'm personally against the extension of labyrinthine rules.

[swallowthecoconut]

this is the same as supporting the release of Gitmo prisoners...as long as they aren't housed in your backyard. If people are going to claim they support wind farms they should be willing to put up with the eyesore.

[bluetwinky]

LV

Nuclear is not, as I know, the cheapest non-fossil-fuel power source per KiloWatt Hour.

The other side of the solution is effeciency. Efficiency means getting the same stuff with less waste.

Example: Compare a Lotus Elise with a Chevy Corvette. They both do the same thing. But one accelerates almost as fast as a Ducatti 998 while powered with a toyota 4 cylinder engine.

The future is not dull and dismal green. It could be bright green. And it could be a lot better + FUN.

[informedskeptic]

Your comparison of the Corvette and the Elise is humorous at best. Too bad the supercharged four cylinder Toyota engine barely gets better gas mileage than the 8 cylinder Corvette. It accelerates on par with the 6.2L vette that uses regular not premium gas. The annual fuel cost difference is miniscule. Additionally, the vette is cheaper, has a better range (300+ miles vs. 200) and more cargo space (22 cu ft vs. 4). Yes, 4 cu ft. Bright green? Really?

[bluetwinky]

Some corvette owners experience knocking with regular fuel when the vehicle is used in anger.

My comment on fuel economy was based on the comment of a person who has owned both vehicles. Power is proportionate to fuel use. If a vehicle has less mass it will (given the same engine) usually do better in terms of economy. Unless one takes advantage of the added performance.

There is also the cost of materials to be considered. As well as labor and energy costs.

Yes, bright. Really.

[bluetwinky]

Dear Informed Skeptic,

A quick check revealed the following;

Elise 21 / 27 mpg city / highway

Vette 16 / 26 mpg city / highway

MSRP

Elise Convertable $47,250

Corvette LT1 Coup $48,930

LT1 Convertable $53,580

Given the big difference in city MPG it is not unreasonable to suppose that for many people the Elise could cost less for than the Corvette. That is, untill it comes time to buy parts.

My larger point is that vast improvements are possible and needed.

[bluetwinky]

L V

concerning climate models:

The climate models run by guys like the NASA GISS, or the Hadley Center / MET office are run on Super Computers made by companies like Cray, Hewlett Packard and IBM. They are complex and increadly expensive. Both the programs and the computers. Its a problem. However there are simple desk top models available for free. See edGCM(dot)columbia(dot)edu.

The problem is analogous to designing the B2 bomber.

[bluetwinky]

L V

What do I mean by my B2 bomber analogy? It goes like this - some people make the comment no human being could ever design something like that. And then they might go on to say, "well it must have been Alien Space Technology!" And they have a point. Not that Space Men did it, but that it is impossible for ONE person to do something like that. But for thousands of engineers and technicians it is totally do-able. Want a B2 call Boeing. Want an assesment of AGW call the IPCC.

[LordVigeous666999]

The IPCC is a government organization saying the only way to stop the world from ending is to give government more power, and reduce individual freedom (ie gov control over business must increase)

Which is what they have always wanted to do anyway, so anything they say is suspect.

Second, and more importantly than that. Did the models Pre-1998 predict the stop of warming, and then decline of temp?

I'm asking, I haven't looked at them myself

[bluetwinky]

L V

If you haven't looked then do so.

pnas (dot) org/content/103/39/14288 (dot) full

realclimate (dot) org/images/Hansen06_fig2 (dot) jpg

[bluetwinky]

LV your other point is that 1998 marked a "stop of warming".

If you look at either the "MET center" or the NASA GISS data sets for global temperature you will find that the ten warmest years have occured from 1997 to 2008 (the last fully measured year). Satelite data tracks with the GISS temp curve for the last decade.

The average of the past ten years IS warmer than the average of the previous ten. This is true is what I call direct evidence.

See youtube "party like its 1998"

[LordVigeous666999]

ok, so the skeptics say their data sets show the planet cooling. Proponents, say their data sets show warming, got it.

I don't me myself personally have thermometers out there, so how should decide who is right on this?

So far, the only thing I've got, is, with my own eyes I have witnessed an increase in precipitation, and colder weather with it over the last 2 years

which isn't good enough, so how are we going to hash that out? Only one of them can be right

[LordVigeous666999]

so lets just talk Pre-1998 until we figure out how to objectively decide who is right.

So, how do you explain temp between 1940-1970, when temps were trading sideways or going down, even though CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere at an accelerated rate compared to Pre-1940?

[bluetwinky]

For temps 1940-1970 see the "co2Now" website for the graph found by klicking "scientific predictions" and reading the IPCC faq 8.1.

Point being:

1 Climate models show mid century cooling.

2 The mid century cooling is generally attributed to particulate pollution. The majority of which was artificial. (natural stuff from volcanos). Also of interest is the marked response to volcanic erruptions which demonstrates the response to large scale particulate matter being injected.

[LordVigeous666999]

ok, so the proponents say their data sets show the planet is warming, skeptics say their data sets show the planet has been cooling.

Now I don't own a satellite, so I don't know how to objectively decide who is right, so unless you do, lets talk pre-1998 so we can agree on what temp has been doing

[LordVigeous666999]

sorry for the repetition, Youtube was acting goofy

[bluetwinky]

LV

There are different ways of hashing out an issue like this. One way is on the effects side of the issue. In 2007 and 2008 Amundsen's northwest passage opened.

Amundsen was the first to navigate the NW passage. It took the man 3 years. His boat was frozen into the ice for three winters.

The RCMP ship St. Roch made the best passage in 1944 in a remarkable 86 days. On its other trips the St Roch was ice bound like Amundsen.

See the NSIDC website. Also see satalite images.

[bluetwinky]

The National Snow and Ice Data Center is nice because it has all kinds of nice graphs clearly showing the recent behavior of the artic ice cap. The dramatic melting of recent years is something new under the sun.

If you do a google image search "NW passage opens" you should be able to find good direct satalite photos showing the recent (07-08) summer melting.

I mention the St. Roch because it is used as the basis for a canard that this is not something new. BS

[bluetwinky]

A caveat: satelite images only go back to 1979. But there is data from the US Navy. The Navy operated / operates nuclear balistic missile subs under the ice cap. They kept records of ice thickness. I have not looked for them but trust that it is the case that there has been a trend.

David Keith's talk on geo-engineering is also very interesting and might fall under the heading of DIRECT evidence. Particularly his comments about Mt. Pinatubo.

[bluetwinky]

David Keith's talk is on youtube. Just search his name.

[bluetwinky]

LV

They are both using the same data sets. Indeed people are looking at the exact same graphs and coming to different conclusions. Which I find amusing.

[bluetwinky]

LV

IPCC does not claim that the world is going to end. Neither do I.

Another source of information which is to the point is "CO2Now (dot) org". On the home page go to the right hand side and click on "scientific predictions" and then click IPCC frequently asked questions 8.1

The original report provides references so you can findout who said what and why.

The worst case is that we substantially reduce the carrying capacity of the planet.

The practical consequences would be bad

[LordVigeous666999]

alright, so, lets assume you are right, and I am still not convinced. Do you support using the coercive power of Government to put a gun to my head, to force me to comply with whatever solution the guys in your club support?

And remember, if I don't comply with government, they send armed goons to throw me in jail, which is pretty much, what, a gun is

[bluetwinky]

LV

What I support is building a lot of non-carbon producing electrical capacity.

I don't want armed goons & I don't want oppresion.

The question I ask is what is the cost? And what is the time scale? The time scale is about 40 years. (2009-2050) The goal is reducing emisions by 80%.

So lets due the math. Take the U.S. 20% of electric comes from 104 nuclear power plants. So build 412 plants over 40 years for 300 million people. At a cost of 4 billion a plant.

[bluetwinky]

Cost to replace total U.S. electrical capacity with nuclear power (capital costs only).

Oh a caveat, I am assuming some ecconomies of scale. And you wouldn't build them all in one year. 412/40=10.3 per year.

(412 plants x 4 billion) / 40 year = cost/year

(cost/year) / population US = per capita-cost

$41,200,000,000. cost/year

$137.33 cost per person per year.

Now is 137 dollars for 40 years is not a police state? Is it?

My point is the cost of actition is not to bad.

[bluetwinky]

Think of it as insurance. You do something to avert a threat. Which includes a lot. It includes the finite nature of fosil fuels. The national security issue (gulf wars). The balance of trade issue. Global warming is just one more item of a host of reasons to move off of fosil fuels.

And at least with electric power, are we going to have a revolution because we make a quick change over to renewables or nuclear power?

But if OPEC turns the screws on us?

If bad AGW effects take place?

[LordVigeous666999]

great, lets build more nuclear plants, you let me know when the US congress legalizes it.

Currently there is so much red tape to go through, we haven't built a nuclear power plant in what? like 30 years?

If you remove the red tape, they will get built without one tax dollar spent.

Oh, and so you know, you can only supply 80% of your electric grid with nuclear, cause once the reaction is started, it cant be stopped, so you have to generate the power

you need flexibility in 20%

[bluetwinky]

"once started it can't be stopped"

True and a good point. But it is feasable to just waste all the heat produced.

granted, not very $smart

Florida's power company is currently either planning or actually surcharging their customers to finance new nuclear plant construction.

And Lamar Alexander has introduced a bill to finance 100 new plants.

Texans are building wind farms like hot cakes.

& couple a weeks ago I saw a "Go Green Go Nuclear" bumper sticker next to a peace sign!

[LordVigeous666999]

and I think that is great, I'm all about nuclear, especially if it gets you global warming people to shut up for thirty seconds.

But again, as soon as the gov gets out of the way, it'll be a lot easier

The gov cannot regulate anything, look at Madoff, he got a stamp of approval. Look at Enron, they had a stamp of approval. Look at the Mortgage market, they got a stamp of approval, in fact, they got thunderous applause

We don't need gov to help, all we need is for them to step out of the way

[bluetwinky]

Most of the time John Stossel annoys the heck out of me. Correction John Stossel always annoys me. But I am with him this time.

[BikiniBabe1985]

John Stossel uses common sense and reason. He questions conventional wisdom when it is irrational. Is that annoying?

[bluetwinky]

What annoys me about him is primarily his stance on the validity of AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) because his arguements are specious. He not only advocates against the overwhelming evidence but does so in a scornfull manner as if there was no reason to doubt the wisdom of his possition. In a world where there are numerous valid reasons to quickly change our energy infrastructure to low carbon technologies he is acting to delay action which will harm us all in a real and material manner.

[BikiniBabe1985]

First off, his main point is that global warming theorists present their view as an undisputable fact, and that any debate should be stopped. This is a very fascist idea and its exactly what statists such as Al Gore are saying. Second, if people like the Kennedys and Clintons really believed there was a serious crisis, they would support windmills off the coast of their Cape Cod homes. These people do what serves their selfish interests, and thats why they have no credibility

[bluetwinky]

What members of the Kennedy family or what Al Gore have to say isn't significant. There credibility is far from being a concern to me.

To me the debate boils down to three questions.

1 Can greenhouse gas emissions credibly be said to influence global climate?

2 Should we halt the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere?

3 Are the probable cosequences of business as usual (not halting GHG increasess) acceptable?

My answers are yes, yes, and no.

The science is the significant thing.

[LordVigeous666999]

I've been looking for over a year, asking everyone I know, and asking people on youtube when I see they support AGW theory, maybe you can answer

I request any evidence, that directly proves the causality between increased CO2 and increased temp. Direct evidence.

Don't tell me about Ice melting, that just proves heat melts Ice. I want to know the evidence proving WHAT caused the increase in temp, directly.

I cant repeat it enough, I am looking for DIRECT evidence

[bluetwinky]

Direct evidence. Okay. What would be direct enough for you? This isn't a rhetorical question. Would scientific papers reporting (lab measures of) the various GHGs ability to impede IR light do the trick? The thermodynamics as it relates to the temperature of the atmosphere?

The best direct evidence of the Greenhouse effect as opposed to AGW theory are the discontinuities in the temperature of the atmosphere as you go up. It gets colder and then warmer (due to O3) and then cooler again.

[bluetwinky]

My point with regard to the discontinuities in the temperature of the atmsophere as one travels ever higher is that they are not explicable without reference to the same physics which is used by climatologists. A good place to start is the essay "Basic Radiation Calculations" by S. Weart on the AIP website.

The NSDL wiki has free access to some of the seminal scientific thought on the subject.

If I find a free link, you'd enjoy the spectroscopic data on CO2 that was developed for USAF.

[bluetwinky]

The cool thing about this spectroscopic data was that it provided a knowledge base helpfull in the developement of night vision aparatus, as well as heat seeking missiles such as the various sidewinder missiles. The US Navy also funded research in this field. I suspect that the american led research may account for the fact that american heat seeking missiles were far more effective than there soviet counter parts during the vietnam war.

[LordVigeous666999]

well that would help. if you have links, i'll check it

Also climate models that can actually predict the future would be nice as well, and I'd also like the source code open to the public and scrutiny as well, let me run the model myself, with different inputs to see whats going on

an itemized list accounting for where all the CO2 added is coming from would be nice

and I don't know what would be required for this, but something that proves H2O isn't primary GW gas, that CO2 is the primary

[LordVigeous666999]

This is a note on credibility

Giant red flags pop up, whenever the Gov tells me, the world will end if they can't expand their power

You find a solution, that doesn't involve expanding taxation and gov control over business, and you will remove my biggest rationalization for people to be telling me tall tales, and I will start to take it a lot more seriously

And on evidence, I would like to know why, when dinosaurs walked the Earth, with much higher levels of CO2, the Earth didn't end

[LordVigeous666999]

I mean, where did the fossil fuels come from?

From life, that used to be part of the carbon cycle, and yet, the world survived it. In fact, at that time, the world over flowed with abundant life and vitality.

So I think this might have been blown out of proportion

And I also DEMAND to know, why, WHY, does youtube make me type in weird words, in order to keep posting comments, why? Someone tell me WHY!?!?!?!?!

lol

[bluetwinky]

L V

On the evidence: Two questions at as an axis for the science of climatology (which is a kind of applied physics).

1. What caused the ice ages?

2. What accounts for the various extinction events.

When scientists start to give accounts for these events that are quantifiable is when you enter the realm of science. What you do with the science is politics.

The extinction events are times in the past when the earth did "end". See Permian extinction event for the most dramatic one

[LordVigeous666999]

I wanted to add, that I know a lot of what I've brought up is pretty indirect things, and I'm not sure if any of them would really convince me.

My point is, I've looked at the experts and skeptics, and the experts haven't said anything that convincing, and I've done all the research I'm willing to do.

So, I'm hoping one of you guys will have direct evidence to convince me with, I don't know what it is. If I did, I would look at it right now, and see if its convincing or not

[LordVigeous666999]

Also, something else I need explained. In Al Gores movie, he shows a graph of the natural cycle of temperature and CO2. And then he shows whats happening today. And we see CO2 going through the roof and we're all supposed to shit ourselves

But pause the movie. Look at the temperature graph, you will see temp leveling off, in time with its natural cycle, which is acting INDEPENDENTLY of CO2

This needs to be explained as well

[bluetwinky]

L V

Regarding Al's graph. If you want to show 650,000 years ice core data + the last 100 years it is a problem.

if your time axis is 12 inch = 100 years, then 78,000 inch = 650,000 years.

78,000 inch = 6,500 feet or about 1.23 miles.

Thats why the modern CO2 is a vertical line. And he does not graph a prediction for what the temperature change will be. This was at the same time expediant and clever. Talking about practical consequences of temperature change takes a lot of time

[LordVigeous666999]

my point is even more dramatic then. Cause Al's ending temp graph was not a straight line, it had up and down movement, but in the grand scheme it was capping

[bluetwinky]

L V you said:

"my point is even more dramatic then. Cause Al's ending temp graph" etc.

I don't understand your point.

[bluetwinky]

To come to a conclusion about something like this is like a court case. You have to build it brick by brick. In my own case what helps are 2 things. One is easy. The other is very very difficult.

The easy thing is researching the arguements against the theory and against action. If you don't mind his style see: "Climate Denial Crock of The Week" on youtube. The guy is sarcastic but I like that. others hate it. To each their own.

The hard stuff is the science. That means college.

[bluetwinky]

My point being the more you look into the arguements against AGW the more you are likely to see that they do not hold water.

[LordVigeous666999]

I disagree, but that is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you.

I cannot be called upon to prove something not being there. You must prove something IS there

That is how rational thought works. Take an example, do you believe in Santa Claus? Prove him not existing.

can't be done. You cannot call someone to prove a negative

[LordVigeous666999]

I'll look into the guy

And you don't have to go to college in order to learn this, it certainly might help, but not necessary

I haven't gone for economics, I'm still going to comment on it, and invest according to what I know. I haven't taken Psychology, I'm still going to act on what I know. I haven't taken Communications, I'm still going to communicate with what I've learned. etc, etc.

[cruzander]

fuck them, and fuck their summer homes... douchebags.

[Tastysodiumchloride]

At night there is a 100 mile stretch between Big Spring and Abilene along I20 of red lights (warning lights on top of the turbines) that blink and I wonder what it looks like from space.

[Tastysodiumchloride]

"I was for it. . . before. . . I was against" If I lived in Nantucket I may not want the turbines either, but I would prefer wind energy over hydrocarbon produced electricity. I live in West Texas, which is quickly becoming the wind energy capitol of the world, and I see turbines being constructed every day. At first they were amazing because of their size and function but when I see hundreds of turbines in the cotton fields they are ugly.

[throwerofturds]

their are two types of people .one type like manmade things and see them as beautiful . the other type are the envious ones .

i cant even grasp the idea that these people were against this wind farm . those people are gross

[strawberryseason]

Yes, taxing the wealthy makes more sense then taxing the poor. But in general, the solution to the energy problem has to be less consumption. None of the alternative solutions to generating electricity will be as cheap as fossil fuels. And frankly, even though electricity is convenient, electromagnetic fields in our homes weaken us. Living like the Amish might not be a bad thing. Though having electricity in places like hospitals & for manufacturing purposes would still be desirable, if possible

[LordVigeous666999]

yup, and maybe in a few years, we can churn our own butter, and make our cloths from sheep!

Dude, the solution to the energy crisis, is MORE energy. We have it. Nuclear is a nearly unlimited source of energy.

And besides, I like using Fossil fuels. Where do you think it came from? It used to be animal life, ie it used to be part of the carbon cycle, and as I recall the planet survived that.

[strawberryseason]

hi, Lordvigeous. The problem is that fossil fuels are nonrenewable. Eventually we will be forced to use less of them. As for nuclear, it generates waste that nobody want deposited in their state, and there is no truely safe way to store it. Regarding churned butter,etc., actually living more naturally and closer to the earth will have benefits. Currently, there is a dramatic increase in type 2 diabetes from modern lifestyles. We don't have to go back to the stone age to live sustainably.

[LordVigeous666999]

nuclear waste, you know we have processes that can refine 70% of the waste back into usable fuel right?

It just isn't cost effective right now. But if push came to shove, and we had to get ride of it, we can eliminate 70% by mass.

And besides, fossil fuels are not the resource, energy is, are we ever going to run out of energy? How can you run out of energy? How deep into the earth have we looked? maybe the top 1%, sustainability is not even an issue

[strawberryseason]

lordvigeous writes "how can you run out of energy?"

Fossil fuels are stored solar energy. Of course we will never run out of energy as long as we are on the earth and it is heated by the sun. But we will find it increasingly difficult to access the stored type of solar energy in the form of oil.

Regarding nuclear waste, even if you what you assert is true, there will still be the remaining 30%. And there is no safe way to store it for eons.

[bluetwinky]

"And there is no safe way to store it for eons."

Oh that hurts me. Yucca mountain is currently off limits due to political rather than geologic considerations. If various technical and political obgections could be solved burial on the abyssal plain or subduction zone burial would be best.

The whole issue of waste disposal is a thorny one particularly because of the politics.

People living in the appalachian mountain region have the problem of natural radon gas. A known carcinogen.

[bluetwinky]

My point being that we need to weigh the risks. And we certainly don't want to increase the background radiation level. The question is what is safest. Currently spent fuel is not reprocessed. And is stored on site. Neither state of affairs is desirable in the long term.

The NIMBY issue is at the core of this.

Which is why I have sarcastically offered the idea of nuclear power plants as a booby prize for communities that refuse renewable energy.

[strawberryseason]

We really don't need grid electricity in homes, perhaps just in manufacturing and commercially. I have friends with a grand house built in 1906, and at that early time it was not electrified. One could have central heat and also hot running water there and live comfortably.

People were not in a rush to get electricity in the 20th century until the ubiquity of radio. Lights and fridges can run on gas. Even if we keep electr, usage could still be dramatically reduced through raising the cost.

[bluetwinky]

Strawberry

You make an interesting point. My parents old house in N.East US had hot water solar which worked effectively for 300 days out of the year. Point being renewables will and do work more effectively than they are given credit for.

[capnsieggy]

"Everyone deserves a place where they can go to get away from everything" says the man. And yet most of us don't have a beach house. And many of us don't have a way to get to national treasures nor time to take off to do it.

Find a better solution or quit your bellyaching.

[cryptsub]

"Nantucket Sound is a very special place - rich people live here!"

[luckyvet]

Elitist Cronkite was bought & paid for decades ago.

[strawberryseason]

Wind power is only lucrative to developers because it is heavily subsidized. It is not an economically profitable enterprise by nature and will not add much to the grid in terms of usable energy. If you have ever been in rural areas that have wind farms, you will see how dramatically they change the landscape, and not for the better.

[phippsed]

The reason that other forms of electricity are more economically profitable is because they are not held responsible for all of the costs. Coal production produces carbon dioxide and uses and non-renewable resource. The companies running coal fired power plants pay no extra money for those two priviliges. We are going to have to get used to wind farms, solar panels, and hydroelectric dams because at some point in the future they are going to produce all of our power out of necessity.

[strawberryseason]

It is true that fossil fuels & nuclear power have huge unaccounted-for costs to society. But converting our rural areas into industrial wind farms is not the solution. Electricity needs to be taxed at a higher rate, & usage will go down. Air-conditioning, for example, has a huge carbon footprint. Nature is wealthy enough to keep us warm in winter but not unnaturally cool in summer. Humans can live without AC - we will have to eventually. Industrial wind is not dependable & has huge psychic costs

[capnsieggy]

Where do you live? People die from lack of air conditioning in certain parts of this country.

[strawberryseason]

I currently live in PA, but I lived in FL for over 20 years. I attended FL schools that had no a/c, and our family car had no a/c. We rarely ran the home a/c because of the costs. My father was born and raised in FL with no a/c. As for people dying, humans can adapt to heat. The problem is contemporary architecture that assumes a/c and a society that has productivity as the #1 goal. In other hot countries people take off in the afternoon. A/C is a huge energy hog, and ultimately unsustainable.

[capnsieggy]

I grew up in Florida and heat can make you sick if you don't know how to get cool. People have died in Arizona including young children and the elderly. Hospitals need temperature controls as well as museums. We can make improvements to the way we live and build but that will take many years. Putting higher taxes on electricity will put a lot of low and fixed income people out of their homes. How about if we tax vacation homes and put that money into alternative energy research?

[bluetwinky]

Alternative energy research?

we don't need research! We are ready to go! If these folks don't want a wind farm thats fair enough. How about Two Wopper Big Nuclear Power Plants!

Your choice.

Heck I'll go you one better and give you a third choice. No power at all. Shucks you came to Cape Cod to get away from it all!

But no sneaky electric generator in the garage (them boys polute so we made 'em illegal) ok now?

[esoeso122]

The main cause of death of birds is windows, cars, cats and dogs. If that should stop the continuation with the turbine projects, then we should also remove windows, cars, and your pets.

[numbnuts234567]

No drilling for oil. No coal mining. No nuclear power plants. No windfarms where they can be seen or birds might fly into them. No covering large tracts of land with solar panels because it would be too much of an environmental impact...

How about using the gas we all produce from our intestinal tracts each and every day. But how to capture it?

[Libertarian71776]

haha big surprise

[intelligentmeathead]

Hypocrites, just fricken' hypocrites. Yeah, wind farms are good, just as long as they're not anywhere close to my beach house. Go put it in front of some poor man's beach house and not mine. As John Stossel would say "GIVE ME A BREAK!"

[bottomlayer]

This is great! That stupid jerk he interviewed (Rich Prick Curly) needs to GET A LIFE!!!!!!!

[ChuffChuffWoo]

Wind is WONDERFUL! Wind farms are harmless, just think what climate change SEA LEVEL RISE would do to their way of life!

[wwwdotLPdotorg]

The say it like this I'm rich so not on my land. Put it on the poor people's land.

[Drexel2008]

God I hate Dems, not all, just the elites

[Meloman0001]

I think both parties are dumb. Thats why we need an independent party that and a new way of electing presidents

[bottomlayer]

This is just like me pretty much

[StoogeWatcher]

Democrats: The NIMBY Party full of environmentalists

[dodiligens]

John Stossel is a hack

[StoogeWatcher]

No he's not. He's going after the hypocrites who advocate windmills, but won't put ones in their own backyards. The Kennedy Clan is a good example.

[sleonardelli]

I think wind farms are beautiful and amazing. . . now. 5, 10 + years from now, if they don't deliver what they promise, then they are a waste of time and energy. However, I'm appalled an evironmentalist lawyer like RFK, Jr is more concerned about his view than the environment.

[bottomlayer]

And in the video Stossel even showed them pictures, and it wouldn't even obstruct their view!!!!!!!!!

[lordthawkeye]

Typical environmental toadies. Bash cooperations and try to stop any development you can, just as long as you can still get your lates.

Give me a break indeed!

[JohnR22926]

RFK is a typical liberal hypocrite. Actually, these liberals are in favor of wind power because it's politically correct and plays well with their left wing constituents. The fact is, wind power is too expensive and even if pushed to the max, can only provide a tiny fraction of our power needs.

[alanhowitzer]

I wouldn't have thought Stossel would run anything positive about windmills (turbines).

[CANDYPERFUMEGIRL31]

John Stossel is a right-wing tool.

[snowhound]

Your politics are blinding.  Practice what you preach!

[crankyturkey]

Totally a right wing tool. What, there are no other places along the coast to put wind farms? Please. Check out what he thinks about global warming. Ugh.

[CrossoverManiac]

Stossel is rightly pointing out that environmentalists are hypocrites. I mean, shit, look at those summer homes. Nevermind the wasted land and potential habitats of having a second home, those monsters would eat up a lot more electricity than most middle-class homes. Celebrity environmentalism: preach the middle class into sub-standard living while they themselves live it up like royality.

[StoogeWatcher]

Who are you liberal hypocrites to preach environmentalism?

[StoogeWatcher]

And like most "environmentalists", you're a hypocrite who advocates wind energy, but won't put a windmill in your backyard!

[mousepotato64]

Weell don't they have a point? lol

Thanks John.

[dtpark1213]

Stossel rules!

[girzwald3]

people are such hypocrites. We want cheap gas! But dont drill in the US! We want more government programs! But dont raise taxes! Build wind turbines you earth haters. But not in MY backyard. Freaken retards. All of them.

[beezalax13]

RFK Jr is such a hypocritical charlatan. And he had the audacity to call Stossel a liar about global warming.

[Humphreysguitar]

Love it, I wish there were more 20/20 clips on youtube. Such a brilliant series!

[XanatharEye]

Yes more Stossel please.

[Darkerside784]

score another point for the Stossel machine ;)

[snowhound]

Thanks.

I've just started, and thought this would be a good way to go.

check out weathertlakradio for more. Look for Maryland Blog or Climate

[XanatharEye]

Thanks for posting. This is great. The ongoing hostility between Stossel and Kennedy is hilarious.

After seeing this again, it makes me laugh even harder when RFK Jr. has the gal to say Stossel is a "corporate toady".

[dino2354]

I can't stand those holier than thou Kennedy's!