











Comments     Threshold


RE: Dilute sources of energy
By conflictxinside on 8/13/2008 2:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
There's a company installing a ton of them in my area of Pennsylvania, and all of them I've seen are fiberglass as well. The units that are currently up and running are virtually silent.

The only problem I can find with them is that I constantly get stuck behind one of the trailers that haul them up the many hills without passing lanes on my way home from work every day. :)

RE: Dilute sources of energy
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 2:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
They may look like fiberglass, but they're probably coated steel tubes. I've never seen a fiberglass tower on a commercial wind turbine. Here's a list of every windfarm currently in operation in Pennsylvania. All are from manufacturers who use steel tube towers:

According to a recent study, wind power uses 5 times the concrete and 10 times the steel per MW-hour generated as does nuclear power. This is the primary reason wind power has both a greater cost and larger environmental footprint.

RE: Dilute sources of energy
By Motamid on 8/13/2008 9:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would be interested in seeing the details of that study. Wind I agree is definitely more costly per MW-hour than nuclear when it comes to price. However I don't think that building requirements alone accurately reflect the environmental footprint they leave. A nuclear plant requires a constant intake of uranium to operate.

Taking this into consideration the environmental cost of nuclear power also includes that from the mining, refining, transportation, recycling, and later storage of the nuclear material. Particularly the mining of uranium and storage of the nuclear waste seem to have a rather large environmental footprint for it to be overlooked.

Nuclear is efficient, cheap, and relatively friendly to the environment, but it isn't a miracle cure. I'm all for expanding nuclear to be a major source of our electrical generation, however it shouldn't be the only clean source of energy that we pursue.

RE: Dilute sources of energy
By EricMartello on 8/14/2008 12:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power is probably the best overall choice, but it does have one major issue - water requirements. One plant requires huge amounts of water on a daily basis for normal operation, and once the water is cycled thru the plant, it becomes contaminated with radiation.

RE: Dilute sources of energy
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 8:03:03 AM , Rating: 2

Uh, no - it doesn't get contaminated with radiation - it just gets hot, that's all.

And while you're right that it does require a lot of water, it doesn't really require that much more than a fossil fuel plan of similar output.

RE: Dilute sources of energy
By monkeyman1140 on 8/18/2008 10:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
One thing that is never discussed in the nuclear power generation debate is an obvious one. There is a limited amount of uranium in the earth's crust, and its getting harder to find all the time. The amount of processing required to turn ore into fuel is costly, and spent fuel cannot be used again cheaply. Reprocessing it generates even more radioactive waste. Right now there are hundreds of storage facilities all over the planet holding spent fuel. If the water pool ever drains in one of the facilities then an ecological disaster would result.


Related Articles
