Florida Rejects Everglades Coal-Fired Power Plant due to Global Warming

Published on June 6th, 2007

Global warming concerns helped persuade the state Public Service Commission on Tuesday to reject a plan by Florida’s largest utility to build a $5.7-billion coal-fired power plant near Everglades National Park.

The denial marks the first time global warming has ever played a role in a PSC decision, and the first time in 15 years the state regulatory agency that oversees utilities has rejected a new power plant.

Gov. Charlie Crist had questioned the plant’s location, the National Park Service had raised concerns about air pollution and environmental groups had argued it would increase greenhouse gases at a time when the nation is trying to combat global warming.

Considering that the sun shines most every day in Florida they should be working to utilize solar energy. At least they’re starting to pay attention to global warming.

60 users responded in " Florida Rejects Everglades Coal-Fired Power Plant due to Global Warming "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 grog said, on June 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

continuously polluting the air from every factory in every industrialized country for over a century could not possibly have any long term effects.

that’s just preposterous, too bad for florida, i guess they’ll only have the nuclear option

# 2 bill said, on June 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

A good idea! Now, if Florida can not supply all its needed power, they can have rolling brownouts and scheduled blackouts as demand increases. Where is that FARK Florida tag when you need it?

# 3 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

#2 – You mean like California did… Or no… Wait, that was Enron extorting money from the state…

The notion of putting a coal plant near Everglades National Park is a bad bad idea.

# 4 Pmitchell said, on June 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pm

when their lights go out tell them to go hug a tree
coal is the only main natural resource we have plenty of in this country and modern coal plants are quite clean.

the religion of global warming strikes again

# 5 Thomas said, on June 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Does anyone seriously believe that global warming was the real reason that this deal was killed? Global warming was merely an excuse (flimsy one at that).

# 6 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

#4 – modern coal plants are quite clean.

It’s cute when you guys say stuff like that…

If Republicans are so pro-family, why do they try to destroy the planet as if they have no kids?

# 7 Pmitchell said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

because we have enough sense not to believe bullshit like global warming is caused by man, or remember the 10 years we had to fix the ozone hole or we are doomed ,HMM 20 years later and we are all here ,or 10 years till unrepairable damage is done to the oceans, well I had cod last night and its been 18 years since that was said, or the real big one the ice age is coming and by the 1990′s the plains of America will be unable to farm because of the cold

I would say your track record of the sky is falling kinda sucks were 3 your 0. I’m betting on my team being right again

# 8 natefrog said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Pmitchell: Apparently your team lost on grammar and punctuation, however.

By the way, have you actually worked in the power industry and have experience working at coal plants to back up your statements? I have, and you’re wrong.

# 9 natefrog said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

#3: Surprisingly, putting the power plant right next to the park is probably not as bad an idea as putting the plant a considerable distance upwind from the park. Not that I’m saying it’s a good idea…

# 10 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Science fiction driving policy – not a good sign.

Who knows, something good could come out if it if they build some other kind of power plant. As long as the end goal of providing more power at no additional cost is reached, it’s all good. If they ask the citizens to cut back their lifestyle to save power then the commission should be imprisioned.

Solar, nuclear, who cares? As long as they build something as soon as possible.

# 11 Pmitchell said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

actually yes I called on the largest coal fired plant in Texas (per generator) 1.2 gigawats Tolk is its name and it is near Muleshoe Tx . It is extremely clean and also makes the power in west Texas some of the cheapest in the U.S.

So I call you Bullshit artist claiming you have worked at one because if you had you would know how clean they are and how efficient to boot

# 12 Pmitchell said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

CORRECTION Tolk station is only 1080 megawatts see info below

http://tinyurl.com/27jb65

[Please use tinyurl.com - ed.]

# 13 BubbaRay said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Too bad we don’t have orbiting solar capture satellites. From the article listed below (and this is six years old):

“These “powersats” would catch the flood of energy flowing from the Sun and then pump it to Earth via laser or microwave beam. On earth it would be converted to electricity and fed into power grids to be tapped by terrestrial customers.”

http://tinyurl.com/67dhl

# 14 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

#7 – I, and most reasonable people, never said “the sky is falling.” What we are saying is, if something is unhealthy, lets change to something that is less or not unhealthy. If you think coal is healthy, you are nuts.

# 15 stew said, on June 6th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I have to go with pmichell on this. Run properly with good operators coal can be burned clean. It has nothing to do with politics. It is science and engineering. O and I do have a license to operate a coal or nuke plant.

# 16 Angel H. Wong said, on June 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

“Considering that the sun shines most every day in Florida they should be working to utilize solar energy. At least they’re starting to pay attention to global warming.”

Naw, Florida is loaded with bitter old people who will say “no” to everything.

# 17 tallwookie said, on June 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

hhoper, the only problem I see with using solar panels in florida is the hurricanes… its not to bad w/ big buildings, but solar panels are fixed, and arent very useful inside of a building, but on top of the roofs of buildings are gonna get damaged w/ the high winds…

# 18 Angel H. Wong said, on June 6th, 2007 at 3:48 pm

#15

Clean coal would be a good a idea if it weren’t for administrators so fu***ng cheap they will reject the notion because it would mean a bigger investment, just the Republican AND the Democrat who keep the coal power plant serving the White House outdated and running.

# 19 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

#13 – powersats are a great idea but thanks to the Sporkked up mess that is modern NASA, we don’t have a good way to get them up there or service them.

I’m all for all kinds of alternate generation methods -just get something going so people don’t have to cut back.

# 20 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 6th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

First, I have to confess that I only skimmed the comments tonight.

TheGlobalWarmer, (yours really sticks out this time)

How do you call this science fiction when all of the peer reviewed scientific data supports the position of anthropogenic climate change?

Why do you give more credence to people that cannot even state a strong enough case to get it published?

For my own position, I’m glad to see reason prevail, even if only in a minority of cases, it is a trend that almost gives me hope.

# 21 BubbaRay said, on June 6th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

#19, GlobalWarmer, you’re right in that the Shuttle couldn’t do it without a monster load of engineering / extra booster tech. The sats must go into geosynchronous orbit, so why not use the tried and true Delta launch vehicle? The technology is available and proven right now, I’m wondering whether it’s the govt. supporting oil or the nature freaks that don’t want a solar farm in their back yard that are hindering the progress. So we’ve got to build transmission lines from Death Valley to civilization. Didn’t we build a transcontinental railroad once?

# 22 natefrog said, on June 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Pmitchell, I asked if you worked at a coal power plant before. You stated you “called on the largest coal fired plant in Texas…” What does that mean, exactly?

You can cry bullshit all you want, sir, but in reality, I worked in the public power industry in Nebraska for a couple of years, including working at Gerald Gentleman Station, a 1,365 megawatt coal burning facility. So I have a good idea how clean coal isn’t and studies have likewise shown how clean coal isn’t. In fact, working on the inside, I know another dirty little secret. If you work at a coal plant for a while, you pick up so much radiation that you exceed the maximum allowable levels for a person that would work at a nuclear power station. (Yes, Nebraska has nuclear power plants, two of them to be exact. I’m also sure the idea of public power makes your blood boil, as well, especially considering private companies have no chance at doing the job as effectively as public power does.)

I would highly recommend digging yourself out of your own bullshit pile before accusing anyone but yourself as being a hack, sir.

# 23 bill said, on June 6th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

I remember visiting my grandmother in Palm Beach…. I swear she had the aircon turned down to 60′ I froze my *** off! I wonder if they could ‘turn it up to 78′ and not have to build the thing ..

# 24 BubbaRay said, on June 6th, 2007 at 10:31 pm

#22, natefrog, don’t coal plants emit about 3x the radiation per unit power than nuclear plants? Did you have to wear a dosimeter?

# 25 MikeN said, on June 6th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

That about sums up the global warming debate. Pay higher energy bills now or have energy rationing in exchange for maybe some lowering of temperatures in the future.

# 26 astro4554 said, on June 7th, 2007 at 2:45 am

This was two 980-megawatt plants. Did anyone wonder on many square miles of solar panel would be needed to produce 980 MW of power, at what cost. On top of all that, you don’t have solar energy during nights and less in cloudy days. There is a huge difference between base load power and other type of “green” energy.

Please the proponents of solar, give me the REAL numbers on what it would take to produce 2x 980megawatt of constant base load power 24 hours a day.

Maybe nuclear is a cleaner intelligent solution.

# 27 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 7th, 2007 at 2:51 am

#20 – Peer reviewed scientific data supports:
* Warming in the first half of the 20th century that had NO human contribution
* Warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century that had some human contribution.

Peer reviewed data does NOT support the Algore catastrophe that requires us to all sacrifice and suffer.

That’s a paraphrase of the chief climatologist at MIT and is the reason an increasing number of respected scientists are jumping off the bandwagon claiming there’s too much hype and not enough science going on. The media can’t be trusted because they cherry pick the worst sounding bites out of the IPCC reports.

Yes, there is a certain amount of warming happening, but in the world of real science there is even debate as to whether or not it’s even a bad thing.

If Florida doesn’t want to build a coal plant, fine – as long as they build something. I would like to see 500 or so new power plants built in this country. We have the technology to generate so much power that it can essentially be given away.

# 28 ethanol said, on June 7th, 2007 at 4:05 am

What about wave power energy for a base-load? http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11489

# 29 BubbaRay said, on June 7th, 2007 at 4:32 am

40% solar cell efficiency is here now! This is the greatest breakthrough in solar tech to date, topping the goal of 22%. Get some monster Li-ion battery tech and a solar farm with 40% efficiency (that’s 1 sol per panel, not concentrated), and we’re in business.

Concentrated sols on 40% panels would be extremely efficient. Tthere are new techs that use cheap reflective mylar film mounted on discarded 55 gal. drums under vacuum to create inexpensive spherical / parabolic mirrors for concentration to increase efficiency even further.

“Attaining a 40 percent efficient concentrating solar cell means having another technology pathway for producing cost-effective solar electricity. However, by using an optical concentrator, sunlight intensity can be increased, squeezing more electricity out of a single solar cell.”

From the US DOE:
http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm

Hello inexpensive power for the southwest and midwest US.

# 30 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 7th, 2007 at 4:37 am

I officially apologize for italicizing the entire end of my last post. Can’t type a closing tag without more coffee in my I guess.

# 31 bac said, on June 7th, 2007 at 5:42 am

I wonder if power companies thought about using natural energy sources to offset high fuel cost. For example, a power company in Florida could use solar power to provide some electricity which would reduce the amount of coal, oil or natural gas purchased that gets used to provide most of the electricity. Of course, this does not mean electric bills would go down.

# 32 natefrog said, on June 7th, 2007 at 7:08 am

#24: No, we weren’t required to wear any protective clothing or dosimeters since coal isn’t under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If persons were working frequently with coal, they probably would wear masks, but that’s about it.

# 33 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 7th, 2007 at 7:26 am

Wow Global….

everything boils down to “as long as we don’t suffer…”

I’ll never understand, honestly, what the fuck you are talking about or where you went to school that they taught the most hyperbolic definition of suffer.

This is what is hurting our culture and our nation… Conspicuous, unchecked consumption. A culture of reckless excess is tearing us down. I little moderation in energy policy would be at least one thing to help address that problem.

# 34 grog said, on June 7th, 2007 at 8:08 am

#33 TheGlobalWarmer is the archetypal conservative — he expressly refuses to lift a finger to help the environment (“so long as i don’t have to sacrifice“)

don’t waste time debating with him, he will only support policy that makes his life easier

# 35 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 7th, 2007 at 8:30 am

# 33-34 You guys get it.

I’m a “progressive” as in progressing to bigger, better, more…. If you want me and other progressives to use less energy, find us a more efficient way to do what we do at no added cost and we’ll jump on it. Do not ask us to do less as it’s not necessary. Mother Earth is going to be just fine.

# 36 MikeN said, on June 7th, 2007 at 8:52 am

I’m sure the power companies have thought about lowering their costs, and are acting that way right now. I also think the competing power companies are ecstatic over the nonapproval of this plant.

# 37 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 7th, 2007 at 8:57 am

#35 – Only an idiot thinks Mother Earth needs protection. We can’t hurt the planet. It’s too big and it has a self correcting ecosystem.

It’s humans that are in danger. We are literally dying now from the effects of being gluttonous over-consumers in the name of personal gratification and vanity.

# 38 hhopper said, on June 7th, 2007 at 9:23 am

Tallwookie said, “hhopper, the only problem I see with using solar panels in florida is the hurricanes…”

So what? If a hurricane hits, everything gets destroyed. That’s not a good reason not to have green power.

# 39 hhopper said, on June 7th, 2007 at 9:30 am

TheGlobalWarmer said, “…Algore catastrophe…”

Didn’t you mean Al-Gore-rythm??

# 40 Thomas said, on June 7th, 2007 at 10:11 am

If a hurricane hits a coal plant, it results in cleanup but the plant can quickly become operational again. If a hurricane hits a solar panel farm, it wipes out said farm and requires replacement. I would suspect the later is far more expensive.

# 41 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 10:21 am

TheGlobalWarmer (all posts),

It seems to me that you have severely missed Al Gore’s point. He advocates incremental change, not suffering. He advocates making small changes to become more energy efficient and also advocates the purchase of carbon offsets.

I can tell you from my experience that I have reduced my electric usage by over 16% year over year with no suffering at all. In fact, replacement of all of my light bulbs has made me feel as if I redecorated my entire apartment. With being able to choose my color temperature (I like 4100K), I get white light instead of dingy yellow.

Further, I am more comfortable heating to only 66 or 68 in winter when I’m wearing winter clothes and cooling to around 80 in summer when I’m in summer clothes.

I also don’t see any downside to plugging entertainment and computer equipment into a power strip to get rid of vampire power. And, what part of buying the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets your needs is a hardship?

So, feel free to continue to put words in Al Gore’s mouth and then disagree with your own words, if you feel the need to do so. However, you should also consider the differences in what happens when one of us is wrong, as will inevitably happen since we are diametrically opposed on the issue of global warming and only one can possibly be right.

If I am wrong and we take action to combat global warming unnecessarily:

1) We will reduce our dependence on oil.
2) We will have cleaner air (70-130,000 ppl/yr die of air pollution in the U.S).
3) We will reduce our financial support of terrorists, largely funded with oil money.
4) We will spark new industry in the U.S. based on renewable energy.
5) We will stop tearing down whole mountains for their coal.
6) We will reduce the mercury in the environment, produced by coal burning.
7) We will plant more trees in areas that are largely concrete.
We will have better public transportation.
9) Our cars will likely be electric, which is quieter and often faster, and usually more convenient than a drive to the gas station.
10) We will have fewer oil spills.

If I am right and we take no action:

1) We will have dirtier air every year.
2) We will have more mercury in the environment.
3) We will have fewer mountains.
4) We will continue to support terrorism.
5) We will have a billion climate refugees by 2050.
6) We will likely have global civilizational collapse (my opinion, not necessarily Al Gore’s)
7) The human population will be dramatically reduced, potentially to extinction (again, my opinion, not necessarily Al Gore’s)

So, what was the downside to taking action? Are you a bleeding heart corporate liberal that can’t stand to see Exxon/Mobil go out of business and be replaced by other energy companies and possibly much more local energy production? Do you have some love for Kimberly Clark and their actions of cutting down old growth forest for toilet paper? (related only because the old growth forests are wonderful carbon sinks)

# 42 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 7th, 2007 at 11:27 am

I have no problem with getting off fossil fuels, in fact I’m all for it. All 10 of your benefits are completely unrelated to my point. Except for #8 – in the ideal world everyone is so spread out that public transportation cannot possibly work. Privately owned vehicles is the only way to go. A number of the other things you mentioned I actually do, however I do them to save money, not to save Mankind.

I want conservation through alternative technologies/fuels. I do not want conservation through doing less. I have no problem with an electric vehicle IF it is the same size/power as a Surburban and can drive essentially indefinitely, only stopping for 10 min every 400 miles or so to refuel.

Scott, I don’t believe this is you, but this is representative of many conservationists: a zero emissions hydrogen fueled Surburban is not good enough because it doesn’t force you to go smaller and drive less. There are “control” groups out there that are only using conservation and Global Warming (TM) for cover. (which is why I type it that way.) I believe Algore is one of these – he is an arrogant elitist prick who thinks he was born to be President and now he’s found his lever to control every aspect of our lives.

I am 100% in support of clean energy and a clean environment achieved with zero impact on lifestyle – which I believe is possible.

# 43 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am

#42 – TheGlobalWarmer,

I strongly disagree with the statement “in the ideal world everyone is so spread out that public transportation cannot possibly work.” In my opinion, in an ideal world people are stacked on top of each other in cities to minimize our footprint on an already overcrowded planet.

FYI: In New York City, the average resident, including the outer boroughs, emits less than a third of the national average for carbon. But, we were talking about footprint. On a planet where we are already past peak grain production, we simply cannot afford the space wasted on things like suburban sprawl, rural non-farm residences, and cemeteries. We need more efficient use of arable land. We also need to leave some land for a healthy biosphere.

As for your position that a zero emissions suburban would be unacceptable, I’ve never heard any environmentalist say that. I think you are again putting silly words in the mouths of others simply to disagree with them. I would say though that you are probably not considering the other resources to build your zero emissions surBUSban. You need to consider the materials used to build it and the fuel burned in production. Otherwise though, an enviro-friendly surbusban would be fine with environmentalist I know.

BTW, for a vehicle capable of carrying 4 adults and camping gear and accelerating easily at 75 MPH, have you considered this as an example? Unfortunately, the price tag is high due to the manufacturer. But, it shows that it’s easy to do.

http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=R320CDI

28 MPG Hwy is not fantastic, but is probably better than your bus, a naggravator, a land bruiser, land hoover, or similar. And, you’ll have less risk of rollover.

# 44 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am

Oops, forgot to mention. You talk about zero impact on your lifestyle. Why? Why not look for positive impacts on your lifestyle? Less energy use gives you more disposable income. CFLs, as stated above, provide better light, not worse. Getting some power off-grid will save you money, and could even result in income if you produce more than you use. Don’t look for sacrifice. Look for opportunity for improvement!

# 45 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Scott, cities are horrible places (as OFTLO and I “debate” regularly. )

Look at the pics Eideard has posted here recently – that’s a good lifestyle! I have a good friend that lives in an area that’s been zoned residential with minimum 10 acre lot size – that’s what I aspire to. Urban sprawl is not bad, it is to be encouraged. I would end up driving more if I lived in a city because I would need to get OUT as much as possible whereas now I can hang out at home on the weekend because my backyard is fenced in, quiet and private.

I remember reading an article a while ago about a conservation group being outraged that someone was trying to adapt a Prius type drive system to a full size SUV – it violated their sensibilites. I want to say it was the Sierra Club but I can’t because I don’t remember exactly, but I’m making nothing up.

# 46 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

TheGlobalWarmer,

I’m sorry. I thought you said zero impact. Prius falls far short of zero impact. Some hybrids are being used to improve performance rather than gas mileage. Compare the Accord with the Camry for an apples to apples comparison of one such case. Accord hybrid (last I checked) had a V6 and tremendous performance and terrible gas mileage. Camry has too big a 4 cyl for my tastes, but gets pretty decent mileage. Highlander on the other hand, still has a V6. I’d like to see some compact SUV options as well. Imagine the mileage of a 1.8 liter hybrid RAV4.

Still though, for the full size off-road crowd, how about a 2.5 liter diesel electric hybrid. In Africa, the 11 passenger safari vehicles with a 2.5 liter diesel and no electric motor get 24 MPG. Off-roading does not require a lot of horse power. On-roading does not require an SUV.

My preferred vehicle would be a diesel electric prius with solar panels and an HECE device installed. I think it would easily top 100MPG. Pluggable would be nice, but wouldn’t help me until NYC garages had a way to charge vehicles (for a fee of course).

But yes, it offends my sensibilities to use hybrids to continue our horrific trend toward bigger heavier vehicles with worse and worse fuel efficiency too. So, when you talk about a zero impact vehicle, these are not the droids you’re looking for … move along.

As for 10 acres per person. There isn’t that much land on the planet. you can aspire to it all you want. But, the land is not there for everyone to do so. Limit the human population (6 million sounds like a good number to me) or limit our land use. We don’t have an infinite planet.

# 47 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Oh, and one more item. I used to live in the burbs. I get more time outdoors in real natural environments now than I ever did there. I also drive less, even including trips to the relative pristine areas around NYC, even including trips as far as the Adirondacks and Maine.

# 48 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 7th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

#42 – - in the ideal world everyone is so spread out that public transportation cannot possibly work.

In YOUR ideal world…

In my ideal world I am within 1 block of everything I could ever need, I own no car, I have 100s of night life choices 7 nights a week, and I can see everything in the city because I’m on the 40th floor.

I’m willing to concede that my idea of “the good life” is subjective if you are willing to admit the same

#45 Scott, cities are horrible places

Go jump in one of ten thousand lakes.

When I worked at “major company” in Skokie, IL and lived in Edgewater (north part of Chicago, on the lake) I had a 20 minute commute. It was great.

When major company moved to Shaumberg, The Land of 1000 Olive Gardens, I had a 1 hour and 5 to 20 minute minute commute each way. When asked why I didn’t move to Shaumberg, my answer was, because then I’d live in Shaumberg.

Misanthropes (Scott excepted) often like the vast cradle of the barren wasteland outside the city, but I like people, the arts, culture, shopping opportunities, groceries delivered to the door, the “L”, Wrigley Field (which is on the “L”, great dining locations, not having the burden of a car, having a 24/7 doorman, and all the life enriching goodness of living in a great city.

# 49 ECA said, on June 7th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

For all the money spent in this war…
AND if we could keep the Payola DOWN..
They could have knocked ALL the old houses down and REBUILT, NEW, solar powered energy efficent homes for ALL the Poor from the Missippi to the WEST coast, and made them SOLID enough to handle Tornadoes, and earth quakes…And solved about 30% of the energy problem…

# 50 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

#49 – But we worship the old in this country…

It’s a beautiful old farmhouse built in 1860… Which means it leaks heat, is creaky, cold, damp, and full of bugs.

When buildings are properly maintained over the years, and upgrades are made like modern windows and such, an old house can have appeal, but I agree… I’d rather rebuild with new technology than live in an old house…

In fact, I’m honestly not all that fond of houses in general.

# 51 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

OFTLO,

We’re in complete agreement. I like some people. I like being around people and living in a city. I hate what humanity has done to this planet and believe us to be a blight on the planet. That’s where my misanthropic side comes from. I guess I’m a bit odd for liking people but hating the species as a whole.

# 52 ECA said, on June 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

51,
I hate the idea that we are being FORCED to live in a CAN…
It used to be you could wonder this country and it was cheap and easy.
Its getting to the point, that with Licences, Insurrance, and PEOPLE controls we are being made to SIT in 1 spot, and STAY…

# 53 natefrog said, on June 7th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

What a shame, pmitchell has stopped commenting on this debate. I certainly hope it wasn’t me who scared him away.

You know, because that would mean I would have to add another name to the list of dumb conservatives I’ve shut up…

# 54 BubbaRay said, on June 7th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

#48, OFTLO, In my ideal world I am within 1 block of everything I could ever need, I own no car, I have 100s of night life choices 7 nights a week, and I can see everything in the city because I’m on the 40th floor.

Well, most everything. You can’t see the night sky, go fishin on a whim’, see native and rare wildlife, the beauty of a natural landscape, etc. We’ll just agree to disagree, you watch what you like, and I’m goin’ fishin (always catch and release)’.

But since this thread is now so old, I’m guessing you’ll never see this post. Darnit. And let’s hope the power doesn’t go out, 40 floors of stairs is probably a real pain.

# 55 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

#54 – BubbaRay,

FYI: Catch and release is allowed in Central Park. Central Park is also ranked as the 11th best birding location in the lower 48, around 300 species if I remember correctly. Many people walk the park with binocs.

You’re right about the night sky here. But, it may be less real, but doesn’t get much better than our planetarium. Bring your binocs to that too. The projector can project images smaller than the naked eye can see. And, at certain events, you can virtually fly around the known universe at many times the speed of light.

As for natural landscapes, yup, you’d need to drive. Central Park only qualifies as naturalistic.

# 56 Mr. Fusion said, on June 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

#53, nate,

pmitchell has a habit of running whenever he is shown to be wrong. Don’t worry, he’ll be back with some other outlandish bullshit.

# 57 TheGlobalWarmer said, on June 8th, 2007 at 3:15 am

#48 – I’m willing to concede that my idea of “the good life” is subjective if you are willing to admit the same Of course it’s objective.

The problem is the greenies trying to make me give up everything that makes up my version of the American Dream whereas I’m not asking city dwellers to give up anything.

#46 – there’s plenty of land for those who want it. In an ideal world everyone would want it, but they don’t, therefore, plenty of land.

BTW: Driving home yesterday in 40mph gusts it was really hard to hold a lane – light cars were having an even worse time. Mongo says heavy truck good.

# 58 BubbaRay said, on June 8th, 2007 at 3:38 am

#55, Scott, guess I’m in agreement with you on some things. I, too like individuals but a crowd bothers me.

I think planetaria are fun and great for educational purposes and shows, but they are just a substitute for a real dark sky and a telescope. I’ve got $1 Louis that there are very few posters here who could walk outside on a summer night and identify Vega, Deneb and Altair, the summer triangle. We (as a nation) have forgotten the night sky because cities turn it gray.

One nice thing about astronomy (as a hobby), you buy the equipment once and from then on everything is free, educational and amazing. As an added bonus, you don’t have to change the oil in a telescope

OTHO, astronomy as a profession means publishing and too much time waiting on these computers. Ah, well…..

# 59 Misanthropic Scott said, on June 8th, 2007 at 5:31 am

#58 – BubbaRay,

Agreed on all points for astronomy. It bugs me a bit less because I’m more interested in cosmology. So, going to the planetarium to hear Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk and show hubble images is actually more enjoyable to me than a telescope. Oh, and here in NYC, I consider the night sky more of a blue glow than a gray one. We certainly don’t see black without going at least 50 miles or more and not a really dark sky short of the Adirondacks.

# 60 Capn said, on June 13th, 2007 at 7:53 am

I see a ton of naysaying on this board, but I haven’t seen much offered in the way of alternatives. You’re opposed to clean-coal technology? OK, here are a few options to consider:

1) Nuclear. Of course, most environmentalists are against this, too, but it’s the most cost-effective alternative to coal.

2) Solar. As long as you don’t mind solar panels the size of Delaware. The cost of traditional solar would likely cause riots among the masses, though. The satellite solar option is interesting, but it seems like it’s decades away, at best.

3) Hydro-electric. Not a bad option, but there aren’t any Hoover Dams in Florida. Good choice locally, bad alternative on a grander scale.

4) Green power. This is pretty trendy — chicken litter, landfill gas, etc. Only problem here is that it’s also cost prohibitive, and there simply isn’t enough of these resources to provide the power of even a large city, let alone an entire state.

5) Conservation. Best alternative available — but completely unenforceable. It’s up to each consumer to conserve — and it saves them money, too. But you can’t send the sherriff to people’s homes to make them turn off the lights when they’re not using them.

6) Brownouts and rolling blackouts. That’s what’s coming across the country if additional power resources aren’t constructed, and if America doesn’t conserve. So if you don’t like coal or nuclear, and you can’t make people conserve energy, get used to darkness and spoiled food.

Which option do you prefer…?

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!