Wind power - The Richfield Reaper: Letters To The Editor

Wind power

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:58 pm

A wind farm is to be built for electricity by a utility called the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems - UAMPS. It is also called the Horse Butte Wind project. It is on 17,600 acres in Bonneville County, Idaho Falls. It is supported by and agreed on by 20 cities in Utah to purchase and to use the wind power and also including Nevada, Wyoming and California.

The wind power will provide 58 megawatts of power and from 32 wind turbine generators. It is to be completed by November 2010.

The wind farm will cost about $250 million. It will provide the cleanest, most affordable and the most reliable electricity. Then we won't have to worry about nuclear fallout or coal mine disasters. We won't have pollution from coal, either.

The wind farm built in Idaho is in an excellent location because that location has an excellent wind resource. It is in a remote location and is on private property, which has high transmission lines. This project is funded by both private and public. Utah needs electricity created by wind power and then we won't have power plants, which use coal and natural gas. Both cause a lot of air pollution. Coal companies make other people a lot of money. No wonder the gas and coal officials are against the wind farms.

There has also been a wind project made in Milford, Utah, by a Boston company, but the electricity goes to the state of California. The Boston company also has wind power in the east, the west and Hawaii. Why doesn't Utah get the electricity made by the wind power? Don't the power companies in Utah like electricity made by wind power? Or, is natural gas and goal more important?

Another source of power, is from river dams and there is talk about building river dams for electricity. We already have a lot of wind in most states. Wind farms sound like a good idea. Maybe we can benefit from both of them. Neither will give us air pollution or nuclear fallout.

If wind farms or river dams are built, there will be no coal mine disasters or miner deaths. The wind farms cost more, but no amount of money can buy a person's life from a coal mine disaster. There are other coal costs too, and they aren't even mentioned. Some are not even thought of.

Coal costs a lot less, but there are a lot of unknown problems. Problems might happen besides air pollution.

Yes, wind farms will provide us with clean electricity and so will river dams, but there will be no air pollution from either of them.

How about solar panels?

John L. Harrison

Annabella

© 2015 The Richfield Reaper. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

110 comments:

  • concerned posted at 8:44 am on Sat, Aug 20, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Ya gotta love it Baby;
    On Aug 8th the great PHD Dr.Glenn Stoneman wrote the following -'AS TO ANSWERING ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS, I AM DONE,''

    On Aug18th his fixed action pattern re-surfaced with the following post----'''REALLY THANN IS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO ??
    Ya gotta love it Baby.
    Doing the best a Do It can do.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:45 am on Tue, Aug 9, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Glenn will be greatly missed

    Have you concidered the detrimental effects you will have on the mutual adoration society of Do It's???
    You Glenn are the ONLY Do It who makes any attempt to write anything with any degree of intelligence.
    Who will promote pollution in Sevier County with out you??? Sam?? Chapster?? The best Hunt can do is accuse people of demeaning little children. You are the man Glenn.
    I can understand your reluctance to continue the fight to promote pollution in Sevier county. It appears that the Nevada boy's are dead in the water. Until the plant pukes it's first pond there is not a lot to say or write.

    Your side lost Glenn---- Have a nice day.
    Chicken little.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 7:05 pm on Mon, Aug 8, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    When you post a comment and I am the only one identified by name I would say that that is calling me retarded. Here is the post.

    "Do its can't understand that there are two kinds of offices.-- There are people who are elected to an office like a county commissioner, and there are offices in which you run your buisness or do your own buisness. She is clearly talking about her private office i.e a property -where she does her buisness.-Perhaps one of you brilliant Do Its can tell us when the election was held that elected her to the OFFICE of community organizer.
    Maybe this will help a retarded Do It to understand.

    ''Elaine 's letter clearly stated-'' ''Even clients who retain my services -(-ie my vocation) through the office ( located in home of the community consultant) in Salina.
    Yes Glenn I have been to the office of the community consultant. It is a Mobil home in a trailer park in Salina. I think it was Sheesh who accurately stated that she appointed herself to that vocation. SHE WAS NOT ELECTED TO ANY OFFICE .. GOT IT GLENN?"

    What was I supposed to understand, every "Do It": but the one named was retarded? Usually when you make a statement and only one person is named you are addressing that person and the statement to them.

    As to answering anymore of your posts I am done casting pearls before swine.

     
  • concerned posted at 11:12 am on Thu, Aug 4, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Glenn is no ''Retard''
    In fact he is probably the smartest person in Utah. Yes indeed -Dr. Stoneman has single handedly proven that --''the UPHE EXAGERATED THE NUMBERS.''

    That's right ,-Glen has shown PROOF that this dishonest bunch of over 200 members most of whom are physicians or other health professionals can't be trusted. they EXAGERATED THE NUMBERS.

    Tell us Glenn, when you get sick do you go to the Dr's in Canada ?? You have proven the UPHE to be dishonest.
    Ya gotta love it Baby A Do it at his best.''

     
  • concerned posted at 9:58 am on Thu, Aug 4, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Stoneman
    I have never said that YOU Personally are retarded ( you certainly are not) only certain Do It's ways of thinking are retarded . --Big difference,!!!
    There is a big difference between being retarded and suffering from a mental disorder such as a Narcissistic personality disorder.
    This may be my last effort to respond to you on this thread as I have responded about four times and it has NOT come up.

     
  • concerned posted at 4:22 pm on Tue, Aug 2, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    I wrote three posts --none were printed. It is a waste of my time to do more.

     
  • concerned posted at 3:59 pm on Mon, Aug 1, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    How many miles of pipe did the Do It lay today????
    The Do It's are dead in the water. What say you Glenn?

     
  • concerned posted at 3:55 pm on Mon, Aug 1, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Well Duh Glenn,
    How can I give you the data when there is NONE!!!!!! That's the point Glenn the Synapse has no data on a number of polution related diseases.

    The study was limited Glenn. Perhaps you can conger up a new definition for limited to convince the world that they should listen to your silly nonsense.

     
  • concerned posted at 11:01 am on Mon, Aug 1, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Ya Gotta love It Baby.
    If there was ever any doubt about Stoneman's ''NARCISSISTIC'' mental predisposition's --one need only read his last blog. The good Dr. writes-Quote---
    I DON'T CARE WHAT THE UPHE SAY, BECAUSE THEY ARE KNOWN TO EXAGGERATE NUMBERS AND CONCLUSIONS.'''

    Please!!! Dr. Stoneman document that outlandish statement. ACCORDING TO WHOM DO THEY ''EXAGGERATE NUMBERS AND CONCLUSIONS??? BE SPACIFIC!! Only in Dr. Stoneman's sick ''Narcissistic '' mind do they do this.

    There are over 200 members, most of whom are physicians or other health professionals. The remainder are individuals educated in and practicing toxicology, chemical engineering,air quality modeling and permitting,biology, earth science and other related disciplines.
    Then we have Dr. Stoneman ---The GREAT DR. STONEMAN saying that they are dishonest , AND HE ALONE can be depended upon to dispense truth.
    Ya gotta love it baby.
    Who do you trust ??? This elite group of professionals are Nevcos crack number cruncher Dr. Glenn Stoneman??
    Glenn You need help.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 9:04 pm on Fri, Jul 29, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned....

    On pg 56 of the Synapse study it lists COST not RATE for both mortality and morbidity. Mortality costs $6.12 billion. Morbidity costs $32 million. Please tell me where it says differently in the SYNAPSE STUDY. I don't care what the UPHE say, because they are KNOWN to exaggerate numbers and conclusions.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:15 am on Fri, Jul 29, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    OPPS I hit the wrong button I didn't finish what I was saying. check it... or my spelling.
    The bottom line is there is no sence in responding to your ''Narcissistic'' rantings.
    If this study as the UPHE states ---''DID NOT AND COULD NOT RELIABLY ESTIMATE THE FURTHER COSTS OF A LONG LIST OF ( spacific) OUTCOMES''
    I suggest that if the conclutions of the UPHE are wrong , it is your responsibility as the superior intelect to let them know that they have made serious mistakes.
    Don't expect me to argue with a Narcissistic personality It's a waste of my time.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:01 am on Fri, Jul 29, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    No Glenn
    I just figured I was casting pearls before the silly rantings of a -''Narcissistic personality'' who in his own mind -''believes that he has special tallents which the scientific community should simply recognize as obvious, with out ever having to prove them.
    I viewed your last post as nothing more than Dr. Stoneman inventing new words and definitions to refute the findings of the UPHE.
    For example;
    You- in your usuall nutty way re-defined the term morbidity as ''HEALTH COSTS FOR THE LIVING''-When in reality morbidity is defined as -''the relative incidence of a PARTICULAR disease in a SPECIFIC locality''
    By it's TRUE DEFINITION , one can understand why the Synapse study was limited and it's costs under stated.
    I know you will never understand that -''Incidence'' of a ''PARTICULAR'' DISEASE such as .. ''INCREASED RATES OF CANCER'' WAS NEVER CONCIDERED IN THE SYNAPSE STUDY.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 10:37 pm on Thu, Jul 28, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Did you go on vacation? Two days and I am still waiting for some witty line about how I am a "retarded do it" and how I "really don't understand the study-- EVEN if it has been explained about four times to you." Please use the data FROM THE STUDY to explain how I don't understand the study.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 9:14 pm on Tue, Jul 26, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    One more time $1.612 billion of the $1.6 - $2.027 billion is taken up with death costs. See pg. 56 of the Synapse study. You subtract $383 million for water and you get total morbidity costs of $32 million. See pg 56 of the study. By the way morbidity means health costs for the living.

    Last time I checked $32 million was a very small portion of $2.027 billion. The numbers that are listed above are not my interpretations but the actual numbers listed in the Synapse study, I suggest that you look them up before you say that I don't understand them. I would be glad to come and show them to you when I get back in Richfield next week. But you probably would say that I don't understand when I show it to you anyways. Can't wait for you to see you call me "a retarded do it" again. I guess that is the best you can do when you have nothing else to come back with.

     
  • concerned posted at 10:15 am on Tue, Jul 26, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    I guess-''you really don't understand the study-- EVEN if it has been explained about four times to you; Why don't you try to understand what the UPHE are trying to tell you ??? As always you end up using your stupid ''DO IT LOGIC'' That may work for people like Chapster and Sam but not the Scientific community.
    To suggest that when someone is ;;dead'' there ''ARE NO MORE COSTS'' is Do It logic at it's best. DEATH , AND IT'S COSTS,WAS ONLY ONE SMALL PART OF THE STUDY.
    ONE MORE TIME STONEMAN. According to the UPHE The study ONLY estimated the HEALTH RELATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS for a ''LIMITED'' (THAT IS LIMITED STONEMAN -------''LIMITED'') number of impacts. DEATH being only ONE OF THEM. To you Do It's like Sam, that means only PART of the costs like death were assessed. (see part two of the letter) That is why the PHE clearly stated that if these OTHER pollution consequences WERE TO BE CALCULATED ( which they WERE NOT in this study) FOR THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACT;; then the TOTAL externality costs would likely be even many times higher.''

    Perhaps Dr. , with your infinite wisdom you will be so kind as to itemise the life time costs of a child that because of pollution had embryonic developmental issues for most of his long life was institutionalized for over 60 years. Perhaps you can show us the costs of chromosomal damage which results in the loss of intellectual capacity. ACCORDING TO THE UPHE these costs WERE NOT included in the synapse study.
    DID YOU GET THAT STONEMAN???
    Your Do it logic CAN NOT make up for these extra costs. It is only the best a Do It can do to try to make the case that these extra costs are inconsequential;
    Chicken Little
    I think the UPHE are casting their pearls before Do It's

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 9:52 pm on Mon, Jul 25, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    I guess that you really don't understand the study. A VSL is the value for someone who is DEAD. When someone is DEAD there are NO MORE COSTS. When they are DEAD you CAN'T make them more sick. If you remove the $1.6 billion for dead people that leaves $100 million for the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. Remove the low end of the water cost of $38 million, that gives you an externality cost of $62 million spread out over a population of 61,896,066. That comes out to $1 per person per year or $.08 per month. Let's say that it is 10 times worse than what the study says. That would be "EVEN MANY TIMES HIGHER''. That would mean that the cost would be $.80 per month or less than the cost of a soda per month per person. Maybe the cost of a soda is a lot for you but I think that most people could handle that.

     
  • concerned posted at 10:33 am on Fri, Jul 22, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Dr. Stoneman
    $8 million is definitely on the low side when you add in the following which was not factored in as part of the ''Synapse study'';
    As the UPHE STATED;
    QUOTE;
    --''The study DID NOT AND COULD NOT -reliably estimate the FURTHER COSTS of a long list of such outcomes.''
    SUCH AS ;-
    ''Lifelong impared lung function,--increased rates of cancer,--adverse consequences of pregnancy and embryonic development,- increased rates of immunosuppression-related diseases,--chromosomal damage,-diabetes,-and especially loss of intellectual capacity and neurodegenerative diseases.''- If these pollution related consequences were to be calculated FOR THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACT THEN THE TOTAL EXTERNALITY COSTS WOULD LIKELY BE EVEN MANY TIMES HIGHER''--, End of the quote.
    Pay attention Glenn!!!!!!!!!
    Can you see why -----AGAIN I QUOTE FROM THE UPHE

    the '''UPHE considered the estimate of health related economic impacts in this study (ie Synapse)- to BE A GROSS UNDERESTIMATE BECAUSE THE STUDY LIMITED IT'S ASSESSMENTS.''Can you now see why the $8 million is ON THE LOW SIDE???????

    I doubt it. It's hopeless!!!!!!!
    I guess people will have to decide in whom they trust,,,,,,YOU or the UPHE.

     
  • concerned posted at 8:17 am on Fri, Jul 22, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Dr. Stoneman
    I don't think you will ever get it . You are looking at only one part of the equation. When I have more time I will have you itemize ALL of the costs not just part of them. Mixing apples and oranges is only doing the best a Do It can do.

     
  • concerned posted at 8:13 am on Fri, Jul 22, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Well Duh Sam
    No Sam you were not referring to me as those were the words of the UPHE.
    I was simply quoting them. It's OK we have become accustomed to your silly accusations . It's the best a Do It can do.

     
  • concerned posted at 7:15 pm on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Well Duh
    It is low when you include only a few of the deaths and the costs because the study is limited to just one area.
    When will you EVER get the understanding as to what the study really is-and what is included in it.????
    Which CATF ( done in Utah )study are you quoting from that is the same kind of study as that done by the Synapse on Utah's economy???

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 2:11 pm on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Apperently your reading comprehension is not too good. The study says that the VSL is between $1=10 million. When you choose $8 million that is not on the low side, that is on the high side. The study uses a value that is 8 times higher than the low side. That may be hard for a duffer to understand but we "Do Its" know that 8 is a lot bigger than 1. We also know that when you use the month that has the highest level of ozone and use it for the whole year that the data is skewed upwards not down.

    Oh and by the way are you accusing the CATF of being liars? Their data agrees with my assesment not the UPHE. I thought that the CATF was always right. I guess you can believe Thann or you can believe the CATF.

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 12:08 pm on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    Thanns reading comprehension skills are getting better and better! :0 I was referring to YOU buddy...not a study or group of physicians.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:36 am on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Sam
    Are you speaking from experience???

     
  • concerned posted at 9:30 am on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    To Dr. Stoneman
    Skew; Twist or slant Webster's New World Dictionary
    Skew; To distort from a true value or symmetrical form.---2 ''more developed on one side or in one direction than another.'' Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

    Soooooo-If I understand you correctly you are accusing the study as being -''DISTORTED' in an upward direction -- Right???
    The PHE say that the number is LOW because of the limited scope of the study.
    So who should we believe ??? You are the PHE????

    While I agree that the study was 'based on a number of uncertainties that does not mean that the study is distorted or that the researchers are DISHONEST. There is such a wide range in this study the truth is probably some where in between in this VERY LIMITED study on the health and economic impacts . You can bet on one thing and that is that the study was as the PHE stated -''TO BE AGROSS UNDERESTIMATE''
    As stated before----''-The study clearly DID NOT AND COULD NOT RELIABLY ESTIMATE THE FURTHER COSTS OF A LONG LIST OF SUCH OUTCOMES.''

    Sooooo Dr. Stoneman if you are accusing them of skewing around with numbers, the impact of pollution would be much higher even than the study would have indicated.
    For people like Sam??? that means the numbers used in the study are in reality low.......NOT High as you indicated.
    Accusing these good people of skewing the numbers only goes to show that you have done the best a Do It can do...

    We have a choice ..... We can believe the UPHE 's assessment of the study.......
    OR we can believe the Nevco Number cruncher's assessment of the study.
    That is not a hard determination for most intelligent people to make.

     
  • concerned posted at 8:15 am on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Ya gotta love Baby
    Sam the genius Morgon calling the Synapse study and the PHE stupid.

    Ya gotta love it Baby
    Doing the best a Do It can do!!!!!!!

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 4:37 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    Glenn....don't get so worked up....there's no fixing stupid

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 3:12 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Definition of skewed from dictionary dot com. "Slang . to make conform to a specific concept, attitude, or planned result; slant: The television show is skewed to the young teenager. "

    The Synapse study says ""Ozone exposure modeling is based on a single paper in which relationships were derived for a single summertime month in 1996, and therefore the uncertainties on ozone impacts (morbidity) are likely large and potentially highly biased." When you take data from a single month, the worst month and make it the basis for your study that is SKEWING DATA.

    The Synapse study says "The range of economic estimates of the VSL in EPA’s
    determination ranged widely between $1 and $10 million dollars (1999$)". When you take the high end vs. the middle that is SKEWING DATA.

    The Synapse study says that there are 202 regional deaths caused by 6 power plants in Utah. The CATF says that there are 164 deaths from 41 coal plants. 7 times the power plants and 3/4 the deaths. That is SKEWING DATA..

    ONCE AGAIN ELAINE WAS NOT USING THE TERM OFFICE AS A PLACE OF BUSINESS BUT AS A TITLE OF HER JOB. Even you should be able to see that.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:38 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    It looks like my spelling is on a par with Dr Stoneman's understanding of words. -Words like ''office , skew'' etc.
    That's what I love about Dr Stoneman's research. He changes the meaning of words to suit his needs at the time he uses them. The great Doc Stoneman has his own scientific principles for determining truth.
    FOR EXAMPLE;; ( check one of his latest.)
    He writes quote.-------''When someone tells me that there are significant assumptions and uncertainties.''--( to Dr. Stoneman)--'' THAT MEANS THE NUMBERS ARE SKEWED TO FIT A PREDETERMIND CONCLUTION'' Hmmmmm
    The word SKEW means to ''TWIST OR SLANT''
    Soooooooo-- It appears that Dr. Stoneman is accusing the Synapse Energy Economics Inc. of DISHONESTY... or twisting or slanting their studies.
    Soooooo,....... I guess we have to decide as to whom we believe .....Stone man are the pro's.
    For what it is worth, the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment , which has over 200 members,reached a conclusion just opposite of that of Dr. Stoneman.
    The UPHE ''considered the estimate of health related economic impacts in this study to be a GROSS UNDERESTIMATE '' because the study was limited.
    Again we must ask who should we trust, Dr Stoneman or the UPHE .
    As for me and my house I will go with the pro's and consider Dr. Stoneman nothing more than a very confused Do It doing the best a Do It can do.

    Chicken Little

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 2:11 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Have you even read my post of 9:59 this morning? Still waiting for your evidence of when a "do it" ever tried to stop green energy from being produced.

    By the way HEAVILY is spelled with an I not an E. If you are going to quote at least spell it right.

    Also what did Bryce Bird say was the role of the DAQ?

     
  • concerned posted at 1:22 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Chicken Little responds
    Yesterday I attended the Environmental Group Stakeholder Meeting in SLC.
    The new Director of air quality,Bryce Bird, spoke on -''The Role of DAQ in protecting public health.
    Dr. Moench along with other State officials were present.
    If only I had learned earlier that Dr. Stoneman had just discovered that the Synapse study was SKEWED HEAVELY'' I could have told them .
    I don't think they have realized the importance of the Stoneman discovery. Nor of the significance of his skills in research analysis. I will try to do better next time.

    Your (sometimes friend) Chicken Little.
    Having more fun than a Do It in pollution.


     
  • concerned posted at 12:23 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Chicken Little to the scientific researcher for Nevco.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 11:18 am on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    When are you going to stop calling people names? You keep telling others to stop doing it and yet you won't, why? Why just today YOU have called me a "retarded Do It" and "Nevco's nutty number cruncher". Is this the type of discussion you called for less than a week ago when you said "ATTENTION SAM MORGAN AND HUNT.
    Sam and Hunt--- Look at the two posts written by Lakota and Glenn. While these two people were in TOTAL disagreement. Each presented a strong case for their position . Neither resorted to calling each other idiots or accused them of demeaning little children. They simply in an intelligent way presented the facts as they percieved them- Why cant you two get out of the gutter and do the same????? Or---is that the best a Do It can do????" If you are going to berate others for name calling maybe you should look to yourself and your name calling.

     
  • concerned posted at 10:21 am on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    QUOTE OF THE YEAR

    ''THE SYNAPSE STUDY WAS SKEWED HEAVELY'

    STONEMAN.

    Even the adoration society should be rolling in the isles after that brilliant comment.
    Ya gotta love it baby. It's the best a Do It can do!!!!!!!

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 9:59 am on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    With regards to the Synapse study, either you haven't read the whole study or you don't comprehend it. I will try once again to explain it to you using the words of the study.

    On page 7 second paragraph it says "The purpose of this study is to put forth methodologies estimating the co-benefits that can be achieved from renewable energy and energy efficiency. The quantification of these co-benefits, and of the externalities from which they derive, is by no means straightforward, and there are significant assumptions and uncertainties that underlie this study." When someone tells me that there are significant assumptions and uncertainties that means that the numbers are skewed to fit a predetermined conclusion.

    Also on pg 7 it talks about the uncertainties, "Ozone exposure modeling is based on a single paper in which relationships were derived for a single summertime month in 1996, and therefore the uncertainties on ozone impacts (morbidity) are likely large and potentially highly biased.
    • Morbidity estimates are based largely on recent peer-reviewed meta-analyses,
    rather than Utah-specific studies." When someone tells me that something is highly biased that means that data is skewed heavily to favor the outcome they want. When you take the worst possible month and apply it for the whole year that is significantly skewing the data.

    The value of a statistical life (VSL) even among the EPA ranges widely. From the study on pg 7 it states "While this study uses the federally recommended value of $8 million per statistical life. This, economic estimates of the value of a statistical life (VSL) is based on the previously EPA-designated value of $5.5 million (1999$) adjusted to $8 million (2008$). The range of economic estimates of the VSL in EPA’s
    determination ranged widely between $1 and $10 million dollars (1999$)" That means for this study the range of cost is between $202 million to $2.02 billion. That is a huge range of uncertainty.

    Let us look at how the VSL was determined using the studies own words. It states "For premature deaths, we use a value of statistical life (VSL) approach. This should not be taken as the value assigned to a life, but rather, as the aggregation of what a number of people are willing to pay for small risk reductions. In other words, if someone is willing to pay $50 for an intervention that would reduce their risk of dying by 1/100,000, their VSL would be $5 million ($50 divided by 1/100,000). Stated another way, if 100,000 people were all willing to pay $50 for this intervention, one life would be expected to be saved at a cost of $5 million." It is a number that is arbitrarily picked.

    Furthermore the study states that 202 people die each year as a result of Utah power plants. Let us take a look at that number. First of all that is a regional number, WA, OR, CA, NV, ID, UT, AZ, NM, CO, WY, and MT. According to The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for all of those states there are 164 deaths from coal fired power plants. Also from the CATF there are 41 coal fired power plants in those states. Yes Thann even California has coal fired power plants and it supplies power to California. As you can see the numbers are skewed from the Synapse study. They did however come close on the deaths in Utah, Synapse said 22, CATF said 18. This may be hard for a "duffer" to understand but there is a big difference between 6 power plants killing 202 people (the Synapse study numbers) and 164 people being killed from 41 power plants (CATF's numbers)

    Can you begin to understand why I said that the data is skewed in the Synapse study????? Even a "retarded Do It" (your words not mine) can see the difference.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 8:54 am on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    First off, nobody refers to where they work as "the office of (fill in the blank)". Elaine throws "the office of the community consultant" as a title of her job. Otherwise she would say the community consultant. People don't say come to the office of whatever, they say come to my office.

    If you are going to quote something quote it correctly. She said "Even clients who retain my services, through the office of the community consultant, are simply informed citizens concerned with side effects of questionable projects/policies in their communities or schools that may have better or safer alternatives such as Sevier County’s mosquito spraying program." Nowhere in that quote does she distinguish between her being a community consultant with her office being in her home and the title "the office of the community consultant." I realize that that may be hard for an "duffer" (your moniker not one I gave you) to understand. She also doesn't make the distinction on her radio ads as well.

     
  • concerned posted at 11:41 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Ya gotta love it baby
    Nevco's nutty number cruncher has now determined that the Synapse study -''WAS SKEWED HEAVELY' -- Who do you trust nevco's nutty number cruncher or the pros who did the study????" State officials and the PHE all concluded that it was a well done study. Only Stoneman the Nevco number cruncher ( like he has done a number of times before) has determined it to be ''SKEWED''
    YA GOTTA LOVE IT BABY.......
    Can't wait for that fixed action pattern to surface as these socially attached Do Its harmoniously chant ''Ya man ya .. well done Glenn' ( Who do you think will be the first???)
    YA GOTA LOVE IT BABY.

     
  • concerned posted at 11:16 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Do its cant understand.
    Do its can't understand that there are two kinds of offices.-- There are people who are elected to an office like a county commissioner, and there are offices in which you run your buisness or do your own buisness. She is clearly talking about her private office i.e a property -where she does her buisness.-Perhaps one of you brilliant Do Its can tell us when the election was held that elected her to the OFFICE of community organizer.
    Maybe this will help a retarded Do It to understand.

    ''Elaine 's letter clearly stated-'' ''Even clients who retain my services -(-ie my vocation) through the office ( located in home of the community consultant) in Salina.
    Yes Glenn I have been to the office of the community consultant. It is a Mobil home in a trailer park in Salina. I think it was Sheesh who accurately stated that she appointed herself to that vocation. SHE WAS NOT ELECTED TO ANY OFFICE .. GOT IT GLENN? If you have, please explain it to Hunt... If you can.. He like you is a bit slow.

    I know it is a hard concept to understand that a community organizer needs a office to run the affairs of her vocation but that is the way it is,
    Do It's can't read

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 2:33 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Your comprenhension skills are not very good. Why just take the letter "Side Effects" in this week's Reaper.

    You said "You may have to explain to Mr. Hunt that a community consultant is not -''AN OFFICE'' but a vocation. After all he is a Do It."

    Elaine's letter clearly stated "Even clients who retain my services, through the office of the community consultant, are simply informed citizens concerned with side effects of questionable projects/policies in their communities or schools that may have better or safer alternatives such as Sevier County’s mosquito spraying program" Did you see that "the office of the community consultant"

    By the way this post has nothing to do with Elaine, I only am using her letter and your post to outline how bad your reading comprehension is.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 2:21 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Still waiting..... You have given an instance where "Do Its" want to build something. Please tell me what they have tried to STOP something from being built.

    The"Nevada Boys" stopped with coal, not because it was mare expensive but because of all the lawsuits brought on by SCCAW. The externality costs from the Synapse study are skewed heavily with arbitrary costs defined by them, not actual costs. You won't read the whole study so pointing it out with page numbers won't help anyways.

     
  • concerned posted at 10:35 am on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Stoneman.
    ONE INSTANCE '' You ask?? Just by virtue of the fact that the Do It's want to put a puker next to 183 homes arguing that clean energy is '' NOT RELIABLE'' is ''EXPENSIVE '' and the list of instances go on.

    If coal is cheaper, why did the Nevada Boys cancel??? Hmmmmm ??? You know darn well when you figure in the externality costs that burning and producing pollution makes the use of fossil fuel more expensive. Why do you think ''green energy is becoming more popular while puke pushing is history? Hmmmmmm
    Oh,- I guess it is the evil environmentalists causing the change, Right Glenn??

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 9:18 am on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned....

    The only reason that we "may be forced to protect foreign sources of oil" is because the environmental obstructionists won't let us drill for our own oil. If the U.S. was allowed to use it's OWN resources the economy would take off like a rocket. Lower energy costs, more jobs, higher tax receipts would all be possible if the obstructionists get out of the way. But no that can't be, your environmental obstructionist friends must stop ALL sources of energy independence except the MOST EXPENSIVE forms of renewables.

    Can you give me ONE INSTANCE of when a "Do It" ever tried to stop the building of "Green energy"? Just one is all I ask. We are not against renewables Renewables are far more expensive and not as reliable as fossil fueled generation. Until renewables are we need fossil fuels as a base load supplier.

    If you want to increase funding for renewable energy research, drill for oil in the U.S. and put a 2% tax on oil extracted. The U.S. imports 9 million barrels of oil per day. At $100 per barrel that would be $18 million dollars per day for a total of $6.5 billion dollars per year research funding. That would be a win win situation. Renewables would be funded, jobs created, additional revenue from income taxes collected and a lower cost for energy, cutting production costs and lowering the costs of transporting goods. This could all be possible if you would just get your environmental activists to get out of the way.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:32 am on Fri, Jul 15, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Solar power will have been long perfected before the Nevada Boy's can find a partner.--

     
  • concerned posted at 9:24 am on Fri, Jul 15, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Glenn
    What I really object to is pumping money into trying to develope ''CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY'' when the money could be better spent on the development of clean energy.
    Both natural gas and coal are exhaustible in the long run. The sun is not. Billions have been spent trying to clean up coal. it is still a dirty form of energy. It's future is limited.
    As to your last question.
    I am against ALL subsidies, --EXCEPT in an emergency situation.
    I think we are very close to an emergency situation as our gas and oil supplies start to dwindle. Yes I know we supposedly have hundreds of years of these natural resources, but they are becoming increasingly more scarce and expensive
    Look at our costs for National Security alone. (gas and oil)
    Our nations fossil fuel dependence means that ,to ensure our supply, we may be forced to protect foreign sources of oil. the Persian Gulf War is a perfect example. ( talk about externalities) US troops were sent to the Gulf in part to guard against a possible cutoff of our oil supply. Although the war is over, through taxes we are continuing to pay for protecting our oil supplies with our armed forces. Glenn, --Not only were BILLIONS of dollars spent in protecting the oil, BUT LIVES WERE LOST AS WELL.
    I think that just might put us in the EMERGENCY mode.
    I think we must drill in Anwar until we have perfected our clean energy methods,
    We are on the Virge of achieving that in the next 10 to 15 years if we can just educate the obstructionists -the Do Its of this country.. A most impossible task to say the least.
    We have hangers on like yourself who hang on to the same dirty old methods like a pup hangs to it's mother.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 8:52 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned....

    I never said that my observations were scientific, there are many factors which I didn't account for that is why I said that they were anecdotal.

    You obviously don't agree with "Let the market place dictate what happens". If you did you would call for an end to the tax payer subsidies that go to green energy. You would also not be calling for the artificial price increases due to higher regulations on the coal and oil industries. These so called subsidies that the oil industry gets are the same that any company gets. Name ONE subsidy that oil companies get that other companies don't get.

    Are you going to call for the elimination of subsidies that "green" energy gets? If not then you truly don't believe that "We shouldn't prop up one business and hold down another". Put your words on the record. ARE YOU AGAINST SUBSIDIES FOR GREEN TECHNOLOGY? YES OR NO.

     
  • concerned posted at 12:07 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Stoneman agrees with Obama.

    In his June 13 post, Stoneman said.----''Let the market place dictate what happens''-- ( to which I agree)

    Stoneman also suggested that --''We shouldn't prop up one buisness and hold down another,''--( again to which I agree)

    SIMILARLY, Obama --''Has proposed with the G20 nations THAT THEY ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUEL SUMBSIDIES,'' ( again to which I agree)
    WOW!!! this is scary Stoneman , Thann and Obama agreeing on something?
    The subsidy costs are over $41 billion annually.'' ( for oil and gas)

     
  • concerned posted at 11:00 am on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Glenn
    Like most of your scientific analysis, your last post is meaningless due to lack of sufficient data and a list of variables such as land topography, speed, number of stops,( City vs country ) etc. However that being said, it doesn't mean you are wrong either.
    You did so much rationalizing in the latter part of your post , I was not sure what point you were trying to make. Surely you are not trying to make some kind of an argument that the externality costs of coal and gas approximates that of wind and solar. --Are you???

    I agree with you that the market place should dictate. That is why coal power plants are canceling like crazy and clean energy is on the move. Some states,Cal. for example, are refusing to buy power if it is produced by coal.
    The only thing that keeps producing pollution popular are a few antiques who want to hold on to producing puke for who knows for what reason.
    Some are so out of touch with reality that they would place a coal fired power plant within a mile of 183 homes if they thought they could make a buck.
    Glenn, You do understand that the Synapse study ONLY covered a small part of the health costs. The extternality costs are far greater than that single study showed. Got it??????
    When the general public become educated to the true costs of burning fossil fuels the Do It mentality is HISTORY. Only Sam will be left to call people idiots. It 's the best the Do It's can do.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 8:42 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned....

    It is funny how only fossil fuels get listed as having an external cost associated with it. No one ever lists the external costs of say ethanol. I just made a cross country trip and made some anecdotal observations. I made the observation that while I was burning fuel that did not have ethanol in it my gas mileage was 30.5 mpg. The tank of fuel that I used going through Nebraska and Iowa that had ethanol in it my fuel economy dropped to 29 mpg. When we got into Michigan and bought fuel that did not have ethanol in it the economy went back up to 30.5 mpg. So from my observations, it takes more fuel to drive the same distance. Furthermore because the ethanol is made from corn, that reduces the feed supply for farm animals thus driving up the price of feed making meat products more expensive. It also makes food products that are made from corn more expensive as well. This can all be directly tied to the government subsidies given for corn growers to make ethanol instead of food.

    The government needs to get out of the picking winners business and let the marketplace dictate what happens instead of artificially propping up one business and holding down another. I believe that green tech is the way of the future but it is not at the point that it is economically viable today. Now before you go clubbing me over the head with the Synapse study, remember that $1.6 billion of their externalities cost is an arbitrary number they picked out of the air. That leaves about $22 million in actual costs. Look the information up before calling me a liar.

     
  • Lakota posted at 2:43 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    Concerned,

    Yes...interesting to consider just what sorts of changes have occured in this world, and just how those changes ought to be addressed within our governmental system...and even...within the parameters of our constitution.

    The 16th century comparison to the "internet"...so to speak...was without a doubt...Sailing ships and the sailing trade. This is the medium which allowed the pre-revolutionary american economy to grow and flourish. Raw material were created within the agricultural American economy...and shipped to Britain and other manufacturing centers...and manufactured goods were shipped back to America. Slavery...of course...was considered essential to this system.

    This is a very interesting time in the history of the world IMO. There were many forces in the world which were leading towards the implementation of more freedoms and less dictatorial sorts of governmental systems. Cutting to the chase...the American revolution occured with it's associated consitutional form of govt.

    That original constitution (with it's associated bill of rights) turned out to be...beyond all expectations...a document which paved the way to a new world. But...why? Was it god's influence? Was it just luck? Was it the genius of the drafters? Well...IMO...it was a whole lot of things.

    I will approach just one of what I think is a tipping point in moving the U.S. and the world towards a new "internet" sort of an age...and I will only approach it in brief.

    I think it can be said with certainty that the "industrial age" was the next big step after the advent of the world travelling big sailing ships. I would say that the industrial age was largely...but certainly not wholly...promoted and grew as an american phenomenon. Was it the form of govt that is primarily responsible? Well...yes...to large extent. But then...how and why did the American economy convert from primarily agriculture as I described previously...to manufacturing/ndustry?

    It was the American revolution which is responsible for the beginnings of American heavy industry/manufacturing...and from those beginnings, an explosive growth occured. Britain refused to ship goods to the American colony which could potentially be used in an uprising. Therefore...Americans undertook the manufacture of those goods, and after the war...of course...that direction continued and expanded.

    100 years later it had become apparent that America was the driving force and main player in a revolution that has now changed the world more in 250 years...than all of the change since prehistoric times. Along the way we've done away with slavery, and given education and opportunity to a larger segment of society than has ever occcured or even considered in days gone by.

    All this musing hasn't gotten us to your original point...but your examples brought these things to mind. Let's just say that: The drafters of the U.S. constitution couldn't see into the future...but they were wise men who DID know a lot and they were well educated and had a great understanding of PAST history...which they took into consideration in the creation of the document.

    IMO...one of the truly brilliant aspects of the U.S. constitution is the inherent potential for change to occur within a defined context...and I think that the drafters were very cogently aware of exactly what and why they did what they did. Given the conditions which you've defined regarding state to state pollution...it seems only logical and right...that mandates be put in place that would protect the rights of the citizens of a state, from being negatively impacted by the pollution of another state. How that happens is another story...and one which I wish we had the original drafters to advise us on.

     
  • concerned posted at 11:45 am on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Lakota
    You make a good point. -There are some things that have developed since our constitution was written. Two examples would be interstate highways and the transporting of pollution from one state to another. I think there are some things that the feds would have to address - especially when they cross state lines.
    I know my brethren on the right will no doubt take me to task on that one. I will no doubt be accused of senility, demeaning little children and more.

     
  • concerned posted at 6:46 pm on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Sam strikes again
    Does anyone need further proof that ignorance is the pablum of the Do It's?

     
  • Lakota posted at 4:03 pm on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    concerned,

    Yes...and those hidden costs are coming more to light, and more people are realizing just how detrimental this scenario is to the people who make up our society. AND...isn't that adequate reason to pursue a fossil fuel reduction...and a new creation of a renewable enery base?

    I think it's interesting that one of the hallmarks of the Independent political movement is that of limiting govt to the "protection & defense" of society and the indiviual citizen. I'll bet nearly every poster in this forum would agree with that concept...which appears to be simple. Yet...we can easily end up in argument till the cows come home about what that means.

    IMO...you've illustrated very well that the facts show that the pursuit of clean and renewable energy is wholly in tune with that concept.
    ------------------------------------------------
    Sam Morgan: Thanks for once again proving that you have nothing of substance to say...and that you are willing to demonstrate just exactly what that looks like in full public view. You serve as a very useful example to others of how NOT to think...and how NOT to verbalize a cogent thought.............

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 1:37 pm on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    I see the idiots are out in full force today. Is it any wonder the country is in the condition it is???

     
  • concerned posted at 12:29 pm on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Great article Lakota;
    Your excellent article is an example of why people like Phil and the Do Its ''WANT TO LET IT LIE''. Ignorance is the pablum of the Do Its.

    One more thing to consider and a factor that drives the Do Its into a frenzy and that is when we bring up the HIDEN COSTS OF FOSSIL FUELS''. ( you touched on it)

    Fossil fuels--coal, oil,and natural gas -- are at present , America's primary source of energy, accounting for 85 percent of current U.S.fuel use. Some of these costs of using these fuels are obvious, ( except to a Do It) such as the cost of labor to mine for coal or drill for oil, of labor and materials to build energy-generating plants, and of transportation of coal and oil to the plants. These costs are included in our electricity bills or in the purchase price of gasoline for cars.

    But- some energy costs are NOT included in consumer utility or gas bills, nor are they paid for by the companies that produce or sell the energy. THESE INCLUDE HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEMS caused by air polution from burning of coal and oil; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; environmental degradations such as acid rain and water polution; and national security costs such as protecting foreign sources of oil.

    Since such costs are indirect and difficult to determine, they have traditionally remained external to the energy pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. And- since the producers and the users of energy DO NOT pay for these costs, SOCIETY AS A WHOLE MUST PAY FOR THEM, ( a concept to complex for most do its to understand) But this pricing system MASKS the true costs of fossil fuels and results in damage to human health , the environment, and economy.
    It is this kind of information that scares people like Phil and the local Do Its to death. That is why they always distract the debate to personalities like Thann and Elaine. It's the best these Do Its can do.

     
  • Lakota posted at 11:09 am on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    We are told...and expected to accept as conventional wisdom...that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the only ways to meet the huge energy demands of our modern world. A recent United Nations report on renewables indicates a far different scenario. According to these experts, renewable energy is not only capable of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear; it is already on its way to doing so. The growth of this sector is the industry’s best-kept secret. The report shows that it dominates nuclear power globally by a ratio of six to one. Despite the massive subsidies given the nuclear industry, wind energy is already cost-competitive. Other renewables, such as solar, will reach cost parity in just three years.

    It’s no surprise that the emergence of a new, infinite form of power should pose such a threat to the energy establishment. Unlike genes, viruses and vaccines, the power of the sun can’t be patented, nor can the air currents the sun generates to create energy in the form of wind. And here lies the dilemma. There’s too much free energy. It’s so plentiful that it can meet our needs several thousand times over. It's been calculated that just 1.3 percent of viable renewable energy could power 21 percent of developed economy needs in the next decade.

    So...why...IF our governments are sitting at the energy poker table with a full house in terms of renewables, why do they choose not to play their winning hand? Because there is a hidden partner in this game, influencing their every move...AKA corporate influence...AKA lobbyists? It's unfortunately true that Corporations, like casinos, are driven by short-term profit, not the long-term health of their customers. This isn’t just about greed...it’s enshrined in law.

    Governments, like corporations, would do well to remember who their stakeholders are. Increasingly our political CEOs act in contravention of the public interest. Subsidies and tax breaks for nuclear and fossil fuels dwarf the support handed out to renewables. As they did for the banks during the financial crisis, governments offer a liability safety cushion to the nuclear industry. When there is money to be made, the profits go to private industry; when disaster happens, the spills and meltdowns are shouldered by the taxpayer.

    There is a massive disconnect between what the world needs in terms of energy access, security and safety, and the cards we are dealt. Renewable energy not only offers the opportunity to restructure major grids and provide power to the masses. It can be decentralized, so that communities and citizens...including 2 billion people now without energy access...can govern their own energy needs. Thousands of small-scale renewable projects could leave our economies less vulnerable to shocks like sudden price hikes, explosions or the whims of dictators.

    It seems to me that there's never been a better time for embracing renewables....And yet the race to exhaust our disappearing natural resources continues. Recent documents released by WikiLeaks show that the United States and Russia are squaring off for a battle of supremacy over oil reserves in the Arctic...the exploitation of which will speed the process further...and...this seems to be lost on our leaders.

    Once, Western explorers traveled to the Arctic to push the boundaries of the human spirit and endurance. Now, corporate mavericks follow the same path to lay waste a pristine environment for a few more years in the pink.

    Governments need to stop gambling with our economies by propping up the status quo—and there are signs that it can happen. In Japan and Germany there is an extraordinary policy shift. If the third- and fourth-biggest economies in the world can pursue a nuclear-free, renewable energy infrastructure, then there is not only hope that other leaders will follow suit...but a model of how it can be done.

    There are opportunities for everyone in this new renewable energy world, from shareholders to employees. Market size is expected to exceed $2 trillion in the next decade. The renewable industry already employs 2 million people worldwide; in the United States wind industry workers now outnumber coal miners. New energy policies will help boost this growth, but even in the face of government opposition or apathy, the market is predicted to expand significantly. There is a quiet revolution taking place, and it is gaining pace and proponents.

     
  • concerned posted at 10:29 am on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    FINALLY SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE.

    Thank you Parachute for getting us out of the gutter and into something of substance.
    A most informative post. Thank you for making the effort to provide us with that great information. Keep up the good work.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:20 am on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Hunt
    I love the way you use Sam Morgan to support your position. You couldn't find anyone better. The man is a genius.

     
  • concerned posted at 9:09 am on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Tell Us Sam
    You made an accusation that I called Hunt's kids names. Please back it up;
    Until you can do that, you look very very foolish. AS USUAL!!!!!!!

    SAM DOING THE BEST A DO IT CAN DO; i.e looking stupid. AS USUAL!!!!!!!
    Nice try Sam.

     
  • Parachute posted at 8:51 am on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    Parachute Posts: 69

    Wind power is an important part of the human need for electricity. There has been a large push in the USA (and Utah!) to build more wind turbines and transmission lines to accommodate this smart and clean source of energy.
    The first quarter of 2011 saw over 1,100 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity installed -- more than double the capacity installed in the first quarter of 2010. The U.S. wind industry had 40,181 MW of wind power capacity installed at the end of 2010, with 5,116 MW installed in 2010 alone. The U.S. wind industry has added over 35% of all new generating capacity over the past 4 years, second only to natural gas, and more than nuclear and coal combined.
    Today, the U.S. wind industry represents not only a large market for wind power capacity installations, but also a growing market for American manufacturing. Over 400 manufacturing facilities across the U.S. make components for wind turbines, and dedicated wind facilities that manufacture major components such as towers, blades and assembled nacelles can be found in every region.
    Sounds like a win win position to be pro wind power. I can't understand why anyone would be opposed to such a positive force for the USA.
    As for the red herring of ad hominem attacks, it has always been understood in debate, that he who ad hominems, is he who already lost the debate.
    If you want to be a successful and strong debater, avoid using logical fallacies, such as Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people): where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
    I mean...do you want to convince people your side is correct? Then be logical! Avoid those naughty fallacies that demean your argument.
    And let the discussion continue with cogent facts and convincing conclusion.

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 9:09 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    Careful mike....Thann will likely start making fun of your grandpa now. He doesn't know any better than to redicule and call names

     
  • concerned posted at 6:45 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Hunt
    You havent had anyone back you up with any evidence. All you have is a bunch of Do Its saying I demeaned your kids. They need to quote where I was the one who made the comparison between them and me. Proof Michael .PROOF!!!!!!!

     
  • concerned posted at 6:39 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Tell us Hunt
    who would you like to be the judge??? Sam and Chapster?????
    You still havent given us the quote where I demeaned your kids. I simply ask you for the rational for your insults to both your kids and to me.
    I am waiting for the quote.
    Tell us HUNT what is wrong with what Lakota wrote. Be-spacific!!!!!!! Where did he go wrong in what he said???????

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 4:38 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    By the way, I love how you quote Lakota as if he were the final and great judge over us all. LOL!

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 4:37 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    So, I have Four people that back my position. You have one.

    Ok, once again you show your inability to keep an accurate score. You also show your inability to hold up your end of a bet.

    Note to everyone:
    Every bet that Thann Hanchett makes is just fluff. He is not a man of his word, hence you are wasting your time betting with that kind of man.

    My Grandpa once told me that any man who cant hold up his end of a bet, really isn't a man at all.

    Perhaps Thann will make fun of my dead Grandpa now.

     
  • concerned posted at 4:00 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    You lost Hunt
    As Lakota so eloquently put it, Quote---'' I support REALITY ....and the reality appears to me to be thus.. Mr. Hunt insulted Thann AND USED HIS CHILDREN AS THE VEHICLE for that insult . Thann commented back with a question about Hunts RATIONAL in the USE OF HIS CHILDREN, as a vehicle for that insult.'' end quote

    Shame on you Hunt using your children is such a cruel way. Have you no shame???????
    When do I collect my $50 bucks???????

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 1:46 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    So uh, when do I collect my 50 Bucks?

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 1:07 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    Wind power eh?

    Yesterday I was driving through Idaho Falls. They have at least 40-50 wind towers up on the hills outside of town. It was a nice breezy day....the kids and I stopped at a gas station for a drink and pit stop and noticed the breeze. Out of all those towers...there were MAYBE 5 that were actually operating. And...they were probably using a couple hundred acres for all those towers that were powering maybe a few dozen homes. Now there's a great use of resources!!!!

     
  • concerned posted at 11:29 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Opps I didn't re read or check my spelling on my last post. I hit the wrong key.

     
  • concerned posted at 11:24 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    To ''LET IT LIE'' ( AHA as Phil)

    Have you noticed that ''LET IT LIE PHIL'S '' answer to ''LETTING IT LIE ' is distraction?? Avoid refuting John Harrison's leter on wind power and falsely accuse some one of demeaning little children? What a theological clown this guy is .

    ''Let it lie'- Phil couldent let it lie if he wanted to . This sicko is suffering from a mallady called the ''FIXED ACTION PATTERN SYNDROME fed by his social attatchment to his mutual adoration society of Do Its.
    That ''fixed pattern '' cant be broken. He continus to respond to this forum while at the same time calling on others to ''LET IT LIE''. The only reason he contiues this fixed pattern is becaus of the possitive reinforcement he gets from the adoration society of Do Its.
    Go back and read the 40 comments on this thread and show me one post written by a Do It that is an attempt to refute John's article on wind power. All we get is this fixed pattern of writing insults at others- hoping to gain the adoration of other Do its.

     
  • Lakota posted at 11:17 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    OOPS...my previous writings posted up without me pushing the button...therefore...incomplete. But I'll let it stand as is. I think the explanation is apparent.

    I also think that wrangling about this is rather ridiculous. Lots of people have thrown out ad hominems here...probably you can include me. Why argue over it?

    I find Thann to be a person who has something to say and he says it very bluntly...and he provides a reasonable backup to his comments in general. Certainly he and I do not agree on a whole lot of things...and I'd say we do agree on some things.

    I sincerely wonder about the rancor that's displayed here...and I'm familiar with the history of the power plant too. But nevertheless...an exchange of ideas is something I enjoy, and I'm willing to take some insults, etc. But why wrangle over what I think are non issues.

     
  • Lakota posted at 11:09 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    Mr. Roundy,

    Your characterization of me "supporting" one person or another is incorrect and not borne out by my actual words...but rather...your personal conclusion which appears to be based on your own biases.

    I support REALITY...and the reality appears to me to be thus: Mr. Hunt insulted Thann and used his children as a vehicle for that insult. Thann commented back with a QUESTION about Mr. Hunt's RATIONALE in the use of his children as a vehicle for the insult which was

     
  • concerned posted at 8:59 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Phil
    I am not surprised you couldn't understand what Lakota wrote. He is an intelect ,you are a Do It. It is that simple.

    It was Hunt who wrote the offensive description explaining the action of his own children. NOT THANN!!!! If you are so sure it was Thann , perhaps you can quote his offensive words directed at the children . If you can't you have no case as usual.
    Since you are so fond at quoting scripture perhaps you should quote ---'He that calls his brother a fool is in danger of he- -'s fire.'' Also Phil remember one should not bear ''FALSE WITNESS.'
    The only thing you got right is that you were acting in a ''hypocritical way'' But we can only expect that kind of behavior from a Do It. It's the best a Do it can do when refuting John's letter on wind power. Nice try Phil[.[smile]

     
  • Phil Roundy posted at 12:37 am on Sun, Jul 10, 2011.

    Phil Roundy Posts: 150

    Wow!!!! Even though I rarely agree with what Lakota writes or even completely understand the "sometimes" rambling scripts. I'm as frankly stunned by his complete support of thann on the insulting children issue. Because he usually, at least seems to be well thought out.

    thann was completely in the wrong. I also stated that I felt thann insulted Mr. Hunt's children. That is the first impression I got when I first read it. And, the impression I've gotten each time I've read it sense then.

    I don't care if Mr. Hunt's story was a cute story about his children that he used to insult thann. Mr. Hunt's children didn't insult thann.

    I paraphrase: whoa be unto those him that offend these my little ones, for it would be better that a mill stone were tied around his neck and he was cast into the depths of the sea. (not a threat to thann, or his horses. Just a rough quote from Jesus Christ)

    Don't abuse, degrade, offend, etc... children. Anyone that does that should have no respect themselves. I don't react well to someone who demeans children and then denies that they have done it.

    By the way Michael, don't hold your breath on the $50 or even and apology.

    Like I said before, it's not worth the effort to even communicate with someone like thann. he never admits to any wrongs or faults. he's a one note song player and he needs to be marginalized and ignored until he goes away.

    I feel a bit hypocritical because I'm not perfect and I've cast a stone that I, perhaps shouldn't have but when it comes to children I get worked up a bit.

    That's my humble opinion.

    XOXO

     
  • concerned posted at 7:09 pm on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Hunt
    I have written three responses to your foolishness none of which was posted.
    You accuse me of insulting your children when in reality it was you who insulted your own children by comparing them to a ''senile old man suffering from alzheimer's disease. SHAME ON YOU!!! While it was Hunt's intention to insult the old duffer,- in reality it back-fired because he only insulted his own children. What a clown....And he thought it was ''CUTE'' What a clown act.

    The only response Hunt got from concerned was ABOUT THE ACTION HE DESCRIBED nothing about the children. The question concerned ask was about the action described by Hunt. -And it was done in the form of a question. NOTHING MORE!!! There was NOTHING SAID except about the behavioral action as described by the children's father.
    And this clown has the nerve to accuse concerned of INSULTING HIS CHILDREN;-
    Only a Do It could be so dishonest. It's the best a Do It can do I am glad Hunt has no problem -'WITH ANYONE INSULTING HIM'' Perhaps he can be more considerate of his own children in the future.

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 1:49 pm on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    Lakota,

    I honestly don't have a problem with anyone insulting me. Especially if they have felt that I insulted them. I do have a problem though with someone insulting my innocent children. If you have children you understand.

    I've said rude things to you, and you handle it because you are a man and come back at me. I deserve insults from you, you know that and I know that. You have never said anything about my children. I think you realize that there are a few things off limits. Thann, doesn't quite have that understanding.

     
  • Lakota posted at 10:16 am on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    Mr. Hunt,

    I posted a comment regarding your latest blog...but I guess it got lost in the ozone, because it hasn't shown up.

    Let me just get to the bottom line.

    You characterize your story as "a cute little story"...which it is...but your analogy to Mr. Hanchett converts your story to what I think most folks would characterize as an insult. And...when you throw out an insult...you're likely to get one back. Aren't you???

     
  • taccom posted at 10:26 pm on Thu, Jul 7, 2011.

    taccom Posts: 115

    That was pretty low.

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 5:10 pm on Wed, Jul 6, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    Lets put all of this into context so that I can collect my 50 dollars. In the Letter "Bonavita Brigade" Thann Hanchett kept throwing out some crazy meaningless score comparing Elaine Bonavita to "the good old boys" Something like this "That is why the score is Elaine ==3 the Do It's ==0".

    I thought it was silly and that his scoring system didn't have any merit, so I told a story about my children playing football and likened it to Thann and his score keeping. This is the story:

    "The other day I watched my children play football out in the yard. My two year old son started to catch on to the game and wanted to play. Everytime he was given the ball he would run a few feet and throw the football on the ground and yell TOUGH DOWN!
    It was really quite amusing to watch.
    I think of it everytime Than calls out the score: ELAINE = 3 DO ITS =0
    I think Thann is a lot like my little 2 year old. He calls tough down when there really wasn't a touch down."

    Thann's reply was this:

    "Michael Hunt

    Do you think your childrens strange behavior is the result of Heredity or environment?"

    I didn't like the implications that Thann Hanchett made. I thought it was a cute little story about an innocent two year old trying to understand the game of football. Thann came back with a dig calling my childrens behavior strange, which strange behavior was a result of either heredity or upbringing.

    I thought it was pretty low for Thann Hanchett, to make rude implications about my children because he lacked a credible argument.

    Three other people saw it the way that I did.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 4:00 pm on Wed, Jul 6, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    I copied mine word for word also. The problem is that you stopped part way through the whole quote. That is why I said you misquoted the study.

    This is that part that you ALWAYS leave out. "By way of contrast, an active replacement of the least efficient power plants in Utah with energy efficiency and either gas generation or renewable energy results in very high cobenefits to the state. We find that for each MWh of coal generation avoided, Utah avoids $69 - $79 of externality cost, a benefit that exceeds the cost of most electrical generation."

     
  • concerned posted at 3:21 pm on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    PHIL
    Did you see how Sam Morgan and Michael Hunt's social attraction syndrome manifest itself once again , in their fixed action patterns?? Can you now see how this little mutual adoration society '' CAN'T let it lie?' It is a form of mental illness. Glenn on the other hand does NOT fit in this category.' He sincerely believes that what he writes as being superior to what others may say.
    Phil--- I challenge you to find one post where Sam Morgan EVER provided a study to back up his silly notions. Just look at Sam's post of June 5th. Sam Morgan is the classic example of the Do It mentality doing the Best a Do It can do.

     
  • Lakota posted at 3:20 pm on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    Just for kicks...let's make a little revision to Sam Morgan's latest comment. Let's say someone who had not addressed Sam, decided to comment about Sam in public conversation on this blog...and used the precise wording that Sam used in his latest offering. Does this look like a post that many here might consider to be insulting and take issue with?

    Sam Morgan is a rude, bitter, old man and has nothing better to do with his pitiful life than argue with people just because it gives him something to do. I'd be willing to bet that if all of us quit coming here he would still come just to talk to himself. Its the best an alzheimers patient can do!!!
    ------------------------------------------
    The term "all of us" certainly makes this post appear to be promoting a mob mentality. Sorry...but that's how it looks from here............

     
  • concerned posted at 2:54 pm on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Michael Hunt
    One more time Hunt write out the words I said that were demeaning . You CAN'T!!!!
    Don't tell me were it's found or base your argument on something some bird witted Do It like Sam Morgan may have said;
    Write out the demeaning words. Name the place and I will come with my $50 After you have written the demeaning words. You CAN'T-- CAN YOU MICHAEL HUNT.???????Please explain what I said that was demeaning in my post of June 1.

     
  • Lakota posted at 2:33 pm on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    Mr. Hunt,

    I took a look at the "demeaning" post that you reference, and decided to foolishly respond even though it's none of my business. Sometimes the signals I get thru my tinfoil hat lead me to my own peril. ;)

    It seem to me that your reference to Mr. Hanchett in comparison to your children's game is what prompted Mr. Hanchett's response. Your original comment to Mr. Hanchett did not appear to me to be anything but a pure insult aimed directly at him. Possibly in your mind it was a good and viable comparison...but I suggest that if someone had aimed such a comment at you or at someone you cared about, you would see it as: An Insult.

    It seems to me that his response was not all that bad under the circumstances...and in fact...would be primarily understood as a rather humorous comeback. Although...certainly...taken out of context, it would likely be construed as an insult.

    Now I've read and participated in these blogs enough to understand the conflicts between folks reasonably well I think. That being the case, I know that Mr. Hanchett can get pretty darn blunt, and that he typically holds his positions very firmly and without equivocation. Calling a spade a spade isn't always a bad thing IMO, but it can certainly ruffle feathers.

    I'm sure that many folks would say that Mr. Hanchett deserves whatever he gets in the way of ad hominems...however...even a tinfoil hat wearer like me can see that...when you throw out an insult...you're likely to get one back..............

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 2:31 pm on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    Sam,
    Thanks for having my back on this one. Normally I wouldn't give much thought to Thann's rudeness and dirty comments, but he's the one throwing out 50 dollar bills, and I thought it was a good bet.
    The question of the day is: Now that I have four witnesses that back the fact that Thann's comment towards my children was disrespectful, is Thann going to be a man and hold up his end of the bargain?

    This will be a good test to see if any of Thann's bets are good, and to see if he is a man of his word. He is throwing out bets all the time, are they just a phony distraction?

    You gotta love it baby.

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 1:14 pm on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    Michael, I'm behind you on this one too. Thanns comments were totally uncalled for. He's a rude, bitter, old man and has nothing better to do with his pitiful life than argue with people just because it gives him something to do. I'd be willing to bet that if all of us quit coming here he would still come just to talk to himself. Its the best an alzheimers patient can do!!!

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 11:13 am on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    Thann, I would like to put up, not shut up. I made the claim that you made a demeaning comment about my children. I stand by that and will take your bet.

    That "demeaning" comment is found in the comment section for the letter titled: "Bonavita's Brigade"

    You made the comment Wednesday June 1, 2001 at 7:05 PM.

    Later comments made on Friday June 3rd from Chapster and JJN also backed my statement. They believed, as I did that your comment was demeaning to my children.

    I have two witnesses besides myself, and that stands in my book. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)

    Can I stop by your house and collect my $50.00?

     
  • concerned posted at 9:06 am on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Chapster, Chapster Chapster
    Tell us why I should put up a wind mill when other people are doing it for us ? Hmmmmm?And no one is suggesting that wind be our only source of clean energy. Johns last line was how about solar panels? --and there is much more out there, And by the way Chapster the wind is always blowing some where .
    One of my riding students was at my place last week for a lesson. She is working on that huge solar project just across the Nevada line into Calif. You can't believe the magnatude of that project. THE NEVADA BOY'S WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO COMPETE with the things that are going on out there. They are history!! It will never puke a pound in Sigurd. To far away from the gas source. Gas prices are going up and people want clean energy. Tell us Chapster who is Nevco's new partner??? Who is financing them??? How are they doing on the new pipe line????
    Do you really think it will puke a pound on the good people of Sigurd?? Hmmmmmm??????
    Those evil environmentalists will never let the lights go out in Lyman. Have faith Chapster the sky is not falling in.

     
  • concerned posted at 8:10 am on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    I copied it word for word, I guess it is a matter of who you believe.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 4:04 pm on Sat, Jul 2, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    Once again I see that you are misquoting the Synapse study. Here is the direct quote from the study on what it recommends.

    "Reducing the level of in-state coal-fired generation would result in significant benefits for residents of Utah and downwind states. This reduction could occur, in small part, from a reduction in load in Utah, or the integration of new renewable energy onto the grid in Utah and surrounding states. However, Utah is a net electricity exporter in an extensive and highly integrated Western electric grid that extends from the Rocky Mountain States to the Northwest, and from the Northwest down to California. Because of the dynamics of this system, it is unlikely that modest amounts of EE or RE in Utah alone would effectively displace coal-fired generation in Utah. Therefore, the co-benefits from the “passive” integration of EE and RE are modest relative to the externality costs of generation. We estimate that total co-benefits for EE and RE range from a high of $27 per MWh of fossil generation avoided, when wind or solar photovoltaics are employed, to a low of a cost of $4 per MWh, when high water-use concentrating solar thermal systems are employed.

    By way of contrast, an active replacement of the least efficient power plants in Utah with energy efficiency and either gas generation or renewable energy results in very high cobenefits to the state. We find that for each MWh of coal generation avoided, Utah avoids $69 - $79 of externality cost, a benefit that exceeds the cost of most electrical generation."

    Did you notice that they suggest using GAS GENERATION? Even the vaunted Synapse study says that gas plants should be built.

     
  • Chapster posted at 10:29 pm on Fri, Jul 1, 2011.

    Chapster Posts: 348

    Thann, Thann, Thann, you disparage yourself more than anyone I know. If you look at my only other post on this article, I praised John for his concerns. I suggested that he also implement his own environmentally conscious solution for himself. That is hardly negative. I, for the record, have advocated for years that those who feel so strongly about this issue, go ahead and put in their own windmill and solar power, replete with batteries and inverters. No one is stopping them.

    Sam, we both know that windmills work when the wind blows, which is intermittent. I bet that house has batteries. Just the same, I'm sure they had the ability to tie into Rocky Mountain Power, when needed. Hard to give up on fossil fuel power. Too bad these environmentalists don't do as I suggested above. Prove their felicity to their cause, and do as you saw.

    Glen, I, too, am happy that PRIVATE companies are doing this. Good for them.

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 12:34 pm on Fri, Jul 1, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    Dim witted? Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...hehehhe [beam]

     
  • concerned posted at 9:46 am on Fri, Jul 1, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Stoneman
    Your not there yet Glenn-- untill you admit that placing any kind of puke plant next to 183 homes is bird witted.

     
  • concerned posted at 8:37 am on Fri, Jul 1, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    M. Hunt.
    How can the people go to the evidence where there is NONE Hmmmmmmmmm?
    I will bet you $$50 you cant quote where I was mean to little children. Put up or shut up!!!
    No Michael Hunt - we are not talking about Natural Gas Mr.Harrison never mentioned N.G.the article is on WIND POWER.
    Where is the Data you ask??? In the studies stupid. I quoted most of the important data in a summary of the ''Synapse study. ( Wed June 29 10;35 - go back and read it if you can )--- Are you questioning that data and the conclutions of the study????

    Only a person with a Do It IQ would expect me to write the intire study on this forum which limits us to 600 words. If you had a brain and are really interested,you would look up the study yourself rather than to have me copy it for your convenience. I doubt you would believe it anyway.

    Lets see if you believe this'
    One of the dirtiest coal- fired powerplants in the nation ( see top 50 dirtiest plants) IPP produces 12 tons of VOC's per year. This little Natural Gas puker will produce about 50 tons per year. Do you know what is contained in VOC's and what it causes??? Perhaps you should find out before mouthing off.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 6:11 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    To Concerned...

    That has been my position ALL ALONG. You have just been too blind to see it.

     
  • concerned posted at 3:54 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Phil,
    I don't think the Do it's who use this forum CAN do as you suggested that is --''
    LET IT DIE''
    You see Phil,- people like Sam, the J Birds, Chapster and Hunt are mentally ill. They suffer from a condition known as the -''FIXED ACTION PATTERN SYNDROME''precipitated by their -''SOCIAL ATTATCHMENTS'', This small mutual adoration society feed on each others negative comments with nothing of substance to offer.--It's the best these Do Its can- do as they have no case.
    NEVER--- Phil, have this little band of SOCIALLY ATTATCHED Do Its EVER provided any kind of scientific or economic studies to support their foolish notions that placing a puker next to 183 homes is either safe or of any economic benefit when compared to the costs. The best the Do It's can do bash people.( that is where they get their positive reinforcement and a desire to post)
    Prove me wrong Phil by showing me the studies.
    If you can't do this, you have no case and are simply doing the best a Do It can do.
    With their form of illness, I doubt very much that they are capable of LETTING IT ''DIE.

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 1:15 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    Thann, It's always fun to watch you skirt the issues. Lets break down your last comment:

    If the people are to judge if I am mean to little children, YOU will need to provide the evidence that I did something mean to them. I look forward to your evidence. (They can all go to the comment section and read what you wrote and judge for themselves.)

    Part 2
    You are asking for the impossible explaining something like a study to a Do It; If I did, it would be followed up by a most scientific explanation from Stoneman which would be more reputable in the minds of a Do It than anything coming from health professionals. (NICE EXCUSE, WHERE IS THE DATA??)


    As I stated before, this study is only a study on the health effects on fine particle pollution from coal . (LIKE I SAID THIS IS A TIRED IRRELEVANT COAL STUDY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A NG PLANT!)

    It does-NOT for example cover the health effects of ''VOC's which comes in higher amounts from Natural gas plants. (VOC'S? WHERE? SHOW ME THE MONEY!)

    Rather than for me to explain the study and face the wrath of the Do It's , I will use the words of the Utah Physicians for a healthy Environment. YOU CAN REFUTE THEM!!!!!!! (OH YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE! THAT PIECE OF DATA HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK!)

    QUOTE
    ''UPHE ''believes the study was well done and credible''
    (THANKS FOR THAT QUOTE DEALING WITH COAL FIRED POLLUTION)


    Furthermore, UPHE considered the estimate of health related economic impacts in this study to be a GROSS UNDERESTIMATE because the study limited its assessment to deaths, cardiovascular and respiratory caused hospital admissions, asthma -related emergency room visits and minor restricted activity days (MRAD) ,-days in which people had to reduce their activities due to symptoms but could still work,
    This study clearly did not and COULD NOT reliably estimate the further costs of a long list of such outcomes --such as life long impared lung function,increased rates of cancer, adverse consequences to pregnancy and embryonic development, increased rates of immunosuppression-related diseases, chromosomal damage, diabetes, and especially loss of intellectual capacity and neurodegenerative diseases.--If these pollution related consequences were to be calculated for their economic impact then the total EXTERNALLY COSTS WOULD LIKELY BE EVEN MANY TIMES HIGHER.''
    (YOU HAVE NOTHING! IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? )

    In a future post I will compare the cancer comparisons between natural gas and coal plants. it may surprise you.
    (IS THAT A PROMISE? I WANT TO SEE RELAVENT NUMBERS! YOU HAVE NOTHING! )

    This is hilarious. Thann, you have absolutely nothing.

    YOU GOTTA LOVE IT BABY!

    You should take a permanant marker and write "Owned by Mike Hunt" on your forehead.

     
  • concerned posted at 12:40 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    Stoneman
    You best be careful Mr. Stoneman. Your post of June 29th makes far to much sence for a Do It.
    Are you sure you are OK??????

     
  • concerned posted at 9:48 am on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    To Michael Hunt
    If the people are to judge if I am mean to little children, YOU will need to provide the evidence that I did something mean to them. I look forward to your evidence.

    Part 2
    You are asking for the impossible explaining something like a study to a Do It; If I did, it would be followed up by a most scientific explanation from Stoneman which would be more reputable in the minds of a Do It than anything coming from health professionals.
    As I stated before, this study is only a study on the health effects on fine particle pollution from coal . It does-NOT for example cover the health effects of ''VOC's which comes in higher amounts from Natural gas plants.
    Rather than for me to explain the study and face the wrath of the Do It's , I will use the words of the Utah Physicians for a healthy Environment. YOU CAN REFUTE THEM!!!!!!!
    QUOTE
    ''UPHE ''believes the study was well done and credible''
    Furthermore, UPHE considered the estimate of health related economic impacts in this study to be a GROSS UNDERESTIMATE because the study limited its assessment to deaths, cardiovascular and respiratory caused hospital admissions, asthma -related emergency room visits and minor restricted activity days (MRAD) ,-days in which people had to reduce their activities due to symptoms but could still work,
    This study clearly did not and COULD NOT reliably estimate the further costs of a long list of such outcomes --such as life long impared lung function,increased rates of cancer, adverse consequences to pregnancy and embryonic development, increased rates of immunosuppression-related diseases, chromosomal damage, diabetes, and especially loss of intellectual capacity and neurodegenerative diseases.--If these pollution related consequences were to be calculated for their economic impact then the total EXTERNALLY COSTS WOULD LIKELY BE EVEN MANY TIMES HIGHER.''
    In a future post I will compare the cancer comparisons between natural gas and coal plants. it may surprise you.

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 8:12 am on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    To Thann Hanchett AKA Concerned:

    Please break down your study so that we can all undersand it. This Study that was "Done in Utah for the People in Utah", was it a study on the effects of a Natural Gas power plant, or just pollution in General? Are the effects in Rural Utah singled out or was this just a general regional study that included other States in the Region?
    Does it take into account the sparsly populated area that we live in?
    If you were to break the numbers down, how many deaths would we see on average in Sevier County due to the "Studies"?
    Please break it down and show your numbers. Also please site your source so that I can check your numbers.
    Or, it is the best a fear-mongering don't do it can do?

    Now for the being mean to little children..I'll let everyone else be the judge. They can read what you wrote. So far, I think everyone who has commented saw your comment as dirty.

    BREAK DOWN YOUR STUDIES INTO MEANINGFUL RELAVENT STATISTICS.

     
  • Glenn Stoneman posted at 11:25 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Glenn Stoneman Posts: 216

    I for one am glad that the windfarm is being built in Idaho. I am also glad that there is a windfarm in Milford. These were both built by PRIVATE companies, they were not mandated by government. Just as the natural gas plant that will be built in Sigurd will be built by a PRIVATE company. The government has no right to demand that a private company build one form of generation over another. The only right that the government has is to regulate the emissions.

    As far as building dams to get electricity, good luck with that. The environmentalists are trying to take down the Glen Canyon dam. What makes you think that they will allow you to build a new one.

    As to the solar farm that is being built in Cedar City, good for them. Again it is a PRIVATE company that is building it, it is not mandated by government.

    To my fellow DO ITS, building green energy power plants is not a bad thing. As more are built the cost will come down. Green energy is a good thing but it CAN'T be our only source of electricity.

     
  • concerned posted at 4:12 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    To Michael Hunt
    The study I quoted was done in Utah for the People in Utah
    You are the one who described your childrens behavior and you accuse me of demeaning little children ? Please explain how it was I who demeaned them. Is that the best argument you can come up with to refute the studies quoted??
    PROOF POSITIVE IT'S THE BEST A DO IT CAN DO--THEY HAVE NO CASE.
    REFUTE THE STUDY DO IT.

     
  • concerned posted at 3:37 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    NO CASE
    IS PHIL THE ONLY DO IT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THE DO IT'S HAVE NO CASE??????
    If the Do it's expect to be successful puke pushers they must have either a very naive community, ignorant or corrupt politicians ,a lunch bunch who stand to benefit or a pack of dedicated Do It's who will buy into anything they are told-with no studies to show that pushing puke is a good thing
    With no studies to show that pushing puke benefits anyone I think I would follow Phil's advise and work under the radar..
    It's the best the Do It's can do.
    THEY HAVE NO CASE,

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 3:36 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    I bet Thann nearly wet himself when this subject posted.

    Of course Thann will pull out irrelavant, tired coal plant arguments that have nothing to do with our situation in Sevier County. He will quote studies that have no relevancy in a rural population.. that is tied in with studies for a coal plant (not a natural gas plant mind you.)
    Thann will used his stupid saying like: "Its the Best a Do It can do." and make Hot Rod Hundley mad by abusing his catch phrase: "You gotta love it baby."

    Perhaps Thann will get frustrated and demean small children as he has done in the past?

    Do we really want to get into this again?
    Do we really want to open a channel for Thann to spew his hate, distortions and insults?

     
  • Lakota posted at 12:27 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    Speaking of one note songs: What sort of song might we expect a career employee of a coal burning power plant to sing?

     
  • Sam Morgan posted at 12:13 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Sam Morgan Posts: 583

    I had to laugh this morning while I was driving through goshen knowing that there would be a bunch of comments on this thread when I got back to the computer. I was just coming into goshen and noticed a home on some acreage that had their own wind generator....and guess what? It wasn't moving AT ALL! Anyone been outside today and seen how windy it is? I certainly hope those folks are hooked up to UPL and are just using that joke of an eyesore to supplement their power needs.

    By the way....I was on a drive down to delta to check on the SOLAR POWER PLANT that I am invested in! Anyone else do anything today beside complain?

     
  • concerned posted at 10:35 am on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    concerned Posts: 1002

    The puke pushers have spoken.

    The lights will go out in Lyman and the world will live in outer darkness for time and all eternity.
    What a bunch of Do It;s. They still havent got the Idea that you have to figure the COST of burning coal to it's returns. The latest study done in Utah clearly PROVES that.
    In October 2010, the study -''ENERGY EXTERNALITIES AND CO-BENEFITS IN UTAH'' commissioned by UTAH STATE agencies reported that air pollution leads to 202 premature deaths per year,154 hospitalizations for respiratory illnesses per year,and 175 asthma- related emergency room visits per year regionally.

    AND THOSE HEALTH STATISTICS ARE ONLY FROM SMALL PARTICLE POLLUTION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE CARCINAGENIC DEATHS WHICH WOULD SEND THE NUMBERS MUCH HIGHER.
    A group of Utah doctors,-Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, cite the report in urging Gov. Gary Herbert to FACTOR IN THE EXTERNAL COSTS of coal-fired power in the State's energy policy. --UTAH COMMISSIONED THE STUDY and Synapse Energy Economics Inc. itemized the health (and water) costs of Utah's reliance on coal-fired power plants. --( NOW GET THIS DO IT'S)

    THE ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS TOTAL -$1.6 to $2 billion annually. , translating to $36 t0 $43 per MWh. The report says Utah should replace its polluting plants with WIND POWER AND SOLAR POWER
    Did you get that Do It's?????
    John is right-and the above blogs entered by the Do it's is nothing more than vain babbling and meaningful nothingness. With absolutely NO BASIS for what they have written. --THE DO IT'S HAVE NO CASE!!!!!!!!!
    Unless of course they can refute the above studies.
    GOOD LUCK ON THAT DO IT'S.

     
  • Phil Roundy posted at 10:01 am on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Phil Roundy Posts: 150

    Harrison and his bunch are stirring it up again. This is just another letter to the editor to try to keep their one note song out there for people to argue about.
    Don't get sucked it.
    Let it die.
    If they don't get responses they will be emasculated eventually. You arguing with them is what they want.
    Don't do it..... Just, don't..... It does no good.... they won't listen to reason. they have their Dogma and that's what they are spewing. Don't aid them.

    XOXO

     
  • Lakota posted at 9:59 am on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Lakota Posts: 233

    How about the U.S. undertaking a concentrated effort on the order of the "Race for Space", in a phased effort to do away with fossil fuel generation, and create clean and renewable generation?

    Sure it will cost $...and lots of them...but it will also create jobs...and over time...create a far improved economic and environmental situation...IMO. It's a whole lot better way to spend U.S. tax $ than fighting wars over fossil fuel on the other side of the world.

    Why does China have the best Solar and Wind technology...and why are they speedily increasing their reliance on such? Because their environment is horrible...and their govt has the option of doing whatever they want...unlike the U.S...so they do what makes sense for them.

    Here in the U.S. we must deal with powerful fossil fuel lobbys and their propaganda...and with citizens who unthinkingly accept that propaganda.

    OH...and speaking of govt subsidies...fossil fuel robber barons are certainly pocketing their share...............

     
  • Freedom posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Freedom Posts: 119

    Here we go again John. Wind power is great but remember it is not a profitable operation unless subsidized in some manner by the Federal Government resulting in more corporate welfare and government regulation. Also remember that on average the wind turbines are generating only about 1/3 of the time. They have to rely on the weather. Coal and gas operates 24/7. You and others like you are obsessed with polution as you call it. Yet the emmissions from the latest coal technology are far below those from the older plants. Because of emotional reaction generated by propaganda fomented by radical environmentalist groups, we won't have one of these plants which would have brought employment and more money for the County. There is no concrete proof that the latest coal technology produces or causes any particular condtion or disease, just conjecture and wishful thinking.

     
  • Michael Hunt posted at 7:56 am on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Michael Hunt Posts: 110

    How about a clean burning natural gas power plant? Why spend all of our money on Chinese produced wind towers and solar panels? We have loads of Natural gas right here in the good ol USof A. I prefer to spend my money right here on my soil.

     
  • Chapster posted at 5:18 pm on Tue, Jun 28, 2011.

    Chapster Posts: 348

    Sounds good, John. Ready for your electricity bill to go up? I hope the wind is consistent enough there to provide reliable power. Anxious to see how the end consumer welcomes the added cost, whatever that happens to be.

    Is it a typo, or is the project due to be completed Nov. 2011? Hydro works as long as there is water. Experience has shown that neither resource is limitless, same as NG. The difference will be one is a known quantity, the other isn't.

    I've encouraged solar/wind for years, on the individual level, but I get shouted down when I do. Why don't YOU try that? I admire your environmental concerns. Show us your sincerity and pull yourself off the grid.