What is Digg?164 Comments
- usrlocalbin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+185Awesome! clean power+++
- irvman21, on 10/12/2007, -37/+153It makes me laugh when people say we should devote resources to researching alternative energy sources. They already did it, 50+ years ago, it's called nuclear and we should be using it for 70% of our base load power.
- lichme5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+92Canada should turn the entire area north of the arctic circle into a giant wind farm and put the middle east out of business.
- obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -4/+78i4mt3hwin: "Solar, Wind and other nature based clean power is pretty sweet, but it's not economically viable."
Good job. You actually made me laugh out loud.
The beauty of these systems is the economics of them. You have no hidden costs. You have a predictable output. You are immune to most market forces. The trend right now is in wind collectives; people forming groups of households to buy one wind turbine. At some point, the turbine is paid for, and they all start getting checks. The only way this is NOT economically viable is if the price of energy drops and they don't have guaranteed future profits. Well, that doesn't seem to be happening, and the banks seem willing to help these start up. I doubt these people and these bankers are all tree-huggers. They want to, yes, make a profit. If that's not "economically viable" I don't know what is! - MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -25/+90Nuclear? Are you crazy??? It gives you cancer and if we use nuclear power the terrorists have WON! Think of the children!
Actually I entirely agree. We should be putting more money into construction of fission plants and research into making fusion power a viable concern. The fundamental issue with 'renewables' is that the initial energy cost often rather outweighs the benefit. Smelting the amount of steel/aluminium required for a large turbine capable of 5MW+ requires a huge amount of energy. Unless the power for the production of the turbine comes from hydro (lots of Al plants are in the mountains for this reason), their isn't really a great deal of benefit. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48@madaxe42: Either I'm misreading your post, or you're completely wrong.
Yea, it might take a lot of energy to process the materials required to make such a wind turbine.. but you seem to ignore the fact that the turbine _continues_ to produce power, whereas the construction is a one-time power cost. - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41"transmitting via power lines is very lossy over great distances"
Not at all - pump the voltage up sufficiently and you can travel huge distances far more rapidly and efficiently than transporting something such as oil which has physical weight.
"there is no good way of storing electricity"
Not as efficienty as we would like, maybe, but they exist. A common practice is to use a hydroelectric dam with two tiers of reservoirs, and pump water uphill at night and use the resulting hydroelectric power during the day. In this case, the energy is effectively free so if sufficient numbers were built we wouldn't have to worry about wasting electricity. You could simply disconnect certain turbines or use it for various industrial purposes.
I think it's a very good target to aim for. - sixdust, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Solar, Water and Wind power for the win.
- Justavian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34"..painted light green at their base to blend in with their surroundings."
As much as i admire their effort, i'm not sure that massive 500 foot tall turbines are ever going to quite "blend in". Still, nice to see more wind power... - dusanmal, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36It is economically viable in certain places, just if the "econuts" would accept any source of energy. Our local provider on Long Island wanted to build economically viable system with the potential to eventually cover 1/4 of the island power needs... Abovementioned "econuts" didn't embrace the project. They are fighting it tooth-and-nail. Claim is that it would harm birds, fish and natural views... Exadurated claims ... No source of energy is good for them. As for "views" I would have lived in an area nearest to it and I'd see turbines on a horizon at the size of fingernail held at the arm's length. I'd welcome them een ten times nearer... Project is presently blocked and in "limbo".
- i4mt3hwin, on 10/12/2007, -41/+69Solar, Wind and other nature based clean power is pretty sweet, but it's not economically viable. Personally I think we should start construction of more nuclear based power sources.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Anyone worried about nuclear power and its viability should look into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
It's the most environmentally friendly, economical and safe nuclear reactor ever. It can even use nuclear waste and decommissioned nuclear warheads as fuel sources.
Now, if we can just get the project revived.
(PS: the Clinton/Gore administration were the ones who pushed HEAVILY to have the funding for this project cut and the project shut down...and we didn't hear a peep out of Gore about how it should be continued. Hypocrite.) - IVIrMP3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23The base is painted light green to blend in with the surroundings. Good thing the 90% above that doesn't stand out
- superdupergc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16man, i thought you were about to summon captain planet for a second there. but right on, renewable power for the win.
- dougmc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25It's cute ... nuclear power is the new `green' power.
It used to be that people worried about the environment hated nuclear power above all else. Now people are realizing that it's generally nicer on the environment than things like coal plants (well, people have always known this, but it's becoming more commonly accepted.)
Of course, even windmills and hydroelectric dams involve large changes to the environment -- in short, the environmental cost is significant. Done properly, a nuclear power plant may actually have a *lower* environmental cost than windmills and hydroelectric dams that create the same amount of power. And an added bonus is that a nuclear power plant keeps working even if the wind stops! (Though big wind turbines do normally go into places that are usually very windy.) - Zygo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14>Wind can't store energy? The same can be said for coal, gas, etc.
Coal, gas = stored energy. - CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I think they look nice. I'd rather see windmills than endless billboards advertising crap I don't buy.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Don't forget to add nuclear.
Although, I admit that solar is probably our best option... Unless we can have a maintable, cotrollable fusion reactor. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12 Most times far up north when it is extremely cold there isn't any wind, the air just sits there, most times extremely cold air just sits in one spot.
I live in the Eastern part of Southern Canada and it is very windy here, there has been an research station for experimental windmills here for years, must be going on forty years they've been there even since I can remember. The have all sorts of windmills from the typical propeller type to low lying "egg-beaters" as I call them. Right now they have about a dozen some are 300 foot-high carbon fiber monsters from a company called Veritas. Have a look at the research station's website www.weican.ca
by the way there are people who hate them, local super-extreme environmentalist groups say they kill birds or emit low frequency sound waves. You can't please anyone! - scarebear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10so how much does one cost anyways?
- arpad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@bombadier337
Here's your wikipedia entry for "the most serious nuclear incident in the world since the Chernobyl":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents#2000s
From the entry:
"Although there was no damage to the reactor, no radioactive release and no adverse health consequences, the incident highlighted potentially hazardous flaws in the site's reactor shutdown procedures."
Doesn't sound quite like the Chernobyl disaster which, it should be noted, was a obsolete and inherently dangerous reactor design operated by a state agency of a People's Republic. Those People's Republics are now well known to have been the most irresponsible and slovenly of nuclear plant operators. But that's just in keeping with the general level of environmental responsibility displayed by the People's Republics which is to say, about none. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Considering it's a huge system for use by a power company, I'd say quite a lot.
- roder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Nuclear would be one of the most viable options, if it wasn't for that pesky spent fuel. If only we could figure out a way to enrich uranium without the fear of it being used in bombs.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html - trevis989, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13(this was made in rebuttal to the nuclear bashing posts I've read here)
First off, I'd like to say that wind power is a great thing to have. Problem is, it is terribly inefficient. The maximum power output of these turbines may be high, but the capacity factor is roughly 35%, that is, if one turbine could put out 1000kW, it is on average putting out 350kW. Compared to nuclear (~90%) or coal (~70%), this is low. Does this mean wind is not worth it? No. Renewable energy is a great ADDITION, not the end all solution. Wind, solar, and hydro power are nice because they lack emissions other than noise. Their problems come in cost, low efficiency, and obtuse environmental impacts (i.e. damming up a river, cluttering up jet streams/fields with turbines, etc). Although they should be sought and embraced, they should NOT replace our existing plants entirely (in fact, it would probably be impossible to do so in a practical manor)
So what is the end all? Frankly, there isn't one in sight. Every energy source we stumble upon will have issues: Coal/gas - CO2/Nox/Sox emissions, Nuclear - waste disposal/public fears, renewable/green - inefficient/unreliable. Point is, as a society, we need to strive to work towards the better solutions to solve our problems of today and those of tomorrow. What is the big issue today? Global warming. What is a big contributor to this issue? Coal/gas emissions (among other sources, i.e. transportation vehicles). How are we dealing with this today? We aren't, really. Today, coal and gas plants are allowed to purchase carbon credits that "allow" them to emit a certain amount of Co2 per year without repercussions. This does nothing to solve the issue other than acknowledging the fact that they happen. Doing this helps nobody but the utilities.
To get to the point, what do I think? Well, Coal and gas are causing the problems, renewables aren't enough to solve the issue, then what is? Nuclear. Nuclear power is the stepping stone we must take to subside our environmental issues until we can figure out new energy forms (i.e. fusion). What about the waste? Waste is the only pressing issue with the industry other than public fear. Currently the state of Nevada is suing the DOE to prevent the opening of the waste repository in Yucca mountain. We currently have a working plan to effectively and safely (yes, safely) store the waste. Other countries reprocess their waste for reuse, reducing potential for malicious use of waste as well as reducing the overall amount of waste. The issue here is the US policy makers don't want to reprocess in the US. Technology isn't the issue, the politics of it all are preventing its progress. Currently, Gen 3+ and Gen 4 reactors are on the drawing boards and some have recently gotten design approvals from the NRC(AP 1000 from Westinghouse). These reactor designs are INHERENTLY AND PASSIVELY SAFE. That is, with minimal operator control, the reactor will shutdown on its own mechanics if something were to go wrong. The efficiencies have risen, and the utilities of the plants themselves have gone up (i.e. possibility of Hydrogen production from excess heat)
What about the industry being for the money? Well, the nuclear industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. The NRC drills companies and their plants with regulations and license processes. Designs are put through 3-5 year rigorous testing and questioning while the plant layout and future is regulated to a T. These companies make money, yes, but they pay the price to play the game. Without NRC approvals (process that can take up to 10-15 years), they won't make a dime.
Nuclear power has its issues - public fears and waste disposal, but with waste disposal solved for all but the politics, there is very little reason why the industry should not be supported. Coal and gas power have served us well, but have caused us issues we need to take into consideration. Paying carbon credits to shove the problem aside for years on end will do us nothing but harm. To step up to nuclear power while we continue our search for an end all energy solution is the most viable and practical solution.
(this was made in rebuttal to the nuclear bashing posts I've read here) - tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12thats what she said
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Don't forget geothermal. The U.S. has enough geothermal energy (Yellowstone) to power the country and last for millions of years.
For nuclear: Nuclear waste doesn't really exist; think of it as a nuclear fuel stockpile. The U.S. does not permit extracting more than 1% of the energy from nuclear fuel, so the rest ("waste") gets stored. If we change our policies on nuclear fuel, it will last much longer and the result is barely radioactive (with only a 20 year half-life). Read more at pbs.org:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/etc/faqs.html - mz00m, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The greatest problem with wind power is that is produces the most power at times when it's least needed... very late at night, and during the winter. The grid can not take power when it is not needed, and can't plan for power that it can't predict.
The grid peak needs are when it is hot, and during the day. In order to make wind (and solar) power an economically viable alternative to ANY other power plant that can be turned on and off is the development of cost effective ways of storing and transporting power.
Battery technology is woefully insufficient, and the only other good option for that much energy storage on site is hydrogen production and storage. If we can't develop another cost effective way of storing power to be turned on when needed, we need to continue to ramp up research on more cost-and-energy efficient ways of producing, storing, piping, and using hydrogen. - Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Current generation reactor designs use the fuel to depletion (not like what we use today). If we were buiding modern reactors in this country, we wouldn't be producing that waste. We only make high-level waste because we are using reactors designed in the 60's.
- Smokersroom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Its powered by wind turbine.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"2000 kilowatts. thats 30 TIMES less than 6 megawatts. as i say this doesnt add up."
Speaking of adding up, you can't seem to do the math either. That's 3 times, not 30. Secondly, it's probably not on the site because if you've got the money to order one, you've got people to call the company and send salesmen and engineers out to you to do it. That and the fact that it's brand new and they're just now putting out the press releases. - MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_power_station
Pumped storage in wales. - SebHughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Thats pretty cool, We are getting more and more wind turbines here in Germany all the time, IMO I think they are pretty cool.
- raybury, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I read recently that there is not only a minimum wind speed to produce energy, but a maximum speed beyond which the generating system must be disengaged to avoid damage. All I know is that when I drove past the giant wind farm between the Silicon and Central Valleys, it was a hot, windless day and not a single propeller was moving. Wind energy is not consistent and reliable, it is useful as a supplement and we should keep that in mind.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yeah, but nobody noticed the (relatively) tiny purple elephants cavorting around the base of the windmill!
- stevets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11For more info on wind energy or wind energy services, check these guys out. http://www.garradhassan.com Great company, doing great things for the environment.
- Photokon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Solar, Wind and other nature based clean power is pretty sweet, but it's not economically viable. Personally I think we should start construction of more nuclear based power sources."
They are extremely economically viable. What is the cost of oil? It isn't $60 a barrel. It's $60 + the cost of the Iraq war and aid to Israel + the defense budget + global warming + pollution + land area + etc.
The cost of wind power = the cost to build the wind mill + the land area.
Until people realize the implicit costs of oil and other non-renewable fuels they will not realize how much we are losing to these forms of power. - wiirdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not only birds....SHEEP! Don't you see them littered all over the place in one of the photos?
- vulgrin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8From the article: "the turbines towers, which are painted light green at their base to blend in with their surroundings."
ROFL - I can see it now:
"Look at me I'm walking through a field... dum de de"
KLANG!
"WTF? Who put this fracking windmill here???!?" - owlinfoxhole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6those germans, once they get an idea in their head, man, they go for it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i think like 2 million or something
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5 Actually the reservoir is in a way a battery, it's stored energy.
- snerge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I agree with that
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5if you're hoping for spectacular excitement and cool special effects, i think you'll be sorely disappointed. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong... but i think it just kinda... turns... rather slowly in the wind. Watching an old guy walk down the street would probably provide more action.
but, hey, whatever floats your boat... - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, those things don't have gears. Gearing requires oil. They use a direct drive system to drive the generator instead.
These windmills can change the angle of their blades in order to respond to different wind speeds. If the thing spins too fast, the angle changes and it slows down. And vice versa. - MatthJD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you put one in front of Congress, all the hot air could power half the state.
- geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, no -- diversify, people! IMHO, advanced nuclear needs to replace coal as our primary baseline source of power, and then supplemented with every kind of decentralized renewable we can get our hands on, with the end goal of producing 100% of what we need from the baseline source using solar/wind/etc.
- MyNameIsJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@mejogid
Never heard of using a hydroelectric dam to store electricity. That's a pretty good idea. I wonder how much energy is lost in the transfer.
With reference to solar power, I have heard talk about using the excess electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen and then using the hydrogen to run a fuel cell at night. I saw a story about a man in New Jersey who went off the grid using this technology. - sizbo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@Obliviousfool
"The beauty of these systems is the economics of them. You have no hidden costs. You have a predictable output. You are immune to most market forces."
Hidden costs, like monthly windmill maintenance?
Predictable, like the weather?
Immune to market forces, like politics??
Beauty, Plz. These are inefficient sources of power that exist for one obvious reason. Go nukeular. - MyNameIsJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It could be the size of the turbine also. It has a diameter of 367 feet. That's over a football field long!!!
- aratika, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Beautiful form and function. I can't understand why some politicians objected to these being placed of the northeast coast.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2995334
http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/griscom-windmill/
http://www.americancity.org/article.php?id_article=237 -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is