We might even be up to 5% of our energy coming from wind and solar today…or, hold the phone…maybe 10%!! At that point (assuming we found all of the materials we would need for such a mammoth undertaking), all the low hanging fruit would be gone (oh, and we would have had to rail road a lot of NIMBY types into putting the things where folks don’t want them), and then…?
Step 4: Profit!
Already refuted. Renewables have overtaken nuclear in energy output and they’ve somehow managed to do it in a few years instead of the 70 or so years nuke has had, and they’ve done it with a tiny fraction of the federal support that nuke has been getting this whole time.
Renewables have killed nuke. Now they are quickly closing in on oil, gas and coal.
What’s not to like?
The earthquake killed fifteen thousand people, and that earthquake was what caused Fukushima to suffer a meltdown. Bringing up Fukushima as an example of how dangerous nuclear power is is like losing an arm in a car accident and complaining your remaining hand has a hangnail.
Especially if you make up or distort the facts, right? Of course, what you really mean is that hydro does the heavy lifting in the renewables side of the equation, and is actually declining in the US, with geothermal doing the rest of the heavy lifting, and wind and solar being far down the equation. And you do this by cleverly (:p) saying ‘renewables’, instead of wind and solar, which is what I said. Well played…
Well, ok…not really.
Yeah, exactly. But Lev wasn’t trying to be accurate, just give a good distorted sound bite and hope no one would notice.
Just wanted to drop in and say that Texas is about as conservative a state as you can get and our installed wind capacity puts the rest of the nation to shame, so the conservative wind hate is by no means unanimous.
We also don’t seem to have any trouble at all integrating all these renewables on those windy spring days when wind makes up 25% of the energy mix.
I don’t agree with **levdrakon **on nuclear power but to be fair to him it was **Grumman **who brought up the 15000 dead figure - **levdrakon **was querying it!
As if to make the point that that in the UK it’s all about the physical presence of the turbines, here’s columnist Simon Jenkins in lefty broadsheet The Guardian bemoaning the loss of a nice view:
Personally, I find it really, really weird that energy policy might be decided on the basis of aesthetic arguments, but appearance (and effect on property prices!) clearly matters to people.
So do you think that the ‘massive amount of government subsidies’ should not be given to oil companies?
Not “the left”, whoever the hell you mean by that. NIMBY’s. Especially those with beachfront property that would be able to see the turbines just over the horizon.
In your mind. The 3/11 disaster, that is the earthquake and tsunami, is one thing. Fukushima is just one area, and one nuclear power plant. Fukushima has been rendered uninhabitable, and likely will stay that way for years, maybe decades. The rest of Japan is recovering from quake and flooding damage because they are used to dealing with those things. Fukushima is functionally destroyed because a nuclear power company lied about its safety. It shouldn’t have happened, and in fact another nuclear plant further up the coast survived. The damage from Fukushima is not synonymous with damage from 3/11. The claim that they “couldn’t have known and couldn’t have prepared” has been proven to be false by TEPCO’s own admission. They knew. They lied and blew it off.
Thanks for that. Feel free to argue with me about nuclear power. I’m not XT. I actually read other people’s opinions and consider them.
So, it’s not “the left” who object to cape wind, but rather “beachfront property owners on the cape”?
“the left” = “beachfront property owners on the cape”
Q.E.D.
Wind farm opposition seems much more like NIMBYism than a right v left thing. I don’t know much about the UK, but I did see a documentary about local efforts to fight a wind farm, and the opposition was much more concerned about noise and blight than it was about any political ideology.
In the US on what planet? Yes, there’s plenty NIMBYism over the Cape Wind project but to go from that to “Here in the US it’s left wingers who are opposed to wind power” is a leap in logic worthy of… I don’t know, someone who’s good at logic leaping.
Most people on the left are angry with liberals like the Kennedys who oppose Cape Wind, and most, if not all, of the few liberals in Cape Cod who oppose Cape Wind are not opposed to wind power in general, they’re just spoiled rich people who don’t want their ocean view cluttered with tiny images of wind turbines on the horizon.
A conservative implying that it’s an inefficient feel good project proves that conservatives don’t oppose wind power? Seriously?
Regarding T. Boone Pickens, he’s one man and there are always exceptions. I’m not even convinced that he’s an exception. I think he likes it as long as it’s coupled with gas co-generation.
That shows how conservatives see it.
“I can make money off of it? Wonderful. Yay green. Save the environment!”
“It’ll hurt my fossil fuel business? Save the birds! It’s noisy. It screws up radar.”
Speaking as a Brit, I think that its "Nimby"s who are worried about it lowering their house values, or are against any change whatsoever because they just hate change, any change.
I expect people like them moaned when they built St Pauls cathedral or Buckingham palace.
I hate wind farms, and I have no problem saying my main objection is that they are ugly and ruin the landscape, turning the very surface of the Earth into what looks like a factory. Every time I drive by them on I65 or US41, they make me angry. I love the flat prairie landscape, and those hundreds of wind turbines ruin the wonderful wide open feeling that makes the prairie wonderful, to say nothing of the hundreds of red lights blinking at night, all across the sky. Just ugly.
Now, there are any number of arguments to be made the fact that it’s not really resource efficient, but I hate them because they’ve ruined the landscape. I am always amazed that hippie types love them so much, seeing as to what they do to the natural feeling of the Earth.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Thanks for that. Feel free to argue with me about nuclear power. I’m not XT. I actually read other people’s opinions and consider them.
[/QUOTE]
No, instead what you do is continue to argue this in a side of your mouth fashion after saying it was a hijack. 
Possibly you weren’t aware of this, but folks have indeed moved back into the province. It’s only in Fukushima city (and only parts of it), approximately 12 miles radius from the plant, that is still considered a no-go zone.
I’ll assume when you say ‘Fukushima is functionally destroyed because a nuclear power company lied about its safety’ you mean the power plant itself, but that you are intentionally spinning it so that it SEEMS you mean more…but can go back and say ‘well, that’s not what I said…I only meant the power plant and the immediate surroundings’. All the other strawman stuff I’ll just ignore, since no one has said anything about whether the power company did or didn’t like, or whether more safety measures would or wouldn’t have made a difference (from memory, I don’t think anyone in the threads on this on the purported pro-nuclear side gave the company a pass, especially on things like backup and tertiary power…but you’d like to give the impression that they did, because with you straw is always on sale).
At any rate, I’ll let this go…again…as it’s a hijack. As you said before. But you couldn’t resist…and neither could I. So, if you feel like getting your ass handed to you yet again on the subject of how dangerous and scary nuclear is, feel free to start another thread on it. Good luck with that…
Is it better to alter the climate or alter the view in some places?
Regarding “hippie types”; I don’t know how hippies regard wind turbines, they probably vary in their opinions, but in any case they’re so few and far between these days that it doesn’t really matter.
Yeah, it’s fear of change I think. If you can get people to fear a particular type of change, you can pretty much make them think anything you want after that.
These days turbines are large, quiet, slow moving monolith type things that I don’t find unpleasing. They’re placed so that whatever “natural” thing was going on before, can keep doing what it was doing. Often it’s farmland or pasture, and both activities continue as before.
I’ve seen them in France and they were quite esthetic.