Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   C. A. Brobst said, about 2 years ago

   Wind Farms can now be built more cheaply than nukes and provide the same power.
2. 

   INGSOC said, about 2 years ago

   That radiation shall keep you warm….
3. 

   cdward said, about 2 years ago

   ^^And with some of the newer technology for wind power, they don’t have to be so big and noisy. There are actually some very exciting experiments going on with wind that will make it much more efficient!
4. 

   Harleyquinn said, about 2 years ago

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

   http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/19/more-than-half-uk-wind-farms-built-areas-not-windy-enough/
5. 

   motivemagus said, about 2 years ago

   Oh, dear, harley, the first article was written by Christopher Booker, well-known “denialist” liar, and published in the Daily Mail, not famed for its accuracy, so I’m not inclined to believe anything he says. (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker) The second is more reasonable. But bad application of good power sources is not a reason to reject the power source outright.
6. 

   BrianCrook said, about 2 years ago

   Yeah, Howgoz, all environmentalists speak with one voice.

   You can find SOMEONE against anything. Although the windmills may not be as attractive as, say, a pine tree, they are much more attractive than oil derricks or nuclear power plants, and their energy is perpetual & clean, clean, clean.
7. 

   Harleyquinn said, about 2 years ago

   http://www.energyadvocate.com/wind.htm

   This is scary I am on the side of Obama http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42106967/ns/politics-white_house/
8. 

   Harleyquinn said, about 2 years ago

   “Oh, dear, harley, the first article was written by………….”

   can not argue the facts so must try to take down the person. Is that rule 2 or 3 I forget. I know rule one is “shut up” but I get the rest confused.
9. 

   dtroutma said, about 2 years ago

   There was no single answer for the problem, more like 300+ million of them in this country alone, nor is there a single answer for the “cure”- but a holistic approach is needed, not just a “profit driven’ one- where we’re stalled in the search. The fact that the “big blue marble” is proving a lot smaller is part of it. BTW, for “deniers”– if “Man”, can’t affect the planet, or the atmosphere, or the climate, why is it all the “deniers” seem to be the ones running out in a panic to buy iodine tablets???
10. 

    worldisacomic said, about 2 years ago

    Yeah I’m for wind farms! anywhere except in Cape Cod!
11. 

    Justice22 said, about 2 years ago

    I foresee a time when people live in cities and walk to work, suburbs are converted into farmland tilled by farmers using horses and mules and travel is by stagecoach and sailing ship. Any bets?
12. 

    Radish said, about 2 years ago

    Put the wind farms at Walker’s Point.
13. 

    motivemagus said, about 2 years ago

    Um, harley, I posted a link with an array of links to articles criticizing Booker’s facts, citations (quoting a nonexistent phrase to make his point, for example), reasoning…and I agreed with you on the second one, remember? Old Cicero said, “false in one thing, false in all.” In Booker’s case: false in everything, false in this one, too.
14. 

    bobwinners said, about 2 years ago

    We will still be building nukes. The ones that failed in Japan are 40 year old technology. New ones are considerably more robust in the safety field… pretty much turn them off and walk away. No complicated shutdown procedures.
    We will probably be shutting down some of the older plants, or refurbishing them and bring them up to higher standards.
15. 

    motivemagus said, about 2 years ago

    ^Don’t be too optimistic, bob. There are new designs – the first in decades – but this design (BWR) was supposed to be foolproof AND self-correcting. Either something unexpected went wrong, or poor maintenance took it down. Naeser’s Law: You can make it foolproof, but you can’t make it damnfoolproof. Adams’s Corollary to Naeser’s Law: Anyone who designs anything foolproof has obviously underestimated the ingenuity of fools.
16. Load the rest of the comments (8).