Bullcrap. This gets a lot of edit time on the Lightning rod wikipedia page without any reasonable justification. I did the calculations on the talk pages a while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lightning_rod
The lightning page states that each discharge produces 30kA. The conductor proposed (.25inch*.25inch*pi = 126mm^2) has a resistance of 1.6mR cm * 1m/126mm^2 = 0.13mR/m, each m weighs 126*9g = 1.14kg giving a heat capacity of 438 J/K per metre. Each m will drop 3V, i.e. 90kW of power. The flash lasts about 100ms so each meter of the bar has to dissipate 9kJ by heating by 20K. I think the mistake is to assume that because there is a lot of power dissipated in a strike, the conductor must dissipate a lot. In fact, as the conductor is probably 1 thousandth the total resistance of the strike it gets only 1 thousandth the power. njh 02:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, you're right, float charge is usually 13.2V isn't it, which would make 4*13.2 = 52.8V. Somehow I was thinking of 14.4, which is the bulk charge voltage on gel cells.
Computer power supplies normally use fly-back topologies. In these the output is provided when the input turns off. They aren't just filtered PWM from the high side - that wouldn't have any isolation.
LoL It would be fun to get the DC from old rotary converters for a data center. Big mountain of spinning cast iron with slip rings, commutator, brushes and plenty of copper windings. Put in an old marble switch board with carbon arc breakers , synchro scope, volt/amp meters and knife switches. You then have yourself a turn of the century power system running new millenium computers:). Not efficent and high maintenence but how cool would that be!
I believe this is SOP in EMP hardened bunkers.
And 4 12V lead acid batteries would be 57.6V:) 3 is 43V, which is by complete coincidence the same voltage proposed for new cars.
Of course I have, I've used them too. Halbach arrays require motion (when moving they generate an alternating magnetic field which is repelled due to eddy currents in a nearby conductor). In original poster asked about a levitating pilot seat - Halbach arrays could do this if the pilot spun on their chair I guess.
You probably never heard of Halbachs arrays before this slashdot article - particularly as you don't appear to understand them;)
Actually, using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array s for train suspension (or any linear or rotary bearing) means that the levitation force is provided by the motion, without any electromagnets or feedback loops. They are more lossy than other systems though. It is fairly easy to shield the passengers from the strong magnetic fields using suitable topologies.
No, I like the fact that you are open about your beliefs. I just wondered whether much useful debate could occur.
If you have two work places then you probably have choosen the best option.
It is rational for companies to ask for subsidies and tax breaks: Your competitors will anyway. I think when it comes to big business it is more a case of govts being controlled by industry than the other way round.
Is it even worth trying to argue with someone who so clearly wears their nuclear ego?
My, Moore's law must suddenly be applicable to pipes, valves and collectors!
Putting words in my mouth? Who said anything about pipes, valves and collectors? Certainly the cost of materials has dropped significantly in 20 years: in part due to more efficient extraction, in part due to more efficient processing, in part due to cheaper energy, in part due to increased economy of scale and in part due to finding better materials for the same job.
I did the costing in another post:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178263&th reshold=4&commentsort=3&mode=flat&cid=14797239
The pipes were 2cm square section steel framing, the valves are standard house vents and the collectors are commercial plastic film green houses. I'm sure that were there household demand, they would become a lot cheaper (or the cheap stuff easier to find).
43 mile commute Perhaps you bought a house in a silly location? We just bought a house, and we chose a location that avoided driving for both of us. We got a smaller house and a smaller block, but we save about $10k in transport costs, and maybe another $2k for not needing to go to a gym:) And the extra 2 hours of personal time each night has got to be worth something. That's the majority of our morgage covered right there.
Do you have evidence for your claim that cheap oil was attributable to nuclear development? What about increasing coal production? Govt subsidies to the oil industry (for protection, e.g.)? I often hear it claimed that oil's true price in the US is about 10 times what you pay at the pump. Does this fit your theory?
As a rational company, GE must ask for tax breaks and subsidies. That's what companies do. It is not evidence that such companies need the money. You say so yourself further down. As I have already posted, in Australia we have no such money, and independant companies are still installing wind at a higher rate than ever. How about the fact that every nuclear power station is subsidised and would not compete with coal if it weren't for vast govt funding? You then talk about how GE's wind dept is larger than their nuclear section - perhaps GE knows something you don't?
Just think, if you were designing systems for heating houses using the sun you wouldn't need to spend $250k - but of course, having spent that money you will now have to throw good money after bad. If had spent a vast amount of money on a losing proposition, I would probably still spend a lot of effort trying to convince others (and by induction, myself) that I was doing something worthwhile. Thankfully I haven't.
Yep, I think it makes a lot of sense. Our societies have become somewhat complacent about energy and expect it to be instantly available on request. Adjusting our culture to value energy at a variable rate would not only make alternative energy sources more efficient, but would create a better economy, much the same way that floating currencies are more efficient than fixed. And unlike money, energy is a real currency.
You might look into heating your hot water using a petrol powered electricity generator. It is fairly easy for an electrically minded person to pump energy back into the grid whilst generating 4 times as much heat (and using about 95% of the energy in the petrol). You can buy a 1hp water cooled generator here for $100. It might last 3 years being used as a hot water heater:
100L of 60C per day, water starts at 10C. 20MJ per day. 1 hp generator makes 4hp of heat, taking 2 hours to heat the water. Each day we get 5.3MJ of electricity, i.e. 1.5kW hr of electricity worth 24c. A 1hp generator might use 0.1 gallons of petrol per hour, no idea how much that might be worth in your country, but that's $1.2 a day here. In a year we pay (24c - 120c)*356 = $350 for heating water.
If you needed standby power, or you live off the grid this is a no brainer. We pay 0.8c/MJ for gas, so for us this would be a bad idea (we only pay $58/year for water heating gas, but we also pay $280 in 'gas connection and service fees' a year, which we wouldn't pay to use petrol). You can run a petrol generator on LPG (propane) using a slightly different carb nozzle.
I bought 3 evacuated tube solar collectors last week, and they get to 100C on the hot end just lying on the grass. On a cloudy day. I think they would be the go. The tubes cost me $30 each, and I think I would need about 5 tubes with a reflector behind them, 10 tubes otherwise.
I'm invisaging a sheet of aluminium behind the tubes, spaced a little wider than is usual. My initial estimates give me about 1.8 suns worth of concentration.
He said he had built a test rig at the university on that page (including a random sunny day graph). Other people have built his design and said it works. I can't see anything wrong with the maths so I am quite happy to believe it works.
Commercial greenhouses made with bent steel tubing are very cheap - I bought a frame for $80au new. It consists of 8 2cm galvanised square steel tubes you attach to the house on one end and poke in the ground on the other. Around the top is an HDPE gripper for the film. Where do you get your glazing is half the cost number from? I see 7m*2m, lets say we need to buy 10m*4m to include curvature. Two years ago I bought a roll of 100m of 4m wide greenhouse film for $200. That's a total of $20 of film. So my proposed sunspace has cost me $100 so far (and that's $au, not $us). The film lasts about 4 years, and takes two people about 10 minutes to replace, for an ongoing cost of say $10.
The automatic dampers are $17US each, lets say $25AU. lets say I need 4. that's another $100. I now have all I need to heat the house on every sunny day. $200
An R3 3mx2m piece of polystyrene costs about $50 and you'd probably need 3 of them, $150. Used steel drums are available for $10 from the steel merchant down the road and the liners are $5. that design calls for 18, totalling $270.
Thus we'd need to spend about $620 to heat a house in northern states 100%. That's about $460US. However in southern states you might need half of this, or not need the thermal store.
So I'll stick to my estimate of $300 per house.
The copper heat exchanger is for DHW, and should be compared to the cost of a DHW unit rather than being considered part of a house heating system. How much did your water heater (furnace) cost?
I'm quite aware of council fees - we're in the process of extending and I agree that there is plenty of pigs in the trough. But installing a removable plastic film greenhouse is permitted without any permits. As would be stacking up steel drums and surrounding them with foam. I don't know about cutting holes in the wall in the US, but in AU it is permissible as long as you don't need to touch wiring or framing.
Labour cost: It took me and my wife about 2 hours to put up a steel tube framed greenhouse. People without any skills do it all the time using HFGHs and similar. I can imagine a kit including automatic dampers, plastic film and frame for $300.
Putting rocks in the roof space is daft, I agree. Much better to put water in the roof, with 6 times the thermal storage per kg. Delaney's design is a bit designed by mysticism rather than science, but it does work (perhaps by brute force rather than elegance).
You don't need an unshaded south wall for heating, east and west work fine with derating, and you get a nice warm room to sit in the sun in the middle of winter.
The basic physics indicates that solar heating a house in winter is practical in most locations in the US, including estimated losses and storage for cloudy days. As few seem willing to even consider the idea, it will take a long time to work out the tricks of the trade. When you compare the heating costs of a well designed greenhouse, it is clear that normal houses are very poorly designed.
If your heating bill is less than $400 per year then perhaps this is not currently economical, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable solution to no oil.
If I were in a climate that needed heating for 9 months I'd be taking a close look at anything that could save me hundreds a year.
Even the Carnot limit is too high - in practice you have to consider the hot point derated because absorbing heat cools the hot side down we get something like this:
No, heat is not a source of energy - it is the wasted part of energy we've used. (otherwise why do we have airconditioners?)
Many years ago I designed a city that filled a 3km cube. The limiting factor by numerous orders of magnitude was waste heat. The entire outside ended up being an airconditioner dumping heat.
David Holmgren (inventor of Permaculture) points out that maximum power transfer (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_10/11. html) applies to any energy collection system. Aiming for 100% is as bad as aiming for 0%.
Wind was subsidised in.au a few years back, but then the govt canceled it. Wind farm installation has gone up 30% since then. Wind power costs about 4c/kWh, compared with brown coal at 8c/kWh. It is profitable enough that the companies installing happily give 2% of the gross back to the community around the farm.
The best sites for wind farms are usually off shore, and can be quite close to population centers (which tend to crowd around the coast).
I lived in Norway for a year, I am quite aware of black ice;) I also rode or skied 3km to work (but I'm crazy).
You need to do some research before giving up on our greatest energy source. My own greenhouse/solar space cost just over $100 AU, but we have a mild climate. My current roof is cement tiles, but I can replace all of them with polycarbonate on the North side (South for northern hemisphere) for $600. Based on previous experience, I could do that myself in a day (including throwing the tiles in a skip from the roof). I could also sell the tiles to a secondhand merchant for 30c a tile, making me $100. That would give me a collection area of 50m^2, and at 3kWh/m^2 in mid winter would provide 3 times as much energy as I need to heat the house. I don't even need a council permit to replace roof tiles with polycarbonate.
Sorry, was a bit of a cranky pants yesterday. (not enough sleep)
I'd like nuclear to work, but I think I'd rather it were done above the table than with backroom deals.
Storage is a biggy, I suspect that demand side management will appear more viable - even now there is a company here in Melbourne that sells negawatts by switching off airconditioners at my work when electricity becomes too expensive (which annoys the inhabitants a little:)
Yet you could stop using half that oil by installing solar house heating rather than oil burners at a cost of about $300 for a house in the northern states. Another large chunk could be saved by removing subsidies for SUVs and encouraging bike riding.
I'm also interested to know what you believe the connection between nuclear and oil is? even in the US most electricity is generated with coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and wind. Replacing all the oil burning power stations with nuclear would have a quite small effect on the oil demand. Oil goes into transport mainly.
Perhaps instead you are saying that because oil is subsidised, nuclear should be too? Why not subsidise energy saving approaches, wind generation, or (shock! horror!) remove the subsidies on oil?
It's all very nice to joke, but if a joke continues a harmful meme resulting in people making a bad choice seriously affecting millions of lives, is it funny? Clearly I didn't see the humour in your previous post, I wonder how many others did.
So in other words bird kill is probably is no more of an issue with modern turbines than with bridges, skyscrapers or trucks - all things it seems we are completely happy with. Or at least not concerned about.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullcrap. This gets a lot of edit time on the Lightning rod wikipedia page without any reasonable justification. I did the calculations on the talk pages a while back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lightning_rod
The lightning page states that each discharge produces 30kA. The conductor proposed (.25inch*.25inch*pi = 126mm^2) has a resistance of 1.6mR cm * 1m/126mm^2 = 0.13mR/m, each m weighs 126*9g = 1.14kg giving a heat capacity of 438 J/K per metre. Each m will drop 3V, i.e. 90kW of power. The flash lasts about 100ms so each meter of the bar has to dissipate 9kJ by heating by 20K. I think the mistake is to assume that because there is a lot of power dissipated in a strike, the conductor must dissipate a lot. In fact, as the conductor is probably 1 thousandth the total resistance of the strike it gets only 1 thousandth the power. njh 02:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, you're right, float charge is usually 13.2V isn't it, which would make 4*13.2 = 52.8V. Somehow I was thinking of 14.4, which is the bulk charge voltage on gel cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery gives some good numbers.
Computer power supplies normally use fly-back topologies. In these the output is provided when the input turns off. They aren't just filtered PWM from the high side - that wouldn't have any isolation.
LoL It would be fun to get the DC from old rotary converters for a data center. Big mountain of spinning cast iron with slip rings, commutator, brushes and plenty of copper windings. Put in an old marble switch board with carbon arc breakers , synchro scope, volt/amp meters and knife switches. You then have yourself a turn of the century power system running new millenium computers :). Not efficent and high maintenence but how cool would that be!
:) 3 is 43V, which is by complete coincidence the same voltage proposed for new cars.
I believe this is SOP in EMP hardened bunkers.
And 4 12V lead acid batteries would be 57.6V
Actually, in Tesla's case you'd need to wrap the headstone in wire, and put a copper band around the casket. And plug the headstone into the grid.
Sadly zathrus is dead. All of him.
The original poster wrote: Why can't we just use an array of permanent magnets to generate the field that is more or less always on.
How would you interpret that?
Of course I have, I've used them too. Halbach arrays require motion (when moving they generate an alternating magnetic field which is repelled due to eddy currents in a nearby conductor). In original poster asked about a levitating pilot seat - Halbach arrays could do this if the pilot spun on their chair I guess.
;)
You probably never heard of Halbachs arrays before this slashdot article - particularly as you don't appear to understand them
Actually, using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array s for train suspension (or any linear or rotary bearing) means that the levitation force is provided by the motion, without any electromagnets or feedback loops. They are more lossy than other systems though. It is fairly easy to shield the passengers from the strong magnetic fields using suitable topologies.
Because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem.
You can do it with diamagnets (but they aren't very strong) or superconductors (but they need cooling, currently).
No, I like the fact that you are open about your beliefs. I just wondered whether much useful debate could occur.
1 .html
If you have two work places then you probably have choosen the best option.
It is rational for companies to ask for subsidies and tax breaks: Your competitors will anyway. I think when it comes to big business it is more a case of govts being controlled by industry than the other way round.
Here's a random article talking about subsidised nuclear power:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/pgem/electric/ch2_box
President, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
h reshold=4&commentsort=3&mode=flat&cid=14797239
:) And the extra 2 hours of personal time each night has got to be worth something. That's the majority of our morgage covered right there.
Is it even worth trying to argue with someone who so clearly wears their nuclear ego?
My, Moore's law must suddenly be applicable to pipes, valves and collectors!
Putting words in my mouth? Who said anything about pipes, valves and collectors? Certainly the cost of materials has dropped significantly in 20 years: in part due to more efficient extraction, in part due to more efficient processing, in part due to cheaper energy, in part due to increased economy of scale and in part due to finding better materials for the same job.
I did the costing in another post:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178263&t
The pipes were 2cm square section steel framing, the valves are standard house vents and the collectors are commercial plastic film green houses. I'm sure that were there household demand, they would become a lot cheaper (or the cheap stuff easier to find).
43 mile commute
Perhaps you bought a house in a silly location? We just bought a house, and we chose a location that avoided driving for both of us. We got a smaller house and a smaller block, but we save about $10k in transport costs, and maybe another $2k for not needing to go to a gym
Do you have evidence for your claim that cheap oil was attributable to nuclear development? What about increasing coal production? Govt subsidies to the oil industry (for protection, e.g.)? I often hear it claimed that oil's true price in the US is about 10 times what you pay at the pump. Does this fit your theory?
As a rational company, GE must ask for tax breaks and subsidies. That's what companies do. It is not evidence that such companies need the money. You say so yourself further down. As I have already posted, in Australia we have no such money, and independant companies are still installing wind at a higher rate than ever. How about the fact that every nuclear power station is subsidised and would not compete with coal if it weren't for vast govt funding? You then talk about how GE's wind dept is larger than their nuclear section - perhaps GE knows something you don't?
Just think, if you were designing systems for heating houses using the sun you wouldn't need to spend $250k - but of course, having spent that money you will now have to throw good money after bad. If had spent a vast amount of money on a losing proposition, I would probably still spend a lot of effort trying to convince others (and by induction, myself) that I was doing something worthwhile. Thankfully I haven't.
Yep, I think it makes a lot of sense. Our societies have become somewhat complacent about energy and expect it to be instantly available on request. Adjusting our culture to value energy at a variable rate would not only make alternative energy sources more efficient, but would create a better economy, much the same way that floating currencies are more efficient than fixed. And unlike money, energy is a real currency.
You might look into heating your hot water using a petrol powered electricity generator. It is fairly easy for an electrically minded person to pump energy back into the grid whilst generating 4 times as much heat (and using about 95% of the energy in the petrol). You can buy a 1hp water cooled generator here for $100. It might last 3 years being used as a hot water heater:
100L of 60C per day, water starts at 10C. 20MJ per day. 1 hp generator makes 4hp of heat, taking 2 hours to heat the water. Each day we get 5.3MJ of electricity, i.e. 1.5kW hr of electricity worth 24c. A 1hp generator might use 0.1 gallons of petrol per hour, no idea how much that might be worth in your country, but that's $1.2 a day here. In a year we pay (24c - 120c)*356 = $350 for heating water.
If you needed standby power, or you live off the grid this is a no brainer. We pay 0.8c/MJ for gas, so for us this would be a bad idea (we only pay $58/year for water heating gas, but we also pay $280 in 'gas connection and service fees' a year, which we wouldn't pay to use petrol). You can run a petrol generator on LPG (propane) using a slightly different carb nozzle.
I bought 3 evacuated tube solar collectors last week, and they get to 100C on the hot end just lying on the grass. On a cloudy day. I think they would be the go. The tubes cost me $30 each, and I think I would need about 5 tubes with a reflector behind them, 10 tubes otherwise.
I'm invisaging a sheet of aluminium behind the tubes, spaced a little wider than is usual. My initial estimates give me about 1.8 suns worth of concentration.
He said he had built a test rig at the university on that page (including a random sunny day graph). Other people have built his design and said it works. I can't see anything wrong with the maths so I am quite happy to believe it works.
Commercial greenhouses made with bent steel tubing are very cheap - I bought a frame for $80au new. It consists of 8 2cm galvanised square steel tubes you attach to the house on one end and poke in the ground on the other. Around the top is an HDPE gripper for the film. Where do you get your glazing is half the cost number from? I see 7m*2m, lets say we need to buy 10m*4m to include curvature. Two years ago I bought a roll of 100m of 4m wide greenhouse film for $200. That's a total of $20 of film. So my proposed sunspace has cost me $100 so far (and that's $au, not $us). The film lasts about 4 years, and takes two people about 10 minutes to replace, for an ongoing cost of say $10.
The automatic dampers are $17US each, lets say $25AU. lets say I need 4. that's another $100. I now have all I need to heat the house on every sunny day. $200
An R3 3mx2m piece of polystyrene costs about $50 and you'd probably need 3 of them, $150. Used steel drums are available for $10 from the steel merchant down the road and the liners are $5. that design calls for 18, totalling $270.
Thus we'd need to spend about $620 to heat a house in northern states 100%. That's about $460US. However in southern states you might need half of this, or not need the thermal store.
So I'll stick to my estimate of $300 per house.
The copper heat exchanger is for DHW, and should be compared to the cost of a DHW unit rather than being considered part of a house heating system. How much did your water heater (furnace) cost?
I'm quite aware of council fees - we're in the process of extending and I agree that there is plenty of pigs in the trough. But installing a removable plastic film greenhouse is permitted without any permits. As would be stacking up steel drums and surrounding them with foam. I don't know about cutting holes in the wall in the US, but in AU it is permissible as long as you don't need to touch wiring or framing.
Labour cost: It took me and my wife about 2 hours to put up a steel tube framed greenhouse. People without any skills do it all the time using HFGHs and similar. I can imagine a kit including automatic dampers, plastic film and frame for $300.
Putting rocks in the roof space is daft, I agree. Much better to put water in the roof, with 6 times the thermal storage per kg. Delaney's design is a bit designed by mysticism rather than science, but it does work (perhaps by brute force rather than elegance).
You don't need an unshaded south wall for heating, east and west work fine with derating, and you get a nice warm room to sit in the sun in the middle of winter.
The basic physics indicates that solar heating a house in winter is practical in most locations in the US, including estimated losses and storage for cloudy days. As few seem willing to even consider the idea, it will take a long time to work out the tricks of the trade. When you compare the heating costs of a well designed greenhouse, it is clear that normal houses are very poorly designed.
If your heating bill is less than $400 per year then perhaps this is not currently economical, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable solution to no oil.
If I were in a climate that needed heating for 9 months I'd be taking a close look at anything that could save me hundreds a year.
It doesn't work that way:
i teria_of_heat_engine_performance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
Even the Carnot limit is too high - in practice you have to consider the hot point derated because absorbing heat cools the hot side down we get something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Engine#Other_cr
No, heat is not a source of energy - it is the wasted part of energy we've used. (otherwise why do we have airconditioners?)
. html) applies to any energy collection system. Aiming for 100% is as bad as aiming for 0%.
Many years ago I designed a city that filled a 3km cube. The limiting factor by numerous orders of magnitude was waste heat. The entire outside ended up being an airconditioner dumping heat.
David Holmgren (inventor of Permaculture) points out that maximum power transfer (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_10/11
Wind was subsidised in .au a few years back, but then the govt canceled it. Wind farm installation has gone up 30% since then. Wind power costs about 4c/kWh, compared with brown coal at 8c/kWh. It is profitable enough that the companies installing happily give 2% of the gross back to the community around the farm.
The best sites for wind farms are usually off shore, and can be quite close to population centers (which tend to crowd around the coast).
Not my estimate, but Nick Pine's, whose philly house is 100% solar heated. He also points to Norman Saunders:
m l- energy-for-housing.html
;) I also rode or skied 3km to work (but I'm crazy).
http://www.ece.villanova.edu/~nick/solar/solar.ht
http://www.geocities.com/~dmdelaney/Solar-thermal
I lived in Norway for a year, I am quite aware of black ice
You need to do some research before giving up on our greatest energy source. My own greenhouse/solar space cost just over $100 AU, but we have a mild climate. My current roof is cement tiles, but I can replace all of them with polycarbonate on the North side (South for northern hemisphere) for $600. Based on previous experience, I could do that myself in a day (including throwing the tiles in a skip from the roof). I could also sell the tiles to a secondhand merchant for 30c a tile, making me $100. That would give me a collection area of 50m^2, and at 3kWh/m^2 in mid winter would provide 3 times as much energy as I need to heat the house. I don't even need a council permit to replace roof tiles with polycarbonate.
Sorry, was a bit of a cranky pants yesterday. (not enough sleep)
:)
I'd like nuclear to work, but I think I'd rather it were done above the table than with backroom deals.
Storage is a biggy, I suspect that demand side management will appear more viable - even now there is a company here in Melbourne that sells negawatts by switching off airconditioners at my work when electricity becomes too expensive (which annoys the inhabitants a little
Yet you could stop using half that oil by installing solar house heating rather than oil burners at a cost of about $300 for a house in the northern states. Another large chunk could be saved by removing subsidies for SUVs and encouraging bike riding.
I'm also interested to know what you believe the connection between nuclear and oil is? even in the US most electricity is generated with coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and wind. Replacing all the oil burning power stations with nuclear would have a quite small effect on the oil demand. Oil goes into transport mainly.
Perhaps instead you are saying that because oil is subsidised, nuclear should be too? Why not subsidise energy saving approaches, wind generation, or (shock! horror!) remove the subsidies on oil?
Wind can compete without subsidies.
It's all very nice to joke, but if a joke continues a harmful meme resulting in people making a bad choice seriously affecting millions of lives, is it funny? Clearly I didn't see the humour in your previous post, I wonder how many others did.
So in other words bird kill is probably is no more of an issue with modern turbines than with bridges, skyscrapers or trucks - all things it seems we are completely happy with. Or at least not concerned about.
Ok, thanks for that. Although most of the stuff going to the fete is a lot older than that :)
Do you have actual numbers to back this up? How do they compare to road deaths, tall buildings, feral cats, etc?
Heat is a problem though.