Wind power is a waste of time.

[Grogybear]

It seems quite apparent, despite claims by many "green" people, that wind power is an expensive, unsightly and above all totally ineffective solution to producing power.
Until Fusion Power is a viable option, Nuclear Fission is the only reasonable alternative.

Before anyone mentions Chernobyl, bear in mind that it was made by a communist state with poor or no quality control. Poorly built reactors exploding is not a reason 2 not build any at all!

Between 2000 and 2005 36910 people died in coal mining accidents in China.

[Zeebadee]

Has anyone done any studies about the ecological effects of harnessing the wind to generate power? What would be the meteorological effects of decreasing wind current velocities? Would mass harnessing of winds cause some kind of weather modifications, possibly a shift in rain or snow patterns?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee Has anyone done any studies about the ecological effects of harnessing the wind to generate power? What would be the meteorological effects of decreasing wind current velocities? Would mass harnessing of winds cause some kind of weather modifications, possibly a shift in rain or snow patterns?

No more then building houses, or planting tall trees, etc. And the wind basically blows though the blades to create a fan, the fan then generates.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Grogybear It seems quite apparent, despite claims by many "green" people, that wind power is an expensive, unsightly and above all totally ineffective solution to producing power. Until Fusion Power is a viable option, Nuclear Fission is the only reasonable alternative. Before anyone mentions Chernobyl, bear in mind that it was made by a communist state with poor or no quality control. Poorly built reactors exploding is not a reason 2 not build any at all! Between 2000 and 2005 36910 people died in coal mining accidents in China.

Wind power might work in a few areas, but no one thinks it can work everywhere, some places do not get substainable high winds. Nuclear power still has nuclear waste and we have no logical way to dispose of that. Coal mines are unsafe and unhealthy for workers and unfriendly to the environment. At the moment water generated power and solar power seem to be the best options for a safe and sane future. Ocean tides being the most dependable source for water power.

I just had an idea but do not have a clue if might work or not. We have lots of sewer system with water flowing through them, if that water moved fast enough we could tap into it for our energy needs for the city above the underground sewer and water pipes, but how to make them move with force is the angle that would need (perhaps) an invention.

The more you flush, the more electric power you get. How about that?
Rain water also drains off into those underground pipes.

Nuclear plants need speical protection due to potenital terrorists flying a plane into one of them near a city. etc.... a big danger to contend with. Plus a earthquake could trigger a leak in an otherwise safe plant. We have been lucky so far but should not push our luck too far. Nuclear plants would be VERY expensive to build nowadays.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul Ocean tides being the most dependable source for water power.

I believe that the law of conservation of energy dictates that there would be a reaction to using tides to generate power. Massive, long term harnessing of ocean tides would eventually have an effect of the rotation of the earth, causing who knows what effects?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Grogybear It seems quite apparent, despite claims by many "green" people, that wind power is an expensive, unsightly and above all totally ineffective solution to producing power. Until Fusion Power is a viable option, Nuclear Fission is the only reasonable alternative.

Do you work for the Nuke Industry or sumthin?

I know people who use wind generators for a large part of their household power. It's nice clean electricity. And I guess all the investment in wind generators in various locations around the world is just because people are too stupid to do the smart thing and save money by creating power another way...:rolleyes:

Fission has an enormous set of problems, not the least of which is the undesirable production of plutonium. Combine that with the radiation issues causing premature obsolescence to equipment in the reactor vessel, public concerns of runaway chain-reactions due to poor design or operator error, cost overruns by the construction companies and a few other sub-issues and you have a non-starter...

Wind's a great resource...

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think wind's good on a small scale, like PH said, for private homes along with solar and other techniques, but I think that things like nukes are better for urban and heavy suburban use, as well as a back up to the private sector.

[Pooeypants]

Nuclear fusion is at least 2 decades away even if the ITER project is a success. Whilst I am a supporter of using Nuclear fission in the mean time, I do not agree with the assessment that it is a waste of time. The resource is actually renewable and "free", though not always consistent. I fail to see how it is a waste of time.

[Osborn F Enready]

grogy, wind power is extremely effective, esepcially when coupled with solar power.

Where are you getting your info?

[improvident]

Wind + Solar = the ticket..

Perhaps with wind and solar power we should also think about a possible change in our daily lives?

believe it or not we don't HAVE to have a huge energy source.. we just think we do..We have become lazy energy consuming pigs.. everyone seems to think we NEED a massive source of energy.. but would it not be more efficient and less costly to the environment to have solar and wind power set up from say house to house or building to building?

Yes, perhaps the technology isn't available at the moment but divert the funds being sent hither and thither for large scale alternate energy sources, and it could be easily obtained

[Osborn F Enready]

Hey Grogy, do you work for a major oil or coal company, or mining company?

I am confused by what "is not good" about wind or solar power unless viewed from that perspective.

[Chris]

I saw this, which doesn't use wind power per se, but it uses solar power cleverly!

Green Wombat: Australian Solar Entrepreneurs Look to U.S. Market

A tower between 1,600 and 3,000 feet is surrounded by a glass canopy a mile or two wide, which heats the air underneath. Hot air rises and the tower operates as a vacuum. As the air is sucked into the tower, it produces wind to power an array of turbine generators clustered around the structure. The turbines in turn generate electricity. EnviroMission had purchased 24,000 acres of land on the edge of the outback in south east Australia to build the tower but got knocked back last October when it lost a bid for $57 million in government funding to cross-town rival Solar Systems.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chris I saw this, which doesn't use wind power per se, but it uses solar power cleverly!

This idea has been around for decades. A good write up, including environmental effects is here:

solar updraft tower power plant-sometimes also called "solar chimney" or

[gallo]

Quote by: Grogybear It seems quite apparent, despite claims by many "green" people, that wind power is an expensive,

More expensive than coal fired power plants? Which pollutes more?

unsightly

More unsightly than LA, or Denver, or any other city?

and above all totally ineffective solution to producing power.

So, these windmill farms aren't producing any power?

Until Fusion Power is a viable option,

Any reasonable prediction about that?

Nuclear Fission is the only reasonable alternative.

Are you aware that "fusion power" and "nuclear fission" are not gods and do not require capitalization in English?

Before anyone mentions Chernobyl, bear in mind that it was made by a communist state with poor or no quality control.

Then please explain to us the difference between graphite moderated reactors and water moderated reactors. Why is this meaningful when discussing Chernobyl? Please explain the impact on nuclear physics of the communistic philosophy of the state in question. Should we also not mention Three Mile Island? Please explain the impact of "poor or no quality control" on the event rather than the impact of inadequate training. Please explain the difficulties in reducing a reactor from full power to 4%. Like you, the inadequately trained operators at the Chernobyl reactor weren't aware that it can't be done. Please explain the meaning of the term "poison" as it applies to a nuclear reaction. Please explain your qualifications to judge quality control of Soviet reactors. How long did you live there and how long did you work at a reactor that you are qualified to offer an opinion?

Poorly built reactors exploding is not a reason 2 not build any at all!

Please explain how the many reactors built to the same design that have been functioning for decades without incident were poorly built. Please be specific as to how they were poorly built. Please enumerate those that have exploded. Was the first US reactor also poorly built, since it was of a similar design?

Between 2000 and 2005 36910 people died in coal mining accidents in China.

You don't say! How is that meaningful to your claims about graphite moderated reactors? Why are non-Soviet graphite moderated reactors not "poorly designed"?

Do you know what I'm talking about?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Grogybear It seems quite apparent, despite claims by many "green" people, that wind power is an expensive, unsightly and above all totally ineffective solution to producing power. Until Fusion Power is a viable option, Nuclear Fission is the only reasonable alternative.

Psshh... here we go:

Before anyone mentions Chernobyl, bear in mind that it was made by a communist state with poor or no quality control. Poorly built reactors exploding is not a reason 2 not build any at all!

Nobody has to mention Chernobyl, and certainly not because of your apparent bias because they were Communist (OMG Look Out!)

Between 2000 and 2005 36910 people died in coal mining accidents in China.

How does any of this disprove Wind Energy is effective? It doesn't.... this is just a rant. Here, allow me to enlighten you on some information perhaps:

Nova Scotia Power - Environment - Green Power
Nova Scotia Power - Environment - Green Power- Wind

Nova Scotia Power is a leader in renewable energy in Canada. We own and operate one of only three tidal power plants in the world. Nova Scotia Power is also a leader in wind energy, with the most wind turbines installed east of Québec. We have 60 megawatts of wind, with turbines stretching from Yarmouth County to Inverness County. For decades we've owned and operated about 400 megawatts of renewable generation made up of wind, hydro and tidal power. Our Annapolis tidal power plant became operational in 1984. Wreck Cove, a hydro plant, came on in 1978. Other hydro systems are close to 100 years old.

Nova Scotia Power - In the News

Halifax, NS- An additional 40,000 homes in Nova Scotia will be powered by renewable energy under the next step of Nova Scotia Power's renewable energy plan. The province's electric utility will be issuing a solicitation to independent power producers for renewable energy projects, including wind power, early in 2007. The projects will add 130 megawatts of additional renewable energy by the end of 2009. “Nova Scotia Power's customers want clean, green energy in a way that works for our province,” said Ralph Tedesco, President and CEO of Nova Scotia. “That's why our company has worked with independent power producers to put more wind power on the ground here in Nova Scotia . Now it's time for our company to take another major step forward, do even more and seek out new renewable energy opportunities for Nova Scotians.”

In the past two months, 12 new turbines have been erected in Nova Scotia from Digby Neck to Lingan, Cape Breton . By year's end, there will be a total of 41 turbines in place, supporting Nova Scotia Power's efforts to expand renewable energy as an indigenous resource. In addition to wind power, Nova Scotia Power is adding other renewable energy options, with new energy being produced from biomass at Comeau Lumber in Meteghan, Digby County , and landfill gas at Highland Energy in Sackville. The company has also submitted to Sustainable Development Technology Canada a proposal to cost-share a stream tidal test facility off the Bay of Fundy . Currently, about 150,000 homes in Nova Scotia are powered by energy from renewable sources, such as hydro, tidal and wind.

The majority of Nova Scotia for many years, has been reliant on Coal fueled power plants, however, since laitly, we have been switching over to renewable resources, such as Wind, Solar, Hydro, etc.... not to mention our large Natural Gas pipline from Sable Island..... We have no use for Nuclear Energy in our location of the world.

Nuclear Energy Cons:

The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a significant challenge. The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year. It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is made of fission products. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short term radioactivity. Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive. Spent fuel rods are stored in shielded basins of water (spent fuel pools), usually located on-site. The water provides both cooling for the still-decaying uranium, and shielding from the continuing radioactivity. After a few decades some on-site storage involves moving the now cooler, less radioactive fuel to a dry-storage facility or dry cask storage, where the fuel is stored in steel and concrete containers until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to levels safe enough for other processing. This interim stage spans years or decades, depending on the type of fuel. Most U.S. waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites requiring oversight, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed.

This to me seems like quite the expense just storing the waste for so many decades alone, let alone the cost of production and use of the energy itself..... not to mention the health hazzards if and when something does go wrong.

What happens to a windmill if it breaks down?

It stops spinning.... someone goes up and fixes it.

No Nuclear waste to manage, no coal to mine..... seems practical to me.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Technosoul I just had an idea but do not have a clue if might work or not. We have lots of sewer system with water flowing through them, if that water moved fast enough we could tap into it for our energy needs for the city above the underground sewer and water pipes, but how to make them move with force is the angle that would need (perhaps) an invention. The more you flush, the more electric power you get. How about that? Rain water also drains off into those underground pipes.

I thought of something similar for making fresh water from salt water, or using salt water as a fuel base.... but the filtering process and keeping the systems that use the salt water would require constant maintence due to major salt buildup.

Similarly, you would require some major filtration systems to be put into place for this to work, since nobody wants a machine all gummed up with poop or other debris.

[Grogybear]

There is a fundamental flaw with wind power. It is that if at 6:00 pm everyone turns on their kettle to make some tea and there is no wind, there is no power. Storing power is extremely expensive.
Because of this any other arguments seem irrelevant.

Oh and 60MW is very little power.
People talk about nuclear waste the whole time and complain but in the end of the day, uranium comes from the ground. Putting it back there... whats the problem. I have heard of instances of natural nuclear reactors occurring (i think in South Africa...).

Also.. i would imagine that the containment vessel would make the chance of radiation spreading unlikely.

Hydro-electric is actually quite effective...
France uses around 75% nuclear and 25% hydro if im not mistaken.

[rmnunez]

Its why they call fields full of windmill generators "tax farms" (one doesn't harvest much energy from them, but the write-offs are substantial).

[Praxius]

Well the 60MWatts was during the Pilot project.... if the project didn't work so well, why would they continue to add more across the Provience?

Actually Nova Scotia is probably one of the better places to absorb wind power, because we get the currents along the US coast (As you may see watching hurricanes travel up the coast line at times) but we also get a cross fire of air currents from the West of Canada, and both currents cross around the mainland of NS, where we get most of our nasty weather.

60MW isn't that much overall, but in one year they have more then doubles the power available.

I got no problem with windmills..... heck, Holland has been using them forever, lol.... perhaps not for power, but for many other useful methods, and our location is prime for wind and ocean currents.

Wind energy isn't for everywhere of course.... but certain areas need to adapt to the resources available where they live.... if solar is strong in your area, then use it.... if you got strong ocean or lake currents, use those, etc.

Untill I see a better method of disposing of nuclear waste, besides burrying it for all the mutant cockroaches and worms to take over the world or selling it to "evil-doers", I don't have much interest in Nuke energy.

[Osborn F Enready]

If power was dealt with at an individual level, by individual homeowners, business owners, we could end all of our power issues.

Why continue to support a huge grid as our main means of energy, when we can instead maintain it as a "backup", or dismantle it? We have the technology currently to retrofit existing homes with individual power production from wind and solar, geothermal, etc., so I see no reason why that shouldn't be the obvious answer, the most individually productive answer, and the most logically sound answer if you are concerned with longevity.