Author Topic: Natural Gas and "Fracking"  (Read 4492 times)


Imagine that, a simple pole with a turbine attached to the top, minimal maintenance, no pollution, occasional bird death; 160 homes.
except that they produce a hell of a lot of sound pollution, have a higher maintenance cost than you'd think, non constant power production, need to be powered when wind is low to prevent them ceasing, and have actually caused enough bird deaths that they've had to develop slower spinning ones to lower it. so bad example

I'm afraid I don't have a mental condition, stop tossing that term around so carelessly like a child with a hand grenade. I guess I am a little ignorant of the subject but there is something about this that seems like bullstuff to me.
well excuse me princess, don't cry too much. do your research on this, you'll find that this isn't your regular pro environment bullstuff.

that kinda deals with the environment, right?

most redneckcigarettes get their water from wells and stuff i thought
regular pro environment bullstuff "waah it'll hurt the planet"
this "it will hurt us"

different


Sources that I just looked at say that a single, industrial wind turbine can power 160 homes, which includes the factor that it's not always windy.

Imagine that, a simple pole with a turbine attached to the top, minimal maintenance, no pollution, occasional bird death; 160 homes.

Imagine every neighborhood having one. Imagine our energy grid fitting the climate and geography of our nation. Windy areas are utilized with turbines, sunny areas are utilized with solar panels, larger rivers are dammed up with even more efficient dams, desolate areas are fitted with nuclear facilities that would make the current Paloverde Power Planet that is probably powering my stuff right now, weep in shame.

I want you to understand that yes, alternatives are expensive at first. But once a few international corporations fully back something, you can make it as inexpensive as stuff, just as power plants are today. The only thing holding us back is the fact that the people that have been polluting the environment the most are the ones that have benefited the most. And it's hard to argue against billions of dollars.
Oh, damn. That's a lot of homes. Still, like you said, wind turbines are pretty expensive, and fragile. If they go a rather short time without maintenance they start to break. They're pretty weak. Still, we can improve the technology if one of these fat hog corporations actually backs it. Solar power still isn't amazing, though. It produces little energy, even in scorching deserts.

regular pro environment bullstuff "waah it'll hurt the planet"
this "it will hurt us"

different
ok i see that

We could burn bunnies for fuel


except that they produce a hell of a lot of sound pollution, have a higher maintenance cost than you'd think, non constant power production, need to be powered when wind is low to prevent them ceasing, and have actually caused enough bird deaths that they've had to develop slower spinning ones to lower it. so bad example


Here, I'll disprove everything (except the variable in power production and that "prevent from ceasing" point) you just stated, so I can defend against the idiocy of people hating the truth.

Sound pollution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD0v9_zV2uk
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD MY EARS.

And while I was looking for your maintenance theory, I stumbled upon a lovely little site:
http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/mythology.html

Educate yourself.

Also, for your all so important bird death theory:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

Yes, that's right, cat's kill hundreds of millions of birds, windows and power lines accounting for at least 100 million each. Turbines kill 10,000 to 40,000. Admittedly a lot, but we're not taking out all our windows and power lines to service the birds, are we?


Interesting design by the way.

they produce enough noise that they can't be placed close to residential zoneing. A youtube video isn't going to prove that otherwise, i've driven past wind farms that are noisy as forget.
That puts them outside the grid, meaning lines need to be layed between them and the grid, this ups the maintenance cost (and lowers efficiency). Wind energy over here at least is one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Solar and nuclear energy are the way of the future. Wind energy is a waste of time and energy. They can't be used when wind is low, they can't be used in high wind either.

(that design is only a design, lets see one of those that actually works (it wouldn't))
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 12:10:27 AM by Böltster »

energy of the future is fusion
should be here sooner than you think B)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgfSx8Q_mDk&feature=relmfu

they produce enough noise that they can't be placed close to residential zoneing. A youtube video isn't going to prove that otherwise, i've driven past wind farms what are noisy as forget.
That puts them outside the grid, meaning lines need to be layed between them and the grid, this ups the maintenance cost (and lowers efficiency). Wind energy over here at least is one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Solar and nuclear energy are the way of the future. Wind energy is a waste of time and energy. They can't be used when wind is low, they can't be used in high wind either.

(that design is only a design, lets see one of those that actually works (it wouldn't))
I show you a site with supposed facts, you obviously have access to the internet, which as a wide variety of facts about wind turbines, and yet you're still acting like a moron who believes in single instances governing entire lives. Maybe the wind farm you drove past had, oh, I don't know, older wind turbines?

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but when they add a new power plant of any denomination, they have to sort of hook it up to the power grid. I know, it's a big leap from magical juices flowing from big tall smoke stacks straight into your outlets, but it's true, electricity costs money.

Wind energy is very obviously being used today, and is deemed efficient enough to nearly run 1% of the world's infrastructure. And the industry is growing.

energy of the future is fusion
should be here sooner than you think B)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgfSx8Q_mDk&feature=relmfu
Yessir. That man is my hero.

don't get so mad lol.

wind energy is stupid, they should be developing nuclear and solar, they at least aren't so location selective. once we have them, wind energy will have been nothing more than a short term bandaid and waste of money.

combination of solar/nuclear/wind/hydro in short term
fusion in long term.

don't get so mad lol.

wind energy is stupid, they should be developing nuclear and solar, they at least aren't so location selective. once we have them, wind energy will have been nothing more than a short term bandaid and waste of money.
Solar is location selective too. If you place it in a place where it is predominantly cloudy, you don't exactly get the same bang for your buck, making perhaps wind turbines in that cloudy, windy place, a better option.

If you are even considering alternative energies, it would be hypocritical to limit your mind to exclude such a common and useful technology. I think the more alternatives we have, the less fossil fuels we need, the better our nation, and the globe will do in the long run.

If you are even considering alternative energies, it would be hypocritical to limit your mind to exclude such a common and useful technology. I think the more alternatives we have, the less fossil fuels we need, the better our nation, and the globe will do in the long run.
hence
combination of solar/nuclear/wind/hydro in short term
fusion in long term.

Solar is location selective too. If you place it in a place where it is predominantly cloudy, you don't exactly get the same bang for your buck, making perhaps wind turbines in that cloudy, windy place, a better option.

If you are even considering alternative energies, it would be hypocritical to limit your mind to exclude such a common and useful technology. I think the more alternatives we have, the less fossil fuels we need, the better our nation, and the globe will do in the long run.
you're talking to someone who lives in one of the sunniest places on the planet lol
developing solar energy will bring more long term benefits than wind ever will. solar is less location dependant than wind.

you're talking to someone who lives in one of the sunniest places on the planet lol
developing solar energy will bring more long term benefits than wind ever will. solar is less location dependant than wind.

you just COMPLETELY ignored his whole post
you do know the whole world isn't as sunny as australia, right?
like, some places are really windy! and not sunny! and are perfect places to harvest wind power! so we should!
and then... some places are really sunny! and would be great for solar! wow! what a revelation!