TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'm all for wind farms, but not here in a bird sanctuary. The offshore site in Scarborough made most sense, but Scarberians didn't want any of it.
I figured that Scarborough would want one too since downtown has one
I'm all for wind farms, but not here in a bird sanctuary. The offshore site in Scarborough made most sense, but Scarberians didn't want any of it.
Are you saying we don't frequently have to dump nuclear or hydro energy at a loss, because we're obligated to pay more for wind or solar?From the star, and yes.
Are you saying we don't frequently have to dump nuclear or hydro energy at a loss, because we're obligated to pay more for wind or solar?
Would you say it's untrue that wind energy needs backup in the form of a more on-demand generation type?
If the billions going into wind farms were instead put into actually reducing consumption through more efficient energy using devices,
If we get less for it than it cost to generate and transmit, then it's the same as subsidizing it, which is very much like paying someone to take it.I thought you had a basic understanding of electricity.
We don't pay anyone to take away excess electricity, we may not get a premium price for it though.....
True, you didn't say that explicitly, but it's a key part of why we have to sell off surplus energy.the rest of your sentence is just you putting words in my mouth so you have something to argue, or, you've completely missed the point.
Where did I say that?'Excess' energy generation won't destroy the grid....is that what you're implying?
I asked, only to find out if you knew this to be a key part of how wind or solar works. A surprising number of people don't.No I would not say it's untrue, nor did I imply it anywhere in any of my posts....why would you bring it up. I would hope that anyone familiar with wind or solar energy knows that it needs backup or storage.
Sure, if one comes to that conclusion, billboards or signage could be reduced or required to face certain efficiency standards - which is part of the point I was making. There are many, many ways that efficiencies or reductions could be implemented to actually reduce overall power consumption, making any investment into new 'green' power generation an entirely needless expense.Agreed, or reducing or eliminating the frivolous use of energy such as in lighted billboards and signage.
Where did I say that?
I asked, only to find out if you knew this to be a key part of how wind or solar works. A surprising number of people don't.
True, you didn't say that explicitly, but it's a key part of why we have to sell off surplus energy.
What is greener, reducing 1 mW of generation and transmission entirely, or generating that extra 1 mW using windmills and charging users 10-20 times the going rate for it?
Hah. I'm so used to typing mA in my work, that I didn't realize I was making a typo. You got me.I think that 1 milli-Watt of power is inconsequential.
The whole idea sounds ridiculous. They look awful.
In 30yrs, I think people will look at wind turbines that are in cities and say, who thought up this insane idea. their will be alternatives we just have to be patient.
I was using the opening to talk about saving energy vs green energy and shed light on the industry as a whole being more of a make work project than something that is truly being green.
Exactly. The fighting over gas, wind, coal and nuclear is beyond stupid when fusion is just around the corner.
Exactly. The fighting over gas, wind, coal and nuclear is beyond stupid when fusion is just around the corner.