There no better example of the wind turbine folly than Germany. Sixty thousand turbines operating, with thirty thousand more expected, supplies jusr 23% of their energy requirements. This figure includes the one currently on order. They also are being faced with a massive problem as many of these turbines reach their end of life.
Unreal. In the US, when they tear those things down, apparently they only need to dig down four feet. Everything below that stays in the ground. Sixty thousand turbines makes for an awful lot of concrete and rebar left behind when they're done.
It's idiocy compared with stuff that actually works. Wind power is hardly a "green alternative" just because you can't see what goes into it, so build stuff that works, stuff that people can rely on. People need electricity so ditch this green religion that says how evil coal is (for example) and build stuff that allow people to actually heat and cool their homes. Of course, nuclear is a far better option, but why make people wait for that when they can do something else right now?
Are you saying wind power doesn’t work? I suppose it depends what you mean by ‘work’. If we factor in the true cost of coal (which is impossible, really), wind power is virtually free in comparison. I agree that we’re probably going to have to use nuclear power in the absence of a better alternative, but Fukushima didn’t look like fun either.
It always comes down to how we define the words we use. That's why it's so difficult to argue certain topics today. Of course wind power "works", but so does running a generator with a human powered bicycle. The latter is probably better for the environment, so if that's your biggest concern, you now know what you need to do. 🙂
Okay, but just waving your hand and taking CO2 emissions out of the equation is not very serious. It’s like saying the best (or cheapest) way for me to get ice cream is to break into someone's house and steal it out of their refrigerator . I mean, it’s technically true, but…
Exactly. And that's precisely the problem with our current approach. The myopic infatuation with the one issue of the reduction of GHGs - regardless of any side-effects that might have on the economy. This is touted as the be-all-end-all solution at every level of government and nothing else matters.
There no better example of the wind turbine folly than Germany. Sixty thousand turbines operating, with thirty thousand more expected, supplies jusr 23% of their energy requirements. This figure includes the one currently on order. They also are being faced with a massive problem as many of these turbines reach their end of life.
Unreal. In the US, when they tear those things down, apparently they only need to dig down four feet. Everything below that stays in the ground. Sixty thousand turbines makes for an awful lot of concrete and rebar left behind when they're done.
Interesting stuff, but you’re neglecting to mention the alternative. I mean, wind power is ‘idiocy’ compared to what? Not everywhere can run on hydro.
It's idiocy compared with stuff that actually works. Wind power is hardly a "green alternative" just because you can't see what goes into it, so build stuff that works, stuff that people can rely on. People need electricity so ditch this green religion that says how evil coal is (for example) and build stuff that allow people to actually heat and cool their homes. Of course, nuclear is a far better option, but why make people wait for that when they can do something else right now?
Are you saying wind power doesn’t work? I suppose it depends what you mean by ‘work’. If we factor in the true cost of coal (which is impossible, really), wind power is virtually free in comparison. I agree that we’re probably going to have to use nuclear power in the absence of a better alternative, but Fukushima didn’t look like fun either.
It always comes down to how we define the words we use. That's why it's so difficult to argue certain topics today. Of course wind power "works", but so does running a generator with a human powered bicycle. The latter is probably better for the environment, so if that's your biggest concern, you now know what you need to do. 🙂
Okay, but just waving your hand and taking CO2 emissions out of the equation is not very serious. It’s like saying the best (or cheapest) way for me to get ice cream is to break into someone's house and steal it out of their refrigerator . I mean, it’s technically true, but…
Exactly. And that's precisely the problem with our current approach. The myopic infatuation with the one issue of the reduction of GHGs - regardless of any side-effects that might have on the economy. This is touted as the be-all-end-all solution at every level of government and nothing else matters.