military blocks windpower installations

[iNow]

And iNow, I remind you of your own words:

I think the issues raised in this thread serve as a good example of the different forms of resistance this wind farm approach must overcome.

That clearly suggests a belief that the problem here lies in the nature of what's stopping the wind turbines from going up.

 

 

Or, you could stop trying to tell me what I myself said and ask me instead just to clarify it...

[Pangloss]

Some personal posts removed. Clarification is available via PM if desired.

[Reaper]

You know, it would actually be interesting to see where they are denying building the wind turbines, BEFORE everyone starts screaming "conspiracy" here.

 

I haven't seen any references or links yet, so I am quite a bit skeptical about this alarmist attitude going on around here, especially since there are branches in the military that actually do provide funding for alternative energy sources, or other so-called "green" technology.

 

Clean energy should be a bigger priority, and the radar systems should be upgraded so we can do both a) continue to use the radar AND b) have solar turbines.

 

It's really not that easy though. In order to detect anything, the radio waves have to come back to the source. Otherwise you are pretty much running around in the dark.

[iNow]

Some personal posts removed. Clarification is available via PM if desired.

 

Can you clarify where you think I'm overgeneralizing though? That was my last request to you IIRC.

 

 

Isn't the deletion option which the staff have more for cleaning up bad language and trolls and spam, and not for avoiding engagement of harsh questions?

 

 

It's really not that easy though. In order to detect anything, the radio waves have to come back to the source. Otherwise you are pretty much running around in the dark.

 

Yeah. I saw this addressed later in the thread and agree. Again, though, work to find a solution that suits both parties instead of instantly banning and saying "no! you can't do it!"

 

Alternative energy is important. So's security. However, they don't have to be mutally exclusive.

[gcol]

 

Alternative energy is important. So's security. However, they don't have to be mutally exclusive.

 

Indeed. But when "the media" is controlled by an avowedly staunch right-winger and probably militarist, the debating ground is hardly going to be neutral.

[ParanoiA]

Alternative energy is important. So's security. However, they don't have to be mutally exclusive.

 

They do for the interim while one jeopardizes the other. Is it out of the question to fix the technical problem rather than pretending it's politics and greedy rich people at it again? In other words, can we leave the unsubstantiated belief out of it? (Not necessarily directed at you, by the way)

[iNow]

Is it out of the question to fix the technical problem rather than pretending it's politics and greedy rich people at it again?

 

Precisely. Why don't we see this as an engineering puzzle, get some really bright folks to spend some time in a room with graph paper, protractors, and coffee, and see what they come up with?

 

It's not an obstacle which cannot be overcome. It's a challenge in need of a solution.

[ParanoiA]

It's not an obstacle which cannot be overcome. It's a challenge in need of a solution.

 

Exactly. Maybe a bit cheesy, but obstacles are challenges in disguise.

 

Ok, ok, that's my last corny statement...

[CaptainPanic]

So, biomass causes massive deforestation which actually adds a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere because the forests are burned.

Windpower is bad because radar doesn't work, the blades cut birds in half, and wind turbines are generally considered ugly.

Solar cells are too expensive.

Nuclear power is causing pollution that we cannot clean.

Wave power and tidal power are bad for fishery, and still too expensive.

Hydro power is ok, but there are not enough rivers in the world.

 

That may all be true, but we should compare these arguments against the other option: Fossil fuels. We're digging for tar sands in Canada and digging for coal, oil and gas all over the world...

 

And are the fossil fuels the best option? I'm not so sure.

 

I think that too many people are too good at finding problems with sustainable energy. These problems are then presented in a stand alone reasoning, where the arguments against the sustainable energy are not weighted against the other alternative: fossil fuels.

 

So what that wind power interferes with radar? The choice is:

 

"Fossil fuels and rader" vs. "Wind power and also radar, but less". I go for option 2.

[iNow]

Solar cells are too expensive.

The cost per watt on the prodution side is being driven down dramatically, and also efficiency is increasing quickly on thin film substrates, which are much less expensive to produce than the higher efficiency crystalline silicone substrates. Also, the nature of substrates themselves is changing, and we're seeing more "organic" solar tech like paints and textiles.

[Reaper]

Precisely. Why don't we see this as an engineering puzzle, get some really bright folks to spend some time in a room with graph paper, protractors, and coffee, and see what they come up with?

 

Because it's more of a physics problem then an engineering one. It doesn't matter how sensitive or how powerful your radar detection is; if the radio waves don't get back to the source, you won't detect anything and thus you are basically running around in the dark.

 

This particular problem really isn't that simple.

[iNow]

Did I imply it was? It's still an obstacle to be overcome, despite how you describe it (aka engineering or physics).