37 replies to this topic

[Bone]

I was inspired to make this topic by a recent vacation to the town of Arcadia, in northern MI. While visiting booths at the summer festival, I noticed an extremely enthusiastic family dressed in bright yellow handing out flyers on the "dangers of wind energy".

Their organization (which runs this entirely unbiased website educating the public on the costs of wind energy) is devoted to preventing the construction of ~100 wind turbines in the area near the town.

They try to make a few (weak and vague) arguments claiming "the major incentive for these projects is the lucrative regime of taxpayer-funded subsides that have been created for industrial wind power". To me, it's pretty clear that these people don't like how wind turbines look, and don't want to see anything change in their rural town, so tried to make some excuses.

I don't quite understand their characterizations of the turbines as monstrous and hideous, I find them comparable to a boat on the lake, a pleasant human touch to the natural environment. (which is unharmed by them, thank you very much)

What do you guys think?

[Salamanda]

http://www.southpoin...a/windmills.htm

We have windmills here in Palm Springs, everyone loves them.
Not once have I ever heard any complaints.

[Rikku]

i'm building one right now for the property that I live on. Nothing wrong with wind power.

[Junsu]

Pretty sure most people here think the same as Boner.
Wind power is finee

[redlion]

Wind power is fine, but the input-to-output ratio is off. It's just inefficient :\ Not that I'm against it. I'm for anything BUT carbon fuels.

[Kyouma]

I heard that its loud sometimes... Never lived near one, so I don't actually know..

....Or...They're cosplaying Don Quixote, in a wierd bureaucratic kind of way.

[Bone]

Kyouma, on 25 July 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

I heard that its loud sometimes... Never lived near one, so I don't actually know..

....Or...They're cosplaying Don Quixote, in a wierd bureaucratic kind of way.

44 decibels is not loud at all

[officialjudicialartificial]

http://www.abc.net.a.../25/3274758.htm

Think it's mostly crap, but food for thought.

[Bone]

Fartificial, on 25 July 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

http://www.abc.net.a.../25/3274758.htm

Think it's mostly crap, but food for thought.

I stopped watching when he started talking about an 'electromagnetic spasm in his skull'.

[Jake]

I agree with all that you have said in your opening post. The world is getting tighter and tighter so if they wouldn't like peaceful wind turbines then clearly they would rather 10 story buildings, because eventually the land unless protected is going to be used.

[iargue]

I'm against wind turbines for a completely different reason.

This is not a solution, whatsoever at all, to our energy/pollution issues. This is basically waste of money and space. 1 nuclear reactor is produces more power then over 100 turbines, in much less space.

Our focus should be either on improving the efficiency of Nuclear Power, and reducing any negative impacts (Which are ridiculously minimal). Bot as long as people remain fearful of non existent issues, we will continue to suffer through things like this.

[Jake]

iargue, on 26 July 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

I'm against wind turbines for a completely different reason.

This is not a solution, whatsoever at all, to our energy/pollution issues. This is basically waste of money and space. 1 nuclear reactor is produces more power then over 100 turbines, in much less space.

Our focus should be either on improving the efficiency of Nuclear Power, and reducing any negative impacts (Which are ridiculously minimal). Bot as long as people remain fearful of non existent issues, we will continue to suffer through things like this.

Tell that to the Japanese.

[iargue]

Jake, on 26 July 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

Tell that to the Japanese.

A prime example of -why- we need much more funding to go to this, rather then solar/wind power. The reactor failed to meat hundreds of safety standards implemented in both the US and France, and fialed to have an emergency plan that accounted for the events that happened.

Nuclear Power needs to be handled with a, "anything can happen, here is how we prevent it" attitude, and they did not do this, and they paid the price. Much much worse events have happened from the usage of coal, and this should be taken as a learning process, not as a, "This should never be allowed" event.

[redlion]

The US can handle nuclear power, we've got the space and the tech. We could build dotted clusters of reactor-generators all over the midwest without any big fuss going up. Think about the Colorado highlands: perfect mix of secluded and centralized. I'm just waiting for a president to get to office without coal or oil money so he'll do it.

But Japan's problems were 1) too close to civilization, 2) faulty security protocols.

[Bone]

redlion, on 26 July 2011 - 07:41 AM, said:

The US can handle nuclear power, we've got the space and the tech. We could build dotted clusters of reactor-generators all over the midwest without any big fuss going up. Think about the Colorado highlands: perfect mix of secluded and centralized. I'm just waiting for a president to get to office without coal or oil money so he'll do it.

But Japan's problems were 1) too close to civilization, 2) faulty security protocols.

This. I'm all for nuclear investment and research (and better planning of facilities...), but the public attitude towards nuclear energy is so fearful that growth is extremely limited. Anyways, wind energy and nuclear energy are by no means mutually exclusive. For less developed nations, I'd go as far as to say wind and solar are better alternatives than nuclear.

[kittycat]

I love wind power and the turbines they are so pretty, apparently they wont build them here because it's too windy =|

I don't buy that at all lmfao, it's probably because we have the best hydroelectric dam in Canada in our province.

I'd rather hydro/wind/geothermal/solar than nuclear :|

Edited by kittycat, 26 July 2011 - 08:11 AM.

[Rekkonin]

I agree that nuclear power needs to be looked at as a more prominent option. I grew up a little south of Harrisburg, PA and I saw, visited, and learned about Three Mile Island plenty of times during school.

And I know this is a little off-topic, but I really like the look of the old windmills with the big stone bases and huge grinding wheels. I think they are one of the most pleasing things to look at that man has ever created.

[Jake]

iargue, on 26 July 2011 - 06:12 AM, said:

A prime example of -why- we need much more funding to go to this, rather then solar/wind power. The reactor failed to meat hundreds of safety standards implemented in both the US and France, and fialed to have an emergency plan that accounted for the events that happened.

Nuclear Power needs to be handled with a, "anything can happen, here is how we prevent it" attitude, and they did not do this, and they paid the price. Much much worse events have happened from the usage of coal, and this should be taken as a learning process, not as a, "This should never be allowed" event.

Don't get me wrong, I approve of your ideals and agree with the usage of Nuclear energy, it is what makes the most sense. Problem is because of the history of results from using nuclear energy the world feels overly butthurt and wants to avoid the use of it all together. I think most people understand what can come from it but no one also wants to risk any bad results that come from it. I think the overall consensus is that because there are no negative side affects from things such as wind turbines (other than scenery blah blah blah) that they are the most ideal to use. I personally don't give two shits, Earth is fucked either way.

[chess211]

To me the greatest issue with wind, and solar at the moment is the issue of consistency. A good power source should be able to produce power when it is needed, and essentially on demand for consumption. Wind power can be sporadic, and has limited predictability, while the power can be accounted for statistically it can guarantee that peak production of electricity is near the time of peak demand of electricity, and that is a problem especially for wind power.

The main problem I have with solar is that something is either needed to store the power for the night, or a non-solar generator is needed to meet the power demands overnight, while the night time power consumption is lower than the day, it still needs to be met and without an enormous storage array, or space based solar that is not possible with only solar power.


From a recent Reuters article, Fukushima was known for years as meeting poor safety standards that would have required more inspections in the United States, that for some reason did not happen. While this is not to say nothing can go wrong with a nuclear power plant, it was already a failing plant from a safety standpoint.

Personally, I would like to see more care put into improving the safety of nuclear power plants, and in getting nuclear fusion into the market more than trying any other alternative energy source.

[redlion]

chess211, on 27 July 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

To me the greatest issue with wind, and solar at the moment is the issue of consistency. A good power source should be able to produce power when it is needed, and essentially on demand for consumption. Wind power can be sporadic, and has limited predictability, while the power can be accounted for statistically it can guarantee that peak production of electricity is near the time of peak demand of electricity, and that is a problem especially for wind power.

The main problem I have with solar is that something is either needed to store the power for the night, or a non-solar generator is needed to meet the power demands overnight, while the night time power consumption is lower than the day, it still needs to be met and without an enormous storage array, or space based solar that is not possible with only solar power.


From a recent Reuters article, Fukushima was known for years as meeting poor safety standards that would have required more inspections in the United States, that for some reason did not happen. While this is not to say nothing can go wrong with a nuclear power plant, it was already a failing plant from a safety standpoint.

Personally, I would like to see more care put into improving the safety of nuclear power plants, and in getting nuclear fusion into the market more than trying any other alternative energy source.

Nuclear fusion is a ways away from commercial application I thought. It still isn't an energy efficient reaction. We put more into it than we get from it. But you're right about the consistency issue. That's why I've recently become a fan of tidal power, where the tide (in coastal areas) is harnessed for turning a generator. Solar could be more efficient if we stacked the arrays ten or twenty deep and made the intermittent layers from diamond. But no one does that because the major funding comes from oil companies

[chess211]

redlion, on 27 July 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Nuclear fusion is a ways away from commercial application I thought. It still isn't an energy efficient reaction. We put more into it than we get from it. But you're right about the consistency issue. That's why I've recently become a fan of tidal power, where the tide (in coastal areas) is harnessed for turning a generator. Solar could be more efficient if we stacked the arrays ten or twenty deep and made the intermittent layers from diamond. But no one does that because the major funding comes from oil companies

Fusion is still some time away, iter should produce about 10x what is put in once it goes online in 2020, but that is still some time away. But I do have a vested interest in the field, as my area of research is plasma physics, and a significant portion of my field is studying the issues of generating nuclear fusion. Part of it being the most attractive is that from a energy distribution sense it function identically to current power planets, where the energy output can be known and appropriate guidelines and be made so that power is always available when it is needed. From people I have talked to in the field, it seems like most believe that fusion will, at the current rate of research be of commercial application somewhere between 2030-2050 at the latest, but possibly as early as 2020.

My second choice would be solar cells, with more research going into how to store the energy to last through the night.

[necospes]

The only things I can think of that are bad about wind turbines is they might be too costly, inefficient, or kill birds. As a clean source of energy, it might be worth it though.

This is interesting though.

chess211, on 27 July 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:

Fusion is still some time away, iter should produce about 10x what is put in once it goes online in 2020, but that is still some time away. But I do have a vested interest in the field, as my area of research is plasma physics, and a significant portion of my field is studying the issues of generating nuclear fusion. Part of it being the most attractive is that from a energy distribution sense it function identically to current power planets, where the energy output can be known and appropriate guidelines and be made so that power is always available when it is needed. From people I have talked to in the field, it seems like most believe that fusion will, at the current rate of research be of commercial application somewhere between 2030-2050 at the latest, but possibly as early as 2020.

My second choice would be solar cells, with more research going into how to store the energy to last through the night.

Do you think that Fusion will ever be portable enough to say, power cars? Or even laptops / phones? How feasible is this?

[chess211]

necospes, on 27 July 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

Do you think that Fusion will ever be portable enough to say, power cars? Or even laptops / phones? How feasible is this?

Not very feasible if you mean as a self-contained power source for any of those devices. Current technologies require massive facilities to achieve nuclear fusion in a limited sense, and a commercial application only needs to get larger, there does not seem to be any way to achieve the same result with a smaller system, that might change in the future but it seems unlikely.

On the other hand, no alternative energy source really works well to power any of those. Laptops and phones are used inside, and are only growing more and more power intensive, and smaller, so solar cells do not work well, and no other alternatives work well. Solar cells can work for cars, but only with sacrifices on speed, cost, and carrying capacity. In the end I expect that at least in the short term all of these devices will remain similar to how they are, internal combustion for the car with a growing prevalence of electrical powered by a battery, and battery powered for the rest. The main issue is that these devices require a very high energy density per volume, and besides chemical energy or capacitors not too many ideas can reach a very high energy density per volume when including all the other generators needed to control the energy source.

[iargue]

Bone, on 26 July 2011 - 07:54 AM, said:

This. I'm all for nuclear investment and research (and better planning of facilities...), but the public attitude towards nuclear energy is so fearful that growth is extremely limited. Anyways, wind energy and nuclear energy are by no means mutually exclusive. For less developed nations, I'd go as far as to say wind and solar are better alternatives than nuclear.

The cost to output ratio on wind is much higher then it is on a nuclear plant. But smaller countries cannot afford this. and they cannot afford wind. They are stuck with coal

Jake, on 27 July 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I approve of your ideals and agree with the usage of Nuclear energy, it is what makes the most sense. Problem is because of the history of results from using nuclear energy the world feels overly butthurt and wants to avoid the use of it all together. I think most people understand what can come from it but no one also wants to risk any bad results that come from it. I think the overall consensus is that because there are no negative side affects from things such as wind turbines (other than scenery blah blah blah) that they are the most ideal to use. I personally don't give two shits, Earth is fucked either way.

The negative effect is that you could cover the entire moon with wind panels that have constant wind, and it would not be enough to handle our energy consumption (Which will continue to grow). Wind Energy, unless we increase their efficiency by 10x. will never be an answer or a solution.

We just have to put more effort into removing the negative effects, and thinks will be fine. France runs 80% of their power from nuclear, and they have not had a disaster.

necospes, on 27 July 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

The only things I can think of that are bad about wind turbines is they might be too costly, inefficient, or kill birds. As a clean source of energy, it might be worth it though.

This is interesting though.



Do you think that Fusion will ever be portable enough to say, power cars? Or even laptops / phones? How feasible is this?

It does not need to be. Batteries will continue to increase in capacity until it meets the requirements. Then we can easily move that power from our plants to the batteries.

[necospes]

iargue, on 28 July 2011 - 05:43 AM, said:

It does not need to be. Batteries will continue to increase in capacity until it meets the requirements. Then we can easily move that power from our plants to the batteries.

I'm imagining nuclear fusion batteries that last years, which is not needed but would be really cool to have.