Wind Turbine ********. Just opened the mail and seen the plan for three massive units

[TomSeller]

Hears the problem, Loren, you post a link to a MIT study and you think the issue is proven, done, no health issues from wind. Some study from MIT doesn't prove no health issues. It's just a study. Wind turbines make noise, noise can cause health problems, and is not desirable. People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic wind turbine in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. HS

Here is the problem, HS, you post a link to an Oil Industry "Report" and you think the issue is proven, done, no questions.. Some "report" from the Oil Industry doesn't prove anything, It's just a paid for report. Oil drilling makes noise and pollutes, noise and pollution can cause health problems, and is not desirable. People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic oil drilling operation in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. TS

 

[Sysop]

I see the problem as being; all the studies and reports in the world up to this point are useless. None have all the necessary data to form a proper conclusion, all only have the minimum amount of data to portray their sides. Everyone citing these reports and studies as gospel needs to get out more. None are accurate because not one of them fully encompass and incorporate all the data. Both "sides" of the argument are fanatically committed to their opinions, claiming them to be fact. If you don't buy into their opinions, you're a denier, a zealot, a greenie, a earth trashing oil lover, whatever... I personally think it is the folk buying into either side are the zealous earth trashing deniers.

 

[Creamer]

Hears the problem, Loren, you post a link to a MIT study and you think the issue is proven, done, no health issues from wind. Some study from MIT doesn't prove no health issues. It's just a study. Wind turbines make noise, noise can cause health problems, and is not desirable. People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic wind turbine in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. HS

For the most part I have been agreeing with you Houston but "People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic wind turbine in their view if they don't want to see or hear them." kind of flies in the face of their property rights. I guess I happen to believe that if you do not own the property you do not have the right to control it. Now if you can prove that what they have done has devalued your property, then you have a case but otherwise what they do on their property is their freedom.

 

[Creamer]

Here is the problem, HS, you post a link to an Oil Industry "Report" and you think the issue is proven, done, no questions.. Some "report" from the Oil Industry doesn't prove anything, It's just a paid for report. Oil drilling makes noise and pollutes, noise and pollution can cause health problems, and is not desirable. People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic oil drilling operation in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. TS

Here is the problem with your statement - you automatically discount any report paid for by an oil company but automatically accept one from MIT without knowing who paid for it or the bias of the preparer of the report. I find it amazing how many people accept information coming from academia when there is known bias there as well. We all do remember Gruber, right? My BIL spent 40 years in nutrition research at a research institute and a very reputable university and they knew that to get continuing study grants they had to slant things towards the funding agency's bias, i.e. with the political wind. We are all human and we all have the reality of needing a job and will flex a little as needed for insurance.

 

[Sodo]

This is like discussing motor oil. Profit margin is big enough that theres enough budget for massive "education" of the consumer, whose read so much over the years he thinks he really knows the facts. He does know some of the facts though.

Truth is out there but its the marketers job to get you to accept the "facts" that result in profit (for his client or employer). For you this is known as higher cost. If the marketer can blame higher cost on his adversaries, ( and you believe it ) he's done well.

 

[aczlan]

People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic oil drilling operation in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. TS

On the contrary, as long as the land is zoned for it, there is nothing you can do to prevent your neighbor from putting a rock crusher (or a large building, tall trees, etc, etc, etc) on their property to obstruct your view.
See Movie mogul's neighbors stunned at loss of stunning view - latimes or Homeowners' Right to Views | Nolo.com for some examples.

Aaron Z

 

[houstonscott]

Here is the problem, HS, you post a link to an Oil Industry "Report" and you think the issue is proven, done, no questions.. Some "report" from the Oil Industry doesn't prove anything, It's just a paid for report. Oil drilling makes noise and pollutes, noise and pollution can cause health problems, and is not desirable. People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic oil drilling operation in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. TS

Well, even with those so called issues, everyone wants their electricity and all it powers. Wind solar simply can't produce enough power at a low enough price and not without even more issues then NG. So they will remain a niche power source, on the sideline, probably forever. HS

 

[Egon]

I dislike a backyard veiw of a freeway. Looks terrible and is also very noisy!

 

[buckeyefarmer]

100 acres of solar panels is ugly also.

 

[turnkey4099]

100 acres of solar panels is ugly also.

My neighbor and his wife are both ugly. Not much I can do about it

Harry K

 

[houstonscott]

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming 'Tipping Point' | The Daily Caller So much for pier review studies and science. HS

 

[KiwiBro]

I agree that it is good to be diplomatic at times but there are also some who take advantage of that approach and are emboldened when not called on non fact supported claims.

I'd have a little more faith in the TBN readership's ability to differentiate fact from fiction ;-)

 

[MossRoad]

And what do you propose be done with the of the nuclear industry wastelands? Just continue to expand then? You are excluding cleanup costs. NO NEW NUKES!

I propose we put them in your back yard.

 

[KiwiBro]

KiwiBro-
You choose to criticize me

Because in your case there seemed the capacity to change your approach. That's a compliment by the way.

 

[MossRoad]

My neighbor and his wife are both ugly. Not much I can do about it

Harry K

Start drinking.... they'll get cuter. :confused3:

 

[MossRoad]

Nuclear power plants?

How many does the US Navy operate? How safe are they?

How do the newer nuclear plants rate for pollution and required fuel. (There may be a case for smaller plants spread around )

The grid, it seems it may be in need of upgrading. Piecemeal replacement or a coordinated design that takes into account the location and type of produced power.

Do wind farms really take a lot of land out of agricultural production?

Energy storage, what's in the future or is the Periodic table going to halt any new developments? Biological batteries?

How will energy requirements be changed by techniques involving more efficient use?

Lots of questions. Well out of my limited ability to predict or resolve!

The US Navy has about 100 reactors with 5400 reactor years of safety.
America's Navy The Unsung Heroes Of Nuclear Energy - Forbes

Nuclear power plants are pretty much environmentally neutral... with the potential for catastrophic failure...
Compare that to the coal and oil industry and nuclear has an exponentially better record.

The current electric grid is in great need of upgrade/replacement.

While a wind turbine requires about 60 acres per megawatt, that's so one turbine doesn't rob airflow from the next turbine. They do not take up much space on the ground for crops at all. Less than an acre.

Energy storage....
-Use wind power to generate electricity to pump water up hill during windy times and then use the water to run turbines to generate a flow of electricity from the water reservoir as it is needed..... however, we'd need a whole lot of land for reservoirs.
-Battery technology.... we'd need a whole lot of batteries to store enough for all commercial needs.
-I find super-heated salt interesting.

As with everything, once energy becomes cheaper, people will use more of it. Once you can afford $XX.00 of electricity, you'd buy more luxuries, or increase factory capacity, or get a faster, more powerful electric car. People tend to do that.

I really think the short-term answers are:
1. Burn natural gas in motor vehicles(its cheaper than oil and requires less refining, so you lose less energy than when creating gasoline and diesel fuel).
2. Burn corn to heat your home (it burns nearly 100% efficient and you get most of the heat in your home rather than up the chimney).
3. Use oil for lubricants and heavy shipping fuel (some big things just require burning oil).
4. Abandon ethanol completely (its a huge net loss of BTU's to create and we'd have plenty of corn to heat our homes with then).

That would get us by until the new nukers are up and on-line in Tom's back yard.

 

[TomSeller]

Here is the problem with your statement - you automatically discount any report paid for by an oil company but automatically accept one from MIT without knowing who paid for it or the bias of the preparer of the report. .

Here is the problem with your statement - I did not post, comment about or "automatically accept" the MIT report. Nope, did not.

 

[TomSeller]

On the contrary, as long as the land is zoned for it, there is nothing you can do to prevent your neighbor from putting a rock crusher (or a large building, tall trees, etc, etc, etc) on their property to obstruct your view.
See Movie mogul's neighbors stunned at loss of stunning view - latimes or Homeowners' Right to Views | Nolo.com for some examples.

Aaron Z

My comment was a spoof on HS's comment below to show how silly it is. I suggest your comment be directed to HS. Maybe everyone else has HS on "ignore"?

Hears the problem, Loren, you post a link to a MIT study and you think the issue is proven, done, no health issues from wind. Some study from MIT doesn't prove no health issues. It's just a study. Wind turbines make noise, noise can cause health problems, and is not desirable. People simply have the right in this country to live without a gigantic wind turbine in their view if they don't want to see or hear them them. HS

 

[Loren49]

Because in your case there seemed the capacity to change your approach. That's a compliment by the way.

Thank you

Loren

 

[Creamer]

Here is the problem with your statement - I did not post, comment about or "automatically accept" the MIT report. Nope, did not.

So you are just sniping with nothing to add. OK.