Unobstructed Ocean Views More Important Than Wind Power

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:10 pm

ted and all the other hipocrite snobs on the cape better just stfu about renewable power sources.

I question these wind farms as well, but, it is for financial reasons.

Seems to me that putting windmills miles offshore is a lot more expensive than land based ones.

There are a hell of alot of sand dunes on the outter cape that ought to have similar wind conditions. Put them there.

As for the aesthetics, I saw quite a few of those things out west and thought they look kinda cool.

As for birds flying into them, who gives a fuk. We got plenty of them.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:50 pm

I remember being out in California and seeing a gazillion windmills on hills off of I-15 headed to Oakland.
If we need more electricity, and we do, I have one word:
NUCLEAR (and you can pronounce it any way you want).

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:57 pm

You must of missed professor dinsdales lecture about nuclear taking more energy to make than it gives back. I guess the frenchies missed it too since they generate most of their electricity this way.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:44 pm

You want to bury the spent fuel in your backyard, then fine put in a nuke or two.

The wind is stronger and more consistent at sea than on land. The two biggest problems with wind power are:

1. It's not consistent or predictable. It's useless for "base load" supply unless you can find some better way of storing the enegy than we have now.

2. Most areas where there is a useful amount of wind available are far from populated areas. This is good for the NIMBY attitude, but you have to put up the wires to transport the electricity. For large scale generation this is not a trivial matter, and also not popular with the NIMBY set.

All things considered, though, wind is the cheapest renewable electricity source now available, on a strict $/kWh basis. Prolly less than half the price of solar PV. And it doesn't create a byproduct that will still be deadly in 20,000 years.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:05 pm

smackaholic wrote:You must of missed professor dinsdales lecture about nuclear taking more energy to make than it gives back.

You might wanna link that one up.

Although it might be hard to find the link, since it's an outright lie... but you knew that.

BUT -- Nuke power is still a fucking scam, and horribly inefficient. And as time goes by and uranium stocks become less available and the high-quality stuff goes the way of the dinosaur (which it's well on its way to after just 50 short years of the Nuclear Age), it becomes less and less efficient.

Anyhoo -- so, whose genius idea is it to put metal windmills out in corrosive saltwater?

Genius freaking plan there. "Hmmm... where should we put this? This metal shit will probably last forever without being coated in the desert.... I guess we better put it out in the ocean, instead."

I guess that's why the person in question didn't become a rocket scoentist instead of his current profession.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:47 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
smackaholic wrote:You must of missed professor dinsdales lecture about nuclear taking more energy to make than it gives back.

You might wanna link that one up.

Although it might be hard to find the link, since it's an outright lie... but you knew that.

BUT -- Nuke power is still a fucking scam, and horribly inefficient. And as time goes by and uranium stocks become less available and the high-quality stuff goes the way of the dinosaur (which it's well on its way to after just 50 short years of the Nuclear Age), it becomes less and less efficient.

Anyhoo -- so, whose genius idea is it to put metal windmills out in corrosive saltwater?

Genius freaking plan there. "Hmmm... where should we put this? This metal shit will probably last forever without being coated in the desert.... I guess we better put it out in the ocean, instead."

I guess that's why the person in question didn't become a rocket scoentist instead of his current profession.

not an outright lie, dinzy, just a bit of an exaggeration. you did use the fact that it takes considerable energy to produce uranium and the rest of the nuke infrastructure as a strike against nuke power. personally, I think nuke is a good idea for the time being. as for where to bury it, that is a way overblown "problem". Yeah, the shit is nasty and takes a few trillion years to break down, but, there isn't that much of it volume wise. We have plenty of desolate places in the middle of nowhere that are perfect for storing this crap.

as for windmills, i think they are a good idea in some areas. i just doubt that a few miles offshore is a particularly good choice. They are used on the plains and also atop ridges out west. i have been at sea and on mountain tops. i think, on average, mountaintops have atleast as much wind and logistically make a hell of alot more sense than at sea which, as professor dins points out, happens to consist of some rather nasty shit called sea water.

give all the dork snorklers on the cape their windmills, but put them atop sand dunes where they are less likely to be rammed by a certain drunken senator as he attempts a tack. I would think that you could get just as much consistent power from the shore based ones simply by building them a bit taller. you could spend the same or less doing this as they wouldn't need to be beefy enough to stand up to 40 ft storm waves.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:38 pm

There's a pass in cen cal called altamont that is filled with windmills. Most of it is owned by a private corp that built them back during a time when they gave private enterprise big tax breaks for creating renewable energy sources. There are more than 5,000 of those suckers up there, but some of them aren't working anymore due to outdated equipment.
Still the company that owns them sells the energy to the utility companies, who in turn sell it to us. By law the state utilities have to buy energy from anyone who produces it in excess, provided they have the power grid set up to transfer it.

Pretty shitty system, privatizing air for energy profit at the expense of the consumer. This company makes a couple mil in revenue every year, and all we the consumer get is energy at higher prices, not lower prices.

It's not all that much different from the energy brokers that soaked this state back in the gray davis years and turned California from a highly profitable state to one that was deeply in debt.

However I believe that since the tax breaks are no longer there, the company doesn't invest any more into maintenance than it has to, to stay profitable. Last time I drove through there during a windy day, I'd say that less than 30% of the windward side ones were moving.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:05 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:There's a pass in cen cal called altamont that is filled with windmills. Most of it is owned by a private corp that built them back during a time when they gave private enterprise big tax breaks for creating renewable energy sources. There are more than 5,000 of those suckers up there, but some of them aren't working anymore due to outdated equipment.
Still the company that owns them sells the energy to the utility companies, who in turn sell it to us. By law the state utilities have to buy energy from anyone who produces it in excess, provided they have the power grid set up to transfer it.

Pretty shitty system, privatizing air for energy profit at the expense of the consumer. This company makes a couple mil in revenue every year, and all we the consumer get is energy at higher prices, not lower prices.

cry me a fukking river, why don'cha? they spent their money building those windmills and they deserve to charge whatever the market will bear

It's not all that much different from the energy brokers that soaked this state back in the gray davis years and turned California from a highly profitable state to one that was deeply in debt.

However I believe that since the tax breaks are no longer there, the company doesn't invest any more into maintenance than it has to, to stay profitable. Last time I drove through there during a windy day, I'd say that less than 30% of the windward side ones were moving.

perhaps they do require maintenance. if they are making so much fukking money as you claim, it would make alot of sense to keep them operating. sounds like maybe it's just a shitty run company.

Trampis · Post by **Trampis** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:38 pm

Over here in Eastern Washington we have wind farms all over the place,and they want to put in more so there must be some profitability to them.Before they droped them in I wasnt sure if I wanted my skyline dotted with those big things,but now that they are there they look kind of cool.

I know that the closer you get to western Washington/Oregon and the peacenic environmentalist types the less likly you you are to see wind farms. They dont want it in there back yard. I think Ive heard of three potential wind projects that have run into problems.One in the Columbia Gorge towards Portland,one in Ellensburg(central Wa.) and one somewhere near Seattle.

Off the top of my head I can think of five energy sources we have here in easter Wa./Oregon.One coal plant,several natural gas plants and hydroelectric dams,one nuclear plant and the aforementioned wind farms.No blackouts for us,if one doesnt work at a given time,flip the switch to the other.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:38 pm

Yeah, a private comapany has no incentive to keep their money-makers in working order.

I mean, it's not like they spent huge money building a windfarm, so I can see where they wouldn't want to keep the product it manufactures pumping.

Because everyone knows, the government is on top of things, and every project they touch turns to gold.

Hard to believe someone would espouse such stupidity, then again, look at the source.

MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION is obviously the answer.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:43 pm

perhaps they do require maintenance. if they are making so much fukking money as you claim, it would make alot of sense to keep them operating. sounds like maybe it's just a shitty run company.

No they aren't, they're maintaining enough units to stay profitable, but no more than that. The profit recovery time to upgrade or replace a lot of the units is just too long. Much like electric cars, and partial home solar systems, you're looking at 5-10 years minimum before you break even. They figure that technology will leap ahead of them before they see a profit, so they are treading water, waiting to see. I know the guy who oversees the management of the windmills, and he told me that when some of the windmills begin to break down, they part them out to maintain the others.

There are a bunch of those windmills that are just 50 foot tall steel poles with the windmill parts on the ground below. Next time I drive thru there I'll snap a pic or two.

The next generation of homes are going to have solar components built in. It's just a matter of time before solar panels on the roof are the roof itself. There are a lot of solar products out there, but the cost is still too high for most people to justify.

About 4 years ago I looked into converting to solar for one of my houses, but to have it be a completely solar house, with storage capacity included and the whole installation done, they were talking as much as 30-35K to save maybe $2000 a year, maybe a little more. Even at half that, it's a long haul, and the guarantee on the equipment was only about 20 years.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:05 pm

I keep hearing the same arguement between the pro/con pv crowd. the cons say too expensive. the pros say mass production will fix that.

i have 1 question. WILL mass production mean substantial price reductions? If it did, it would seem to me that some smart fella with a lotta start up capital would have jumped in and done it. i suspect that the truth is, no matter how fucking many you make, the economy of scale thingy will only bring the price down by a fairly small amount.

i think they already make sense......in san diego and phoenix. But, I think other energy sources are gonna have to get a lot more expensive before I see any pv shingles on my roof.

thermal solar systems, imo, make alot more sense. they are simple, cheap and quite efficient. another thing i think you will see soon is much more use of something that is very cheap as an insulator, earf. Building homes partly underground or pilling the dirt up around them makes them much easier to heat/cool.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:25 pm

The wind farms I've seen are on the hills between Los angeles and Bakersfield and I rarely see them turn. Then there are a shitload up the same I-5 (not I-15 Wolfman) near the Pacheco Pass as you go from the SJ Valley to the Central Cali Coast. I rarely see any of those turning either.

Getting rid of depleted uranium is a piece of cake. You know those things they put on Navy ships (Close in Weapons Support - Gatling type guns ) and A-10 aircraft Gatling guns? All of that shit is depleted uranium from the spent rods. The Navy fires that stuff off of the ships and it goes straight to the ocean floor after target practice.

I thought the wind chimes that don't spin were from the Gov. Jerry Brown days and not from Gay Davis. Seems to me that solar power out in the deserts are a better deal. I'm pretty sure Mikey knows a hell of a lot more than anyone here about solar technology.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:39 pm

ooops--I meant I-5, I realize I-15 runs from LA to Vegas--- and yeah--weren't all those glorified pin-wheels called Brown's Folly ??

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:30 pm

Not to split hairs or anything but..

I-15 doesn't start in or even go through LA. It starts in San Diego, a few miles north of the border, and ends at the Canadian border. It does go through Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, but not LA.

As far as wind generation technology, believe it or not it has changed a lot in the past 30 years and those old turbines along Pacheco Pass (and the ones you see in Altamont and on the way to Palm Springs) bear about as much resemblance to the current technology as a Model A does to an AMG Mercedes.

The current state of the art in utility scale wind turbines has a variable pitch rotor with a diameter of over 100 meters, and produces about 6 MW at full power. Smaller ones are available too, but much larger and much more efficient than the 20-30 year old technologies.

(1 MW in power plant capacity is generally considered to be enough to supply between 500 and 1000 homes)

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:40 pm

Mikey,

I know the technology has improved, but, to restate what I said, and point out what smackaholic just asked, if they are so good at generating electricity, why aren't we seeing them? Why aren't the old ones being replaced with the new?

I think that question pretty much answers itself.

The only place I've ever seen the windmills turning every time I've been there is out by Palm Springs, but then again it's been awhile since I've been out that way.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:05 pm

actually my question didn't have a damn thing to do with pin wheels. i think they are a proven good idea.

my question was about pv. will mass production bring down the cost as much as mikey and his hippie friends claim? if so, maybe they will make sense for places not in the desert.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:24 am

smackaholic wrote:actually my question didn't have a damn thing to do with pin wheels. i think they are a proven good idea.

I just read this:

WILL mass production mean substantial price reductions? If it did, it would seem to me that some smart fella with a lotta start up capital would have jumped in and done it. i suspect that the truth is, no matter how fucking many you make, the economy of scale thingy will only bring the price down by a fairly small amount.

as applying to the windmills.

However:

my question was about pv. will mass production bring down the cost as much as mikey and his hippie friends claim? if so, maybe they will make sense for places not in the desert.

I believe the same concept applies. If replacing the existing windmills was cost effective it would have been done.

Not sure where you live, but I see these non functional whirlys when I drive by them at least once a month.

Plus, there are a lot of places where wind is a constant, like for example the high desert in lancaster/palmdale. yet, no windmills but every time I have to drive thru there, it is windy.

As for PVs, at this point they are high end home shit. But just like GPS systems, they will become the standard. Just give it 5 years.

And don't expect people here in EQ country to be building underground anytime soon.

Better to be tossed around above it than be buried under it.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:56 am

I'm not suggesting you fukkers tunnel underground. Just build into hillsides or pile the dirt up around the sides. Either way it helps a bunch with heating/cooling.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:05 am

It's a nice concept but the American and illegal alien public will out consume the resources available. Why spend money to build alternatives when soccer mom will pay $4/gallon and take the fat little turdlettes through drive thru?

Run up that credit card you fucking bitch and bankrupt your soon-to-be ex-hubby. Those wind chimes are not the answer as demand keeps increasing. Why waste the time and effort? It's not big oil that is fucking us, it's the debtors that continue to live beyond their means.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:11 am

smackaholic wrote: will mass production bring down the cost as much as mikey and his hippie friends claim?

Obviously, but who puts up the constant capital? It's a massive amount, it doesn't create surplus value and when it's larger than the rate of variable capital, you have economic crisis and that's unacceptable, yes? Sounds to me like the STATE should step in and tax everyone till their pips squeek.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:12 am

Mister Bushice wrote:Why aren't the old ones being replaced with the new?

I think that question pretty much answers itself.

Yup, it does.

Government interfering with free markets... recipe for disaster.

http://www.southpoint.com/states/ca/windmills.htm

So, since it obviously isn't an issue of cost or profitability... what is it then?

Thank your Big Government.

Big Government is the answer to all, right?

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:46 am

Yeah, but Dinsdale - if you're talking about a national grid rather than an isolated incident - you're talking about a massive outlay of money that no-one but the state can provide, the infrastucture is more than the private sector would invest in.

And if it's a matter of national importance - if you're genuinely interested in alternative energy as an alternative to foreign escapades, you're acknowledging a conflict between the private sector and the national good.

See You Next Wednesday · Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:11 pm

What is funny about wind is that yes it is the cheapest per MW, yet considering that wind is variable and in fact tends to blow mostly when it is not needed, it's MWs are not nearly as valuable.

Also, wind operates at about a 35% capacity factor, solar (not PV, but large solar thermal fields, also known as Concentrating solar) only have about a 25% capacity, but at least it delivers energy in the middle of the day in the summer when it is most needed.

What do these numbers mean. It means that you are spending almost $2 billion dollars to build transmission out to Tehacapi that will only be used 35% of the time. It means that the western states will spend $5 billion dollars to build a transmission line from Wyoming to California to deliver renewables. Don't be scared about the energy portion of the bill coming up, be scared about the transmission portion.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:39 pm

Trampis wrote:Over here in Eastern Washington we have wind farms all over the place,and they want to put in more so there must be some profitability to them.Before they droped them in I wasnt sure if I wanted my skyline dotted with those big things,but now that they are there they look kind of cool.

I know that the closer you get to western Washington/Oregon and the peacenic environmentalist types the less likly you you are to see wind farms. They dont want it in there back yard. I think Ive heard of three potential wind projects that have run into problems.One in the Columbia Gorge towards Portland,one in Ellensburg(central Wa.) and one somewhere near Seattle.

Off the top of my head I can think of five energy sources we have here in easter Wa./Oregon.One coal plant,several natural gas plants and hydroelectric dams,one nuclear plant and the aforementioned wind farms.No blackouts for us,if one doesnt work at a given time,flip the switch to the other.

I don't want to get into this argument, but wind farms are only profitable because of REGULATION. Sure, Avista Utilities has wind farms in Eastern Washington, but they are also guaranteed recovery of those costs by YOU, the ratepayer.

Producers of wind electricity can sell their excess electricity to the larger utility companies....and guess what? Those companies are REQUIRED to by that electricity at an already pre-determined price under federal law (PURPA)

that it all. go back to arguing with each other.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:43 pm

Mister Bushice wrote: About 4 years ago I looked into converting to solar for one of my houses, but to have it be a completely solar house, with storage capacity included and the whole installation done, they were talking as much as 30-35K to save maybe $2000 a year, maybe a little more. Even at half that, it's a long haul, and the guarantee on the equipment was only about 20 years.

Hasn't come down any. About $40K to retro fit a house for solar, and the savings is still about $2k/year.

The only way it would make sense is if you could sell back your excess electricity to the grid. Which, in Idaho, is pointless because the utility would pay you by giving you a credit on your bill. What bill? So if you do it, you wind up racking up huge credits on a utility bill you will never see.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:27 pm

Dog wrote: The only way it would make sense is if you could sell back your excess electricity to the grid. Which, in Idaho, is pointless because the utility would pay you by giving you a credit on your bill. What bill? So if you do it, you wind up racking up huge credits on a utility bill you will never see.

Weird. A friend of mine a had a waterwheel on his property, and if it flowed good and churned it out, he got a check for a few bucks in leiu of a bill. If he used more than he produced, he got a regular bill, which I don't think ever exceeded about $5.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:19 pm

mvscal wrote: But instead of getting serious about energy independence, we have inane fantasists babbling about big fans and solar power and other pie in sky fairy tales.

For someone who doesn't understand squat about history you sure do live in the past a lot.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:44 pm

mvscal wrote:Oh and I've forgotten more history....

Too bad you didn't understand it.

Have fun living in the past and you can take your 'workable solution' talk and blow it out your ass.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:30 am

mvscal wrote:No I live in the present, And now means hydrocarbons. That's it. Period. End of fucking story.

Keep 'em pumping! Fuck "solar" and all of these other (swiftboated) fantasies.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:45 pm

WAR Soylent Green

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:25 pm

88 wrote:If prices continue to rise (and there is every reason to believe they will), the Fischer-Tropsh process will become economically viable and we'll have all the oil we need.

Not to mention extraction from shale, which would make the USA by far the world's leading oil-producer.

Frankly, I think OPEC are truly being some very serious dumbasses right now. They're right on the verge of killing the Golden Goose, and they know it. They're attempting to walk that fine line of cost-effectiveness. But what they're very grossly underestimating is American's ability to solve problems and dig themselves out of a hole. And once OPEC themselves get the ball rolling towards more cost-effective means to benefit from our own overabundant hydrocarbons, their reign of economic dominance comes to an end... forever. Then they'll realize how stupid it was to push Americans into the alternatives, and they'll realize how badly they got worked over the last 60 years, as their oil fields become tougher to harvest, and their #1 consumer isn't in the market anymore, because they left 99% of their hydrocarbons in the ground, just saving it for a rainy day.

If anything, OPEC should be setting prices that discourage alternative processes.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:44 pm

88 wrote:I too trust American ingenuity.

Well, since it's shaped the vast majority of the way the world operates today, that's a damned safe bet.

BUT... BIG GOVERNMENT has to feed itself, and favors expanding its "grow or die" persona over that of free markets dictated by American Ingenuity.

Sad.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:23 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
88 wrote:I too trust American ingenuity.

Well, since it's shaped the vast majority of the way the world operates today, that's a damned safe bet.

BUT... BIG GOVERNMENT has to feed itself, and favors expanding its "grow or die" persona over that of free markets dictated by American Ingenuity.

Sad.

How very ingenious. You would think that Americans were running that government.

warren · Post by **warren** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:23 pm

I don't understand any of this argument over these things you guys call fossil fuels and renewable energies and stuff. Hell, I don't even know where gasoline comes from.

I just want to know why Theodore Kennedy is so worried about a big propelor off in the ocean and he wasn't bothered at all about a sedan in the Chappaquidick with a pregnant woman gargling water in the passenger seat.

Oh, I remember now, he had a date with a qroquet mallet and a mamosa that morning and couldn't be bothered.

Rack that Kennedy, he's SOOOO sensitive about polluting our waterways.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:11 am

warren wrote:I don't understand any of this argument over these things you guys call fossil fuels and renewable energies and stuff. Hell, I don't even know where gasoline comes from.

I just want to know why Theodore Kennedy is so worried about a big propelor off in the ocean and he wasn't bothered at all about a sedan in the Chappaquidick with a pregnant woman gargling water in the passenger seat.

Oh, I remember now, he had a date with a qroquet mallet and a mamosa that morning and couldn't be bothered.

Rack that Kennedy, he's SOOOO sensitive about polluting our waterways.

^^^^^^^^^^
Is so ignorant on so many levels that it beggars the imagination.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:30 am

R-Jack wrote:
BSmack wrote:
warren wrote:I don't understand any of this argument over these things you guys call fossil fuels and renewable energies and stuff. Hell, I don't even know where gasoline comes from.

I just want to know why Theodore Kennedy is so worried about a big propelor off in the ocean and he wasn't bothered at all about a sedan in the Chappaquidick with a pregnant woman gargling water in the passenger seat.

Oh, I remember now, he had a date with a qroquet mallet and a mamosa that morning and couldn't be bothered.

Rack that Kennedy, he's SOOOO sensitive about polluting our waterways.
^^^^^^^^^^
Is so ignorant on so many levels that it beggars the imagination.
Maybe the first part, but not so much since it is obviously in jest.

That was in jest, right?

The second part. Yes, completly ignorant. Only an ignoramous would think that that Teddy didn't pollute the waters with empty beer cans along with the car and chick.

For starters, though it is possible that a Theodore Kennedy was also involved in an unreported automobile accident on Martha's Vineyard, I can say with 100% certainty that said person would not have been the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Second, anyone familiar with the actions of one Edward M Kennedy on that night knows that were there any bottles in that car, they would have been bottles of hard liquor. Never let it be said that Edward M. Kennedy would ever pollute the waters with anything as pedestrian as beer.

3rd, though I am no fan of NIMBY issues, I don't at all see the linkage between this issue and a car accident over 35 years ago.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:08 am

Hey Mister--you gotta problem with the name Theodore ??

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:50 am

Ted Kennedy wasn't a big enough fan of the beaver.

Certainly not as much as he was of his own drunk ass self.