Please sign this petition

12357

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    So point me to the region of the US that has a sustained wind speed of 40 mph on a daily and consistant basis. Also how much land would 75 wind turbines take up? What would the effect of those wind turbines be on migritory birds?

    go check out the wind association website ... i'm not too sure what it is ...

    the issue of sound and migratory birds associated with wind are largely overstated ... in instances of birds - they can be turned off during migratory seasons ... but deaths related to wind turbines are way lower then compared to buildings ...

    and the thing is it generates wind at variable wind strengths ... if you have a cheaper and sustainable technology that is not even being utilized to 1% of its potential - why wouldn't you look at that first?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    It won't be a "long time" when their use is increasing exponentially.

    so ... the point is ... don't do anything because china and india are gonna catch up? ... i am unsure what you are getting at ... regardless of where china and india or any other country is going - you cannot deny that consumption here in north america is not sustainable ...
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    go check out the wind association website ... i'm not too sure what it is ...

    the issue of sound and migratory birds associated with wind are largely overstated ... in instances of birds - they can be turned off during migratory seasons ... but deaths related to wind turbines are way lower then compared to buildings ...

    and the thing is it generates wind at variable wind strengths ... if you have a cheaper and sustainable technology that is not even being utilized to 1% of its potential - why wouldn't you look at that first?
    The jury is still out on the bird damage.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    go check out the wind association website ... i'm not too sure what it is ...

    the issue of sound and migratory birds associated with wind are largely overstated ... in instances of birds - they can be turned off during migratory seasons ... but deaths related to wind turbines are way lower then compared to buildings ...

    and the thing is it generates wind at variable wind strengths ... if you have a cheaper and sustainable technology that is not even being utilized to 1% of its potential - why wouldn't you look at that first?

    Because it will never be able to generate the amount of energy that 1 nuclear plant can. There are very little places on this earth, never mind the US, where there is a constant 40 mph wind. Wind and solar power are only usefull, beneficial, and economic in less populated locals, not in urban centers. While I believe that these forms of alternative energy should be implemented in the appropriate locations, cities and large urban areas will still need to rely on one of the four major power sources; coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. Nuclear is by far superior to the other three sources.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    The jury is still out on the bird damage.

    not really ... there are thousands of wind mills all throughout california and no one is talking about bird deaths ...

    office buildings will kill more birds by far
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Because it will never be able to generate the amount of energy that 1 nuclear plant can. There are very little places on this earth, never mind the US, where there is a constant 40 mph wind. Wind and solar power are only usefull, beneficial, and economic in less populated locals, not in urban centers. While I believe that these forms of alternative energy should be implemented in the appropriate locations, cities and large urban areas will still need to rely on one of the four major power sources; coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. Nuclear is by far superior to the other three sources.

    what? ... even if we went conservative and said we need 200 wind turbines to equate 1 nuclear power plant ... it is still waaaay cheaper then one power plant ... with the advances in turbines these days - turbines can generate power with as little as 5 mph winds ... you make it sound like if it doesn't have 40 mph winds - it won't work ... simply not the case ...

    again ... less then 1% of wind energy potential is being tapped right now in the USA - get that to 10% and see where you are at ...
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    what? ... even if we went conservative and said we need 200 wind turbines to equate 1 nuclear power plant ... it is still waaaay cheaper then one power plant ... with the advances in turbines these days - turbines can generate power with as little as 5 mph winds ... you make it sound like if it doesn't have 40 mph winds - it won't work ... simply not the case ...

    again ... less then 1% of wind energy potential is being tapped right now in the USA - get that to 10% and see where you are at ...

    If you base the majority of your power on wind turbines, what do you do on days when there are 0mph winds? Your comment earlier about batteries is crazy. The battery in my car fairly big, but if I leave my headlights on it is dead in maybe 6 hours. I can't imagine the size of batteries you would need to power a whole house.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    If you base the majority of your power on wind turbines, what do you do on days when there are 0mph winds? Your comment earlier about batteries is crazy. The battery in my car fairly big, but if I leave my headlights on it is dead in maybe 6 hours. I can't imagine the size of batteries you would need to power a whole house.

    any power generated thru wind would just get fit into the grid ... batteries are more for homes and small buildings ... a home that is off the grid will usually need a stack of maybe 10-20 batteries ... not many at all ...
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    what? ... even if we went conservative and said we need 200 wind turbines to equate 1 nuclear power plant ... it is still waaaay cheaper then one power plant ... with the advances in turbines these days - turbines can generate power with as little as 5 mph winds ... you make it sound like if it doesn't have 40 mph winds - it won't work ... simply not the case ...

    again ... less then 1% of wind energy potential is being tapped right now in the USA - get that to 10% and see where you are at ...

    Best estimates is that you need a sustained 40 mph winds in order to generate 10 kilowatts an hour. There is no where in the United States where a sustained 40 mph wind speeds exist so it would require many more than just 75 wind turbines to generate what one nuclear plants does. It is simply impossible. The most obviouse reason is the amount of land needed to build those turbines. In more populated areas of the country the land is simply not available. NYC gets average wind speeds of about 4-6 mph. You would probably need in excess of 150 turbines operating at 100% capacity 24/7 in order to generate enough power for Manhattan alone. Where would those 150 turbines go. How about the other 300 plus turbines needed to provide power to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. You are probably looking at about 500 turbines just for NYC alone never mind the outlying areas like Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth. You may be looking at over 1,000 turbines just to provide power to an areas about 15 miles in diameter where land is scarce. Of course should we happen to have a few days without wind as is usual here in the humid days of summer you would need another source. Maybe a few hundred thousand meters worth of solar panels. Again don't really know where the hell to put them. We will also need a third supplier for those hot windless humid nights but I guess we can sap all the juice from Niagra Falls on those nights.

    Face it my friend as great as it sounds in theory it is just that theory. Alternative energy will never work as the sole provider. You still need another constistant source like coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. It is a fact and the longer people continue to live in a world based on theory instead of the real one the more we are fucking ourselves in the long run. Nuclear power is our best option for a constant energy source.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    any power generated thru wind would just get fit into the grid ... batteries are more for homes and small buildings ... a home that is off the grid will usually need a stack of maybe 10-20 batteries ... not many at all ...


    I am not sure what you mean "fit into the grid" the grid is not some magical battery that can hold electricity until you need it. You need to generate the amount of electricity that you need at any given time. If you didn’t need to do that energy trading wouldn’t exist and there would be no problem keeping up with demand since “the grid” could just build up to the required demand overnight when demand is low.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I am not sure what you mean "fit into the grid" the grid is not some magical battery that can hold electricity until you need it. You need to generate the amount of electricity that you need at any given time. If you didn’t need to do that energy trading wouldn’t exist and there would be no problem keeping up with demand since “the grid” could just build up to the required demand overnight when demand is low.

    well ... wind is just one form of energy source ... i don't necessarily envision a world where wind is our only source ... you would supplement with whatever else ...

    of course wind has its limitations but so does every other energy source - it just happens to be the cheapest form of new energy and its free and completely renewable and sustainable ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Best estimates is that you need a sustained 40 mph winds in order to generate 10 kilowatts an hour. There is no where in the United States where a sustained 40 mph wind speeds exist so it would require many more than just 75 wind turbines to generate what one nuclear plants does. It is simply impossible. The most obviouse reason is the amount of land needed to build those turbines. In more populated areas of the country the land is simply not available. NYC gets average wind speeds of about 4-6 mph. You would probably need in excess of 150 turbines operating at 100% capacity 24/7 in order to generate enough power for Manhattan alone. Where would those 150 turbines go. How about the other 300 plus turbines needed to provide power to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. You are probably looking at about 500 turbines just for NYC alone never mind the outlying areas like Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth. You may be looking at over 1,000 turbines just to provide power to an areas about 15 miles in diameter where land is scarce. Of course should we happen to have a few days without wind as is usual here in the humid days of summer you would need another source. Maybe a few hundred thousand meters worth of solar panels. Again don't really know where the hell to put them. We will also need a third supplier for those hot windless humid nights but I guess we can sap all the juice from Niagra Falls on those nights.

    Face it my friend as great as it sounds in theory it is just that theory. Alternative energy will never work as the sole provider. You still need another constistant source like coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. It is a fact and the longer people continue to live in a world based on theory instead of the real one the more we are fucking ourselves in the long run. Nuclear power is our best option for a constant energy source.

    ok ... first, if our benchmark is one of the largest cities in the world where parking spots go for $10,000 a month - it maybe a bit difficult to power totally on renewables ... but no energy plan from the greenest of treehuggers calls for 100% renewables in the next 50 years ...

    this is not about whether wind can power NYC completely - it's about an energy plan for the future ... again - given a conservation program and the implementation and advancement of renewables - energy demands can be met up until a point where renewables can make up a large proportion of energy sources ... nuclear energy without the subsidies it currently receives is not a practical solution ...

    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
    http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html
    http://www.sustainableenergycoalition.org/
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    ok ... first, if our benchmark is one of the largest cities in the world where parking spots go for $10,000 a month - it maybe a bit difficult to power totally on renewables ... but no energy plan from the greenest of treehuggers calls for 100% renewables in the next 50 years ...

    this is not about whether wind can power NYC completely - it's about an energy plan for the future ... again - given a conservation program and the implementation and advancement of renewables - energy demands can be met up until a point where renewables can make up a large proportion of energy sources ... nuclear energy without the subsidies it currently receives is not a practical solution ...

    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
    http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html
    http://www.sustainableenergycoalition.org/

    Then what would pick up the slack that renewables cannot generate. Eventually oil fired powers stations will need to be phased out. Coal powered produces way to many greenhouse gases so they should be phased out. That leaves gas power and nuclear and nuclear is the cleanest of the two. I think we have to stop looking at cost effective and start looking at which one is a. sustainable in the long run and b. better for our environment. Since renewables cannot carry the burden alone, specially in large urban areas where land for wind and solar farms is an issue, we need to focus on a single option and nuclear is far better that oil, gas, and/or coal fire power stations.

    Hopefully with new designs in building and conservation we will not need to construct hundreds of nuclear power plants and renewables will be able to carry a large minority or even a slight majority of the burden, but we will still need that source that is constistant and does not depend so heavily on weather.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    well ... wind is just one form of energy source ... i don't necessarily envision a world where wind is our only source ... you would supplement with whatever else ...

    of course wind has its limitations but so does every other energy source - it just happens to be the cheapest form of new energy and its free and completely renewable and sustainable ...


    I don't know, personally I would rather pay more for something that is reliable and works all the time and is good (and to me doesn't really have any major drawbacks) then pay less money for something that is just kind of ok. I mean there is a reason the saying "you get what you pay for" has been around for so long.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    not really ... there are thousands of wind mills all throughout california and no one is talking about bird deaths ...

    office buildings will kill more birds by far
    Yes, there is still debate concerning this matter. The scientific/conservation community is still debating the question of bird kills related to windmill farms.

    As to the Chinas and Indias of the world....their rate is also not sustainable, but some argue that they should be allowed to continue in order to catch up their development with North America/Europe etc. They are going to be a much greater problem down the road due to the acceleration of their consumption.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Then what would pick up the slack that renewables cannot generate. Eventually oil fired powers stations will need to be phased out. Coal powered produces way to many greenhouse gases so they should be phased out. That leaves gas power and nuclear and nuclear is the cleanest of the two. I think we have to stop looking at cost effective and start looking at which one is a. sustainable in the long run and b. better for our environment. Since renewables cannot carry the burden alone, specially in large urban areas where land for wind and solar farms is an issue, we need to focus on a single option and nuclear is far better that oil, gas, and/or coal fire power stations.

    Hopefully with new designs in building and conservation we will not need to construct hundreds of nuclear power plants and renewables will be able to carry a large minority or even a slight majority of the burden, but we will still need that source that is constistant and does not depend so heavily on weather.

    there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...

    maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...

    the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I don't know, personally I would rather pay more for something that is reliable and works all the time and is good (and to me doesn't really have any major drawbacks) then pay less money for something that is just kind of ok. I mean there is a reason the saying "you get what you pay for" has been around for so long.

    one of the drawbacks of nuclear has been its unreliability ... they are often shutdown (for safety reasons) because of various issues ... right now, we have guys that literally walk around looking for cracks in a reactor and patching it with a gum like substance ...

    i compare it to some cars ... your "best" car isn't always the one you spend the most on ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    Yes, there is still debate concerning this matter. The scientific/conservation community is still debating the question of bird kills related to windmill farms.

    As to the Chinas and Indias of the world....their rate is also not sustainable, but some argue that they should be allowed to continue in order to catch up their development with North America/Europe etc. They are going to be a much greater problem down the road due to the acceleration of their consumption.

    can you point me to any link that still shows this being debated? ... everything i've ever read says otherwise ...

    no one is saying they are sustainable ... i mean they got a boatload of socio-economic issues over there ... but it still doesn't belittle the fact the largest polluters are still over here ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris wrote:
    there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...

    how many times does this have to be proven wrong before you finally get it?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how many times does this have to be proven wrong before you finally get it?

    how many times can you post in a thread without actually contributing anything??

    prove me wrong ... just once ... you come on here and just post stuff but you back up absolutely nothing ... i see you still haven't backed up your accusation that i make up stuff ... either rescind it or back it up ... until then - you are contibuting zero ...

    to everyone else - happy to discuss tomorrow ...

Categories