Jump to content

Windmills


Recommended Posts

bosco mctavitch
I also know many people who have wind turbines spinning away in their "back yards"...It's quite funny that they are also perplexed that their electric bill hasn't gone down yet.

huh?  did the wind stop blowing or something?  Not the ones I know, they actually generate electricity.  I have friends that get a check every month from the power company because they generate more for the grid than they use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuck in KS

    12

  • bosco mctavitch

    10

  • Rex Hoppie

    6

I have no problem with them as part of our energy supply, but have to wonder why the wind only blows in rural and "sparsley populated" areas.

And what did I say that suggested that "the wind only blows in rural and "sparsely populated" areas?" I was only suggesting that if there are still issues to be addressed with placing them in more densely populated areas, that there are alternatives.

I'm not even really sure what your point is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they both get checks?

Depending on the time of year. I generate less than I consume in the winter months with our PV system, but more than we use in the summer months. So for part of the year, I write a check to the power company for the difference, and the other part of the year they credit me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are ugly but I could tolerate them if they were practical, they are not.

I also agree they should be in cities which are already ugly, and consume most of the power.

Kansas is starting to look like a wind farm, large areas north Of Salina I used to hunt now look like hell.

Put them on the east coast in big cities where a nasty skyline and noise pollution already dominate the areas.

The europeans specifically the dutch who I deal with regularly think we are nuts pursueing wind energy and they've already been there and done that..but their govt is like our facts dont matter just the appearance of a solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anybody thinking about how much farther into the future, like beyond our lifetimes, we are going to use and rely on electricity for our homes generated by coal fired power plants.

Like the plant near Atlanta that burns 50000 tons of coal everyday.  That amounts to 3 1/2 125 car trains with 115 tons of coal in each car per day.  This low sulphur coal is delivered from mines in Wyoming.  Each train delivers its coal in 5 days, 5 days coming, 5 days returning to reload.  3 1/2 train loads per day coming, 3 1/2 empty trains returning, that is 7 trains dedicated 24/7 to dellivering coal to only one of so many power plants.  125 coal cars times 7 trains equal 875 coal cars,  3 locomotives times 7 trains equal 21 locomotives required to supply coal to one plant near Atlanta.

This Atlanta power plant will not be replaced with wind turbines or back yard wind generators spotted around Atlanta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is a rather large city to the south of me that is known for it's wind and has a lot of tall buildings with empty rooftops.

Eggxactly there should be wind turbine on top of every sky sCRAPPER.  

As much as I like being in (or feeling) to be in an absolute remote area.  I'd still rather hunt in a wind turbine farm than not being able to hunt at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anybody thinking about how much farther into the future, like beyond our lifetimes, we are going to use and rely on electricity for our homes generated by coal fired power plants.

This Atlanta plant will not be replaced with wind turbines or back yard wind generators.

Yeah, I think a lot of people are thinking about that very seriously. But part of considering that might also be how long we can continue to depend on a non-renewable resource? We supposedly still have pretty healthy domestic coal supplies, and we likely won't run out in my lifetime, but still - its finite, and there's no getting around that.

So should we continue to rely on it till it's all used up? Or develop alternatives? And maybe those alternatives won't completely replace our current need for coal, but at least supplant some of that need? Why not? What have we got to lose? Seems like there's more at risk if we don't try. And maybe a variety of alternatives, when combined, would be capable of that. We don't really know yet, because much of this technology is still fairly new and developing quickly. But being a leader (assuming that is still our goal) requires being willing to experiment, not just to sit back and point out all the reasons why no other options will work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That coal is finite or that it may run out or not has nothing to do with anything, absolutely nothing.  If it runs out we will do without.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Large-scale dependence on a finite resource "has nothing to do with anything?" Our entire lifestyle as we know it would be affected. And you can say, "no worries, we'll deal with it," but the impacts of using up a finite resource without anything to replace it would be massive.
Link to post
Share on other sites

huh?  did the wind stop blowing or something?  Not the ones I know, they actually generate electricity.  I have friends that get a check every month from the power company because they generate more for the grid than they use.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the landowners in this case, just folks who are neighbors to the people getting rent checks from the power company.

And if you're suggesting that I'm "PC" - that's absolutely laughable, if you knew me at all. I'm just tired of the discussion getting reduced to weak labels like that, whether they apply to me personally or not.

I'm not even really sure what your point is.

In part it had to do with,

1.) it isn't about you, it was stating a different viewpoint, and 2.) thinking that a differing opinion is about you can give the appearance of losing objectivity on certain subjects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In part it had to do with,

1.) it isn't about you, it was stating a different viewpoint, and 2.) thinking that a differing opinion is about you can give the appearance of losing objectivity on certain subjects.

No worries. And I'm not so ego-centric that I automatically assume a "differing opinion is about me." But you did quote my previous post, and then made that statement, which understandably led me to think you were referring to me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"And what did I say that suggested that "the wind only blows in rural and "sparsely populated" areas?"

You said this

But there are also large, sparsely populated areas where they seem totally appropriate.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it's just that having lived most of my life in a large, sparsley populated area, I think they would be more appropriate in the cities.

And Rex, you can speak for me anytime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every energy source has a downside, that was my point about nuculear vs wind, it's all apples to oranges but they all have a negative impact. Which energy sources are worse than others are in the eyes of the beholder. In recent times things like ethanol, wind, and solar have been the "in" green thing but rarely do you see comprehensive views of these technologies in comparison to others. Advocates of all the different technologies love to talk about the postitives and then skim over the negatives.

There is another domestic energy source we have but it's fallen out of favor. Its completely renewable, has extremely low carbon emmissions, no air pollution, and there is very little direct danger to humans. If one said that domestically renewable, low cost, low carbon sources of energy were the absolute most important type of energy we could be pursuing as a country, then that person should be pushing to dam every possible stream in the nation. It's proven, it's powerful, and it's relatively cheap. Of course there are other environmental negatives that come into play. For me as an avid fisherman it's easy to say the negatives of windpower are prefferable to hydroelectric, however for someone who cares little for aquatic environments in rivers far away, but cares greatly for the views and quietness of their home on the prairie where a wind farm is about to go in, it may be a different story.  

They all have their problems and which ones are "better" or "worse" are matters of opinion. In my view everyone has a NIMBY mentality, only it's really not about location, it's more of a "not something that effects what I care about the most" mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...