However, if we cut out the stuff we simply don't need, and make what's left more efficient, we won't need to maintain the same usage per person (which is what half my point was about).

And doing so requires an attitude shift, not a loss in quality of life.

Then why have a propeller at all? Wouldn't it be a million times simpler and easier to just put a hedgehog there instead of the propeller so it can do the work? Pff, silly people...

Yes, I agree. There are "toxins" in coal. But then again, there are also "toxins" in oil. And there are "toxins" in the components that make up those wind turbines as well. There are "toxins" in nuclear power too.

All I'm going to say about the links you've provided is, Misinformation is a very powerful tool used by the liberal media. Good luck with your renewable energy.

I burn coal. I love coal.

So how do you respond to the transcripts from the Iowa Utilities board meeting? (ANd last time I checked, the Iowa state government isn't a media company)

ANd the WOrld coal association is a coal industry lobbying group.

I have to admit, I didn't read the entire article, I'm at work but I also did not see a date on it.

But here is another article disproving the statement that coal ash should be handled as a hazardous waste due to radioactivity: http://www.recyclingfirst.org/pdfs/55.pdf

Either way, I burn coal. And I will continue to burn it.

http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/archive/closed_dockets/gcu071.html

Okay, here are some good reasons not to like Wind:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/07/wind_power_actually_25_per_cent/

In Summary:

Wind power plants aren't as efficent as our estimates planned (To be fair, this isn't a reason to hate wind power forever, just to hate it now - getting more efficency is an engineering issue).

Wind power plants generate more energy when we don't need it, like at the dead of night.

In the UK the Electric companies are required to buy an amount of "Renewable Energy Certificates" (ROC) which only the Wind Energy companies can provide. The Wind Companies only get a ROC when they put energy in the grid.... But the grid doesn't need it when its making the most energy... so the WindCo pays to put their energy into the Grid (as opposed to getting paid to provide power) because of the price of the ROC is so high it will cover it- Get rid of the ROCs and Wind suddenly becomes econimically unviable.

Who said there's no such thing as Free Energy? in the UK, you can get paid to take it!

There are ways to store energy, albeit not at 100% efficiency.
Put it in mechanical energy with turbine silos, or load a spring. Use capacitors or charge a battery. Or a ton of batteries. Or possibly just illuminate some neon signs to make the power plant look all cool and stuff. Or synthesize hydrogen and other fuels to burn at a later date.

Secondary power sources should be used to charge secondary devices, and use the steady fuels for the day to day.

Your coal is why my fish have mercury in them and I can't enjoy nummy white albacore tuna more than once a week. :stare: They (coal) are also why the East Coast (USA) has acid rain, which damages the flora, our infrastructure, and effs up our water supplies and the aquatic critters.

Clean up the coal burner emissions, and then I will agree that your dead ferns from the carboniferous era make a good fuel.

Everything has toxins. The air we breathe is made out of a medley of things toxic to us alone. The thing is, some things are more toxic than others. Coal power releases significant amounts of toxins directly into the atmosphere, as well as minor amounts of radioactivity. The toxins in wind turbines are *in* the wind turbines. They're not floating around where they can do damage. While certainly new coal plants are far cleaner than they used to be they still release significant amounts of nasty stuff.

And, of course, one day we won't have any coal to burn, and then where will we be?

I'm not surprised that Wind power was a flop of so called alternative energy that could be revealed to be inpractical and ineffiecient along with the same being said of Solar power and certainly Ethanol along with most if not not all biodiesel fuel sources. Honestly try something with more promise and potencial like Hydrogen Fuel cells and get past the paranoria and fear regarding Nuclear Powerplants given that such plants and the assciated stigma surrounding them given that people living near said Nuclear plants are recieve about .01 millirems (normal operation mind you) and probably less then that even when you get about 170 millirems from cosmic radiation a year. That and among a number of other misconceptions about Nuclear Plant's dangers being overstated and media hyperbole that someone else can describe in greater detail surrounding Nuclear powerplants.

In short enough with these govenment granted Wind and Solar power which while granted on a small scale depending on where you live and therefore siturational and be a good investment on one's electric bills (though the maintenance costs might over ride that). And more research and development on things like cold fusion, becomeing more nuclear like France, and more on fuelcell technologies.

I wouldnt say a flop. We've been using wind power for a very long time - longer than we've been using electricity.

Its just not practical in its modern uses.

:o I need to fire half the team and hire you in their place! I bet you could even solve our software problems!


Photovoltaics work well and pay for themselves over there lifetimes, on a domestic scale, at least. And they require virtually no maintenance -- wiping grime off them a couple of times a year is about it. A bank of gel or AGM batteries increase that a little (but the total effort required is still pretty damn low), and has a variety of benefits. As long as you get panels from a reputable manufacturer, they will last the better part of a lifetime before they need to be replaced; the warranty on electrical production is usually 20, 25 years.

Commercial scale installations do have some issues, though. But I'm not as familiar with that industry.

EDIT: But I believe Spain has a bunch of stuff working for it.

Right. And, when was the last time you saw coal wash up onto the shores of the Gulf? Mercury in your Tuna isn't a result of my or anyone else's burning of coal. The last major case of anything related to high levels of anything in any animal we eat was in 1957 in Japan. Yes, Mercury is found in fish. But it's a small percentage. Like I said, when was the last time you saw coal wash up on the shores of the Gulf? When was the last time you saw oil / crude wash up on the shores of the Gulf? Or any shore for that matter?

What happens when an oil tanker capsizes? Or an Oil Derelict burns up? Or your oil tank, car, spring a leak? What happens when someone slams their car into a ground transformer? You get the EPA.

What happens when a nuclear power plant over heats? Melts down or worse, explodes? You get the EPA and in the case of Chernobyl 13 countries were affected by the radioactive fallout. In Japan this year we've seen three nuclear power plants go critical, one has exploded two are under "containment" what's the fallout going to be? A whole hell of a lot more than 13 countries.

What happens when a freight train leaving a Pennsylvanian Breaker with 23 cars full of 400 tons each of Anthracite coal derails? Nothing. You get a new train and a shovel. The nuclear fallout from a coal incident is infinitely smaller than an oil incident and infinitely smaller than a nuclear fallout from a power plant. Hell, the flyash and ash from a coal fire can be used in cement, as fill I've even used it as sand in my driveway this past winter. Does it have trace amounts of radiation? Sure, but so does my Granite counter top. So do I. The keyword here, TRACE amounts of radioactivity produced from coal is so small it poses no less of a danger than the radiation you emit from breaking down potassium. Today's coal is different from the coal your parent's grew up with. It is cleaner, processed directly from the breaker where it is cleaned prior to shipment. I'm not sure of the processing procedure but I do know that 35% of the Mercury content and Pyrite is removed which in turn lowers the Sulfer and other byproducts produced during combustion. Bitimiuous coal is not processed the same as Anthracite. Many coal fired power plants burn Bit coal but there are a lot of "cleaning", "scrubbing" equipment on the newer power plants to clean the waste coming out of them. I also know a lot of the newer power plants are burning Anthracite.

Sure, coal has had it's fair share of deaths and accidents and I'm not denying people have died due to health risks caused by coal. But the stigma that coal is the evil of all evils is absolutely ridiculous. The media has twisted and brainwashed people into thinking that coal is going to come into your home, [censored] your daughter, murder your goldfish, steal your tv and car, and burn your house down. It's fear mongering and misinformation. Like many of you. Up until the summer of 2010 I thought the same thing. Then I started reading about the new coal and given the prices for home heating oil and wood (which I was burning both during the winter) I felt coal was the better solid fuel. And, I was right. I haven't bought oil for my furnace at all this winter. My furnace has not run at all this winter. Coal has kept my home 80+ all winter.

You didn't actually ask that did you? Yup. Guess so. Let me answer it. During WWII oil wasn't available so coal was in high demand. Post WWII when oil became available again demand for coal went down. But it was still widely used. During the 1970's guess what happened? "OH NOES!!!! THERE'S NO MORE OIL!!! THE WORLD RAN DRY!!!!" Coal again, became popular especially in the residential market. Then somehow the people of the world magically produced more oil from some weird magical reserve in some weird magical other dimension and prices of oil came down just like the supply somehow magically reappeared. Fast forward to 2010/2011, "OH NOES!!! THERE'S NO MORE OILS!!!! WE GOT'S TO FINDS US THE ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES!!!!! THE WORLD IS OUT OF THE OILS!!!!" Now, we get wind and battery power cars. But guess where the power for the pluggy inny cars comes from? From your house? Nope. It comes from the power plants. What do many of the power plants burn to produce that power? Some burn garbage. Some burn poop. Some burn uranium rods (hey looky uranium is HIGHLY radioactive and has killed people...ooh...and it has to be stored in concrete bunkers, salt mines or in water...guess where most of the depleted uranium gets put in...water....where does the water go when the holding tank fails?). And some even burn coal...in fact....there are probably more coal fired power plants than poop powered plants...or garbage powered plants.....which segways into toxins in fuels...how about garbage huh? As far as I'm concerned, what was...will be and what will be, was. We're in the same situation now that we were in 35+ years ago in the '70s.

There are approximately 100+ Nuclear Power Plants in The United States. 16 of which are non-functional. There are two in my home state of NJ both of which produce power...both of which dump their waste into active waterways. Almost nearly all of the power plants dump waste into open/active waterways.

There are approximately 87 trash burning power plants in The United States. I believe NJ has a few of these as well.

There is approximately 1 excrement burning power plant in The United States.

There are approximately 600 coal fired power plants in The United States with more to be built. NJ has approximately 7 of these plants.

Here's a good article by the USGS on the http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html.

Quotes taken directly from the USGS study:

"Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks. This observation provides a useful geologic perspective for addressing societal concerns regarding possible radiation and radon hazard."

" The radiation hazard from airborne emissions of coal-fired power plants was evaluated in a series of studies conducted from 1975–1985. These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less."

"The emanation of radon gas from fly ash is less than from natural soil of similar uranium content. Present calculations indicate that concrete building products of all types contribute less than 10 percent of the total indoor radon."

"Standardized tests of the leachability of toxic trace elements such as arsenic, selenium, lead, and mercury from fly ash show that the amounts dissolved are sufficiently low to justify regulatory classification of fly ash as nonhazardous solid waste. Maximum allowable concentrations under these standardized tests are 100 times drinking water standards, but these concentration limits are rarely approached in leachates of fly ash."

At any rate...I'm done with this conversation. I'm not going to sit here and try to get anyone to see the positive side of the use and viability of coal. The fact is, there are more coal fired plants than Nuclear, garbage, poop and coal isn't going anywhere. The general public needs to forget what they've been taught and start using it. Like I said before....misinformation is a powerful tool. Regardless of how many wind farms they put up, they will not produce the same amount of power as nuclear, or coal. And when there is no wind, you aren't making any power.

Actually, in the 1970's people weren't saying the oil ran dry. The problem was that OPEC declared a trade embargo and refused to ship oil to the United States, while also cutting down their rate of extraction and raising prices to other customers. Come 2010/2011, the U.S government's concern is lowering dependence on foreign oil suppliers, because reducing dependence on these suppliers reduces the potential damage that a change in OPEC policies can cause. Meanwhile, we're also nearing or about to reach peak oil, the point at which we will hit the maximum rate of oil extraction globally, and will start seeing declines in global oil extraction. While the coal market is currently less volatile to the economy, make no mistake, Peak coal will eventually happen. In coal's case though, the global amount of coal produced will probably peak after Peak Oil occurs.

I'm not a moron. I know it was a trade embargo because of the US's involvement in Iran at the time. I was just stating that the same crap with oil happened then as it is happening now. But the problem with today is that sure, while the US is trying to find an alternate power source and to decrease our dependence on foreign oil it doesn't appear they are taking it seriously. They aren't really looking at a viable energy. Wind? Solar? Sure, they are options. But not the be-all to end-all that they are claiming. Then there is geo-thermal and natural gas but again, each of those have an impact on the enviroment (sp?) as well. There has been no serious look at coal because the media and the government says, "It's evil. And will kill everyone.". They are already finding traces of Iodine 131 in the air in California from the nuclear power plants in Japan. But yet, we can buy a Hybrid that doesn't need that much oil to run. But if you think about it, the power to run that car is probably coming from Coal. There is just no way to get around it. You aren't going to get rid of coal, oil, LP, Natgas, nuclear power. Ever.

Sure, there will be peak coal again. I never doubted it. But it will be a long time after peak oil. Speaking of which, if the tree-huggers in Alaska would quit their whining we'd have oil from Alaska. But nope. They won't open those fields up.

Which planet do you live on? They periodically close certain fishing grounds off the Atlantic because the fishes have too much mercury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish.

I remember reading something about birds being caught in the fans also.

Well there is certainly no such thing as free energy..

and its not even that the fuel of wind, or water would be insufficient.. we have to stripmine to get the rare earth elements to go into the magnets that make these viable even on a small scale.



Solar, or possibly re-capturing/re-using.making more efficient kinetic energy is as close to renewable as we are even going to get, but setting up an infrastructure for it may take just as much energy as is yeilded.

If you're talking about turbines (which take energy from air, while fans put energy into air), that would be 'cause of one site where they put a bunch of them smack bang in the middle of a migration route. As long as there has been even a half-arsed attempt at checking for stuff like that, and I was being paid by the hour, I'd be happy to take a job at a wind farm picking up all the dead birds. It'd give me a chance to catch up on my reading and gaming .

i second the motion for thorium reactors. after doing a bit or reading you have to wonder why the didnt switch over to those. they could have kept some of the uranium ones for making the weapons material for nuclear bombs but the rest of the nuclear plants should have been thorium. the best part is that we have tons of it in north america. along with that you can add the solar salt towers they are testing out and you have your energy problems solved. i also remember reading that they have solar panels in testing labs that are over 40% now which is very close to the magic 50% mark. all in all im very optimistic about the future more so now with a little bit of reading and understanding. we better start building that stuff now though cause its gonna take years to get those online.

gotta say this isnt obvious but thena gain i dont pay attention to wind power or whatever (i didnt read any posts in this thread) (not even this one)

I vaguely remembered.

Humanity? Do something sensible? Well I never...

I think a lot of it is economic, and political. Economic because we already have perfectly fine reactors that cost a lot of money to build, and replacing them over theoretical concerns is hard to advertise to the sort of person who'd be building it, and political because there is, unfortunately, still a large number of people who will simply vote against anything nuclear (As happened in japan - they would have replaced many of their reactors with designs that passively cool long ago if it hadn't been blocked by anti-nuclear types).