or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wizard69

Dont be so damn gullible here, CO2 has not been proven to be an issue in the quantities being produced. In fact the latest research from NASA shows no increase in global temperatures for a decade. The so called link between CO2 and the supposed temeorature increases is the result of a computer model that has failed repeatedly to produce results reflecting reality.As for life CO2 is required by all plant life on the planet! This is basic science. So ask yourself...
More importantly that plant would generate continously compared to a solar plant that goes dark 50% of the time and is only generating optimally part of the day. ID even go so far as to say that maintenance would be cheaper in the long run.I don't have a problem with Apple wasting its money, after all they earned it. What I have a problem with is the massive waste of land for a low impact and inefficient energy production system. We are already talking about at least...
What is wrong with gas or nuke?Gas is one of those resources that you either use or it gets wasted. Where I grew up if you drilled a well for a house you often ended up with natural gas in the water, it literally seaps out of the ground all on its own. I remember as a kid the well being drilled, it wasn't that deep and you could actually hear the gas bubbling up. Eventually my father capped the well and hooked it up to a grill. The gas didn't go away so...
Everything requires maintenance and frankly wind turbines are amazingly low impact in this regards. Ground level solar electric systems are not by any means maintenance free.They aren't any more of a danger than any other human built structure.This is the statement i most have problems with. First off land only covers 30% of the earth! Second; these solar farms are most often sited on land that would be ideal for farming or residential use. Third; population...
Maybe but why incorporate it into the town?
Nope. The cost of the panel's is only part of the problem, you need to buy the land and develop it. Development can be very expensive as you need to strip the land of vegetation and rework it so that the installations are fairly even and dont obstruct each other. In other words you need to remove hills and valleys or other wise create structures so that your panels are presented to the sun in a clear and regular manner. It would be a huge waste of money to allow...
Actually you can, many states are very liberal in this regards and in one case residence went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. You really need to check up on your state laws as it is very different from one to another. In the end all the developer has to do is convince the local authority that it is a good thing. That can mean suggesting of increased tax revenue but the wiser person in me suspects that payoffs are a big part of these land grabs.
Possibly! That wording could as you point out be indicative of something sleazy going on - lets hope not. I do find it strange that the town had to extend its limits to cover this area. I just don't know why Apple would want to have another governmental entity to deal with. Maybe somebody local to the area can chime in.
By the time that comes out it will be a 2015 model!Seriously though wind energy is a much better use for all of that land. What Apple is doing here is very wasteful of a very limited resource.
The other possibility is that it is a planned Apple leak to spur interest. This is exactly what is required to spur interest without actually revealing anything about the iPhine that we don't already know.
New Posts  All Forums: