HEAD TO HEAD Wind turbines a scam, only benefit builders Wind e...

A week ago, I had great fun bashing Kansas , my least favorite state, saying that if we must let ''hucksters and their politician pals'' corrupt landscapes with ugly and inefficient wind turbines, which produce dribbles of electricity at tremendous cost, then ''Kansas is the place to do it.'' A A... That column came after I drove through Kansas and ... Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 07

Bethlehem, PA

#1 Jul 30, 2009
What do people want (besides cheap electricity)?

More coal-fired plants? Too dirty.
More oil or gas-fired plants? Too much foreign dependence.
Nuclear plants? Heaven Forbid.

Maybe they should use the coal that's already burning in Centralia and harness some of that heat to power steam generators.
BUBBLE THE BUBBLE

Bayonne, NJ

#2 Jul 30, 2009
I BET THIS WRITER TOOK A VERY BIG DOSE OF STUPID PILL'S BEFORE he WROTE THIS ARTICLE.
Sober Dude

Allentown, PA

#3 Jul 30, 2009
Dennis Mac wrote:
What do people want (besides cheap electricity)?
More coal-fired plants? Too dirty.
More oil or gas-fired plants? Too much foreign dependence.
Nuclear plants? Heaven Forbid.
Maybe they should use the coal that's already burning in Centralia and harness some of that heat to power steam generators.
Large scale wind energy is a sham. It is unsuitable for base load generation.

Local, small scale wind energy is where it shines. Everything he says about those ugly monster turbines is true.
vet

Plano, TX

#4 Jul 30, 2009
Sober Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Large scale wind energy is a sham. It is unsuitable for base load generation.
Local, small scale wind energy is where it shines. Everything he says about those ugly monster turbines is true.
when is it suppose to start? i'm sure that all of you people realize that the wright flier didn't have the lifting capacity of a boeing 747. the technology had nearly half a century to be developed. should we wait until there is nothing left of this planet before we start improving this technology or should we start now? because if we wait, god only know what other distractions we'll have later

Since: Mar 07

Bethlehem, PA

#5 Jul 30, 2009
Efficient wind turbines need not be huge unsightly propeller-based bird choppers.

Consider this technology which dates back to the 1930s:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/...

These turbosails produce 90% of the energy needed to propel and power this ship.

Similar - much larger turbines of this nature can easily be constructed AND CAMOUFLAGED - much as "stealth" cellphone towers are today.

Also, they will not de-bone migratory birds.
Liberal Terminator

Plymouth, PA

#6 Jul 30, 2009
Compared to the quantity of wind trubines needed to meet the energy of a baseload electric plant, Nuclear Energy is easily the winner.

Nuclear Power is safe, efficient and cost effective even considering initial high construction costs.

Nuclear power is safer on the envirionment, even safer than wind which take humongous land area to equal a small baseload generating plant.

Nuclear Power is the way to go. Even the wastes it generates is not humongously high such as landfills. A relatively small area is needed to place this waste, which at present is safely stored at existing plants right now.

Nuclear power is a Godsend to our energy problems today. And that is why neaderthal leftwing extremists will not praise it's blessings today.

For Cross, Gun & Free Enterprise.

liberalismisasin.com
AllTalk

Allentown, PA

#7 Jul 30, 2009
"ugly and inefficient wind turbines,"

Carpenter described his own mouth

Since: Mar 07

Bethlehem, PA

#8 Jul 30, 2009
Liberal Terminator wrote:
Compared to the quantity of wind trubines needed to meet the energy of a baseload electric plant, Nuclear Energy is easily the winner.
Nuclear Power is safe, efficient and cost effective even considering initial high construction costs.
Nuclear power is safer on the envirionment, even safer than wind which take humongous land area to equal a small baseload generating plant.
Nuclear Power is the way to go. Even the wastes it generates is not humongously high such as landfills. A relatively small area is needed to place this waste, which at present is safely stored at existing plants right now.
Nuclear power is a Godsend to our energy problems today. And that is why neaderthal leftwing extremists will not praise it's blessings today.
For Cross, Gun & Free Enterprise.
liberalismisasin.com

As technology advances, I don't see any reason why we couldn't devise a way to get something more out of the spent rods that are piling up.

They used to vent methane from landfills into the atmosphere, until they found a way to collect it.
vet

Plano, TX

#9 Jul 30, 2009
Liberal Terminator wrote:
Compared to the quantity of wind trubines needed to meet the energy of a baseload electric plant, Nuclear Energy is easily the winner.
Nuclear Power is safe, efficient and cost effective even considering initial high construction costs.
Nuclear power is safer on the envirionment, even safer than wind which take humongous land area to equal a small baseload generating plant.
Nuclear Power is the way to go. Even the wastes it generates is not humongously high such as landfills. A relatively small area is needed to place this waste, which at present is safely stored at existing plants right now.
Nuclear power is a Godsend to our energy problems today. And that is why neaderthal leftwing extremists will not praise it's blessings today.
For Cross, Gun & Free Enterprise.
liberalismisasin.com
#1. use spell-check !!

#2. don't post above your education!!

#3. get a clue you friggin moron!!!

#4. may we please store the waste in
your back yard!!!

#5. on what planet is something that
will be radio-active for millions
of years safer that the friggin
wind.
vet

Plano, TX

#10 Jul 30, 2009
Dennis Mac wrote:
<quoted text>
As technology advances, I don't see any reason why we couldn't devise a way to get something more out of the spent rods that are piling up.
They used to vent methane from landfills into the atmosphere, until they found a way to collect it.
with all those nasty rods piling up they will eventually get harder and harder to protect from people who would certaianly like to use them in dirty bombs and such.
Sober Dude

Allentown, PA

#11 Jul 30, 2009
vet wrote:
<quoted text>
when is it suppose to start? i'm sure that all of you people realize that the wright flier didn't have the lifting capacity of a boeing 747. the technology had nearly half a century to be developed. should we wait until there is nothing left of this planet before we start improving this technology or should we start now? because if we wait, god only know what other distractions we'll have later
I did not say I was opposed to wind power. I said that it is unsuitable for base load generation. I say so because wind is un-predictable.

At times when demand is highest in the NE (summer months), there is no wind. Because of this, utilities are still having to fire up peak demand plants. These have to be able to be started and stopped quickly and are mostly powered by oil.

Wind power is best for small scale (homeowner) generation.
vet

Plano, TX

#12 Jul 30, 2009
i've heard of plans to put them 50 miles off the coast all along the northeast where the wind is usually pretty strong. if this is feasable it will go a long way to building a base load farm
hope

Victoria, TX

#13 Jul 30, 2009
When oil companies go in to drill wells, they follow all environmental guidelines confining their drilling equipment to a very small area. When they leave, the area is totally clean and, in every case, is cleaner and more environmentally sound than before they entered it. Why isn't the SIERRA CLUB and the ENVIRONMENTALISTS up in arms about TURBINES? Because it is not on their POLITICAL agenda?

Since: Mar 07

Bethlehem, PA

#14 Jul 30, 2009
Sober Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say I was opposed to wind power. I said that it is unsuitable for base load generation. I say so because wind is un-predictable.
At times when demand is highest in the NE (summer months), there is no wind. Because of this, utilities are still having to fire up peak demand plants. These have to be able to be started and stopped quickly and are mostly powered by oil.
Wind power is best for small scale (homeowner) generation.

I don't think anyone is suggesting using wind alone for base load. The same can be said for solar (thermal or photovoltaic).

Either one of these would be a "supplemental" source, and would have to have all the required batteries, inverters, and switches.

For suburban household augmentation, I'd much rather live in a neighborhood where everyone has a solar array on their roof, rather than huge propellers spinning in their back yards atop 100' poles.
Sober Dude

Allentown, PA

#15 Jul 30, 2009
Dennis Mac wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think anyone is suggesting using wind alone for base load. The same can be said for solar (thermal or photovoltaic).
Either one of these would be a "supplemental" source, and would have to have all the required batteries, inverters, and switches.
For suburban household augmentation, I'd much rather live in a neighborhood where everyone has a solar array on their roof, rather than huge propellers spinning in their back yards atop 100' poles.
Well the article is talking about Schuylkill County which has a large facility. I think any large scale wind farm is a bad idea. T. Boone Pickens is pushing his snake oil.

Not only are the towers tall and unsightly, but what about the hum of the props and the "strobe" effect if you are unlucky enough to have a window in the shadow of a tower.

Wind is also less predictable than solar. In my humble opinion, Local, supplemental, small scale. These are words that should be used with wind power. With today's technology anyway.
Adrian in Tacoma

Auburn, WA

#16 Jul 30, 2009
Doesn't matter what you build, it'll all come down to parts contracts and limited availability based upon the cost effects of demand, someone's gotta get paid up front...
mmm_cheesesteak

Allentown, PA

#17 Jul 30, 2009
i am a huge advocate for clean and renewable sources of power. i think it is idiotic we havent moved more off of fossil fuels.
but wind hasnt shown the return it promised. and i don't think we should be sacrificing or harming other resources to produce enough power for a few homes. that's just bad business. it's all about the triple bottom line- People, Planet, Profit- and wind so far only delivers on one of those

Since: Mar 07

Bethlehem, PA

#18 Jul 30, 2009
I looked into a solar array for my house. The back of my house faces south, so I could cover that half of the roof with panels.

When I started pricing it out, it came to over $70k.

Forget it. For now.

“Cool Logic - Burning Passion”

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#19 Jul 31, 2009
Sober Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the article is talking about Schuylkill County which has a large facility. I think any large scale wind farm is a bad idea. T. Boone Pickens is pushing his snake oil.
Not only are the towers tall and unsightly, but what about the hum of the props and the "strobe" effect if you are unlucky enough to have a window in the shadow of a tower.
Wind is also less predictable than solar. In my humble opinion, Local, supplemental, small scale. These are words that should be used with wind power. With today's technology anyway.
a reasonable approach..

Our problem is a primarily technology ignorant gaggle of goofballs in elected office (heck, most are lawyers) who will do any thing at the grease of a palm... Look at the ethanol from corn fuster cluck!

Looking at the maps of wind speed density. By that estimation alone, we should have most of our wind power lining most of the east coast! Trouble is, Ted Kennedy and his well heeled ilk live there...
mmm_cheesesteak

Allentown, PA

#20 Jul 31, 2009
Dennis Mac wrote:
I looked into a solar array for my house. The back of my house faces south, so I could cover that half of the roof with panels.
When I started pricing it out, it came to over $70k.
Forget it. For now.
earth net energy- they have a solar hot water system about 24'x7'. i know hot water only covers 1 need for energy in a home, but they are an all American company. American owned, operated, & products built solely from American Suppliers. 92% efficiency and with a competitive price of 5k for the solar unit it at least makes them someone to look into. even if it wouldnt work for your home, businesses that consume hot water could definitely benefit from there products. return on investment is about a year and a half for larger applications.
actually there is an Energy seminar/convention thingamajig this weekend at Lafayette if anyone wants to tell a group of engineers they are idiots...which is always fun!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mahanoy City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Shenandoah man charged in child rape Mar 27 concerned citizen 2
News Fourteen arrested in Slatington area drug sweep (Apr '09) Feb '15 Riskie westside R... 15
News Why Queen Cleopatra was definitely not Black (Dec '05) Feb '15 sgeandhu 9,968
Crotch Rot Jan '15 Hazleton is the pits 1
News Police Chief Video Sparks Controversy (Jul '13) Dec '14 progressive 4
News 'Libtard'-hating ex-cop claims feds paid him to... Dec '14 progressive 1
Mahanoy state prison (Mar '10) Nov '14 Jazzyb 21
Mahanoy City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Mahanoy City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]