What is Digg?95 Comments
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -15/+37Yeah, growing everywhere except in liberal buffoon hypocrite Teddy Kennedy's neighborhood. He talked a good game until someone tried to place one near his sprawling estate...then NIMBY!
Maybe if these lying hypocrite politicians got out of the way and let the free market decide completely... - Mofo, on 07/24/2008, -2/+16Blame Bush!
Oh wait this is an article about something good in the US.
I have to go bash my head in now... - wazzledoozle2, on 07/24/2008, -2/+15One nuclear reactor will produce ~1200 MW of power, but the single largest wind farm in entire US generates only 735.5 MW, and takes up 118 square miles.
Keep on dreaming, wind power proponents. - cheezintern, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12I think you mean all the rich people living on the coast of Massachusetts that don't want to 'spoil' their ocean views with wind farms in the distance. Of course eminent domain doesn't apply to the wealthy, only to those that can't afford to defend themselves.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -3/+13The best part is how the "environmentally conscious north" doesn't harness the overly abundant wind power available to them, while Texas, a state ridiculed for being backwards, anti-progressive, and dirty, is the greatest producer of wind power. It's strange how the Kennedys, who are so concerned about the environment, do not allow windmills to be setup out in the ocean behind their gigantic houses using innumerable resources to maintain, because as it "ruins the view". The northerner elitists are truly environmentalist, but only when it doesn't conflict with their lives or their view.
- mikerad86, on 07/23/2008, -3/+11Now when I say the U.S. blows hard, it can be considered a good thing. It means more clean energy for all. Hip hip! hoooooooooooray!!!!!
- angryfirelord, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8yay free markets!
- fuzzmeister, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9Extrapolating the personal views of the richest residents of Cape Cod to the entirety of the north is a bit extreme, don't you think?
- wunksta, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7its never been considered something that would fully power everything, only something that would lessen dependence on other sources of energy
basically its just harvesting free energy, it pays for itself after a while. - DuffyDirect, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6hey don't be mean, new york state is heavily powered by hydroelectric power. in my town, gilboa, water is sent from the upper resevoir to the power plant through pipes where the water turns turbines to generate power. during the night when power is usually wasted (fossil fuel or not) the water is pumped back into the upper reservoir and the process begins again. pumping the water obviously takes more energy than you get out of it, but its a great utilization of excess energy generated during the day that would just be needlessly wasted anyway.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7***** DUGG FOR THE TRUTH
- noahgelman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I think your comment was ignorant and I wish you could think
- wunksta, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7kind of like tap water and roads! damn that collectivism!
- legendxx, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5If your only source is the front-page of digg, then yes.
- cameltoenail, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Billionaire T-Boone Pickens, got rich as a wildcatter during the oil boom days, now wants to build a huge windfarm in the Permian basin in West Texas. Multiple steps to break our dependence on Foreign oil, with renewable energy, CNG cars etc. Hydrogen production from solar and wind. Texas is voting on a upgraded power grid. This is actually the type of plan that could actually work sooner than later and become a financial boom for areas that were financially dependent on the oil boom. Plus T-Boone, Pickens is the greatest name for a Texas oil man ever!
- TJ11240, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7No surprise when its growing at over 40% a year.
- pilot3033, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Sadly, we can't deus ex machina things into existence. Can't get to B without starting at A.
- TStanNY, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6I'd imagine Chicago is the top windy city
- DuffyDirect, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4he doesn't give a rats ass about people or america -- it's all about $$$. He bought an entire AQUIFER as big as the great lakes and is squeezing money out of communities, cities.......... for WATER. I mean, it's literally a situation like the cans of air in Space Balls!!!
sorry for the rant, uhh... my vote is for #3 lol - wazzledoozle2, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I would rather have concentrated radiation being transported in sealed containers to be buried under mountains than the current method of blowing radiation into the air in clouds of smoke.
Coal plants expose surrounding populations to more radiation than nuclear plants do.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ ... - wazzledoozle2, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Hollow_Wind_Ene ... (Largest US wind farm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_P ... (Typical nuclear power station) - wazzledoozle2, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Another point to consider as well, the Diablo Canyon power station generates 2.93 MW of power per acre, while the Horse Hollow wind farm generates 0.0161 MW per acre.
PS, I was wrong about the wind farm being largest in the US; it's the largest in the world! - bipolarruledout, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4When did they install turbines in DC?
- grumpyrain, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3I don't disagree with you about nukes. I would much prefer them over coal, but that is no reason to poo poo wind farms. It is very misleading to say it takes up 100 square miles (or a 10x10 mile square). I visited a wind farm last year, and there were cows sitting in the paddock below the turbines. Apart from the area immediately around each turbine, a couple of service roads and a small amount of land for the DC-AC conversion, most of the land can be used for agricultural purposes. No-one seems to mind the amount of land required by mining for coal or uranium. No-one seems to think of the exorbitant energy required to enrich it to energy grade. Hydro also requires a massive amount of land.
The real myth here, is that there exists *any* energy source with now bad sides. - WiseWeasel, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Something besides killing brown people...
- grumpyrain, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Until I can buy a car that can go 10,000 miles of 1 gallon of fuel, I am going to sit in my cave and whinge that there is no point even moving a muscle until some uber efficient transportation option becomes available. The glass is just half empty I'm afraid.
Every 1MW/hr provided by wind is 1MW/hr that doesn't need to come from some expensive peaker plant. Solar and wind can produce up to 20% of power needs without even considering energy storage. Peaker gas turbine plants and hydro can be quickly ramped up/down to make up for any shortfall. - DuffyDirect, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3that really sucks. i remember walking along i-90 to shedd aquarium from millenium park after skating with my girl friend and that whole lake michigan coast just SCREAMS for wind power. do u know the area im talking about? its like the highway that runs besides where buckingham fountain is i think. we were almost blown off our feet it was so windy (and it was mad cold too :-( )
- cph1, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4This is an extremely narrow and irrelevant statement. Economic viability is not measured in watts per acre. Producers also do not care about providing as much power as possible. They are solely concerned about profit which is obtained if they can generate power below market prices. Consequently, producers will use whatever form of power generation is economically feasible given their situation. Nuclear power requires large capital expenditures and has high operating cost. Reactors require years of planning, permitting, and development. Nuclear power may be a viable option for large corporations with the proper funding and expertise. Obviously small farmers in the Midwest are not going to build nuclear reactors. For them wind power could easily be the best option since it has relatively small operating and startup costs. Yes, wind requires large amounts of land but this is a resource which is readily available in the West. This is just one of the many variables that producers will take into account when assessing the viability of their projects.
- Grummond, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3US AND A, US AND A, US AND A!
Good going, really. But let's be real for a second, what really counts is which PERCENTAGE of your energy needs is coming from sustainable sources, like wind power. Not how big your country is.
Your goal of getting 20% of your energy from those sources by 2030 is fine, but Denmark already passed that mark last year, and is still erecting newer and more efficient wind mills.
Be more ambitious, then I'll be impressed. - wazzledoozle2, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclea ...
When was the last time terrorists used radioactive waste? All your points sound like the typical nuclear scaremongering vomited into one long ramble without punctuation nor grammar.
I would rather this country build a reliable, modern, safe nuclear infrastructure than an extremely expensive and ultimately unfeasible wind grid. Nuclear is a far better alternative to fossil fuels than wind power ever will be. - grumpyrain, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2All (modern) reactors are closed systems, probably closed systems heat exchanging with other closed systems before heat exchanging with an open system like the ocean or a lake. There is too much risk of a radiation leak any other way. Any operator would want exact knowledge of the chemical composition of the cooling fluid so there are no surprises when they raise or lower the control rods. Even fresh water though has sediments in it, which would be equally problematic for the heat exchange plates.
I am not sure whether the heating up of the cooling water is specifically problematic to the reactor, or more correctly, I think that local ecosystems surrounding the reactor would be killed off prior to the cooling water reaching a temperature where it compromised operations. The shutdowns to let the cooling water cool down (that we hear about) are primarily about preventing ecological disasters within lakes etc used for the cooling. In times of drought, this becomes particularly problematic as there is less rainwater to refresh the cooling lakes etc. - wazzledoozle2, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2No, but people need to be more aware of nuclear power. Wind power isn't going to fix our dependence on fossil fuels. 49% of our electric power comes from coal! Natural gas covers another 20%. Nuclear is only at 19% right now; but consider that France gets 79% of their power from nuclear without ever having had a serious incident.
If we really want electric or hydrogen cars, then we need infrastructure on top of what we already have to produce enough electricity to do so. All of the cars in the US consume a tremendous amount of energy. We need wind, nuclear, solar, hydro, thermal, and tidal all working together to power a fossil-fuelless future. Nuclear will be the consistent source to balance out fluctuations in output from all of the renewables. (Solar doesn't work at night!) - cph1, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3This is not because the Northeast is elite. It is because wind generation requires a large amount of land and a supply of wind, both of which are readily available in the west but not so in the Northeast.
- GrooTheWanderer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2That energy is not being harnessed properly because they're blowing it up their own backsides.
- fuzzmeister, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2If they can take the load off of dirty coal plants, it will do a huge service to the environment. It doesn't have to be available 24/7/365 to be beneficial. The only way you're going to get clean (global warming-wise) energy that's always available is nuclear.
- slvrbullet87, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Chicago wont allow wind farms to be built near them, instead they build them down state and then have the power run up to them. I have a large wind farm less than 25 miles from my house, yet dont get any power from it because they send it all to Joliet
- george2gfm, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4Free market FTW
- fuzzmeister, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2The government owns more land in the US than any other entity, they have plenty of land to build these things in.
- cheezintern, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2John Deere is doing the same with farmers. The amount varies depending where they're located.
- evilesttoast, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5Eat that Europe!
- DuffyDirect, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3the problem is your spokespeople endlessly and militantly insist that nuclear reactors are safe and disaster proof when it just isn't the case... And I'm not talking about Chernobyl (which someone can't even talk about with nuclear proponents are they start screaming at you all these reasons why that wouldn't happen in America) I'm talking about frequent radioactive water leaks in nuke plants in japan, the north east US, etc., radioactive waste material being used by terrorists, no acceptable solution for storing the waste, etc...
- grumpyrain, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2No, you certainly don't want salt water in your reactor core. The ocean can (and is) used as a heat exchange in many places.
- Grummond, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2That is why noone is going to rely ONLY on wind mills. We'll still need some regular power plants, and a diversity of sustainable energy sources.
- GeauxLSU, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Texas becomes leader in wind energy
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2008 ...
and how did that happen??
The Power of Green
The politician who actually proved just how effective this can be was a guy named George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas. He pushed for and signed a renewable energy portfolio mandate in 1999. The mandate stipulated that Texas power companies had to produce 2,000 new megawatts of electricity from renewables, mostly wind, by 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green ... - Sid0101, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I live in NYC, but I think this applicable to other cities; we should start installing wind mills on our taller buildings....albeit it might be smaller, but I think it'll make for an interesting view. In addition, we begin to make buildings out of thin film photovoltaics....
YAY for the environment!
......sigh - DuffyDirect, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2true, but this is... undeniably good news, you know? what i hear normally as good news is either small-scale stuff like someone saving someone's life or stuff where there's always an element of suspicion or doubt about the story's "good" nature (like capturing Saddam for example, where he ended up being executed in a rather uncivilized ceremony!)
- alexonix, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2So now we really blow, huh?
- GeauxLSU, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Texas becomes leader in wind energy
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2008 ...
and how did that happen??
The Power of Green
The politician who actually proved just how effective this can be was a guy named George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas. He pushed for and signed a renewable energy portfolio mandate in 1999. The mandate stipulated that Texas power companies had to produce 2,000 new megawatts of electricity from renewables, mostly wind, by 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green ... - wunksta, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2does it really have to be an either/or situation?
i wouldnt mind nuclear reactors though if we adopted the breeder or pebble bed ones. they seem the best so far, from what ive read - zmigliozzi, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2But but but I thought bush hates the environment and loves oil, this is all his fault. Damn him.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is