Something they didn't think about
It has been found that some people are suffering medical issues around wind turbines.
Is this information true? I don't know, but another reason to rethink this headlong dive into "alternative" energy.
I already feel that Wind energy is not the answer we are looking for. The main issue with it is that it is not a "reliable" source. This is due to that for most turbines to operate at optimum output they must recieve a SUSTAINED wind of approximatly 35 mph. Since there are few places where the wind blows constatnly and at that speed, a turbine rated at a certain Kwphr, you cannot count on it on a consistant basis. This means that other sources of power generation must be kept online and at 100% to meet demand in case of a drop in wind generated power. We must be careful and not over commit to this "cure-all" for our energy crisis.
Pierpont's findings suggest that low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines can have an effect on the inner ear, triggering headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems.
Is this information true? I don't know, but another reason to rethink this headlong dive into "alternative" energy.
I already feel that Wind energy is not the answer we are looking for. The main issue with it is that it is not a "reliable" source. This is due to that for most turbines to operate at optimum output they must recieve a SUSTAINED wind of approximatly 35 mph. Since there are few places where the wind blows constatnly and at that speed, a turbine rated at a certain Kwphr, you cannot count on it on a consistant basis. This means that other sources of power generation must be kept online and at 100% to meet demand in case of a drop in wind generated power. We must be careful and not over commit to this "cure-all" for our energy crisis.
posted by davis14633 at 08:49
3 Comments:
While I agree that wind energy is far too unreliable for most places, I still think that research into alternative energy sources is a good long term approach to improving our energy situation. Alone it is not "the answer", but it should be part of the overall strategy.
Certainly wind energy is only useful in some areas, but the same is true of solar power which would not be much of an option in, say, Alaska. There is simply no single solution to meeting all our energy needs, including petroleum. However, if we get our energy from more diverse sources, then our economy will be less susceptible to fluctuating prices of oil. As I see it, that is the main benefit of researching alternative energy sources. Any semi-competent economist understands the danger of putting too many eggs in one basket.
However, as this story demonstrates, rushing headlong and over committing to underdeveloped or poorly conceived technologies will simply create new problems. A lot more research still needs to be done, and we need to recognize the limitations each approach offers before we can determine if it will be beneficial. When the price of oil is high, as it is now, then market conditions will encourage such research as night follows the day. Energy is in demand right now, and if someone comes up with a good, reliable method for generating power then they will have no problem marketing it.
Unfortunately, enviro-nuts will most likely ignore the potential side-effects and shortcomings and continue their crusade for "greener" energy despite the environmental, or even humanitarian, costs. To them, scientific research is not the answer, it is the cause of the problem. Their "solution" is to believe still more strongly in what their shamans tell them and to blame everyone else (a.k.a. "the government") for the current state of affairs.
I would like to hear just one of our politicians say “I have a 100 year plan to get off oil” or something at least reasonable.
To back up your point, our local university just implemented 8.5 million grant in solar energy. They hope to save $875,000 a year and I’m looking forward to the actual results. I have no problem with this, that’s where technology develops. But, once you include maintenance and other cost this is never going to be cash positive let alone break even. Solar as with wind and other green energy is nowhere near ready for Prime Time.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/fgcu-fpl-gov-crist-announce-new-plans-achieve-envi/
-jw
I have no problem with alternative energy research -- as long as it's privately funded. Or, at the very most, give tax breaks to oil, coal and gas based energy companies for conducting realistic research into alternative energy. But more government involvement is not the answer, nor will it ever be. That's what's put us where we're at now.
Government subsidies are an insidious evil. They invariably end up as pork barrels and political milk cows. Their very existence attracts the worst sort of panhandlers and confidence men as surely as cow patties attract flies, and with approximately the same result: a whole new generation of maggots.
Post a Comment
<< Home