Poll: What energy source do you prefer?

[Tsmuktengan]

Cautious, you're going off topic once again.

[Ningey]

Don't worry, I merely wanted to explain something. If I wanted to continue on that line of discussion, I would branch off from this thread.

However, getting involved is something that can nevertheless be applied to the entire energy thing. With politics going round and round in circles (again ), then others need to take up the issue and do something about it.
Since we are at it: As it looks the current climate summit is going to become a failure once more, because some boneheads don't see the necessity to do anything about it. Yet things have to be done and quickly at that...

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Wind turbines are no more dangerous than other similar structures like radio towers. The idea that they are extremely dangerous or kill huge swaths of birds (more birds die a year from flying into glass than hit by turbines) is nothing but a Big Oil/Coal/Natgas propaganda talking point, and I've seen many brought up in this thread.

Plus, there's aerial wind turbines coming out which will make them even safer than they currently already are.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You know, normally I'd have to agree with you on them purely being a talking point, but actual data has been presented that have been factually sound. (I.E., I've looked into the links posted and found the source and gathering of their info to be sound and reasonable.)

So... Yeah. I go with the evidence.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

The problem with the link UtS posted was that it INCREDIBLY hyped any deaths from wind energy. Much more than even anyone might have hyped Fukushima. Seriously, 20 deaths in nearly 40 years? That's a pretty damn good track record for a form of energy, compared to the hundreds or thousands of deaths caused by mine collapses, chemical poisonings, and other universal energy risks that are inherent to all forms of energy production, that have come from the big three forms of fossil fuel production. I honestly thought that that site was a parody, when it somehow stated that a fatality rate of 0.5 deaths/year was a solid argument against wind power. This compared to the 30 deaths/year on average in US coal mines.

And my argument stands. How many people died from falling off radio towers or being electrocuted by them? Or other structures? At least a number similar to wind turbines, likely more. The deaths that it attempts to link to wind power ALONE, are risks that come into play in any tall, electrified structure.

That article is pure propaganda. Nothing but taking extremely benign information and soaking it with appeals to emotion. I love how it seems to present that the most grisly deaths imaginable come from wind energy. But you know where, IMO, the most grisly death caused by the energy industry probably came from? Oil. The Byford Dolphin diving bell accident, to be exact. A man literally EXPLODED when the airlock chamber trunk attached to a diving bell explosively decompressed. They found pieces of him 30 FEET AWAY.

That article is no case against wind power, in fact, it is at most a good case for wind's safety record compared to the current energy status quo, and at least a possible call for better building codes and regulations. But a case against wind? Not even close! Though interestingly, and I'm not sure if UtS realized this, but the rest of that website was decidedly pro-wind. HRH.

As for birds again, let me reiterate. This risk comes in all tall structures, especially buildings with clear glass. 40k-70k birds are killed a year due to wind turbines. How many are killed from hitting buildings? 97.5 million! Exxon Valdez killed 375k - 500k birds. Research has also found that birds will change their flightpath to avoid wind turbines (because they obviously SEE THEM). Again, we must think of scale here. How many birds are killed from wind turbines VS. buildings, cars, other forms of energy, and even climate change. It's negligible...it's less than negligible...hell, it's not even statistically significant.

Bats are the bigger concern, actually, and that comes from the sound of turbines, but the industry is confident that further improving wind turbine design can remedy this. The same goes for ocean turbine farms and ocean mammals. But again, let's consider scale here. Sound from boats and the like will have a similar effect. Wind turbines will be nothing new here.

Impact of wind turbines on humans? Modern turbines, at a distance of 200 meters (219) yards from the turbine have sound levels below the background noise of a small town. And even if this is somehow a problem, it will be an ever-minimizing one, as turbines become more efficient, and coincidentally, less noisy. Again, is noise a case against wind? Hardly, just a case for better city planning. And TBH if I had to choose between noise from a turbine vs VOCs Oil, [especially] Coal, and Natgas. Again, scale of risk. As for this "Wind Turbine Syndrome," and the effects of infra-sound of turbines, the verdict in the scientific community is still out, and could easily be remedied with city planning reforms or new turbine technology. Though again, scale. "WTS" vs VOCs. Take your pick.

A lot of the cons against wind turbines seem like, in scale, non-issues expanded by the media on the side of Big Oil/Gas/Natgas, and at most, require some slight industry reforms, but inherent industry killers? Nope.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/texas-oil-refinery-lawsuit-filed-over-exposure-to-benzene-3596/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbines-health.htm
http://www.hometownhazards.com/2007/08/cancer-cluster-confirmed-near-coal.html
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0708/asknlwind.htm
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/editorial/article_69c58fb8-aa52-11df-b819-001cc4c03286.html

My $0.02. This all does seem like the energy status quo attempting to make mountains out of molehills. THIS solves many of them, as well.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I am not trying to hype up anti-wind power. I am even further from supporting coal power.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Interesting plus I found for Nuclear Power:

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/bill-gates-talking-with-china-to-develop-nuclear-reactor/

Bill Gate's company, TerraPower, is pumping almost a Billion dollars into R&D over the next 5 years to develop an entirely autonomous and safe nuclear reactor that reduces waste exponentially. Kinda fixes all the problems there, eh?

[Tsmuktengan]

There are already billions invested in such research, this is not new. Bill Gates investing can be a plus, but I have huge doubts on how the Chinese managers will sort all this out, and I fear they hide us the flaws of the technologies they want to find and unveil before any American and European fusion research project.

I hardly trust a corporation that allows the construction of cheap nuclear reactors (with cheap materials) on seismic and floodable lands, eventually unstable soils. This is done in China, and I hope they won't come up with some technology that appears revolutionary but has many flaws and dangers they would hide (I read about a lot of corruption issues in many areas of Chinese authorities and public companies).

So... I would not say this is a big plus, since it comes from a state who has dangerous practice with Nuclear plants and not recognized for having good safety standards, nor for its integrity. But this is just my opinion. I tend to be pro-nuclear, but only when I am sure there are at least a serious organization behind and adequate safety procedures. If it is not the case, don't even think of me supporting this path. 

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

The Chinese would probably corruptify naïve Bill Gate's money, run away, and do nothing about the nuclear reactors.

Chinese can NEVER make anything too revolutionary. Recently they made a jetliner with CHEAP and EASILY BROKEN materials, and they called it "the first Chinese-designed airliner". Result? All test flights were under 8000 feet and at a quarter of a 747s speed. Any higher the cabin pressurization would fail, and any faster the airframe would break.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMAC_ARJ21

This one? It's based on the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, a jet with - ironically, if you're description is correct - one of the toughest airframes in the world.

[Tsmuktengan]

The Chinese would probably corruptify naïve Bill Gate's money, run away, and do nothing about the nuclear reactors.

Chinese can NEVER make anything too revolutionary. Recently they made a jetliner with CHEAP and EASILY BROKEN materials, and they called it "the first Chinese-designed airliner". Result? All test flights were under 8000 feet and at a quarter of a 747s speed. Any higher the cabin pressurization would fail, and any faster the airframe would break.

Hmm, I know you live in China since a long time, but are you sure you don't exaggerate a little tad?

I mean, they can't just run away like this, and you cannot compare regional jetliners to worldwide jetliners (at least I think)...

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

The jetliner was designed to be medium-long distance, on par with 767. At least its fuel tank is really big (though they never fill it up, maybe it'll explode!)

I am not exaggerating. Things like that often happen. Or at least MOST of the money would be lost in transaction:

Bill Gates 2 bn -> Municipal fundraising organization -0.2 bn -> Municipal government -0.5 bn -> Contractors -0.3 bn -> Getting favors with miscellaneous petty officials -0.7 bn -> Bribes to lazy workers -0.2 bn

In the end, the project gets really little money and is either canceled or proceeded with really low quality materials (like the jetliner).

[Tsmuktengan]

Hmm. Is this the same for the Nuclear plants they build in China? I won't give them 20 years without a major nuclear incident then.

I know people who live in China for work in Beijing. I hardly hear about such corruption issues or that life is difficult.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I don't think so...the government usually works quite well on ideas it itself has come up.

As for life being difficult, well you get used to it. Just think of bribing as a listed price for a service or a tip... the salary for government workers is like McDonalds' wage here so...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

There are some new nuclear reactor designs that are intrinsically safe-- they won't melt down in most loss-of-cooling accidents. Test reactors have been built, but no commercial reactors.

The Fukishima situation is serious, but not as serious as Chernoybl was. Yet, the media is trying to make it look worse than it is, because they love death and destruction. As of a couple days ago, they now believe they have solid control over the three damaged reactors. Solid enough that they are going to shrink the exclusion zone. What is really amazing about Fukishima is that they have three cores that apparently completely melted down, yet there was no 'china syndrome' or any disaster like that. (They won't know the extent of the meltdown for several years, until things have cooled off enough that they can get cameras into the reactor vessels.) What we learn from Fukishima will result in an order of magnitude improvement in safety in new reactors.

Wind power is great around here. We have the most wind when we have the least sun, and we have a lot of wind at night. I am currently designing a big photovoltaic system for my home, to be built over several years. It will allow mw to go off-grid for most things, and still generate a significant amount of power to sell to the utility. I am considering wind power to augment this as well, but the big problem here is our ridiculous building code. By the time I comply with all the things the county requires, it will result in several hundred $$ wasted on permit fees, and several thousand $$ wasted on needless 'overconstruction'. These things price a lot of projects out of my budget. I wish we had the technology of today, and the laws of 30 or 40 years ago!

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

As I see on the poll:

Who the f*** is choosing nuclear power?


I chose wind power, that's the best way away from climate change


nuclear power is one of the worst resources

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I chose nuclear power. Why is it one of the worst resources? At least it doesn't emit greenhouse gases...

[Toruk Makto]

As I see on the poll:

Who the f*** is choosing nuclear power?


I chose wind power, that's the best way away from climate change


nuclear power is one of the worst resources

Actually, I chose that, your harsh language notwithstanding. With the world's population continuing to increase, current power demands are extremely high and only increasing. There is an immediate need for a source with a high energy output and right now, nuclear is really the only alternate source with a high enough energy density to do the job. It is a simple case of reality vs ideology. That doesn't mean we should ignore the others, but we should not wholesale drop nuclear power. Something else is that if nuclear is abandoned, then most of the research into a safer fusion technology probably goes with it.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Yes. Without fusion, our future is gone forever. Solar and wind could never power the entire world, because of the basic fact that there are many places that are neither sunny nor windy. They could though power large regions where other grids may not reach efficiently.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

Nuclear power can destroy the environment and air


The risk for nuclear power
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

Think what the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima was?

It was at least $71 billion for Fukushima