When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Agreed. The figures given are technically accurate, but fail to account for capacity factor, which is around 90% for most nuclear generating stations, and 30-35% for most US wind-turbine installations. So multiply the 260 mi^2 number by three for a true estimate of overall land-use-to-energy-production ratios.
I meant that you can put farms and **** under wind turbines. Or put them in places nobody would be using otherwise (mountains, water, Trump properties)
I meant that you can put farms and **** under wind turbines. Or put them in places nobody would be using otherwise (mountains, water, Trump properties)
That happens in the midwest quite often.
It's a great way to make a place even uglier.
I meant that you can put farms and **** under wind turbines. Or put them in places nobody would be using otherwise (mountains, water, Trump properties)
During my recent drive from Chicago to Hicksville, I drove past several large wind farms. As a rough estimate, I'd say that about 25% of the turbines were turning. And by that, I am saying that, on a farm on which 25% of the turbines were turning, 75% were idle. Same location, same wind.
I am thoroughly disgusted with the political/economic mire which wind power has become.
I mean, forget about the huge monetary waste. The total number of people killed by wind-turbine generation in the US over the past 50 years (more than one) exceeds the total number killed by nuclear generation (zero) by an infinite amount.
The total number of people killed by wind-turbine generation in the US over the past 50 years (more than one) exceeds the total number killed by nuclear generation (zero) by an infinite amount.
Civilian nuclear generation, yes. Quite a few have been killed by military nuclear power generation.
I think the wind farms are really cool looking. To each their own.
They're sorta neat at first.
The light pollution is obscene though.
If I went outside to look at the stars and the sky was washed out by a sea of blinking red lights, I would be pissed.
Civilian nuclear generation, yes. Quite a few have been killed by military nuclear power generation.
In the US? Cite your source.
By "quite a few," I assume you mean three. That's the total number of fatalities related to military nuclear generation since the dawn of nuclear power. And they were more than 50 years ago.
Specifically, the only fatalities from a reactor incident in the US occurred in 1961. The experimental SL-1 reactor in Idaho Falls underwent a steam explosion, killing three people.
Anyway, this is the pictures thread. Apologies for potatophone pics. I bought the cheapest Android device they had at the AT&T store for the transition period between employers.
A picture of why I jumped at the opportunity to leave Chicago:
Only $29,500 for a parking space? Dude, sign me up!
This is how a nerd packs a moving van:
So far, so good:
To be fair, by the end I'd pretty much maxed this one out. I need less stuff. And yet, this house seems so empty, as though inviting me to acquire more stuff.
By "quite a few," I assume you mean three. That's the total number of fatalities related to military nuclear generation since the dawn of nuclear power. And they were more than 50 years ago.
Specifically, the only fatalities from a reactor incident in the US occurred in 1961. The experimental SL-1 reactor in Idaho Falls underwent a steam explosion, killing three people.
I guess there were no negative effects to humanity from 3 mile island, chernobyl, or fukushima? Nobody got even a little cancer or anything?
I see the argument though. Storage for spent nuclear fuel is tough but can kinda be done safely for a decent amount of time, but at least we don't just let it fly around the atmosphere after generating power like we do with wind. That's gotta be bad. Wind kills people all the time. In their little stick and nail built houses!
Let's just hope that the Terrorists and North Koreans don't get ahold of windmill technology and attach it to a plane and come after us.
Here is an excerpt from some sciencey types:
(yes the article aknowledges the impacts of wind power to wildlife, land use, and humanity)
Estimates of total global warming emissions depend on a number of factors, including wind speed, percent of time the wind is blowing, and the material composition of the wind turbine [13]. Most estimates of wind turbine life-cycle global warming emissions are between 0.02 and 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. To put this into context, estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electricity are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [14].
[13] National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments.
[14] IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 7 & 9).
Agreed. The figures given are technically accurate, but fail to account for capacity factor, which is around 90% for most nuclear generating stations, and 30-35% for most US wind-turbine installations. So multiply the 260 mi^2 number by three for a true estimate of overall land-use-to-energy-production ratios.
Most calcs I see use 100% for any site that is combustion/steam fed.
Interesting note, here in the northeast, natural gas prices are so low that it is driving coal and even nuclear plants out of business. Generators and utilities are pushing for subsidies based on on-site storage capability. Nuke plants can run for 18-24 months without refueling, while coal plants typically have 20-40 days worth of fuel on site. CNG is not stored and is delivered to power plants on a Just-in-time basis, similar to your home. This can be a problem when demand for gas outstrips the infrastructures ability to deliver it. There is a local 1 1000 MW combined cycle plant in my area that was not allowed to operate during the 2014 polar vortex due to pressure drop concerns in the gas pipelines heading east. I am sure there were others that had similar issues.
Not trying to shill for coal or nuclear, but I think there is a decent argument to be made for diversified generation, and making sure the electric grid can handle stresses.
One of my customers is a power plant that used to burn coal. Because of the green movement they spend millions of dollars to convert to biomass electricity generation. So now 90 tractor trailer loads of mulched wood arrive everyday 7 days a week. So, in the name of green energy they are clear cutting forests around here. We apparently didn't need these pesky forests.
Here is a picture of one of my machines with a 19 cubic yard bucket pushing mulch up into a pile after being deposited there by a 100 yd walking floor tractor trailer.
I guess there were no negative effects to humanity from 3 mile island, chernobyl, or fukushima? Nobody got even a little cancer or anything?
First, I specifically said "In the US." Chernobyl and Fuku sucked ***, but TMI was a total non-event as far as public health is concerned. Every credible report I've read puts the total number of additional cancers to the population stemming from TMI at between zero and one.
But not even Chernobyl and Fuku combined kill anywhere near as many people as rooftop solar, nat gas and wind. I know you were joking about wind power being dangerous, but as compared to nuclear, it actually is. I'm being totally serious.
Most calcs I see use 100% for any site that is combustion/steam fed.
True, but I'm a realist. Nuke plants spend more time than coal / oil / gas plants shut down for scheduled maintenance. They don't shut down often, but when they do, they're typically off the grid for weeks.
Originally Posted by Davezorz
I was trying to edit my previous post to add a picture, but the edit feature does not seem to be working on this computer.
so here is a waste coal burning facility. Technically a green energy source!
Way cool.
Originally Posted by sixshooter
One of my customers is a power plant that used to burn coal. Because of the green movement they spend millions of dollars to convert to biomass electricity generation. So now 90 tractor trailer loads of mulched wood arrive everyday 7 days a week. So, in the name of green energy they are clear cutting forests around here. We apparently didn't need these pesky forests.
Serious question: Do either government regulations or market forces require that new trees be planted to replace those torn down, at a rate which equals or exceeds consumption?
0
