• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Bye Bye Reilly

Garys said:
Probably not soon. Depending on who the AG ends up being, there might be no change in those regulations. Booo.

Gary
Click to expand...

FWIW, that isn't a "regulation" that stops that... it's the AG being an
a**h*** and using overly expansionist interpretation of the ammunition
sales regs. (expanionist to the point that it violates standard
interstate commerce practices and possibly federal law on some level).

As far as the letter of the law is concerned, buying ammo online, and
having it shipped to MA to someone who isa valid license holder, is
110% legal.

-Mike
 
I'd rather concentrate on the AG race. Mihos would be ideal. He's not going to win. The others are both anti, its just a matter of extremes. However, with a PRO in the AG seat, any major crap from the legislature or Governor would have to be supported by the AG. We have a LOT more to gain by fighting the AG race here.
 
Words from a pundit:

By Holly Robichaud - Boston Herald.

Deval Patrick. As I predicted early on, the liberal wackos have taken control of the Democratic Party with the nomination of tax-it-all-Deval. This Democratic nominee wants higher taxes, more spending, tuition breaks for illegal immigrants, less restrictions on convicts just for starters. Does the image of Mike Dukakis come to mind? Yes! Patrick’s ultra liberal tendencies should be enough to scare independent voters into letting Republicans keep the Corner Office.

JT
 
Healey has been blessed with Deval, he's got a lot going against him. But we still have to see if she can run with it or not.
 
One should always be careful of what you wish for. After yesterday, the next Governor will be either Healy or Patrick. For gun owners, Patrick will be worse -- far, far worse. A shooter's vote for Patrick is suicide and a shooter's vote for Mihos is an effective vote for Patrick.

Indeed, if you are one of those folks who can look beyond guns for a moment, Patrick is still a disaster. I'm surprised that it didn't come out in the campaign, but some of his views when Ass't AG for Civil Rights are extreme, and guaranteed to produce nothing more than outright class warfare. This guy is not, in fact, a Clinton clone: even Clinton was so upset by some of Patrick's legal filings as Ass't AG that he had to order them recalled.

What we really need is for shooters to organize as a deliverable block of votes, and then have an articulate representative sit down with Healy or Reed Hillman (who may be more approachable) about what it takes to deliver those votes. But, then, I'm dreaming; shooters are not and never will be well enough organized.

As for the Middlesex AG race, Len Frisoli isn't that bad a guy, though he shot his mouth off a couple of times to the media concerning his lawsuit vs. NAMBLA. But again, absent a degree of organization, coordination, and communication that ain't on the horizon, shooters will have little way to influence this race and Frisoli will lose.

The future is not bright.
 
Damn you RKG, you're probably right unfortunately. [crying] [sad]

Well...nothing else we can do but move forward and hope the Poodle can stop Dingbat Deval and hope that somehow Larry can win.
 
I haven't seen Larry do much campaigning or at least getting media coverage of it. Maybe he's going to start now? I don't see why Coakley should be considered unbeatable. If he goes after her with a good campaign, why can't he win?
 
Well... like I said to my wife... "at least Reily is out... but if that Patrick gets in... we are just as screwed."

Not even the gun issues... Higher taxes, against wind farms, for gay mariage and agianst our right to vote on it...

I mean this guy just screams "I'm Smarter then you and have more money... so there for, I make the rules"
 
derek said:
Very good post RKG.

You really think Frisoli will be beat by Coakley?
Click to expand...

Yes. The realilty of American politics is that very few people cast votes based on their perception of issues. We all preach ideology, but as a class we vote based on image, impression, "personality" and the like; it is sort of like Haagen-Dasz ice cream. (A few years ago a small ice cream manufacturer in Brooklyn got the idea that if he came up with a ritzy sounding name (that, in fact, has no meaning), glitzed up his packaging, and increased the price by 75%, people would buy it. He was right.)

Martha Coakley, who is in fact a lovely person and a pretty good District Attorney, has the political machine required to address the reality of American politics. I doubt that Frisoli has, or would even attempt to acquire, the same thing. He'll talk about issues; people will nod appreciatively; and then they'll vote for someone else based on image.

That is why I said that, if you want to influence an election based on an issue on which a group of folks have a common interest, you have to organize. In effect, you form what amounts to a voters' union, where the appointed spokesman has the ability to promise to deliver a block of votes in exchange for whatever and the ability to deliver on that promise. If you convince a candidate you have that power, and if your block is large enough, you can have an impact. My guess is that, if you had the time, energy and resources -- and cooperative voters -- you could put together 140,000-odd shooter votes, which would be enough to tip the election.

But shooters of this world would never submit to being organized this way. Read the posts on this thread: some are going to vote for Mihos (nice guy but no chance of winning and therefore a wasted vote); some are not going to vote at all; and the net impact of the shooters as a group is zero'd out.

Sorry, but you asked.
 
matt1956 said:
Well... like I said to my wife... "at least Reily is out... but if that Patrick gets in... we are just as screwed."

Not even the gun issues... Higher taxes, against wind farms, for gay mariage and agianst our right to vote on it...

I mean this guy just screams "I'm Smarter then you and have more money... so there for, I make the rules"
Click to expand...

I don't know what you think you know about wind farms, but they are a disaster and the fact that someone is against them is in their favor.

1. Wind generators produce no "power" and therefore displace (or avoid the cost of) no other power plants.

Electricity consists of power and energy. Power, in watts (or megawatts) is the ability to meet instantaneous load on demand. Wind machines get no credit for power, since they cannot be counted upon to be dispatchable on demand. Energy is power apply to do work over time, in watt-hours. When the wind is blowing, a wind generator can displace a portion of the spinning output of other plants, and thus is properly classified as an "fuel saver," but not a "power provider."

This means that whatever costs are associated with wind, but economic and otherwise, do not avoid any of the costs (economic and otherwise) of building enough power plants to meet our power demand.

2. Wind is not economic. In part because it is a new technology, and therefore has not benefitted from learning curves and economies of production scale, wind is very expensive to construct. And while people think that wind is "free" to operate, in reality it is not becuase, for lack of power credit, operating a wind machine "costs" the costs of the equivalent conventional plant that it is displacing from dispatch (but not from construction). In fact, there has never been a wind machine constructed yet that paid for itself: all were subsidized and most have since been abandonned.

Wind power has it place: remote areas (or at sea) when there is no other alternative and when energy storage media are practical to shift energy use. It has no place in a terrestrial power grid.
 
"U.S. wind energy installations now exceed 10,000 megawatts (MW) in generating capacity, and produce enough electricity on a typical day to power the equivalent of over 2.5 million homes, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced today. A megawatt of wind power generates enough to serve 250 to 300 average homes."

Economic benefits:

Supplying electricity: Wind was the second-largest source of new power generation in the country in 2005 after natural gas, and is likely be so again in 2006, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Creating jobs: Wind turbine manufacturing companies have recently opened facilities in Iowa (Clipper Windpower), Minnesota (Suzlon), and Pennsylvania (Gamesa), and wind turbine orders are creating jobs all the way down the supply chain, sometimes in areas that do not have a large wind resource, such as Louisiana.
Environmental benefits:

Less global warming pollution: Today’s 10,000 MW of wind power are keeping 16 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2), the leading greenhouse gas associated with global warming, out of the air EVERY YEAR. That’s equivalent to the amount of CO 2 that would be absorbed by over 9,000 square miles of forest, an area about the size of Vermont.
Better air quality: If the same amount of electricity as that generated by America’s 10,000-MW wind turbine fleet were instead produced using the average utility fuel mix, it would emit 73,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 27,000 tons of nitrogen oxide per year, as well as other pollutants such as mercury.
Energy security benefits:

Saving fuel: Today’s 10,000 MW of wind power saves about 0.6 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/day), or about 3.5% of the natural gas used nationwide to generate electricity.
Domestic, inexhaustible energy source: America’s wind resource potential is vast--theoretically more than twice enough to meet current U.S. electricity supply. President Bush said earlier this year that wind could meet 20% of the country’s electricity supply (the share that nuclear power provides today).
 
THE CASE FOR WIND "FARMS" EXAMINED

No-one claims that wind turbines produce electricity more cheaply or more efficiently than conventional power stations. Being unpredictable and uncontrollable the wind is a difficult energy source to work with. Merchant ships are not powered by sail; airlines do not use hot air balloons. Those who advocate wind "farms" base their arguments on three propositions:

1) that they produce energy without the problems associated with nuclear power - risk of accident, problems of waste storage;

2) that they do not deplete fossil fuels, which are finite;

3) that they produce energy without harmful emissions - C02, SO2 and Nitrogen Oxides, gases associated with global warming and acid rain.

For these arguments to be valid it is clear that wind "farms", if developed in sufficient numbers, must significantly reduce emissions, must close a nuclear power station or must measurably slow the depletion of other fuels which will soon be exhausted.
 
Reliability of Wind Power
Opponents of wind power often claim erroneously that, as an “intermittent generator”, wind power cannot be run as base-load to replace coal-fired power stations and cannot contribute to peak demand without expensive dedicated long-term storage. Since no-one is proposing to run a whole electricity grid on wind power alone, these claims are simplistic. In each of our State studies (pdf file 435KB), the clean energy mix substitutes separately for both the contributions to peak-load (as measured by Equivalent Firm Capacity or Effective Load-Carrying Capability) and to base-load (as measured by annual electricity sent out) of a coal-fired power station.

One critic of wind power claims that a single heat wave in western Europe, during which there was little wind, demonstrates that wind power is unsuitable for providing electricity to the grid. But, if this argument were valid, then a single breakdown of a coal-fired power station would also rule out coal. In practice all types of power station - fossil, nuclear and renewable - are only partially reliable and all require some backup. Coal-fired power stations break down less frequently than there are calms in the wind, but when a coal station breaks down, it is generally out of action much longer than a typical wind calm.

Therefore the comparison of the reliability of wind and coal power cannot be done deterministically, based on a single peak event. The correct approaches consider the effects of three different probability distributions:

the availability of coal-fired power stations;
wind power; and,
electricity demand.
These are then combined with the use mathematical and or computer models to calculate the reliability of electricity grids with different penetrations of wind power.

This was done by a multidisciplinary research team in CSIRO and ANU in the 1980s. Three different methods gave the consistent result that wind power is indeed partially reliable. It has economic value in substituting for the capital cost of coal-fired power stations, as well as for the fuel burnt in such stations. These results were confirmed by overseas researchers.

For the special case of small penetrations of wind power into an electricity grid, the value of wind power as “firm” (i.e. 100 per cent reliable) capacity is equal to the annual average wind power generated. As the penetration of wind power into a grid becomes very large, the value of wind power as “firm” capacity tends towards a limit. At a wind energy penetration of (say) 20 per cent, some additional peak-load (hydro or gas turbines) is indeed required to maintain grid reliability. But this peak-load plant is only a fraction of the wind capacity and does not have to be operated frequently. It is equivalent to reliability insurance with a low premium. And it does not diminish significantly wind’s reduction of CO2-emissions.
 
so tell me how powering the entire Cape area would not reduce some energy cost, or more over, reduce dependancy on oil form countries that hate us.
 
Last edited:
JonJ said:
I'm for the wind farm on the Cape for the mere reason that Kennedy has to see it.
Click to expand...

And then there is always that reason as well.

That in it's self should be enough.

I don't think that wind farms are a end all be all solution. But they are a start and WILL help and if no one starts them... then no research will be done to make them better, more efficent.

Point is that, just like any other alternative fuel source, government continues to put it down and prevent the real tested research of it because that is what the big oil companies pay them to do.

Ever ask yourself why there are no e85 stations even allowed in MA even though it burns a hell of a lot cleaner then gas... but I thought ma was concerned about emissions?
 
Last edited:
matt1956 said:
so tell me how powering the entire Cpae area would not reduce some energy cost, or more over, reduce dependancy on oil form countries that hate us.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it would make a huge difference overall... but as they
say, every little bit counts. IMO if it can reduce the stress on the
supply side of the grid that isn't a bad thing.

At least RKG has some sound points...... the thing is.... we damn well know
that teddy K doesnt want it there just for the "eyesore" factor.

I agree with JonJ though that itd be worth it just to piss off ted.

-Mike
 
1. The rule that one gets zero power credit for wind is not something I made up or just a matter of opinion; it is the universal rule of grid operators (including ISO New England). So you still have to build your gas-fired or oil-fired or whatever-fired power plants.

2. A comparison of wind plant availability to either the Availability Factor or the Reliability Factor for other plants doesn't work for a couple of reasons. First, the AF can be controlled, both in terms of value (such as by maintenance practices) and timing (such as by scheduling regular maintenance outages during the spring and fall lulls). Second, you can control the impact of unit AF on system reliability by building sufficient numbers of plants, since the occurrence of unplanned outages is largely a random factor (to wit: the forced outage of one unit implies nothing about the probability of a concurrent forced outage of any other unit on the system), while wind plants share a common energy source the insufficiency of which takes all of the plants out of effective service.

You can build wind plants because you want to save on incremental fuel costs when the wind is blowing and don't care about how much capital cost you are incurring. You can build wind plants because you're in the desert or on a sailboat (or mountaintop) in a remote area, and something whenever is better than nothing. You can build wind plants because they make you think you doing something noble and that makes you feel good (and you're willing to pay through the nose for feeling good).

But don't fool yourself into believing that wind plants, now or ever, will replace conventional power plants and the cost of having them.
 
Anyone need a new avatar?

reillyloser.jpg
 
RKG,

The only problem is that we will NOT ALLOW the construction of ANY POWER PLANTS in MA without going thru 20 years of litigation.

I used to work as a nuclear power engineer on subs, later a licensing engineer for nuclear commercial power plants, and finally as an instrumentation engineer for Yankee Rowe (RIP). I left all this in 1979.

Due to strictly NIMBY and politics, we just won't allow anyone to do anything. Meanwhile we bitch and moan about using power, energy, gas, oil, coal, nuclear, etc.

When was the last time we built a nuclear power plant? coal/gas fired plant? gas refinery?
 
I agree, as I said, that they will not replace conventional power... they are ment to supliment it... thus, lowering overall cost.

Secondly, I disagree with your point on their operating cost. Your facts source is either misleading or wrong.

The operating cost is no more then operating a conventional power generating system, they just don't require you to fuel that system with a, well... a fuel. SO there for, they are going to provide an overall less costly means of energy, that also will not harm the enviroment of feed a terroist.

Don't forget that the oil companies have flooded the market and our government with faults and misleading information simply to prevent the spread and research into alternate energy sources.

The only ones that hurt from using an alternate energy like wind farms is the oil companies and Ted kennedy.

As a consumer... you would see a slight decrese in pricing.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I'd LOVE to install a wind turbine on my property and do a net metering hookup. Anything to reduce the hit of the monthly bill. However, it would have to be an efficient and economical installation which is only now starting to appear.

I LOVE the turbine they put at Mass Maritime. Spins in very little wind (the goal post ribbons were just barely moving and the turbine was spinning nicely when I saw it.)

Friend of mine works for the company that installed the MMA turbine and tells me that there will be a residential model soon for about $6k plus the hookup. Now THAT is what I'd consider. Yes, $6k would buy a lot of months of power (52 to be exact) but in the long haul, it would have a positive return.

Net Metering is the practice of hooking up the power source so that if you produce more power than you use, your electric meter runs backwards. It can in effect reduce your bill to zero (you can't go below zero) It acts like a huge bank that you make deposits. Lets face it, if you are in a good wind location (and not everyone is) how much power do you use during the day when everyone is at work or school? how much in the middle of the night? With careful energy conservation practice in the home, you can easily turn back the meter for 50% of the day.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Bye bye Beto
Replies
5
Views
774
looser38
looser38
oops; sending threatening text during CT firearms hearings; buh-bye...
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
LoginName
LoginName
Bye Bye Evans
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
9K
AHM
AHM
Gun Maker Weatherby Says bye bye to California
Replies
17
Views
2K
Whutmeworry
Whutmeworry
Got one of them 'the weed' cards...kiss your 2nd amendments rights bye-bye
Replies
2
Views
841
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom