Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2014, 08:42 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,894,387 times
Reputation: 18305

Advertisements

But then there are problems even with them in numbers being seen. If one wants to one can do the research t seeo debates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2014, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,733,702 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
There is about 100 GW of nuclear capacity in this country and about 60 GW of wind.
Smokescreen....
market dispatchable Nukers provide 20% of this nations power about 90% of the time.....
Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history
while non-dispatchable wind provides @4% of our power @34% of the time
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source
Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 07:43 AM
 
947 posts, read 1,465,403 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by kapie9969 View Post
It should only take a few million wind turbines and a thousand square miles of solar panels to equal the power of one nuclear reactor. Of course everyone is happy to have these bird killing monsters in their backyard?
Its a nice idea,like magic powers.But in reality? Remote cabins and people who can adapt to using less power are the main users of soar and wind.
I use a few panels and a battery bank. Its ok for limited use.
In Spain the wind farms there produce more power then nine nuclear powers at a fraction of the cost of the nuclear power plants.

Other countries tie in the wind and solar power systems to the hydro electric systems. On windy and sunny days the amount of excess power allows them to pump more water into the dams allowing the dams to function as a battery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 07:48 AM
 
947 posts, read 1,465,403 times
Reputation: 788
Nuclear reactors are costly because they are costly to build because if you don't want them to meltdown you have to pay a lot of money to make them safe. Also added to the cost is their decommission. In addition to the waste that is produced that has to be taken away and stored for decades because it is toxic the reactors themselves and a good portion of the plant after decades of use become radioactive so they are nuclear waste.

Modern nuclear power plants use four to six of a certain component. These components each cost over 250 million dollars and weight 150 tons. Only a limited number can be made each year due to the requirements needed to build them. Without this component your nuclear power plant is just a deadly radiation emitter instead of a power plant. The waiting list for the component is over a decade.

That is the nuclear bottleneck. Only a handful of nuclear power plants can be built each year worldwide due to the bottleneck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 12:06 PM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,208,631 times
Reputation: 7693
All we have to do with wind farms is keep on repeating this over and over:

They look like trees, they look like trees...



And lets not forget that wind farms kills numerous types of birds/endangered species and destroys the natural landscape...

They call it energy sprawl



Quote:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats.

New studies reveal that these appalling estimates are frightfully low and based on misleading or even fraudulent data. The horrific reality is that in the United States alone, “eco-friendly” wind turbines kill an estimated 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ngered-specie/

Last edited by plwhit; 05-08-2014 at 12:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 02:57 PM
 
947 posts, read 1,465,403 times
Reputation: 788
Wind turbines kill far less birds in a hundred years then in one year coal power does.

Wind Farm Bird Deaths vs Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Power Bird Deaths | CleanTechnica

"wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million"

Sorry new studies show that wind turbines kill the least amount of birds and bats compared to other power sources such as fossil fuel and nuclear.

Most of the birds killed by wind turbines were old and sickly. Nuclear and fossil fuel on the other hand the birds killed were young and otherwise healthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 03:04 PM
 
947 posts, read 1,465,403 times
Reputation: 788
Hilarious that you use a picture of 30 year old turbines taken from a misleading angle. One modern turbine can replace ten of those old turbines in both output and efficiency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 03:45 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,984,970 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
Still a long way from challenging fossil fuels. But it is step in the right direction. At least in my opinion.
Step in the right direction for who? The wildlife that is destroyed by wind farms? I think it's hilarious that greenies just LOVE wind farms, conveniently ignoring their terrible impact on animal and bird life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 03:56 PM
 
7,280 posts, read 10,958,567 times
Reputation: 11491
Quote:
Originally Posted by d from birmingham View Post
Hilarious that you use a picture of 30 year old turbines taken from a misleading angle. One modern turbine can replace ten of those old turbines in both output and efficiency.
Ever lived near a wind farm? Most people that have want desperately to get away from them or have the wind farms move away. Yes, in those European countries too. You bring up an interesting point though, obsolete wind turbines. By the time a wind turbine pays for itself it is old and in need of replacement. Basically, wind turbines are little more than a subsidy consuming prospect.

That misleading angle? How can that be? Think about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 04:05 PM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,208,631 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by d from birmingham View Post
Wind turbines kill far less birds in a hundred years then in one year coal power does.

Wind Farm Bird Deaths vs Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Power Bird Deaths | CleanTechnica

"wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million"

Sorry new studies show that wind turbines kill the least amount of birds and bats compared to other power sources such as fossil fuel and nuclear.

Most of the birds killed by wind turbines were old and sickly. Nuclear and fossil fuel on the other hand the birds killed were young and otherwise healthy.
Wow!

An avian dissertation by a lawyer...

The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power
Benjamin K. Sovacool
Vermont Law School
June 30, 2012

LMAO, and not for nothing, the above article uses those famous ambiguous words: "ESTIMATES" "CALCULATIONS" "SOME HAVE CRITICIZED"

***IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE CLUELESS***

Want a more modern photograph? Here:



Absolutely stunning, picturesque nature at it's best right?

Need another gorgeous view?



More articles?

Old and sickly? Delusional comes to mind......

Wind turbines: 'Eco-friendly' - but not to eagles

Quote:
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years.

Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived.

Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction.

And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...to-eagles.html

Last edited by plwhit; 05-08-2014 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top