Newer plants are designed to have an expected life of about
40 - 60 years before they need to be decommissioned due
But windmills never operate at 100% efficiency, more like 30-40%. So it all works out in the end I guess.Quote:
Vis, your calculations, big wind mills are 4-6MW, not 2.
The REALLY big turbines are rated at 11MW, I think, so you'll get maybe 3 or 4 actual MW out of it, but there aren't many of those around.
That's because private businesses have to break even. They can't just run up a massive debt like the nations of the world.Quote:
actually the only increase recently came when the government decided to privatize the energy providers, what do you know.
I guess if you're in it just for the sake of reducing CO2, then it's great. But if it was economically viable we'd all be driving electric cars and getting our energy from solar panels by now. The tech is there, has been there for quite some time, but the only thing actually keeping alternative energy in business is gov't subsidies (hence the 80% energy tax) and those simply aren't sustainable.
the impact of turbines is far, far less than alternatives in
almost every measurable way.
As for your comment about, "especially for birds." That's
pretty much just spin that wind opponents like to use.
It's an exaggerated claim based on selective information.
Figures from past studies in which these people cite
were of farms which had 10+ year-old turbine designs.
These were fast-spinning turbines with blades that
had low surface area. In addition to that, these farms
were located within migratory pathways and other
areas in which there was a greater chance of collision.
Newer turbines have slower moving blades with large s
surface areas. Birds dodge these quite easily.
The average mortality rate of birds from Wind Turbines
is about 2.19 birds / turbine / year (these were studies
from almost a decade ago that were studying farms with
older turbine designs, by the way). The American Bird
Conservancy says that between 40,000 - 80,000 birds
may die as a result of turbine collisions per year. And
while that does seem high, one should actually put it
150 million birds die / year due to utility lines. About 60
million die from colliding with automobiles. Between 100
and 1 billion birds die / year just from crashing into
buildings. 40 million die from collisions with communication
towers. Bioicides ("pest"icides) kill another 60 million.
Bird mortality due to Turbines seems to be nothing more
than exaggerated spin by wind opponents. There's always
room for improvement; but I wouldn't consider the impact on
birds reason to oppose wind power at all.
See, you make assertions like that without any evidence toQuote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
support them. The School of Engineering and Applied Science
at Harvard says that by 2030, wind alone can meet all of
China's energy demands. It could replace all coal and other
fossil fuels. This the most populous country on the planet and
the second biggest consumer of energy (behind the United
States). This was the cover story to Science Magazine last
That doesn't matter, because nobody is advocating wind
entirely by itself. But a infrastructure based on wind and
supplemented by other renewables such as geothermal,
hydro, solar, etc can definitely meet the needs of the energy
needs of the planet.
More likely it is because they must turn a profit in order to maintain a stable stock price, etc, which they need in order to raise operating and development capital. Which the government can cover with taxes. So you pay taxes to cover power, or you pay more to a private company, which is six and two threes. The "necessary" profit, of course, remains a pure leak -- you get nothing for that.Quote:
That's because private businesses have to break even.
Governments must subsidize nuclear facilities -- otherwise no one will build them. The baseline is still existing coal power, which is effectively subsidized by the government because they are allowed to extract what should be considered a public resource at extremely low cost. By selling off our resources at next to nothing to private companies,* they are 1) receiving a hidden subsidy, the same as if the government built them equipment and sold it at a loss, 2) keeping energy prices artificially low in order to discourage any alternative.Quote:
I guess if you're in it just for the sake of reducing CO2, then it's great. But if it was economically viable we'd all be driving electric cars and getting our energy from solar panels by now. The tech is there, has been there for quite some time, but the only thing actually keeping alternative energy in business is gov't subsidies
* eg, it will be interesting to see if it actually costs the government money in order to allow BP to drill in the gulf
Privatizing DONG Energy was stupid, the entire COP15 was a farce, mostly everything else our current conservative/liberal government has been doing has either been cutting welfare or cutting taxes. So don't get me wrong, i do think that the increase in wind-power is brilliant, but i'm not overly positive about everything here.Quote:
Sorry, Neo. But I know Denmark. And I know Danes. And your whole positive outlook on what is happening to your country is frankly knew to me.
Why is it criminal? I don't quite follow you i think.Quote:
Personally I think its criminal what your government is doing. But I'm not the only one. And don't take me wrong when I say I suspect your stance is not representative of the vast majority of the population living outside the cities in your country.
Sure, and it's financing everything around here?Quote:
Which has only been aggravating the tax weight on your lives.
It's climbing, we are up almost exactly 100.000 cars from 2007 to 2010. Yet we still have less than half as many cars as we have people. And considering ticket prices for bus and train are up by 75% since 2001 and the number of bus routes and on-time train departures are down by 20% and 9% since 2001, i think there is some pattern to all this. 2001 being the year that our current government won the election.Quote:
Again, you surprise me. Because while that was the intention, it isn't really working that well, is it? On the contrary, car sales in Denmark keep climbing while at the same time, because they are so expensive, Denmark has one of the oldest car population in Europe... which means generally speaking, Danish cars are less efficient and more polluting than in the rest of Europe.
Looking at our neighbor Germany, where cars are dirt cheap, consider which is more CO2 friendly:
Changing cars once every 3-4 years, usually very big and heavy cars such as German saloons since they are cheap.
Using the same car for 15 years, usually small japanese cars since they are the only affordable ones.
Sure, we have alot of cars from 1987 that only do about 10-12 km/l, and i do agree that the current system with a static tax percent needs to be changed (to favor efficient and safe cars, while punishing Hummers and Porsches), our current system is still actually prefferable imo.
Nono they are liberals, they don't do tax raising, it's not their thing. They are trying to save money to get us back on track, by cutting child support checks and our national retirement support. The opposition, the socialists have made deals with the unions to increase the avg. work-time with an hour a week to get everything back on track, and also they want to increase government spending for things like large construction projects. Also i don't know where the 85 million you speak of comes from, they need to find 24 billion kroner, not that it helps :-)Quote:
The cost is in the taxes you pay. I'm sure you are fully aware what a *tax* is. And with your deficit breaking the 4.9 record and your government needing to find an extra 85 million kroner somewhere, I wonder what taxes they will raise that they haven't already. Raising the 80% energy tax? The 105% car tax?
Even if it were 85 million that looks like 10-20 kr a head, which is lunch money for most people in Denmark.
Sorry, I don't but that. China is going through it's industrial revolution right now and in 20 years or so they will be about where we were in the 60's and 70's with even more demand for power.Quote:
The School of Engineering and Applied Science
at Harvard says that by 2030, wind alone can meet all of
China's energy demands.
But again go invest in it if you believe so strongly about it.