First Town In US To Become 100% Wind Powered

[retro_killa]

"Rock Port Missouri, population 1,300, is the first 100% wind powered city in the US. Loess Hill Wind Farm, with four 1.25-MW wind turbines, is estimated to generate 16 gigawatt hours (16 million kilowatt hours) of electricity annually. 13 gigawatts hours of electricity have historically been consumed annually by the residents and businesses of this town."

Code: [Select]

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/06/2111249&from=rss

[jem]

Nuclear Power ftw.

[retro_killa]

Nuclear Power ftw.

Huff & Puff pwns nothing like natural power or free we need more natural power.

[Elite Evil]

You need 1000s of wind turbines to create the same power as a conventional station which results in ruining the landscape.

E.g. Drax, my local coal power station: (from the 'pedia)

The plant has six 660 MW generating units, with a maximum capacity of 3,945 MW, producing around 24 TWh (86.4 petajoules) annually.

So one powerstation creates as much electricity as 3156 wind turbines. I don't know what it is like in the US, but here they stick them in the middle of the countryside for some reason and they are hideous.

Say NO to wind turbines.

[gblock]

Out in the middle of the US there's nothing anyways...why not make productive use of the land

[jem]

It's not cost-effective.  You'd need way to many wind turbines and it doesn't produce much power.  The amount of wind turbines needed would unalterably change the landscape of the US as we know it. 

 No power source in the world is as efficient as nuclear power.  Sure it has waste, but the type and amount of waste is less dangerous than say, tons of coal smoke pouring into the air.  And a nuclear power plant produces much more power than any other solution.  The effect on the environment is literally nothing, if we can find a way to launch the nuclear waste into outer space .  Then the only byproduct of nuclear power would be pure steam.

[warmaster670]

wind may not be practicle for mass energy, but its still useful.

[blurr]

I work for the power company and we are mainly hydro-electric followed by nuclear and coal. 

nuclear is the way to go... the technology of handling it has advanced greatly since the late 70s-early 80s when the use of it first became popular

[gblock]

yeah but these tree-huggin "let's be green" fuck-nuts won't let them pass....imagine if we bult a few NPPs in the US how easy it would be to have cost-effeciant power?   but noooo....

and speaking of fuck-nuts, gas just hit $3.90 a GD gallon for regular today....god damn big oil and god damn the government for not pushing mass-transit

[jem]

Actually, there's plenty of environazis that used to be against nuclear power, now apologizing and saying we should definitely switch to all-nuclear.  I mean, it's incredibly clean.  We may not even have to launch the waste into outer space.  When technology improves, we'll be able to quell the fires of nuclear waste - and everyone will be happy .

[Generalidea]

Any technology could become more efficient, if a few HYPERGENIOUSES sat down to think of new wind turbine designs I'm sure something better could come of it.

[jem]

True.  But I don't see wind turbine technology becoming efficient enough to out-compete nuclear power. 

If it does, then hooray.  I'll be all for it.

But technology to safely deal with nuclear waste IS getting better and better.  I remember reading the latest numbers are: nuclear waste will lose 99.9% of it's radioactivity after 40 years (although still be dangerous).  And if we store it in the Yucca mountain, after 10,000 years of radioactive decay, it will be completely harmless.  If the actinides are removed through processing, that number drops to 300 years.

[Elite Evil]

Any technology could become more efficient, if a few HYPERGENIOUSES sat down to think of new wind turbine designs I'm sure something better could come of it.

Jem, Stevey Hawkins and I are still working on why orange juice is so disgusting following toothpaste. If we ever find the answer we might go onto wind turbines.

[jem]

rofl 

[Generalidea]

Jem, Stevey Hawkins and I are still working on why orange juice is so disgusting following toothpaste. If we ever find the answer we might go onto wind turbines.

God speed to you...

[willplayer]

This article Retro posted was just for a lil town, not a whole state. So of course it doesn't make much sense to just use wind power for the whole nation. Some places get ZERO wind.

Solar power all the way, let's do it.

[woodieq]

eh

tidal power is where it's at yo

[willplayer]

tidal lol

[SKullinator]

Wind power isn't a bad thing, it a hell of alot better than coal. Its expensive but eventually the price will come down just like everything else that starts out expensive. I think Nuclear is the way, if its run right its by far the best route.  Just don't let accountants run the plants, we don't need people without science related degrees trying to make cost effective decisions.  That's what tarnished nuclear power's name, in the past poor management decisions lead to pollution, and safety problems

[jem]

The problem with wind is that you can't count on it.  Just like water-powered turbines, there's areas that get alot of wind, and areas that get very little.  You need to be able to count on it.  And while technology may increase, there's only so much power you can get from a wind-powered turbine.  I mean, battery power may increase - which would allow them to store the wind energy... but you can't really increase the output of a turbine without more wind.  There's a mechanical limit.  Mechanical efficiency in wind turbines has probably already peaked.  That's why they build tons and tons of windmills.