You do need to keep ships away from both the turbines and the cables linking them to the power grid. They are also likely to be difficult and dangerous to service in a storm...
The same applies to oil rigs, bridges, and other structures.
as long as the patients are advised of the potential long and short-term side-effects of the drug; the drug's distribution and use is properly controlled and regulated, I see no reason why it should not be made available on a prescription basis.
I see no reason hemp should not be legal period. As long as no body else is harmed I see no reason government should tell people what they can do with their own body. And at least here in the US the Constitution does not give the federal government that power.
"Total cumulative generation reached nearly 130 TWh from 1975 through the year 2000. The number of deaths per TWh of cumulative generation steadily dropped through the 1990s."
There's a *big* difference between a bunch of miners (who choose to do their job in the full knowledge of the risks) being injured or killed and a large civilian population being injured or killed by a nuclear reactor going boom.
I never said there wasn't a difference, and if you look my previous posts I am decidedly pessimistic about nuclear power.
The media and "environmentalist groups", of course, play a large part in continuing the myth that another Chernobyl disaster
Except environmentalists are supporting nuclear power. It's businesses and the freemarket that doesn't. Without massive government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable.
proposed Sizewell C reactor will have an output of 1600MW - that's the equivalent of around 450 offshore wind turbines
What wind turbines are you talking about? To produce 1600MW all it takes is 320 5 megawatt turbines but there are bigger ones.
And that's before you've even built all the infrastructure for connecting the hundreds of turbines to the grid
Transmission is needed whether the generators and nuclear or wind turbines. However if the wind genies are cited locally then not as much is needed to transmit power.
and the stand-by power generation capacity (probably gas turbines) for when the wind doesn't blow.
Environmentalists should be proponents of finding ways to deal with our nuclear waste problem, not object to every single proposal with a blanket statement that nuclear power is a dead end and re-hashing the same old tired arguments regardless of whether or not they apply to the new proposals.
Actually environmentalists are supporting nuclear power. It's the freemarket and Wall Street that don't support it. Quite a switch from how it used to be isn't it?
The good thing about solar/wind/wave etc. is that we can use it to lessen the need for more nuclear/coal energy, but even easier is to use less energy.
Define 'easier' please?
I' not sure if this is what you mean but here goes: Typically when people build homes Off the Grid the first thing they do is to reduce as much as they can how much power they will need. Instead of 10 or 20 incandescent light bulbs which are 60, 75, or 100 watts they'll use 12, 15, or 24 watt compact florescent light bulbs. Instead of building a home that requires a large heating and cooling system, they'll design it so it uses more insulation and the walls have a higher R value. With a good R value for the location little to no heating or cooling will be needed. For a clothes washing machine instead of using a top loading machine, they'll get a side loading machine which will only use half of the electricity the top loading ones use, as well as only half the water. To dry the clothes they'll use a clothesline.
There are a number of things those going off the grid do to reduce the energy they need. They go through all this because it's cheaper to reduce their energy needs than it is to build a larger solar, wind, or whatever energy system.
you have problem of transmitting power from where you can produce it, to the place where it needs to be employed
HVDC, High Voltage DC powerlines can transmit electricity log distances.
Also, you still need some way to ensure a stable baseline of power - power that you can count on producing a minimum amount, all hours of the day or night, every day of the year. Coal, oil, nuclear, and geothermal offer that
As you say geothermal can provide at least some baseload as can natural gas. Geothermal provides power in California. Geothermal provides 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity. One geothermal power plant on the Big Island in Hawaii provides 25% of it's electricity. And in New York City geothermal energy is used to heat homes.
Finally, have environmentalists considered the impact of the land use necessary to produce electricity on the scale our nation needs using solar and wind?
How many birds will be hacked to death by wind turbines
Cats are now a bigger threat to birds than wind turbines. Actually it was some of the older wind turbines that killed a lot of birds. Today they're made with bigger blades that spin slower, it was the fast spinning blades that killed birds.
Maybe bird migrations will be confused by all the glare from PV panels?
Birds are already confused by the windows on buildings.
Where are the UK, France, Germany, etc going to build their solar and wind farms?
You ignore the fact that Solar requires massive amounts of land area in addition to erm... lots of Sun...to be affective which is great if you have that, but in more densely populated countries which also have crap weather (e.g. the UK), well then Solar simply isn't an option.
Yea, it really depends on the location. In the US Oregon is considered the Saudi Arabia of solar power. In the UK though wind is good.
If you covered every inch of the US desert with solar panels you still wouldn't generate the electricity we need to power this country. Wind/Solar is a nice addon but that is all.
"A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."
"Assuming... a power grid capable of redistributing that power continent-wide"
Riiiight. That's like saying "Assuming a man can flap his arms and fly, how long would it take him to fly from NY to Chicago?"
The technology does exist and has been in use for years. HVDC, High Voltage DC transmission, is an old tech. There are HVDC powerlines that run for 1000s of miles.
wind is very difficult to scale, massacres birds, and is prone to mechanical failures.
I'll grant you mechanical failures but the first two are wrong. There are 5 megawatt wind turbines. Erect 20 of them a month and in one year you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity. As for the massacring part, old wind turbines which were smaller and spun fast were responsible for killing birds. Today's turbines have bigger blades which spin slow and therefore don't present the danger the older one did. While they do present some danger, cats present even more danger: "Cats More Lethal to Birds Than Wind Turbines""
If you want to convince environmentalists, you just need to show it's cost/benefit (where cost includes environmental damage) is significantly better than fossil fuel combustion.
Actually as someone above you pointed out more and more environmentalists are pro nuclear power.
The ever-powerful eco-lobby that can't even get us to limit carbon emissions barely has the power to stop nuclear power plants. Many environmentalists, like myself, support nuclear power when it's properly regulated and well thought out. The problem is too many people can't get Chernobyl and 3 mile island out of their heads, despite the fact that the pollution from coal and oil is ultimately more destructive than nuclear power.
I agree the eco lobby doesn't have that much power, however it's not just Chernobyl that has people scared that's the problem. The freemarket doesn't support nuclear power either. Here's what the freemarket CATO Institute has to say:
"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."
CATO credits "Forbes magazine" for the article. And neither CATO nor Forbes are part of the "eco lobby" or scared of Chernobyl.
Wind genies are generally not very helpful - bottle genies give wishes but wind genies almost never do. Wind genies are also less amenable to being cited you could end up having copyright issues and as many people know the RIAA employ wind genies for magical purposes.
Gosh, I got a kick out of that. I wish I came up with it, "wind genies", but I first came across it in "Home Power", "Solar Today", or another such magazine several years ago. I've been using it on/. for years.
It does not say the industry is responsible for 98% of liability it says the industry is liable for the first $10 billion. If liability comes to $10 billion the industry is responsible for 100%. But if it is $100 billion then the industry is only responsible for 10%. Now I know of no other industry that gets that type of liability shield.
There are two sides however: The bad: It prevents capital investment in nuclear energy and raises the costs of insuring plants.
Actually it encourages investment, without the act if a catastrophe happens investors are liable for all of it. As it is now if Wall Street had to pay for everything nuclear power would not be profitable.
Because the eco lobby does not like it and will scare monger anything to do with it. Grandma thinks that a reactor failing will look like Hiroshima.
So you consider the CATO Institute an eco lobby then? Here's what they say:
"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."
He dropped out due to personal reasons, the trained implies completion.
He still got some training in nuclear power. Just because it wasn't accredited and he didn't finish I wouldn't dismiss it. In the Army I went through a lot of training, some accredited and some not.
Those wouldn't be as tall as the 200-300 meter towers you'd need to be able to replace your prototypical 1GW nuke plant with less than a couple thousand towers
Offshore wind farms wouldn't need to be as high, but on land there are good places in the mountains. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists good places for wind farms, most in mountainous locations. The Rockies contain enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states in the US. However that's not all, on the Pacific coast from British Columbia to southern CA is good as is Southern CA east to Texas. In the east through the Appalachias up the trail to Canada there are good cites. Using 5 megawatt wind turbines, these are 120 meters off the ground, erecting 20 a month in one year you'll add 1.2 gigawatts of capacity. And that with only 200 towers, not your "couple thousand towers". Having worked in construction subcontracting in concrete and masonry I'd say that should be pretty easy. One of the jobs we worked on was at Cape Canaveral building pads for rockets, and I dare say they were required to be better constructed than pads for wind genies.
Yes, decentralized generation can be good when it works, but why do we need it?
How about we try it this way, "yes, decentralized computers can be a good thing when they work, but why do we need them?" People who live Off the Grid generate their own energy and get along just fine without centralized power. Then when there's a blackout they're the only ones with power.
I don't feel that coal is a choice. It is too dangerous. In my opinion, it needs to be off the table as an option. If it did not exist, we would find a way and we would be fine.
I don't feel that coal or nuclear power is a choice. They are too dangerous. In my opinion, they need to be off the table as an option. If they did not exist, we would find a way and we would be fine.
You are using an appeal to authority to bolster what is otherwise a very weak argument, which seems to consist of "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?"
Make a real argument and someone will take you seriously - so far, no one seems have done so.
The same thing happens with solar and wind. "Solar or wind can't do it, and it's bad". I admit I'm guilty of it too, but I try to include links that support me. Here are a couple of them. A 5 megawatt wind generator should be able to be erected within a month. Erect 20 a month and you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity in 1 year. The last nuclear power plant that went into operation in the US was the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station, Construction started in 1973 and the first of 2 units was compleated in 1996. It produces 1,167 megawatts, the same amount an can be added a year by wind generators.
Slashdot Mirror
You do need to keep ships away from both the turbines and the cables linking them to the power grid. They are also likely to be difficult and dangerous to service in a storm...
The same applies to oil rigs, bridges, and other structures.
Falcon
as long as the patients are advised of the potential long and short-term side-effects of the drug; the drug's distribution and use is properly controlled and regulated, I see no reason why it should not be made available on a prescription basis.
I see no reason hemp should not be legal period. As long as no body else is harmed I see no reason government should tell people what they can do with their own body. And at least here in the US the Constitution does not give the federal government that power.
Falcon
There appears to be a bit of a sample bias in a study where you ask people if they're still alive ;(.
Okay, try this:
"Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality Rates"
In the mid 1990s 14 people died on wind farms. Another 6 died since, 1 a parachutist who floated into a turbine.
"Total cumulative generation reached nearly 130 TWh from 1975 through the year 2000. The number of deaths per TWh of cumulative generation steadily dropped through the 1990s."
Falcon
There's a *big* difference between a bunch of miners (who choose to do their job in the full knowledge of the risks) being injured or killed and a large civilian population being injured or killed by a nuclear reactor going boom.
I never said there wasn't a difference, and if you look my previous posts I am decidedly pessimistic about nuclear power.
The media and "environmentalist groups", of course, play a large part in continuing the myth that another Chernobyl disaster
Except environmentalists are supporting nuclear power. It's businesses and the freemarket that doesn't. Without massive government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable.
proposed Sizewell C reactor will have an output of 1600MW - that's the equivalent of around 450 offshore wind turbines
What wind turbines are you talking about? To produce 1600MW all it takes is 320 5 megawatt turbines but there are bigger ones.
And that's before you've even built all the infrastructure for connecting the hundreds of turbines to the grid
Transmission is needed whether the generators and nuclear or wind turbines. However if the wind genies are cited locally then not as much is needed to transmit power.
and the stand-by power generation capacity (probably gas turbines) for when the wind doesn't blow.
Or storage can be used.
Falcon
Environmentalists should be proponents of finding ways to deal with our nuclear waste problem, not object to every single proposal with a blanket statement that nuclear power is a dead end and re-hashing the same old tired arguments regardless of whether or not they apply to the new proposals.
Actually environmentalists are supporting nuclear power. It's the freemarket and Wall Street that don't support it. Quite a switch from how it used to be isn't it?
Falcon
not an engineering issue.
Tell that to the French who are gung ho about nuclear power.
Falcon
The good thing about solar/wind/wave etc. is that we can use it to lessen the need for more nuclear/coal energy, but even easier is to use less energy.
Define 'easier' please?
I' not sure if this is what you mean but here goes: Typically when people build homes Off the Grid the first thing they do is to reduce as much as they can how much power they will need. Instead of 10 or 20 incandescent light bulbs which are 60, 75, or 100 watts they'll use 12, 15, or 24 watt compact florescent light bulbs. Instead of building a home that requires a large heating and cooling system, they'll design it so it uses more insulation and the walls have a higher R value. With a good R value for the location little to no heating or cooling will be needed. For a clothes washing machine instead of using a top loading machine, they'll get a side loading machine which will only use half of the electricity the top loading ones use, as well as only half the water. To dry the clothes they'll use a clothesline.
There are a number of things those going off the grid do to reduce the energy they need. They go through all this because it's cheaper to reduce their energy needs than it is to build a larger solar, wind, or whatever energy system.
Falcon
for an average of 12 hrs/day.
You need to find a replacement for baseload power.
And in 20 or 30 years there may be enough storage to store energy. Or geothermal might be used.
Falcon
you have problem of transmitting power from where you can produce it, to the place where it needs to be employed
HVDC, High Voltage DC powerlines can transmit electricity log distances.
Also, you still need some way to ensure a stable baseline of power - power that you can count on producing a minimum amount, all hours of the day or night, every day of the year. Coal, oil, nuclear, and geothermal offer that
As you say geothermal can provide at least some baseload as can natural gas. Geothermal provides power in California. Geothermal provides 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity. One geothermal power plant on the Big Island in Hawaii provides 25% of it's electricity. And in New York City geothermal energy is used to heat homes.
Finally, have environmentalists considered the impact of the land use necessary to produce electricity on the scale our nation needs using solar and wind?
Actually now many environmentalists now support nuclear power.
How many birds will be hacked to death by wind turbines
Cats are now a bigger threat to birds than wind turbines. Actually it was some of the older wind turbines that killed a lot of birds. Today they're made with bigger blades that spin slower, it was the fast spinning blades that killed birds.
Maybe bird migrations will be confused by all the glare from PV panels?
Birds are already confused by the windows on buildings.
Where are the UK, France, Germany, etc going to build their solar and wind farms?
Much of Germany has good potential wind energy. A German town is going 100% Renewable Power.
Falcon
You ignore the fact that Solar requires massive amounts of land area in addition to erm... lots of Sun ...to be affective which is great if you have that, but in more densely populated countries which also have crap weather (e.g. the UK), well then Solar simply isn't an option.
Yea, it really depends on the location. In the US Oregon is considered the Saudi Arabia of solar power. In the UK though wind is good.
Falcon
If you covered every inch of the US desert with solar panels you still wouldn't generate the electricity we need to power this country. Wind/Solar is a nice addon but that is all.
"A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."
The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states: Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States
Falcon
Panels are now where close enough to be really economical. In fact they require massive taxpayer subsidies to make them even remotly desirable.
The same applies to nuclear power, without massive subsidies it would not be profitable. Heck even coal is subsidized.
Falcon
"Assuming ... a power grid capable of redistributing that power continent-wide"
Riiiight. That's like saying "Assuming a man can flap his arms and fly, how long would it take him to fly from NY to Chicago?"
The technology does exist and has been in use for years. HVDC, High Voltage DC transmission, is an old tech. There are HVDC powerlines that run for 1000s of miles.
Falcon
wind is very difficult to scale, massacres birds, and is prone to mechanical failures.
I'll grant you mechanical failures but the first two are wrong. There are 5 megawatt wind turbines. Erect 20 of them a month and in one year you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity. As for the massacring part, old wind turbines which were smaller and spun fast were responsible for killing birds. Today's turbines have bigger blades which spin slow and therefore don't present the danger the older one did. While they do present some danger, cats present even more danger: "Cats More Lethal to Birds Than Wind Turbines""
Falcon
Scientific American just had an article on fast neutron reactors that get around the waste issue and don't create any weapons grade material: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste&page=1
SciAm has another article, "A Solar Grand Plan" which along with Picken's Plan shows why nuclear power isn't needed.
Falcon
If you want to convince environmentalists, you just need to show it's cost/benefit (where cost includes environmental damage) is significantly better than fossil fuel combustion.
Actually as someone above you pointed out more and more environmentalists are pro nuclear power.
Falcon
The ever-powerful eco-lobby that can't even get us to limit carbon emissions barely has the power to stop nuclear power plants. Many environmentalists, like myself, support nuclear power when it's properly regulated and well thought out. The problem is too many people can't get Chernobyl and 3 mile island out of their heads, despite the fact that the pollution from coal and oil is ultimately more destructive than nuclear power.
I agree the eco lobby doesn't have that much power, however it's not just Chernobyl that has people scared that's the problem. The freemarket doesn't support nuclear power either. Here's what the freemarket CATO Institute has to say:
"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."
CATO credits "Forbes magazine" for the article. And neither CATO nor Forbes are part of the "eco lobby" or scared of Chernobyl.
Falcon
Wind genies are generally not very helpful - bottle genies give wishes but wind genies almost never do. Wind genies are also less amenable to being cited you could end up having copyright issues and as many people know the RIAA employ wind genies for magical purposes.
Gosh, I got a kick out of that. I wish I came up with it, "wind genies", but I first came across it in "Home Power", "Solar Today", or another such magazine several years ago. I've been using it on /. for years.
Falcon
Yeah, try blaming the Price-Anderson Act instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act [wikipedia.org] It essentially says that the nuclear industry is responsible for about 98% of disaster liability.
It does not say the industry is responsible for 98% of liability it says the industry is liable for the first $10 billion. If liability comes to $10 billion the industry is responsible for 100%. But if it is $100 billion then the industry is only responsible for 10%. Now I know of no other industry that gets that type of liability shield.
There are two sides however: The bad: It prevents capital investment in nuclear energy and raises the costs of insuring plants.
Actually it encourages investment, without the act if a catastrophe happens investors are liable for all of it. As it is now if Wall Street had to pay for everything nuclear power would not be profitable.
Falcon
Because the eco lobby does not like it and will scare monger anything to do with it. Grandma thinks that a reactor failing will look like Hiroshima.
So you consider the CATO Institute an eco lobby then? Here's what they say:
"Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."
Falcon
Why not use safe, proven technology available TODAY to burn 99% of current fuel AND WASTE?
Your link doesn't say it was proven. Actually it says it was discontinued in 1994 before it was compleated.
Falcon
He dropped out due to personal reasons, the trained implies completion.
He still got some training in nuclear power. Just because it wasn't accredited and he didn't finish I wouldn't dismiss it. In the Army I went through a lot of training, some accredited and some not.
Falcon
Those wouldn't be as tall as the 200-300 meter towers you'd need to be able to replace your prototypical 1GW nuke plant with less than a couple thousand towers
Offshore wind farms wouldn't need to be as high, but on land there are good places in the mountains. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists good places for wind farms, most in mountainous locations. The Rockies contain enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states in the US. However that's not all, on the Pacific coast from British Columbia to southern CA is good as is Southern CA east to Texas. In the east through the Appalachias up the trail to Canada there are good cites. Using 5 megawatt wind turbines, these are 120 meters off the ground, erecting 20 a month in one year you'll add 1.2 gigawatts of capacity. And that with only 200 towers, not your "couple thousand towers". Having worked in construction subcontracting in concrete and masonry I'd say that should be pretty easy. One of the jobs we worked on was at Cape Canaveral building pads for rockets, and I dare say they were required to be better constructed than pads for wind genies.
Falcon
Yes, decentralized generation can be good when it works, but why do we need it?
How about we try it this way, "yes, decentralized computers can be a good thing when they work, but why do we need them?" People who live Off the Grid generate their own energy and get along just fine without centralized power. Then when there's a blackout they're the only ones with power.
I don't feel that coal is a choice. It is too dangerous. In my opinion, it needs to be off the table as an option. If it did not exist, we would find a way and we would be fine.
I don't feel that coal or nuclear power is a choice. They are too dangerous. In my opinion, they need to be off the table as an option. If they did not exist, we would find a way and we would be fine.
Falcon
You are using an appeal to authority to bolster what is otherwise a very weak argument, which seems to consist of "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?"
Make a real argument and someone will take you seriously - so far, no one seems have done so.
The same thing happens with solar and wind. "Solar or wind can't do it, and it's bad". I admit I'm guilty of it too, but I try to include links that support me. Here are a couple of them. A 5 megawatt wind generator should be able to be erected within a month. Erect 20 a month and you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity in 1 year. The last nuclear power plant that went into operation in the US was the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station, Construction started in 1973 and the first of 2 units was compleated in 1996. It produces 1,167 megawatts, the same amount an can be added a year by wind generators.
Falcon