http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/12/2745115/5-companies-vie-to-build-wind.html

I am going to on record saying THIS IS TOTALLY FUCKING STUPID.

1) The turbines are hideous
2) The turbines kill wildlife
3) The sea water is going to corrode them to shit
4)

Quote :

"Offshore wind is much more expensive than other sources of electricity, Hamilton said, and utilities are not going to buy it unless there’s something forcing them to do so."

5)

Quote :

"The Maryland legislature is poised to pass a bill requiring the state’s electricity providers to buy a certain amount of power from a proposed wind farm off Ocean City. It would increase monthly electricity bills for ratepayers by an estimated $1.50 a month."

Wind energy might be a good way to power remote islands, or residences in Alaska that are off teh grid, but I see no reason why the average citizen should pay higher rates and have to deal with the negative effects of these turbines.

3/12/2013 11:33:18 PM

Typical example of "not in my backyard" thinking. Everyone wants to be environmentally responsible and energy-independent, but as soon as a wind farm comes to their state or solar panel goes on their neighbour's roof, suddenly everyone is up in arms.

Wind is one of the most proven and efficient sources of renewable and clean power today. Would you rather have groundwater polluted by fracking? Or would you get an oil rig off the coast off NC, which may not be visible like the turbines when it operates, but it sure becomes more than an eyesore after a disaster such as Deepwater Horizon.

1) Your house is hideous
2) Your suburban development killed wildlife, and as far as seabirds that may be harmed by turbines, so does the trash you left on the beach.
3) I think engineers have thought of that very concern
4) It is cheaper when you consider long-term environmental factors and costs uncurred by the US to ensure cheap and steady oil supply
5) Small price to pay for clean and renewable power source. That won't even get you a fucking whopper with fries these days.

3/12/2013 11:57:30 PM

3/13/2013 12:00:21 AM

Powerlines, windows, automobiles, and pesticides kill much more birds than these turbines ever would. Have you even seen these things in action? They don't spin at the speed of an airplane propeller, they spin closer to the speed of an old-school wooden windmill. Don't even pretend you that birds are your biggest concern in this case, I imagine this has more to do with your unobtructed view of sunrise over the ocean from you family beachhouse.

And if you want to start a dying birds picture contest, here is a video for you to think about next time you are drinking your soda on the beach

MIDWAY : trailer : a film by Chris Jordan from Midway on Vimeo.

3/13/2013 12:13:23 AM

I think whether they are hideous is subjective. Honestly, I think it would be kind of beautiful in a way to look out at the horizon and know that humans are pulling energy from a clean, renewable resource. But that's just me.

As far as cost goes, with wind energy you pretty much pay what it costs to produce and then it's done. You rarely ever pay the externality cost of running a coal plant or using gas produced by fracking. $1.50 for clean, renewable energy seems fairly reasonable, honestly.

3/13/2013 12:38:04 AM

I'm actually surprised that the OP emphasized the $1.50 increase, as it seems almost minuscule in comparison to the benefits of renewable energy.

Initially, I'm all for it; however, I would like to see the the specific details of what kind of environmental impacts this might have on North Carolina's coast.
(Cartoons by Josh ain't gonna cut it.)


Also, this is old, but it's almost always relevant... in some cases:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGDZMpv5Y9Vo&pos=13

Quote :

"Twice this year, the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities reduced customer bills for using the surplus electricity... The wind-energy boom in Europe and parts of Texas has begun to reduce bills for consumers. Electricity-network managers have even ordered windmills offline at times to trim supplies... Spanish power prices fell an annual 26 percent in the first quarter because of the surge in supplies from wind and hydroelectric production..."

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 1:50 AM. Reason : \/ https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+turbine+bird also ain't gonna cut it.]

3/13/2013 1:32:34 AM

https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+turbine+bird

3/13/2013 1:39:52 AM

It'll never really get anywhere. Too many people out there like Str8BacardiL.

Quote :

"$1.50 for clean, renewable energy seems fairly reasonable, honestly."

For how much clean energy? I agree, that would be a bargain to replace all of our grid with wind for an extra $1.50 per month, sign me up!

3/13/2013 7:55:42 AM

The "They kill birds!" is the line on Fox News too. Weird. Who'da thunk that conservatives were such sea bird conservationists.

3/13/2013 8:52:25 AM

The bird death thing is so massively overblown it's ridiculous. You want to stop kiling birds, fucking neuter your cats.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

3/13/2013 9:08:58 AM

oh noes, tha birds



[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 9:15 AM. Reason : I wonder if the offshore farms will help fishing out there?]

3/13/2013 9:14:13 AM

Wasn't there a bill proposed or passed to require them to be at least a certain distance off shore so they were not visible?

(I worked on this awhile back looking at properties to land the power lines, but it was really early on in the discussion so I don't know much about it)

3/13/2013 9:34:56 AM

3/13/2013 9:38:26 AM

This really sounds like nothing more than a NIMBY problem.

Also, I find it funny that the coastal communities just a year or two ago were up in arms about having to close beaches to protect the oyster catchers, and now the same communities are up in arms about protecting birds from wind turbines.

Quote :

"Honestly, I think it would be kind of beautiful in a way to look out at the horizon and know that humans are pulling energy from a clean, renewable resource. But that's just me."

Me too. I remember as a kid my dad took my brother and I on this roadtrip out west. We started in the Bay area and did the typical touristy sites. Grand Canyon, Vegas, Rocky Mountains, Tetons, Etc.
On the way back into California we pass these hills that were absolutely covered in turbines, as far as you could see. It was awesome in the true sense of the weird, Awe Inspiring. Thousands of wind turbines, slowly rotating across hundreds of square miles. We'd seen a lot of beautiful landscapes that had been marred by private enterprise like logging and mining. So to see what was just a barren pastureland turned into something that was so useful, with such quiet and fluid movement was really neat.

3/13/2013 9:56:10 AM

Sounds good to me. I really can't see how anyone could use "won't someone think of the birds!" argument, when the alternative is burning fossil fuels and fracking. You really think that's more environmentally friendly?

3/13/2013 10:29:11 AM

But have you ever seen a bird underground?!

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 10:38 AM. Reason : wait, oh shit, maybe its because we already killed them all ]

3/13/2013 10:38:37 AM

I've grown too cynical. Some number of years ago I would have wasted my breath on these anti-progress people, but my message has become "just give up".

An informed legal process that can stop projects on an environmental basis is a good thing. In order to have that, however, you have to accept the possibility that something you don't like might get built. People aren't willing to accept that.

For a good civic process of permitting, we should be obliged to the science. We have plenty of president from wind farms in other places, and there's no doubt that they get a gold star in terms of environmental impact. The alternatives for producing energy are absolutely off the charts compared to wind (or at least most of them). If science was going to prevail, the NC coast would already be producing huge amounts of wind power. What we'll get is a tightly limited niche amount of turbines built so that the government and power company can say they did.

I think the majority of people in NC would be in favor of large wind farms, but the opposition is too visceral, too active, and too powerful.

3/13/2013 10:43:49 AM

Offshore drilling- Yes! Go Amurica!
Offshore wind- But they kill birds!

3/13/2013 10:50:32 AM

Quote :

""

this would be more accurate if the backup power was pointing at the wind turbines

3/13/2013 11:25:42 AM

birds are a stupid reason to get mad at wind power cause its not really that big of a deal and as people have pointed out its not even relevant compared to the largest bird killers.

what sucks about wind is how unreliable and overpriced it is.

there are really only 2 good solutions for green power, hydro and nuclear. And really its just nuclear cause we keep blowing up dams to make way for fish (which is not unreasonable in certain circumstances).

You can blame our current energy prospects on "environmentalists" and their anti-science fear mongering.

we need to stop wasting time on solar and wind and pour money into modern reactor research. natural gas will provide us enough of a window that we can get those reactors built before we half to fall back to coal.

also, we should spend a lot of time and effort (and money) on energy efficiency projects. decreasing energy used though higher quality insulation, windows, etc... will go a long way to reducing overall usage which is important regardless of energy source.

3/13/2013 11:36:35 AM

Wind Turbines suck. They're fucking hideous and not that efficient. When I visited Maui I was quite disappointed to see 10-15 turbines on the side of the island off in the distance marring what was otherwise a beautiful view. Oh, and they weren't even spinning 75% of the time I was there. I would rather have drilling platforms (out of sight of course) off the coast of NC.

Also, funny story:



Wind turbine collapses after being hit by a 50 mph gust of wind. WTF, isn't that what we want?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html

PS: The abbreviation for hydraulic fracturing is is fracing. Not fracking.

3/13/2013 11:46:46 AM

Some structural engineer on that project not doing appropriate load calculations = we should not build any of these

3/13/2013 11:50:00 AM

That article makes it sound like wind turbines, in general, aren't designed for those speeds.

Also nobody has mentioned the low frequency hum that these turbines emit. These noises have been proven to cause health problems for some people that live near them. Of course, an off shore wind farm wouldn't be around people's homes so it doesn't really apply.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 11:52 AM. Reason : k]

3/13/2013 11:51:08 AM

yes, everywhere has the same average and peak winds and there is only one model of wind turbines

3/13/2013 11:52:16 AM

also i said it was funny. stop trolling.

3/13/2013 11:53:09 AM

Quote :

"These noises have been proven to cause health problems for some people that live near them."

no they haven't

3/13/2013 12:04:56 PM

Quote :

"Wind Turbines suck. They're fucking hideous and not that efficient."

Efficient? What is the definition of efficiency of a wind turbine? Delivered electrical power divided by.... by... wind energy?

Perhaps you mean monetary efficiency. In that case you don't mean efficiency, you mean cost. Or maybe it's really about the efficiency on your eyes.

3/13/2013 12:11:08 PM

Quote :

"Wind turbine collapses after being hit by a 50 mph gust of wind"

Wind turbine collapses, it falls underwater right there and probably becomes a nice artificial reef. No humans get hurt and maybe a handful of unlucky fish and birds are taken out. When an offshore drilling rig collaposes, humans die in the accident, then resulting poluttion kills sea life and birds in several hundred or even thousand mile radius and shuts down beaches to humans for months.

Quote :

"what sucks about wind is how unreliable and overpriced it is. "

Unrealiable, maybe. It is supposed to be supplemental to the grid. No one is arguing that it can become the only source of power. Overpriced is just a factor of scale and fossil fuel prices. Nuclear was cheap a few years ago and is "overpriced" now because of cheap natural gas supply due to fracking (or fracing if you wish).

Quote :

"there are really only 2 good solutions for green power, hydro and nuclear."

Nuclear is domestic but not truly green. First of all, it is not a renewable source. There is still ore mining involved and the devastating consequences of accidents will always prevent it from being a green source.

Hydro is renewable, reliable, and more efficient than wind turbines, but it creates environmental impact greater than that of wind turbines due to flooding of vast tracts of land.

That said, I am complitely for development of both of those, along with active advance of other renewable sources with even lower impact on the environment, such as wind and solar.

Quote :

"Also nobody has mentioned the low frequency hum that these turbines emit. These noises have been proven to cause health problems for some people that live near them"

these farms are almost always built away from any kind of residential areas. Also, you know what else creates noise and health problems? Highways. Train lines. Nascar tracks. Airports. Power substations. Large air handlers. Do you think we should stop building those anywhere close to your house?

Quote :

"When I visited Maui I was quite disappointed to see 10-15 turbines on the side of the island off in the distance marring what was otherwise a beautiful view."

I bet you the natives were disappointed to see the hotel you stayed in block THEIR otherwise beautiful view. Everything humans build can be considered an obstruction. From all power generating options, wind, power, and certain types of solar are probably the most beautiful structures. Ever seen a conventional fossil-fuel powere plant? Nothing beautiful about it.


[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM. Reason : big-ass map]

3/13/2013 12:22:05 PM

Quote :

"Nuclear was cheap a few years ago and is "overpriced" now because of cheap natural gas supply due to fracking (or fracing if you wish)."

I understand the comparison you are making here, but the idea that nuclear energy has ever been "cheap" is pretty iffy.

A lot of analyses put it as one of the most expensive options, even more than offshore wind.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearcosts2009.pdf


Nuclear has a lot of things going for it, cost is not one of them.

3/13/2013 12:31:52 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you mean monetary efficiency. In that case you don't mean efficiency, you mean cost."

my mistake on lack of clarity. This is what I was referring to.

3/13/2013 12:34:35 PM

^^yeah I should have put "cheap" in quotation marks.

Also this.

Quote :

"also, we should spend a lot of time and effort (and money) on energy efficiency projects. decreasing energy used though higher quality insulation, windows, etc... will go a long way to reducing overall usage which is important regardless of energy source. "

Incandescent light and internal combustion engines lose 80-90% of energy to heat. Good insulation and smart thermostats can reduce energy needed for climate control of buildings almost in half.

It's mind-boggling how much energy we are wasting even though the technology to stop it is already available to us.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2013 12:54:08 PM

Quote :

"Wind Turbines suck. They're fucking hideous and not that efficient. When I visited Maui I was quite disappointed to see 10-15 turbines on the side of the island off in the distance marring what was otherwise a beautiful view. Oh, and they weren't even spinning 75% of the time I was there. I would rather have drilling platforms (out of sight of course) off the coast of NC."

i'm sorry, but your position seems to be completely irrational. are they really that much of an eye sore? enough that if had the choice, you'd rather oil rigs be built, with all the known hazards that accompany them? i just don't see why you're so strongly against these evil windmills.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2013 1:01:11 PM

Quote :

"Nuclear is domestic but not truly green. First of all, it is not a renewable source. There is still ore mining involved and the devastating consequences of accidents will always prevent it from being a green source."

if we use thorium and start reprocessing existing waste it makes the renewable issue less of a problem. reprocessing would also clean up existing fuel stocks, but its probably super expensive compared to just mining more.

also modern reactors are significantly safer than older ones, most of which were originally designed to be retired years ago but are still operating because of a lack of viable alternatives other than coal/oil. and in the us we haven't had any devastating problems despite our old reactors. getting rid of them should be a priority not just for safety, but for efficiency as they use far less of their fuel than newer designs. this makes fuel costs lower and decreases the amount of waste you have to store.

all power generation has environmental impacts, but nuclear has less impact over time than most others.

regarding nuclear costs, its a long term solution. natural gas is fantastic right now but its not gonna last. we should take advantage of the rather convenient situation natural gas has created to modernize our reactors for the long haul. i'm talking about starting r&d right now for reactors that will come on line in 20-30 years. building new nukes with existing designs is ok, but it might be worth the wait for more efficient and safer designs that are possible. its really unfortunate that our retarded forebears decided to stop nuclear research cause we wouldn't be in the mess if they hadn't.

and again I want to reiterate how important efficiency is in all of this. I think regardless of your choice of power generation its something we can all agree is worth while.

3/13/2013 1:32:26 PM

I am sure a hurricane will have no effect whatsoever on offshore wind turbines.

3/13/2013 1:41:26 PM

Not nearly as disastrous as the potential effects a hurricane may have on an offshore oil rig, right?

3/13/2013 1:42:56 PM

Quote :

"and again I want to reiterate how important efficiency is in all of this. I think regardless of your choice of power generation its something we can all agree is worth while."

And yet there was a public uproar when government was trying to restrict general-purpose incandescent bulbs rated between 40 and 100 watt.

Electricity is just too cheap for most people to truly care much about efficiency right now.

In other news, at this point Str8BacardiL and TKE-Teg are only digging a deeper hole for themselves. If you don't want wind turbines in your backyard and on your electric bill and you dont give a shit about the future generations, just say so. If you have any better solution for clean and renewable power generation in NC, feel free to share it. I don't think damming the Neuse would work very well. Hint: There are also emerging technologies such as underwater turbines or tidal generators, which are invisible to humans but havea greater impact on the sea life.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2013 1:44:50 PM

Quote :

"And yet there was a public uproar when government was trying to restrict general-purpose incandescent bulbs rated between 40 and 100 watt. "

because that's the absolute dumbest most retarded way to go about it.

its only been recently that cfls have started to be decent and they're still a big environmental hazard. all the hate on them was completely justified cause their reputation up till recently was deservedly shit. I cant think of a worse place to start talking about efficiency. also, banning things that people like is always the wrong way to go about it.

I would start with heating/cooling efficiency mostly centered around insulation. you cant imagine how bad the insulation is in a lot of homes and they just run their heat/ac constantly while the heat just goes right thru their walls and windows. tax credits or other incentives to get individuals and businesses to update their homes and businesses would create a mini job boom for the people who do that work. even if the government foots most of the bill its still worth it over time. its probably the single best thing the government could spend money on since the long term rewards are so high and the implementation effort is so low. like cash for clunkers but with a worthwhile goal.

3/13/2013 2:08:47 PM

Quote :

"enough that if had the choice, you'd rather oil rigs be built, with all the known hazards that accompany them? i just don't see why you're so strongly against these evil windmills."

This isn't directed to me, but if I would rather see nuclear built... but it's irrelevant.

We can't decouple ourselves emotionally from any horse race. For electricity, we should make decisions based on objective criteria. Among that sources that have internalized their costs, we can't let preferences matter. We must silence the voice in our heads that prefers one or the other because it looks nicer.

Wind gets an A+ rating for internalizing its costs. Let's say a hurricane did take down a windfarm on the coast. It honestly wouldn't be the end of the world. It's also not using water (for which there is no free market), and it's not producing emissions.

The cost for fossil fuels is always greater than or equal to the price. If wind were cheaper than a fossil fuel in price, then its cost would be absolutely lower. If a fossil fuel is more expensive than wind in price, then who knows what is really cheaper.

Wind also beats the other "clean" sources (those that have internalized their costs) on one really really important metric - deployability.



You need to multiply the wind bar by 1/3 or so for the capacity factor, but still, it's a major impact.

3/13/2013 2:12:10 PM

CFL's are a hazard.

They do not last as long as advertised, break easier than a conventional light bulb, and contain mercury.

The government should put its weight behind reducing the cost of LED technology which is actually more efficient, longer lasting, and does not contain hazardous material.

3/13/2013 2:12:24 PM

Quote :

"I would start with heating/cooling efficiency mostly centered around insulation. you cant imagine how bad the insulation is in a lot of homes and they just run their heat/ac constantly while the heat just goes right thru their walls and windows. tax credits or other incentives to get individuals and businesses to update their homes and businesses would create a mini job boom for the people who do that work. even if the government foots most of the bill its still worth it over time. its probably the single best thing the government could spend money on since the long term rewards are so high and the implementation effort is so low. like cash for clunkers but with a worthwhile goal."

uhh, you basically just described the weatherization assistance program that was a part of the Obama stimulus

http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/09/30/obama-administration-marks-1-million-homes-weatherized-under-the-stimulus/

and yes, it was a conservative punching bag for years
and yes, the program probably should have been many times larger than it was.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM. Reason : the danger of CFL mercury is laughably overblown, seafood is probably more dangerous]

3/13/2013 2:20:39 PM

Quote :

"The cost for fossil fuels is always greater than or equal to the price. If wind were cheaper than a fossil fuel in price, then its cost would be absolutely lower. If a fossil fuel is more expensive than wind in price, then who knows what is really cheaper. "

I think you have the cost and the price mixed up

Quote :

"its only been recently that cfls have started to be decent and they're still a big environmental hazard. all the hate on them was completely justified cause their reputation up till recently was deservedly shit. I cant think of a worse place to start talking about efficiency. also, banning things that people like is always the wrong way to go about it. "

This proposal was put in place after LED technology matured enough to be cost-competitive in long term. I agree that LED is much more promising technology than CFL in all regards. And yet we must be thankful to CFL technology for bridging the gap over the years until we came up with something better. Think about where you CFLs have been used over the last few decades. Mostly in commercial structures, where energy efficiency is actually valued. IMagine if all those office buildings ran at the efficiency of the incandescents fo all that time.

By the way, hight power general purpose incandescent bulbs were not really banned, what was banned is a bulb with an efficiency below a certain ratio (luminosity devided by power draw). In fact, it never became even bacame a law, but it did become a widely accepted guideline. Not exactly the same tactic, but similar to the car world, where government did not ban SUVs or trucks, but they required each automaker to maintain a certain avarage fuel economy over the total production. This does not hurt the produces, has a marginal impact on consumers, and helps energy conservation, so what's the big deal?

I honestly think a more effective tactic would be to tax the fuck out of electricity to where it is expensive enough for people to at least try to monitor and save it, then use that tax revenue towards advancement of renewable sources. But that would never fly because people are too lazy and used to cheap power.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2013 2:31:00 PM

3/13/2013 2:32:27 PM

Thanks for finding such an accurate illustration about the physics of windmills and birds. I did not know they will serve double purpose as sandwitch meat slicers.

At this point its pretty clear that Str8BacardiL does not have any more reasonable response and is simply trolling in his own thread. On this note I will have to peace out from this thread because there is no point in arguing with people who already made up their opinion based on their own agenda.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM. Reason : fuckin internetz]

3/13/2013 2:38:51 PM

Quote :

" uhh, you basically just described the weatherization assistance program that was a part of the Obama stimulus http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/09/30/obama-administration-marks-1-million-homes-weatherized-under-the-stimulus/ and yes, it was a conservative punching bag for years and yes, the program probably should have been many times larger than it was. [Edited on March 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM. Reason : the danger of CFL mercury is laughably overblown, seafood is probably more dangerous]"

yes because they're so bad that no one uses them. and the people that do still have their current ones. wait until people start throwing them away in large quantities.

also fish aren't a mercury source so idk what ur getting at there.

also re:weatherization: you have to properly fund that kind of thing when it comes to low income residents, but for people who pay income taxes it would be much more efficient to just give them a nice, fat credit or deduction. targeting only the poor is stupid



[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM. Reason : a]

3/13/2013 2:38:53 PM

large pelagic fish are definitely sources of mercury

Staying on topic: a majority of that mercury is actually from our current energy system (coal plants)



Mercury can be harmful either by a very intense exposure or prolonged consumption over a long time. CFLs don't contain enough mercury to harm you through the very short amount of time you are exposed to it, eating tuna several times a week your entire life, however, could produce some effects

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2013 2:44:03 PM

Quote :

"Think about where you CFLs have been used over the last few decades. Mostly in commercial structures, where energy efficiency is actually valued. IMagine if all those office buildings ran at the efficiency of the incandescents fo all that time."

Wait what? Every commercial building I've been in have been using regular fluorescent tubes for 99% of their lighting for years. Heck if you believe Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_light#Commercialization_of_fluorescent_lamps) fluorescent lighting has been producing more light in this country than incandescent since 1951

3/13/2013 3:00:29 PM

fish are a transfer mechanism of mercury to humans, but they are not the source of the mercury in the environment (unless theres something I don't know about fish biology). The mercury sources are landfills and other human sites which then soak into the ground water or other water sources and end up in runoff which gets to the fish. the source is basically trash and other human waste like cfls.

3/13/2013 3:02:38 PM

^^Ok I was wrong to use the abbreviation "CFL" when I really meant "fluorescent lighting", which includes compact bulbs and the tubes. My point exactly that fluorescents caught on in commercial buildings, but not in residential appliations or with public lighting, where there is now a great opportunity to go to even more efficient, longer lasting, and safe LED technology. CFLS are much more efficient than incandescents (which are basically Edison-time tech) and will stick around for a while, although they can be fairly easily replaced with LED strips that will fit into standard commercial fixtures originally designed for fluorescent tubes.


[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2013 3:11:52 PM

Quote :

"internal combustion engines lose 80-90% of energy to heat."

It's more like 70-75% for an ICE but that's always improving.

for dtownral:

Quote :

"“However, there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that there are physiological effects of infrasound and low frequency noise on the ear. Until these effects are fully understood it is impossible to say that exposure to wind turbine noise does not cause any of the symptoms described."

http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2013/01/wind-turbine-syndrome-fact-or-fiction/

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 4:29 PM. Reason : 5 second google search]

Quote :

"And yet there was a public uproar when government was trying to restrict general-purpose incandescent bulbs rated between 40 and 100 watt. "

I also oppose this

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM. Reason : who wants mercury in their house?]

3/13/2013 4:26:01 PM

Ugh. You guys are hopeless. Can you open your eyes to the big picture? Did you even take time to digest anything I wrote?

Let me make it shorter for you simple folks. We have are highly inefficient in using energy because historically we have been able to produce it cheaply using fossil fuels. Although more new technologies are available that improve efficiency multiple times over, they have a higher upfront cost and are only embraced by those who who calculates their costs and impact in the long-term. Opposition to these new technologies comes from people who either think short term or don't think at all. These people are happy with the status quo and generally highly adverse to any type of authority. They frequenty use fringe reasonining to oppose innovation and slow down the progress for everyone else.

3/13/2013 5:05:57 PM