Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Latitude Theory
1768 Followers
Marshall Craw
761 Followers
Rock Hound
498 Followers
Sri Aneware
264 Followers
zapwizardMar 28, 2006
Ya, I noticed the latest raffel was held last week.But I will keep watch.
miaowMar 28, 2006
we should all have our own little windmill,<a class="user" href="http://www.windsave.com/">http://www.windsave.com/</a>thats a british company. Im sure there is an american alternative. there is also solar panels and home generators that are ultra efficient. soon we can sell electricity back to the grid. For a while it may be profitable (until too many people are doing the same)
Closed AccountMar 28, 2006Submitter
Less than 40,000 birds die every year by turbines (on average less than .6 birds/ turbine/ year)Whereas vehicles account for a mortality rate of 40 million.Buildings even more!A PDF with some of the info <a class="user" href="http://www.thewind.info/downloads/birds.pdf">http://www.thewind.info/downloads/birds.pdf</a>You can find out more by searching around.Also there are new technolgies that are increasing output and decreasing the risks involved like these multi-rotor turbines: <a class="user" href="http://www.selsam.com">http://www.selsam.com</a>
cjhtxgeekMar 28, 2006
I'd welcome a nuclear reactor over wind anyday; when will people learn its our best bet...after they've spent millions upon (billions?) of dollars making wind cheaper, when we've had nuclear power for how long... for how cheap... so frustrating.... even the french get it; the most nuclear powered nation on earth (or atleast in top 3 as i recall).
geomonMar 28, 2006
"I was puzzled but your continual insistence that the wind doesn't always blow...i.e. that this was somehow a significant factor."It is significant in calculating the actual power delivery capability. Solar cells, as you noted in your quip, are poor generators without Sol itself. Wind turbines are equally unable to generate power without wind.Constructing a solar power generation station in an area where the low conversion efficiency of solar cells is at a disadvantage is lousy public policy. Constructing wind power stations where wind speeds are lower than 7 mph is also lousy public policy. And an optimal placement of either technology means that electricity capacity will not meet demand 100% of the time. That is a fact and one that is glossed over in the original article.Other power sources are generally used to provide the balance of the approximately 14 trillion kWh of electrical demand world-wide. Now that the price of fossil fuels have jumped again, it is possible to begin seriously discussing the economics of alternative energy supplies without having to resort to subsidies. Subsidies often fail and are poor predictors of what technologies will best supply needs in the future. Now that oil prices reflect 2006-reality, investment in alternatives should begin to reap benefits.How much of that shift from fossil fuels will be provided by wind, solar, or other renewables like tidal will depend on the market and the ability to cut transmission losses. The one *other* problem with renewable energies are their lack of portability. Which is why we should continue to consider nuclear energy as an interim non-greenhouse substitute for electrical power generation. Nothing I'm reading from the mainstream eco-news makes that reality clear.
rjnagleMar 28, 2006
for the record, Texas has several wind-based energy providers. In Houston where I live Green Mountain is popular. There is no waiting list, and the prices are still competitive. As far as I know, Green Mountain has never had any problems with obtaining sufficient wind-generated power. Perhaps at some point we will run out of land, but that seems unlikely. In places like Texas, real estate is plentiful, so what works here may not be valid elsewhere. And obviously you need to weigh certain variables like windspeed to make a cost-benefit analysis.
djerridMar 28, 2006
They already have the infrastructure. Just put 'em on top of all the oil rigs.
blo2bloJul 16, 2006
I don’t like to say this but I believe you sound like a Liberal who doesn’t know how the earth works. Wind is always blowing at higher altitudes. You may not feel it down lower but it is there. Why else are the clouds moving constantly? And saying because the Earth is rotating just lends to more wind. The Air isn’t attached to the Earth like a building. And BTW the wind turbines may appear to be moving quite slowly but the bigger the generator the slower the turn ratio. AKA it takes a lot more torque. You familiar with the difference between torque and RPM? There is a difference."But nuclear power wouldn't have any impact on the Earth's climate either."How easily you forget about storage of nuclear waste. I volunteer your back yard. Any complaints? Of course you complain. Nuclear waste is not a viable source. You have to store it. FYI Storage means putting someplace to sit. I would rather have Wind Mills outside my window than a nuclear storage facility.Also you have no proof that slowing the movement of wind the little it does would affect the climate. It is as stupid as the old philosophical question "If a Butterfly beats its wings in Brazil...." It shows by the fact you haven’t provided any proof. You haven’t used physics or any other form of science to support your claims. And the fact that you started belittling others prior to doing adequate homework says something.Further "More wind power = a lot of DEAD birds." Do some more homework. In Wisconsin studies say that a cat kills more birds in one day than one wind turbine does every three years. FYI Birds aren’t as stupid as you look right now.
blo2bloJul 16, 2006
Let me start by saying your article is wrong. We can have self dependency on fossil fuels if we tap Alaska. Further we get coal from inside the country as well as most natural gas. Moving on Storage of Nuclear waste people. Wake up. Store it in your backyard and you can have the Nuclear Reactors you want. Solar power is not viable it is only potent when the sun is up. Further if Wind Power is slowing the winds which are usually causing the erosion how that are they causing extreme topsoil erosion? Where is the logic there? Sounds like someone just doesn?t want to work but wants someone else to pay for them not planting.
blo2bloJul 16, 2006
Wouldn%u2019t fly too many Liberals there that would find them Ugly. Even the thought of em. I vote all major Cities should have windmills and solar on the roofs. Altitude would make it viable for wind. And the solar would help with peak times in the summer. All to help the grid.