• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World and Renewable Energy

Yeah, nuclear power is the only source we have of sufficient density to totally replace fossil fuels. Nuclear power would be cheaper than coal if our construction process wasn't so absurdly convoluted and restrictive. All the red tape adds billions to the cost of a plant. If we standardized some designs and streamlined the process, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this!

Nuclear can replace some fossil fuels but never totally. Oil is needed to make just about everything in our everyday lives.
 
That sounds like a big problem to me. If they can shut off the water to thousands of farmers in Ca. because of a little minnow, I think we need to study the effects of windmills on wildlife before we move forward. Bats are very important to the environment and where is PETA. Lungs exploding! My god, that sounds worse than electricuting mink. A dead mink at least serves a purpose.

From the studies conducted in 'em, bats are the only animals affected, and as long as you don't stick the windmills too close to where they nest, there no real problem.

What do you do with a dead bat?

Halloween decorations?
 
And tell me coal mining isn't taking up what could be valuable farm land.

mountaintop%20removal-jj-001.jpg


Which do you reckon would take up more?

Stay on topic we are talking renewable energy. it is harmful just like other energy so it is not an answer to the problem it is just another set of problems
 
Nuclear can replace some fossil fuels but never totally. Oil is needed to make just about everything in our everyday lives.

I meant as a source of electrical power. If we burned no fossil fuels for power, the amount used for production of goods would be fairly trivial and our existing supplies would last centuries.
 
The turbine blades don't come all the way to the ground. Tell me why that land can't be farmed, even tho a very small percentage of it is lost to the wind turbines...
I don't favor wind, or solar, but still, they aren't using much farm ground.
I favor a 2 step solution to electrical generation, first we build all new building to match Architecture 2030 building codes, which means we will need fewer NEW generation capacity, and THEN we replace old coal plants with new nuke plants.

They sit on a cement pad to support the weight. This takes up land that can not be used
 
Stay on topic we are talking renewable energy. it is harmful just like other energy so it is not an answer to the problem it is just another set of problems

Kinda like lung cancer and a skinned knee are just different sets of problems! The side-effects caused by coal are clearly more significant than those caused by wind or solar.
 
Last edited:
Stay on topic we are talking renewable energy. it is harmful just like other energy so it is not an answer to the problem it is just another set of problems

So it gives people headaches that are easily prevented by putting the turbines away from houses, and it takes up a small percentage of farm land, I don't see any problems comparable to acid rain and chronic asthma.
 
It says health 'fears'... Not the same thing as an actual 'problem'... like flammable water.

But let's dig a little deeper, shall we?


Of course, get her on the stand and ask her about her research methods:



Combine that with some facts about wind turbine farms elsewhere.



LINK

Sounds like the Dr. is suffering from 'Medical-Practice-is-slow-better-market-myself-as-expert-for-new-legal-actions' syndrome...

You deny scientist here but use them to support GW. I guess you think cherry picking is credible.

Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome' - Green Living, Environment - The Independent
 
Well, now you're going way off the grid.

And, as you are always asking for links... please, show us any legitimate study to back that up.

Common sense

Land Use Impact of Wind Turbines

Wind Farms on Open Land
Large industrial sized turbines which are installed together to form a wind farm will have a much larger footprint on the land. Depending on the local terrain, wind projects “occupy anywhere from 28 – 83 acres per megawatt, but only 2 – 5% of the project area is needed for turbine foundations, roads or other infrastructure”3. It is in relation to these larger industrial sized wind turbines and wind farms that land use issues become a significant factor in considering the development of wind projects to generate electricity.

Successful wind projects require open space and clear access to the wind. This makes them an ideal choice for agricultural areas, grazing lands and the coastline. As seen in several sites in California and the Midwest, a wind farm can be established on farm land without requiring any change to the land use.
 
Kinda like lung cancer and a skinned knee are just different sets of problems! The side-effects caused by coal are clearly more significant than those caused by wind or solar.

You can not say that since it is fairly new and we are already seeing health concerns
 
So it gives people headaches that are easily prevented by putting the turbines away from houses, and it takes up a small percentage of farm land, I don't see any problems comparable to acid rain and chronic asthma.

If it is on farm land it will effect the family and livestock. Each windmill uses about a quarter acre of land. These farms have hundreds on a site.
 
Common sense

Land Use Impact of Wind Turbines

Wind Farms on Open Land
Large industrial sized turbines which are installed together to form a wind farm will have a much larger footprint on the land. Depending on the local terrain, wind projects “occupy anywhere from 28 – 83 acres per megawatt, but only 2 – 5% of the project area is needed for turbine foundations, roads or other infrastructure”3. It is in relation to these larger industrial sized wind turbines and wind farms that land use issues become a significant factor in considering the development of wind projects to generate electricity.

Successful wind projects require open space and clear access to the wind. This makes them an ideal choice for agricultural areas, grazing lands and the coastline. As seen in several sites in California and the Midwest, a wind farm can be established on farm land without requiring any change to the land use.

Think about were most of the windfarms go. In Colorado and Wyoming it would be called semi-arid grassland, aka egypt. You could buy that land for $200 an acre because it is practically useless.
 
I thought someone said they needed to be built two miles away because of health risks. Wouldn't that put all the land off limits to farmers. And I'm still concerned about health risks to wildlife.
I like your idea of nuclear to eventually replace coal.

I don't think there are any real health risks, except perhaps the noise generated getting on people's nerves.
I am retired now, but worked around nuclear my whole working life. Only one thing is different, on a routine basis, for employees of nuke plants.........
wash your hands BEFORE you go to the bathroom....:2razz:
 
Think about were most of the windfarms go. In Colorado and Wyoming it would be called semi-arid grassland, aka egypt. You could buy that land for $200 an acre because it is practically useless.

Drive down I-65 in Indiana
Looks like they are everywhere almost.

AWEA - Projects
 
If it is on farm land it will effect the family and livestock. Each windmill uses about a quarter acre of land. These farms have hundreds on a site.

It doesn't effect livestock, as shown in this photo.
350px-Wb_deichh_drei_kuhs.jpg


And the turbines do not have to be put in near the farmers house, and no-one forces the farmer to have them, no matter which way you spin it, the problems caused by the turbines are no where near the magnitude caused by fossil fuels.
 
I don't think there are any real health risks, except perhaps the noise generated getting on people's nerves.
I am retired now, but worked around nuclear my whole working life. Only one thing is different, on a routine basis, for employees of nuke plants.........
wash your hands BEFORE you go to the bathroom....:2razz:

Not according to this article

Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome' - Green Living, Environment - The Independent
 
You deny scientist here but use them to support GW. I guess you think cherry picking is credible.

Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome' - Green Living, Environment - The Independent

She's a pediatrician -- not at all qualified to study all the variables that would be involved in showing a causal relationship. You would need a team of scientists, engineers, and doctors (Neurologists and Otolaryngologists).

She can certainly diagnose strep throat.

Edit: and why do you keep posting the same article about the same person who we've shown you is not credible?
 
Last edited:
One small time article is hardly proof of anything, besides it even says no windfarms should be placed within 2 miles of a residence. I think a 2 mile gap to save you from some undocumented and possibly non-existent problem is definitely better than the kind of pollution and health risks other power generating methods cause.

My parents live less then a mile from the Abilene wind farms...
 
Long story short, wind and solar are not alternatives at all, they produce so little electricity that they can't be considered any more than SUPPLEMENTAL.
 
She's a pediatrician -- not at all qualified to study all the variables that would be involved in showing a causal relationship. You would need a team of scientists, engineers, and doctors (Neurologists and Otolaryngologists).

She can certainly diagnose strep throat.

Edit: and why do you keep posting the same article about the same person who we've shown you is not credible?

Nice spin to deny facts that people are getting sick. I guess these people world wide are lying?

Wind farms 'make people sick who live up to a mile away' - Telegraph

Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters - thestar.com

Oregon wind farms whip up noise, health concerns | OregonLive.com

Health Risks of Wind Turbines in Hood River

The dark sides of wind power
 
Long story short, wind and solar are not alternatives at all, they produce so little electricity that they can't be considered any more than SUPPLEMENTAL.

Technology will improve, and it is not as bad as some think, my country has 33 wind farms nation wide, that provide 1.3% of our power, with a combination of Solar, Wind, Geo-Thermal and Hydro, a good portion of the country could be powered with renewable energy, and the difference made up by nuclear.
 

I can name half a dozen politicians that make me sick, and they are thousands of miles away from me.:2razz:

People tend to blame the newest technologies for societies ills, and it is nearly always mental. Of course, they were probably "mental" before being exposed to the technology.
 
Back
Top Bottom