Quote:
Wind power is not realistic.
Pure wind power? No i'd give you that, not on a large scale. 75% wind power? I don't see why that would be impossible?
And in smaller isolated communities, pure wind power is most definitely possible.
Samsø - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
It takes too much land (much like solar power), is far too costly per kw/hr that it generates, does not last as long as other sources of energy, is not constant in that it relies on wind speed, etc, etc. The list is so long it would make any investor in his right mind shake in his boots.
According to the Californian Energy Commision Wind power is a bit cheaper pr. MWh than nuclear:
Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is most likely because of the tax-discount stuff that is given when renewable energy is involved, but don't make it sound like wind-power costs an arm and a leg compared to other sources. Maintenance costs will be high, but thats it.
Quote:
So go ahead and buy stock in wind turbines b/c that leaves more nuclear stock for me. :D
Vestas stock is not a bad deal at all actually :) It is a bit volatile but there is money to be made i reckon, i'm hardly an expert on that matter however! :P
VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS Share Price Chart | VWS.CO - Yahoo! Finance UK
Quote:
And a lot of money in the process which will bring you back to square one. It isn't realistic.
Realistic? What do you mean? It's here! If i turn my head i can see a windmill from where i'm sitting (i can also see a coal plant actually :D, second largest one in the country), are you telling me it is all in my head?
Edit:
Quote:
This isn't about wind power not having its uses. This is about Nuclear Power having its uses. What started as an attempt to show what many agree is the lack of efficiency of the wind power alternative, seems to have been interpreted as saying no to wind power.
It does have it's uses, it is stable, more stable than any of the renewables like solar and wind and wavepower and whatnot, so nuclear (or perhaps fusion in a couple of decades?) could very well be used as a secondary source that kicks in whenever it's cloudy or there is no wind. I just don't think we should rely totally on an energy source which has kryptonite coming out the back of it. As of now we have no sensible solution to getting rid of the nuclear waste, and if the only _real_ significant drawback to windpower is money, then i know where my preferences are.
Quote:
That is not the case. I personally have no love for those turbines. But hey, well located ones in countries with the right conditions to have them, sure. Instead I'm more concerned with the anti-nuclear campaign that is feed by an immense level of misinformation and downright lies. Especially by the same "environmentalists" that then go about spending oil and coal while they discuss how many million fans they need to install to give energy to their country.
I too thought the pro-wind guy's argument about adding the deaths of a possible nuclear bomb attack to the nuclear power plants' annual avg. death rate or whatever it was, was complete nonsense and had no place in the debate, it kind of spoiled it for me actually. I realize that war and bombs and especially terror does not belong in a debate about nuclear power, this includes Chernobyl. All that is just scare-tactics and grasping straws and i loathe those kinds of "arguments". So i will definitely agree with you on that, we need rationality and facts, not all this political hot air.