Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Why would it be as big as the railroad? It's a turbine in the water, or in the air. Costs less to build and maintain than an apartment building.

It's not about completely switching to wind or tidal power - we'll never rely on one single source of energy - it's about using available, more efficient sources when they're feasible.

You should learn a thing or two about them before you start assuming they're a "massive undertaking", or otherwise impractical.

   

Wind Web Tutorial

Canadian Wind Energy Association

American Wind Energy Association

Global Wind Energy Council

Record Year For Wind Energy
The Canadian wind capacity increased by a staggering 53%. “Canada’s wind energy industry is growing by leaps and bounds – and that’s great news for Canadians who research shows are strongly in favour of wind energy,” said Robert Hornung, President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). “2005 will be remembered as the year Canada first started to seriously exploit its massive wind energy potential.”

   

The tidal one's are expensive to build,I saw them on discovery channel and it look's good but untill the price of gas or other energy source's go through the roof then I cant see any energy companies putting up the cash unless it's feasible and makes money.

Banff is right,coal is king for now. And Alberta has lots of it,so does BC and Saskabush and allmost every province in Canada.And the seams that arent economically feasible to mine will be drilled and tapped for coal bed methane. Some CBM holes are drilled within one day,that's good return on investment. I dont know what a tidal generating tower would cost but I bet it's oodles more then it would take to bang off 4 holes per section and milk a low producer for 25 years.

   

Coal is not "king" - as of 2000, it was a distant second to hydro in net electricity production in Canada (61% vs 19%). If you look at individual provinces, the number of provinces which rely chiefly on hydro sources is the same as the number which rely on "conventional thermal" sources.

   

   

Big thing about hydro is the dams can be used to control runoff. Take Hover for instance, Around 1900 it was decided that Arizona had the ideal conditions for irrigated cropland and a system of small dams cannals, trenches and pipes was constructed. Alsas the Colorado River fluctuates severly from run-off and flooding was a severe problem. The Hover dam was constructed primarlay to prevent this flooding, electrical producion being secondary. I do not think that hydro elctric dams are practical on their own but only as an additon to irrigation projects.

I think nuclear is a viable option for power grids. Solar is the way to go for off grid applications such as rural homes, and blimps for radio relay.

   

In Wyoming that has had a terrible effect on water quality.

   

I've been humouring you with trying to create a coherent argument from the drivel you've been posting, but this makes absolutely no sense, and I can't even begin to imagine what you thought you were saying.

   

Hey Zig is this what you call the Cowley Ridge Wind Farm, it's a few miles east of the junction of 3 and 22. As a tourist i find them interesting, but if i had to see them everyday i might get tired of them.

   

   

Them's the one's A bud of mine dug every one of the holes for them.
Some in Winterpeg last year also.

   

It's called "king coal" for a reason.We havent even scratched the surface of it here in Alberta yet.

   

I've heard that but I dont see how. I've built sites where they put up tanks(tank farm) to pump the saltwater out and it's sent out to be cleaned,any water pumped back down is cleaner then that which was taken out.

   

That pic is about two years old,think they drilled that hole 3 times.

   

Either that, or I just can't understand what the heck you're saying. Explain what "without opposition contempt is inevitable" means and maybe I can begin. You need to slow down and read what you're typing, or something, because it really doesn't make sense from this end.

"Provided I'm not repeating myself": That's funny, since that's all you've done in this thread. Other than the fact that you think they're ugly, and that you have unjustifiably assumed proponents of wind power are lying, or out to screw us (gee, Denmark fell for it, and look how much trouble they're having with it), you have offered nothing.

The difference is, you haven't done anything to explain why you feel you can make such disparaging remarks about wind power. The fact that they "litter the land" only goes so far, considering your alternative is burning coal. Think about what that does to "the land" before you take sides.

Quirks or quarks, eh? Can't say that I do. Is there something that you know about it that you're not telling me, or are you just making it up as you go along?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next