petition to build a million wind turbines


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

million wind turbines

If the government produces and sells energy they dont need your taxes.


Oh ****, a yellowdingo post!

Everybody, to the anti-troll bunker!


We don't need your pigeon killing murderpropellers. We got solar freakin' roadways. They'll save the erff.

Sczarni

Where? Having one turbine up lowers property values and scares away potential buyers for a 2.5 mile radius around it. This is why almost no towns are allowing them in their limits. Depending on the state/country they may also allow anyone who gets chronic headaches after a turbine goes up to sue the town if they do not have voted on planning and zoning specific to turbines. Creating this planning and zoning costs the towns a lot in lawyer fees and time to come to a consensus with those who come to meetings. The wind colony off Cape Cod has been planned for over 10 years, but stuck in legal battle for 8

Besides, building a wind turbine is a 7-10 year process. They put poles up to monitor the wind in several locations for a 5-7 years per turbine, and then spend 2-3 years building the actual turbine at the best location.

They also can't be within a certain number of miles from any endangered bird nest, (and if one is even sited due to moving immigration patterns, they need to stop and take down the turbine within 60 days - at least in my state)

In other words - your time limit is bogus 20-30 years MIGHT be doable, and you don't address what happens if there is no place that will allow them.


Oh boy, THIS again.


Actually, I'm in favor of wind power. The zoning thing is bs, but at the same time, I'm not a homeowner yet.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, I'm in favor of wind power. The zoning thing is bs, but at the same time, I'm not a homeowner yet.

There are quite a few people that won't fight wind power... as long as it's on someone else's skyline. I took a trip to Bayonne NJ, immediately south of us just to see the lower end of the new light rail station. That's when I found out that Bayonne has a single large turbine of it's own.

There's also a proposal to create windfarms off the New Jersey coast.


Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Where? Having one turbine up lowers property values and scares away potential buyers for a 2.5 mile radius around it. This is why almost no towns are allowing them in their limits. Depending on the state/country they may also allow anyone who gets chronic headaches after a turbine goes up to sue the town if they do not have voted on planning and zoning specific to turbines. Creating this planning and zoning costs the towns a lot in lawyer fees and time to come to a consensus with those who come to meetings. The wind colony off Cape Cod has been planned for over 10 years, but stuck in legal battle for 8

Besides, building a wind turbine is a 7-10 year process. They put poles up to monitor the wind in several locations for a 5-7 years per turbine, and then spend 2-3 years building the actual turbine at the best location.

They also can't be within a certain number of miles from any endangered bird nest, (and if one is even sited due to moving immigration patterns, they need to stop and take down the turbine within 60 days - at least in my state)

In other words - your time limit is bogus 20-30 years MIGHT be doable, and you don't address what happens if there is no place that will allow them.

I live near one of the oldest nuclear plants in the US. I would trade the made up "problems" you mentioned over the possibility of a Chernobyl or Fukashima any day of the week, and I would bet the same thing could be said for the next hundred generations as well.


Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, I'm in favor of wind power. The zoning thing is bs, but at the same time, I'm not a homeowner yet.

I'm not sure the zoning thing is bs. Loss of property value is a very real thing and can be documented. This study, for example, found that

Quote:


The existence of turbines between up to 1 and 3 miles away negatively impacts property values by between 15.6% and 31%, while having at least one turbine on the parcel reduces prices by 65%.

(although they do acknowledge the last result may not be significant due to a low number of samples.) But working with just the first result,.... putting a wind turbine near my $200,000 house is expected to reduce its value by about $40,000.

That's real money. That's enough to significantly impact my ability to borrow against the home's equity and will come more or less directly out of my pocket when I choose to sell. If the township took some other action that took $40,000 out of my pocket, I'd strongly consider suing -- why should allowing a wind turbine be any different?


Fergie wrote:
Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Where? Having one turbine up lowers property values and scares away potential buyers for a 2.5 mile radius around it. This is why almost no towns are allowing them in their limits. Depending on the state/country they may also allow anyone who gets chronic headaches after a turbine goes up to sue the town if they do not have voted on planning and zoning specific to turbines. Creating this planning and zoning costs the towns a lot in lawyer fees and time to come to a consensus with those who come to meetings. The wind colony off Cape Cod has been planned for over 10 years, but stuck in legal battle for 8

Besides, building a wind turbine is a 7-10 year process. They put poles up to monitor the wind in several locations for a 5-7 years per turbine, and then spend 2-3 years building the actual turbine at the best location.

They also can't be within a certain number of miles from any endangered bird nest, (and if one is even sited due to moving immigration patterns, they need to stop and take down the turbine within 60 days - at least in my state)

In other words - your time limit is bogus 20-30 years MIGHT be doable, and you don't address what happens if there is no place that will allow them.

I live near one of the oldest nuclear plants in the US. I would trade the made up "problems" you mentioned over the possibility of a Chernobyl or Fukashima any day of the week, and I would bet the same thing could be said for the next hundred generations as well.

Yeah, but you need a lot more wind turbines than nuclear plants. You can put the nuclear plants in a few places where they won't bother anyone influential. Wind turbines tend to go in scenic areas, spread out where lots of important people will notice. Like offshore Cape Cod.

IOW, you're right in theory, but in political practice there are a lot of hurdles to clear.
OTOH, we haven't built nuclear plants in decades. Which is almost a shame. Some of the newer designs are a lot safer than the old ones we're keeping in service. And would probably be even better if we were still investing in the science.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, I'm in favor of wind power. The zoning thing is bs, but at the same time, I'm not a homeowner yet.

I'm not sure the zoning thing is bs. Loss of property value is a very real thing and can be documented. This study, for example, found that

Quote:


The existence of turbines between up to 1 and 3 miles away negatively impacts property values by between 15.6% and 31%, while having at least one turbine on the parcel reduces prices by 65%.

(although they do acknowledge the last result may not be significant due to a low number of samples.) But working with just the first result,.... putting a wind turbine near my $200,000 house is expected to reduce its value by about $40,000.

That's real money. That's enough to significantly impact my ability to borrow against the home's equity and will come more or less directly out of my pocket when I choose to sell. If the township took some other action that took $40,000 out of my pocket, I'd strongly consider suing -- why should allowing a wind turbine be any different?

The same is true of most other energy sources. If someone starts drilling for oil across the way or fracking nearby or mining coal on the mountain behind your house, that's going to be worse for your property values. And it's going to be much more of a long term hazard. The turbines are much more of a perception thing.

NIMBYism is a strong force, but we do need to get energy from somewhere.

Scarab Sages

Wind power looks good on power as a clean, renewable resource, but it is not without environmental impact.

A large enough number of wind turbines will alter global weather patterns by pulling energy out of the atmosphere.


I think the "political practice" argument really only comes up when you compare a windmill to no-windmill. Sure, if I don't have to live next to a windmill, I won't.

But reality dictates that modern civilization requires lots of electricity. [Sites important SimCity4 statics]. So no matter where you live, there is probably going to be some form of power generation system nearby.

So, you get to live near:
A. Coal burning power plant/strip mine
B. Oil burning power plant/ Iraq
C. Gas burning power plant/ fracking hole/ polluted or used up ground water
D. Nuclear power plant/ post apocalyptic wasteland
E. Solar farm - lots of unsightly panels
F. Wind farm - lots of unsightly windmills.

Hydro-electric, tidal, and geothermal not included due to severely limited locations.

So, unsightly panels/ turbines with some noise, tv reception, and a few dead birds...
OR Iraq, climate change, and possible environmental devastation lasting up to thousands of years...


Fergie wrote:

I think the "political practice" argument really only comes up when you compare a windmill to no-windmill. Sure, if I don't have to live next to a windmill, I won't.

But reality dictates that modern civilization requires lots of electricity. [Sites important SimCity4 statics]. So no matter where you live, there is probably going to be some form of power generation system nearby.

So, you get to live near:
A. Coal burning power plant/strip mine
B. Oil burning power plant/ Iraq
C. Gas burning power plant/ fracking hole/ polluted or used up ground water
D. Nuclear power plant/ post apocalyptic wasteland
E. Solar farm - lots of unsightly panels
F. Wind farm - lots of unsightly windmills.

Hydro-electric, tidal, and geothermal not included due to severely limited locations.

So, unsightly panels/ turbines with some noise, tv reception, and a few dead birds...
OR Iraq, climate change, and possible environmental devastation lasting up to thousands of years...

But that's the thing. You don't have to have it nearby. The big power plants and mining operations can be put conveniently out of sight, somewhere the poor people live. Wind turbines tend to be spread out or otherwise in areas that important people have to see them.

Don't get me wrong. You're absolutely right about the problems, but when it comes down to it pollution somewhere else or climate change in the future often don't trump spoiling the view off Cape Cod.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:


I live near one of the oldest nuclear plants in the US.

Hanford baby right here.

Fergie wrote:
I would trade the made up "problems" you mentioned over the possibility of a Chernobyl

Nuclear reactors in the US usually aren't built to Soviet Russian standards, or staffed with simpletons who can't run an equipment test right.

Fergie wrote:
or Fukashima

The US also has a low incidence of both tsunamis and disastrously low seawalls.

Fergie wrote:
I would bet the same thing could be said for the next hundred generations as well.

I was wondering how long it would be until someone said "For the children!"


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Loss of property value is a very real thing and can be documented.

The same is true of most other energy sources. If someone starts drilling for oil across the way or fracking nearby or mining coal on the mountain behind your house, that's going to be worse for your property values. And it's going to be much more of a long term hazard. The turbines are much more of a perception thing.

NIMBYism is a strong force, but we do need to get energy from somewhere.

True, but you don't need to get it from my wallet. I need to get bananas from somewhere, too, but no one's trying to put a banana plantation on my deck.

Dark Archive

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Where? Having one turbine up lowers property values and scares away potential buyers for a 2.5 mile radius around it. This is why almost no towns are allowing them in their limits. Depending on the state/country they may also allow anyone who gets chronic headaches after a turbine goes up to sue the town if they do not have voted on planning and zoning specific to turbines. Creating this planning and zoning costs the towns a lot in lawyer fees and time to come to a consensus with those who come to meetings. The wind colony off Cape Cod has been planned for over 10 years, but stuck in legal battle for 8

Besides, building a wind turbine is a 7-10 year process. They put poles up to monitor the wind in several locations for a 5-7 years per turbine, and then spend 2-3 years building the actual turbine at the best location.

They also can't be within a certain number of miles from any endangered bird nest, (and if one is even sited due to moving immigration patterns, they need to stop and take down the turbine within 60 days - at least in my state)

In other words - your time limit is bogus 20-30 years MIGHT be doable, and you don't address what happens if there is no place that will allow them.

Okay I get the property value and the bird thing. But headaches? Explain please. I mean how?

Liberty's Edge

Low frequency noise.

Or hypochondria.

One or the other.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Loss of property value is a very real thing and can be documented.

The same is true of most other energy sources. If someone starts drilling for oil across the way or fracking nearby or mining coal on the mountain behind your house, that's going to be worse for your property values. And it's going to be much more of a long term hazard. The turbines are much more of a perception thing.

NIMBYism is a strong force, but we do need to get energy from somewhere.

True, but you don't need to get it from my wallet. I need to get bananas from somewhere, too, but no one's trying to put a banana plantation on my deck.

You need to get it from somebody's wallet. Somebody's being screwed by every energy source out there. Wind is one of the least disruptive, since there's little long term environmental damage.

Classic NIMBYism. You just want the damage to happen somewhere else. Either far away or in the future. Even if the damage is worse.

Dark Archive

Krensky wrote:

Low frequency noise.

Or hypochondria.

One or the other.

Oh so the fact that im in the stupidly small percentage that can hear power line means I should get to sue too right? I didnt get as me if I wanted these dam power lines. They were here before I was born. Tell you what lets turn them all off to make me happy. Thats right lets go back to/stay in the stone age because people are stupid.

Stalks off grumbling.


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Loss of property value is a very real thing and can be documented.

The same is true of most other energy sources. If someone starts drilling for oil across the way or fracking nearby or mining coal on the mountain behind your house, that's going to be worse for your property values. And it's going to be much more of a long term hazard. The turbines are much more of a perception thing.

NIMBYism is a strong force, but we do need to get energy from somewhere.

True, but you don't need to get it from my wallet. I need to get bananas from somewhere, too, but no one's trying to put a banana plantation on my deck.
You need to get it from somebody's wallet.

Not really. The issue is simply one of negative externalities.

Quote:
Somebody's being screwed by every energy source out there.

Again, not unless you are making the classic mistake of failing to account for negative externalities.

If you want to cause $40,000 of property damage to my house, get my permission, first. That's not that hard to do -- a good start, for example, would be to offer me $40,000 up front. Better yet, offer me enough more that I'll actually give you my permission.

Of course, when you do this, you find that wind is no longer cost-effective and you'll find a better way to generate power that's actually cost-effective.

Sczarni

divineshadow wrote:


Okay I get the property value and the bird thing. But headaches? Explain please. I mean how?

Infrasound is the primary issue for those concerned about wind-turbine syndrome. They also say that audible sound and vibrations contribute to the health problems reported by some people who live close to wind farms. Symptoms of wind-turbine syndrome might include:

headaches
sleep problems
night terrors or learning disabilities in children
ringing in the ears (tinnitus)
mood problems (irritability, anxiety)
concentration and memory problems
issues with equilibrium, dizziness and nausea

These symptoms have been observed and documented by a limited number of scientists studying small groups of people and the scientific community hasn't conclude­d whether wind-turbine syndrome exists.

This was copy and pasted from This article

I did a lot of research a few months ago when they tried to put one up in our town 1/10th of a mile away from the house I bought last year. (It failed getting a zoning exception for structure height)

Dark Archive

Okay infrasound make a bit more sense. You know with the right infrasounds you can make people do all kinds of crazy stuff.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
But that's the thing. You don't have to have it nearby. The big power plants and mining operations can be put conveniently out of sight, somewhere the poor people live. Wind turbines tend to be spread out or otherwise in areas that important people have to see them.

Funny story here.

A few years ago a private development firm purchased a LOT of land on the ridgeline of the Blue Ridge Mountains for the purpose of building dozens of wind turbines. This is a very poor region where coal and coal mining is the dominant business. At the time of purchase, there were no zoning regulations regarding the construction of wind turbines.

Even with the prospect of several hundred good paying jobs, every single town in the area passed new zoning laws barring construction of wind turbines after a massive, well funded grass roots movement sprang up overnight.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Loss of property value is a very real thing and can be documented.

The same is true of most other energy sources. If someone starts drilling for oil across the way or fracking nearby or mining coal on the mountain behind your house, that's going to be worse for your property values. And it's going to be much more of a long term hazard. The turbines are much more of a perception thing.

NIMBYism is a strong force, but we do need to get energy from somewhere.

True, but you don't need to get it from my wallet. I need to get bananas from somewhere, too, but no one's trying to put a banana plantation on my deck.
You need to get it from somebody's wallet.

Not really. The issue is simply one of negative externalities.

Quote:
Somebody's being screwed by every energy source out there.

Again, not unless you are making the classic mistake of failing to account for negative externalities.

If you want to cause $40,000 of property damage to my house, get my permission, first. That's not that hard to do -- a good start, for example, would be to offer me $40,000 up front. Better yet, offer me enough more that I'll actually give you my permission.

Of course, when you do this, you find that wind is no longer cost-effective and you'll find a better way to generate power that's actually cost-effective.

It absolutely would be, if we paid the real costs of all the other forms of energy too. What are the real costs of mountain top removal? What's the compensation due to the whole planet for climate change?

Of course, much of the cost we just push off onto poor people, trashing their land their health and if they're lucky paying them a pittance for it, which they're happy to take because they're desperate. And they're probably being lied to about the long term effects anyway. Assuming they're not just forced. (And by forced here, I don't mean "The plant gets built nearby without consent and their property values drop." I mean "Driven off the land at gunpoint.")

But those are hard to account for in as obvious a fashion as your example. Not to mention, requiring everyone who might be affected to be bought off is completely unworkable. Can you imagine being able to do anything if it required unanimous consent from everyone within 3 miles? Some might be opposed on principle and refuse to allow it all. More would just be holding out to get however much they could.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
You need to get it from somebody's wallet. Somebody's being screwed by every energy source out there. Wind is one of the least disruptive, since there's little long term environmental damage.

Not necessarily true. A large enough population of wind turbines could disrupt wind patterns, changing weather on a global scale.

All that energy comes from somewhere.


Artanthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that's the thing. You don't have to have it nearby. The big power plants and mining operations can be put conveniently out of sight, somewhere the poor people live. Wind turbines tend to be spread out or otherwise in areas that important people have to see them.

Funny story here.

A few years ago a private development firm purchased a LOT of land on the ridgeline of the Blue Ridge Mountains for the purpose of building dozens of wind turbines. This is a very poor region where coal and coal mining is the dominant business. At the time of purchase, there were no zoning regulations regarding the construction of wind turbines.

Even with the prospect of several hundred good paying jobs, every single town in the area passed new zoning laws barring construction of wind turbines after a massive, well funded grass roots movement sprang up overnight.

That well funded grassroots campaign didn't have any coal money behind it, did it?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Of course, much of the cost we just push off onto poor people, trashing their land their health and if they're lucky paying them a pittance for it, which they're happy to take because they're desperate. And they're probably being lied to about the long term effects anyway. Assuming they're not just forced. (And by forced here, I don't mean "The plant gets built nearby without consent and their property values drop." I mean "Driven off the land at gunpoint.")

Live in Kimball, West Virginia and you would understand.

The coal companies don't have to force the poor to do anything. Coal owns those people body, mind and soul. They are the first to take up arms in the coal companies defense and the last to give up the fight. If there is an issue on the ballot that affects the coal industry, every single one of them votes in the companies favor.

The lucky ones work in the mines from 18 until the day they retire, with black lung. They damned well know they are the lucky ones. They at least have jobs and can support their families. Everyone else is unemployed, but has relatives working in the mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Of course, when you do this, you find that wind is no longer cost-effective and you'll find a better way to generate power that's actually cost-effective.
It absolutely would be, if we paid the real costs of all the other forms of energy too. What are the real costs of mountain top removal? What's the compensation due to the whole planet for climate change?

I think the IPCC has those numbers, if you're actually interested.

Here's a hint: go with nuclear. Despite idiots like Fergie, it actually has the lowest externalities of any power generation technology we're know of.

Quote:

Of course, much of the cost we just push off onto poor people, trashing their land their health and if they're lucky paying them a pittance for it, which they're happy to take because they're desperate.

... which, of course, is their choice. Or is this one of those ill-thought out positions where you are patronizingly refusing to allow poor people to make choices while stealing from wealthy people?

Quote:


Not to mention, requiring everyone who might be affected to be bought off is completely unworkable.

Well, that's where the lawsuits come in. If you take $40,000 from my pocket without buying me off first, that's called "theft" and it's illegal. If you cause me $40,000 worth of foreseeable damages and don't mitigate it, that's called "negligence," and it's also illegal. And the courts take a dim view of illegal activity.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Not to mention, requiring everyone who might be affected to be bought off is completely unworkable.
Well, that's where the lawsuits come in. If you take $40,000 from my pocket without buying me off first, that's called "theft" and it's illegal. If you cause me $40,000 worth of foreseeable damages and don't mitigate it, that's called "negligence," and it's also illegal. And the courts take a dim view of illegal activity.

Now that is absolute nonsense.

If I build something that's perfectly legal but lowers your property value, that's not negligence. Now, we have zoning laws and similar things to restrict what's legal, but if it isn't illegal to do it, you don't have a case, even if it hurts your property values.

That's why we have such laws and local ordinances rather than just relying on everybody suing each other over every perceived drop in property values.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that's the thing. You don't have to have it nearby. The big power plants and mining operations can be put conveniently out of sight, somewhere the poor people live. Wind turbines tend to be spread out or otherwise in areas that important people have to see them.

Funny story here.

A few years ago a private development firm purchased a LOT of land on the ridgeline of the Blue Ridge Mountains for the purpose of building dozens of wind turbines. This is a very poor region where coal and coal mining is the dominant business. At the time of purchase, there were no zoning regulations regarding the construction of wind turbines.

Even with the prospect of several hundred good paying jobs, every single town in the area passed new zoning laws barring construction of wind turbines after a massive, well funded grass roots movement sprang up overnight.

That well funded grassroots campaign didn't have any coal money behind it, did it?

Not entirely. Solar power and species conservation money also played a big part. And it wasn't actually that massive; there was a lot of astroturfing involved.

I needed the money.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm of the opinion that more nuclear power plants would be a good thing. As long as they are situated in secure areas, there are areas where earthquake are very unlikely, and tsunamis even less so. Our Gen III and the upcoming Gen IV reactors are magnitudes safer than the reactor in Chernobyl and even the Fukishima reactor.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Burn Coal...lots and lots of dirty coal. I live in MN and it was -35 last winter...I love global warming...bring it on.


Dwayne Dibbley wrote:
We don't need your pigeon killing murderpropellers. We got solar freakin' roadways. They'll save the erff.

Eagle killing, but Obama said it's OK.


I honestly don't see a problem with wind turbines, and I live in a state where more than 1/4 of our power is made from wind energy. Then again I also live 15ish minutes from a nuclear power plant and knowing the engineering that goes into it I don't mind it. The chances of me being killed by the reactor somehow leaking are far far less than a wind turbine spontaneously falling on me, and that includes the fact that I don't even go to the farmland they place windmills on.

The Exchange

The big six megawatt turbines are for off shore use.

Now sign the petition.


Off shore turbines are a terrible idea that cost too much to install. Just keep letting ranchers receive tax credits for having them on their land in locations they don't need anyways.

I have no idea who would actually be complaining about them decreasing property value. Is there really that much scrawl elsewhere in the country or is it that the people installing them are massive tools about it?


Yay the most unreliable form of green energy!!! And it kills eagles too!!


Mike Franke wrote:
Yay the most unreliable form of green energy!!! And it kills eagles too!!

It's a lot more cost efficient and reliable than solar panels and kills fewer eagles than powerlines. What's your problem? Though admittedly we should be doing a bunch of geothermal stuff, but too hard to be smug about.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squeakmaan wrote:


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.

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.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:
Yay the most unreliable form of green energy!!! And it kills eagles too!!
It's a lot more cost efficient and reliable than solar panels and kills fewer eagles than powerlines. What's your problem? Though admittedly we should be doing a bunch of geothermal stuff, but too hard to be smug about.

Do wind turbines work without powerlines??? I had no idea they were beaming their energy directly to the people!!! The eagles are safe!

Snark aside, I have no problem with wind turbines but they only work when the wind blows...Obviously. Solar works whenever the sun shines, which is everyday last time I checked, at least here in So Cal. So while there are a few places with fairly consistent wind flow, it is nothing compared to the thousands of square miles of 345 day a year sunshine in the U.S. alone.

edit durn spellign


Mike Franke wrote:


Do wind turbines work without powerlines??? I had no idea they were beaming their energy directly to the people!!! The eagles are safe!

Snark aside, I have no problem with wind turbines but they only work when the wind blows...Obviously. Solar works whenever the sun shines, which is everyday last time I checked, at least here in So Cal. So while there are a few places with fairly consistent wind flow, it is nothing compared to the thousands of square miles of 345 day a year sunshine in the U.S. alone.

edit durn spellign

In the Midwest wind is a lot more reliable than having a cloud-free day, particularly at the height they set up the turbine blades. Reliable is probably more of a function of where you live.

I was mainly using the power lines as a demonstration of how few eagle are killed. Basically not enough to matter.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:


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.
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.

No, it isn't bomb capable, the re-enrichment process does not make bomb capable material. Low-enriched uranium, the stuff used in reactors, has about 3-4% U-235 isotope. Weapons grade is 90% U-235, so only 83-84% short. And the nuclear material left after re-enriching is much less hazardous than the normal stuff.

The biggest problem is that it's cheaper to just shove the stuff in a whole somewhere and forget about it and get new uranium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

There's some info about Breeder reactors that re-enrich, also some info about burner reactors, the ones that completely destroy nuclear waste.


Mike Franke wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:
Yay the most unreliable form of green energy!!! And it kills eagles too!!
It's a lot more cost efficient and reliable than solar panels and kills fewer eagles than powerlines. What's your problem? Though admittedly we should be doing a bunch of geothermal stuff, but too hard to be smug about.

Do wind turbines work without powerlines??? I had no idea they were beaming their energy directly to the people!!! The eagles are safe!

Snark aside, I have no problem with wind turbines but they only work when the wind blows...Obviously. Solar works whenever the sun shines, which is everyday last time I checked, at least here in So Cal. So while there are a few places with fairly consistent wind flow, it is nothing compared to the thousands of square miles of 345 day a year sunshine in the U.S. alone.

edit durn spellign

The problem is that the further north you go, the less efficient the solar cell, the same with clouds, and snow.

Checking on citi-data.com, where I live averages around 25% Sunny days and close to 50% cloudy. Probably not the best for solar panels. On the other hand it is on average windier than average in the US.

I have a great idea though, we can windmills in the medians of our solar roads.


I think the solution to wind energy is rather simple. Let people install small wind plants wherever they like on their houses, then let them sell excess to the net. Just that should get us wind energy on a massive scale.


Sissyl wrote:
I think the solution to wind energy is rather simple. Let people install small wind plants wherever they like on their houses, then let them sell excess to the net. Just that should get us wind energy on a massive scale.

As I understand it, small wind plants are very inefficient.

Far worse than small scale solar.


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.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that's the thing. You don't have to have it nearby. The big power plants and mining operations can be put conveniently out of sight, somewhere the poor people live. Wind turbines tend to be spread out or otherwise in areas that important people have to see them.

Funny story here.

A few years ago a private development firm purchased a LOT of land on the ridgeline of the Blue Ridge Mountains for the purpose of building dozens of wind turbines. This is a very poor region where coal and coal mining is the dominant business. At the time of purchase, there were no zoning regulations regarding the construction of wind turbines.

Even with the prospect of several hundred good paying jobs, every single town in the area passed new zoning laws barring construction of wind turbines after a massive, well funded grass roots movement sprang up overnight.

That well funded grassroots campaign didn't have any coal money behind it, did it?

You have to ask?

Sovereign Court

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.

Scarab Sages

LazarX wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:


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.
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.

Look into Thorium reactors.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / petition to build a million wind turbines All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.