Woes of Wind Power

[Savaric]

Some weirdo/jerk is mad about wind turbines:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayof....ap/index.html

Strangely enough, this isn't an isolated opinion. An island off of Mass called Marth'as Vinyard is a prime vacation area for the rich and tourists in the summer time. They proposed some ocean turbines off the coast and the community got up in arms about them, so it never happened.

I don't know if these are people stuck in their ways, paranoid of change, or what. I find the wind turbines to be extremely cool. If you've ever seen them they have this ominous, other-worldy mystique to them.

[Darion]

Old rich people tend to vote against "eyesores" in their communities... thus why we can't get a cell phone tower in Sharon (Massachusetts) despite the fact that it's a total dead zone, turbines in the Vineyard, take your pick.

[Rosuav]

Personally, I don't care much about skylines, so "eyesore" pretty much isn't in my vocabulary. The simple fact is that we, as a society, need a LOT of power - and world power usage is likely to rise for the foreseeable future. So where's it all going to come from?

* Coal or other turbine-based plants? Everyone hates smoke.
* Uranium? Not popular, unless some bright spark figures out what to do with the waste.
* Fusion? That's the ultimate in SimCity 2000, but we're not powering our cities on that yet. (Anyway, it's not invented till 2052 or so. Another 44 years and $40,000 before we can install fusion.)
* Hydroelectricity? The Greenies HATE this one, even though it's clean, renewable - it's powered by the sun evaporating water from the oceans, effectively - and efficient. Of course, you can only install it where there's water falling, but it is a very good source of power. It's also fast to start and stop, so it's good for providing peak load.
* Wave power? I'm not sure where that technology is at, but I don't think it's at the point of powering a whole country yet. But Greenies hate that, too, because it disrupts things.
* Solar power? Inherently unpredictable, unfortunately. But it has its uses.

See, the problem is that we want cheap energy - and that means taking energy from somewhere else. And that means disrupting that 'somewhere else', and so environmentalists are going to scream. So unless someone wants to build a human-powered generator, we're ALWAYS going to be dragging something out of nature. In my opinion, wind is no worse than any other power source; it's safer than nuclear, more reliable than solar (though still not completely so), and cheap to install - although I think it's more expensive per megawatt than other options - so, go for it! Install wind.


Okay, Greens Party of Australia. Have at me. If nothing else, it should be entertaining!

[Jidoe]

The problem with most green parties is that they are usually the most corrupt parties out of the lot (and that is saying a lot). Behind every party there are major donors, who expect something in return.

In the long run, I think solar power is our only way to go (and hydro power for those countries that only get rain). The technology exists today, but it is still a little too expensive to be viable for everyone (even though around here, all the boilers are solar powered, and it works great).

As for wind turbines - they are huge, have huge maintenance cost, create a lot of noise and aren't pretty. They aren't going to ever be popular (and are also a little unpredictable, much like the solar energy, even though some areas are always windy, much like some areas are always sunny).

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Jidoe
The problem with most green parties is that they are usually the most corrupt parties out of the lot (and that is saying a lot).

As a corollary to this, the problem with most green parties is they are actually communist parties hiding behind the "green" banner as a way to subvert society. That is why they aren't truly supportive of any real solutions. If we solve environmental problems, their smokescreen goes away.

Originally posted by Jidoe

In the long run, I think solar power is our only way to go

I'm still of the opinion that nuclear is the future. It is the only power source that is both limitless and extremely efficient/powerful.

Originally posted by Jidoe

As for wind turbines - they are huge, have huge maintenance cost, create a lot of noise and aren't pretty.

Yes. That is why the ones in the ocean tend to be made out of win because those issues don't really matter.

But these people keep wetting their pants over the "eyesore" factor. That's the same reason we can't drill for oil in most of the Gulf of Mexico. Ted Kennedy and people in his town are worried on a super clear day they might be able to see an oil platform far off in the distance.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Aristotle
As a corollary to this, the problem with most green parties is they are actually communist parties hiding behind the "green" banner as a way to subvert society. That is why they aren't truly supportive of any real solutions. If we solve environmental problems, their smokescreen goes away.

Which party was it that first got compared to a watermelon - green on the outside, red on the inside? (I gather it's become quite a popular insult now.)

I'm still of the opinion that nuclear is the future. It is the only power source that is both limitless and extremely efficient/powerful.

Fission or fusion? Both of them have some pretty big problems to overcome. Fission's been around a good while - it's been something like 70 or 80 years since early experiments into splitting uranium nuclei - and its problems are still around. That's not to say that there will never be a solution, but if I had dollars to invest into research into one or the other, I'd pick fusion.

Yes. That is why the ones in the ocean tend to be made out of win because those issues don't really matter.

But these people keep wetting their pants over the "eyesore" factor. That's the same reason we can't drill for oil in most of the Gulf of Mexico. Ted Kennedy and people in his town are worried on a super clear day they might be able to see an oil platform far off in the distance.

If anyone objects to wind power being harnessed out on the ocean, then millions of sailing ships are going to be in serious trouble By all means, stick 'em there. I wonder if oil rigs can have some kind of wind and wave energy sources - whether or not they currently do, I have no idea, but it would be logical.

Eventually the rising price of energy is going to make lots more things viable. Maybe then people will allow the Gulf of Mexico to be drilled... but no. Humans are stupid.

[Gromgor]

We need to implement human powered devices like one of those from the first Conan movie. Just get some random homeless/orphaned people to walk around in circles all day. We could dangle a bottle of hooch in front of them like a carrot on a stick.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Rosuav
* Uranium? Not popular, unless some bright spark figures out what to do with the waste.

We've already figured out what to do with the waste - bury it underground. Unfortunately, our current leaders lack the political will to make it happen.

The biggest problem with wind power is it's poor power density. You can't just put a thousand turbines right next to each other; there's an optimal spacing so they don't interfere with each other. This leads to a massive land-use problem. For example, consider the Darlington nuclear facility operating at 80% output as a benchmark for comparison. The Darlington site is approximate 4 sq. km. For wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity, a 3,000 sq. km. windfarm would be required.

[kestra]

As a corollary to this, the problem with most green parties is they are actually communist parties hiding behind the "green" banner as a way to subvert society. That is why they aren't truly supportive of any real solutions. If we solve environmental problems, their smokescreen goes away.

You better be careful with that opinion, it's an antique. Please Papa Homer, I want to learn more.

[Gesslar]

Originally posted by Snrrub
The Darlington site is approximate 4 sq. km. For wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity, a 3,000 sq. km. windfarm would be required.

I don't really see the problem. It's not like anybody is using Manitoba for anything anyway.