Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2012,18:46)|
|Every technology seems to have its enemies. Wind turbines are ugly and kill birds. Everyone wants them but not nearby.|
Personally I'm interested in thorium. China seems to be going in that direction. I assume we'll be buying their reactors in ten years.
My point is that opposition to solutions comes from so many directions. I don't think it coincides with the antievolution crowd.
No, the opposition to clean tech comes from oil companies. And it's not that it's because they don't have a piece of the pie. I have heard, but not confirmed, that at least one biofuel company was bought by a major oil company and then shut down.
As to the bird kills, every research article I can find on that subject points to one site, using old turbines that spin a higher rates of speed, causing a FEW bird deaths. According to the report, cats killed more birds in the US than wind turbines. http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Environmental-Impacts-Wind-Energy-Projects/11935
Thorium is a neat tech, if it works. The problem, again, isn't so much technology as political will. It can take 8 years or more to get a new plant approved, then another 4 years or so to build the facility.
Basically, the cost to build one 3 gigawatt nuclear plant (not Thorium), would build almost 10 gigawatts of wind power. even assuming a 25% availability factor, the wind still wins because it can be online in a year, while the nuclear plant will take 8-12 years to be built. Pollution from the alternate power source (until the new plant is built) is much, much lower with wind.
I'm not saying I don't want nukes. I agree that it will take a variety of methods. But if I have to push wind to get anything done, then I'll do it.
And yes, everyone has the NIMBY issue. I'm one of the few who thinks turbines are awe-inspiring.
Sorry, I'm going beyond your intentions, but I see so much mis-information that I try to correct it when it crops up.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.