Wind farms banned as environmentalists grumble

[rightwinger]

Who has ever said all?
10-20 percent is a major contribution

And we need nuclear for the rest unless if course you want to keep burning coal

We need a comprehensive energy plan that is not......Drill baby, drill

And yet all you people say an unequivocal no to nuclear power

I don’t mind it as part of an overall solution

It will have to be the largest part but then again why not just go 100% nuclear and save our undeveloped lands for recreational use

Nuclear plants have a lot of hoops to jump through before they can be built. Those suckers are expensive

 

[rightwinger]

Windmills cause cancer
They are more dangerous than Mexicans

NOTHING is more dangerous than an ILLEGAL!

Some of them are good people

 

[Blues Man]

And we need nuclear for the rest unless if course you want to keep burning coal

We need a comprehensive energy plan that is not......Drill baby, drill

And yet all you people say an unequivocal no to nuclear power

I don’t mind it as part of an overall solution

It will have to be the largest part but then again why not just go 100% nuclear and save our undeveloped lands for recreational use

Nuclear plants have a lot of hoops to jump through before they can be built. Those suckers are expensive

Because we are using old tech.

We need to fast track some of the newer designs

 

[Dekster]

I hate those things. There has to be a better alternative.

Nuclear.

If anybody says solar, ask them how many Walmart's have been set on fire by Tesla Solar Panels. I think the current tally is around 7 and Amazon is starting to experience fires with those things too.

 

[GLASNOST]

REally?

Turbines are about as efficient as they are ever going to be at this point. And as it is now a wind turbine only produces 25% of its labeled capacity and have a lifespan of about 20 years.
It's not good enough to meet ur current needs never mind the greatly increased needs when we move completely off fossil fuels

Oh, stop talking like a child. You remind me of the "9 out of 10 experts" (plucked out of the 100 who won't endorse the product "recommend Professor Snake-Oil's Products". Or the doctors who swear that tobacco and sugar "are non-addictive and healthy!"

What sort of crap is this, " .. about as efficient as they are ever going to be .." ... wait for it, it's worth waiting for .... " ... at this point.

At this point! Technology ALWAYS advances. There is no "point". Wind turbines are the cleanest source of energy that I am aware of and there is no reason why it won't advance unless another CLEAN SOURCE is developed. Hydro-electric dams, ocean wave energy, and who-knows-what are all being developed as CLEAN SOURCES of energy. They will all continue to develop in conjunction with one another or until one of them becomes so efficient that all others will cease to be worth the effort .... but as all three utilize generators then it is assumed that what is good for one could very likely good for the other.

Nuclear energy is a ticking time bomb and its bi-products (such as plutonium and uranium weapons) are just as dangerous as the source itself. Do you feel feisty enough to give me a list of safety records and how half-life isn't as "long" as I might think it is? Fine, but you are not going to win me over into believing nuclear energy is better for life, the environment, and the planet. CLEAN SOURCES of ENERGY are the future.

We are all just waiting for whistle-blowers to blow the lid off of pro-nuclear propaganda.

 

[GLASNOST]

No technology gets "bigger and noisier".

WTF you talking about????

They HAD to do that.. Because the maintenance on the smaller ones were KILLING THEM.. You drive by older farms on a good wind day and more than half of the old turbines are locked in place...

So they DO get MONSTRUOUSLY large... You know how high 128Meters is??? And they use up the same amount of land per MWatt because they have to be spaced farther apart.. And NOISE and image shadowing IS an issue..

Many farmers who leased their land to cash in have dissolved the leases from the noise.. And on the bigger ones, if the sun goes behind the blades and the light enters the home, it is literally torture...

You very obviously do not understand the fundamentals of technological advancement and its' ambition to discover/create more efficient and less obtrusive results. Your heart is not in this subject I can see.

Oh hell no.. I just spent 40+ years in science and engineering both academically and applied... And I know how hard it is to push technologically mature products BEYOND their limits...

Whatcha gonna do when the wind takes 2 or 4 days off in a week?? You think "heart" has anything to do with that?????

When there is wind, you harness the power
When there is sun, you do the same

What is so hard about that?

All cities that wan this will convert every square inch of parkland and the roofs of their high rises, homes, apartments, businesses and public spaces to windmill and solar panel devices.

There is logic in what you say. There are today many who use solar energy as a supplement (and even total) energy source. They are off the grid.

 

[August West]

Wind farms sure are good at getting rid of pesky Bald eagles and other endangered birds.

Coal has left 3,000 miles of lifeless streams in my state and we`re still treating mine acid drainage from coal mines that were mined out and shuttered in the 1950s. Eagles and other endangered birds can`t catch fish in mine acid drainage. Are there any eagles here? A 2 part question actually. Do you see any trees?

They complain about the aesthetics of windmills and solar panels

My objection to wind mills is that they will never produce enough electricity to make the move off of fossil fuels

No diffuse, intermittent power generation source will ever meet the demand for 100% fossil fuel free power.

I have no problem with solar panels on roofs. How many acres of south and southwest facing roofs do we have in this country? We should be using that space not large tracts of land.

We need an energy dense power generation source that will be able to provide the power needed so we can move off of fossil fuels and wind ain't it

The time will come when there are no fossil fuels. Do you think we can make more?

 

[GLASNOST]

And yet all you people say an unequivocal no to nuclear power

Would you say an unequivocal "yes" to Darth Vader babysitting your children?

 

[GLASNOST]

I have to ask myself, if I were a farmer, what I would prefer? Of course, I'd rather see nothing but 360° horizon ... but if I were compelled or offered compensation .... would I want an oil rig, a mining shaft, a nuclear funnel, or a wind turbine on my land? I can answer that question already.

I'll take the Nuke Plant.... power for 100 years and very little chance of anything going wrong with new systems. Beats the hell out of rusting piles of crap windmills and solar panels.

Ring up the energy commission and let them know they are welcome to begin building their Nuke plants on your property. They will be very pleased to find volunteers who welcome the plan!

 

[GLASNOST]

No technology gets "bigger and noisier".

WTF you talking about????

They HAD to do that.. Because the maintenance on the smaller ones were KILLING THEM.. You drive by older farms on a good wind day and more than half of the old turbines are locked in place...

So they DO get MONSTRUOUSLY large... You know how high 128Meters is??? And they use up the same amount of land per MWatt because they have to be spaced farther apart.. And NOISE and image shadowing IS an issue..

Many farmers who leased their land to cash in have dissolved the leases from the noise.. And on the bigger ones, if the sun goes behind the blades and the light enters the home, it is literally torture...

You very obviously do not understand the fundamentals of technological advancement and its' ambition to discover/create more efficient and less obtrusive results. Your heart is not in this subject I can see.

Oh hell no.. I just spent 40+ years in science and engineering both academically and applied... And I know how hard it is to push technologically mature products BEYOND their limits...

Whatcha gonna do when the wind takes 2 or 4 days off in a week?? You think "heart" has anything to do with that?????

You speak of technological LIMITS? That's a good one! Has it never occurred to you that wind turbine configuration is in its' infancy ..... that the wind turbine tower is the horse-drawn carriage of our time? "LIMITS" you say!

You are a moron... Wind power is over 600 years old. Ask the Dutch how well they worked...

Wind POWER is not Wind ENERGY. The moron is you. Or maybe you are only stupid?

 

[Blues Man]

REally?

Turbines are about as efficient as they are ever going to be at this point. And as it is now a wind turbine only produces 25% of its labeled capacity and have a lifespan of about 20 years.
It's not good enough to meet ur current needs never mind the greatly increased needs when we move completely off fossil fuels

Oh, stop talking like a child. You remind me of the "9 out of 10 experts" (plucked out of the 100 who won't endorse the product "recommend Professor Snake-Oil's Products". Or the doctors who swear that tobacco and sugar "are non-addictive and healthy!"

What sort of crap is this, " .. about as efficient as they are ever going to be .." ... wait for it, it's worth waiting for .... " ... at this point.

At this point! Technology ALWAYS advances. There is no "point". Wind turbines are the cleanest source of energy that I am aware of and there is no reason why it won't advance unless another CLEAN SOURCE is developed. Hydro-electric dams, ocean wave energy, and who-knows-what are all being developed as CLEAN SOURCES of energy. They will all continue to develop in conjunction with one another or until one of them becomes so efficient that all others will cease to be worth the effort .... but as all three utilize generators then it is assumed that what is good for one could very likely good for the other.

Nuclear energy is a ticking time bomb and its bi-products (such as plutonium and uranium weapons) are just as dangerous as the source itself. Do you feel feisty enough to give me a list of safety records and how half-life isn't as "long" as I might think it is? Fine, but you are not going to win me over into believing nuclear energy is better for life, the environment, and the planet. CLEAN SOURCES of ENERGY are the future.

We are all just waiting for whistle-blowers to blow the lid off of pro-nuclear propaganda.

Hoping for pie in the sky is childish

We have been using turbines to produce electricity for over a century if they were going to get better they would have.

The most efficient way we can produce electricity is with large turbines and theyt all have the same limitation and that is the rotational speed of the turbine Wind can only turn the turbine at a velocity something less than the actual wind speed this is a physical barrier that gains in efficiency cannot cross.

Wind just doesn't turn the turbine fast enough where as super-heated steam under high pressure can spin very large turbines much faster than the wind can turn a small turbine that and the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time is why wind only produces 25% of its rated capacity

 

[Blues Man]

And yet all you people say an unequivocal no to nuclear power

Would you say an unequivocal "yes" to Darth Vader babysitting your children?

I wouldn't let YOU near any children not even your own

 

[Blues Man]

Wind farms sure are good at getting rid of pesky Bald eagles and other endangered birds.

Coal has left 3,000 miles of lifeless streams in my state and we`re still treating mine acid drainage from coal mines that were mined out and shuttered in the 1950s. Eagles and other endangered birds can`t catch fish in mine acid drainage. Are there any eagles here? A 2 part question actually. Do you see any trees?

They complain about the aesthetics of windmills and solar panels

My objection to wind mills is that they will never produce enough electricity to make the move off of fossil fuels

No diffuse, intermittent power generation source will ever meet the demand for 100% fossil fuel free power.

I have no problem with solar panels on roofs. How many acres of south and southwest facing roofs do we have in this country? We should be using that space not large tracts of land.

We need an energy dense power generation source that will be able to provide the power needed so we can move off of fossil fuels and wind ain't it

The time will come when there are no fossil fuels. Do you think we can make more?

Did you miss the part where I am advocating a 100% nuclear powered grid?

 

[GLASNOST]

REally?

Turbines are about as efficient as they are ever going to be at this point. And as it is now a wind turbine only produces 25% of its labeled capacity and have a lifespan of about 20 years.
It's not good enough to meet ur current needs never mind the greatly increased needs when we move completely off fossil fuels

Oh, stop talking like a child. You remind me of the "9 out of 10 experts" (plucked out of the 100 who won't endorse the product "recommend Professor Snake-Oil's Products". Or the doctors who swear that tobacco and sugar "are non-addictive and healthy!"

What sort of crap is this, " .. about as efficient as they are ever going to be .." ... wait for it, it's worth waiting for .... " ... at this point.

At this point! Technology ALWAYS advances. There is no "point". Wind turbines are the cleanest source of energy that I am aware of and there is no reason why it won't advance unless another CLEAN SOURCE is developed. Hydro-electric dams, ocean wave energy, and who-knows-what are all being developed as CLEAN SOURCES of energy. They will all continue to develop in conjunction with one another or until one of them becomes so efficient that all others will cease to be worth the effort .... but as all three utilize generators then it is assumed that what is good for one could very likely good for the other.

Nuclear energy is a ticking time bomb and its bi-products (such as plutonium and uranium weapons) are just as dangerous as the source itself. Do you feel feisty enough to give me a list of safety records and how half-life isn't as "long" as I might think it is? Fine, but you are not going to win me over into believing nuclear energy is better for life, the environment, and the planet. CLEAN SOURCES of ENERGY are the future.

We are all just waiting for whistle-blowers to blow the lid off of pro-nuclear propaganda.

Hoping for pie in the sky is childish

We have been using turbines to produce electricity for over a century if they were going to get better they would have.

The most efficient way we can produce electricity is with large turbines and theyt all have the same limitation and that is the rotational speed of the turbine Wind can only turn the turbine at a velocity something less than the actual wind speed this is a physical barrier that gains in efficiency cannot cross.

Wind just doesn't turn the turbine fast enough where as super-heated steam under high pressure can spin very large turbines much faster than the wind can turn a small turbine that and the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time is why wind only produces 25% of its rated capacity

What an idiot response.

"We have been using turbines to produce electricity for over a century if they were going to get better they would have"

The internal combustion engine was never going to improve either, right?

 

[Third Party]

Windmills cause cancer
They are more dangerous than Mexicans

NOTHING is more dangerous than an ILLEGAL!

Some of them are good people

Then why don't they become legal?

 

[GLASNOST]

And yet all you people say an unequivocal no to nuclear power

Would you say an unequivocal "yes" to Darth Vader babysitting your children?

I wouldn't let YOU near any children not even your own

I assume then that you won't be giving the OK to a nuclear plant being built next to your home?

 

[August West]

Wind farms sure are good at getting rid of pesky Bald eagles and other endangered birds.

Coal has left 3,000 miles of lifeless streams in my state and we`re still treating mine acid drainage from coal mines that were mined out and shuttered in the 1950s. Eagles and other endangered birds can`t catch fish in mine acid drainage. Are there any eagles here? A 2 part question actually. Do you see any trees?

They complain about the aesthetics of windmills and solar panels

My objection to wind mills is that they will never produce enough electricity to make the move off of fossil fuels

No diffuse, intermittent power generation source will ever meet the demand for 100% fossil fuel free power.

I have no problem with solar panels on roofs. How many acres of south and southwest facing roofs do we have in this country? We should be using that space not large tracts of land.

We need an energy dense power generation source that will be able to provide the power needed so we can move off of fossil fuels and wind ain't it

The time will come when there are no fossil fuels. Do you think we can make more?

Did you miss the part where I am advocating a 100% nuclear powered grid?

I did. My mistake.

 

[GLASNOST]

The Chernobyl disaster affects the world even today, after more than 30 years. Radioactive particles take many years to break down and it still registers in the soil and plants as far away as Sweden and Norway. Affected vegetation is taken up by animals that rely on it for sustenance and just last year a herd of wild boar in Sweden were found to contain 10 times over safe levels.

So you build your nuclear energy plants America. Just keep them downwind from me.

 

[Kilroy2]

I would have to ask

would anyone want to live near a nuclear plant vs wind mills

now it is true that nuclear power is well managed in most countries and they safely store waste and about 3 percent of waste is high level waste that is buried deep in the ground.

Nuclear power is not renewable

Wind power is renewable

wind power is depended on the wind and when it will stop blowing but its a matter of when will it blow again and storage capacity.

The bird issues is nonsense as I said before man does a lot of other things that kill birds but nobody complains about it. Are people going to stop flying, driving their cars, or hunting.

The noise level is dependent on how close you live to the windmill but how close do you want to live near a nuclear power plant

Sure you can say their safe but no think you ma' am for me

A windmill or solar panels can be built for single homes and supply that home with all the power it needs in general terms. After initial installation cost and repairs, will it save people money. It sounds reasonable.

Hypothetically speaking Nuclear power plants can be a target in war and terrorist attacks. It is a possibility. What if the 9/11 terrorist had targeted a nuclear facility rather than the pentagon or a large building

One well placed bomb will cause more damaged at a nuclear facility than one placed near a wind tower or Sun farm. The US does take this threat seriously

The NRC carries out "Force on Force" exercises at all nuclear power plant sites at least once every three years.

 

[badger2]

Two important videos for eco-friendly small turbine technology: