|
|
OT wind power again
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:avdWh.37$YI1.6@trndny04... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... That leaves black holes. I don't know **** about black holes.....except that they are (well, we HOPE they are) too far away to do us a great deal of good in the immediate future. actually, there is a chance that some very small ones will be created in the area around the French/Swiss border late this year via particle collisions So I've heard. In all honesty, this does nothing to raise my comfort level about them, or to make me sanguine about their possible utility in generating electricity in the immediate future. ........but, don't feel bad; NOBODY really understands them too well, which is why they are banging particles together to study the whole mess. All I've ever gotten out of banging particles together was smaller particles......and a splitting headache! :( Since the recent discovery of deep-water geothermal vents we have learned that "THE" requisite element for life is liquid water (well, that and a few niggling micro-nutrients). Most of us in the biological sciences pretty much had the strong suspicion this was the case for years, at least insofar as we on Earth define the term "life. Well, allowing some latitude for "most" and "strong," yeah. :) Also, thanks for the rambling info-fest, including useful cocktail-party trivia about the extent of grass species(most who took botany and stayed awake may have been aware of that one, as well), De nada. but let's cut to the chase. O.k. Wind, while some aspects have been figured out, is not going to produce the levels of power needed, unless mankind carpets the planet with wind-turbines. I'm going to have to see some hard (and substantiated) numbers before I'll accept that. Even if true (against which proposition I'd risk a heap of SNNs), so? We've already carpeted the planet with strip mines, oil fields, oil spills, power plants, cooling towers, slag heaps, tailings ponds, highly toxic and persistent radioactive waste, and ****ing humans. What possible harm can a host of beautiful giants do to detract from such a Dantesque nightmare? As much as it might trouble some, nuclear, with adequate spending on development of recyclable fuel and processes to recycle it, probably is the most practical way to go. Nuclear energy is VERY attractive.......except for the part about highly toxic and persistent radioactive waste that lasts for a practical eternity......and the vanishingly small (some might say not entirely impossible.....in light of the fact that it's already happened at least a couple of times that we know of) chance of vast quantities of highly toxic and persistent radioactive material escaping into the atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, plants, animals, birds, humans, hamsters, and sundry other unplanned receptacles. See what France is already doing today, I've looked. Among other things, they're making substantial quantities of highly toxic and persistent radioactive waste. Not all that attractive to some. I number myself as one of them. and spend some money to improve beyond that. Sort of invites the question of how much more highly toxic and persistent radioactive waste we really need.....and what's it gonna cost, ainna? Should be do-able, The fact that's is being done is a strong argument in favor of that position. But, my question remains. and the generating capacity is huge Huge enough.....I guess.....but you'd have to carpet a quarter of the planet with nuke plants.......and all of it with the waste. Sure, my suggestion doesn't come with any further insights into quantum physics, Greek mythology or chemical communication between flagellate microbes, Wasn't looking for any. Frankly, insights into quantum physics produce about the same results for me as banging particles together.....except I don't get the smaller particles. Greek mythology might as well be.....well, Greek. And flagellate microbes, as you well know, can be studied as well here in ROFF as anywhere else. but it is an alternative to consider regarding energy. I have considred it.....and found it wanting. p.s. That NIMBY thing is pretty much a human constant. So is death. :) Wolfgang and taxes, don't forget taxes!!! I was trying to. Just sent the feds a heap of money three days ago. :( Wolfgang |
OT wind power again
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Fair enough. Here's the plan: install more wind powered generators. well, that's detailed enough for me. But, then again, I am not pretending to be an expert, just a regular guy who is more than a little suspicious that the needed megawatts are coming from wind power any time soon. As you told someone else, don't hold your breath waiting. Not as practical, hard-headed, concrete and specific as, "See what France is already doing today, and spend some money to improve beyond that" perhaps, but it's the best I can do on the spur of the moment. I am not up for that kind of long-winded stuff. But, I note, by checking my up to date atlas, that France does exist, and I know it largely depends on nuclear power for it's electrical generation needs. Further, I know they have the technology to do so by methods which apparently generate less waste material. Thus, my answer was to point to an entire generating and delivery system in place, not to merely say "we need to install more wind generators", without stating how many we might need, or much of any other practical detail. Tom ......who suspects that if wind energy really gets to a high demand stage, we're set to make a killing if we sell shares in ROFF! |
OT wind power again
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:5eeWh.65$Rd.10@trndny08... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... snipped Wolfie, I suspect you are overlooking my comment regarding recyclable nuclear fuels. It can be done, and thus keeps the ongoing production of dangerous stuff to a minimum. Au contraire, I have not overlooked it. In fact, I have looked at it carefully and come to the indisputable conclusion that wind power keeps the ongoing production of dangerous stuff to a minimum. Let's face it, it isn't like we are creating fresh uranium, for instance, it was here all along. Uranium? I must look a great deal more ignorant than I feel. No one, at least that I know of, is talking about wantonly dumping the toxic wastes around the planet(ok, maybe some Republicans are, but I figure they're just joshing). The trouble is that no one is talking about wantonly dumping the toxic wastes around the pnaet. As for the 'carpet a quarter of the planet' estimate, it would seem you are willing to exaggerate to make your bid for wind power. Not that such exaggeration isn't mildly amusing, "Willing to exaggerate"? Hm..... What about, "Wind, while some aspects have been figured out, is not going to produce the levels of power needed, unless mankind carpets the planet with wind-turbines."? Amusing? but if you, or anyone wants to make a pitch for some sort of dependence upon wind energy, the practical plan has to be in place. Thus far, I haven't heard it, from you or anyone else....... Fair enough. Here's the plan: install more wind powered generators. Not as practical, hard-headed, concrete and specific as, "See what France is already doing today, and spend some money to improve beyond that" perhaps, but it's the best I can do on the spur of the moment. Tom ....don't feel bad about the taxes. It won't rile you up again for a year(unless you have to send in estimated payments, in which case July will be here in no time!). Actually, I never feel bad about taxes. To be sure, I don't have any children to educate, I've never had need of the services of a fire department, no foreign nation has ever invaded me, my employer and I have worked out a health care scheme that works out to our mutual satisfaction, and no one (least of all anyone that I've helped to get elected to office.....or anyone I've tried to hinder in that pursuit, for that matter) has asked for my opinions concerning how my contributions should be spent, but I have no complaints, nevertheless. Um......well, that's not quite entirely true. In fact, there ARE some things I think could be improved.....but that would be a complicated....and LONG!.....discussion. Wolfgang |
OT wind power again
Wolfgang wrote:
Oh, I have no illusions about rapid conversion to wind generated electrical power. But I don't have to hold my breath waiting to see whether wind power will work. It does.....NOW.....TODAY! There are thousands of such devices on line right now. More are being added every day and at an ever increasing rate. Power companies have taken not and are erecting their own. Considering the amount of wind that you generate someone should erect a great big one right in front of your face. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
OT wind power again
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:m9fWh.86$Zm.74@trndny03... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Hm..... I don't see the first half of that latest exchange. Did you? Fair enough. Here's the plan: install more wind powered generators. well, that's detailed enough for me. But, then again, I am not pretending to be an expert, just a regular guy who is more than a little suspicious that the needed megawatts are coming from wind power any time soon. Very well, for the experts, then..... Each wind powered generator has a certain fixed capacity.....assuming it is not updated in any way. Each wind powered generator adds to total generating capacity by an amount equal to its own individual output. If total the generating capacity of all wind powered generators is insufficent and the shortfall must be made up by other sources, then it will continue to be necessary to add more wind powered generators until their combined output is deemed sufficient. This plan should be carried out as the individual generators become available, qualified installers can do the job, and the electrical grid is made capable of dealing with their output. As you told someone else, don't hold your breath waiting. Oh, I have no illusions about rapid conversion to wind generated electrical power. But I don't have to hold my breath waiting to see whether wind power will work. It does.....NOW.....TODAY! There are thousands of such devices on line right now. More are being added every day and at an ever increasing rate. Power companies have taken not and are erecting their own. Not as practical, hard-headed, concrete and specific as, "See what France is already doing today, and spend some money to improve beyond that" perhaps, but it's the best I can do on the spur of the moment. I am not up for that kind of long-winded stuff. But, I note, by checking my up to date atlas, that France does exist, and I know it largely depends on nuclear power for it's electrical generation needs. I don't have to consult an atlas to confirm whether or not wind driven generators exist. Nor do I have to travel to Europe. I don't have to go anywhere or consult anyone or anything to know that the U.S. largely depends on fossil fuels for its electrical generation needs. But, I don't consider this fact to constitute, in and of itself, a ringing endorsement for the combustion of fossil fuels for electrical generation. Further, I know they have the technology to do so by methods which apparently generate less waste material. Less than what? How much less? Is the remainder dismissible because it is less than.....something or other? Is it less than wind driven generators? Is it an amount you would feel comfortable having in YOUR back yard? Thus, my answer was to point to an entire generating and delivery system in place, We also have an entire generating and delivery system in place, a system that is evolving in part by the addition of ever more wind driven generators. not to merely say "we need to install more wind generators", without stating how many we might need, or much of any other practical detail. Nor did you state anything about how many French nuclear reactors we might need to install, or much of any other practical detail. In fact, "install more wind powered generators" is more practical, specific and detailed than "See what France is already doing today, and spend some money to improve beyond that." Tom .....who suspects that if wind energy really gets to a high demand stage, we're set to make a killing if we sell shares in ROFF! I'd hold off on buying any of those shares until after someone demonstrated that the energy could be put to a useful purpose. Wolfgang |
OT wind power again
How naive can one be??? Look at the specs on turbines being
used...the bladrs spin at 14-16 RPM AND the ends of the blades are going 180 to 220 MPH......Why do I have a poster made by Horizon and PPM that says "beware of ice throw from wind turbines, may cause injury or fatality???? Send me an email, I'd be glad to send you a picture of the poster they put all over in Tug Hill NY this winter. Anne |
OT wind power again
|
OT wind power again
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:45:57 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: "Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:HSbWh.52$Rd.43@trndny08... Wolfie, Are you seriously suggesting that the voting public surrounding Lake Erie is going to sit idly by and allow the entire surface to be covered by little wind generators?? Hm.....well, I admit that it SOUNDS kinda like me. But no, I think not. If it were really me, it would be BIGASS wind generators! :) I suspect you would see significant opposition to even a fraction of that proposal. Unless I've been skimming all this too rapidly, isn't Lake Erie used occasionally for some shipping? Wouldn't those big boats be a messy mix to have doing various dance steps through the windmills? -- r.bc: vixen Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
OT wind power again
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:59:29 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: Wolfie, I suspect you are overlooking my comment regarding recyclable nuclear fuels. It can be done, and thus keeps the ongoing production of dangerous stuff to a minimum. Let's face it, it isn't like we are creating fresh uranium, for instance, it was here all along. No one, at least that I know of, is talking about wantonly dumping the toxic wastes around the planet(ok, maybe some Republicans are, but I figure they're just joshing). I found out about the difficulties of nuclear waste and the Marianas Trench at about the same time in my life. Didn't take a light bulb overhead to give me an "Aha!" moment there. In the trench it will be subducted (if that means sucked down into) the earth's magma. Back to nature and plenty of time and space for it to spread out harmlessly. -- r.bc: vixen Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
OT wind power again
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter