[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories
Using that report is so misleading. Sure the wind may blow enough to
warrant consideration for future development, but is the land required to
build the wind farms available? How much land would be required to generate
1000 Mw electric using wind turbines? Are there currently any large scale
demonstrations of wind farms? If so, where are they, what is the current
land area used, and what is the maximum generating capacity in Mw electric?
You know it wouldn't go over very well with the general population if the
land was obtained through condemnation. There are still a lot of people
around the country who have issues with that, especially those that lost
land due to some hydroelectric/dam project.
There are some other factors here also. How many have actually been to a
wind farm? I have been around one wind turbine in my life and it sounded
like a helicopter...very annoying. Even if we could apply this uniformly to
individual homes, how many could really afford it? I have looked into
options currently available, and the up front cost for both new
construction or modifications to old homes is prohibitive, not to mention
residential covenants which preclude things such as wind turbines.
Don't get me wrong here..we need to develop this technology as with solar,
but not with the thought in mind of replacing coal or nuclear...we need
those too.
My opinions only
DJWhitfill
NECNP <necnp@necnp.org>
Sent by: To: radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
owner-radsafe@list.vand cc:
erbilt.edu Subject: Re: ots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in
calories
11/21/01 09:16 AM
Please respond to NECNP
I would suggests that Mr. De Castro check the US DOE web site. They did a
study in the early 1990s that said that there was enough harnessible wind
power in just three states to supply all of the electrical needs of the
US. See Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States at
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/atlas_index.html.
AND_TYPING_MISINFORMATION_IN_ALL_CAPS_DOESN'T_MAKE_IT_ANY_MORE TRUE.
PERIOD!
Dave Pyles
At 04:29 PM 11/20/2001 -0600, Ted de Castro wrote:
>Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:38:03 -0800
>From: Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>
>Subject: Re: lots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories
>
>This is a clear example of an irrational philosophy! THERE SIMPLY
>_ARE_NOT_ENOUGH "RENEWABLES" PERIOD!!! to replace nuclear generation -
>it is not a matter of engineering nor of new more efficient methods nor
>even wishful thinking - these are low energy density resources and just
>not that plentiful.
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
P. O. Box 545
Brattleboro VT 05302-0545
(802) 257-0336
necnp@necnp.org
www.necnp.org
====================
10 9 8 seven six 5 4 three 2 one
and ker p l o o o y
you're done
you're done for
you're done for good.
so tell me
did you?
did you do --
did you do all you could?
Ani Difranco - Tamburitza Lingua
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
- Prev by Date:
Re: ots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories
- Next by Date:
Re: ots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories
- Prev by thread:
Re: ots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories
- Next by thread:
Re: ots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories
- Index(es):