Slashdot Mirror
Alternative Energy Confusion
pcnetworx1 writes "New York State is starting to get crunched for electricity. While other states may just say 'pop a couple more coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear power plants down', NY has decided to take the green route. NY State wants to get more power by strategically placing windmill powerplants in upstate NY to help the grid. While getting a dedicated power plant placed on your property for FREE (and being paid $3,000 a year per tower) may sounds good to some Slashdotters, the citizens in upstate NY still need some education in the safety of alternative energy."
While older mills may be quite loud, any developed within the last 10 to 15 years would be extremely quiet. Denmark is a nation which is on the leading edge of windmill technology. I saw some farms in Denmark with over 30 mills each. It was extremely surprising how quiet they are. You hear some swishing, but that's it. They're a masterpiece compared coal or natural gas plants.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
The average coal plant produces 600 megawatts of electricity Link. The entire output of an Ovionics Solar Cell assemply plant is enough electricity to produce 30 megawatts a year if all solar cells are used simultaneously, in sunny weather, during the day Link. That means that you have to have 20 years worth of production from that plant to get enough solar cells to equal a coal plant. Wind is a little better with the largest onshore turbines producing 2.5megawatts Link.
Or about 240 needed to reproduce a coal plant, when the wind is blowing. There are about 62 gigawatts of new generating capacity in the works, according to the CS monitor story, for the continental U.S.
But what about solar powered homes? The average home uses 10656 kw/h per year or about 1.21 kw constant load Link. The average aluminum smelting plant uses 300mw of electricity or 250,000 times as much Link. The average chemical plant uses 12mw constant load or almost 1000x as much Link. There are lots of similar industrial users. <sarcasm> Of course, who needs all those plants anyway? Doesn't produce anything usefull? All just pollution right? </sarcasm>
Sure there's plenty of little stuff we can do about the energy problems of the world but I think the problem is far far bigger than most people imagine. So basically given the above, environmentalists really have no solution to the world's energy problem except de-industrialization and I really doubt we are going to go along with that much less China, India, Russia, or Brazil. There you go, with a little math I spoiled the whole alternative energy debate. You have read the last chapter of the book on Global warming: There is no solution (except nuclear!). If you have some alternative examples show me and please make sure they include actual figures in megawatts. Not things like "wind energy potential" but instead, how long it would take to build, how much money, how much energy would be provided, etc. BTW, I'm not saying that some technological revolution isn't going to save us but please, let's get some numbers into the discussion!
There is a big difference in Europe:
...
...
...
...
Who do I sue if I have any health problems
would have been phrased
What can I do if I have any health problems
We don't have the 'sue them all' mentality here in Europe but that doesn't mean that the legal system is more innovation friendly or that people are happy having a giant 'festivus pole'-like innovation sitting in their backyard. I presume the same apply more or less for every developped country.
Of course innovation is a lot simpler in China where basically if something bad happen, the goverment just outlaw talking about the problem and if its really really bad, google will be happy to remove this area from the google map while yahoo/microsoft publish the name and address of uncooperative journalists
Generally speaking most goverments of those innovation happy countries don't seem to care a lot about the well being of their human "stock" if not directly threatened to do so. And in term of innovation, when they don't focus on selling thing we already produce back to us and they rather try to replicate our greatest "achievements" : massive gaz emmisions, 1 car/person, destruction of ecosystems, atomic bombs,
Well I thought evolution had laid this problem to rest, but apparently the bird wars are to begin again! I for one welcome our new bird-brained overlords.
"Fuck your view!"
Would you mind if a garbage recycling plant was built just outside your house? Or a prison?
Both argubably help the environment and/or public health or safety--but most people don't want them near their homes. And while you may not give a fuck, a lot of people spend a lot of money and resources to find a bit of wilderness and a bit of peace--and it's a bummer to spend all that time and effort to have that view confiscated and crammed full of crap they didn't expect nor do they want.
While I personally appreciate that there is a balance in this society between individual need and societal need, by your own view it seems clear "individual need" doesn't mean "fuck" to you. At which point the discussion is "whose societal needs should come first?"
You obviously missed the part where I said "Even if it is metered". Of course people pay for electricity! But relative to their other expenditures, the cost of electricity is so low that it is basically free for them, and thus they have no incentive to use it wisely.
The definition you were provided in your Economics 101 course in university is only partially correct. Anyone with a more extensive economics background would know that you can easily have a tragedy of the commons situation even when people are charged for a particular commodity, if the price is extremely low relative to other market prices.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.