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

[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.