Oh, absolutely. Some big solar farms continuously rotate the mirrors or solar cells to keep them in direct sunlight. But that’s a completely different matter.
Okay, dust storms, leaves, etc.
Here’s a fun experiment - if you have a sheet of glass lying around, go set it outside in your front yard. Leave it there for a month. Then go look and see how clean it is. It won’t be.
Or here’s one that’s even easier - spray down your roof, and collect the runoff water and see how dirty it is.
Will an anti-nuclear poster compare the estimated 2 million deaths from air pollution with the estimated deaths from nuclear power?
Not every neighborhood is well set up for solar panels on each house. My house probably wouldn’t be a good candidate, because the sloping sides of my roof face east and west, not south. My house was built a long time before anyone thought of putting solar panels on roofs.
Also, in my neighborhood, the houses are close together, close enough that they cast shadows on each other. They are detached houses, not townhouses, but there’s not a lot of space between houses. There are good points to this arrangement. It makes it easier for us to walk, bike, or ride buses to get where we want to go, rather than driving everywhere. It means we use less energy and fewer chemicals to maintain lawns. But it’s not optimum for solar panels on each house.
There are going to be a lot of people who can’t do this, or don’t want to.
Of course, they could hire someone else to clean their solar panels.
But, if one person is cleaning and maintaining a bunch of people’s solar panels, wouldn’t it be more efficient to have all of those people’s solar panels in the same place? That way, the solar panel maintenance guy spends less time getting from one house to another and more time maintaining solar panels. We could even make the job easier and safer for the maintenance workers by putting the solar panels on the ground, or maybe on a flat-roofed one-story building. Now we’ve got a solar power plant rather than solar panels on every house.
I just heard that during the last year , new wind power created the equivalent of 1.5 nuke plants of energy. That is not 10 years in the future. No waste. No tritium leakage.
If GE wants to run a nuke plant, let them build it. They want tax payers to finance it and then they will swoop in and make money. It is nice work if you can get it. As long as they control our politicians they can get it.
I don’t suppose you have a cite for this statistic?
What size nuclear plants? Is it referring to new wind turbines constructed in the US, or globally? When did planning start on these wind turbines? Is this an unusually high growth caused by one-off stimulus spending and grabbing the lowest-hanging fruit, or can this be repeated?
So what you’re saying is, all the windmills, all over the world, built in the last year, created enough power equal to 1 and a half nuclear plants? How many windmills is that? Hundreds? Thousands?
And who do you think builds windmills anyway? I’ll give you a hint–it’s not individuals, and it’s not small businesses.
So, at this rate (if we can keep it up), wind is about 1/2000th of the way to powering the world.
The year 4025 is looking better all the time.
Thats a semi educated WAG, it could easily be more like 1/10,000 ths of the way.
If you want to pretend you can replace coal with these things, you need to put them everywhere.
At the cost of some dead birds and dead or injured windmill technicians. If you believe some people, also at the cost of ruining their views. I used to live in Livermore, California, and I thought the windmills of the Altamont Pass were cool-looking and added interest to an otherwise bland landscape, so not everybody agrees that windmills are visual pollution.
Those windmills had to be manufactured out of something, somewhere. There was no doubt waste generated in that process. Might even be hazardous waste (I don’t know what the windmills are made of or how they are manufactured).
I’m not saying windmills are bad. But you’re portraying them like they’re totally without consequences. They’re not.
I don’t think we can or should. I don’t think solar power is particularly well suited to Pittsburgh, for example, with its frequently cloudy weather. Lake-effect snow in somewhere like Buffalo would make keeping the solar panels clean quite a job.
I don’t think we can or should replace centralized power plants by having electricity generation at each home, for reasons I mentioned in my last post. Sorry, “small is beautiful” types, but I don’t want to spend a lot of my time maintaining a home power plant. I’d rather spend more time at work, doing something I actually do well, and pay someone else to deal with the issues involved in generating electricity. I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way. I suspect a majority of people do, and that’s why we won’t get rid of centralized power plants.
http://wx-man.com/blog/?p=2057
Random weirdness caused by wind farms: It’s screwing with the doppler radar, making weather predictions come up wrong.
That is absolutely brilliant and devoid of anything remotely akin to logic.
I salute you.
Very clear by this point (page 5) that this is not a ‘debate’ to Gonzomax as he is not to be persuaded or influenced by logic and facts.
Oh I understand that and have for years, however you have to admire his rabid posting style as he stands alone.
Well, my Google-Fu must be weak as I couldn’t find any articles about how the wind turbines built in the last year are producing the equivalent of ‘1.5’ nuclear power plants (specifications unknown…it varies widely, so my guess is they picked smaller or less productive plants, assuming he didn’t just make it up).
While searching though I did find this:
Ouch.
-XT
That’s been clear since June of 2006 or thereabouts.
I think much of the opposition to nuclear power lies in a desire that there not be any reasonable alternative source of energy. We will all be better, more spiritual people if we live a simpler lifestyle, where everyone walks to work and does as he’s told. It is a variety of anti-capitalism - the left has more or less lost the argument about the virtues of the free market when the USSR fell and China started booming from selling crap to Wal-Mart. Now they can hope for a radically scaled-back life for the West to validate what they were saying back in the sixties.
Essentially, they are not afraid it won’t work - they are afraid it might.
Regards,
Shodan
And what happens when the demand for power becomes more important in the public mind than the public safety?
I suppose you think the Chernobyl meltdown is a fiction invented by American propagandists, though. Chernobyl deniers, anyone?
Does this theory have any supporting evidence for it?
The deaths caused by the Chernobyl meltdown (which is the worst nightmare of those opposed to nuclear power) is a pittance compared to the number of estimated deaths caused by air pollution every year.
I like wind power. I think it’s a definite part of our future energy mix. But we have to be realistic about what it can do.
I’ll give you an example: The Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California is the largest wind farm in the world. It has 4900 wind turbines, situated right in one of the most perfect wind areas around.
This wind farm has a ‘nameplate’ capacity of 576 MW, but its annual average is 125 MW. That gives it an annual output of about 1.1 TWh.
To give you an idea of the scale of it, this photo shows only about 100 turbines - that’s one fiftieth of the size of the whole farm. Notice that there is quite a substantial environmental footprint. Not just the turbines, but there have to be roads built to all of them, power lines run, storage facilities and other ancilliary equipment located on site, etc.
The Altamont Pass wind farm has also come under fire from environmentalists because it kills about 4700 birds per year - many of them raptors that are protected or endangered. As a result, Altamont has to rip out its old windmills and install larger ones with slower turning blades.
Here’s another photo Altamont wind turbines. Notice how much steel is used here - and you’re looking at about 1/100 of the total wind farm in that picture. That steel has to be mined, which costs energy and leaves industrial waste behind. Each one of those turbines contains large amounts of copper in the rotor windings.
In comparison, this CANDU reactor, which is about the size of any largish industrial installation, produces almost ten times as much annual power as the entire Altamont station does. And it does so night and day, rain or shine, windy or calm, with perfect precision.
Wind has its place, but it simply does not scale.
As for solar, here’s a photo of a 10 MW solar plant. Here’s what it looks like on the ground. You can see that it completely displaces whatever natural habitat is there, and underneath those panels is a maze of steel support structures.
That plant puts out about 1/100 of the power of a small nuclear plant when the sun is shining, and therefore probably 1/500 of the total annual energy of that plant I linked to earler.
Even on purely environmental factors alone, nuclear beats this kind of massive construction.
Furthermore, the Chernobyl reactor was untested, outdated, malfunctioning, ignored by inspectors on the orders of insane Russian scientists, and even then–even then!–it refused to fail until malicious ‘safety’ inspectors deliberately sabotaged it–and it wasn’t easy for them to do it, either!
If it took that much work for such a shitty reactor to fail, then think about how much time it would take for a modern reactor to fail.
