Old 3rd May 2010, 19:55   #1
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Large Air Spill At Wind Farm.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_560762.html

BREAKING NEWS: Large Air Spill At Wind Farm. No Threats Reported. Some Claim To Enjoy The Breeze.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2010, 20:14   #2
Widdykats
The Forum Slut
 
Widdykats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A place that invites a post pumping whore from NY
Posts: 15,789
^I ♥ love it!
Widdykats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 19:58   #3
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
There is no free ride on creating energy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lls-usat_x.htm

Dead birds, spoiled landscapes.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 6th May 2010 at 20:57.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 20:28   #4
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Brrrrt! wrong again. Wind power is one piece of a conservation/green energy puzzle future. It's happening now and will continue to grow regardless of conservative critics in the oil industry. The technology today is Xtimes better then it was 2 decades ago when the industry was in it's infancy and it will only get better. It's not going to replace oil and natural gas and coal completely, but it will help, just like you riding your bike for short trips and me riding to work and back every day does (good on you for conserving). To say it's a failure because it's not growing fast enough (in your uninformed opinion) in the face of the huge oil lobbiests opposing it at the federal and state level with giant chunks of cash to our senators and congressmen/women is ludicrous.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 21:20   #5
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
My reading leads me to think that most of the opposition to wind plants comes from people who have to look at the ugly, noisy wind plants, not conservatives. There is also some by torn conservationists who know it chops birds.

Quote:
To say it's a failure because it's not growing fast enough (in your uninformed opinion) in the face of the huge oil lobbiests opposing it at the federal and state level with giant chunks of cash to our senators and congressmen/women is ludicrous.
In 10 years, .1% of US energy output in 2000, to 1.8% in 2010. That's a long way from 20% by 2020, your California goal. In the meantime, early adopters like Denmark, Germany and Spain are backing away from their investments finding wind companies have a voracious appetite for taxpayer dollars, are unreliable, and have extremely high maintenance and construction costs.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1029

I'm sure a ton of cash changed hands with Congress to fund the liberal pig in a poke that is wind power.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 21:27   #6
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
perhaps the letters to the editors have a nimby cast, but the big buck lobbiests have been working to kill or at least keep down all forms of alt energy which might cut into oil company profits.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 21:30   #7
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
I'll bet in 1904 lengthy articles were written by the buggy whip manufacturing interests to discredit the new automobiles as inefficient, costly and dangerous and an affront to human dignity.

Resistance to change is the basic root meaning of conservative.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 21:36   #8
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
but the big buck lobbiests have been working to kill or at least keep down all forms of alt energy which might cut into oil company profits.
An example? Just one will do.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 21:49   #9
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Google "oil company campaign against wind power" and you'll get a handful.

you'll like this one as besides the Koch family oil company it mentions NIMBY's like the Kennedy's and John Kerry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...shore-approved


And here is a refutation of your claim that wind power has failed all across Europe. Spain get's 40% of it's power from the wind.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...in-to-see.html

""We are beyond the boutique phase," said Frank Mastiaux, the head of E.On's green operations. "When this began in the 1970s it was a niche play, a nice tax break for German dentists and doctors. Now it is turning into an industrial business. Productivity has grown by 150 times in 25 years.""

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 22:05   #10
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Google "oil company campaign against wind power" and you'll get a handful.
of liberal drooling.

The article said "coy on profit margins". I can believe that.

Quote:
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) predicts that wind power will provide almost 29pc of world electricity by 2030.
Yet the International Energy Agency says 3.5pc is more realistic
You seem to think that the Koch oil family opposed the wind farms because of oil, when I think it was just the same reason Kennedy opposed it..... NIMBY.

All of the oil companies except Exxon have green programs. Why is Exxon a holdout?

http://masterresource.org/?p=1347

Because they had "been there, done that" back in the 1970's and are unwilling to risk politically dependent industry that would blow away with political will.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 22:14   #11
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
"liberal drooling" Shoot, there we were having a civil conversation, you ask for evidence, receive it and you have to fall back into your ad homin clown act.

I tried, but I don't have time for your normal BS today. My liberal job requires my attention.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 22:15   #12
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I did the search. I didn't find anything to suggest any oil company opposition to wind power. The Koch's were as close as you get to oil money, and like Kerry and Kennedy, I suspect the objection was a nimby despite the Greenpeace claim of a Koch oil conspiracy.

Objections come from nimby's, taxpayers and electricity consumers, followed by environmental groups like Sierra club and National Audobon society. There are some utility companies against the cost of backing up power for unreliable wind farms. They have to keep boilers on standby to make up so they can switch instantly to conventional fuel. That isn't cheap.

By your own search terms.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 7th May 2010 at 01:14.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2010, 22:52   #13
ertmann
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8
We do around 20% of production from Wind energy and is doing quite fine with that....

€3 billion worth of annual exports of wind turbines and 20.000 related jobs (not insubstantial in a country of 5 million people), all because we started early following the 70'ties oil crisis.

Now the national Electricity company Dong and the Californian company Better Place have made an initial €100 million investment in a national grid of charging stations, automated battery changing stations (for long drives outside the battery range) and other infrastructure.

The really neat part of that project is that it will use smart technology to ensure that most of the charging will take place when there is excess production from the windfarms, in essence acting as a huge battery for the national electricity grid. This will ensure that we won't export our excess wind production cheaply as we do now, removing the biggest Achilles heel of our wind energy system, pretty cool metinks.
ertmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2010, 08:04   #14
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
I live in the "Midwest" where it's windy almost all the time. We get enormous amounts of energy from wind farms (so much that most is exported), and no one seems to complain, despite this being a heavily conservative community. I have no idea where the noise claim comes from. I'm surrounded by these things and I can't hear them at all. On the other hand, the trains that come through carrying oil and corn for ethanol are quite loud. The wind blowing over ears is all I hear. Perhaps I should post a youtube of me standing next to one to demonstrate - all you'll hear is the sound of the wind passing over the microphone on the camera.

Whether or not they're an eyesore would be personal opinion, but I would argue that they look a hell of a lot better than oil rigs, and they make our community happy because they bring money and jobs in.

I will admit, the turbines aren't failsafe, or at least the old ones aren't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o&NR=1

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2010, 05:04   #15
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
We had some wind turbines in Atlantic City and the ones that they installed are pretty potent when it comes to energy output.

The biggest concern was actually by environmentalists that thought they would kill all the birds (as if we couldn't use some mass-gull suicides). Of course they were wrong though: they weren't killing birds, they were killing bats, and by the hundreds. according to this article, they aren't sure why, but this one says it's because the low pressure around the blades is making their lungs explode.

It's interesting that the more we do to keep ourselves from destroying the environment and living creatures around us, the more we do just that.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2010, 05:50   #16
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fickle View Post
We had some wind turbines in Atlantic City and the ones that they installed are pretty potent when it comes to energy output.

The biggest concern was actually by environmentalists that thought they would kill all the birds (as if we couldn't use some mass-gull suicides). Of course they were wrong though: they weren't killing birds, they were killing bats, and by the hundreds. according to this article, they aren't sure why, but this one says it's because the low pressure around the blades is making their lungs explode.

It's interesting that the more we do to keep ourselves from destroying the environment and living creatures around us, the more we do just that.

I never would have expected a wind farm to cause a pressure system low enough to explode bat lungs.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2010, 11:19   #17
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
We get enormous amounts of energy from wind farms
Less than 2% of domestic energy production that causes problems having to cover it's unreliable nature with hot coal plants ready to pick up the slack. It needs power grid in the middle of nowhere to haul it's meager output to market.

Wind power has one thing going for it. It sounds good to guppy liberal voters. As a source of energy, it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

It's why Exxon isn't in the "green energy" game. If the liberal political will for this green nonsense disappears, so does wind power.

So far we've proven it isn't very green, very reliable, very convenient or very cheap.

The energy demand in the future is going to be much higher than today. That means nuclear power. We should be doing something useful instead of pissing in the wind.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2010, 16:28   #18
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
The wind energy here is extremely profitable, and very reliable. That's just in a business sense, which makes our non-liberals very happy. Because of our wind farms, our price per kilowatt hour is today lower than even 1995, and our company has chosen to freeze rates until at least 20 years go by without a rate increase so that people are happy with their choice in generation. There's your cheap. If you don't believe me I'll give you sources for this and my other claims here.

If you experienced 25,000 megawatts going through your body (enough to power 7 million households), would you call that "meager"? I wouldn't.

You need to stop the misleading claims about this being liberal too. Wind energy is championed from the ground up by conservatives, believe it or not. The people that put the wind farms on their property are conservatives, especially around here. It's just the fact that liberal politicians approve that makes you mad. The top state for wind energy production is Texas (how much more conservative can you get?).

Your 2% doesn't work here in Iowa either. Iowa's "Mid-American Energy" (the state's source of electricity) gets 20% of their power from wind, and that statistic is over a year old. Locally, wind energy accounts for far more than half of my community's electricity according to the pie graph reports in my electric bill. Our colleges have people on a hiring contract to do wind energy work before they even graduate from their college programs, and they make good livings doing the work. It has proven in many ways to help the economy. There's your convenience and reliablility.

Is it green? I could prove it more easily than any other argument here, but it would likely go in one ear and out the other when communicating with a person that hates what he/she thinks is liberal, so I kept this post on the topic of what non-liberals value - profit, and wind energy generates a lot of it.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2010, 13:28   #19
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
nuclear energy will never be harnessed in a substantial way because the cost of something going wrong is too great and stories like three mile island and chernobyl.

Yes, I know the difference between fusion and fission as it seems you do as well; however the general public does not. If It's nuclear energy, it's bad.
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2010, 15:25   #20
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
The wind energy here is extremely profitable, and very reliable.


If it's so successful, how come it needs corporate welfare?

Here's an article from the Cato institute and a fair analysis:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

Not green. Not clean. Not cheap. 30 years of development have led us to energy that minus tree hugging payola is twice as expensive as anything else. It now provides a whopping 2% of the US energy needs. Oh brother.

You guys are so used to listening to liberal spin, you can't even detect bullshit when you are standing in it.

Quote:
If It's nuclear energy, it's bad.
An aging bunch of nuclear power plants provide 20% of our electricity now. New plants would be safer than the ones we already use. Fusion is still a pipe dream, but dealing with radioactive waste from fission plants has been largely dealt with. Most of the valid reasons people had for opposing nuclear power back in the 70's have been fixed. My mom got arrested protesting. Doomsday never happened.

It is the only way to generate power, which if done properly, doesn't screw anything up.

Consider the global damage done by conventional energy like coal, and what has been done by nuke plants. 20 square miles of Russia will be uninhabitable for a couple hundred years. In the scheme of things, that's nothing compared to what coal does globally.

We've gotten 20% of our juice from nuclear and not had a large scale problem. The French get 77%, also without serious incident.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 31st May 2010 at 16:27.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2010, 19:26   #21
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Thanks for posting something I had already posted on this thread.

The wind turbine explosion hurt no one, didn't harm the environment to any measurable degree, and was an isolated (a.k.a. very rare) incident. That's about the worst that has ever happened with wind energy. It involved a very old model using technology that was in it's infancy (read up on it and you'll also find that it wasn't designed for those kinds of winds while the turbines of today are). Compare that with any other energy-producing technology accident...

There are literally hundreds of wind turbines surrounding me, all of which according to our electric company pay for themselves in 2-4 years and create raw profit thereafter with minimal maintenance. When the subsidies pay, the taxes generated pay back more. It's quite a profitable investment with a fast turnaround.

Nuclear energy is indeed a good thing; I won't argue with that since I grew up on Pittsburgh's nuke power, but dismissing wind energy just doesn't make sense considering how profitable and clean it is, especially if you live where wind is constant and free like it is here. Perhaps it doesn't do much for the non-wind areas, but the same can be said about enormous amounts of hydroelectric energy produced at Niagra Falls, and no one seems to be complaining about that. This is a diverse climate, diverse land-form nation, which has areas of energy that other parts of the country don't have, so it is wise to use what works best in the area. Using energy from ocean tides could seem stupid to us in Iowa, but it is found to be profitable elsewhere. Using solar energy might be considered stupid to someone in Point Barrow, Alaska, but it is found to be profitable in the Southwest. The nationwide impact doesn't matter compared to the profit-per-unit numbers, so your 2% point is, well, pointless.

You completely ignored the points that I posted earlier despite them being quite valid and backed by facts, all because when you find a way to connect something with liberalism in your head, you instantly hate it without learning much about it first. In all reality, as I stated in my last post, not really a liberal or conservative thing in practice, but it seems that's what you want to make everything. I swear, if my shoe became accidentally untied after 13 hours of work or if my furnace filter needed to be replaced/cleaned because of too much dust, you'd find a way to blame it on liberals.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2010, 14:07   #22
Michael32
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1
This is BS. While there is no free ride for energy, wind and solar are unlimited resources and do MUCH less damage to the environment than coal or oil. The number of birds killed by wind mills is very small to the number of species killed by carbon sources of fuel.
Michael32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2010, 16:25   #23
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Wind and solar aren't unlimited resources. If the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine......

It seems like the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine at the most inopportune times too. Like the coldest days of winter all over Europe.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...backup_report/

I think wind power will be one of the biggest scandals of this era. So far, it hasn't been shown that it saves any oil or coal at all.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 1st June 2010 at 16:49.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2010, 20:19   #24
deeder7001
Jesus Freak
(Forum King)
 
deeder7001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 5,520
Send a message via AIM to deeder7001 Send a message via Yahoo to deeder7001
There should be a way to turn the forum into a wind farm. Probably make lots of power with all the wind in this thread alone.

There is no sig.
deeder7001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2010, 22:22   #25
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Yeah, it wouldn't have to generate much to beat wind turbines. Maybe we could get a tax subsidy.

Quote:
about enormous amounts of hydroelectric energy produced at Niagra Falls
I don't know about that dam, but our own Bonneville hydro plant here in Oregon is a massive salmon chopper. Some years we don't even get to fish anymore.

Quote:
You completely ignored the points
Quote:
The nationwide impact doesn't matter compared to the profit-per-unit numbers
I document my opinion with proper research by the Cato Institute and others who don't write brochures for wind power companies. You say wind power is profitable where you are. It could even be true. I doubt it, but I guess anything is possible. I'll cite it's overwhelmingly poor track record for getting useful energy on the grid.

Like solar, it works best to offset energy costs at point of service locations, not hooked to the main grid. Having to pay megabucks to corporations to develop mega-solutions probably isn't as good as what an equivalent amount of money would do to make our houses greener.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 2nd June 2010 at 00:19.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2010, 23:20   #26
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Oy...

In Niagra falls, the fish can either avoid the falls altogether (good), go through the generator (as you say bad), or fall down one of the most spectacular waterfalls in existence (just as bad, but a little more exciting). I don't really think the generator is changing anything in terms of fish deaths, it just takes some of the thrill out of it.

Deeder, you crack me up.

Come to South Dakota or Iowa. The wind does really almost always blow, and yes, wind energy does save coal and oil. That's why we haven't had an energy rate increase since 1995 despite fossil fuel price spikes in recent years. When half our local energy is from wind, or 20% statewide from wind, that's a hell of a lot of fossil fuels saved.

As far as points, if you didn't get them, you are either illiterate or you chose not to read. My points are relevant, on-topic, supporting facts, with very little subjective opinion that can be countered without dismissing it all with an nondescript word like "babbling". I'm very sure other readers understand, but you don't seem to get it. I cited Mid American Energy, and if you want a link, here it is. There are several pages on that site that will show you what they do for us. If you really want, I'll even take pictures of my electric bill to show proof of my other claims.

Your "sources" are more than a decade old (take the time to read what you linked to and you'll see), in some cases 15 years old, or they're covering a nation half a world away where the climate is different. My sources are in the here and now.

Also, no one made the claim that wind energy is meant to replace anything completely. It is meant to supplement other existing forms of generation, which greatly reduces cost and other negative impacts of the said forms of generation. If I offered a renewable, clean, discounted way to pay 2%, 20%, or 50% of all your living expenses, would you turn me down because I didn't offer 100%?

(still laughing about Deeder's comment - no offense taken)

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2010, 19:12   #27
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
If I offered a renewable, clean, discounted way to pay 2%, 20%, or 50% of all your living expenses, would you turn me down because I didn't offer 100%?
I could think of a dozen ways that the government could save more energy, make more energy and leave more money in my pocket than supporting wind power with the mass subsidies that make it remotely viable.

About 35 miles from here is Oregon's ex-defunct Trojan nuclear power plant. It was closed 20 years early because it was an unreliable, dangerous piece of shit. My electric bill went way up because Portland General Electric had to pay for this:



They made a nice park out of the site.

The same sputtering I hear about wind power is the same noise I listened to for years with this nuke plant built by chimps. It wasn't really out of line to be anti nuke in those days for reasons which this nuke plant made apparent. My mom got arrested protesting it. I went there when I was in 2nd grade for a field trip.

Like the taxpayers bought a pig in a poke to buy this nuclear plant that fell apart, I hear the same BS that sells us these wind plants.

In those days the political will followed an industrial lobby and because we wanted cheap power for Alcoa aluminum company. With the nuke plant, so went the aluminum smelter.

Now the sensibility is green power goals which might help a warming world (if it's warming.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 2nd June 2010 at 19:56.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2010, 23:44   #28
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
That plant had poor planning and faulty design. Pennsylvania has a lot of reactors (9 in 5 locations) and they all seem to be doing fine. They were the first state to have a reactor in 1955, That reactor is older than all that are still running and also older than all those that are gone, and yet it's still going strong. Really, so long as the waste can be stored correctly, nuclear power isn't so bad. Fusion would obviously be earth-shatteringly better, but for now, I don't see that much trouble with fission, so long as people are careful.

I think wind power has a lot less risk involved though, plus it is convenient and efficient when used in places that are always windy (like here). You also don't need a power plant the size and cost of a city just to get things up and running - with wind energy, it's easier to customize the wind farm to fit the energy needs of the specific area. You can help power a major city with hundreds of turbines, or just a ****** and a couple homes/small businesses with just one. With Nuclear reactors, you're (for now at least) stuck with only powering more heavily populated regions.

edit

oh for fuck's sake they censored c a s i n o - must be a lot of gambling spam

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2010, 02:04   #29
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
That plant had poor planning and faulty design
The planning was fine. The design was fine. The contractors weren't. Specifically, the cooling system for the reactor was made by monkeys. Portland General Electric (PGE), known to locals as "pig-E" wouldn't have thought to take anything but the lowest bid.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2010, 03:54   #30
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
It was built on an earthquake-threat fault line, and they hired builders deserving of a lawsuit against them (that's what I meant by poor planning). They say "previously unknown", but any time you want to make a multi-hundred-million dollar complex of buildings on the west coast, you should be as careful and thoughtful as possible when it comes to earthquake avoidance/preparation.

(from wikipedia)
Quote:
The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed.
That's what I meant by poor designing, although, as you said, perhaps the design was ok but the fabrication/production was at fault, so I can fully understand your argument/point here.

With wind energy, things are quite simple despite being big. You have fan blades, a transmission, a generator (which can double as a starter on days of very mild wind), and a braking system. Add this to a rather elementary motor/system that aims the blades to face the wind (or perpendicular in extreme storms) and you're done. About the only complicated part is the need for a capacitor, battery, or backup supply, which isn't much of a big deal since wind energy is mostly meant to be a supplement or relief to other forms of electricity generation.

People against wind energy speculate that the "backup" will become less efficient, clean, or reliable than it was pre-wind because it's not used as much, but I fail to see the logic or reason (or data) behind that. At worst, the technology for the "backup" will remain the same due to reduced focus on it, but it will likely continue to become better as well, at the very least in the name of efficiency and profit.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump