windmills (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


defiantbadgirl -> windmills (6/20/2011 9:37:32 AM)

I'm sure some people will agree windmills are much safer than nuclear power plants considering Cherenobyl, Japan, and now Nebraska. Many think they're ugly, but improving their physical appearance is much easier to work with than radiation and thousands of years of toxic waste. Who has thought of ways to make windmills more visually appealing? I'd love to hear your ideas.




juliaoceania -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 9:45:51 AM)

I find that windmills are not a feasible answer to all of our energy problems and wind farms are ugly. I would ask if you have ever seen a landscape that was beautiful which was marred by them?




defiantbadgirl -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 9:52:17 AM)

Which is why we need to work on making them more visually appealing.




mnottertail -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 9:58:05 AM)

Perhaps they could make the blades more breast like.......




juliaoceania -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:01:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Which is why we need to work on making them more visually appealing.



There was this stretch of road on the way to the San Francisco Bay Area that we used to drive on to visit family that lived there. It was all green rolling hills that were reminiscent of Ireland. Just truly gorgeous. The clouds would move quickly by, dotting the ground with their moving shadows. I loved going over this road as a kid, and then they built a wind farm there[sm=sodoff.gif] (edited to add, I am not flipping you off DBG, but the people who built the wind farm)




Anarrus -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:14:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I find that windmills are not a feasible answer to all of our energy problems and wind farms are ugly. I would ask if you have ever seen a landscape that was beautiful which was marred by them?



Actually when compared to the visual aeshetic of strip mines, coal fired power and nuclear power plants looming on the horizon and along the shores, along with mile after mile of oil drilling platforms in the gulf the visual impact of windmills isn't such a bad thing. There also all the landscapes ruined by the equipment used to "frack" natural gas. I've seen vista after vista of rural landscape here around northeastern PA and a few places in south-central NY (before the moratorium) visually ruined.

Agreed that windmills are not a feasible answer to all energy problems but as far as ugliness goes they are pretty far down on the list.

It's unfortunate that many environmentally minded and alternative energy conscious people have the mindset of "great..but not in my backyard" when it comes to windmills or even solar panel arrays.




ChatteParfaitt -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:18:57 AM)

How to make windmills more visually appealing?

Change your mindset. Have you ever seen strip mining in West Virginia? How about any depiction of the landscape after a nuclear fall out? Now, that's marring the landscape.

I recently returned from a road trip and drove through IL, Iowa, Wis, and MN. I saw acres of windmills and found them charming.

JMO, YMMV





Charnegui -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:23:32 AM)

If it is polution of the environment of polution of the horizon........... it stays polution!!

There is no alternative yet, for oil, browncoal and nuclear installations.

We have to deal with it.......... we probably should not be so scared of anything happening.





defiantbadgirl -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:38:15 AM)

Unfortunate and very scary. What do people think is going to happen WHEN natural disasters strike nuclear plants? What happens WHEN earthquakes, floods (dam breaks), tornadoes, or wildfires hit nuclear power plants? Why would people rather go through what Japan went through than use water, wind, and solar power? This isn't a matter of what if, but WHEN. We need to get rid of nuclear power immediately.




stef -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:44:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Unfortunate and very scary. What do people think is going to happen WHEN natural disasters strike nuclear plants? What happens WHEN earthquakes, floods (dam breaks), tornadoes, or wildfires hit nuclear power plants? Why would people rather go through what Japan went through than use water, wind, and solar power? This isn't a matter of what if, but WHEN. We need to get rid of nuclear power immediately.

And replace them with what?  Windmills is not the answer. 

~stef




windchymes -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 10:50:44 AM)

I guess I'm just weird, but when I see those big, white, windmills turning off in the distance, I think they're kinda pretty, compared with cell phone towers, power plants, telephone/power poles, and the like. And the sight of a bi-concave concrete nuclear reactor smoking away in the distance is just eerie-looking to me.




defiantbadgirl -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:01:54 AM)

Wind, solar, and water are the answer along with anything else that doesn't remain toxic for years. Safe energy will create jobs that can't be outsourced and prevent more toxic radiation.




stef -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:07:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

I guess I'm just weird, but when I see those big, white, windmills turning off in the distance, I think they're kinda pretty, compared with cell phone towers, power plants, telephone/power poles, and the like.

You're not weird.  Well, not because you like windmills anyway.  I like the look of them too.  I used to love riding my motorcycle down through the Tehachapi wind farm when I lived in California.

quote:

And the sight of a bi-concave concrete nuclear reactor smoking away in the distance is just eerie-looking to me.

That's not a reactor, that's a draft cooling tower.  Reactor buildings are generally fairly innocuous. 

~stef




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:14:14 AM)

 
Personally, I don't have an issue with the "visual appeal" of windmills, just that they're too ineffecient to meet power demands. (shrugs)

Capacity factorSince wind speed is not constant, a wind farm's annual energy production is never as much as the sum of the generator nameplate ratings multiplied by the total hours in a year. The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. Typical capacity factors are 20–40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly favourable sites.[19] For example, a 1 MW turbine with a capacity factor of 35% will not produce 8,760 MW·h in a year (1 × 24 × 365), but only 1 × 0.35 × 24 × 365 = 3,066 MW·h, averaging to 0.35 MW. Online data is available for some locations and the capacity factor can be calculated from the yearly output.[20][21]
Unlike fueled generating plants, the capacity factor is affected by several parameters, including the variability of the wind at the site, but also the generator size- having a smaller generator would be cheaper and achieve higher capacity factor, but would make less electricity (and money) in high winds.[22] Conversely a bigger generator would cost more and generate little extra power and, depending on the type, may stall out at low wind speed. Thus an optimum capacity factor can be used, which is usually around 20-35%.
 
Capacity factors of other types of power plant are based mostly on fuel cost, with a small amount of downtime for maintenance. Nuclear plants have low incremental fuel cost and are particularly expensive to build, and so have to be run at full output as much as possible to be economic and thus must achieve a 80-90% capacity factor.
Fossil fueled power plants often run at roughly 40-60% capacity, depending on the type- plants with higher fuel cost are throttled back to follow load. Gas turbine plants using natural gas as fuel may be very expensive to operate and may be run only to meet peak power demand.[dubious – discuss] A gas turbine plant may have an annual capacity factor of 5–25% due to relatively high energy production cost.
 
In a 2008 study released by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the capacity factor achieved by the wind turbine fleet is shown to be increasing as the technology improves. The capacity factor achieved by new wind turbines in 2004 and 2005 reached 36%.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Capacity_factor






MasterSlaveLA -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:16:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Wind, solar, and water are the answer...



Unfortunately, the technology just isn't there yet.  Great strides have certainly been made... but still a long ways to go.






defiantbadgirl -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:16:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

And replace them with what?  Windmills is not the answer. 


You're not weird. Well, not because you like windmills anyway. I like the look of them too. I used to love riding my motorcycle down through the Tehachapi wind farm when I lived in California.

~stef



So are you for or against windmills or are you for both windmills and nuclear power?




defiantbadgirl -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:24:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Wind, solar, and water are the answer...



Unfortunately, the technology just isn't there yet.  Great strides have certainly been made... but still a long ways to go.





So we should keep using non nuclear fuel generated plants while working on safe power sources until the technology is there. Anything is better than a Cherenobyl or Fukshima level disaster in the US. As I said before, with nuclear power plants it's not a question of what if, but WHEN.




tj444 -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:30:37 AM)

Well, I dont have a problem with the way they look at all, dont know how noisy they are tho.

I think some people's aversions to the way they look is cuz they arent used to seeing them. Gas stations are ugly too but cuz they are everywhere no one complains about them. Maybe costs just have to go up a lot to change peoples viewpoints.. people tend to do that when it hits them in the old pocketbook! [:D]




Hillwilliam -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:45:55 AM)

You think windmills are ugly, drive I-76 from Pitt to Philly and look at mile after mile of dead trees on the ridgelines.  Victims of pollution.

Wind power isn't the end all be all.  It's one piece of the puzzle.




stef -> RE: windmills (6/20/2011 11:47:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Wind, solar, and water are the answer along with anything else that doesn't remain toxic for years.

That's not an answer, that's a dream.  It's a nice dream, but a dream nonetheless.

quote:

Safe energy will create jobs that can't be outsourced and prevent more toxic radiation.

"Safe energy" can't provide anything more than a miniscule fraction of the power our country needs, and that's not likely to change in our lifetimes.  Have you even taken a cursory look at the numbers involved here?  I'm guessing not.

Callifornia currently has about 15,000 wind turbines producing electricity.  They account for between 1-1.5% of the state's total energy.  You can't just put wind turbines anywhere and there isn't appropriate transmission infrastructure to get power from where the wind is to where it's needed.  That's just ONE of the many issues involved.

quote:

So are you for or against windmills or are you for both windmills and nuclear power?

It's not that simple.  I'm "for" a lot of things.  I'm for increasing the use of alternative sources of energy that make sense.  I'm for phasing out obsolete reactors.  I'm for the NRC approving new, safer, more efficient reactor designs. 

There is no easy solution here and simply saying that those icky nuclear plants need to go away is just plain ignorant.

~stef




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875