Wind power is still severely underutilized in this country. We should absolutely be building more windmills. But even if we saturated the country with windmills, it still wouldn’t be enough. Solar has the potential to be enough, but the technology still isn’t mature enough for it. Like it or not, our choice really is between fossil fuels and nuclear for the rest of it. And that’s actually a very easy choice, if you look at the evidence.
You are thinking too small when it comes to wind power by limiting it to “country”. 3/4 of the earth is covered with water. And there is no practical reason to limit windmill height when just a few hundred feet higher, the wind blows stronger.
As for solar, photovoltaic is growing and there is plenty of barren land in Mexico and the American Southwest that once set up would be, not perfectly preserved, but well used and profitable. There are rooftops and sides of buildings and parking lots and even roadways. All of which can be used for photovoltaic. About half the schools in my county now have large solar installations above the parking lots, which the idiots now light during the nighttime.
I have seen the future, and it is here now, it just needs to keep getting pushed. The Danes have already achieved it, the Germans are well on their way. It will happen here.
The only three true sources of electrical power in the world are a combination of fusion from the sun, the vast majority, gravity in tidal and hydro (hybrid with solar) and nuclear, the corpses of extinct stars. All fossil fuel is simply stored and concentrated solar.
Only one of those sources can provide all electrical generating needs for the next four billion years, and its time we moved to it: solar and wind (heat differences generated by solar)
The Dane’s haven’t achieved it – they’re at about 30% supplied by wind power. Pretty good, but not a majority yet. At the present rate of increase, the Germans won’t be supplying a majority of their power by wind for decades.
I agree with you 100%.
I good friend of mine in his late 60s has an interesting perspective. He stated that as a very liberal very green activist growing up, he cut his teeth on the hatred of nuclear power and it was his quest to wipe it out.
Then along came global warming. He’s in that fight as well, but the problem is that it’s nonsensical to halt both coal and nuclear power plants. And he maintains that if most “greenies” (his term) hadn’t spent the better part of their lives campaigning against nuclear power, they would fully support it now as a clean alternative to coal and global warming. But because it would invalidate much of their life’s work, they just can’t bring themselves to do it.
So now many are stuck arguing against nuclear power, even though the facts, as you note, don’t support it. Ask your average friend how many Americans have been killed due to nuclear power. I bet they won’t say the correct answer: one.
I see your point on the skewing of facts and figures.
Well played.
More like people fall off of the solar systems while either installing or maintaining them.
[QUOTE=Trinopus]
So, for instance, we could say, and probably truthfully, that Baseball is more dangerous than nuclear power…because of the workmen killed while building stadiums.
It isn’t exactly a one-to-one comparison, but it does have some validity.
[/QUOTE]
Only if you are doing an apples to oranges comparison. Like I said, my own was guess was just that…a WAG. I’m not sure how the comparison is done. Maybe they are only talking about maintenance, but are including home deployed solar (which a quick google search shows that quite a few people are killed or injured either installing or maintaining such systems). That WOULD be an apples to oranges comparison, since you’d be comparing home owners without a clue trying to install or maintain their solar systems to highly trained professionals that maintain nuclear power plants. Again, I don’t know, but I’d sure like to see the details in one of these threads. If I have time later I’ll see if I can dig some stuff up if no one else finds it.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
You are thinking too small when it comes to wind power by limiting it to “country”. 3/4 of the earth is covered with water. And there is no practical reason to limit windmill height when just a few hundred feet higher, the wind blows stronger.
[/QUOTE]
How will you get the power back to where it’s needed if you put windmills out in the middle of the ocean? I’d say there are plenty of practical reasons why you can’t just stick windmills anywhere and also practical reasons that limit height.
To supply the world’s population with the energy that Europe and the US enjoy would require exploiting all these forms of energy production, and all on a massive scale. If humans what to continue to thrive here on this little planet, then the other species are just going to have to suffer. Wind power kills birds, hydropower kills fish … but coal kills everything.
If Chernobyl is an example of your mistakes, then the other species vote in favor of nuclear.
You fall off the solar system you get lost in space.
Undersea electric cables date back to the days of the telegraph, where they trans-versed from the UK to Newfoundland.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
Undersea electric cables date back to the days of the telegraph, where they trans-versed from the UK to Newfoundland.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they have. And they can reach a few hundred miles. But that’s not nearly enough to reach the middle of the ocean or even really far off shore. Take a look at a map sometime, then consider what it takes to move power around a grid on land. Then come back and talk about how feasible it would be to put a large power production infrastructure anywhere but relatively close to the shore.
And this doesn’t even get into the engineering challenges it would take to put something like this in deep water.
True enough…falling off the solar system would be contraindicated. 
Not only do people die installing and maintaining solar panels, their manufacture requires tons of nasty materials. It’s not like they spring up out of the ground ready to go. So, the manufacture, installation and upkeep of solar kills more people on a per kilowatt basis than nuclear does. Hereis a link to a Forbes article on the subject with references.
Also, as far as I can tell, with some of the technology being pushed, there are a bunch of unknowns out there. For example, say we go big into wind power an put up thousands and thousands of turbines, what affect is that going to have on wind patterns? Rain? How will this affect the global climate? No one knows. As an example, some guys did a study using models and came to the conclusion that “Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer.” Link. Note, that is based on climate models which I believe to be way too simple at this time to really be useful. While it is obvious that installing tons of wind turbines would affect the environment, I don’t really believe we can model it well right now. Which leaves us back at ‘Who the hell knows?’ and that is not a good place to be.
Additionally, if people had a rational regard for nuclear we could get some of the new designs built which greatly limit the possible accidents and melt downs are physically impossible. Yeah, there is nasty material left over that has to be dealt with but it is concentrated and we know how to deal with the waste.
It is a complex problem and the answers aren’t obvious. Add in that the vast majority of the population has a horrid understanding of risk and it makes it an ugly political problem as well.
Slee
No one knows, to be sure, but isn’t it at least close to obvious that the effects will be really tiny compared to changes in forest patterns? We’ve cut down (and planted) trees to such a degree as to constitute thousands of times the cross-section of every wind-turbine ever erected. Toss in buildings, and you’ve got ten thousand times the physical cross-section.
You might as well say, “We can’t allow the building of towns and cities, because we don’t know the effect on climate of the buildings as they obstruct air flow.”
Meanwhile, we know damn well what effects coal and petroleum are having, and they’re pretty awful.
I agree that the risk is less.
However, you are missing the primary reasons why while focusing on a tiny one.
Japan has less than half the motor vehicle fatality rate, per 100,000 residents, of that found in the US:
And the homicide rate in the US is more than 15 times that of Japan:
So Hiroshima is indeed much safer than New York, but not because of Indian Point.
Also, just looking at energy production and usage deaths, adding together pollution and energy-related disasters, is is safer to live in cities where almost all the energy comes from non-nuclear sources, such as one in China, or where most of the energy comes from nuclear, as in France?
I can’t put numbers of this factor, but I think that the less the US is dependent on energy imports, the less the chance of war. And war is another kind of disaster that kills a lot more people than civilian nuclear power. This is also an argument for fracking, and hydro, and wind power, and solar energy, and energy conservation. But there will never, in our lifetimes, be enough energy from fully safe sources, so we need to choose our poison wisely.