Norway to Build the World’s Largest Wind Turbine

[Cantih]

Nuclear energy just needs a name change

Particle-induced-heat steam energy?

[archibaldcrane]

People, like stumblingdrunk above, think that there is some sort of connection between oil and electricity, where in fact there is virtually none.

And when people think oil, they get all huffy about invading other countries, blood for oil, and whatever other slogan or rallying cry they can think of to get irrationally mad at something totally unrelated.

But you're smart enough to put all that together anyway - so why the "?" Kuyababy?

[Stumblingdrunk]

Nuclear energy just needs a name change

perhaps Nucular?

[Kuya]

You said alternative which is usually intended to mean anything other than oil, and then you said that people conflate/confuse the Middle East (oil) with alternative energy when oil has nothing to do with alternative energy. I did not understand what the post meant.

[archibaldcrane]

You said alternative which is usually intended to mean anything other than oil, and then you said that people conflate/confuse the Middle East (oil) with alternative energy when oil has nothing to do with alternative energy. I did not understand what the post meant.

Oil, and therefore the middle east, has nothing to do with any sort of electricity (really) was my point.

[Stumblingdrunk]

People, like stumblingdrunk above, think that there is some sort of connection between oil and electricity, where in fact there is virtually none.

And when people think oil, they get all huffy about invading other countries, blood for oil, and whatever other slogan or rallying cry they can think of to get irrationally mad at something totally unrelated.

But you're smart enough to put all that together anyway - so why the "?" Kuyababy?

I'll admit, i know zero about electricity. Why is it then that Palin and Co keep saying that off shore drilling/more drilling in the US will make us "energy" independent

[Gwynplaine]

Maybe a viable alternative to more nuclear plants in the US?

Haven't you heard? Wind turbines aren't eco-friendly, so no. The only green energy is the kind that doesn't leave a footprint, or blight of any kind (the kind that can't exist).

[Jaybar]

I believe the answer to "energy independence" is because there are still many manufacturing functions that run on oil based fuels. I can't name any because it's an assumption to answer the question.

It's also a great talking point.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I believe the answer to "energy independence" is because there are still many manufacturing functions that run on oil based fuels. I can't name any because it's an assumption to answer the question.

It's also a great talking point.

I understand that its a great talking point, It just seems to imply certain things that based on the graph Archi posted would not be true, or create other problems.

[Jaybar]

Hence why she's an idiot.

[Kerberoz]

Nuclear fission alone could power the earth for thousands of years before we'd even have to worry about fuel, which is commonly available on dead planets/asteroids as opposed to fossil fuels. If only the average citizen would educate themselves instead of the knee-jerk Chernobyl fears. Of course hydro/geo/solar/wind is great in certain areas and as a supplement to the grid, but fission is a workhorse that can be used anywhere.

You'd be foolish to build a home without looking into installing your own solar panels/hydro turbines these days. They pay themselves off in only a couple years under the right conditions.

[*Shinzon*]

I'll admit, i know zero about electricity. Why is it then that Palin and Co keep saying that off shore drilling/more drilling in the US will make us "energy" independent

Because the idea is that eventually people want to make it so homes will eventually not need to be oil dependent along with cars eventually and everything else that requires oil. While oil isn't related to the production of electricity, more electricity and more avenues to obtain electricity will or rather might lead to using electricity as a replacement for oil. If that makes sense.

Not sure how that would work for heating a home, but we already know how it's effected the automotive industry.

[aru]

I'll admit, i know zero about electricity. Why is it then that Palin and Co keep saying that off shore drilling/more drilling in the US will make us "energy" independent

Might be referring to the energy used by vehicles and buildings but more likely pandering to the ignorant masses.

[*Shinzon*]

Might be referring to the energy used by vehicles and buildings but more likely pandering to the ignorant masses.

Yeah, the amount of pollution produced by some of these plants is more than some of oil based transportation on the road in most countries produces.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Might be referring to the energy used by vehicles and buildings but more likely pandering to the ignorant masses.

See, i was thinking it was most likely the latter, but that seems terribly irresponsible.

[Kryssan]

Maybe a viable alternative to more nuclear plants in the US?

...a towering 10 MW machine...

Ok, I laughed. 10 MW? Viable alternative? I know research reactors with more umph that are much smaller than that thing. An oldie goldie 'trash can' reactor, with its entire powerplant footprint the size of a department store, can put out over 100MWe using technology 4 decades old. Think you can put ten of those wind towers that close together? Besides, our (US at least) energy consumption increases by far too much for anything short of what a conventional/nuclear power plant can produce to even keep up with the next decade's estimates on power.


Wind power is great for some areas, but it is not a cure. I like the idea of being able to use them as backup/supplement generators, especially since you can get nice incentives and grants for building them in certain states in the US, but once again you need the right area and a lot of people don't even like the wind turbines. Just like the asinine comments directed at nuclear power, the same stupidity is directed at wind power - people find the towers to be 'unsightly'. Honestly I like the image presented by the turbines, but these silly naysayers can be found against all energy. A better debate against them comes from the massive footprint you need for a real power application. A lot of wind power is being built now 'at sea' in large farms, at least in Europe. This massive turbine is one such design, and helps offset the 'footprint', but then you get into increased costs of building at sea, as well as routing the electrical conduit and maintaining the turbines themselves.



Here's a real good study about power production to muse over. There is some data here that goes to explaining why countries like France and Japan would opt for nuclear simply from an economic and trade standpoint regardless of opinions. World Nuclear Association - Nuclear Economics

[Howard Roark]

am I being whooshed here?

[Mayareira]

No way...

[Olo401]

It kinda infuriates me when people conflate "alternative electricity sources" with the middle east or whateverthefuckelse.

Likewise when you substitute "electricity" for "energy"..

Haven't you heard? Wind turbines aren't eco-friendly, so no. The only green energy is the kind that doesn't leave a footprint, or blight of any kind (the kind that can't exist).

Aren't eco-friendly in what way? Don't tell me you're actually taking up a similar position to the rich folks out on Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket who complain that a wind turbine obscures the view of their yachts.

[bigrougabagel]

Right now much of the renewable sources of energy are supplemental. This is due to them being sporadic. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. So we are stuck with some form of electrical generation that will fizzle out in a few hundred years. If that pie chart is correct, we are still getting 90.6% of our energy from non renewable sources(nuclear is non-renewable, it'll last a lot longer than coal or gas, but it is still in a relatively finite supply.) So, until we perfect fusion or matter-antimatter collision power plants, were going to deal with the risk of having our energy supply run out.

With today's technology we could meet global energy needs by 2030 with nothing but solar power.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...quired1000.jpg