31–40 of 331 posts
I worry many of these jobs will be temporary. We're just ramping up production of turbines and other equipment. Installations will peak within the next (maybe) 10 years and from then there will be less and less demain as maintenance will be the only thing we will require.
The article does not respond to the claim of the president that windmills kill birds. Do they really in a significant way? Is it worthy of being called an environmental disaster?
Everything has pro and cons. Windmills have just a few cons like don't block the air space (bad for a few birds (but less bad than water power plans for fish), helicopters, planes) and some noise (but that's true for every powerplant technologies except photovoltaic panels). The good thing windmills are very eco-friendly. Only water/hydro and photovoltaic/sun-energy falls in the very same category.
I worry many of these jobs will be temporary. We're just ramping up production of turbines and other equipment. Installations will peak within the next (maybe) 10 years and from then there will be less and less demain as maintenance will be the only thing we will require.
The article does not respond to the claim of the president that windmills kill birds. Do they really in a significant way? Is it worthy of being called an environmental disaster?
Everything has pro and cons. Windmills have just a few cons like don't block the air space (bad for a few birds (but less bad than water power plans for fish), helicopters, planes) and some noise (but that's true for every powerplant technologies except photovoltaic panels). The good thing windmills are very eco-friendly. Only water/hydro and photovoltaic/sun-energy falls in the very same category.
As you suggest in your prior sentence, hydro is very disruptive environmentally in some cases. The Glen Canyon Dam (and the once proposed dams in the Grand Canyon) are particular cases in point. There's a general trend toward removing old dams in New England in part because of their environmental impact. Of course, small scale hydro like microturbines is far less disruptive but it generates far less power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything has pro and cons. Windmills have just a few cons like don't block the air space (bad for a few birds (but less bad than water power plans for fish), helicopters, planes) and some noise (but that's true for every powerplant technologies except photovoltaic panels). The good thing windmills are very eco-friendly. Only water/hydro and photovoltaic/sun-energy falls in the very same category.
And nuclear is in an even more eco-friendly category than those. This seems accurate: http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
Upfront cost, liability and waste disposable with nuclear cannot be overlooked.
He also noted:
> A reactor has a 60-year service life.
Fukushima suggests otherwise. Holding on to old reactor designs has resulted in catastrophic failures.
I live in a school bus, traveling the country. I think wind turbines are absolutely beautiful; I always marvel at them when we drive by. Does anybody here know how to break into this industry, working on a mobile, on-site basis? Maybe with embedded tech?
Windmill technology is fairly low tech. there are a few things around the wings but besides that it's not really a "tech" business IMO.
Anybody has a good link to compare TOC of solar vs wind? From what I've heard, solar panels have a definite lifespan, but are maintenance free until then. Wind could last longer provided you maintain it right.
Not on the same scale as installation, but still a steady source of jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything has pro and cons. Windmills have just a few cons like don't block the air space (bad for a few birds (but less bad than water power plans for fish), helicopters, planes) and some noise (but that's true for every powerplant technologies except photovoltaic panels). The good thing windmills are very eco-friendly. Only water/hydro and photovoltaic/sun-energy falls in the very same category.
>water/hydro As you suggest in your prior sentence, hydro is very disruptive environmentally in some cases. The Glen Canyon Dam (and the once proposed dams in the Grand Canyon) are particular cases in point. There's a general trend toward removing old dams in New England in part because of their environmental impact. Of course, small scale hydro like microturbines is far less disruptive but it generates far less powe…