Will you please stop polluting?

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
Windmills are intended for supplemental electricity generation, not base load replacement. You need continuity of generation, and you really only get that from plants (buildings, not the organisms that grow in dirt. :fly: )
 

water

Flaccid Member
Oct 29, 2004
15,608
67
0
42
AZ
Marklar
₥272
Sarcasmo said:
Windmills are intended for supplemental electricity generation, not base load replacement. You need continuity of generation, and you really only get that from plants (buildings, not the organisms that grow in dirt. :fly: )

MORE NUCLEAR POWER BISHES!
 

Mean Mr. Mustard

Always shouts out something obscene
Sep 30, 2004
69,189
37,516
1,323
53
Uranus
Marklar
₥41,418
Steam
heyfubuddy
KNYTE said:
MORE NUCLEAR POWER BISHES!



03.jpg
 

water

Flaccid Member
Oct 29, 2004
15,608
67
0
42
AZ
Marklar
₥272
Sarcasmo said:
COLD FUSION FTW

I still don't believe they EVER got it to work. Even for a second. How do you come up with a power generation system that will single handedly solve most of our energy problems and then "forget" how it worked. They just wanted more funding.

"Oops, I just lost my cold fusion notes, back to coal and oil we go."
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,732
1,999
923
Marklar
₥0
Sarcasmo said:
Windmills are intended for supplemental electricity generation, not base load replacement. You need continuity of generation, and you really only get that from plants (buildings, not the organisms that grow in dirt. :fly: )


hydro for primary supplemented by windmills & solar
 

Pandora

Flaccid Member
Oct 19, 2004
7,656
0
0
Atlanta GA!
skewed.textamerica.com
Marklar
₥0
FlamingGlory said:
Verily anything you can think of I can point how it effects the enviroment. Which is why I think of green nutz as eviroMENTAL. How long do you think it would take before PETA started bitching about poor widdle birds flying into towers.

That would be Denmark. Which has almost no generation capacity of it's own. Windmills make sense, although offshore ones tend to cost more to keep running than the amount of electricity they generate. I think 15% of their energy is Wind generated, the rest is imported. National geographic ran an article on them awhile ago. They have nowhere near the energy consumption of the US ie., each windmill at best generates 2MW...

Many enviromentalist I've spoken with just don't understand the science behind their lofty ideas. Their hearts in the right place but their brain isnt. Take vegans for instance, yeah it'd be great if we didn't HAVE to eat meat...but guess what we are omnivores we're suppose to. You can't feed a tiger salad. It might be totally impossible to have a completely clean energy souce, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to develop one. And until we do we should try to utilize cleaner sources of energy. As far as windmill farms go, I'd rather have one in my back yard than a coal burning electric plant. I'm sure plants cause more distruction to PETAs birds (and everything else) than windmills would.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,128
1,490
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,370
Pandora said:
Many enviromentalist I've spoken with just don't understand the science behind their lofty ideas. Their hearts in the right place but their brain isnt. Take vegans for instance, yeah it'd be great if we didn't HAVE to eat meat...but guess what we are omnivores we're suppose to. You can't feed a tiger salad. It might be totally impossible to have a completely clean energy souce, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to develop one. And until we do we should try to utilize cleaner sources of energy. As far as windmill farms go, I'd rather have one in my back yard than a coal burning electric plant. I'm sure plants cause more distruction to PETAs birds (and everything else) than windmills would.
Actually there would be plenty of people who wouldnt want them in their back yard period. They are in fact very loud (we actually have a farm 2 miles from my house, only 40 of them but eh). No one wants /anything/ in their backyard. Dont underestimate sheer yuppiness.
 

Mean Mr. Mustard

Always shouts out something obscene
Sep 30, 2004
69,189
37,516
1,323
53
Uranus
Marklar
₥41,418
Steam
heyfubuddy
ChikkenNoodul said:
Yeah, there's a proposal to put a huge wind farm on Nantucket and all the folk there are up in arms about it (Including Teddy Kennedy)


Yeah, I heard hes working against that one, but voted FOR one off the south texas gulf coast.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
FlamingGlory said:
Also, what's the only recycled product that counts for anything? Asphault!!! Aside from being the #1 recycled product, it's the only product that is actually 'green' when it comes to energy use.
Not necessarily. Aluminum is pretty green on energy use.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
FlamingGlory said:
There are no completely 'clean' sources of energy as yet.
Zero point energy FTW :p

nuclear energy is the best bet for large scale power generation but something needs to be done about the waste. also, despite the chernobyl and three mile island incidents it's a ridiculously safe way to produce energy. anyone having doubts about that only needs to look at the US Navy. Decades of nuclear powered vessels and how many accidents? Exactly.
 

itburnswhenipee

Lonestar
May 25, 2005
8,036
222
498
47
Maryland
Marklar
₥81
FlamingGlory said:
I'm sure you mean hydroelectric generation. The cleanest available source of energy but nonetheless destructive of upstream wildlife habitat. An interesting note is the that by comparision the SE US has very little hydroelectric capacity (over 75% served by coal and fossil fuel) compared to the rest of the US. US capacity is only exceeded by Canada with a generating capacity of 341,312 GWh (US 319,484 GWh).

Actually, not all hydroelectric plants completely obstruct the waterway upon which they are built. The plant on the US side of Niagara Falls comes to mind. Also, smaller scale generation can take place in channels dug alongside waterways.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,128
1,490
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,370
FlyNavy said:
Not necessarily. Aluminum is pretty green on energy use.
80% of asphault used gets recycled. Compare that to 60% for aluminum cans. 73 million tons of reclaimed asphalt pavement are reused each year compared to 40 million tons of recycled paper, glass, aluminum and plastics COMBINED!
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,128
1,490
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,370
FlyNavy said:
Zero point energy FTW :p

nuclear energy is the best bet for large scale power generation but something needs to be done about the waste. also, despite the chernobyl and three mile island incidents it's a ridiculously safe way to produce energy. anyone having doubts about that only needs to look at the US Navy. Decades of nuclear powered vessels and how many accidents? Exactly.
Yes, but it's mostly a pipe dream. To replace our fossil fuel use youd have to build 60 nuclear plants a year for the next 20 years.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,128
1,490
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,370
itburnswhenipee said:
Actually, not all hydroelectric plants completely obstruct the waterway upon which they are built. The plant on the US side of Niagara Falls comes to mind. Also, smaller scale generation can take place in channels dug alongside waterways.
I know that. I like hydroelectric. I grew up around many paper mills before my parents switched to the defense industry. It is the cleanest and most cost effective solution end of story.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
17,050
498
548
43
Marklar
₥580
HydroSqueegee said:
Guy i worked with at my old job went there to train our replacements. When he got back a month later, he told us all about the horrors that is Bangalore. No AC in buildings. Confined in tight, smelly lifts with the natives. But he did live like a king on the cheep.
Our building was air conditioned, but the elevator part is right. The city has less area than Cleveland yet 6 million people (instead of 400,000). And none of the buildings are higher than 8 stories (because that's teh highest the bamboo scaffolding can reach), so where they all live and work I have no idea.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
17,050
498
548
43
Marklar
₥580
FlamingGlory said:
Verily anything you can think of I can point how it effects the enviroment. Which is why I think of green nutz as eviroMENTAL. How long do you think it would take before PETA started bitching about poor widdle birds flying into towers.

That would be Denmark. Which has almost no generation capacity of it's own. Windmills make sense, although offshore ones tend to cost more to keep running than the amount of electricity they generate. I think 15% of their energy is Wind generated, the rest is imported. National geographic ran an article on them awhile ago. They have nowhere near the energy consumption of the US ie., each windmill at best generates 2MW...
I was reading an article about a Dutch windmill they installed in Cleveland (right next to a wall, blockign the prevailing winds I might add) that at full bore produces 5MW of power. I thought that was a lot until the article mentioned that was only 7% of the power needed to run the building. 1 windmill for 7% of a building on a good day. And it wasn't even if the building was that big; it isn't a skyscraper or anything like that. I was severely disappointed. Half of the time it isn't even moving because of the shitty weather Cleveland has and the awful placement of it.