lol, lol I agree !!

Wrong energy source. That wind, if refined, is called "clean natural gas". I haven't looked up the identity of the intestinal methanogens, but you might like to try it. Oho, I did. The dominant one seems to be Methanobrevibacter smithii.

Don't let AOC find out!

TRUE!

@@albertrogers8537 r/wooosh

Batteries

@@insertyourfeelingshere8106 lol had they forgetten those existed?

+Semni Istiqlal It's good to see your logic and truth of the matter. They certainly have put out some slick propaganda, however, it ignores or plays down the serious short comings in the application of Wind Energy. ..................................... I have had some involvement in the Generation Industry and it has to be said : the subsidies, tax relief & industry bias towards supporting green renewable's is nothing short of corrupt.!!! I have witnessed, fossil fuel based Power stations in other Countries, being run out of business due to; financial support for "Wind" competitors. ...................................... Only then do they realize their mistake, when the intermittent wind falls so low everything blacks out. We sometimes see claims of 40% or more,,, then I've found the records to fall to 2% on some days; that's reality.! Wind & Solar are extremely difficult to achieve, as "base load power" in an industrialized society.

1arritechno Renewables would be feasible if we could transmit electricity long distances in an affordable manner or store it, however we cannot.

+Semni Istiqlal Yes, I believe we are on the same page. I am aware of the cryogenic storage conversion to reduce intermittent generation problems and even pumping up to hydroelectricity dams by day to off set down time,,, even though they work,, they are not efficient. ......................................................................................................... Long distance supply is problematic due to powerfactor - phase instability in high tension because it comes from too many sources that have to be synchronized & stepped up. Not ideal for base load on the Grid. Obviously if enough money is thrown at it ; it's all achievable... but not in any way practical...

+1arritechno And if we had communities or cities producing their own wind power could that work? Energy would not need to be transmitted along long distances, and communities and cities would be in charge of their own power supply. Surely you can collect enough power from wind to keep for when there is a short fall?

Meeka Tomey-Alleyne We have no practical way of storing city scale levels of electrical energy. More over, even if we did, if say windmills were generating sufficient power 50% of the time, we'd need to have twice as much generating power than we'd otherwise need because we'd have to be making up for the shortfall in that period. Further, few cities are located in very windy areas, which reduces the amount of time that the installed windmills are generating power which means you need more excess generating capacity. Further, many cities have tall buildings which impede the flow of the wind which further reduces windmill efficiency. Further, windmills are fairly noisy, if you are building them literally inside the city limits people would not like you very much. All of these factors combine to having cities require windmill parks much larger in surface area than the cities themselves, which results in a very costly and environmentally unfriendly solution to your problem ( the raw materials for the windmills need to be mined, refined, transported and manufactured somehow ).

that nuclear power plant can also create waste which is useless and lasts thousands of years. there is also contamination risk of the environment.

who pays for the construction of the nuclear power plant?

breeder reactors don't produce much waste as they can "breed" more nuclear fuel from spent fuel.

DanM194 -what a stupid ass comment. Nuclear power plants do not compare to Wind or Solar power With nuclear plants, -have to pay employees to man them -produces toxic waste -uses a shit load of water -dangerous to the environment Turbines can produce say have of the years power while Solar produces the rest with batteries in the home With out employees, danger to the environment no need to use water

DanM194 and you forgot to mention the de-comisioning costs, just one nuclear power station was at 67 billion and rising. What's more, nuclear accidents are averaging one every decade, God only knows the mess in Fukushima. And you also forgot to mention we have a very large nuclear reactor at a very safe distance away , look up , its called the Sun, and it drives the wind that powers the turbines, and powers a few solar panels too!

I lve in Rhos-On-Sea, where there is a large offshore wind farm and I must certainly agree with you.

Wind turbines and solar panels, (and water turbines if you live near a stream or river) while expensive to buy, make an excellent long-term investment because their power source will never run out, no matter how much of it you use.

I wouldn't count on anything anymore with the governments that we have here(USA) and around the world, everything could come to an end in seconds. one thing that I'm working on is a small steam engine for back up power hoping that I'll still have some wood and water.

Good plan. The world is unlikely to run out of either.

Thats a great point. I know hundreds of homeowners with wind turbine on the roof. Not one wants to camo or repaint them. The best view is to the owner. The view of his power bill which is zero or close to it. BUT, compared to that, these utility turbines do not benefit a homeowner at all. The govt and utilities in most cases charge more and use the consumer to retool their wasteful technology. My main point is.. buy your own, and reap the benefits of it. THEN, it looks so nice turning wind into savings.

Wind is blowing because the sun is heating the earth unevenly. And as long as the sun shines on earth the wind will not die. If it dies, I would rather worry about freezing to death and not about getting stuck on the ocean.

***** You're obviously the one who clearly do not know what you're talking about. Wind power is anything but reliable and stable. You don't seem to realize the fact that you need an overcapacity of 100% to make it work. What you do in your back yard does not prove a thing, compared to powering an entire city. Look at how terrible it works up here in Denmark. Also, look at the fact that you need to produce 100 more equal sized wind powered generators for each generator you need for steam, gas or hydro power. Do you know how much energy it takes to mine and reffine the metals going into those generators? Have you any idea about how toxic it is to leach copper, produce aluminium and the composites needed? Do you have a solution for recycling the composites of old wind turbines, or the toxic waste created from the production? I don't think so, since the worlds leading manufactures haven't been able to find a solution, other than store it or burry it in a land fill. Finish off by looking into how many of those materials people work with in wind turbine production and the waste are carcinogens, seeping into the ground, and eventually ground water.

Matthias Hahn The wind does not have to die, it just have to settle down enough. And it does that a lot. Ever hear about that dark thing called night? Or calm days? There by no means enough wind all the time for wind power to work, unless you run an overcapacity that is beyond ridiculous. Trust me, I know, I live in Denmark, where we get shafted by Vestas and the goverment each time we pay for power.

@Matthias Hahn I think you missed the point. He doesn't mean the wind literally dies like a person would, he means dies as in stops blowing. This happens a lot. I'm sure you've been outside and noticed that sometimes there is a ton of wind, and sometimes there is no wind. This is the issue of intermittency and is one of the biggest hurdles of sources like wind, tidal, and solar.

yeah wind can die if your not in the right area but wind turbines are placed in areas that have consistant wind patterns like the Great Plains or the coastlines.

Ha ha. It maybe that some of the brighter users do some research rather than accept half-truths and downright lies ?

Yeah, but my daughter got a PhD from MIT in environmental engineering. There's a difference.

YOU HAVE A SON

Philip Eriksson how?

and social studies.

How expensive was Fukushima? As I live in this neighborhood, I can tell you that one Fukushima incident will cost more than all the wind power ever produced. They can't even put a price tag on it. If it's man-made, it's going to break. You can't take that chance with nuclear power.

Japan is going back to burning fossil fuels. Do we really want that? You can't power a country with wind and solar energy. There was a 2 weeks period in Denmark where no wind was blowing at all. Did I not use my computer or flush the toilet during that time?

Coal destruction each year cost more than every nuclear accidents combined. And wind turbines do not produce power all the time. So you can't compare it to other energy sources. We only use it as a part time energy in Denmark and have the most expensive energy in the world because of our wind turbines. The Japanese electricity price will go up. It will become much higher than it was before 2011.

Jurij Fedorov The secret to making renewables work is diversification: You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Sure, Denmark might have had a calm spell for two weeks--hey, it happens---but I'll bet each of those days were sunny. Then there is ocean current/wave power (bet the Atlantic wasn't calm during that period). The best idea I ever saw for renewable energy was in a book titled "Sun Power" by Ralph Nansen, an engineer who touted placing gigantic solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which would transmit their captured energy to Earth in the form of a microwave beam, which in turn would be converted back into electricity--no pollution at all. He explains it all in great detail. Check it out. The book is out of print but is online. Just Google his name, you'll find it. One of the more stunning pieces of info he gives (and this has the ring of truth), is that any solar cell will produce FIVE times as much power in space than it would on the best location on Earth. Such a scenario would definitely solve the issue of "baseload," which you rightly inferred in your posts and has been the bane of all renewable energy concepts.

You don't get it. We don't need green energy tomorrow. We need it now! The earth is going to get 2 degrees warmer no matter what and it will probably get at least 4 degrees hotter. But if we wait for wind power or solar power to become a good energy source, which it is not at all today, we will destroy life as it is in the meantime. We need to build a nuclear power plant every day for the next 100 years if we want life to continue as it is.

leerman22 Point me where it says in the video that turbines produce their rated power 80% of the time. I can't find that slide...

LHFX That's not what I said. Not showing people the capacity factor and showing the percentage of "sniping time" misleads them.

leerman22 Usually less than 30% would be more like it. Wind Force is proportional to the square of the speed, power to the cube.

leerman22 Well people who would assume that by watching the video are also the ones who don't have any idea what "capacity factor" means. What is certain is that all other estimates take into account a realistic capacity factor. "Spinning time" is also a meaningful statistic as it gives an indication on the distribution of power output over time.

LHFX If turbines are just spinning it doesn't mean they have enough torque to drive the grid. If they use synchronous generators then they would need to also spin at a set RPM, then they synchronize and lock into the grid frequency. Capacity factor is a more realistic measure for how much energy they actually produce in a year but it doesn't tell us what time of day they are actually running at.

Still wind, it's cheaper

@@luongmaihunggia plus it's safer

It’s easier to construct and uses up less space. Finding an area to place the is very difficult

@@danieljohnsopardenilla997 Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy ever developed. It kills almost half of what wind does globally, and in the US wind kills 1,500 times as many people as Nuclear per unit of energy generated. Wind is very safe, but it shows that nuclear is insanely safe, contrary to what the average person may believe. The public opinion needs to shift. Its scary to think that oil and coal companies have convinced the public that nuclear is more dangerous than coal, when coal kills 150,000 times as many people as nuclear in the US.

@@Henriburger1 Oil and gas companies could not care about nuclear. Oil will be used in cars planes and ships. And gas is so cheap. The same people who are anti-nuclear, are also anti oil and gas. Those are the crazy radical environmentalists. I'm a big supporter of nuclear power. It's highly reliable with a capacity factor of +90%. It does have a drawback when it comes to safety. If, if a mistake occurs, the damage will be unfathomable. Still worth it. Clean and abundant power.

Buildings don't jump in front of birds.

But have u ever seen a bird be killed by a wind turbine either? The chances of someone coincidentally seeing either is very low but it happens.

I live in southern Alberta in Canada. Lots of migratory birds killed every year by wind turbines here. Lots of things ignored in this blog like what happens to the turbines at the end of their life cycle. Too damn expensive .

@@keithharley9729 here in Ohio big windows kill a fuckton of birds

@@keithharley9729 Here in in russia wind kills birds

what disadvantages, that they take up space in the desolate plains of Kansas and make an annoying noise if your near them.

That was 2 years ago...

everyday people are advancing themselves to improve and narrow down the disadvantages of the wind turbines, so you will be fine my friends.

In fact the turbines alone are inefficient, put that in perspective to all intermediate costs such as, shipping, construction cost, recycling, et.c. The green has been lost along the line from the get-go.

@@1blalalalala they say the energy use to setup the turbine, is returned within 6 month. and the turbine has another 20 year to supply energy. so yeah.

+ScotsmaninUtah you really like fossil fuels and the end of the world don't you ; )

+ScotsmaninUtah Too bad the 1998 Darmstadt Manifesto went unheeded. We sure don't need "more research" to see what they're doing to the world's landscapes. It's the worst form of modern energy blight I can think of. They are much taller than most oil infrastructure (though some offshore rigs are about 400 feet) and their white color and motion makes them stick out instantly. The rationalizations for all that blight are sickening in themselves, and the noise just tops it off.

+TheSonic1685 That's a typical snide comment that's designed to wish-away the negative impacts of wind turbines, and it also promotes a fantasy all-electric economy that would never work. Heavy industry, global transport and modern farming are only possible with dense energy from fossil fuels, namely oil for the transport side. You need fossil fuels to build wind turbines and also solar panels. Learn the physics of different energy forms and the wind saga falls far short of its hype. Wind turbines are relatively primitive devices and very inefficient in terms of size per energy yield and land use. Rooftop solar has flaws but it doesn't keep ruining landscapes.

And the colliery owners in Colombia and Australia, where our coal comes from, (Thanks to Mad Maggie) are laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlike coal which has been making millionaires fro centuries,

Storing wind energy will never be economically viable. Energy storage is expensive. It's only used in UK to meet peak electricity demand, as pumped storage. To be viable pumped storage must make money daily by selling electricity and must eventually make enough money to pay off its construction costs (with interest). Wind is so intermittent that the energy store will be fitfully used so will not be economically viable. It's telling that in UK, wind and solar fanatics want the grid to pay the cost of storage, and all electricity providers contribute towards grid costs. Wind and solar after another "free lunch".

There are two costs, the production cost and the maintenance cost. The production cost of a wind farm is definitely more than a coal power plant, but the maintenance cost a surprisingly lower. Which means the average cost is lowered in the long run. And with the production of wind turbines more and more available on a mass scale. The stuff can be mass produced, lowering the production cost further.

or just use nuclear

A bike + generator

Contrary to what you've been told about batteries, we're not there yet and when there's a YET, I don't hold my breath. You might want to talk about Tesla batteries, but at absolute best they last 10yrs and by then they are greatly diminished. I bought an eGo electric lawnmower, which used the same exact cells that Tesla was using and I lost 30% capacity per year. By the beginning of year 3, the mower wouldn't cut grass. Replacing the batteries was 70% of replacing the whole system. So, I really got 8mo total out of those batteries. I could have bought and run 4 gas powered lawnmowers, which would have lasted 10yrs or better. That's probably a 15x better return. I'm not basing everything on that batteries and especially not lawnmower batteries, but batteries are far from ready. The UK in particular has historically based its ROI (Return On Investment) on 30% of nameplate power, that means a 1 megawatt turbine would basically be like having a 300kW turbine (on average). However, the real numbers show the UK turbines to be outputting 16%. So a 1 megawatt turbine outputs 160kw (on average). You might want to call that free energy, but it's anything but. At 16%, the turbine would NEVER ROI. Regardless what they're telling you, what they are selling you is green optics, a feel good technology. Of course outcomes can be improved, but they should start with rigorous financial and engineering principles, not feel good optics. Above all, our governments should be working with real numbers, not rainbow unicorn glitter numbers.

@@cornpop7805 if you got a new lawnmower would it be petrol powered?

@@NuttyCuts_ I recently bought a petrol powered lawnmower and I'm very pleased with it. Why do you ask?

@@cornpop7805 I was just wondering if you stayed with electric

PrairleDoggedRez I didn't know of that connection but the ruined views alone are enough of a problem.

PrairleDoggedRez NOT OFFSHORE. ONSHORE. DURRR

Jessica whittingham ??? WTF are you on about?

This, by my reckoning, is the very worst incidence and evidence of the harm from LFN, infrasound, which undoubtedly is something that large sea animals use and can detect at very low power.

Bs sponsored by coal industry.

That is the right way, I think. And the time wasn't any better than yet, to invest in green wind technologie.

Tell me more

***** I would not mind to live next to one, but I believe that Holland Park's wind resource is rather poor. Further do I believe it might be impossible to obtain a planning permit. But please, go ahead, move next to a nuclear plant or a coal plant or a fracking site if you prefer. I grew up in sight of over 200 turbines from 11 wind farms and I adore the technology. I believe that they are very pretty and a landscape without them looks boring to me. And in terms of your "number": Please do some more research. According to a experts such as DECC and the European Union's own DG Climate the UK has the best wind resource in Europe and already, over the year we generate about 15% of Electricity from wind Power (DECC) and last month was the highest for wind generation in history, reaching 22% of electricity generated in the UK. And lastly, contrary to popular belief, today wind power is cheaper than any form of electricity, including shale and even half the price of nuclear (but why would you know about the billions the government pays to subsidise oils, nuclear and coal so they appear cheaper. And don't get me started on "green levies" because they are paid to people who own GAS POWER PLANTS to keep them on standby NOT to green energy suppliers.

***** Thank you for your comment, but so far, I have been rather happy with the noise level. Even inside (which is a brilliant experience) I have not had any audible distractions from them. I believe the turbines you talk about must be from ancient times as modern turbines make so little noise that it is almost not noticeable (turbines such as Vestas V90 and the 3MW platform or the modern Siemens and Nordex turbines as well as the Sulzon and Senvion range). The clear point is that the new generation of Wind Turbines uses much larger, slower spinning rotors, greatly reducing noise. As for choice: in Germany, one of the world's No 1 nations for wind power, most wind farms have been build and financed by the local communities themselves meaning that they themselves put them up near to them and so do a lot of farmers. Sadly the UK still has an extraordinarily high amount of misinformation and prejudice that is being spread. I am seriously considering to set up a department at YOUR!Energy that would tour schools and organises excursions so pupils can see turbines in person and also learn the facts about wind power, underlined with real data from credible sources. Way to often I see that newspapers such as the Daily Mail or even political parties seem to take data out of thin air just to support their thinking. With any questions, please feel free to ask.

And they only last 20 years though I've read that's optimistic and around 10 and a bit is more accurate. A 450 ft. tower of metal must produce a hell of a lot pollution in its manufacture.

+Valentin Batler Pretty sure that scam is called 'climate change' now that global warming has been thoroughly debunked, just like the coming 'ice age' we were warned about in the 70's before it.

Deathdefiant debunked by people who don't have any credibility in the scientific community whatsoever.

Debunked enough to force them to re-brand their Agenda 21 scam as 'Climate Change' because the term 'Global Warming' became synonymous with bogus science after it was proven that no matter what data was input into their government funded magic future Earth climate predicting programs, the results produced were always the same and always those desired for the political agenda that was funding the so-called 'science'. And by the fact that both poles showed record low temperatures while your 'credible' scientific community, led by the highly reputable Al Gore, was telling us we'd all be under water in no time from melting ice caps. But I guess even that isn't enough to dissuade the globalist science cult's true believers.

So called science!! Which so called scientists are supporting your claims? Which claims are you actually proposing - is is all wrong?

Deathdefiant lol, you are in so much denial. You cant' explain why we get hotter and hotter years since records began. Go and get an education and learn about how academia works.

+Albert Rogers To use a harsh analogy, nuclear weapons are also very clever. I find turbine landscape blight to be downright evil. It puts a permanent industrial stain on a place and you can't acquire a taste for it without pretending the original scenery wasn't worth saving. Turbines are being forced on communities in similar ways to fracking, though they stick out on the horizon much more and the land won't get reclaimed. They will never fix the visual blight problem and it's a major one. I can envision some future time, if wind power becomes obsolete, when full-time aesthetic repair crews will dismantle them for scrap, but it may prove too costly. The cement pads will probably never be removed. Cleared roads may take centuries to recover, and only in areas with trees and brush. Also, wind turbines just extend fossil fuels, so in a world of depleted oil, there may simply not be enough mobile energy to tear them down.

+4aSteadyStateEconomy You are quite right, but did you not get it that I agree with you? See transatomicpower.com for the REAL answer to the threat of Disastrous Climate Change. The very fact that by far the best developed wind technology failed in the face of fossil carbon competition means that wind turbines, which are not as clever, cannot possibly turn things around. Solar, biomass, -- and in the name of Hades (where spirits go, and fade away as they are forgotten) Carbon Capture -- have NO chance of solving the problem.

I find myself in the minority, I think, in that I fear Al Gore does not fully appreciate the seriousness of what he calls an "Inconvenient Truth", and that I am totally certain the nuclear power is the only alternative. See transatomicpower.com It is mis-spelled on one of my posts.

Never forget - Al Gore makes money from being a part of the booming "Anxiety Industry". Not telling all the facts about intermittency, true locations of pollution, etc. has become the new norm.

We need to address climate change. A combination of renewable sources, some greater efforts on energy efficiencies and smarter grids will go a long way towards dealing with the problem. There is no longer a viable position to say it is ok to carry on with business as usual and burning fossil fuels as we have done in the last 100 or 200 years. We are burning and releasing stored carbon that has been locked up naturally over millions of years, over a few decades. It has to be dramatically curtailed, and consideration really should be given to those countries that have not yet become industrialised. It is a moral imperative that the wealthier countries address the increasing levels of carbon dioxide, that we are largely responsible for and have benefitted from.

foodhatesme solar panels can catch fire and nuclear power stations can have a melt down. Cars can catch fire and can explode but we still use them. Just because something happens doesn’t mean it’s a common occurrence

@@Benjamin-lt6nk what is a common occurrence with wind power is the deaths of hundreds of birds flying through them... Btw solar panels suck, nuclear power plants only have meltdowns due to human error, and cars are a form of transportation not a means of creating power. My original point 2 years ago is wind power is expensive with far less pay off than a nuclear plant.

foodhatesme then again nuclear power plants need a lot of people to be able to run. Where as wind turbines need occasional maintenance. And it’s often difficult to find an area to put a nuclear power plant at since people don’t want to live next to it. Birds do get killed but that number can be reduced be better placement and the numbers aren’t significant. I referred to cars to show that just because something can explode doesn’t mean it’s bad. If you want to save birds reduce the amounts of cats since they drove multiple species extinct.

+phil123711 Because people are getting health problems from the Low Frequency Noise (LFN) produced by industrial turbines. Sleep disturbance, tachacardia, visual blurring, migraines, ear pressure & loss of hearing, nausea, tinnitus, problems with concentration & memory and panic episodes among other problems. Did you know LFN was used for torture??? The duration was limited by the fact that humans cannot survive w/o sleep.

+Susan Bye-Walsh There was a study done where they used LFN from wind turbines and didn't let anybody know about it. No one was effected. In that very same study they told a separate group wind turbines were in the area and people magically got "sick". The known cure for this sickness is cash grist.org/list/2011-04-07-money-is-a-miracle-cure-for-wind-turbine-syndrome/

+Susan Bye-Walsh. Did you ever hear about particulate matter? We are ALL dieing by cancer because of this particulate matter! It's not part of our sustainable future. There are always golddiggers seeking to find a reason to get benefit in whatever way and to get money out of it. Even by inventing diseases. When wind turbines in small sizes could be accepted on every house. The grid will go crazy and energy management gets complicated more and more. But is possible to depend on only wind energy and solar power in whole Europe incl. UK. And reduce the need to only 3 electricity production units depending on carbon. There is also the possibility to power a grid charging cars batteries when the car is moving. Electricity is a reliable energy source, with a lot potential to make comfort sustainable.

mmmm....no particulate matter or highly toxic waste in construction and running of these things is there?

How the devil do you "use LFN from wind turbines" if there are no wind turbines in the vicinity? Presumably you make a recording of the real thing. How do you pick up the stuff that travelled by ground? I say the study was a fake.

Well one problem with the cost comparison: the decomissing cost of nuclear energy plants has NEVER been included in any of those "nuclear efficiency calculations" - as all power generating companies do socialize these costs to the taxpayer!

refurbishment of Bruce power 1 and 2 cost 3108cad per kwh with replacement of steam generators and fuel pipes if people where willing to pay 25 cents per kwh we could have 100% nuclear with hydrogen power peaking stations and reuse the steel from nuclear plants into new ones and breed non fisle u-238 to p-239 which is fisle but if you don't like the thought of breeding plutonium you can use thorium nuclear is the future

Berlinoa The costs of nuclear decommissioning is included in a (something like a) .5cent per kWh add in cost. It should take care of it. However, we want a BETTER type of nuclear called the molten salt reactor. Search LFTR and MSR.

fireofenergy Bruce will be running into the 2040's, yes I know of molten salt reactors they where making them back in the 50's in usa then france and the environmentalist don't bring up the decommissioning of wind and solar because the blades and silicon wafer is costly to recycle

***** But I'm not against wind and solar either if they get cheaper and if they get cheap storage such as pumped storage and molten salts. Dealing with electronic trash and radioactive vessels (at time for decommissioning, along with the enormous amounts of land for RE and the nasty fission products from nuclear) is much better than altered biospheres caused from too much CO2. We need to make sure every body knows: WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

+Swedish Airsoft Most countries at this point are saying no, and with good reason. Nuclear power is extremely expensive and unsafe, not to mention a hazard to everyone around it. There is a reason most countries are decommissioning their nuclear power stations

Joshua Egan But the power m8

But the cost m8

Joshua Egan Windmills are ugly and no one fucking think they look good in the nature. And when was the last nuclear reaction disaster? (Not caused by nature disatsers)

The problem with nuclear power stations is that in the 21st century they are astronomically expensive, and for the most part countries are decommissioning the ones they have due to the issues and costs of running them. While admittedly there having been any actual disasters, there have been a lot of close calls. Belgium's Doel reactor has been shut down numerous times over the past decade, every time citing new safety concerns about different safety mechanisms. Of its last 5 examinations, it has passed 1 of them. That is not exactly what people hope for from a building which could put a sizeable hole in a country. I live in Canada, and just down the road from me is the Pickering station. Its being shut down in 2022, but the site is so contaminated that they won't be able to take the building down until sometime into the 2060s to 2070s. That plant has also had its fair share of disaster. In 1997 they had to shut down reactor number 2 due to a leak, and in 2006, when they were finally able to restart it without safety concerns, it was going to cost upwards of $4 billion. They decided against doing it because of its scheduled closure in 2022. As well, everyone living in Pickering and surrounding neighbourhoods was given a monthly stipend of Iodine tablets to take daily. A lot of my friends from that area were going bald in their late teens. You can argue that the plant had nothing to do with that, but it was a trend limited to only their demographic. On top of all these issues is the real problem behind nuclear power though; cost. Everyone likes to say that nuclear power is cheap, and against its base cost to production amount, it is. However, what people fail to factor in is maintenance, restarts (like Pickering) and insurance. You have to insure power plants, and PS, nobody wants to insure nuclear power plants anymore. There is the *tiniest* chance that something might go wrong, but if it does, there is no way an insurance company could cover it. As a result, the price of insuring a nuclear power plant, if you can manage to find someone who actually wants to, is ridiculously expensive. And all of this is not factoring in the waste. Spent fuel rods need to go somewhere, and nobody is too pleased if a truck carrying spent fuel rods rolls through their neighbourhood. As a result most power stations store nuclear waste on site, however that is also an issue. At Pickering the rods were safely removed to a special storage facility, built at the cost of over $200 Billion. The facility is going to have to be on and manned for the next 400 years, which only adds to the true operating costs of a nuclear power station. On the other hand, the majority of wind farms are generally built out of sight of the general public. They are efficient, clean, and after the base cost they need only a small crew of engineers to check in on them. They have no ill effects on humans, they do not produce toxic waste, and the maintenance on them is relatively low. As for not looking good in nature, can you say that living next to a nuclear power plant raises your property value? The advantage to wind farms is, as I said above, they can be built anywhere, while nuclear power stations have to be built in or near to populated areas.

If you appreciate dolphins and whales, consider the infrasound problems of offshore wind turbines. Unlike humans, they can hear infrasound, AND the sea conducts it very well. Householders who have had wind "farms" imposed upon their vicinity experience a problem additional to the loss of sleep and its attendant mental stress. The property upon which they laboured and spent money, substantially loses value. That should be classed by any decent economist (I had a boss who was a brilliant one) as part of the "social cost" of wind turbines, and I think that if properly assessed, would make them prohibitively expensive, as if they were not so, already.

There are two renewable energy sources, called thorium 232 and uranium 238. You are deluded about Britain or the USA achieving energy independence with wind turbines and solar PV panels built in Spain, Germany, and China.

@@albertrogers8537 Sir, I've learnt a lot of you just reading this comment section. 10/10. If you or someone like you had the time and the will, it would be very nice to have videos explaining and sharing your knowledge. Thank you and greetings from Spain.

bcstractor Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion. The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high-$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydro power 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents. We know who is paying for this novelty idea the middle class tax payer. My question is who is making money from wind power.

lmullen56 "My question is who is making money from wind power." The Green industry and lobby.

bcstractor Did you read this. The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high-$52.48 per one million watt hours generated If it wasn't for government subsidies wind power wouldn't be considered by power companies. If it wasn't for the government taking money out of my pocket and handing it over the the power companies there wouldn't be any wind generators. Something you don't seem to consider is the cost of producing the metals and plastics used in manufacturing wind turbines is always tied to coal and oil.

bcstractor Sounds like I pissed you off by putting the truth in front of you. You are just another liberal who has no concept of balancing economics with ecology. You want it your way and only your way. That doesn't make you right.

bcstractor You forgot the word economy, you know management of money. But since you are one of Obey's boys you don't give a fuck about money and how some of us live from month to month with what we have.

+Brian McCann right thanks bro

The more the merrier.

And maybe a few fossil fuel (preferably natural gas) power plants just in case a few wind turbines aren't working well.

What happens when the choice is either renewable energy or freeze in the dark?

+John Benton Global warming happens, so don't worry.

You realize we're depleting our uranium faster than ever, right?

Uranium abundance isn't really a factor. Honestly the fuel is largely the cheapest part of nuclear power. The biggest issues are waste disposal and construction. We are trying to tackle the latter with modular designs meaning its more consistent between. It's basically like manufacturing a wind turbine at a factor oppose to a new one everytime. If we know what works we use it. For the waste though this is more complicated. The waste itself is actually usable as fuel (MOX fuel) as the reactors produce Pu239, a fissionable isotope. If that is doped into U238 pellet the reactors are capable of producing fuel every trip around drastically increasing uranium supplies. The other aspects of the waste are complicated. Short lived isotopes are toxic but can potentially have uses. Currently though, deep ground storage is best option and I like this option but some people don't. If we ever crack accelerator driven fission we can then actually burn this waste for more fuel. Its like using every part of the cow haha. I would say that entire planet uranium hill story is a bit of an exaggeration. I believe we have on the order of 1000's with terrestrial uranium, but that is from all sources (Largely Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia). If we refine from sea water that number jumps up even further.

clean nuclear is an oxymoron. it simply isn't possible.

+bruce s isn't possible.well that's a fucking stretch of the imagination. please let's have a discussion. is the dirty part the waste issue? also is nuclear the only carbon free tech that isn't clean or do things like solar panels and the complex turbine systems, or the effects of hydro Power on surrounding land mass and wild life have no impact? I'm actually very pro wind buddy. I am of the mind use what fits to the situation. Say what ever you want but the fact is, we may be able to go pure wind and or solar in certain areas, but you do realize you can draw a circle smaller than Australia in South East Asia and display over half of the world's population being with in it? those population densities require that the power come from either hyper dense energy sources, or be transmitted from far away, outside the borders far which has issues altogether. That's only if meeting electrical demands currently. You realize that in terms of energy usage it occupies but a fraction of our energy consumption? Try in the area of 20%. which would mean to kick our fossil fuel habit we might need over five times our current electrical capacity plus who knows how much storage and batteries. that being said I don't doubt there are Nations that can do pure wind, or even pure solar. it's largely about geography. but I also think nuclear, especially nuclear fusion if we crack it, will also play a huge roll.

the vast area of Australian lands with uranium deposits have for 1000's of years been traditionally off-limits to Aboriginal people since it was regarded as evil and poisonous - people got sick by being there or eating any food contaminated with naturally occurring radiation. In other words - naturally occurring uranium is a "natural pollutant". Yellowcake is not benign. To say that another way.. if spent fuel is placed back into mines in deep storage; this is simply extracting radioactive ore... taking out some radioactivity.. and putting it back where it was with less radioactivity. Reactors simply accelerate fission and fusion reactions that occur naturally within the ore mass - uranium eventually ends up as lead one way or another. Nett result is an improvement in the environment. So what is everyone making a fuss about? Just stick it back in the hole it came from. As to the quantity of uranium in the world, and in particular Australia... when I say "hill".. I say hill in the context of Central Australia. You would call it an entire mountain range. I doubt that my geologist friend was wrong since he gets paid an awful lot of money to know such things

Renewable energy has to be coupled with some form of energy storage for peak demand or to account for natural fluctuations. In time, technology will free us from fossil fuels.

with gas there is no choice because gas is a finite resource, and nuclear causes too much hassle. (Have you decided where all the nuclear waste is going to go yet?)

@John Benton Yes, we have decided. We're going to use it in reactors. If you're wondering why we weren't doing that already, its because current reactors are based on a design intended to produce fissionables for nuclear weapons. Future reactors will be capable of processing more than the current 3% of fuel.

Leap away and do it then. You do not have to convince me or other users of KZfaq.

John Benton You're trying to convince me that you're right, but I can't try to do the same thing with you? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No need to be pedantic when it's quite clear what they are trying to express; it's water that isn't used by the power generation process. In any case, to save can also mean to store for future use. Although the turbine isn't 'storing' water, by not using it, it does mean the water it would have used can be used elsewhere. It's not really a valid point to make, but they probably included it in the video for the sake of emphasis.

Will Davis Yes, but I'm tired of people stating that they are contributing to the saving of the planet by saving water. I hear it all the time. Only non-thinkers can say that.

Cotronixco ''Only non-thinkers can say that.'' Yep thats your average econut.

I bet California wishes they saved that amount of water. It's true that we will never run out of water, but fresh water sources such as rivers, lakes and groundwater can be depleted which is happening across the entire southwest. Oh and you just got schooled by a gun loving hardcore conservative. BOOM!!!

Adam DeLucia When you idiot greens put the wellbeing of a few Smelt above humans then that is where your wheels fall off.

***** oh and by the way they are not that noisy

***** well i know somebody who lives right next to one and hasn't died yet he said he wouldn't swap the location for anywhere this is a positive video and can you haters quite kindly reside in the negative wind farm videos oh and carry on bunting coal and oil which is destroying the atmosphere or carry on with your nuclear stations which have waste which none knows what the hell to do with let me guess... your a microsoft fan... assumptions

***** i just make a comment about the video and i end up in an argument its worse than those xbox playstation nikon cannon iPhone samsung arguments i see everywhere

***** well whats not to understand about that comment? im comparing this to the consol phone tablet camera and computer arguments i seem to get involved with

***** are we even having an argument about wind power anymore

>>davidbuddy, I don't believe you have any idea what you've said! O emission coal, come on, that isn't true. What about the energy used to extract the coal and transport it? All that creates CO2 emissions, as well as the emissions when the coal is burned!! and all that upkeep expense and pollution? How do you figure a wind turbine runs on gasoline?? You've evidently been consuming the ethynol .

John P I think davidbuddy was trying to say what you can see here: live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html - Ontario has almost completely decarbonized its electric power supply by replacing coal plants with nuclear power. And he meant to say that because windmills typically only generate 25%-30% of their nameplate capacity, and because there are times when the wind doesn't blow at all, they require 100% fossil fuel backup, which in most cases means natural gas plants. Unless your part of the world has lots and lots of hydro, if you're building lots of windmills and deploying lots of solar panels, you're also building lots of natural gas power plants (or in Germany's case, lots of lignite-fired coal plants). That's kind of the big dirty secret of renewables: they don't displace fossil fuels; they lock them in.

coal plants are NOT zero emissions. They can't be. The sequestration process is nowhere near perfected. windfarm objectors: umad?

dangerouslytalented John P www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/2b2.pdf Zero Emission Coal is possible :) China and the EU's coal plants are almost Zero Emissions

How wind turbines can scare worms?and how the lack of worms causes desertification?go home bro,you're drunk.

Video is a decade old and 100% OBSOLETE.

Well done daniyal

£1000/MWh? Is this because of the very low capacity factors, if they are running only in the winter?

'' It might be said that the only birds killed by wind turbines and the stupid ones!'' OMG you really typed that?

póg mo thóin Yes, I typed that. It was intended to be bit tongue-in-cheek and not a factual observation. Still, all the "climate-deniers-turned-wind-power opponents" really have for an argument is that they kill birds......... but only the ones stupid enough to fail to see the blades as they approach from a distance! Here in west Texas, home of "the Picken's plan" and thousands of wind turbines, I have yet to see a single dead bird under a wind turbine, while hundreds lie dead on the side of the road. Maybe cars are the bad idea?

eco-ranch.us Well it appears there are one heck of a lot of stupid birds about …well there used to be should I say ….savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million-birds-bats-a-year.html

póg mo thóin I have birds running into my windows and breaking their necks all the time, even with stickers and stained glass panels hanging in them, does that mean by your logic all the windows of my house should be removed? You have to be a paid shill for the Big Oil climate and alternate energy denier program, how much do you get paid, can I join?

zeogiannes Don't bullshit me ~ i have lived on this planet for sixty five years and have only ever had ONE bird get killed on my windows and you know what it was NOT a Gryphon Vulture or a Golden Eagle now begone you Big Wind shill.

True.

Interesting. Can you tell us the link from big oil companies to wind power? Maybe. I'm trying to work it out. I thought it was governments taking huge loans to pay wind power companies to supply, install and run wind power. That never returns the loans. Wind power is basically governments shovelling money out the back door to private companies. Greenies are people who blindly run around and think wind power is doing some kind of good. And the rest just blindly go along with it for the sake of peace.

How can you build a wind turbine in your backyard, do you have an idea how big they are and how much noise they make?