Jump to content

Windmills


Recommended Posts

Interesting discussion:

I see Nuclear as the sustainable option for the "power base" the backup got to have power for the industrial base, I see Wind and Solar as contributing to the solution but sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't always blow.  I see Natural Gas fueled Gas Turbines as "emergency Backup" for the wind/solar components.

I hope that continued effort will be placed in researching a cleaner way to convert coal to liguid fuel, it was first done by the Germans in WWII, South Africa has been doing it since Aparthied and the boycott/embargo imposed on them which prevented them from buying oil.  I hope that the need for liquid fuels will go away as electricla vehicle technology improves.

Nuclear Power has risk, but, the risk is manageable.  Note, the U.S. Navy has operated nuclear plants for over 50 years without a significant accident.  We have had only one serious accident in the U.S. Nuclear power Industry, Three Mile island, and that event was contained.  

Disposal of Nuclear waste is an issue, we have a national policy and a place in the Nevada desert, Yucca Mountain.  We need to use Yucca Mountain to store the waste it is a national issue.

Bottom line, we all have to accept some in our back yards to get out from under the heel of oil.

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

The bad deal with wind is that, like was mentioned earlier, it's only being pursued as heavily as it is because of "green power" mandates.  One question I have is - why can't power companies count their existing hydro assets as green power toward these mandates?  Hydro is as carbon friendly as it gets!  I have ties to We Energies, who runs 14 hydro plants near where I grew up, and guess what? They're putting up wind turbines across the east central part of the state because of green power mandates, in part because the megawatts coming off these hydro plants don't count!

IMO...wind technology is great for the backyard power generator (just like solar) but is NOT going to do any good as a large scale producer.  Like it or not, nuclear, coal, and biomass are the answers to that question.  Say what you want about coal, but it's CHEAP and EFFECTIVE.  And pollution control equipment is to the point that the negative environmental impact is a fraction of a fraction of what it used to be. We will continue to use this cheap, available, local resource until it's gone, like it or not.  What will replace it?  I don't know, but my money's on nuclear.  It just makes the most sense.

Small wind turbines and solar panels in yards and on rooftops is probably the way of the future (I'm talking the way out future here).  They just need to make those things affordable to the average consumer, then that will revolutionize the nation's energy.  Nuclear, coal, biomass and gas will take care of the rest of the power baseload (with small amounts of hydro, wind, tidal, etc. to top it off.).

They probably can't count Hydro facilities toward the green energy because they were already there when the mandate went through.

Hydro plants may be carbon friendly, but they have their own issues as I noted above.  Another issue with some hydro plants is that the water bodies created need to be maintained through dredging.  Now you're looking at disposal sites and water quality issues.

Coal fired plants are better than they once were, but they are still loaded with environmental issues from mining the coal to disposal of the waste generated.  But I think there is too much money, and too many jobs associated with coal for it to go away anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuck in KS
A government report I read last fall named more than 60 suitable locations for coal, nuclear, or both.  I'll post the link when I find it.  So far I've only discussed the facts, with exception of offering an opinion of aesthetics.  So it's said, I much prefer nuclear to coal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuck in KS
Sorry kid--life is not black and white

I asked a simple question, and it was conditional.  Answering it should not be this difficult.  Circle one:  yes  /  no

Link to post
Share on other sites
bosco mctavitch

Sorry kid--life is not black and white

I asked a simple question, and it was conditional.  Answering it should not be this difficult.  Circle one:  yes  /  no

You asked a question that, aside from being largely irrelevant, made erroneous assumptions--hence I will not answer it, because there are more choices than simply "yes" or "no".

Link to post
Share on other sites
A government report I read last fall named more than 60 suitable locations for coal, nuclear, or both.  I'll post the link when I find it.  So far I've only discussed the facts, with exception of offering an opinion of aesthetics.  So it's said, I much prefer nuclear to coal.

60 locations in how big of an area?  The entire country?  That's not a lot of suitable sites.  Now take the 60 sites and see how well they meet the regulations that make once through cooling water systems very difficult to get around and then add in the opposition and the 60 sites drop down quickly.  

As an example I know of one power company that was looking at three suitable locations for a new coal burning plant.  It wasn't long before one of the sites was dropped due to the impracticality of the of the use of cooling towers (alternative to once through cooling water systems).  Another power company I know had 4 suitable sites for a new coal burning plant and quickly dropped two of the sites due to environmental concerns and strong public opposition.

Just because a site is suitable doesn't mean it's practical.

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...