Green Energy Naysayers

Post Reply New Topic

Abundant wildlife present in 'the zone' would suggest otherwise.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/f ... obyl/all/1

Has anyone done cancer scans on the wildlife in the area?

Would you live there?

ruveyn

Not scans, dissections. Even better.

Would I live there, yes I would with more concerns about not speaking the language and not having internet access that concern that my pee was going to glow in the dark.

There are "hot spots" in the area where it is not good to be.

ruveyn

Aerodynamic breaks are not foolproof. Then can and do fail in sustained, hurricane force winds. That's where there are mechanical breaks to serve as back-up. The bottom line is that wind power is very expensive and costs more to produce than the revenue it generates and has driven the cost of electricity to consumers. The reason for this is that wind turbines require extensive, regular maintenance to a much greater degree than say, geothermal and even more than nuclear. This is means jobs and decent wages for those who work on wind turbines, but higher taxes and electric bills for the rest of us.

True, but if you ask greenpeace they will tell you that thousands of square miles are unfit for human habitation for the rest of time and the chernobyl accident will cause the deaths of millions people. (not exaggerating, that is their official stance)

In reality, the red forest area and a few small hot spots where lots of metal objects were dumped during the clean up are bad places to hang out in and less than a hundred have died because of the meltdown.

Reality and rhetoric are very, very far apart when it comes to nuclear accidents.

regular maintenance means once after 6 months to check up and then once every year afterwards, ohh the amount of maintenace that is, especially since it usually only takes 6 hours to do an entire turbine.

i pay around 10% more for my electricity and all of it is wind generated(in reality its offset),
why would it raise taxes? i agree subsidies are a bad idea for any company, thing is in loads of countries they arent subsidized any more yet they still continue to generate revenue for the people that own them, they arent payed only for the amount of power but also for the fact they can be used to regulate the energynet in a volume solar cannot and in a way traditional coal fired powerplants cant because of the resolution required.

and yes you are right they can fail, but lets behonest here, if the turbine was prepared for the hurricane then you wouldnt use the emergency brakes at all but the locking pins, they consist of 2 solid steel rods some 25-30 cm in diameter that lock into holes in the rotating backplate(before the gearbox essentially)

if it wasnt prepared for the storm you would have to let the turbines own computer engage the emergency brakes (it isnt used as a brake during normal operation) that would create friction if the wings were moving.
preparing your turbine for a storm consists of logging on to the web interface or send it an sms with the command, no manual work required.

again if modern turbines fail please show me how many compared to the vast amount still standing and when they were put up. it aint impossible but it is darned improbable and not taking these things into account skews the result.

(electricity prices in fredericia denmark,
i pay 207,25 oere for pure wind offset power pr kW/h
average price 196 oere
lowest 191 oere)

How many years did it take for the place to "cool off".

The initial casualty was a large number of cases of cancer.

ruveyn

Although I I'm sure that Greenpeace does exaggerate (I'm not terribly fond of them), to be fair I don't think we'll ever know exactly how many died as a result of Chernobyl. It happened in the USSR after all, and their government was never terribly happy to admit its mistakes. And I'm not sure if Russia would be adequately able to track cancer rates among the Chernobyl refugees to get a good estimate of extra deaths that way. I highly doubt that there will be millions of deaths (that strikes me as at least 3 orders of magnitudes too high), but I don't know if we can say for sure that it as only hundreds.

I find it quite interesting how often 'Russia lies' is trotted out by Americans in any debate where an event or achievement that has anything do with Russia comes up.

Russia isn't responsible for the figures, immediately after Chernobyl occurred the outrage from the international community meant that there have been huge numbers of international monitors producing the figures and after 25 years of being on the ground in the Ukraine (not Russia), these international monitors can still only attribute 64 deaths to the Chernobyl disaster.

By the way, UN international monitors spent a decade in Iraq and were very insistent that they had no WMD's, America lies.

Perhaps the moral of this tale is to place more trust in UN run organisations that are made up of people from many different nations...

<----- Canadian, and a highly left-wing one at that.

I wasn't aware, although I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised, that there were international observers. Yes, I know that Chernobyl happened in the Ukraine. At the time, though, it was part of the USSR, which was dominated by Russia. What I'm not sure of (and perhaps you can answer this) is where all of the refugees ended up. And I know full well that America lies.

More contradictions than the leading Western industrial nations.

All governments lie and all governments have contradictory policies. In the Soviet Union it was harder to get rid of these unpleasant conditions. The soviet union lasted a little more than 70 years. Its demise proved its unsuitability. It did not fall to war or disease. It fell out of just plain incompetence and unworkability.

ruveyn

I have studied history you know, ruveyn. None of this is new to me.

My apologies!

Nuclear power coal ect works better then green energy

Please translate that into English. Thank you.;

ruveyn