[Kosh]

Another example of environmentalism gone awry

The Obama administration on Wednesday approved the USA's first offshore wind energy project, but opponents to the turbines off Cape Cod vowed the fight is not over.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his decision after a nine-year federal review of the project that pitted environmentalists against one another and drew opposition from across party lines.

Among opponents to Cape Wind in Massachusetts was Edward Kennedy, a Democrat whose family estate is in nearby Hyannis Port. Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who now holds the Senate seat long held by Kennedy, also opposes it. He has called the Nantucket Sound "a national treasure that should be protected."

So because of 9 years worth of litigation this project has been long delayed and massively overbudget. See here for more about that aspect.

[StarSlayer]

Save the environment but don't do it in my back yard.

[Klaustrophobia]

in this case i think they do have at least have a leg to stand on.  the generation capability of a single wind plant is going to be piddly, and cape cod is something of a national landmark.  i don't know what actual impact it will have, so i'm not gonna come out on one side or the other.

[Kosh]

in this case i think they do have at least have a leg to stand on.  the generation capability of a single wind plant is going to be piddly, and cape cod is something of a national landmark.  i don't know what actual impact it will have, so i'm not gonna come out on one side or the other.

Everything is something of a landmark in some way or another, but electricity doesn't come from nothing. The biggest problem with wind and solar is because of their fundemental inefficiencies they take a lot of land (or in this case sea) in order to generate a meaningful amount of power.

[S-99]

Among opponents to Cape Wind in Massachusetts was Edward Kennedy, a Democrat whose family estate is in nearby Hyannis Port. Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who now holds the Senate seat long held by Kennedy, also opposes it. He has called the Nantucket Sound "a national treasure that should be protected."

He doesn't want harmless fans sitting in the ocean near where he lives? Oh no, this'll change the beautiful view from his patio to the ocean. This is dumb.

[ssmit132]

He doesn't want harmless fans sitting in the ocean near where he lives? Oh no, this'll change the beautiful view from his patio to the ocean. This is dumb.

I agree with this.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of an episode of some English crime show, where this rich guy got some lackeys to kidnap some other people under the guise of extremist environmentalists, just because he didn't want the view from his house ruined by the construction of a road. I know it's not exactly the same thing, though, but really the environmental reasons for not building the road (i.e. chopping down lots of trees) were far more important than the aesthetic reasons, in my opinion.

So I think that the environmental benefits outway the 'possible aesthetic problems'.

[Nuke]

i want nuclear damn it!

[Bobboau]

I think a bunch of off shore wind turbines would look cool.

[MP-Ryan]

The wind power industry is the biggest scam to come out of the "greening" movement yet.  "Oh, wind power is the future!" - bull****, wind power is a convenient distraction that is going to make a few people very rich before the powers-that-be realize they've been completely had.

Wind power has one essential flaw that makes it useless as a primary power generation tool - it has no capacity for storage and can supply only peak-demand alternatives.  Even in places where the wind blows continuously and rotors continually turn, the system does not always function at peak capacity, which makes it totally unreliable.  The only way wind energy is useful is to take the load off other power generation systems by throttling back the primary systems and allowing the power generated from wind turbines to absorb the slack when it is available.  When the wind systems drop in production capacity, primary systems again must take up the slack.  It is useful as an alternative to reduce demand on larger, reliable facilities, but that's it.

Now, take a long hard look at the ecological impact of wind power generation.  Oh sure, there are no CO2 emissions from wind power, but what about other factors?  Must like the idiotic move towards biofuels, which decimate arable land that could be used more productively to generate food, wind power generation leaves a massive and permanent ecological footprint.  Wind farms, in addition to taking up valuable land space that could be used for all kinds of things (including preservation and conservation) has a large impact on local bird populations.  Some preliminary studies have found significant impacts on bird populations, particularly in migratory routes, as a result of bird strikes at wind generation farms.

It's an inefficient red herring designed to do nothing but make money on the grants given to construct it, and then vanish into the night.

There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present:  hydroelectric, and nuclear.  The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be.  Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.

Most "environmentalists" and proponents of "green technology" have their hearts in the right place, but they don't have a ****ing clue when it comes to the technical aspects of these projects and it is absolutely infuriating.  The idea that wind generation can replace current coal-fired facilities and therefore affect climate change is completely and utterly laughable.

Disclaimer:  I currently work in environmental law enforcement.

[Bobboau]

ITT: trolling

[bobbtmann]

Hydroelectric dams aren't great either. From what I understand, for the first few years of operation they emit more greenhouse gas then some coal-burning powerplants. Vast lakes full of rotting vegetation and all that. Not to mention the localized environmental destruction. Really big dams flood a very big area, which effects anything upstream and downstream (particularily if the dam bursts). You should check out the Three Gorges Dam.

The thing about practically all renewable sources of energy that its inconsistant. But rather than saying that the problem with renewable resources is the inability to store it, we should say storing the energy is just a part of producing renewable energy.

And I would say the biggest scam to come out of the greening movement is biofuel. I can't imagine why anyone thought that was a good idea (other than making more money for corn farmers). I hear producing it isn't even carbon neutral, to say nothing of burning it.

[Bobboau]

if you use a feedstock that has more energy density than paper (i.e. sugar cane as opposed corn) it works better.

[Klaustrophobia]

the way i understand it is biofuel's original draw is the "when oil runs out" thing.  i think i've said this before, but the ideal setup IMO is renewables for peak demand capability, and nuclear base load.  hydro is great for backup/emergency power.  at least one of the nuclear stations uses hydro instead of diesel backup generators.  solar is decent for small-scale individual use, for those who don't mind the upfront cost.  if people put wind generation somewhere like out in the desert then fine, but massive wind farms that generate peanuts all over the place is not a good solution at all.  

[BloodEagle]

There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present:  hydroelectric, and nuclear.  The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be.  Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.

Is there something wrong with geothermal energy? [/not an expert]

[MP-Ryan]

There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present:  hydroelectric, and nuclear.  The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be.  Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.

Is there something wrong with geothermal energy? [/not an expert]

It's very hard on the equipment.  Geothermal gases are extremely corrosive, so the maintenance and replacement costs add up really quickly.

Hydroelectric dams aren't great either. From what I understand, for the first few years of operation they emit more greenhouse gas then some coal-burning powerplants. Vast lakes full of rotting vegetation and all that. Not to mention the localized environmental destruction. Really big dams flood a very big area, which effects anything upstream and downstream (particularily if the dam bursts). You should check out the Three Gorges Dam.

I grew up in British Columbia (on the banks of the Columbia River, actually), where virtually the entire province is powered by hydroelectricity (the surplus of which is sold to the United States).  Done properly with thorough logging of the to-be-submerged areas ahead of time, there are no significant carbon emissions beyond a natural lake, and the environmental consequences of vegetative destruction along the now-submerged shoreline are offset by the ecological significance of the larger reservoir - which doesn't even have to be that large depending on the local terrain.

Hydro is also very adaptable to localizing power supplies - small generation facilities can easily power small and medium-sized towns, and many rivers lend themselves to multiple dam projects in a short distance (see the Kootenay River) due to vertical drop.

Nepal's mountain villages use hydroelectricity extensively, a perfect example of the adaptability of the technology to scale, yet hydroelectric generation in a small area of British Columbia, Idaho, and Washington states power virtually the entire west coast of the United States and Canada from the northern border of California to Alaska.

Done properly with attention to environmental impact and mitigation of initial flooding, hydroelectric is the most efficient and environmentally-friendly form of power generation known.  It even beats out nuclear due to its scaling, low-maintenance requirements, and lack of any negative by-product or contamination.

[bobbtmann]

Still, though. The sun is the biggest source of energy available to us. In fact, most of our sources of energy are by products of sunlight. Wind, coal, oil, hydroelectric, biofuel all come from the sun's energy. With the exception of maybe nuclear, geothermal, and tide generators. Just because the solar panel technology isn't great right now doesn't mean that the other alternatives trump it. The ultimate source of energy is right there, we can see it everyday. Its just a matter of working towards it.

[Scotty]

Solar power is intermittent, expensive (in both start up and maintenance), polluting (ever wonder what those panels are made with?), and notoriously bad at holding power after the sun goes down (barring the liquid salt method).  Summation:  It's impractical, and other forms of power do indeed trump it.  If you want, I can have a dozen pages of evidence linked from nearly as many sources.

(Alternative energy was the Debate topic last year.)

[MP-Ryan]

Solar power is intermittent, expensive (in both start up and maintenance), polluting (ever wonder what those panels are made with?), and notoriously bad at holding power after the sun goes down (barring the liquid salt method).  Summation:  It's impractical, and other forms of power do indeed trump it.  If you want, I can have a dozen pages of evidence linked from nearly as many sources.

(Alternative energy was the Debate topic last year.)

What he said.

Current solar technology is too expensive and has a high environmental production cost for materials.  However, there is some very interesting preliminary work being done using biological solar power which could be very promising.  Chlorophyll has immense potential for power generation, if properly harnessed.  We may eventually see the day where a durable, biological coating on the roof of your home powers everything inside it, in all weather conditions.

But back on topic, wind generation is idiotic.

[DarkBasilisk]

I heard conflicting stuff about this when i was doing my debate topic for solar/wind. A lot of solar panel factories are switching to using solar power to minimize the environmental cost. Not to mention the salt storage method works pretty well. And Wind Power is extraordinarily cheap to build in a relative sense, and we don't use a lot of the land we could be placing it on. And note how the article says it can be making power in 2012. Basically nothing else we can deploy can be up and running that fast.

Nuclear for the US is pretty impractical itself, we canned the site we were planning to use to store our nuclear waste, and there's so much red tape in zoning one that it takes years before you can even break ground. Wind Turbines may be ugly/bird-killing, but a nuclear plant is the NIMBY from hell.

Last I heard, they're apparently finding ways to use solar power pretty well in Europe, since the deployment of it over there has exploded in recent years (any Euro-HP's want to enlighten us?)

Also : we're still running like 70% fossil fuel in the US, so take in mind there's probably some biased studies against anything that would try and compete with coal/oil. And any environmental cost the other power methods have has to be put in perspective, since next to cars, power generation is most of the remaining pollution we generate. And as long as we run off of coil/oil, that electric car you're hoping they make is worthless in an environmental sense, since you charge it with power that probably came from a fossil fuel plant.

EDIT : Although i don't get, is what's up with using the ocean for placing wind turbines? You're taking a really cheap to build power source, and finding a way to make it much more expensive to build and maintain.

[Kosh]

Current solar technology is too expensive and has a high environmental production cost for materials.  However, there is some very interesting preliminary work being done using biological solar power which could be very promising.  Chlorophyll has immense potential for power generation, if properly harnessed.  We may eventually see the day where a durable, biological coating on the roof of your home powers everything inside it, in all weather conditions.

Solar still has the same problems as wind, it is inefficient and unreliable. What do you do when the sun goes down? Also to get the power equivelent of one nuclear reactor out of solar you'd need acres and acres of solar cells. For baseline power nuclear is still the better choice.

Hydro is great, but it has some serious fundemental limits.

It's very hard on the equipment.  Geothermal gases are extremely corrosive, so the maintenance and replacement costs add up really quickly.

It's also extremely location specific. Iceland IIRC gets most of their power from geothermal, but they can do it because they are sitting on top of an active volcano.