Not all turbines are the same. The are more sizes available than the towers you find in Northern Michigan. I'm looking into a 15' version for a low power storage system combined with solar cells.
However, to the general point (wind replacing ...) it never will. At best you can get 3% of the power offset (in regards to Michigan's power grind) - quoted from Detroit Edison's renewable energy engineer (2012).
I'd not go all bonkers believing water, wind, sun, geothermal, and waves will entirely replace (coal, gas, nuclear, and gasoline).
Besides the (federal, state, local) governments do little right, why give them more to do. They should focus on what they currently do, and try to improve before doing more.
So no, I don't sign on.
My state, Iowa, is at 27% and still growing. The quote you're talking about was in regard to the wind turbines Michigan already had not all possible turbines. your argument has no weight.
Look into Thorium reactors.Sure as long as you don't mind the fact that the enriched material is of a form that's bomb capable. And after the second past, there's still highly radioactive waste that you've got to store for 100 generations.
The biggest problem is that they are expensive, and the waste. But we could actually re-enrich the fuel if we were willing to pay to do so to reduce the waste to miniscule amounts. Short sightedness and penny pinching are once again our greatest threat.
Thorium would be really great if we ever got it working, but there's still so many problems that at this time it's not feasible. But who know what the future holds. Until then, I think we should really invest our current generation of nuclear plants and start working on the next gen.
Doesn't matter. We aren't really after efficiency. We want amount. And if all you build is mega mammoth plants, the general public can't contribute in a meaningful fashion. As much money as the companies have, the public has far more money in total. You definitely want to open that purse.
Actually, we are after efficiency. Unless we discover some new method of smelting steel other than the ones which exist, fossil fuels will remain an essential component of wind turbines. The efficiency issue is having the power output they produce be greater than the amount of fossil fuels that went into their construction and the pollution generated from their creation as a result (this is currently impossible, by the way; most turbines are constructed almost entirely out of fossil fuel products).
So the issue becomes that if the wind turbines do not reach a certain efficiency level, they will always remain more pollutive than simply burning the fossil fuels. The difference is that all of the pollution is front-end; they don't generate the pollution while operating, but generate all of it while they are being created.
One of the nice tricks that greenies like to pull that irritates us real environmentalists is hiding the pollution; in this case, they like to ignore the pollution caused by creating wind turbines and often argue it would have existed anyway. Which, given the goal is to reduce pollution, makes them flaming hypocrites.
Thorium would be really great if we ever got it working, but there's still so many problems that at this time it's not feasible. But who know what the future holds. Until then, I think we should really invest our current generation of nuclear plants and start working on the next gen.Look into Thorium reactors.Sure as long as you don't mind the fact that the enriched material is of a form that's bomb capable. And after the second past, there's still highly radioactive waste that you've got to store for 100 generations.
The biggest problem is that they are expensive, and the waste. But we could actually re-enrich the fuel if we were willing to pay to do so to reduce the waste to miniscule amounts. Short sightedness and penny pinching are once again our greatest threat.
According to Wikipedia, there was a working thorium reactor in the 1970s. The Cold War and resulting military focus prevented the research from going farther.
MJ: You know, they actually tried that with the nuclear plants too, saying they consume more energy in their construction than they produced during their lives. I find such claims VERY suspect, and would need to see hard data before believing such a thing.
That's because most people don't understand the difference between energy and pollution.
Wind turbines are actually incredibly cheap, on energy, to produce. The typical one should pay back their energy cost in a few weeks if placed properly. The typical nuclear power plant usually does as well.
For hard data, all you need to do is look up the air pollution from plastic and the air pollution from smelting steel. That gives you the basic figures from which you can extrapolate the amount that belongs to wind turbines.
That said, remember what I said about it currently being impossible for them to exceed the pollution cost? Well, as it turns out, right now that's a distribution issue; someone already came up with a solution to the problem.
No. All it would need to do is do better than any of the alternative sources of energy. ANY of them, including coal. That should be for want of a better term, a breeze. :-)
I know at least for the most part the the pollution caused by making a wind turbine is usually less than the pollution caused by making all the parts for a coal plant. Given that most of the pollutants come from the turbine bits themselves and most coal plants have similar turbines in terms of production pollution.
I know at least for the most part the the pollution caused by making a wind turbine is usually less than the pollution caused by making all the parts for a coal plant. Given that most of the pollutants come from the turbine bits themselves and most coal plants have similar turbines in terms of production pollution.
The pollution for making nuclear power plants is also higher, for exactly the same reason.
However, that wouldn't be a problem for a coal or oil plant given the longevity of them; that's why no one cites it for nuclear power plants. Of course, given what coal and oil plants throw off as a result of how they generate power...
Still not any signatures? I'm crushed.
but not surprised, I hope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still not any signatures? I'm crushed.
The chimps are too busy plotting the downfall of Australia. Besides, they use sign language instead of a written one, so they sadly can't even read petitions.