Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Fears

[SUBMAN1]

A possible case of do as we say, but not as we do? I don't understand?

http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080423/1194768039148.html?.v=13

-S

[bradclark1]

Clean-coal technologies. Understand?

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.html

[Happy Times]

Finland is building more nuclear reactors, the cleanest energy there is.:up:

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf76.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

[Happy Times]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4948378.stm

http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/loppusijoitus.html

This IS safe and realistic.

Saying that solar and wind are cheap and effective is false! We need atleast 10.000MWe increase of electricity for the future, thats a lot of windmills and panels.:dead: We have industry and people that deserve we keep this country competitive in the global market. It isnt that easy position being without our own natural resources, up here next to the arctic circle.
We cant just dream.

[FIREWALL]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...


Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

[Happy Times]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...


Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

Hes admitted he makes them up:up:

[The WosMan]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

I have read about India really investing bigtime in solar energy. Apparently there is some new 3rd generation technology out which is much more efficient and the areas of the country where they are being built get sunny days almost 365 days a year.

I personally have no problem with using the current fossil fuels we have now as we develop new technology. There is over a trillion dollars worth of the cleanest burning coal in the world locked up in a national park in Utah. However, that coal can't be touched because a sweetheart deal was made between the Clintons and an Indonesian family that owns the worlds second largest supply of this coal in exchange for millions of dollars in campaign and other political contributions. Liquifcation and gasification of coal could also relieve pressure on the crude oil and natural gas market.

Nuclear energy is probably our best alternative right now even though it produces nuclear waste. It also solves the issue of creating hydrogen for fuel-cell technology. You can run the reactors at 100% where they are their most efficient and use any excess power for electrolysis of water to hydrogen. The US has a solution for the nuclear waste issue in the mojave desert. You seal it in zirconium containers and bury it so deep under a mountain in the middle of a desolate desert deep deep under the water table. In the mean time you figure out how to recycle that material. The containers they can put it in are nearly unbreakable. I have seen tests where they ran them over with a freight train and the containers don't open up.

[baggygreen]

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. erm, the biggest problem i have with statements like this is that sure, the power itself is nice and clean but the processes required to build the wind turbines and particularly the solar panels, aren't. they're shocking!

I would say google it, but googles dominated by "solar is our saviour" pages, i cant for the life of me find the link to some lovely photos, but i'll keep looking

[August]

It isnt that easy position being without our own natural resources, up here next to the arctic circle.
We cant just dream.

I thought global warming was going to open the arctic circle up to exploitation? Who knows? You may soon be richer than an Alaskan who owns property along the pipeline. :D

[The WosMan]

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. erm, the biggest problem i have with statements like this is that sure, the power itself is nice and clean but the processes required to build the wind turbines and particularly the solar panels, aren't. they're shocking!

I would say google it, but googles dominated by "solar is our saviour" pages, i cant for the life of me find the link to some lovely photos, but i'll keep looking

Very true. The acreage of the land required for them is insane and it is harmful to wildlife, especially windfarms. The most modern form of oil drilling does much less land damage. There really is no true safe, harmless, or clean energy. Whether you build hydroelectric dams, wind farms, solar farms, drill, plant and raise bio-fuels, mine for coal, split the atom........it all has a big environmental impact in some way. I just want to see more people being honest about it. If it comes to my lifestyle, my job, my wallet or a few trees or a unproven theory of planetary warming which may or may not be happening anymore and may or may not be even caused by humans I am going to pick myself and my family's welfare every time. Drill, build refineries, mine coal, do what you have to do to make the economy work and keep people working and providing jobs.

[Stealth Hunter]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...


Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste
http://www.earthmountainview.com/yucca/yucca.htm

[Stealth Hunter]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

Hes admitted he makes them up:up:
Not quite, jackass.:up: See my above post. There's some information about nuclear waste and nuclear waste dumping. Rumors also state that the moon has been seen as a possible nuclear waste dump (Google it).

And also note that nuclear power is safe... as long as you don't count on mishaps and mistakes. Chernobyl ring a bell? How about Three-Mile Island? Three-Mile Island was prevented, but if it wasn't stopped in time... it could have been a catastrophe. Chernobyl... well, we all know the story. Mass radioactivity all over the area and sickness from it. Horrible deaths from the radiation, and the crap that remained floating around in the atmosphere long after the event.

Wind power damaging wildlife? Mm, yes. Might we see evidence of damage to wildlife (don't give me any of that "Birds Are Hitting the Fans" crap). Well, if that's the case, move them out into the ocean (and this has been done before, by the way, quite successfully). Not much problem now, now is there? I mean, unless you're concerned about fish and the possibility of them colliding with the beam that descends into the deep. Although, the only problem you're faced with then is the rich complaining that the mills are blocking their view.

And you're right. We shouldn't just dream... we should get off our sodding asses and start focusing less and less on what's going to make us more money and start focusing more and more on what's going to keep the Earth intact for future generations.

My, my. I never knew this forum had so many opinionated little twits on it. Quite the bees, aren't we? Spoil your sweets and we'll be attacked.

[Skybird]

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

Germany is world market leader for technology regarding solar energy installations - but believe me, it only is becasue of heavy subsidies, and massive financial investements whose profits are enjoyed from investors outside Germany. In other words: it is ridiculously expensive for the tax-payer. If Germany would go solar energy all the way, running that would form the greatest expense post in germany's GNP. Up to almost the half of the GNP would be needed to spend on the energy system for installation and maintaining and keep the according industry running. Even the optimists with their more friendly calculations cannot show to press the costs below at least one quarter if the yearly GNP.

Windmills, another german strength, are not energy-efficient enough to ever take over electricty production completely.

In other words: a combination of solar energy and wind energy alone is both unaffordable and not sufficient enough in energy production to satisfy the energy hunger of modern industrialised hitech societies. So, adressing things by solar and wind energy alone is unrealistic to be acchieved in just some decades. A completely new, energy-passive kind of architecture is neeeded (it exists, but only people with a reasonable - and stable! - income can afford it), it would need to decosntruct all existing cities, including metropoles, and replace the buildings with such new ones, and it would need to completely decinstruct the industrial structures and replace current factories with new ones with an energy-efficiency that currently does not exist.

Germany's solar industry has full books for the next 14-15 years, the industry was almost exploding - but still business is not self-supporting and needs to be heavily subsidised. Hard to imagine that within the next couple of decades it every becomes if not a profitable then at least cost-neutral business. But good business perspectives are needed, if you try to chnage the world without allowing people to make a reasonable profit by that, you can forget it. Business leaders are no monks. On anothe rhand, a bsuiness that only lives by every third buck or so of the national taxes being pumped into it, is no healthy business-doing. even more so when these tax investements do not stay in Germany, but flow to investors in foreign countries.

We simply consume too much energy - trend pointing upwards. the IPCC has just been criticised for having assumed in it'S projection that the demand for energy would considerably fall over the next years. But it is rising in the West, and is exploding in Asia. - People may want to keep that in mind when buying their next computer combo with that mega-super-wonder power supply and that hyper-wonder grahics card that eats the Watts like a formula one car eats the meters. running your system over night or equip it with power-intensive items like mention, spares you of any argument in favour of energy-saving light bulbs, of course.

Deleting solar and wind energy completely, is not needed. but leaving it to these, is stupid, and unaffordable. Both should be considered as regional, small-scale solution, maybe with the exceptions of wind parks on the ocean, but if this idea survives in the face of growing storm activity remains to be seen. We need both a massive reduction of energy consummation in West and East alike, and we need very new technologies used in the industry, we need a new idea of traffic, and a new architecture. Plus new, passive energy production methods, whatever will work. Adding the global warming and the rise of sea levels, we also need to orient towards the idea of living not by the sea, but living on the sea, which is true for major areas in the flat parts of europe, the coastal areas anyway here and in the US, and SE Asia as well. Quite some Dutch architects currently are working in rhich Dubai, where they are busy in projects of artificial island, and floating cities. Floating houses is a trend - for the rhich - in dutch architecture, too. The Netherlands will get it from several sides: from the rising sea level, the spiking precipitation during more excessive storms, and the increase in water delivered by the rivers, carrying all the water masses from Europe into the Netherland. So it is understandable that the Dutch have become a global centre and trendsetter in adaptive architecture building. Saw some docu on it some days ago on TV, and saw some very impressive design studies. these will not be of any use for the poor, of course - it is a very exclusive party being raised. But the sea levels are rising, the ice is melting, the glaciers are disappearing, and the weather becomes more extreme, and we know from sediment analysis that in ages of Earth's history where the mean temperature was around 3°C warmer than today, sea levels sometimes were 25m +/-10m above the levels of today. In the long perspective, and considering that it is a lot of work and consumes both ressources and time to build cities like the ones we have now, it makes sense not to stay by the ocean, but to move onto the ocean. And this will see a very different way of energy production, we can assume.

That are longer time perspectives, I know. But short-sightedness is what has brought us to where we are, and I would say: it is a mess. If there will be a next time, we should not repeat that mistake.

[HunterICX]

And you're right. We shouldn't just dream... we should get off our sodding asses and start focusing less and less on what's going to make us more money and start focusing more and more on what's going to keep the Earth intact for future generations.

Some problems there

1st of all, Economy and Climate do not mix, our human greed is to be thanked for.

Dreaming for a cleaner enviroment is for the ones that care, the ones that make profit while they harm the climate dont give a damn.

Earth will be FINE, what we do is warming it up a bit and polute it here and there..the planet is OK, it has suffered worse....it are the PEOPLE that are going to be screwed in the future if we dont do something.

HunterICX

[bradclark1]

Wind and sun are fine for supplying that little bit so the people who can afford it can feel better. The only affordable, logical way at the present time is nuclear. Put a lot of government and private sector emphasis on research of better ways for waste storage or disposal.
At the present time the only truly workable choices are clean coal technology or nuclear. Everything else is wishful thinking. I can't see 100 square miles of solar panels or wind farms outside of every small to medium city being a realistic choice.

[Tchocky]

Not sure about that "little bit", Brad. A few weeks ago wind power supplied 40% of Spain's electricity needs. But you're right in that wind is limited in continuous generation and variable demand generation. These problems can be somewhat alleviated through grid modernising and storage capacity.

On a slightly related note, wind power in my home town made the NYT :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/technology/techspecial/09town.html

[Happy Times]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

Hes admitted he makes them up:up:
Not quite, jackass.:up: See my above post. There's some information about nuclear waste and nuclear waste dumping. Rumors also state that the moon has been seen as a possible nuclear waste dump (Google it).

And also note that nuclear power is safe... as long as you don't count on mishaps and mistakes. Chernobyl ring a bell? How about Three-Mile Island? Three-Mile Island was prevented, but if it wasn't stopped in time... it could have been a catastrophe. Chernobyl... well, we all know the story. Mass radioactivity all over the area and sickness from it. Horrible deaths from the radiation, and the crap that remained floating around in the atmosphere long after the event.

Wind power damaging wildlife? Mm, yes. Might we see evidence of damage to wildlife (don't give me any of that "Birds Are Hitting the Fans" crap). Well, if that's the case, move them out into the ocean (and this has been done before, by the way, quite successfully). Not much problem now, now is there? I mean, unless you're concerned about fish and the possibility of them colliding with the beam that descends into the deep. Although, the only problem you're faced with then is the rich complaining that the mills are blocking their view.

And you're right. We shouldn't just dream... we should get off our sodding asses and start focusing less and less on what's going to make us more money and start focusing more and more on what's going to keep the Earth intact for future generations.

My, my. I never knew this forum had so many opinionated little twits on it. Quite the bees, aren't we? Spoil your sweets and we'll be attacked.

Where in those links does it say that most American nuclear power plants dump their waste in the ocean and start floating there?
If you know how different nuclear power plants work, you understand that Chernobyl or Harrisburg type incidetns arent possible in Finnish reactors. Especially Chernobyl, the accident was a metafor for the whole USSR. Who the hell wants to look at thousands of windmills and solar panels? Its not just rich people, in here ordinary people can afford a wiew, i would like to keep it that way.
And you could start getting yourself together. One day you are a muslim next an atheist, then a conservative and next a socialist etc..
Your 19? Right?:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

Not sure about that "little bit", Brad. A few weeks ago wind power supplied 40% of Spain's electricity needs. But you're right in that wind is limited in continuous generation and variable demand generation. These problems can be somewhat alleviated through grid modernising and storage capacity.

On a slightly related note, wind power in my home town made the NYT :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/technology/techspecial/09town.html
The population of Spain is approximately 40 million with an overall density of 206 per square mile.
USA population of 299 million with an overall density of 80 people per square mile. This ranges from average 703 per mile in Connecticut to 10 in South Dakota. There are states with less and more than what I've shown.
Overall I would say that the Midwest more or less could benefit from solar or wind power, but the Mideast, East, California and parts of Oregon because of population density would mainly benefit from nuclear I would think. Excess energy could probably even be bought from the Midwest. That being said however, solar and wind power generation is good bit more expensive than coal or nuclear generation.
Might be getting time to check the stock market for companies that are solar and wind manufacturers and buy cheap (as if I could afford it).

[August]

Wind and especially solar technology have come a long way in the past 20 years. I'm betting that before much longer they will become commercially viable.

[Sldghammer]

One of the big problems with wind generation - happens fairly often.
No wind, no power.

WIND April 24, 2008
MCR - Maximum Continuous Rating
TNG - Total Net Generation
DCR - Dispatched Contingency Reserve
MCR TNG DCR
Castle River #1 40 0 0
Cowley Ridge 38 0 0
Enmax Taber 81 0 0
Kettles Hill 63 0 0
McBride Lake Windfarm 75 0 0
Soderglen Wind 68.3 0 0
Summerview 68.4 0 0
Suncor Chin Chute 30 0 0
Suncor Magrath 30 0 0
Taylor Wind Farm 3.6 0 0

[Ishmael]

Has anybody read any of this guy's work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill

He was a pioneer in the research and feasibility of these:

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

This is a great article explaining the advantages and disadvantages of a fully-deployed SPS system. Considering the thousands of square miles of desert land in the Southwest for siting rectennas, combined with the increase in available solar energy outside the atmosphere and the advances in thin-film semiconductor processing in the last 40 years, an orbital PV or CPV system might be even more feasible today. This would also facilitate the permanent human presence in space and lead to the construction of orbital space colonies as envisioned by O'Neill here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_Cylinder

[August]

Rose and I are banking on solar technology improving to the point it's feasable to run our retirement home in 20 years. Maybe it will just be a rectenna.

[TheSatyr]

Typical human behavior. Destroy the desert's ecological system in order to put in hundreds if not thousands of solar panels,when using nuclear or clean coal would cause alot less ecological damage.

How many desert animal species are the solar panel enthusiasts willing to kill off just to prove that solar power isn't cost effective?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Wind and especially solar technology have come a long way in the past 20 years. I'm betting that before much longer they will become commercially viable.

Weren't there ideas proposed about building windfarms in the sea?

[August]

Wind and especially solar technology have come a long way in the past 20 years. I'm betting that before much longer they will become commercially viable.
Weren't there ideas proposed about building windfarms in the sea?

Yeah they want to build one up this way off Nantucket. Common wisdom is it will never happen as long as it spoils the view from the Kennedy Compound on Cape Cod.

As I mentioned earlier I have looked a bit into alternate ways of creating my own electricity for our retirement home. At the moment the choices seem to be limited to solar and wind, but of the two, solar power is a heckuva lot less maintenance intensive.

[Tchocky]

Wind and especially solar technology have come a long way in the past 20 years. I'm betting that before much longer they will become commercially viable.
Weren't there ideas proposed about building windfarms in the sea? Yup, there's a 25MW farm operating 10km off the Arklow coast, about 60 miles south of me, pretty to watch.
As long as the seabed is shallow and strong, there's no real problem.

@ August - I remember being bothered by Cape Wind canvassers on Boston Common. Just build it already! Never mind Ted's objections..

Does anyone here actually believe wind turbines spoil scenery? I love them!

[August]

@ August - I remember being bothered by Cape Wind canvassers on Boston Common. Just build it already! Never mind Ted's objections..

Does anyone here actually believe wind turbines spoil scenery? I love them!

There's a fair amount of NIMBY bandwagoning going on. The latest excuse to stop progress is the poor endangered birdies will get chopped up by the spinning blades (which does happen i suppose).

[Tchocky]

...swear to preserve, protect, and defend high property prices. The creed of NIMBY

Birds do get chewed up by turbines, yeah. A major development off the Scottish Hebrides was just cancelled because of such concerns. I guess one has to site the farms where the least damage will be done, although I imagine it's impossible to avoid it entirely.

[August]

...swear to preserve, protect, and defend high property prices. The creed of NIMBY

Birds do get chewed up by turbines, yeah. A major development off the Scottish Hebrides was just cancelled because of such concerns. I guess one has to site the farms where the least damage will be done, although I imagine it's impossible to avoid it entirely.

ATM for the retirement home my money is on solar power. I figure that 20 years from now the technology should have advanced to the point i can be electrically self sufficient, maybe even make a little selling the extra back to the power company, without it costing me an arm and a leg to build it.

[The WosMan]

One of the big problems with wind generation - happens fairly often.
No wind, no power.

WIND April 24, 2008
MCR - Maximum Continuous Rating
TNG - Total Net Generation
DCR - Dispatched Contingency Reserve
MCR TNG DCR
Castle River #1 40 0 0
Cowley Ridge 38 0 0
Enmax Taber 81 0 0
Kettles Hill 63 0 0
McBride Lake Windfarm 75 0 0
Soderglen Wind 68.3 0 0
Summerview 68.4 0 0
Suncor Chin Chute 30 0 0
Suncor Magrath 30 0 0
Taylor Wind Farm 3.6 0 0

The way some folks blowviate around here I suppose we could just have them speak what they normally type in their lengthy threads and aim it toward one of those wind turbines. There are a couple people here that could probably generate unlimited power that way. I won't name any names but you know who you are......... :yep:

[Skybird]

Does anyone here actually believe wind turbines spoil scenery? I love them!
We have plenty of them in the surrounding areas of Münster, and even more North and Northwest of the city, and the closer to the coast you get, the more they become. I must admit I see their sight as ruining every landscape. I am also a bit sensitive to the high frequency noise they tend to produce, at certain weather conditions, high pressure I assume, I can hear them from farther away, and not just when standing below them. I have no problem to believe those findings that people living in close vicinity to them can become ill over time: noise is harming your health for sure

Botzh things probably cannot be an argument to completely exclude wind from the list of energy sources, but they should be kept in mind as a concern during planning phases.

[Konovalov]

Does anyone here actually believe wind turbines spoil scenery? I love them!
We have plenty of them in the surrounding areas of Münster, and even more North and Northwest of the city, and the closer to the coast you get, the more they become. I must admit I see their sight as ruining every landscape. I am also a bit sensitive to the high frequency noise they tend to produce, at certain weather conditions, high pressure I assume, I can hear them from farther away, and not just when standing below them. I have no problem to believe those findings that people living in close vicinity to them can become ill over time: noise is harming your health for sure

Botzh things probably cannot be an argument to completely exclude wind from the list of energy sources, but they should be kept in mind as a concern during planning phases.

What about offshore wind turbine farms rather than land based ones? :hmm:

[Skybird]

:D
Does anyone here actually believe wind turbines spoil scenery? I love them!
We have plenty of them in the surrounding areas of Münster, and even more North and Northwest of the city, and the closer to the coast you get, the more they become. I must admit I see their sight as ruining every landscape. I am also a bit sensitive to the high frequency noise they tend to produce, at certain weather conditions, high pressure I assume, I can hear them from farther away, and not just when standing below them. I have no problem to believe those findings that people living in close vicinity to them can become ill over time: noise is harming your health for sure

Botzh things probably cannot be an argument to completely exclude wind from the list of energy sources, but they should be kept in mind as a concern during planning phases.

What about offshore wind turbine farms rather than land based ones? :hmm:
Can't tell, don't know. I am wondering to what degree such things are resistant to severe storms. Even on land propellers get broken occassionally - in Germany which is considered to be a moderate climate zone. To me, these windmill towers look like delicate, fragile constructions. and this at a time where the intensity of storms in the northern hemisphere is expected to rise significantly.

I am also imagining geothermal power, and space-based sun collectors. and solar panels. Somebody mentioned the latter already one or two days ago. Obviously the constuction costs are stellar, so to speak. :D Also, ocean currents maybe can be used with a profitable energy gain. The risk factor with them is that it is hard to project in what way currents will change due to the changing salination levels with all that sweet water from the pooles and the glaciers going into the ocean, we only now that thos does affect currents for sure. The Gulf stream also already is affected, and lost some of it's energetic potential because of this. Many technicians consider the deep sea to be an at least as hostile environment as space, and to launch the according operations to install powerplants on the bottom of the deep sea just to see currents changing to the disadvantage would be a dissapointment, at least. :)

but all that will take much more time until it can become the major pillar of energy production than we can afford, so as a solution fpor the imminent future I see no way to avoid nuclear energy during this century. Despite the risk, and despite the unsolved issue of nuclear waste storage. In recent two or three years, I saw myself u-turning on this question.

[Konovalov]

What about offshore wind turbine farms rather than land based ones? :hmm:
Can't tell, don't know. I am wondering to what degree such things are resistant to severe storms. Even on land propellers get broken occassionally - in Germany which is considered to be a moderate climate zone. To me, these windmill towers look like delicate, fragile constructions. and this at a time where the intensity of storms in the northern hemisphere is expected to rise significantly.
I seem to recall that Denmark has implemented offshore wind farms on a large scale successfully and that it provides about 1/4 of Denmark's electricity needs. If this is the case then obviousy it works. I'll have to do some research on that as I'm just going off memory here. :-?

[Tchocky]

World's largest offshore windfarm is in the Irish Sea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arklow_Bank_Wind_Park

[XabbaRus]

WE have a large one in the glens and I don't think it ruins the landscape.

As for birds getting chopped up. BS brids have more sense and will stay away.

As for noise, I think that is over stated. Offshore is the best place, they want to build a farm off the coast of Aberdeen but Trump has got them to change it as it will spoil the view, and the worry of ships hitting them.

http://www.res-ltd.com/wind-farms/wf-glens.htm

[Skybird]

I need to update my understanding of wind energy technology. First you got me with mentioning that Spain covers 40% (actually it is currently 32%, but let''s not split hairs) of it's needs from wind generators, and now you surprise me with the Irish Sea project. The solar panel option and the conditions in Germany, I hear or read almost weekly about, but on wind: I must read more.

[Tchocky]

Oh, Spain is usually around 30%, yeah. They just had a very productive week a while ago :)

link - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/07/ccwind107.xml

[Konovalov]

but Trump has got them to change it as it will spoil the view,
How can he claim it will spoil the view? Have you seen that guys hair? :lol:

[CaptHawkeye]

It seems to me like a lot of problems listed against nuclear power are just nitpicky nonsense. :) People seem to point out there are "problems" with nuclear power and use that to just damn the system completely. They don't even bother to compare nuclear energies problems with the problems posed by other systems.

The biggest complaints are meltdowns and waste production with nuclear facilities. Radioactive waste is some nasty stuff, but hey, at least radioactive waste eventually gets to a point in its life where it is no longer dangerous. Those chemicals we pump into the atmosphere with out cars? They stay lethal FOREVER. :)

Then again, people have this weird fear of radioactivity in general. We eat and breathe all sorts of funky chemicals every day, some people even die from them. But the very rumor of radioactivity equals mass epidemic. RUN AWAY. :) It's even funnier when you read that carbon dioxide is actually radioactive!

Besides, plenty of modern reactors use heavy water which, I can't say exactly, but i've heard HW REALLY cuts down on waste production.

The next is, meltdowns, or reactots going splodey. I personally find that complaint really stupid. NOBODY builds reactors today like gratouitus stuff the US or Soviets were building in the 60s. Their reactors weren't the products of science as much as they were just products of the Cold War. LOOK AT HOW MANY MORE WATTS WE PUT OUT THAN YOURS? Lots of needless reactivity in those designs. Even then, the accident rate was still pretty appreciable. Three Mile Island has resulted in a whopping ZERO fatalities and even more jaw dropping ZERO injuries to this date! Did you know that on the same year of TMI, a guy on a car production line was killed by an accident with one of the robot building arms? Killer Robots have iced more people than TMI! :lol:

Chernobyl is an even worse example. By the logic of anti nuclear power based on Chernobyl, we should stop using boats because the Titanic was a monumentally poor design that forever damns all other floating vessels. :)

I usually direct people to the CANDU reactor. That reactor generated more than enough power for tests and their was never any risk of meltdown because the reaction was barely sustained. Unlike the crappy reactors of the 60s which needed crews to prevent them from going over the edge, reactors like CANDU need personel around to STOP THEM FROM SHUTTING OFF. :lol: They even TRIED to run the CANDU warmer than design, and even when they TRIED to set it up, it would never run much warmer than usual. :)

Natural energy? Won't work for everyone or on a national scale. Biofuels? Crops and food production can't take the load. Fossil Fuels vs. nuclear? Somehow FF ends up the lesser of two evils in the public eye even though FF produce chemicals that will be dangerous and deadly forever and are ACTIVELY changing the atmosphere. Worst case scenario nuclear energy will at least buy us more time to find some magical non pollutant high power energy source. They keep telling me that's "fusion" even though we never seem to be any closer to fusion systems with every passing year. I keep hearing it's "around the corner". Just like I hear last year and the year before that and year before that and the year before that and the year before that... :)

[Skybird]

The Swedes last year, no, the year before, had a series of very serious accidents, as well as a major incident in a reactor they run in germany. In all cases, they tried to cover up the story. Usually, Swedish reactors are seen not as the worst in the world. No tchnology is fail-safe. no system is fail-safe. If a coal powerplant blows up, it is one thing, with regional meaning only. When a jnuclear plants blows up - we talk of something compeltely different.

And as the attempts of companies to cover accidents show: this behavior, and the privatization of the business and from that: the yearning to save spendings and make profit, is a serious security concern in itself. In fact, I see this as the greatest problem with nuclear energy.

And then their is waste. Waste that needs to be stored for thousands and tens of thousands of years eventually. Plutonium has a half-life of roughly 24.000 years. the radical oxidants and atmosphere-killing agents contributing to the destruction of the ozon layer, have a longevity of around 50-60 years. Greenhous gases like CO2 and methane - don'T know right now. So, it just does not compare, and there is no reason to play it down and say: radioactive stuff gets to a point where it is not danhgerous anymore. that is true, but that point is more far away in time than human race has existed oin planet earth so far.

Also, considering things like this: the inability to forsee the geological safety of storage sites for such long period of times. The inability to make warnings and information signs in such a way that they still will be understood in thousands of years away (if we ever develope any colpur or paint that has not corroded before, not to mention the material of the containers which is exposed to massive, hard radiation all the time).

So, I think you are a bit too easy-minded and loose-tongued about the implicit problems and risks of nuclear energy. Says me who has adjusted his rejection to nuclear energy and today argues that we probably cannot deal without it in the forseeable future, say: the next 50-100 years. For me, it is an unavoidable solution - but a solution that must be understood as a temporary improvisation only. That'S why I agree on it, but do not become enthusiastic over it. It is a necessary evil.

[Platapus]

I totally agree that we need to push ahead with nuclear power.

With today's technology we can make them safer (no power source is totally safe) and more secure (nothing it totally secure).

I wager that more people have been killed building hydro dams than have been killed in nuclear accidents.

One thing we DO need to do is build newer nuclear reactors and shut down the old ones. Keeping 40 year old + reactors critical is asking for trouble. There will be a malfunction. I fear that this will give the anti-nuclear people fodder "hey, we told you it was unsafe" Well duh, it was 40 years old using 50 year old technology.

We need to build nuclear reactors, build them smartly and safely. They need to be build with environmental safety in mind recognizing that nothing is perfect. When new technology comes around, we need to replace old technology with the new technology if appropriate. One of these days we will technologically evolve past fusion reactors, then we can shut them all down.

Nuclear technology... it is not just for bombs any more :up:

[bradclark1]

One thing we DO need to do is build newer nuclear reactors and shut down the old ones. Keeping 40 year old + reactors critical is asking for trouble. There will be a malfunction. I fear that this will give the anti-nuclear people fodder "hey, we told you it was unsafe" Well duh, it was 40 years old using 50 year old technology.

I think:hmm: I read more than a few years ago that it is cheaper to keep them running than it is to cover the cost to deactivate them. Thats one of the problems.