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:

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:

:D 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.

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. :-?

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

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

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.

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

link - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai.../ccwind107.xml

How can he claim it will spoil the view? Have you seen that guys hair? :lol:

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... :)

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.

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:

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.