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. )
Sarcasmo said:I don't know, but urine is completely sterile so at least it's good hygiene.
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. )
Sarcasmo said:COLD FUSION FTW
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. )
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...
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.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.
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)
Not necessarily. Aluminum is pretty green on energy use.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.
Zero point energy FTWFlamingGlory said:There are no completely 'clean' sources of energy as yet.
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).
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!FlyNavy said:Not necessarily. Aluminum is pretty green on energy use.
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.FlyNavy said:Zero point energy FTW
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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...