backtop


Print 142 comment(s) - last by overlandpark4m.. on Feb 15 at 6:11 PM


  (Source: Morten Mitchell Larød)

Supporters of alternative energy are battling environmentalists and Native Americans over a proposed offshore wind farm in Massachusetts. The pending project would be the U.S.'s first offshore farm.  (Source: AP Photo/Julia Cumes)

Residents are battling a similar project in Michigan. The project could bring much needed jobs to the state and provide clean power, but it could also hurt the environment, cause health problems, raise power prices, and decrease land values.  (Source: MUSKEGON NEWS)
Wind farms are facing a tough sell despite potential

There are plenty of U.S. wind power success stories, but of late the pace of wind power adoption in the U.S. has slowed, even as it has soared in other nations like China.  Part of wind power's problem is the need for new high power transmission lines stretching to the remote stretches of land ideal for wind farms.  The nation's largest wind project, a Texas wind farm championed by billionaire T. Boone Pickens, fell apart when the funding for its transmission lines fell through.

Another major obstacle is public sentiment.  Across the country citizens have been moving to block local wind project, citing a variety of concerns. 

Among the most contentious battles has been a fight over a pending 130-turbine farm located off the coast of Martha's Vineyard.  Alternative energy advocates have spent millions lobbying local, state, and federal governments to adopt the project.  However, the project has been met with diverse resistance.

Environmental groups have blasted the project saying that it will destroy the beauty of the Nantucket Sound.  A tougher challenge has come from local Native Americans, who buried artifacts in the seabed and every morning perform a sunrise ceremony on the sound.  Members of the Mashpee Wampanoag and Aquinnah tribes local to the region are both fighting the project.  They previously had managed to get the seabed classified in the National Register of Historic Places due to its buried artifacts, which may give them legal ammo to fight the project.

Other locals oppose the wind farm because it might raise their power costs (wind costs substantially more than traditional coal power or nuclear energy).  There are also worries about the health concerns that have been linked to active wind farms.

The wind farm, originally unveiled in 2001, would be the first U.S. offshore wind farm and would be able to by 2025 provide 20 percent of Massachusetts' power needs.  The Energy Management project is backed by President Obama, whose Interior Secretary Ken Salazar includes the farm in the President's alternative energy plan.  If the rival groups cannot reach a resolution by April, he says he will try to force one -- potentially forcing a wind farm on the locals.

States Salazar, "What happens to Cape Wind, whether it goes up or goes down, will not be determinative of wind energy in the United States.  The president and the department have made renewable energy one of the imperatives in our country."

Across the country in Ludington, Michigan, a similar fight is brewing.  While federal politicians have taken less note of the struggle between Havgul Clean Energy and local citizens, its nonetheless another intriguing example about the debate over the impact and cost of wind power.

Havgul, a Norwegian firm, wants to build a $3B USD wind farm off the shore of Lake Michigan.  The wind farm would feature between one hundred and two hundred thirty-story tall turbines.  The project, which is pending local, state, and federal approval could power 350,000 homes, and could bring many much-needed jobs to the state.

However, critics say that the project would hurt local wildlife and damage property values.  Pentwater resident Janet Webber comments, "I spend more time buying a car then they're asking us to decide on something that would be sitting out on our lake for the next hundred years."

The local voiced their concerns at a recent Town Hall meeting.

Wind power certainly isn't the only topic that's drawing such debate.  Similar objections have been voiced about similar massive scale construction projects, such as high speed rail.  The commonalities of these objections raise an interesting question.  Should the U.S. stick to an individualized approach when it comes to such projects, or should it push them through regardless of local objections?  That's a key question that faces the Obama administration as it watches China outperform the U.S. in laying down high speed rail and deploying alternative energy.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Simple solution
By corduroygt on 2/9/2010 10:37:40 AM , Rating: 5
Instead of loaning a foreign company money to build turbines that will provide 20% of needed power on a good day on water where everyone will see them, how about loaning an American company money to build a nuclear plant that will provide 100% of needed power every single day on some piece of land that nobody cares about or sees on a daily basis unless they work there.




RE: Simple solution
By smackababy on 2/9/2010 10:46:20 AM , Rating: 4
The power grid needs a major upgrade otherwise we'd have to build a lot more plants than required. If they did fix the powergrid, nuclear energy is the best way to go.


RE: Simple solution
By corduroygt on 2/9/2010 10:48:48 AM , Rating: 5
Well that'd be one form of government infrastructure spending that would actually be beneficial to individual Americans and businesses, instead of useless bridges to nowhere and other pork for the sole purpose of getting some senator's vote on a legislation.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 1:20:40 PM , Rating: 5
"The power grid needs a major upgrade otherwise we'd have to build a lot more plants than required. If they did fix the powergrid, nuclear energy is the best way to go. "

You have it backwards. Non-dispatchable power sources like wind require the massive grid upgrades. Dispatchable power (nuclear, hydro, coal) do not.

As a rough rule a thumb, a power source requires excess grid capacity as the inverse of its capacity factor. Windpower generally has a CF of about 1/3, meaning you need 3X the grid capacity to transmit that power. Nuclear averages about a 95% capacity factor, meaning you only need about an extra 5% to the grid.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Simple solution
By DopeFishhh on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 5:00:10 PM , Rating: 1
You're discussing apples and oranges. HVDC has its own set of advantages (and disadvantages too: primarily cost). That's a separate issue on which you make some good points.

What I am talking about is the capacity of the grid itself, no matter what technology you use to build it, or how far you transmit the power. If a nuclear plant averages 5GW of output, then it will require grid capacity of about 5.05GW to transmit that power -- no matter where you send it. If a wind farm averages 5GW, though, it'll require about 15GW of grid capacity.


RE: Simple solution
By ViroMan on 2/9/2010 10:28:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If a wind farm averages 5GW, though, it'll require about 15GW of grid capacity.

I guess thats to account for its peak power limit, yes?


RE: Simple solution
By Calin on 2/10/2010 2:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
If you could have a "storage facility" nearby (as mentioned in the Lake Michigan case, a water pumped storage) then you must have the "peak power" lines up to the storage facility, and only typical power lines out.
On the other hand, if you don't have energy storage nearby, you need BOTH the peak power lines out from the wind farm, AND power lines from outside to the consumer of your energy.

As a quick (and false) example: my nuclear power plant gives power to the city of FarAway. As the city of FarAway uses a typical 4 GW and peaks at 5 GW. You use one 5 GW nuclear power plant with one 1GW gas power plant for quick ramp up. You don't get energy from outside.
Now, you have a 5GW typical wind farm. That's 15 GW peak power, and 2 GW minimum power. If you don't have local energy storage, you need 10 GW of an "to outside" line, 3 GW of an "inside" line, and (maybe) some quick-ramping capacity. This is a much more difficult situation.


RE: Simple solution
By FITCamaro on 2/9/2010 2:07:00 PM , Rating: 5
Nuclear power provides more power regardless of any upgrades to the power grid. With nuclear power less upgrades are needed because the power being produced is fairly solid. Wind and solar require more upgrades to deal with the highly volatile nature of the energy source. Power generation rates might change by the minute as strong gusts of wind blow followed by relative lulls in the wind. The same goes for sunlight as clouds pass over and possibly fully obstruct the sun for several minutes at a time.


RE: Simple solution
By rmmdjmdam on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 3:50:54 PM , Rating: 5
"...and we use nuclear energy as our primary energy source, we can exhaust the world's uranium supplies in a few hundred years."

This isn't correct. We essentially stopped prospecting for uranium in the 1970s. With environmentalists shutting down reactors and known reserved already good for more than 100 years, why spend money looking for more? Furthermore, current reactors only use a tiny fraction of the energy in the uranium...a modern breeder reactor will expand our stockpiles by a factor of ten or more.

Finally, you don't evne need to use uranium in a fission reactor. Thorium works just as well, and its an element 3X as abundant as uranium.

Put it all together, and we have fission fuel for many tens of thousands of years....not even counting what we could by then be mining from asteroids, the moon, or very deep within the earth's crust.


RE: Simple solution
By FITCamaro on 2/9/2010 9:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
If we haven't perfected fusion in a few hundred years, we deserve the energy crisis.

I mean seriously. You're worried that we might run out of uranium? You realize that when using reprocessing, nuclear fuel has a practically infinite life span for our purposes. We'll long have perfected other forms of power generation before we ever have to worry about running out.


RE: Simple solution
By General Disturbance on 2/9/2010 11:26:38 AM , Rating: 4
You couldn't have summed it up more clearly. This is EXACTLY what the issue is about.

Of course, we have been inundated with the naive environmentalist movement (which, interestingly, is highly correlated to the naive socialist movement), people who haven't the first bloody clue that it requires electricity to do pretty much anything, if you're interested in more than subsistence level living.

Of course, the ones who are not naive, have stated clearly their intention to dismantle the country and our standard of living, and reducing the population by 50% or more, regardless of consequences - it's all for the greater good, in their idiotic minds, not realizing they'll be among the first to die. But indeed, they so hate themselves and society, death is exactly what they want to achieve. All because they seem to think they know what "the greater good" is!

We moral rationalists can no longer allow this behavior.

I have new tactic that seems to be working, since having intelligent conversations with them has not ever seemed to work:
I FREAK OUT. Seriously. I call them names, but the right names, such as: "moral degenerate", "intellectually depraved", "naive environmentalist", "mass murderers", "Hitler wannabe's", "fascists", intermixed of course with the rational information they need to understand.

It seems to shock them so much it wakes them up. Having a friendly rational conversation, does NOT wake them up. It startles them so much, and it makes them feel bad for being yelled at, that they can't help but reassess their thinking. These people operate on emotion remember, not logic.

Remember, we are dealing with people who naively seek to change, even end, YOUR standard of living and your life. You must give them no quarter.

There are better solutions, than collapsing the 1st world, to improve our relationship with nature.


RE: Simple solution
By othercents on 2/9/2010 12:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, the ones who are not naive, have stated clearly their intention to dismantle the country and our standard of living, and reducing the population by 50% or more, regardless of consequences - it's all for the greater good, in their idiotic minds, not realizing they'll be among the first to die. But indeed, they so hate themselves and society, death is exactly what they want to achieve. All because they seem to think they know what "the greater good" is!

SWEET!!! New slogan: "Kill yourself to save the planet."

No matter where we put an electrical plant we will have environmentalists saying that we are killing some animal, plant, or insect habitat. Doesn't matter if it is wind, coal, solar, or nuclear. They will always want their publicity regardless of the reports saying how safe it is compared to our current system.

Other


RE: Simple solution
By wiz220 on 2/9/2010 12:22:24 PM , Rating: 4
Just thought I'd mention that Facism is a loose term. Ayn Rand wannabe's such as yourself love throwing it around to describe anyone that doesn't share the same viewpoint as your own, but you don't seem to understand it.

Mussolini's Italy is a much better example of facism than Hitler's Germany. One of the most common descriptions of facism is a melding of corporation and state. In this case, the RIGHT WING agenda in the US would fit the "facism" model much better than a left wing agenda.

In the end all this issue comes down to is NIMBY. It doesn't matter if it's an environmentalist, a bunch of rich liberal blue bloods in MA or a right wing billionaire plutocrat, MOST of them will oppose anything that inconveniences them in any way, be it a wind farm, a solar farm a coal plant or a nuclear plant. They will all find an exuse as to why it shouldn't be anywhere near them.


RE: Simple solution
By Nfarce on 2/9/2010 12:42:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Just thought I'd mention that Facism is a loose term....One of the most common descriptions of facism is a melding of corporation and state. In this case, the RIGHT WING agenda in the US would fit the "facism" model much better than a left wing agenda.


Huh. Fascism is state control of privately owned business. I have yet to see a Republican wish to take over corporations and establish "czars" to set their policies. Or mandate how much said executives should be paid.

But you nailed the NIMBY approach. Republicans in Florida dodn't want anything to do with natural gas drilling off that coast and Democrats in Massachusetts (Kennedys to be specific) don't want wind mills on their coastlines.


RE: Simple solution
By Nfarce on 2/9/2010 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 3
And regarding what Jason said about wind power:

quote:
Part of wind power's problem is the need for new high power transmission lines stretching to the remote stretches of land ideal for wind farms. The nation's largest wind project, a Texas wind farm championed by billionaire T. Boone Pickens, fell apart when the funding for its transmission lines fell through.


Actually it was more of a water right-of-way issue that fell through, but that was indeed part of it - along with NIMBY as has been mentioned a reason. Then there was news like this that reminds people it's not a fool proof energy source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN27495229200802...


RE: Simple solution
By xmichaelx on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 3:54:45 PM , Rating: 4
You're on very shaky ground here. Having the government set mining safety policies is nowhere near as intrusive as a complete government takeover of the banking, automobile, and/or healthcare industries.

The Republicans have their own set of very real problems...but your attempts to paint them as equal to the Democrats in terms of government control of business are very naive.


RE: Simple solution
By Nfarce on 2/9/2010 4:00:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You didn't look very far. Richard Stickler, Bush's mine safety czar


So mining safety = controlling corporate executive pay? Or what US auto manufacturers should build? You can't possibly be serious. Do you also believe the Glass-Stiegel Act should have been repealed which essentially caused sub-prime mortgages to grow and eventually explode?

quote:
You could also easily include Dan Bartlett, Bush's communications czar.


That's a good one too - the "Fairness Doctrine" seems to be on people's radar again, and guess what? Again, it's not any Republicans pushing for that.


RE: Simple solution
By siuol11 on 2/14/2010 4:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
"czars", as they have been recently titled, came into being in Nixon's administration... and have been used ever since, by Republicans and Democrats alike. Bush had them too.


RE: Simple solution
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/9/2010 4:54:09 PM , Rating: 1
Wiz220 if you live in the USA, do us a favor. Do not vote again until you learn the difference between
Left wing - right wing,
Liberal - Conservative,
Democrat - Republican,
Communist - Capitalist/Republic,
Dictator (fascist like: Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, and Obama's listed agenda) - Free Citizens,
Government control departments/business - Free market.

To help you out I have listed everything that goes together on either left side of the "-" (for left wing liberals, socialist, communist as they have same goals just different ways of statement them) and the right side of the "-" (for right wings Conservative, Republic, Libertarian, independent individuals) Who's true goal is very little government influence... Anytime you have someone on the right side talking about government control entities they are no longer talking as a right winger and of course once you have a left sider talking about free private business they are no longer talking as a left winger. There can be people and entities that try mixing left and right wing ideas, like the US post office would be a mix of the two ideas. However, you can not have two side ideals or theories mix... That is you can never have a fascist right winged republican - if they are fascist they are no longer a republican... they may try calling themselves that but they are not. Words like Fascism are not loose terms... only liberals like to think they are because they do not like to admit they favor fascism and dictatorships verse free citizens.
The two sides are very well defined just like 2 + 2 = 4. People like to mud the waters a lot but the sides are still defined very clearly. Large Government controlled (left wing) verse minimum Government control (right wing). The two wings have worked very well together... but lately (last 50 years of so, we have been favoring the left wing way, way to much... if it continues we will not be anything like what the founding father designed.)


RE: Simple solution
By Tom mc3s on 2/10/2010 2:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
LOL at the people DRASTICALLY oversimplifying something as complex as the definition of "Fascism". You'll find plenty of entomologists that do indeed place fascism at the very far right of the classical left-right scale. While many others will contest that it doesn't fit into the left-right scale at all and should be referred to as a "third party force". Others have likened some aspects of it to fit into an "anti-Marxist" form of socialism. Fascism (in some forms) has acknowledged a class struggle but do not support egalitarianism.

Often when using the commonly misunderstood term you'll find people are just slinging an insult instead of talking about a complex political system.

Give this a brief overview to better understand Benito Mussolini's Fascist government. It's perhaps the largest example of fascism but keep in mind their have been many variations of it.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/G...

A further LOL to the poster I chose to comment on to shed a little light on the subject because he/she was not only the furthest removed from reality but also hilariously wrong when trying to oversimplify not only fascism but the entirety of the political spectrum. As if every form of governance fits neatly into an either left or right category. Pshhh.


RE: Simple solution
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/10/2010 10:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thank Tom mc3s for proving my point.
There is a far left and a far right... everything else falls somewhere in between. You either want full government control (extremely far left) or you want zero - no government at all (super far right - even right wingers understand the need and benefit for Government for police and army if nothing else so they do not have to create their own police or army). Just like Yin and Yang, a good life will have a blend of the two sides but there are two sides. A good government will have a blend of the two sides but there are two sides.

My point that you clarified is that people like to mud the waters and confuse others by mixing things up. Again, whatever you do still falls between the two points of extremely far left or extremely far right. Even the link you sends is about government control and or very strong influence... so it's on the left side. End of subject there... No matter what name you want to give it, it either gives more power to the Government or more to the Citizens. Yes, it's that simple, if you study the field long enough and deep enough you will understand.


RE: Simple solution
By Tom mc3s on 2/11/2010 7:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
Then what about a comparison of Stalin and Ghandi? Does it make sense to say Stalin was simply further left then Ghandi?

My argument would be that a simple left-right scale is not sufficient enough to encompass all political ideologies.

Here's an interesting article that covers the problem of basic left-right scale.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL at the people DRASTICALLY oversimplifying something as complex as the definition of "Fascism". You'll find plenty of entomologists that do indeed place fascism at the very far right
Lol at the person who doesn't realize that "entomology" is the study of insects.

The only people who put fascism at the "far right" at those blissfully unaware of the meaning of the term. Every single fascist government in history began from the far left, from Hitler's Brown Shirt union workers, to Mussolini's socialist roots.

This point isn't really open to debate...but if you're willing to embarrass youself further by telling us about "entomologists and fascism", go for it.


RE: Simple solution
By Tom mc3s on 2/11/2010 7:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
My apologies, I meant etymologists.

I still stand by everything else I said.

Sources:

Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century by Eugene Weber

Fascism: Theory and Practice by David Renton

France in the Era of Fascis' by Brian Jenkins

Hitler's Germany by Roderick Stackleberg

Fascism: Comparison and Definition by Stanley Payne

All historians, all put fascism as far right.

Others have put it far left, others have noted it belongs outside of the left right scale.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 11:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but this isn't even remotely correct. Take out just one aspect of fascism -- extreme nationalism -- and you have the textbook definition of far leftist politics. Let's go down the scoreboard, shall we:

State control of business:
Fascists: Yes. Far Left: Yes. Far Right: No.

Radically Anti-Capitalist:
Fascists: Yes. Far Left: Yes. Far Right: No.

Desires "Classless" Society, End of Class Conflict:
Fascists: Yes. Far Left: Yes. Far Right: No.

Populist Roots, "Workers Rights" Plank:
Fascists: Yes. Far Left: Yes. Far Right: No.

Desires Strong Central Government Control:
Fascists: Yes. Far Left: Yes. Far Right: No.

Dramatically Expanded Welfare and Social Spending:
Fascists: Yes. Far Left: Yes. Far Right: No.

Strong support of individual property rights:
Fascists: No. Far Left: No. Far Right: Yes.

Facts are facts.


RE: Simple solution
By darkweasel on 2/9/2010 2:23:56 PM , Rating: 4
I'd classify myself as an environmentalist, but I'm firmly pro-nuke. I'm all for investigating renewable sources of energy if they make sense (ala geothermal in iceland) and can be cost effective.

However this avoiding nuclear power for fear of the bogeyman is just stupid and I think is damaging the environmental cause (most importantly to me: reducing/eliminating toxic pollution. Rather stupid of us to poison ourselves/our children)


RE: Simple solution
By ClownPuncher on 2/9/2010 3:28:21 PM , Rating: 4
There is nothing contradictory about being pro-nuke and pro-environment. It is the fringe environmentalists that are more about control than anything, they use the guise of "helping the planet" to try to get everyone to do what they say.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
"There is nothing contradictory about being pro-nuke and pro-environment"

Wow. You keep making intelligent statements like this and you're going to force me to entirely reevaluate my perception of you :)


RE: Simple solution
By atlmann10 on 2/9/2010 11:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah ClownPuncher fringe environmentalism is about nothing but control. Helping the planet cra9 as well are we not part of the planet to? However; it would make sense if you truly cared about the environment to just say lets make clean energy in any way we can. This includes water, nuclear, wind etc etc.

One thing that gets me on this an any other talk about this or any issue today for that matter seems to be the control of it and the country. This is by the Democrats and Republicans. When do you think as a country we can get rid of them both.

They seem to either cause adversity among the people the companies and about everything else, or bicker like children about who is right and wrong all the while eating our tax dollars with very small returns on the investment.

I would have never bailed out the financial industry like they did, and it started under Bush and continued under Obama. Then all the bankers, investment company execs got to give each other bonus's on the great theft from the people through the government, and of course doing it all successfully. The total of those bonus's you may have heard of somewhat before it was quieted down a little was as a whole figure almost exactly what we gave them to keep them afloat.


RE: Simple solution
By Yawgm0th on 2/9/2010 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
Can we get a 6 here?


RE: Simple solution
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/9/2010 12:38:46 PM , Rating: 1
I 100% agree with your Nuclear plant idea and that the US needs to fund our own needed upgrades.

I live near some windmill farms 30 miles away. I've viewed them up close and know people living around them. they are noise, huge, and mess with signals in the area (TV, cell, radio...) or at least the ones out here have been. So, I do not want a windmill near my home. I'm going to guess a nuclear plant will have similar issues, not necessarily signals in the air, but something else that only local people will notice. So, with that said, I do not want a nuclear power plant in my backyard too and understand when someone else says they do not want one in their yard either. So, you say put it on some piece of land that nobody cares about... I think that will be hard to find.


RE: Simple solution
By Keeir on 2/9/2010 1:14:07 PM , Rating: 5
Your kidding me right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikata_Nuclear_Power_P...

Check out this Nuclear Power Plant. Although certainly not pretty, its far from a huge eyesore and probably could be located in an industrial part of coast line near pretty much any major US city (on a coast of course).

Best part? It produces ~ 14,000 GWh of electricity a year. Roughly the same amount of ~2,000! 2.5 MW Wind Turbine in nearly idea conditions. Funny enough we have a direct comparison actually. T. Boone Pickens Wind Farm would have produced around ~15,000 GWh of electricity (in the optomistic planning stages) and was projected to cover 200,000 acres of land (312.5 sq miles!).


RE: Simple solution
By General Disturbance on 2/9/2010 1:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 1:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Best part? It produces ~ 14,000 GWh of electricity a year. Roughly the same amount of ~2,000! 2.5 MW Wind Turbine in nearly idea conditions"

And that nuclear plant (Ikata) is a small one by today's standards...we have nuke plants that produce 3X as much power.

To replace a plant like Kashi-Kari would require nearly 7,000 of those massive 30-story tall windmills...and a chunk of land 4 times larger than all of NYC.


RE: Simple solution
By Iaiken on 2/9/2010 1:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
Just north of the border the US has a close trading partner which happens to also be a leader in nuclear power and nuclear research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generat...

The biggest problem is convincing the Canadian government that this will not serve to advance the US nuclear weapons program. This is most notably because the tritium produced by these reactors would likely be used in fusion weapons or boosted fission weapons which the official stance of Canada that the continued US possession of nuclear weapons is repugnant.


RE: Simple solution
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/9/2010 2:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I still think about the old 3 mile Island nuclear plants. Which really is an eye sore. However, there is no question that nuclear is a better solution... maybe 1 square mile verse 312.5 sq miles. Each mill is on someones land, which means someone is collecting rent on that land the mills stands on. Some of the farmers who are renting out land for the mills near my home, earn $7,000 to $10,000 (guessing annually did not ask). It would be easier for the Government to own the land a nuclear power plant is on verse buying 312. sq miles of land.


RE: Simple solution
By Griswold on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Simple solution
By corduroygt on 2/9/2010 1:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have an argument against nuclear, or you're just substituting name-calling for it?
BTW, what you call energy wasting is called higher living standards here. Maybe we'll decide to save our energy the next time you're attacked instead of saving you.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 3:56:02 PM , Rating: 1
"...especially not in the United States of Energy Wasting"

How much energy did you waste using your computer to type that post? How can you live with yourself and your wasteful lifestyle?


RE: Simple solution
By inperfectdarkness on 2/9/2010 1:35:50 PM , Rating: 1
give me 200 miles of interstate median, 1.5 Billion dollars, and i'll give you a wind farm with 1000MW output that will recoup investment savings vs. nuclear & coal in <20 years. beyond that, the savings will only continue to grow as the recurring costs of fuel continue to compound for other power plants.

Better still, the costs of power-transmission infrastructure can be partially offset by tying into the high-voltage transmission lines that are typically features of rural interstate highways.


RE: Simple solution
By Hiawa23 on 2/9/2010 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 1
I am still baflled a country supposed as great as the US, or this is what everyone keeps telling us, yet we don't produce more of our own fuel, oil, energy grid is seriously outdated, jobs, just doesn't seem like we make anything anymore. It's like this hasn't been a priority for decades, & it seems there is no easy fix for bringing down our high energy bills or fuel bills for the average tax paying American. If there is a simple solution what is it, & what has being stopping it for all these years.


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 3
Of course there is an easy fix. In fact, there are several. The easiest is simply to allow us to produce our own oil, coal, and natural gas here in the US, rather than buying it from overseas. That alone would drastically reduce energy prices.

A much better solution is simply to build a large number of nuclear reactors. They're far cleaner than hydrocarbon-based power and the more you build, the cheaper they get (if we designed and built cars the same way we do nuke plants, a Toyota Corolla would cost between $5 and $10M dollars).


RE: Simple solution
By Hiawa23 on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 8:28:07 PM , Rating: 4
" so there must be other reason why our leaders over the decades haven't pushed this"

The reason is simple. In a democracy, (most) political leaders have no interest in doing what's best for a country. Instead, they do what their constituents want...and ever since the 1970s, rabid environmental groups have successfully preyed on ignorance and made the average person fear nuclear power.

It's not like anything I've said here is some great secret. Anyone who spends even an hour studying the subject understands that our energy "problems" are simply a lack of foresight and common sense.

I'll give Obama credit for actually trying to LEAD rather than follow on this issue, and pushing nuclear power over the objections of a large part of his far-left base.


RE: Simple solution
By Hiawa23 on 2/10/2010 8:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
The reason is simple. In a democracy, (most) political leaders have no interest in doing what's best for a country. Instead, they do what their constituents want...and ever since the 1970s, rabid environmental groups have successfully preyed on ignorance and made the average person fear nuclear power.

Great points. Well, I guess most are just screwed & there is nothing we can do about it.


RE: Simple solution
By Hiawa23 on 2/9/2010 3:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
Forget the environmental groups, I think we need to be doing all we can to update the energy grid, find, & utilize more energy efficient sources. If we can borrow money to fund wars that we probably shouldn't have started, or bailout companies, that will probably go back to business as usual, why didn't we actually borrow to improve our infrastructure or to fund programs or bring jobs back to the States.


RE: Simple solution
By eddieroolz on 2/9/2010 3:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
I just can't believe politicians everywhere still fall for the "nuclear danger!" crap regurgitated by the environmentalists.


RE: Simple solution
By atlmann10 on 2/9/2010 11:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Instead of loaning a foreign company money to build turbines that will provide 20% of needed power on a good day on water where everyone will see them, how about loaning an American company money to build a nuclear plant that will provide 100% of needed power every single day on some piece of land that nobody cares about or sees on a daily basis unless they work there." Provided by coruroygt

That is a very good plan of action!

Another point here this is America a state here is larger than many countries. Why in the heck does no one in the government use there heads. We have large areas of elevation and of course mountains all over the place. Why not use them for the wind farms. Yes the elevation may cause some difficulties, but it would also by also in general being unblocked provide quite superior and continuous air flow.

We also have a lot of great mind's who could come up with a sufficient means of remote monitoring and maintenance. A Wind Turbine on a mountain could also be buried 100 feet into bedrock. This would make the tower sufficiently more stable and of course then all that would need maintenance would be the turbine. They could even build the towers for the turbines into the rock over a tunnel where the long range lines could be maintained etc, and access to the tower could be made available as well from the tunnels.


RE: Simple solution
By Calin on 2/10/2010 2:20:10 AM , Rating: 1
Nuclear reactors use water for cooling - either from a river or a lake.
And people care about land with lakes and rivers


RE: Simple solution
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:48:57 AM , Rating: 3
So? Do you think cooling water magically becomes radioactive? Learn a little about your topic please.


RE: Simple solution
By kattanna on 2/10/2010 11:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
aye.. with "waste" water being held to far higher standards then bottled water, it can actually be cleaner then lots of bottled water.


RE: Simple solution
By Masospaghetti on 2/10/2010 1:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
He's not saying the water becomes radioactive.

He's saying a nuke plant raises the temperature of a nearby body of water -- which can mess up the ecosystem if the body is too small or if there are too many power plants.

Not that I agree with the point - Nuclear is the best way to go with our current technology for power generation.


RE: Simple solution
By siuol11 on 2/14/2010 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Because Nuclear power is dangerous, dirty, and a poor replacement. We might as well just keep on using coal...


Ludington..
By StraightCashHomey on 2/9/2010 10:45:50 AM , Rating: 4
As a Michigan native, I can understand why this town may not want a turbine farm off of the shore. It's a beautiful place, and they heavily rely on tourism as the backbone of their economy - mainly from their scenic beaches. It would definitely put a damper on the scenery there.

Couldn't they put the turbine farm in a craphole like Benton Harbor?




RE: Ludington..
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/2010 11:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
Even Ted Kennedy, as Liberal a Senator as you will ever find, fought like hell to keep these things out of his state.

Wind power is a sham anyway, and nobody wants them in their "backyard". Plus they are VERY noisy.


RE: Ludington..
By mcnabney on 2/9/2010 11:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the fish can hear it. These things are way offshore.


RE: Ludington..
By twhittet on 2/9/2010 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but the fish can see them. Fish vision isn't great, so they think the towers are cranes trying to eat them. The fish develop anxiety disorders. This is obviously horrible for the environment.


RE: Ludington..
By Freezebyte on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ludington..
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 12:57:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Wind power a sham? So, the fact that companies are spending billions of dollars in research in development into making larger, more efficent and quieter wind turbines is a sham? The fact that wind power usage and planning has more then doubled in the last 10 years is a sham?


Yes...it is a sham...since no company is spending billions of their OWN dollars they are mainly spending BILLIONS of Govt SUBSIDIZED Dollars. If they were not a sham then companies would not require TAX incentives to want to pursue the technology.

That is the beauty of the Free Market when anything is profitably viable a company or an investor will pursue it with out the need of Government theft to support their schemes.


RE: Ludington..
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/9/2010 3:57:39 PM , Rating: 1
"And also try standing under a modern wind turbine built in the last 5 years, they are incredibly quiet for their size. If your that sensitive to noise, I suggest you move out to the tundra in Canada."

Try living near one built in the last 5 years and you will change you statement to, "They are incredibly quiet for their size" to "Though they are quieter for their size, they are still very, very LOUD!!" Now live near a field of them not just one or two. I been near brand new ones (built in last couple years).... There is nothing quiet about them.


RE: Ludington..
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 4:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Noise isn't the only issue. Last winter several wind turbines in the UK had to be shut down because they were flinging chunks of ice from the blades...a 10 lb hunk of ice moving at 80 mph will do wonders to a car or a rooftop (not to mention someone's head).

Retrofitting the blades for electric heating solves that problem..but adds weight, cost, and further reduces the amount of power they can generate.

The plain facts are that windmills are 500-year old technology. There's only so much you can do to improve them.


RE: Ludington..
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/9/2010 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
Nice, I see a theme for a horror film in the idea of Wind turbines launching 10lb plus hunks of ice at crowds of people... Maybe add a little irony and have the crowd be people protesting nuclear power plants...


RE: Ludington..
By Freezebyte on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ludington..
By Freezebyte on 2/9/2010 8:48:26 PM , Rating: 1
No ones pointing a gun to your head making to stay there. If you hate it so much, move. Welcome to planet earth, where progress and stuff changes, get used to it.

Actually, give me your address, i'll buy your land cheap and enjoy listening to the turbines while you go try to find your next little utopia of no noise.


RE: Ludington..
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 9:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Welcome to planet earth, where progress and stuff changes, get used to it."

Yes, but we prefer that things change for the BETTER, not for the worse. Replacing our current power plants with cheap, clean, dependable nuclear power is a change for the better. Replacing them with noisy, unreliable windmilles is not.


RE: Ludington..
By NesuD on 2/9/2010 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 1
I am from Michigan to. I am getting pretty damn tired of lakeshore property owners behaving as if they own the lake. They don't so they need to shut the hell up. That resource belongs to all the citizens of the state so they should all have a say in how it is used. We have a windfarm in Michigans thumb and I have to say we think it looks awesome. These wind turbines are actually very cool looking. This is a very environmentally friendly way to generate electricity. It would be the action of fools to block this project. It is already difficult enough to get investment in this state and people are seriously considering opposing this!


RE: Ludington..
By General Disturbance on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ludington..
By TETRONG on 2/9/2010 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 1
"You're taking energy OUT of the climate system: it is NOT environmentally friendly.
The same goes for solar power, where we would take the basic source energy out of both the climate system AND the biosphere. This is anything BUT environmentally friendly".

These are idiotic pronouncements.


RE: Ludington..
By puckalicious on 2/9/2010 12:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone that thinks there is a way to burn something without giving off chemical/heat pollution (or capturing all emissions in some manner cost effectively) is either a simpleton, a fool, or an idiot.

The amount of wind and sun power 'taken' from the planet in order to create electricity for the entire planet is an infintesimally small percentage of what is available.

Nuclear is a good stop-gap measure for eliminating all fossil fuel power sources while the technology and cost of low impact renewable energy is improved. Then those can be ramped up and eventually do away with all nuclear power too.

An integral step to anything we do is a vastly improved power grid that reaches across the entire nation and can efficiently distribute power anywhere, anytime.


RE: Ludington..
By General Disturbance on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ludington..
By brybir on 2/9/2010 1:30:15 PM , Rating: 1
1. Nope, you are just an idiot. The global climate system is significantly more powerful than you realize and our efforts to take energy out of this system are trivial in almost every way:

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[11] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

So even presuming we can even make the slightest *dent* in the thermal energy system that is out planet and its climate, it will be small to trivial.

2. Solar power is, for the time being, a secondary source of additional energy that supplements the baseload generation of constant generation plants. I dont think anyone proposes powering the whole world with solar in the near term. Long term answers involve sending massive mirrors into space and beaming concentrated energy back to earth. That will be a while in the future though.

3. Yes, stuff dies under solar panels, although they are typically installed en mass in areas that get intense amounts of sun, such as desert, that are far more robust than you give them credit for. Or, if you dont like that, would you prefer the countless deaths and disease that have been proven to be caused by natural resource power generation such as gas and coal.

4. It is not possible to make a completely clean coal or gas system that is even remotely affordable at this time.

5. Do YOU have any idea what it would do to the air temperature, judging by your inane rantings here, I would imagine that you do not. The air would not freeze, your implication is that minus reflected IR from the sun, their would be nothing to warm the areas covered by the solar panels. But, have you ever seen a large scale solar installation? They do not just "sit" on the ground, they are set at angles that track the sun (i.e. they move) and focus their energy into towers of various substances to transfer the energy from the sun.

6. I really hope your statement was tongue in cheek, because if it is not, it is surely a strange world you live in, with your life dominated by bad understandings of almost everything you act like you know.


RE: Ludington..
By porkpie on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ludington..
By brybir on 2/9/2010 1:48:55 PM , Rating: 1
1. Solar panels do NOT block 100% of solar radiation from reaching the ground. What solar panel installations are you referring to? Go take some time to take a look at ACTUAL solar installations. They look like this:

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/06/22/worlds-largest...

*GASP* the huge shadows they have!!! And, again, we cannot make a meaningful dent in the earth's thermal energy system with any proposed or practical application of solar or wind power. Your statements that we could cover the whole US is simply stupid and is merely a fallacy type argument showing one possible extreme situation to argue that all solar installations must be bad.

2. Also, you apparently missed the point where I said that NO ONE IS PROPOSING TO POWER THE WHOLE US WITH SOLAR PANELS, NOBODY! Why did you bring that back up, I said it was supplemental, not primary, or did you skip past that?

3. Nuclear energy IS a good source of energy. I dont dispute that, nor have I. It has issues with waste disposal but those are problems of our federal government, and are certainly solvable (i.e. France). My point is that supplemental power generation from solar and wind are not anywhere near as environmentally dangerous as both you and the other guy above implicate. No total land coverage, no massive life killoffs, no blocking all the solar energy, etc.


RE: Ludington..
By Keeir on 2/9/2010 2:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Niether are Solar and Wind enviromentally friendly as is common displayed.

Most "Enviromental" politicians don't want either Solar OR Wind projects in thier state... even in near desert conditions!

BTW, Nice choice for a picture. Many Solar Plants look like this though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moody_Sunburst.j...

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SolarPowerPlantS...

One can't really argue they -have- significant enviromental impact. Which doesn't even cover the cost of producing the panels or installation hardware.

::shrug::


RE: Ludington..
By General Disturbance on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ludington..
By General Disturbance on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ludington..
By corduroygt on 2/9/2010 1:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
I wish we had a giant mirror in space, we could have used it to melt all the snow in here!


RE: Ludington..
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 3:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fact remains, that land area could have had thriving life on it. It doesn't matter that the amount of life you kill is only a small percent of the total, you're still killing life. Of course to a naive socialist, you think the ends justify the means and so killing some life is okay, because after all, it is a small percentage.
The truth is that environmentalists may say they want solar power--- but when it actually comes to papering over an entire desert with solar cells (and thereby decimating all the plant and animal life in the region) they will be the first ones to stand up and block construction.

Their hazy conception of solar power perfection consists of nothing more than a few cells on everyone's rooftop...which is sufficient to power a few lightbulbs, but wholly inadequate for running heavy industry or commerce.

Which, come to think of it, is just fine with them.


RE: Ludington..
By corduroygt on 2/9/2010 8:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The truth is that environmentalists may say they want solar power--- but when it actually comes to papering over an entire desert with solar cells (and thereby decimating all the plant and animal life in the region) they will be the first ones to stand up and block construction.


This already happened:
http://www.dailytech.com/Californian+Environmental...


Total Waste
By MojoMan on 2/9/2010 11:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
This is a TOTAL waste. They would have to ship the power roughly 750 miles to MA IF they can go across Canada. Look at Google Maps. I've heard this happens a lot with wind farms. They pump the electricity so far, you actually lose most of the energy they DO generate. Does anybody else think its ridiculous to put a wind farm that far away from where the power needs to go? This stinks of special interests to me, and is NOT a power solution for anybody. This does NOT serve the people.

Here's the biggest problem though. The locals don't want it, but they're being forced to take it by the FEDERAL government. What kind of country are we turning into? Soviet Russia!?




RE: Total Waste
By Freezebyte on 2/9/2010 11:34:05 AM , Rating: 3
You do know that almost all modern windfarms are typicaly hundreds of miles away from the nearest substation where the power is transferred to the area's that need it and they function just fine?

Were you not also aware that AC is capable of being ramped up via transformers after the wind turbines produce it and can go very long distances with minimual power loss vs DC?

Or are you just a random internet whiner who's voices his baseless opinion with no facts to back it up?


RE: Total Waste
By weskurtz0081 on 2/9/2010 1:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see any facts backing up any of your posts..... well, I guess it depends on YOUR definition of "facts".


RE: Total Waste
By brybir on 2/9/2010 1:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
No, he is correct. It is factually correct in every way what he said and is not disputable. If you want to whine about someone's use of facts, at least do us a favor and find something that contradicts what he says, otherwise you are just whining and using an empty argument to attempt to discredit him based on none of your own information.

I.e. you are a troll....well, I guess it depends on YOUR definition of "troll", but I am guessing a look in a mirror will remind you of the answer a few times a day.


RE: Total Waste
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 5:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually his facts are NOT correct. The US does not have a high-capacity, high-efficiency HVDC power grid in place. Current wind farms are therefore NOT "hundreds of miles away" from where the power is consumed.

Could they be? Sure...if you want to spend the money on all the excess grid capacity. That's a very expensive proposition, however. The "Pickens Plan" required more than $10B just for grid upgrades...not to mention a 25X that for the actual wind farms themselves.


RE: Total Waste
By MojoMan on 2/10/2010 9:06:33 AM , Rating: 2
Freezebyte, Did you know that "typicaly" is spelled "typically", or are you just some random internet whiner " who's voices his baseless opinion with not facts to back it up " as you so wonderfully put it. LOL! Of course I know that they are typically hundreds of miles away. That's the problem! It's why I also know that people are complaining that they're actually losing money because of costs of transmission.

Even if we could transport power well over that many miles, and across the border, logic would tell you that you're going to pay a lot of fees, and lay a lot of line just to transport electricity that far. Every county, power company, and Canada is going to what a chunk of change for letting you use or lay new line. As to my "qualifications" I am a network engineer, and the tech director for a public school. I am in this position precisely because I'm education, hard working, and seek out the facts.

Here's a couple links backing up the fact that wind farms are horribly inefficient:

1.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/scienc...
2.http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/st...
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3...
4. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/14/wind-power-an-...

You also didn't mention anything about my largest point, that is, the loss of control over one's own land. Big corporations leverage the government to make people give them what they want. This happens with mining companies quite a bit in Alaska. It's happening with the roads in Texas. It's happening now in Michigan with this.


RE: Total Waste
By MojoMan on 2/10/2010 10:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Correction... "I'm educated, hard working, and seek out the facts."

By the way, is there any way you can edit a post after you comment? I'm a new poster on this site, even though I've been following it for years. I love the lively debates here.


RE: Total Waste
By Freezebyte on 2/10/2010 12:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Your article links are 5 years old or older and they are all based in the UK, not USA.

Try again


RE: Total Waste
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? His last link is from Sept 2009 ...and its based on studies from Denmark, Spain, and elsewhere. Do you think US windmills are magically better than anywhere else in the world? We sprinkle fairy dust on them or something?


NIMBY
By Regected on 2/9/2010 10:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is a common case of NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard. There is similar resistance in west Texas where cattle ranchers don't want the wind turbines around because they think it ruins the landscape. Projects like these need to be put somewhere where the average wind speed makes them viable. That eliminates a large portion of the US.

The Native American issue could be a problem, but I doubt the went out as far as the turbines will be to dump their artifacts. A compromise here could be reached.




RE: NIMBY
By Flahrydog on 2/9/2010 10:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Projects like these need to be put somewhere


No they do not.
We already have a nuclear power plant (Pilgrim) in my home town of Plymouth, just build another one...


RE: NIMBY
By Freezebyte on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: NIMBY
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But maybe thats just me......


I'm glad your there to look down on those people and how they live their lives. Also for making the idea that you would know better on how to manage their land and resources..WoW..you should look for a job in Govt since they have the same opinion about everyone living in America.


RE: NIMBY
By porkpie on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: NIMBY
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree! Who gets to shoot all those worthless parasite children in the head, to make room for those beautiful windmills? Do you get them all? Or can I have a few too?


your sarcasm rings so true...


RE: NIMBY
By Freezebyte on 2/9/2010 8:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Its amazing how easy it is for some random person on the interweb to take somones elses opinion and turn it into genocide.


RE: NIMBY
By AEvangel on 2/10/2010 1:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its amazing how easy it is for some random person on the interweb to take somones elses opinion and turn it into genocide.


Yeah I agree especially when all you did was describe the group of people as unsightly messes.


RE: NIMBY
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Its amazing how easy it is for some random person on the interweb to take somones elses opinion and turn it into genocide. "

Ever hear of reductio ad absurdum? Or disproof by extension? Ever read Swift's 'A Modest Proposal'?


RE: NIMBY
By Spivonious on 2/9/2010 12:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
If that artist rendering is a good representation of how it would look, I wouldn't want that in my backyard either. People bought waterfront property for the view, not to look at turbines.

Why don't they put some turbines at the top of Mt. Washington? At least there they'd get a guaranteed power output.


RE: NIMBY
By bobeedee on 2/9/2010 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
As a lifelong South East Massachusetts resident who has for years witnessed the antics of the Mashpee Indians firsthand , I'm sure if there were an option to build a casino on stilts on Nantucket Sound (over sacred ground) they would be digging the pilings with their bare hands...


Keep in mind people
By Freezebyte on 2/9/2010 11:55:59 AM , Rating: 1
Wind power is not THE solution. It is PART of the solution. Wind power has huge potential to generate a large portion of our electric needs if planned, developed and utilized properly. It will still need to backed up by constant reliable sources of energy such as coal, nuclear, gas, solar for obvious reasons. Do some MODERN research into current wind technology in the last 10 years and you will be surprised at how far wind energy development has come since the days of putting up those thousands noisy, ineffecient and ugly steel wind turbine towers in California over 20 years ago. If your basing your "facts" and "opinion" on that type of wind technology, you need to start researching and open your mind out of your own little inflexible conservative world.

Europe is a prime example of what you can achieve with a combination of renewable energy like wind along with geothermal, nuclear and solar. Combined, it can make very a very clean and easily sustainable power grid.

USA just has too many politics, ego's, money grabbers and whiners which prevents us from doing the same as our across the sea folks.

I've been fascinated by wind energy since I was a early teen and a few years ago, I got to go to an awesome wind turbine facility located in Wild Horse, Washington. The size and beauty of modern wind turbines to me is just amazing and the amount of technology put into them is night and day compared to turbines 20 years ago. The turbines are capable of being self automated, shutting down when winds get to hi to prevent damage to them. They also come online with the power grid when they are capable of producing enough electricity. Hell, I saw Windows XP demo's showing the status of each individual turbine, wind speed, temperature, oil pressure, hydrolic pressure. It was site to behold that you can literaly mouse click on a Vestas built wind turbine and control like a USB device.

If I ever get burnt out of the IT world, im going into wind energy, its a booming industry with no signs of slowing down.

Some pics of me at the Wild Horse Wind facility. I got to go inside one of the turbines, it was awesome to hear that that sucker spin up and start making clean and renewable energy on a beautiful sunny day. That is the future folks...

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/Phantron/win...

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/Phantron/win...




RE: Keep in mind people
By General Disturbance on 2/9/2010 12:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why waste money on PART of the solution, when money spent on the RIGHT solution will more than make up for PART of the solution?

Wind power is a nice idea, sure. But you're going back to the energy generation capabilities we used 100's of years ago in sail boats. Developing new tech to move backwards in energy generation capability is not moving forward. We're just building a lot of high tech sailboats, essentially. More sailboats than they could build in the past.

A nuclear plant occupying a thousand acres, or a wind farm occupying several thousand square miles? One has a better cost benefit than the other, in terms of investment, ongoing job creation, land area use, and environmental impact.

The U.S. created a brand new technology from scratch during WW2 - nuclear fission power. They did it with a directed, dedicated, and meaningful purpose - as, awful as that purpose was, in some respects.

But we can do this again with newer fission and then fusion tech, for the RIGHT purpose! And we can start building the new nuclear fission plants right away., which are 500% more efficient than the pre-70's nuclear plants which are still used in the U.S. today.

If we had politicians that had ANY f'n clue as to what a viable nation needs to survive, this would start tomorrow morning. Instead, we have bumbling morons who've never even read the constitution and haven't the slightest idea what really runs a sovereign nation - cheap energy. The only thing most of them think about is who is bribing with how much money to do nothing of benefit for the people.


RE: Keep in mind people
By Freezebyte on 2/9/2010 12:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Very FEW modern wind farm area consists of using thousands of square miles of land. Most are within a few dozen square miles or some larger, a hundred or so, but a thousand? A modern nuclear power plants need only a couple hundred acres to be built upon, not the thousands. Get your facts straight.


RE: Keep in mind people
By General Disturbance on 2/9/2010 12:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well thank you for having such a devout knowledge of "facts" and helping me make my point.

Land area usage ratios of 100:1 to 1000:1 for wind power vs nuclear, and at the same time nuclear is reliable, constant, and produces more energy.

I think they look cool too. Unfortunately, I think nuclear tech is even cooler. Ever had a tour of a large nuke plant? Totally fantastic.

Blows the socks off of propellers spinning in the wind.


RE: Keep in mind people
By brybir on 2/9/2010 1:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
Wind power does not "take" the entire land that it is used on. In western Iowa and the Dakotas they are installed in farm fields and you can see the corn and wheat growing right around them. Its not like you take a 100 Sq mile wind farm and then say that the land cannot be used for anything else, that is simply not true.

So once again, as in your previous posts, you seem not to have any understanding of actual use of wind or alternative power installations.

How about this, I will hop on board a massive nuclear expansion as soon as the Federal Government gets it head out of its ass and adopts a national procedure for storage and disposal of nuke waste. Then, you would be correct, it would become by far the best source of energy we could use short and long term. But currently, no one can seem to grow a pair and decide what to do about it, and the hodgepodge of stopgap measures used now is just a recipe for failure.

Maybe we need to go over and see what France is up to with their nuclear energy, seems that they have it basically figured out. If they can do it, so can we.


By General Disturbance on 2/9/2010 1:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well we're agreed then :)

And that's the point entirely: we are fumbling around with inefficient stop-gap measures, when we could have the real thing!

Let's stop petting each other at second base and go for the full meal deal. The leadership in the gov't has been failing the US miserably for dozens of years now.


RE: Keep in mind people
By porkpie on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Keep in mind people
By Solandri on 2/10/2010 12:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about this, I will hop on board a massive nuclear expansion as soon as the Federal Government gets it head out of its ass and adopts a national procedure for storage and disposal of nuke waste.

1. Per MWh of electricity generated, the waste is on the order of a million times less than the amount of waste produced by our current favorite source of power, coal.

2. IMHO, our national storage and disposal plan is terribly short-sighted. The U.S. has a relatively huge nuclear waste problem because we refuse to reprocess our spent fuel (a procedure which produces weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product). France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear, they reprocess, and they don't have a waste problem (relatively speaking).

Anyhow, 50-100 years from now, every 2-bit dictator in the world will have their own nuclear weapons program and proliferation will be a non-issue because there is nowhere left for nuclear weapons to proliferate to. When that happens, we are going to want to open up our "waste disposal" sites and extract the material so we can reprocess it and use it as fuel (a procedure which also reduces the long-term radioactivity of the material by the way, thus helping solve the "waste storage/disposal problem"). Many of the proposals I've seen for rendering the nuclear "waste" safe would make it very difficult to reprocess when that time comes.


Change of scenery
By twhittet on 2/9/2010 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 4
I really don't understand the concept of people arguing that windmills ruin the scenery. Are they that ugly? I think a windfarm looks pretty awesome and "pretty". Then again, I live in a prairie plain, so a windmill on the horizon is a nice change of pace.




RE: Change of scenery
By Freezebyte on 2/9/2010 12:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, I find them beautiful to watch. But some people are never happy unless they have something to bitch about.


RE: Change of scenery
By drmo on 2/9/2010 1:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
In that picture above, they don't look any worse to me than looking at a bay full of sailboats, etc. I think wind turbines are quite nice looking. I would get a wind turbine myself if I lived in an area that had higher winds.


RE: Change of scenery
By drmo on 2/9/2010 4:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
And what about the blight of beach houses along the shore. How unsightly!


By texbrazos on 2/11/2010 7:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Here is some recent info. and links as to why people don't want Nuke Plants. The pollution to the water that is used seems to be a big issue and in the business week link below of the Vermont Yankee Plant Leak, seems like there is are cover ups and lot's of misleading going on in the Nuke industry. It's really hard to know what is true and not true, but common sense tells us to err on the side of caution. Before long the avergage Joe will be able to make his own energy, affordable solar, wind, hydrogren, and hybrid systems are becoming available. There is even a unit that works in conjuction with heating and a/c units called HVGAC. This type of technology should be pushed to the forefront and made affordable and mandatory for new homes and businesses. We have lot's of telephone poles in this country, couldn't they double as solar and/or wind towers? I don't want a nuke plant near me, got one 50 miles away and there is evidence that the aquatic life has decreased and the cancer rates have risen around it. Links are below.

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DM1MJ82.h tm

www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=1064%3Anuclear-fallout&Itemid=505

www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/01/3411

www.texasradiation.org/nukesfilth.html

www.txpeer.org/Bush/

www.cleanwateraction.org/programinitiative/nuclea r-power




By porkpie on 2/11/2010 11:46:16 PM , Rating: 1
"The pollution to the water that is used seems to be a big issue "

Only to those incredible misinformed. Samples of water taken from a well dug at the reactor itself were 20 nano curies per liter. Which means if you drank 125 liters of that water, you would receive a radiation dose roughly equivalent to what you'd receive on a single airline cross-country flight...or about 1/100 of the radiation you receive each year from natural sources. Each and every year. If you live in a Rocky Mountain or New England state, then its about 1/200 of what you get every year (more natural radiation in those areas).

But that's at a well dug at the SITE ITSELF. Measurements taken at the nearby Columbia River showed no detectable traces of radation at all. None. Zip. Zilch.

But I'm sure Greenpeace thanks you for your support. They prey on ignorance and superstitious fear.

"We have lot's of telephone poles in this country, couldn't they double as solar and/or wind towers?"

(chuckle)

" Before long the avergage Joe will be able to make his own energy, affordable solar, wind, hydrogren, and hybrid systems are becoming available"

I really wish people would learn a little about this subject before posting nonsense like this. First of all, hydrogen and "hybrid" systems are not sources of energy at all. Solar and wind will never be "cheap" for the average Joe, not in the next 50 years at least..and our major energy needs aren't even residential in the first place; they're industrial and commercial.


By texbrazos on 2/12/2010 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 1
Well porkpie, there are people using the hybrid systems that are totally off the grid. They have homes that include swimming pools and hot tubs. They are not sacrificing anything. The affordability issue is one that should be fixed. Prices are coming down, and govt. tax incentives are being issued. Just not fast enough.
What is so funny about telephone poles doubling as small wind towers and places to hang solar panels. In the right locations they would work great and not require any additonal space and tie easily to the grid. As to your suggestion that you do not get any more radiation from traveling on a plane than from living near a reactor. You are misinformed. There are studies here in Texas, that will contridict your claim. Cancer rates downwind from one of the reactors has increased. Not only is this one of the issues, but the aquatic life has decreased and even become non existent downstream. Years ago people really didn't have alot of evidence the problems that Nuclear power would cause because of it's infancy. Now people have evidence backed by scientific data. Not only does the scientific data suggest that there are health issues with Nuke Power, but it sure doesn't help when you have cover ups such as in the recent Yankee Plant and the Comanche Peak plant. I am not sure where you get your data from porkpie, are you reading a pro nuke data site? Are you getting your data from one of the Nuke companies? I find when there is money and profit for a big corp. there is usuallly alot of misinformation and misleading going on to push their agenda. Basic greed. If there were not any of these issues or questionable data people would be happy to embrace nuke power, but cover ups and data pointing otherwise will constantly plaque the nuke power issue.


By texbrazos on 2/12/2010 11:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
It boils down to whose evidence are you gonna believe. Are ya gonna believe the data from someone in the nuke industry or are you gonna believe in data from people who want a healthy world? Let's see non profit data or data from a for profit company. If you look on caner maps from the state of Texas you will even see that the cancer rates around nuke plants are some if not the highest in the state of Texas.
Here is an article that I found interesting.
The cancer rate in north central Texas has increased alarmingly since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant started up in 1990, the keynote speaker at a University of North Texas conference said Monday.

The Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Region chapter of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding its 76th annual meeting along with the three-day Natural Philosophy Alliance conference at UNT, which started Monday.

The alliance is a group of dissident scientists who challenge and seek to improve contemporary theories in physics and astronomy.

Ernest J. Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Monday's keynote speaker, read his paper, "The Health Effects of Nuclear Fallout and Releases from Nuclear Power Plants."

Dr. Sternglass said his research has uncovered convincing evidence of a large increase in cancer rates since the dawn of the nuclear age.

He also said studies in the north central Texas area indicate large increases in cancer rates since the start-up of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Somervell County southwest of Fort Worth.

The Texas Cancer Center and the Texas Department of Health compared statistics for the first five years of the plant's operation, 1990 to 1994, to the previous five-year period, 1985 to 1989.

Dr. Sternglass said the data indicates that cancer mortality in the counties surrounding the power plant - Somervell, Hood, Johnson and Erath - increased dramatically, 27 percent, during the second five-year period while the rate for the state increased 15 percent for the same period.

In Hood County, breast cancer increased 190 percent over the previous five-year period, and total breast cancer deaths for all four counties increased by 51 percent while the statewide increase was 12 percent for the same period.

Using charts and graphs to illustrate his data, Dr. Sternglass began his talk by tracing the infant mortality rates and cancer rates in both infants and adults since 1935.

Infant mortality rates had been dropping steadily until about 1950, Dr. Sternglass said, when nuclear testing in the atmosphere along with government-sanctioned releases from nuclear power plants increased the amount of radiation in the atmosphere and caused the rate to level off. It has since returned to its rate of decline since nuclear testing in the atmosphere stopped in 1980, he said.

Dr. Sternglass said the cancer rate for children ages 5 to 9 was very low before 1945, one case in 10,000, even in states such as Texas that have high rates of chemical pollution because of the oil and gas industry. The rate has since climbed to 100 in 10,000, "overwhelming evidence" of the link between childhood cancer and radiation, he said.

The partial meltdown in 1979 at Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island, which released radiation into the air, resulted in the premature deaths of about 50,000 people, Dr. Sternglass said, despite the government's claim that no one died as a result of the accident. He said a study of the increase in death rates showed a direct relation between the death rate and proximity to the plant.

Dr. Sternglass said the infant mortality rate within 50 miles of seven nuclear power plants dropped dramatically when the plants were shut down in the 10-year period from 1987 to 1997. The rate decrease ranged from 15 percent around a nuclear plant in Wisconsin to 54 percent around a plant in Michigan.

Dr. Sternglass said that Texas now has a higher death rate than California because it has opened new power plants while California has shut its down.

In total, Dr. Sternglass estimates that 19 million adults have died prematurely and that an additional million children have died as a result of radiation in the air from nuclear bomb tests, nuclear plant accidents and radiation released into the atmosphere from power plants.

He said the existing nuclear power plants should be converted to fossil fuels.

"It's in our hands to end this terrible chapter of the mistakes we made because we failed to understand this technology," he said.


For the first time ever...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/2010 10:34:28 AM , Rating: 1
This whitey is siding with the Injins !!!!




RE: For the first time ever...
By Desslok on 2/9/2010 11:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
Break out the peace pipe and the fire water!


Salazar
By albus on 2/9/2010 10:51:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar


Pure bloods punishing the muggles.




Why should we care!
By SilthDraeth on 2/9/2010 10:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
Why the F should we care that China is laying down high speed rails? It doesn't directly impact us. If anything, China improving their infrastructure, will improve their economy, and being that their economy is tied to ours, I don't see an issue.

Building high speed rails just because we can, and wind farms just because, is stupid.

If we build a nuclear power plant, it would take up way less space than a wind farm, and produce far more power, for far cheaper. And it would be clean energy.




Oh yeah!
By Ammohunt on 2/9/2010 2:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
States Salazar, "What happens to Cape Wind, whether it goes up or goes down, will not be determinative of wind energy in the United States. The president and the department have made renewable energy one of the imperatives in our country."


Read: Whether you like it or not we are going to shove this down Americas throat just like Health Care.




Not in my neighborhood
By overlandpark4me on 2/15/2010 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when Kennedy (the dead one) blocked installation of these because he didn't want to have to look at them from his multi million dollar "house". Oops, official press release, "they are a hazard to shipping". All of these idiots that run their yaps don't back up their own beliefs when it isn't convenient to them. Algore only got solar panels when it was revealed to the press that one month of utilities at his "modest home" was more than most normal peoples yearly tab. Or when Pelosi charters a "massive carbon footprint" for a cross-country flight.
Message to the greenies. STFU until you practice what you preach.




wind vs nukes
By renegade800x on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wind vs nukes
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 3:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
"Nuclear technology is anything but clean"

Nothing is perfectly clean. Nuclear is cleaner than any other energy source, however.

"about 24 years ago a nuke plant has exploded and we still have problems because of it."

You mean, a plant built with 1950s era technology -- a plant with a design never built anywhere outside the USSR, as it was considered too dangerous. Should we judge solar power by a set of really crappy solar cells we could build in 1950?

In any case, I want to know exactly what "problems" you believe you're having from it. Other than the exclusion zone immediately around the reactor itself, radiation levels have long since returned to normal...and even at the site, people come and go on a daily basis (Chernobyl never even entire shut down, some of the reactors were kept functioning).

"The sun shines every day, so why not use it to generate power?"

Because tapping it is extraordinarily expensive, wastes enormous tracts of land,and the resources needed to be mined, refined, and produced to make those solar cells are ultimately dirtier than nucler powre.


RE: wind vs nukes
By unclesharkey on 2/9/2010 3:47:49 PM , Rating: 1
RE: wind vs nukes
By JediJeb on 2/9/2010 4:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you are refering to the Chernoybl plant that exploded, that really isn't a good example to use. That plant didn't even have a top on the reactor that was safe. The plants that are built today are 1000x safer than that one was. Also the ones today generate very little waste and it can be reprocessed and used again until most of the radioactivity is gone.

Also the arguement about running out is not valid. Uranium left in the ground will decay naturally, so why not dig it up and use it now, before it becomes useless in the future. It would be like saying don't drink the milk because it is the last bottle we have, and then finding out a month later it has spoiled. It would just be wasted not saved. Also there is as much Thorium as there is Uranium to be used for fuel and the Thorium produces much less waste when used.


RE: wind vs nukes
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 5:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Also there is as much Thorium as there is Uranium to be used "

Thorium is actually some 3X as prevalent as uranium. Together, and with reprocessing, we have enough nuclear fuel to last many tens of thousands of years.


RE: wind vs nukes
By unclesharkey on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: wind vs nukes
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 6:11:36 PM , Rating: 3
"All it will take is one accident and it will effect [sic] a population for decades"

That's like saying "all it will take is for the sun to explode once and we're all dead". ALL forms of power generation involve risk. Nuclear is the safest form there is. There really isn't any room to question that. People are affected on a daily basis by the pollution generated directly by coal plants (which, incidently release far more cumulative radiation than even a nuclear meltdown would). Even for wind and solar power, the indirect pollution generated by the gargantuan levels of resources these forms of energy require, far outweigh the cleanliness of nuclear.

"Also please explain your 1000 times safer"

Glad to. Chernobyl was designed with a positive void coefficient. Meaning if the cooling system fails, the reactor gets hotter and hotter until it melts down. No Western reactor was EVER built with such a model. They have negative coefficients...a cooling failure also shuts down the reactor. Automatically, by design...no additional system required.

Chernobyl was also designed WITHOUT any form of containment dome. None. Modern reactors all have these -- and they are by far the strongest structures ever built by mankind.

"... terrorists happen too. "

Lol, what do you think a terrorist will do to a nuclear reactor? You could slam a loaded 747 at full speed into a reactor's containment dome, and it wouldn't even scratch it.


RE: wind vs nukes
By unclesharkey on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: wind vs nukes
By Solandri on 2/10/2010 12:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Nuclear is the safest form there is".

Safer than solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, you gotta be kidding me.

Believe it. Per GWh generated, nuclear has had the fewest fatalities of all the electricity generation technologies we've invented.
http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_Report/ENSAD98.pdf
The relevant sections are 7.2.4 and 7.2.5. Nuclear has been the safest in terms of immediate deaths. Even if you factor in estimates for delayed deaths (estimates because there hasn't been a commercial nuclear accident in a Western reactor with delayed deaths), it's still around the safety level of immediate fatalities from coal-related accidents. Worldwide, the most dangerous power source actually turns out to be hydro, because of fatalities from dam failures.

Solar and wind aren't on the charts because they generate a minuscule amount of the world's electricity. But there have already been several deaths associated with those relatively new technologies in the U.S. (which provide less than 3% of our electricity), while the nuclear industry (which generates 20% of our electricity) has had zero deaths in 40+ years.

quote:
I have nothing personal against nuclear power plants there is one in the state I live in that was built in the 1970's and is still going strong. But I don't think we need to proliferate the country with them. I also remember 3 mile island and the movie the china syndrome. The movie came our prior to the accident and they spoke about how an accident could potentially wipe out an area as large as Pennsylvania. Well that made a lot of people sit up and think after the 3 mile island accident.

People need to stop getting their "facts" from a FICTIONAL movie, with a script probably written by someone who hasn't the faintest clue what the difference between alpha decay and beta decay is. Consider for a moment that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a deliberate and uncontained release of nuclear material in a manner which dispersed them into the surrounding area in the most effective manner ever invented by man. Do you see a Pennsylvania-sized swath of Japan where everyone was killed and land was rendered uninhabitable? That alone should tell you that the line you remember from the movie was the writer taking artistic license for dramatic effect, and has no basis in reality.

3 Mile Island actually demonstrated the reactor design's safety. Despite mechanical failures and inability of the plant operators to correctly identify the problem, the reactor did what it was designed to do and contained the accident. It worked as designed.


RE: wind vs nukes
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:21:55 AM , Rating: 3
"how many nuclear power plants have had accidents that we know of in the US. "

How many of those "accidents" have resulted in any deaths? zero. How many have resulted in someone even getting hurt? zero again.

"Safer than solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, you gotta be kidding me"

As Solandri points out-- believe it. Per MW-hour generated, nuclear is by far the safest form of energy there is. The statistics don't lie.

"How many 747's have you personally crashed into a nuclear power plant dome?"

None. But the government has -- not a 747, but a fighter jet at 500mph. Given the much stronger frame of a fighter, that's actually a tougher test.

"I also remember 3 mile island and the movie the china syndrome"

Ah, you get your information from a Hollywood movie, and an incident that released less radiation than you get any time you fly cross country? Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself? Honestly, you couldn't make the anti-nuclear nuts look worse if you were being paid to.


RE: wind vs nukes
By unclesharkey on 2/10/2010 9:22:18 AM , Rating: 1
Ah, you get your information from a Hollywood movie, and an incident that released less radiation than you get any time you fly cross country? Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself? Honestly, you couldn't make the anti-nuclear nuts look worse if you were being paid to.

If you read my post about the movie, I am making a point not getting information. I said that in the movie they said... and then we had the accident and it made people think...hmmm are these things really safe and what if... that is the only point I made I never took any information from the movie and said it was true.

Again I am not against nuclear power I just have to laugh when I read posts on here because so many people claim to be experts and know this and that but where are you getting your information....probably from the internet, which we know is not always accurate. Do any of you work at a nuclear power plant? Do any of you do research or have a PHD in nuclear science, or actually know this information you are saying is a fact or from personal experience.

Go ahead and build a million power plants in the US it's ok with me and then in 1000 years when we discover that they were not as safe as we thought it will be our future generations that will have to deal with it. Again I don't think we need to proliferate with one kind of energy source but diversify with many different kinds. They all have their place. You can call me an anti-nuclear nut all you want but I will always question and play devils advocate if I choose to. All the coal plants in my state cause cancer but hell you can't prove it. This is what you hear about coal burning plants when you bring up cancer or heath problems.

"Industry lobbyists accused the report's sponsors of using flawed science and scare tactics to impugn utilities".

Sounds like the same could be said about nuclear.....now who is telling the truth.....? Are coal power plants safe? Just as safe as Nuclear.....? Not as dirty....do a blog on that and see how many people come to the defense of coal and say it is safer etc....and let them show you all their facts and research.


RE: wind vs nukes
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:52:57 AM , Rating: 3
" Do any of you do research or have a PHD in nuclear science, or actually know this information you are saying is a fact "

The information I am quoting is fact, yes. Do you need a degree in molecular biology to know drinking water is safe? Do you need a degree in nuclear physics to know nuclear reactors are far safer than any other form of power generation? No.

"and then in 1000 years when we discover that they were not as safe as we thought..."

Actually, we have more than 5,000 reactor-years of experience in operating nuke plants. Your statement derives from ignorance, and preys on fear of the unknown. Why not give up your primitive superstitious beliefs, and embrace science, logic, and rational thought?

"I said that in the movie they said... and then we had the accident and it made people think...hmmm are these things really safe and what if..."

Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself by posting this?


RE: wind vs nukes
By unclesharkey on 2/10/2010 12:54:13 PM , Rating: 1
The information I am quoting is fact, yes. Do you need a degree in molecular biology to know drinking water is safe? Do you need a degree in nuclear physics to know nuclear reactors are far safer than any other form of power generation? No.

So I take it you don't have a degree, so you must be a know it all by virtue of the internet and your cut and paste abilities.

I like the way you try to twist what I am saying trying to make me out to be fearful and ignorant. Just because I question something does not make a person ignorant or uninformed. I have not preyed on any fear of the unknown....you are truly nuts. I am having a conversation on a web site and I can say, ask or express any opinion I want. Unless you want to take away my freedom of expression since it does not suit you.

Embrace science, logic and rational thought? So who made you king of the world? I will embrace what ever I damn will please......so if I don't what will you do, burn me at the stake? Drive a spike through my heart....spewing venom like that makes you no better than the religious zealots that troll sites like this.

"Grub, ho!" now cried the landlord, flinging open a door, and in we went to breakfast.


RE: wind vs nukes
By Solandri on 2/9/2010 8:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear technology is anything but clean. Don't believe the media; it's not clean just because they say it is. What happens with the Uranium and Plutonium waste after being used in a nuke plant? Where is it dumped? How radioactive is it?

As the U.S. currently doesn't have a long-term nuclear waste storage program, the nuclear plants just store the waste on-site. They can do this because running a 1000 MW nuclear plant (enough to power about 750,000 homes) for a year generates about 25-30 tons of waste (spent fuel). That's about 3 cubic meters per year, or about 3 cc's of waste per household. It's so small that most plants are still storing all the waste they've ever produced in the decades they've been operating, and still have plenty of room to spare. Here's a pic of a 3 m^3 dumpster to give you an idea how little it is.
http://www.rubbish.com.au/Images/IMG_0578.jpg

In contrast, a 1000 MW coal plant OTOH burns about 3 million tons of coal per year (about 4 tons or 102 cubic meters per household) and releases 7-8 million tons of CO2 per year. It also accounts for about 5 tons of uranium and 13 tons of thorium which manage to get past the scrubbers and filters and get into the atmosphere. So it's not like you're any safer from radiation by blocking nuclear plants thus causing more coal plants to be built.

The scales are so staggeringly unbalanced in favor of nuclear (3 cc's vs. 102 cubic meters) that it's insane that we're building more coal plants just to placate some people who don't want to build nuclear plants. For a similar comparison, the N.S. Savannah, a demonstration nuclear cargo ship used 163 pounds of uranium (a hair over 1 gallon) during the 5 years it operated. A similar conventional vessel would have burned about 29 million gallons of fuel oil in the same time.

Other posts have addressed your safety concerns. In terms of fatalities per GWh generated (including Chernobyl), nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation man has invented.


RE: wind vs nukes
By unclesharkey on 2/9/2010 9:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you in regards to the coal power plants....they are bad news. But what about renewable sources like solar, geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric. We are only going to get better at creating better more efficient sources of renewable energy and the cost will come down and it will get better. Dow's solar shingles are a good example.


RE: wind vs nukes
By Solandri on 2/10/2010 12:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
Alas, with current technology, those are nowhere near ready to be our primary forms of power generation.

Wind is currently about 3x as expensive as coal/nuclear, and isn't consistent enough to be a primary electricity source. That automatically relegates it to a maximum of maybe 10%-15% of our electricity needs.

Solar is about 10x-20x as expensive as coal/nuclear. It too isn't consistent (nights, cloudy days) so require extensive banks of batteries if you want it to operate as a primary source. And even if you did, you'd have to cover an area about the size of Delaware with solar panels to generate enough electricity to satisfy the U.S.' electricity needs. It'd be

Hydro generates about 6% of our electricity right now, but it's about tapped out. There is already opposition from environmental groups to building new hydro plants because of the damage they do to river ecosystems and migratory fish in particular.

Geothermal is probably the most promising renewable, but few areas in the U.S. have geothermal vents running close to the surface. I had hope for the deep-well geothermal technology being advocated by (among others) Google, but it seems to have fallen off the radar so I assume they ran into problems with it.

So like it or not, right now, nuclear is the best solution we have, both in terms of cost, power generating capability, and minimizing pollution output. I have no problems with continuing to research renewables, and in fact hope that those can be developed to the point where they replace our nuclear reactors. But it makes absolutely no sense to be building coal plants instead of nuclear, which is what our country is doing because so many uninformed people oppose nuclear.


RE: wind vs nukes
By texbrazos on 2/11/2010 7:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
Here is some recent info. and links as to why people don't want Nuke Plants. The pollution to the water that is used seems to be a big issue and in the business week link below of the Vermont Yankee Plant Leak, seems like there is are cover ups and lot's of misleading going on in the Nuke industry. It's really hard to know what is true and not true, but common sense tells us to err on the side of caution. Before long the avergage Joe will be able to make his own energy, affordable solar, wind, hydrogren, and hybrid systems are becoming available. There is even a unit that works in conjuction with heating and a/c units called HVGAC. This type of technology should be pushed to the forefront and made affordable and mandatory for new homes and businesses. We have lot's of telephone poles in this country, couldn't they double as solar and/or wind towers? I don't want a nuke plant near me, got one 50 miles away and there is evidence that the aquatic life has decreased and the cancer rates have risen around it. Links are below.

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DM1MJ82.h tm

www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=1064%3Anuclear-fallout&Itemid=505

www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/01/3411

www.texasradiation.org/nukesfilth.html

www.txpeer.org/Bush/

www.cleanwateraction.org/programinitiative/nuclea r-power


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki