EnviroLink Forum

Wind Power is definitely better for the Environment than Fossil Fuels, but it does have it's negative consequences to the Environment. The images of clearing out forests for Wind Turbines should make any environmentalist angry.



Discuss here...

As opposed to the clearing for oil, gas, and coal production or for other power generation facilities?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Glad to see you are still around, we were just wondering about you the other day.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes we should switch to a power source that doesen't make such a mess, like tar sands.



glad to have you back looking forward to your comments in the sea ice thread snowy.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

How about doing a serious amount of geothermal from Yellowstone?

The initial cables to transmitt it about would be expensive, billions, but then a lot less than a single atomic power plant.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The best energy source is the energy you don't need. People say solar is too expensive are trying to install a solar panel system that is about 10 times too big. Everybody can have a normal looking house with energy use about 10 times less then average. It still is a bit expensive and has a logarithmic effect on the payback time (each time you double the efficiency, it costs 4 times as much and because you are using half the energy, the payback is 8 times as long) but for a payback ROI within a typical mortgage time of 30 years, a reduction to 10% of normal is very possible in the most severe climates (I have done the calculations and so did the Norwegians who started a program for houses above the arctic circle on he north side of mountains... no solar, no wind, no fuels... they are heated with body heat most of the year). These wind towers only have to be so tall and big because nobody wants to see them so they are located in remote areas where efficiency becomes critical to pay for the new power lines (the windmills cannot be stopping for any reason... no wind? go higher)

We will need multiple sources in the future. Both Solar and Wind are needed. Wind will provide more employment because more maintenance is needed than solar. Solar should be invested in to help bring the future costs down. Which our present republican candidate does not support.


http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf

Conclusion
The important conclusion from all of the calculations is that a system with annual
sales of 91 billion kWh can be run with 76% of total generation coming from intermittent
solar and wind sources. The intermittent sources would be assisted by 2,000 megawatts
of biomass generation or cogeneration, 2,500 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity, and
1,500 megawatts of pumped storage. If such a system also has ice storage (in the
summer), load control, and access to vehicle batteries, it can be run with some modest
outside-of-system purchases and 2,700 megawatts of auxiliary gas-fired capacity.
Purchases and auxiliary generation are needed for 6% of electricity loads. There were, in
this simulation, 17 hours out of the 2,952 examined in which generation would fall short.
These results were obtained with only three onshore windpower sites. The periods of
shortfall would be reduced in a system with multiple wind sites distributed over a wide area
(North Carolina has 200 mile long area in which mountain winds are strong, 320 miles of
coastline and vast areas offshore). Also, the auxiliary power needs shown here would be
somewhat smaller if carry-over power in pumped storage facilities were applied to needs in
succeeding days.

The siting of windfarms has to be carefully considered.

Badly sited turbines kill a lot of birds, and microbats are killed by the pressure differential of simply flying close to them.

I have been happy with my solar electric independent system for over 14 years. Small wind turbines like the Air Breeze are nice in the limited area they are good for. Big ones are kind of an eyesore. Tidal turbines and wave generators are nice where they will work. The safe, waste using modular GenIV reactors designed in 1994 are nice for areas without sufficient other alternative energy.
Getting rid of huge grids would give a lot of material to recycle and stop a lot of line loss. Let each area or region, house or town, city or state, have its own independent non-emissions power system.
USA wind (about 1/4 OK for it);
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind ... _scale.asp

Personally, I am glad the anal wipe snowy is gone, after all the ruin and delay in reducing emissions he and his disreputable ilk have caused.

oloo oolo U!!!!!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein