Green Energy Almost Cost-Competitive with Fossil Fuels 843
js7a writes "As reported in the Houston Chronicle, the sharply rising cost of natural gas and other fossil fuels has caused the cost of renewable energy to finally reach the price of nonrenewables. However, wind still has some catching up to do: 'a 10 percent wind- and 90 percent water-generated mix is about $9 per month less expensive than the 100 percent wind plan.' As more wind generation and grid transmission capacity is built, wind will eventually become more competitive than hydroelectric, but hydro and other sources will be required to balance grid demand in calm areas. Slashdot has been following this trend."
Which means (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Fossil fuels have huge investment, economies of scale and infrastructure already, which bring prices down. As sustainable energy gets more popular, it will get even cheaper.
2) Nobody ever factors in the cost of cleanup (at best) or total extinction (at worst) into the cost of fossil fuels. If you add the cost of removing the byproducts and side-effects to each column, sustainable energy pulls way ahead.
Not that I expect the current administration to do anything about it.
Re:Which means (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, I imagine a lot of things.
Also, I think "Not that I expect the current administration to do anything about it" would make a great
Re:Which means (Score:2)
And given the immediate gutting of the environmental laws that came with Bush's second term (already working it's way through Congress, sure to pass and get signed into law) the level of that extent is entirely nil.
Re:Which means (Score:4, Informative)
Well, you're certainly not known for your education system. Not all rain-forests are jungles and almost 50% of all Costal Temperate Rain Forests in the world are in California.
More info (source [inforain.org]):
Re:Which means (Score:2)
Up front costs versus long term costs (Score:5, Informative)
Up front costs may be higher for solar and other alternative and supplemental systems, but long term the payoff is there. You have to be willing to wait 10-15 years for your solar power array to pay for itself and then some.
Americans have a centralized power mindset; it's difficult to imagine a power plant on every block, or solar and fuel cells in every house. Yet, that's much more in keeping with the American tradition of pioneer self-reliance.
Re:Up front costs versus long term costs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which means (Score:3, Insightful)
Subsidized (Score:4, Insightful)
Fossil fuels are *far* more expensive than the market price would indicate.
Re:Which means (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the expense of war and other actions taken in the oil-producing nations. When you factor in the wars, support of favorable governments, destablizing unfavorable governments, fighting insurgants, or pissing off people enough so they run to the waiting arms of Osama bin Laden; oil becomes very, very expensive.
If the oil magically disappeared from the Middle East, the US and western military would not be there.
Re:Which means (Score:4, Insightful)
Wars are pretty expensive things, even when you don't factor in things like suspension of civil liberties, or loss of life. But these costs aren't factored in at the pump. Free Market my Fucking Ass.
why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why? (Score:2)
Re:why? (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe?
Maybe because when the sun goes down, you don't have a pile of lethal garbage that can kill you for thousands of years left over?
Maybe?
Naaaaaah. fucking hippies, they just don't get it, do they.
Re:why? (Score:3, Informative)
Neither does a low-radioactivity nuclear battery.
Maybe because when the sun goes down, you don't have a pile of lethal garbage that can kill you for thousands of years left over?
With a NASA style thermocouple battery, when the power runs out (after 20-30 years, depending on half-life of the element involved) the only thing left over is a lump of lead the size of a s
Re:why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear energy isn't perfect, but it's a far more viable alternative to fossil fuels than what Greens want to throw money at.
why so extreme on both sides? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love nuclear power. But I don't see why nuke plants should keep us from putting solar shingles on our rooftops-- so what if they only make 50% of the power you need, and only during the day? It's just that much less load on the nuke plants. At the very least, it would soften the peak load from my air conditioner in the summer daytime.
And why not stick a few windmills in the middle of farmland? Indiana farmland is like a giant, flat, patchwork quilt. It's not the sort of grand scenery you'd mind a windmill in the middle of, and you can farm around the poles just fine.
Why can't anybody take a moderate, practical look at things and realize that both solutions *together* are our most likely bet to get out of the coal and oil dependency?
Nobody's going to survive on windmills alone just yet. But why not use them where it's practical?
wind power is ugly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wind power is ugly (Score:2)
Besides that, however, I will trade breathable air for a pretty hill anyday.
Re:wind power is ugly (Score:2)
It depends how you build them. There are plenty of attractive windmills [windmillworld.com] in Europe (particularly in Holland). If the wind farmers decide to get creative, they could surely create aesthetically pleasing turbines.
I'd almost rather have nuclear power plant IMBY than a wind farm.
Would you almost rather have the radioactive waste repository in your back yard as well?
Here it comes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad to see research continuing into alternatives. Just because something isn't 100% ready yet is no reason not to pursue it. Just think what weaning the U.S. off oil-dependence (yes, long term thinking here, try not to let your hat fly off your head) would do for its world politics. Whoops. Never mind. This is a message from the oil companies reminding you not to think that way. We now return you to your reality-based TV program.
my web server is powered by windmills! (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, it sounds pretty cool to say that my web server is being powered by windmills.
Robert Nagle
Geo Thermal (Score:2)
One type of energy which you rarely hear about, but seems very enviromentally friendly is geo thermal. In the US the only places I can think of which have geological features which will allow this is yellow stone (active super volcanoe ?) wherever there is a hot spring you would think this would be feasable. From what I know this process has no by products and little effect on the ecology of the surrounding environment.
http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html
Re:Geo Thermal (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a open-loop geothermal system at my home. It's used for heating and cooling of the air. It takes water out of my well, which is a moderated temp year round and uses it to transfer the heat into it during the summer, and takes the heat out of the water in the winter.
You can do the same thing with a closed-loop system (you just pump the water in a big circuit of underground pipes). In a closed-loop system you can even use antifreeze (that stuff that transfers the heat out of your engine block and through the heaters in your car) and the system works simiarly to that.
I'm slowly working on converting some of my more sustained power requirements to a solar/battery powered system. I have a simple parts page online [nether.net] that will allow you to start building a small system to operate lighting or other must-need devices (basically, build your own UPS and charge off of solar/wind/whatever DC voltage source you want).
I just got a 700W inverter on sale recently, and have some older car/boat batteries that the previous owner left here. I just ordered a solar charge controller kit, and am going to borrow some 12-24V solar cells from a friend to do some testing.. If it works well, i'm going to expand my cells and get some good batteries to operate some of my necessary devices.
Simple solution, create wind (Score:2, Funny)
The current primary obstacle is that there are many days when the weather is calm and there is less wind. My suggestion is, on those days simply CREATE the wind.
First, it is known that as heat rises, it generates a low pressure area that cool air must fill. This can be demonstrated by noticing how some dust and smoke is pulled into a campfire at the base.
Second, our nation is full of unwanted trash storage sites that con
I saw a small documentary the other day (Score:4, Informative)
If I had the money I would do it too!
Coal = green (Score:2)
U.S. is the saudi arabi of coal.
Re:Coal = green (Score:2)
Most hydrogen _is_ currently extracted from fossil fuels. Natural gas, in fact, rather than splitting it out of water.
Ummm....No. (Score:3, Informative)
How to increase the efficiency of wind power... (Score:2)
(And if you think this is aimed at one particular political party - either one - you have some serious blinders on.)
Green power can't compete (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Green power can't compete (Score:4, Interesting)
They do, mix it with molten silica and store it somewhere, or re-use it in another reactor. While it's dangerous to people the waste is still able to generate power, when it stops being usefull to generate power it is then as harmfull as any other heavy metal. The only reason why the US's nuclear waste isn't re-used is political, you don't want to make plutonium. If you did re-use the waste as canada does, you'd have very very little dangerously radiactive waste. Now coolant water is a different story but there are ways to decontaiminate that.
Maintenance fee only (Score:2)
This is great... but... (Score:3, Informative)
BUT!
Being the cynic (skeptic?) I am, we need to be super-careful that the energy is what the distributors claim it is. For example, look at the organic labelling fiasco: food producers lobbied to reduce the standards of "organic" to include "some" organic procedures. They are not the same metrics that constitute "California Organic". As a result, there are misleading standards for organic, which can result in people buying products that could potentially bypass all that is good about organic processing.
Same goes for the Green-ergy.
Hopefully thsi will be monitored properly, so that when someone requests renewable energy, they don't get an earload marketingspeak "plants and animals die and become coal and oil, therefore coal and oil are nature's renewable resources!!!"
Viability does not imply scalability. (Score:2)
Just because it's viable now, doesn't mean it'll be viable for the entire country. Nor does present-day viability imply that it'll scale up to the rest of the country's energy needs.
Wind energy isn't necessarily scalable: there's a finite amount of land onto which you can erect windmills,
damage (Score:5, Insightful)
Mmmm... Variety on the menu (Score:2)
other news flashs (Score:2)
Iraqi Junkyard Armor Almost Competitive with Manufactured Armor
US Dollar Almost Competitive with Euro
feel free to add more!
Green, not Green (Score:2, Informative)
The best immediate solution is frequently ignored (Score:2, Insightful)
A real alternative has always been available which can be produced by existing oil-refining equipment and which is capable of powering existing electric generators and sub-generators as well as existing gasoline and diesel engines without modification. That alternative is called biomass.
Pyroly
I am all for hydro, but.... (Score:2)
I think we need to start looking at the whole picture. I think all roofs in the southern US should be shingled white, by law. This can save a lot of energy during the summer months. We also need to come up other (better) building techniques or use the better tec
Hydro (Score:2)
One thing about hydro that is little known is that in some cases the resevoirs can be massive produces of methane - one of the more potent greenhouse gases. Examples I've heard of have typically been large shallow ones with a lot biological material breaking down in them.
No Free Lunch (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is my opinion that more research needs to be done on solar and that communities receiving a lot of sunlight on a yearly basis (like mine) should implement a policy to get solar panels on the roofs of as many homes and businesses as possible. let them be managed and maintanied by the local power authorities. We could really see a lot of energy created here in the Las Vegas valley. hell, the entire American Southwest for that matter.. This would certainly reduce the load on fossil fuels fo our little neck of the woods. It would also free us from the interstate negotiations that occur every so often for the rights to power from Hoover Dam. I say fill my roof up with solar arrays. Hell.. look at all of the roof space provided by every casino in the city.. every highrise.. every other small business.. There is a lot of power being wasted simply to heat my damn terracota roof tiles!
But are politicians and power companies ambitious enough to tackle something like that? Certainly not.
biodiesel my bet for future fuel (Score:4, Interesting)
Until electric cars become efficient enough to run all day on a single charge with half a day of stored energy still available, petrol is the energy source we need to replace.
I'm betting on Biodiesel. It's still more expensive to refine than crude oil but that gap is closing fast. With current subsidies you can actually buy biodiesel for cheaper than Gasoline...
Interesting solar vs. conventional price indices (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop wind power now! (Score:3, Funny)
Cape Wind Environmental Impact Statement (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone looking for a recent, comprehensive evaluation of wind power should look at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [army.mil] for the Cape Wind [capewind.org] project.
Highway Dividers (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, on a more serious note, I had seen an interesting news article years ago about someone who setup some windmills, except they were a little different than most. They consisted of long three sided objects... like the turning signs car dealerships put on the top of cars except they were long and skinny rather than short and squat. These were built into the concrete dividers on the highway. The traffic driving in opposite directions on opposite sides created MORE than enough wind to turn the rows of hundred mini-windmills.
No eyesore (no worse than a concrete divider) No dead birds (if they fly into these they deserve to die) No changing wind patterns (any more than they already are that is)
"Cost Competitive" is a misnomer (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of wind energy:
Buy land in windy place
Build windfarm.
The cost of oil:
Forge alliance with dictators, oppressors, torturers and terrorists.
Provide covert funding and weapons to people who will later bite you in the ass, for example: Osama bin Laden, Sadam Hussen, the shah of Iran, the Taliban, etc. etc.
Station tens of thousands of troups in 3rd world countries full of extremists who get off on killing Americans... during PEACETIME.
During war station hundreds of thousands of troops in said countries.
Fight on average 1 major war per decade at the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars to protect oil producing hellspawn from non-oil-producing hellspawn.
Re:"Cost Competitive" is a misnomer (Score:3, Insightful)
Amnesia (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, they have always hated us, get over it
Maybe you just don't study history, but have you ever heard of the Crusades? Follow that by the betrayal following WWI where France and England carved up the middle east from the old Ottoman Empire rather than putting them in charge of their own land. Then follow that up with the US forcing dictatatorial rule on them from the Shah of Iran (you know we overthrew a democracy to put him in charge, right?), the Saudi royal family, massive support to Saddam from Reagan, etc., etc., etc.
It make you wonder why they hate us doesn't it?
Or maybe history just isn't patriotic enough for you.
Re:Amnesia (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Ottoman empire didn't want to be carved up maybe they shouldn't have joined Germany in WW1.
The Ottomans were Turks, not Arabs. The Arabs fought against the Ottomans during WWI, in collusion with the British (Laurence of Arabia). After using the Arabs to help defeat the Ottomans, Britain betrayed them by splitting Arab lands with France. This is how right wingers distort history, by confusing one group with another. But I bet they're all just brown people to you.
The "democracy" we overthrew to put the Shah in charge consisted of replacing the old Shah with his son.
BULLSHIT! The CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh [cryptome.org] and replaced him with the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi).
What you're doing there is knows as "revisionist history."
I didn't say the west "deserves" it. My point was that the west was asking for it. Don't poke a hornet's nest and then blame the hornets for stinging you.
Re:"Cost Competitive" is a misnomer (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be convenient if that were true, but for a long time they didn't think about us ("us" meaning the USA in this case) at all, because we weren't involved in their regional politics. And even if they had hated us, they had no resources to do anything about it, because they weren't sitting on top of a mountain of money that we gave them in return for supplying us with our nation's drug of choice.
Before complaining about the liberals, you should consider how many of your own positions are actually based on facts, and how many are just ignorant post-hoc rationalizations of the status quo.
Raise Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Gasoline should have an additional $0.50 per gallon tax and traditional lightbulbs should have an $0.10 per bulb tax.
The funds from this should directly fund research into alternative energy, means of conservation, and entirely new technologies.
I've heard that if every household in America installed only 1 compact florescent in place of a standard bulb, it would be the environmental equivelant of taking 1,000,000 cars off the road.
The only way America is going to change is if it's given an economic reason that hits home.
Re:Raise Taxes (Score:3, Informative)
There's one problem with your idea: The USA is so large physically that the high price of petrol is NOT a good idea. You're forgetting that Europe has many excellent alternatives to driving a car, especially their high-speed rail networks built at mostly government expense.
For the USA, a better so
Free Energy! (Score:5, Informative)
First off, each of us (yes, including me) live our lives wrong. We also tend to live in (and work in) buildings designed wrong. Now, both of these statements are pretty bold - but both are very true.
How much do you throw away? What do you throw away? How much do you recycle? How much do you recycle? How much do you reuse, and what do you reuse? These are the key questions, and the answers are the key to free energy.
Want your eyes opened? Take a look around your neighborhood on trash day. If your city has such a program, especially take a look on "bulk pickup" day. What do you see? What are people literally paying to have hauled away and buried?
I have seen bikes, refrigerators, computers, car parts, engines, dishwashers, cut up trees, wood, etc. All of these items took a lot of energy to make. Several of them could still work just perfectly, if we would only take the time to fix them. Those that can't be fixed, still could be put to other uses. The wood and the cut up trees could be further processed for the raw materials, or used as simple fuel. Water heaters could become storage tanks for solar heated water. That old window could become the front to a solar collector panel. That old engine and car alternator could become a cheap and easy to build power generation system (heh - heat the scrap wood in that old 55 gallon drum using a solar panel made from busted mirrors epoxied onto an old K-band sat dish, drive off the wood gas, power the engine with that (or cook with it), the stuff left over - charcoal for a barbeque!). All of this junk - going to waste.
Go to a landfill (even better, go to one that handles construction scrap only) - watch as thousands of tons per day of scrap wood, steel, aluminum, sand, dirt, concrete, etc - get buried in huge piles! All of this could be used and reused! How many times have you seen busted up concrete (or broken brick and block) being thrown away? Why not build a wall or a living structure out of it? What about that dirt - maybe a rammed earth house, perhaps? The wood, the steel - all of that has obvious uses. Why are we throwing it away?
As far as our houses and buildings are concerned - we build all of these wrong. We build them as energy wasting monstrosities. A monolithic dome house, or a thick-walled earthship-style house - will be much more energy efficient in the long run than a stick-frame constructed house. Build it out of scrap and throwaway items, and it becomes even cheaper. Build in skylights for daytime lighting. Collect rainwater in tanks to use for the garden and yard instead of the tap. Collect your greywater runoff as well. Collect your black water runoff into a methane digester system to produce fuel. Heat your house with solar panels made from scrap plywood, windows, and 2x4s. Install LED lighting for nighttime use. Build a wind generator using old automobile brake rotors and rare-earth magnets. Build a solar oven and slow cook your food.
The answers are endless, and so are the possibilities. None of this is fiction, or dreamwork. Many people have done this and are doing it everyday. There are tons of accounts on the internet - most show "how-to" methods. Want to start? Start by building a simple solar box oven, and cook some chili or rice in it. You can easily build one using cardboard boxes, a scrap piece of glass, and newspaper for insulation. For the glass, go to a glass shop and ask - many times they have odd sizes or whatnot they can't sell, and will happily give them to you. Or, go to Lowes, to the glass cutting area - many times they will have scrap glass (and acrylic, too) that they will give away for the asking. Or, find an oven door and take the tempered glass from it (or how about an old refrigerator - use an old glass shelf). There are tons of recipies online for solar ovens - give it a shot (yes, it will work in the wintertime - you just need sun). I guarantee you will be pleased. You will then know that it is possible to get free energy. There are tons of other ways (I know of several to get free cooling in the summertime!). Think about it, learn about it, and realize what you are missing!
Re:Free Energy! (Score:3, Informative)
There's the snag with your crazy scheme... Most items require a lot of man-hours to get repaired, so it becomes CHEAPER to just replace them.
The other problem is that companies don't provide necessary repair documentation, nor the parts needed, option to force you to throw the products out when they fail. I would love to see that part changed, but that's just the way things are.
Re::o (Score:2)
Re::o (Score:2)
Re:Economist/scientific predictions become truth! (Score:4, Interesting)
More realistically, pollution is a problem, and a shift away from oil will be a massive shock to a world economy dependant on the stuff, and we're doing precious little to prepare for it.
Re:Economist/scientific predictions become truth! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing has been proven yet. Do you have any idea what it's going to take to make such a shift? We either need to have several years left of relatively cheap fossil fuels, minimum, or we should have started this shift years ago. This is not as simple as *poof* we're using green energy now because a price per kilowatt hit a magic number. Green energy isn't even ready to take over yet, nevermind the economics inv
Re:Economist/scientific predictions become truth! (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be a good theory if the aim was to start using renewable energy as quickly as possible. However, that is not the main objective. Environmentalists want to transfer to green energy before we pump too much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Using all of the oil reserves over many millenia may be sustainable. Releasing all of that carbon in one quick burst most certainly is not. Dynamic systems usually respond better to gradual sustained inputs than to large magnitude step changes. The climate is no exception.
Re:Economist/scientific predictions become truth! (Score:2)
Re:Economist/scientific predictions become truth! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot that can be done in the US, Japanese and British people consume about 45% less energy than American people, per capita. Should the cost of energy suddenly go up, as I would expect, particularly for political reasons, they will be much less hard hit than we are.
insightful ?!?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this insighful? Burn all the fossil fuels we can. Lets liberate every bit of green house gas that we can. Lets melt the polar caps and de salinate the oceans and stop the deep ocean currents. Running out of fuel isn't the problem, the problem is the effects of those fuels on our environment.
Re:Here's another greenie (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's another greenie (Score:3, Informative)
Health problems caused by air pollution kill more people every year than terrorism ever has. Maybe you, personally, haven't died yet, but thousands of people die every year due to various lung diseases aggravated by pollution. Many more suffer severe asthma and allergies. It's not the immediate end of the world, but pollution is definitely a problem.
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:5, Informative)
As to being unsightly, that's very subjective.
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:2)
Largely, nobody wants them -- I read an Economist article this July with an introduction of "Wind farms disfigure the countryside and threaten to cost £1 billion a year. Apart from that, they're great."
Usually, those trying to push wind power have to create artificial financial incentives to get the land owners to accept the towers.
I'm not trying to troll, wind power is really cool, so is clean energy independence. But I think
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:5, Informative)
Now, realistically it's not feasable to use wind power for all of the US - it works great in some parts, but not so well in others.
To handle the non-constant-use issue, hydro power is often proposed. Dams can control the amount of water that they release, so during low-wind or high demand times, they can make up the difference. Other proposals often involve things like surplus capacity fuel generation (hydrogen, etc), which is then used in power-shortage conditions or sold if not needed.
Nobody wants wind power? The heck nobody wants it! I do, and I'm sure many other posters here do too. I don't find it ugly - I think the turbines look quite nice.
Tower Ugliness OverRated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Morbo! (Score:3, Funny)
(due to robot emissions-induced global warming, tortoises are migrating north into Holland)
Morbo (paraphrased): "Morbo wishes luck to the brave turtles."
Co-anchor: "Maybe those windmills will keep them cool!"
Morbo (to co-anchor, enraged): "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Morbo (to camera, still enraged): "GOOD NIGHT!"
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you should do some more research before you start blasting someone who is ESSENTIALLY correct in their statement. The American Birds Conservancy (ABC) has some pretty good data regarding wind generation facilities:
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm
And another study:
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisio n s. pdf
And I would agree... Wind turbines are much more fun to look at than coal plant smoke s
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, windows are the number one man-made bird killer. Where's the anti-window lobby when you need it? Heck, the very power lines that take the power away from the wind turbines are more likely to kill birds than the turbines themselves.
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:5, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you? :)
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Funny)
Funnily enough in the last 5 years I have not seen a single bird hit any of my windows.
How about your hood scoop [nasioc.com]?
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:4, Informative)
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values -- all key findings as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
The 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement by the Army Corps of Engineers will be formally released tomorrow. But a detailed 26-page executive summary obtained by the Globe seems to undercut opponents' arguments that the 130-turbine wind farm would cause deep, lasting damage to the environment.
Specifically, the draft says the estimated 420-foot-tall turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. In predicting the project's impact on shellfish and fish populations -- a concern of environmentalists as well as fishermen -- the report says any effects would probably be felt only during construction.[/quote]
I can't say I've done some detailed search on this, but I'm pretty suspicious of the bird deaths specifically because VIRTUALLY EVERY article critisizing bird deaths brings up Altamont Pass, which is only one of many wind farms across the country/world. Moreover, it uses old, outdated turbines that spin much faster than modern turbines.
Coal kills a lot of birds too. There is no free energy source -- in financial or environmental effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if people want a really green source they should look to either nuclear or solar that isn't provided by solar panels (last I checked, the creation of solar panels was not-so-good).
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:2)
Seriously, wasn't there an article two months ago dismissing the high killing rate of birds by windfarms?
Are birds that dumb anyway? Oh look, lots of low, rotating things! Contest time! Lets see if we can avoid them! See you at the finish line! If a simple scarecrow can make them avoid fields... I wonder.
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Informative)
topic before [slashdot.org]. The point was, Altamont farm is flawed. Others do not show such abnormal high mortalities. However, birds die from wind farms, but they die more often from collisions window panes, or cats, or cars, etc. than from wind farms.
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Proving once and for all that nothing is perfect. Man has been altering ecosystems ever since we noticed we could eat the moving things, too.
If windmills kill birds in California so people can live longer in Arizona, I don't see the difficulty. The danger to birds is nothing like the danger to salmon from damming spawning streams, or even to miners from breathing coal dust.
I think you need to adjust your perspective a bit. People are more important than birds. Mechanical hazards like a big moving fan blade are much more environmentally friendly than belching smokestacks, or even than whitewater rapids turned into reservoirs.
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Please rate the sightliness and sound volume of the following energy-related facilities:
(a) Strip Mine
(b) Oil Spill
(c) Nuclear Waste Disposal facility
(d) coal-fired power plant
(e) Hydropower reservoir
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. It's so helpful, let's talk about it a little more...
Terrawatt/years! There's a unit of measurement you don't see every day. It's probably a really useful unit of measurement, too, so let's examine it.
All of the nuclear plants, combined, in the US have a peak output of 99 gigawatts. http://www.eia.doe [doe.gov]
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Insightful)
So are birds. ;)
Re:Not exactly "green" yet (Score:3, Funny)
Until they hit the windmills...
Re:Wind-power considered harmful (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the reason hurricanes lose energy over land is the same reason they gain energy at sea, they are gigantic heat engines. Hurricanes form when an area of low pressure and wind shear is over waters above 80 F. The low pressure causes the hot, humid air from the ocean to converge together, which pushes it high into t
Re:Fantasy power source (Score:2)
*grin*
Kirby
Re:Too much space (Score:2)
There is land that can't be used for housing that can be used for wind energy. You can even locate them in the ocean [capewind.org]
Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, windmills are a way to make the land do something extra, rather than less than it is capable of.
Of course, there's always the offshore farms, too-- and that's even better. The plans for the farm off the coast of new york puts them far enough out you can't see them from land. They're gigantic, so complaints about "hazards to navigation" fall a little flat-- if the boat's captain can't avoid a ginormous windmill, how does he expect to navigate around invisible sandbars and shallow areas?
All that said, I'd love to see working fusion, too, and have nothing against well-run fission plants-- but why not put windmills on farmland or desert? Or even housing editions in the suburbs? The space is there, and adding windmills to the average middle-of-nowhere midwestern farm does very little to its farming output.
Re:Wind (Score:3, Funny)
Well... it depends on the kind of wind you're talking about.
Re:10 % wind 90 % hydro? Where? (Score:5, Interesting)
There. [hydroquebec.com]
It's amazing people still call hydroelectric power "green", but then hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice...
You fucking troll. It's renewable, not magical. Every action causes a reaction, our energy needs aren't going away, but there are ways to minimise the impact of our actions. Hydroelectric damns cause dammage, but the impact of a local flood is not in the same ballpark as the impact that the floods from melting the artic and antartic with greenhouse gases would have.
Re:How about solar farms in the south west (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about solar farms in the south west (Score:3, Informative)