The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Except that I doubt that Gore has the thousands of scientists that are in agreement about global warming on his payroll.

Are there really "thousands" of scientists doing field study on this subject((because I've been doing a lot of web surfing on the subject the last couple of days and I keep seeing the same couple of dozen names over and over again)) or is it just a few hundred scientist who have submitted reviews that have been read by the other thousdand(s)?

[innerSpaceman]

Just going back to windmills in your neighborhood for a moment ... I don't see what's wrong with not wanting them to intrude on a beautiful environment that should be preserved for generations beyond one's own.

I suppose we could simply burn all the trees in National Parks if we were more concerned with energy production than nature.

Truth is, there's plenty of barren, windswept spots in this vast nation for those ugly turbine fields. It's true that seacoasts are windy, but they are also a vast natural treasure that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.


(Of course, if they learn to disguise the big turbines as quaint Dutch windmills of yore, then we may be able to plant them in picturesque locales.)

[Alex]

Yeah, but somebody things those "barren windswept spots" are vast natural treasures that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.

Also, they tend to be far away from the places where the people actually want the electricity. I'd guess Dutch windmills are also much less quaint if you have 8 of them per acre for 10,000 acres.

Tehachopi (SoCal) and Altamont Pass (NoCal) are visually interesting and don't really bother me (and I live almost within visual distance of Altamont). But I don't know that I would like them reproduced anywhere on the scale necessary to provide broad energy relief.

That's part of the reason I don't understand the fear of nuclear power. Yes, it has a small potential for significant environmental if something goes wrong. But almost every other form of power generation (that can produce the levels of energy we need) has the significant environment impact designed into it. Coal produces more polution, by design, than nuclear would produce in an anything-but-worst-case containment failure. Industrial solar and wind would require distorting and destroying the land equivelant of the Rocky Mountain states. Hydroelectric is the cleanest energy we've ever produced on a mass scale and it has resulted in the most destructive land use policies in the history of world.

In 40 years of nuclear energy in this country using mostly first generation designs we have never experienced either a radiation fatality nor a significant radiation release. Our one mechanical failure should actually have been trumpeted as a success. Three Mile Island did exactly what any nuclear reactor should do in case of failure. Many other countries get a significant source of their power from nuclear using 3rd or 4th generation designs and haven't experienced even minor failures.

Chernobyl was a ****-up but it was almost cocked-up by design. It had barely even rudimentary safety features and was misdesigned to almost make containment failure inevitable. It's kind of like abandoning cars because the Pinto tended to explode.

Storage of waste is a problem, but at least it is one that can be worked on and is mostly skewed by the inability of most people to make rational evaluations of risk. Storage of waste byproducts from our other sources of energy isn't really even a technical feasibility.

I am heartened because while nuclear is still mostly tabboo in "green politics," we are starting to see more and more prominent environmentalists saying it is at least something that needs to be put back on the table.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Tehachopi (SoCal) and Altamont Pass (NoCal) are visually interesting and don't really bother me (and I live almost within visual distance of Altamont).

I recently found out that the windmills in Tehachapi (Ralphie's parents live there) were owned by Enron at one time. I'm not sure who owns them now...

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Truth is, there's plenty of barren, windswept spots in this vast nation for those ugly turbine fields. It's true that seacoasts are windy, but they are also a vast natural treasure that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.

The problem is that even though windmills are getting more effecient they still need to be placed reletively close to end users as they do create less power than other tradidtional means and the loss of power due to transport is more keenly felt. Also because they are still a dicey investment(its not always windy) in order to maximize production they have to be placed in the most windy places....often the most windy places are also the most picturesque.

Originally Posted by innerspaceman

(Of course, if they learn to disguise the big turbines as quaint Dutch windmills of yore, then we may be able to plant them in picturesque locales.)

That's not a bad idea but these new mills are quite imposing in size so the artistic task here will not be easy.

[Gemini Cricket]

They could paint them to match the landscape. But that would be a huge task. Maybe Disney could help.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

They could paint them to match the landscape. But that would be a huge task. Maybe Disney could help.

Great idea; maybe Tokyo University has something that might work....


http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp...DIA/xv/oc.html

[Alex]

Enron only owned about half of the turbines there (there are, I think, four majore power companies with turbines and then lots of little companies that sell up the grid). GE Power Systems bought the assets of Enron Wind Corporation (including Tehachopi) in the early days of the Enron bankruptcy and so far as I know still owns them.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I like the painting them to match the landscape idea ... since my Dutch sea of 800th scale quaint windmills was a joke.


I'm with Alex on this one. Find me a way to deal with waste, and include mega safety features - and nuclear is the way to go. Other energy production methods have environmental destruction built right in.

Of course, I'd much rather have nuclear fission rather than fusion, and have it done safely on the moon, with the energy beamed via microwave to the satelitte system also collecting energy pouring endlessly from the sun, for packet beaming to the earth. And I'll take my flying car and cup of joe to go with that, please.


Geeez, it's frelling 2006 and we have, whoop, cell phones!

[€uroMeinke]

Is it time for me to bemoan my lack of Jet Pack? - Tomorrowland indeed, we need the real Epcot powered by a GE Nuclear Power plant - that's the future that was promised me.