User talk:Robert Turner

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–  Sango  123    (e)  18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

ethanol fuel
thanks for your helpful references on ethanol fuel. hope you will participate in improving the ethanol fuel article. the farrell paper seems excellent and could form some of the basis for a good article here. your input has been very timely and welcome. best regards Anlace 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding link to farrell article. best Anlace 19:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * i would like to help with the article, but at this stage i need to learn much more. i still haven't read the whole farrell review, for instance :). one thing i find very frustrating with energy-related information is that it seems to be especially biased; people take strong positions on this issue.  in one way this is good, because it means that people take energy issues very seriously as they should, and the debate is lively.  in another way, it's very difficult to assess the viability of some solutions.  for instance, when someone says that the energy density of a wind farm can be calculated from the fact that the footprint of a wind turbine is only 10 square meters, there is obviously a spin verging on dishonesty at work!  the same applies to nuclear advocates who say that all issues surrounding environmental contamination and waste storage have been solved - if only people would listen.  i would like to see the full-cost accounting for all energy systems.  it's a big demand, but how else can one make informed decisions?  how do you feel about this, Anlace? --Robert Turner 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your further elaboration. i generally concur with you that theres plenty of spin out there and i would like to see a full cost accounting. i guess my main concerns are the need to account for externality costs such as air pollution and soil contamination.  i also tire of accoutning for human labor costs, because this begs the question of the high unemployment rates. i just dont see calculating the cost of feeding a human to contribute to the labor involved in energy formation.  it seems that other erudite scholars agree with me, but not everyone who edits wikipedia. cheers Anlace 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)