Discussion in 'U.S. News' started by dogtowner, Mar 8, 2011.
I still don't think that more powerful windmills could ever produce enough power to cover our needs.
Completely agree. Original one mentioned was 25k.
has anyone ever said use only windmills? I doubt anyone serious has.
oh yeah, solar.
The topic of the thread and the OP makes this a discussion about windmills.
OK, then, now that you bring it up.
The use of all alternative fuels is not a viable option compared to using fossil fuels at this time.
Maybe someday in the future alternatives could replace some, most, or all fossil fuel use but at this time coercing change is not a practical way to get there and it would create more damage than is justified. I have no objection to continued development of these alternatives on an experimental level.
Solar, geothermal, nuclear, tides, waves. Why do you just assume, "alternate fuels"?
I guess I was unclear and maybe don't know the definition of "alternative".
I meant all of those.
Geothermal, hydro, tides, waves, are impractical to supply huge amounts of power by natural limitations. Nuclear is impractical due to political limitations.
Solar and wind are the only two that stand a chance of competing with oil and they are light years from being ready to do that.
Oh the horror of ear plugs.
Radiation exposure and thyroid cancer are vastly preferable to wearing unfashionable ear plugs.
I don't think anyone ever suggested windmills could power all our needs...but they could power some..and more...Almost no energy source can power everything.
Yet you keep posting about it.
Let me help you.
If 10 was the current electrical need provided by fossil fuels, then think as wind =1 + solar =1 + geo-thermal =1 + tides =1 + hydro = 1 + bio-mass =1, for a total of 6.
Then your total need from fossil fuels (oil) is only 4. In other words, alternative sources can reduce out use of oil (costly), and coal (smog, acid rain).
At this time it is not gonna happen. The total expected output from all of those does not even come close to meeting our power needs.
Unless we have some amazing science fiction type breakthroughs they just don't cut it.
Can they reduce it? Yes. Am I opposed to an investor in California doing it? No.
Am I opposed to me and my neighbor being coerced into paying for your pipe dream? Yes.
Fair enough. See post above.
I would have to agree that most complaints about the noise are silly.
Radiation exposure and thryroid cancer from what? The extremely infrequent "accident" that happens at a nuclear power plant somewhere in the world?
Based on your criteria for "safety", nobody should be driving cars or climbing ladders or using knives or climbing mountains or hunting or swimming, etc., because the chance of an accident caused by those things is much greater than the chance of an accident at a nuclear power plant, especially at a U.S. nuclear power plant.
At what fking cost? Germany bought 150 billion in wind turbines and they produced less than 3% of the demand at a cost that was 1000 X the cost of importing electricity from France. Germany is always looking for the next Hitler... I believe they have found it in the Green Party.
This is that whole bundled insanity of buying into crazy ideas and them leading to more crazy ideas... They don't work. Their mean time between failure makes them unworkable and they are a hazard to birds and wild life and they are an eyesore and noisy. Clanking collection of colliginous krap.
Separate names with a comma.