Norway to Build the World’s Largest Wind Turbine

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think pollution is a an urgent and serious problem in America. Other disagree.

As far as air pollution goes, I tend to agree, for the most part, in most places - BUT - the reason that is the case is because of government regulations. Acid rain isn't nearly as big of a problem anymore because of regulations on sulfur emissions. Smog (in some areas) isn't nearly as big a problem anymore because of regulations on auto emissions.

The extent to which air pollution isn't an urgent and serious problem in America is because of environmental regulations on the free market. Otherwise our air would be like Beijing's, and if that was the case you'd see it as a serious and urgent problem.

Subsidizing the Leaf, for example (which isn't going to be terribly priced - between 25-30k...and the whole "no gas" thing helps that too...) is the government being proactive against obvious, proven, worsening externalities. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, etc. etc. Subsidies are important for when everyone benefits from the result (cleaner air) but the profit incentive in the free market alone isn't affected by the externality (which, well, is why it's called an externality in the first place).

[zoobernut]

Do you think that making the argument about whether or not there is climate change (as opposed to man-made climate change) is deceptive?

If Democrats say "Look, everyone believes in climate change! Let's regulate!", can we respond "We believe in climate change too! But it isn't created by man and we should not try to "stop" it"?

I do think it is deceptive. I think that politicians at large (conservatives and liberals) tend to create buzz words or euphemisms for things with the intent of deceiving the general public in order to push their agenda. I think it has always happened and it will likely always happen. The media buys into this and perpetuates it. They did it with things like H1N1 (hi2u Vajra) and "Terror" or "War on Terror" among other things.

I think using the word Climate Change without specifying "Man Made Climate Change" may seem obvious to those of us who think but in reality people don't question that.


The majority of our country has become lackadaisical and uncaring when it comes to being informed.

[Leif]

Subsidizing the Leaf, for example (which isn't going to be terribly priced - between 25-30k...and the whole "no gas" thing helps that too...) is the government being proactive against obvious, proven, worsening externalities. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, etc. etc. Subsidies are important for when everyone benefits from the result (cleaner air) but the profit incentive in the free market alone isn't affected by the externality (which, well, is why it's called an externality in the first place).

But it burns coal. If we go back to playing the efficient game, story energy produced by burning coal in batteries is not at the top of the list.

The media buys into this and perpetuates it. They did it with things like H1N1 (hi2u Vajra) and "Terror" or "War on Terror" among other things.

The media hated using the words "war on terror". The media is like the Democratic party's base, but more liberal.

[zoobernut]

The media hated using the words "war on terror". The media is like the Democratic party's base, but more liberal.

That wasn't really the main point of the post, somewhat irrelevant. If it bugs you then pretend like I didn't say anything about the media. I just don't think the media is about informing people anymore and neither is the government.

[Shinryuu]

Since it is an undisputed fact that the free market is the only way to achieve the highest level of economic growth possible

Maybe in 1776 this held true.

[Elesirdur]

The one thing that hasnt been mentioned about wind turbines effects on the environment is their disruption of weather patterns. I dont know if its feasible that even a massive array of turbines could absorb enough wind energy to affect climate. They are taking some of the force out of the push of the wind, im just not sure if it would be enough to change climates. Likely not, but i dont recall reading if that has been tested.

No, turbines don't work that way. The turbines harness such a tiny fraction of the total energy in the atmosphere that it's pretty much statistically insignificant. Similiarly, wind turbines do not "push" air around or suck the wind out of the sky - again, the energy in the wind is absolutely vast and even 1000 turbines in a confined valley would hardly affect anything. (And yes, this was actually a question a local resident in a rural area asked of the company I worked for during a public dialogue session)

As for the noise question. Yes, turbines are noisier than nothing at all. However, unless you're standing within 25 metres of the turbine they make about as much noise as a semi-loud conversation. Vorticies on the tips of the turbine blades can actually break the sound barrier, but the turbine mechanism has brakes in it to prevent the rotors from over-spinning in very high winds (ie. going too fast). The braking and gearing system also is designed to keep the blade tips at sub-sonic speeds to reduce noise. When the rotor tips start moving too quickly and approach the sound barrier the pressure differential between the main blade airfoil and the rotor tip become quite significant and make everything run quite inefficiently. Turbines are designed with gearboxes and brakes to keep the rotors moving at the most efficient speed in varying wind conditions.

The really big turbines, with blade lengths of like 30m, are really only effective either offshore, or on top of a very windy mountain. The bigger the rotor diamater, the higher the energy in the wind required to spin it. Therefore, the largest turbines need to be in the places with sustained high winds. These are rarely, if ever, close to human settlements or activities other than forestry of mining if onshore. Governments are pretty sensitive over where these wind farms get placed, and any responsible government will put a developer through a lot of environmental and social impact assessment hoops before granting the right to build.

[Kuya]

I remember when the IMF made economies sucessful.

[bigrougabagel]

this thread sucks now, i quit

[willriker]

But it burns coal. If we go back to playing the efficient game, story energy produced by burning coal in batteries is not at the top of the list.


The media hated using the words "war on terror". The media is like the Democratic party's base, but more liberal.

i thought that the bush administration coined the phrase 'War on Terror'. I dont think it was the media. It was a while back to remember menutia like who invented a phrase for me though. so i could be wrong.

[Plow]

The free market naturally provides the worst energy. If you allow the free market to operate unrestricted and producers refuse start operating "green" on their own, then you're just screwed and stuck with destructive energy production.

The idea that your greedy judgment can decide what's best for 300 million people is preposterous. The only body that knows what's best for 300 million is those 300 million people, and that is exactly what a controlled market allows.

This is how market interference works. It is absolutely preposterous how many people do not understand the free market, how dangerously it works, how greed-obsessionally it operates, and how it produces the most goods as cheaply as possible, no matter how destructive the processes or terrible the product.

Green is good, but all of those rich, greedy, money-seeking corporation leaders will be dead by the time it matters, so why the fuck should they care?

I understand that the free market generally promotes efficiency, at the expense of quality and safety. I also believe that the well-being of the population should be protected and defended by the government.

[Olo401]

The free market naturally provides the worst energy. If you allow the free market to operate unrestricted and producers refuse start operating "green" on their own, then you're just screwed and stuck with destructive energy production.

The idea that your greedy judgment can decide what's best for 300 million people is preposterous. The only body that knows what's best for 300 million is those 300 million people, and that is exactly what a controlled market allows.

This is how market interference works. It is absolutely preposterous how many people do not understand the free market, how dangerously it works, how greed-obsessionally it operates, and how it produces the most goods as cheaply as possible, no matter how destructive the processes or terrible the product.

Green is good, but all of those rich, greedy, money-seeking corporation leaders will be dead by the time it matters, so why the fuck should they care?

I understand that the free market generally promotes efficiency, at the expense of quality and safety. I also believe that the well-being of the population should be protected and defended by the government.

[archibaldcrane]

But it burns coal. If we go back to playing the efficient game, story energy produced by burning coal in batteries is not at the top of the list.

Weren't you the one advocating getting more energy for your dollar as a consumer?

$360 a year in electricity vs. $1,600 a year for gas? Sounds pretty efficient to me.