Question

[Plane]

QUESTION OF THE WEEK
The last question of the week asked if offshore wind power is a viable
source of electricity. Seventy-five percent felt offshore wind farms
are a viable source of electricity, while twenty-four percent did not.
Here’s what some of our readers had to say:

“One need look no further than the Netherlands and Denmark, which
have
large arrays of windmills to capture the energy of onshore wind.
Obviously, one has to be careful to pick an area where the winds blow
with enough strength and frequency to justify the expense.”  R
Sobchik

“From the Phoenicians, to the Dutch, to the Danish today, wind power
has proven both expedient and valuable. Certainly, wind power has its
negative aspects, but overall, it can provide needed power at
reasonable costs with practical utility.”  D. Schendel

“The visual beauty should be compared to transmission lines or oil
derricks.”  R. Arnold

“The California experience with land wind turbines has been less than
stellar. On hot summer days, when the air conditioners are all on,
there's no wind. With all the wind turbines in California, they provide
less than 1% of our power needs.”  J. Davis


This week's question concerns President Bush’s energy objectives
outlined in his State of the Union address, calling for a 20% reduction
of gasoline consumption over the next decade and a mandatory fuels
standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative
fuels in 2017. Bush also called for hybrid vehicle research and the
development of clean nuclear and coal fuels, plus advancing the usage
and expansion of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.

Do you think President Bush’s proposed future energy objectives are
feasible?

Submit your answer at: http://link.abpi.net/l.php?20070129A14


- Dai Perry, Assistant Editor

[Michael Tee]

Were these planned for California?  And if so, will these wind farms adversely affect surf conditions?  Surfer dudes say, Don't fuck with the perfect wave, dude, or things could get gnarly.

[BT]

Wind energy is a valid source for supplemental alternative energy, just don't put them up in Martha's Vineyard.

[Plane]

Were these planned for California?  And if so, will these wind farms adversely affect surf conditions?  Surfer dudes say, Don't fuck with the perfect wave, dude, or things could get gnarly.

Waves are produced by wind conditions over the course of thousands of miles , it would take a really large number of large windmills to make a noticeable diffrence to wave condition.

A more pertinant concern is the effect on bird life ,every now and then abird flys into the path of the blades, when the bird is a rare raptor this can be regrettable.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The last question of the week asked if offshore wind power is a viable
source of electricity. Seventy-five percent felt offshore wind farms
are a viable source of electricity, while twenty-four percent did not.

==============================================
This is really stupid: either wind energy produces electricity, or it does not: this does not depend in any way with public opinion.

Wind energy is effective depending on the equipment and its location.

If it provides 1% of power in California, that is still worthwhile.

[Plane]

QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Last week's question asked if you thought robots had the ability to
interpret
ethics. Twenty percent thought it was possible, while eighty percent of
you
did not believe robots could be ethical. Here's what some of you had to
say:

"One can create an intelligent machine that is capable of using ethical
rules
and principles to produce behavior that would lead an observer to say
the
robot is behaving ethically. Moreover, the machine could be designed to
abstract ethical principles from lower-order rules and from the
outcomes of
events the robot has observed. Does that mean it does so THE WAY humans
do?
Nah!" -P. Spelt

"The danger, in the end, lies with self-determining machines making
(pre-programmed) ethical decisions which we hope won't kill off the
human
species. Enough said. If South Korea can find ways to implement robotic
ethics and still avoid the logical conflicts surrounding the 'Laws of
Robotics,' my hat goes off to them." -S. Adcock

This week's question concerns the recent news that at least three teams
of
British scientists are seeking permission to insert human genes into
animal
eggs using the so-called "interspecies cloning technique." Their goal
is to
eliminate the need for women to donate eggs for the cloning of human
embryos.

The technique utilizes DNA from patients sick with a disease like
Alzheimer's
and fuses it with cow eggs that have had all their genetic material
removed.
The idea is that the human DNA will trick the eggs into thinking
they're
pregnant, beginning development. After about five days of growth, the
cloned
embryos would be destroyed and the stem cells extracted.

Some view this work as innately immoral, while others believe it could
be a
huge benefit for the treatment of human disease. Do you believe the
interspecies cloning technique should be approved for stem-cell
research?
Submit your answer at: http://link.abpi.net/l.php?20070402A25