On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:21:13 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:
"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:
So who is doing the quoting?
Sorry, you'll have to do better than an anti-wind site if you want me
to take you seriously. I happen to own a couple of wind generators, so
a blogger's diatribe doesn't mean much to me.
So you do not like what the professor is saying because it disagrees with
your belief. Thank you for being frank.
Your cite was an opinion piece, well worth what we paid for it. Many
in the know accept that intermittent renewables (which would be mostly
wind due to economics) might contribute as much as 20% of our grid
needs without additional storage. Nobody can say for sure whether that
figure is attainable, and the amount of current wind capacity doesn't
have anything to do with it.
Since you own two wind generators, how much does it generate and what did it
cost?
We have 1300 Watts (nameplate) of wind power, and 2000 Watts of solar.
The system cost about $30k and generates all of our energy for a
modern, well equipped, all electric home in the southwest. The wind
generators cost about $2k, the tower about as much again, and they
supply about a quarter of our energy needs. That part varies from zero
to 100% daily depending on the weather.
We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been
built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not
built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.
Yes, and when GW took office, the renewkables claimed that new plants
would be springing up like mushrooms. Yet even with complete GOP
control, here's the reality of new nukes
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517234152.html
I didn't say anything about presidential politics. My support for nuclear
power is that it is clean, cheap and abundant.
It is neither clean, cheap or abundant.... except on Usenet.
Cheap power is a good thing.
Well sure, and that's exactly why wind farms are being built and nukes
aren't. Wind power is very nearly competitive with that of
conventional plants, except that wind power doesn't have the added
pollution costs or the need for cooling water.
As to your assesment that Nevada's NIMBY suits are going to be a final
stumbling block to nuclear power I disagree.
Disagree all you want, but the market has spoken. Renewkables were
pinning their hopes on Yucca, but the future of that is in grave doubt
due to Congressional unwillingness to fund it, and the court's
unwillingness to override scientific standards. Not to mention the 55%
chance that it'll be history come November. :-)
Fear was the tool that the
anti nuclear power lobby used to slow the progress of nuclear power, and a
rational discussion of the facts will be the tool that brings it back.
What you mean by "rational discussion" is something more like
"willingness to accept increased risk". Ain't going to happen in our
lifetime. But just for fun, let's say that science, government,
investors and the public all had a change of heart. Let's allow ten
years for that, and another ten for permitting and construction.
You're still looking at two decades before the first new plant. A
*lot* of wind power could go up in the meantime, which is why everyone
should be pushing for it. Unfortunately most renewkables see wind and
solar as nails in nuke's coffin, so they actively argue against all
renewables every chance they get.
P.S. I didn't vote for GW or his father.
Congrats. GW plans for a renewable energy future to come about the
same time as his Mars mission.
Wayne