Comments for Offshore Wind Power Moves Ahead In UK at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:58:48 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-28875 This has to be a great impact for energy - Fred Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:29:44 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25978 no_wind, seriously? Please stop breathing, you are affecting the atmosphere. - shek Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:54:47 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25967 It's hard to see how any single renewable source of electricity could become a 100% supplier of our power. Solar might become less expensive per watt than wind, but the wind blows at night when the sun isn't shining. For us to abandon wind the cost of solar *plus* storage would have to be less than the cost of wind generation. All forms of energy harvesting will have some impact and change things from the way they were. But any change produced by either wind or solar is likely to be much, much less than what we are doing by digging up sequestered carbon and burning it. - Bob Wallace Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:46:22 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25962 Still utterley ludricous I'm afraid "No_Wind". Am tempted to say you must be full of it, wind that is. 1) How do you propose to minimise the effect of manufacturing solar cells? Perhaps Harry Potter will be recruited to the effort? 2) Presumably any remotely efficient solar cell is going to be "black", i.e. reflect virtually no light. Covering large areas of desert or whatever land surface, with these things, is going to increase the amount of energy the Earth absorbs from the sun. Neither of these are show-stoppers for solar power, but to portray as impact free is, well, ludicrous. - heat_v_light Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:25:10 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25953 Excellent post ,thanks for sharing - runescape accounts Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:09:31 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25948 "Blatant solar propaganda stunt"? Hardly. As it stands today, solar is not nearly efficient enough - we have much work to do here. I concur that wind energy is a fine "get out of the way of the train" start - it begins the process of moving to sustainable energy. My point was that wind energy is no panacea. It is ONLY a beginning and SHOULD NOT be thought of as a long-term solution - for those reasons I listed. I do not mind wind farms for small energy magnitudes. Just as I have no problem with a person creating a campfire to keep warm -- but I certainly wouldn't encourage the human race to burn down all of the forests. Solar has one long-term benefit - it has zero impact on the environment. Bear in mind, I consider only the impact of harvesting the energy - making the devices as they stand today is still a huge negative. With luck, we'll find a means to minimize the impact of manufacture, also. Why zero impact? Solar energy in all forms is eventually converted to heat when it strikes the earth or used by plants. When we harvest it for human use, we convert the energy to different forms, but eventually it ends up as heat also. And by the principle of Conservation of Energy, it is not possible to have created more heat than what we absorbed. Zero impact. Wind is created by heat from the sun also; however, when we remove some of that energy, we do it not from the original energy stream but from another stream already in use by the climate, plants, and animals. We *will* impact the world more by using wind than by using solar. Wind is not a viable long-term solution and *is* dangerous to be thought of in that manner. - No_Wind Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:25:19 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25941 In theory the maximum energy that a horizontal wind turbine can take from the wind is less than 60% (of the blade diameter area). That is the perfect design number. In reality most turbines take less and looking at the actual rotor area compared to the area of ocean or air space we have..... your comments seem ludicrous. - Peter Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:10:53 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25934 What a blatant solar propaganda stunt. It is a well known fact that wind energy is several times more cost effective and implementable at this time than solar energy is. Furthermore, the sustainability impact of extracting energy from wind, if ANY (which, by the way, you failed to articulate), is considerably less harmful to fringe systems and the environment as a whole than any traditional energy infrastructure; therefore making dogmatic proclamations such as "Harvesting wind power is dangerous" akin to saying that one should not move out of the way of a speeding freight train (in this case, climate change) for fear of twisting one's ankle. If persuading the world to go solar is your goal, then perhaps you would be kind enough to educate us on the "vastly superior" solar integration, rather than haphazardly attempting to debunk real, sound, progressive steps taken by those leading the green revolution. What efforts, specifically, are YOU making to help shift the grid towards alternative energy sources? - TheZov Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:44:14 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2681#comment-25931 Someday - and I'm counting on the perpetuity of the Web here - I'll be able to show my grandchildren that I warned 'em. Wind energy moves heat (affecting our climate), carries seeds and pollen (affecting our food), and permits migration (affecting the world's animals). It may have other impacts we don't recognize. Harvesting wind power is dangerous! What happens when we start removing gigawatts of energy from the wind? It will not have a negligible impact. If we learn nothing from the last one hundred years, we should learn that there is nothing we do that won't impact this planet. And, generally, doing LOTS of something means having LOTS Of impact. Solar energy is the only truly safe renewable energy. - No_Wind Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:36:48 +0100