U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 07-31-2010, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
36,116 posts, read 20,738,346 times
Reputation: 12722

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
If Christine Todd Whitman were really serious about promoting jobs in the energy industry, she would be talking about wind and other renewable energy resources, not nuclear power. Her July 9 op-ed, co-written with Florida State Rep. Juan C. Zapata, overstated the benefits of nuclear power and mentioned none of its drawbacks.
Whitman claims that constructing new nuclear plants has the potential to create "as many as 70,000 jobs," but how long would that take? According to Whitman's own figures, building one new reactor would produce as many as 2,400 construction jobs, and, once built, would employ 800 workers. To generate those 70,000 jobs — 75 percent of them temporary — the industry would have to build 22 new reactors. Given the lack of a trained labor force, constraints on the availability of key manufacturing components, and Wall Street's reluctance to finance them, building 22 reactors would take at least two decades to accomplish even under the rosiest scenario.


Negin: Renewable energy would create more jobs than nuclear power
Wind, solar and manure digesters?

Sorry, but the reality is that wind and solar are only good for supplemental power, not main power. Green energy is just busy work for greenies, its too expensive, unreliable, undependable and just not cost effective. Nuclear power, while a bit expensive itself, is at least a reliable form of main power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2010, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 32,749,702 times
Reputation: 4269
[quote=rbohm;15277755]first, wind power is not the magic bullet that people think it is. the wind turbines are fugly, dont power as many homes as environmentalists suggest, and they are maintenance intensive. they also tend to kill avian wildlife.

I live in a very intensive wind power area and don't see what you think you see. First, I think that wind farms are really aesthetically pretty to look and just watch operate. They do power as many homes as they are supposed to and each new one built seems to be able to do the same as the one before it did with fewer towers and turbines. One of the last ones completed on I-70 in Kansas runs through cattle pasture almost wholly and the cattle don't seem to be bothered by the towers and the turbines. They really are a beautiful sight that you can see for miles before you get to them. They are not ugly at all and they are not as threatening for birds as the old ones of the 50s and 60s were. They have blades on them that are mostly over 70 feet long which makes them turn in a circle of very near 125 feet. They do not spin like the early noisy small ones with blades of 6 or 8 feet. A bird that flies into one of them must be blind as they are spinning so slowly. If they spin too fast at the size they are now they would just blow up.

I think you need to look at the modern turbines and the towers they stand on since you obviously haven't seen many, if any.

The second one in this area was built right over 3 farmsteads and the people never have moved out since these things don't make any noise at all and the people prosper from the rent paid them.

As for maintenance intensive, there are ten of them in one farm that was built to power one town and does so quite well. Of course, there is one tower for the hospital, several for the schools, and more all the time for individual homes. The town is Greensburg, Ks. and since it is supposed to be so green they want all their power to be from wind. Those in their farm are in a line and often one of them is shut down but they aren't nearly as large as the for profit ones but never do you see more than one of them shut down.

In the larger farms there are about 4 or 5 maintenance men and they can keep up with necessary repairs without interrupting the output.

Windpower will never be our main source but there will be a lot more farms in Kansas as soon as the necessary transmission lines get built. The power is worthless if you can't get it to where it is needed and governments and power companies have fought too long about where to build those things for too many years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,083 posts, read 20,169,106 times
Reputation: 10343
We should invest in the development and construction of all energy options. Why is it that it is always "this or that" instead of "this and that"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 32,749,702 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
We should invest in the development and construction of all energy options. Why is it that it is always "this or that" instead of "this and that"?
We can't go green for energy until we are ready and we are years from that. We have to do as you say in order to even think of going to all renewable, because we just aren't very close to being ready yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Central, IL
3,382 posts, read 4,022,647 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
I find that hard to believe. There used to be a nuke plant near me. The plant itself doesn't employ more than about 200, but every 18 months there was an outage and many times that number descended on the area, often working 16 hours a day of paid overtime. The restaurant and hotel business went gangbusters during the outages. The tax money it paid generated many more school and city jobs. I don't thing the town fully recovered a decade after it closed.
This I can attest to, the town I used to live in has a nuke plant, that and my father works the outages all across the US. He goes from plant to plant to plant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,083 posts, read 20,169,106 times
Reputation: 10343
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
We can't go green for energy until we are ready and we are years from that. We have to do as you say in order to even think of going to all renewable, because we just aren't very close to being ready yet.
I don't think it is necessary to go with only renewable energy sources. We can still have coal, oil, natural gas, etc. but in the meantime develop and construct the other energy sources. We spend too much time arguing one versus the other which, in my opinion, is counter-productive. We need to diversify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2010, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,890,228 times
Reputation: 2473
The greatest hurdle to the safe use of nuclear power in America is American business and the caliber of American business executives. Do you really think that US trained management would let the costs of safety or the technical imperitives of nuclear systems stand in the way of financial goals for the business.? Of course not don't be silly. Look at what the energy industry does with technology that has less imapact on public health or safety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2010, 08:59 AM
 
33,389 posts, read 34,031,461 times
Reputation: 20019
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I live in a very intensive wind power area and don't see what you think you see. First, I think that wind farms are really aesthetically pretty to look and just watch operate. They do power as many homes as they are supposed to and each new one built seems to be able to do the same as the one before it did with fewer towers and turbines. One of the last ones completed on I-70 in Kansas runs through cattle pasture almost wholly and the cattle don't seem to be bothered by the towers and the turbines. They really are a beautiful sight that you can see for miles before you get to them. They are not ugly at all and they are not as threatening for birds as the old ones of the 50s and 60s were. They have blades on them that are mostly over 70 feet long which makes them turn in a circle of very near 125 feet. They do not spin like the early noisy small ones with blades of 6 or 8 feet. A bird that flies into one of them must be blind as they are spinning so slowly. If they spin too fast at the size they are now they would just blow up.

I think you need to look at the modern turbines and the towers they stand on since you obviously haven't seen many, if any.

The second one in this area was built right over 3 farmsteads and the people never have moved out since these things don't make any noise at all and the people prosper from the rent paid them.

As for maintenance intensive, there are ten of them in one farm that was built to power one town and does so quite well. Of course, there is one tower for the hospital, several for the schools, and more all the time for individual homes. The town is Greensburg, Ks. and since it is supposed to be so green they want all their power to be from wind. Those in their farm are in a line and often one of them is shut down but they aren't nearly as large as the for profit ones but never do you see more than one of them shut down.

In the larger farms there are about 4 or 5 maintenance men and they can keep up with necessary repairs without interrupting the output.

Windpower will never be our main source but there will be a lot more farms in Kansas as soon as the necessary transmission lines get built. The power is worthless if you can't get it to where it is needed and governments and power companies have fought too long about where to build those things for too many years.
i have seen exactly the wind turbines you have talked about in southern california. they have a few wind farms in the desert near los angeles, and on a day when the wind is blowing nicely, there are about 10% of the wind turbines running, the rest are shut down. and those big white towers in the desert is a blight on the landscape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2010, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Long Island
31,705 posts, read 18,671,397 times
Reputation: 9273
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
If Christine Todd Whitman were really serious about promoting jobs in the energy industry, she would be talking about wind and other renewable energy resources, not nuclear power. Her July 9 op-ed, co-written with Florida State Rep. Juan C. Zapata, overstated the benefits of nuclear power and mentioned none of its drawbacks.
Whitman claims that constructing new nuclear plants has the potential to create "as many as 70,000 jobs," but how long would that take? According to Whitman's own figures, building one new reactor would produce as many as 2,400 construction jobs, and, once built, would employ 800 workers. To generate those 70,000 jobs — 75 percent of them temporary — the industry would have to build 22 new reactors. Given the lack of a trained labor force, constraints on the availability of key manufacturing components, and Wall Street's reluctance to finance them, building 22 reactors would take at least two decades to accomplish even under the rosiest scenario.


Negin: Renewable energy would create more jobs than nuclear power

if our liberal government was serious about 'renewable' energy, instead of spending nearly 2 trillion on bailing out FAILED companies, and an unstimulating stimulus bills, they could have put a solar electric system on every single family house, thereby ELIMINATING the need for electric companies at the residental level....but the liberals dont care about solutions....all there care about is can they TAX IT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2010, 09:45 AM
 
Location: KCMO Metro Area
199 posts, read 315,385 times
Reputation: 90
I think the electric debate will continue and eventually, we will have several options, which will be determined by the region. Wind power is feasible in some location and not in others, just as every other option being looked at.
But the truth of the matter is, if we simply used the energy we have more efficiently, this debate would not be required for decades.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, 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