Wind Energy in Iowa...Your Thoughts
- Thread starter Beernuts
- Start date
One thing that is offsetting the efficiency of wind and others, even as they become more efficient, is needing new transportation lines. Many of the oldest wind farms used existing structures that were already built for the coal produced power to go to the rural and smaller towns. The wind farms could back feed these and power those sources and not have to erect more structures. These old costs were built into coal and hydro distribution and helped make wind seem cheaper.
Now that the grid is full they have to build new or replace and it is hurting the efficiency.
Now that the grid is full they have to build new or replace and it is hurting the efficiency.
I wouldn't call that really efficient. You'd lose at least 5-10% due to resistance of the lines.
There's a lot more to the story about nuclear. Things like the once-through fuel cycle (thanks President Carter!), regulators changing the rules halfway through construction (this is what happened to the new V.C. Summer and Vogtle units), political appointees with no actual knowledge of the industry they're being asked to regulate (Jaczko).
Also, the production of nuclear energy is not subsidized. It is, in fact, penalized by a fee paid per KWH to build the "spent" nuclear waste repository (Yucca Mountain). I personally strongly disagree with this, we should be reprocessing fuel to isolate useful isotopes (both for fuel use and medical use), but there's an irrational fear of using plutonium to make power (the irony being that if we did use it to make power, it would no longer be plutonium and thus not a proliferation risk). Additionally, by the end of life of a given fuel element, most of its energy is produced by plutonium fission anyway, but we'll pretend that that's not the truth.
Sorry that paragraph digressed, my original point was to state that the only subsidies the nuclear industry receives are *insurance* subsidies, since the premiums would be prohibitively high because of the perception of risk (even though the actual risks are astronomically low).
Also, the production of nuclear energy is not subsidized. It is, in fact, penalized by a fee paid per KWH to build the "spent" nuclear waste repository (Yucca Mountain). I personally strongly disagree with this, we should be reprocessing fuel to isolate useful isotopes (both for fuel use and medical use), but there's an irrational fear of using plutonium to make power (the irony being that if we did use it to make power, it would no longer be plutonium and thus not a proliferation risk). Additionally, by the end of life of a given fuel element, most of its energy is produced by plutonium fission anyway, but we'll pretend that that's not the truth.
Sorry that paragraph digressed, my original point was to state that the only subsidies the nuclear industry receives are *insurance* subsidies, since the premiums would be prohibitively high because of the perception of risk (even though the actual risks are astronomically low).
It's pretty much the very definition of a hoax. She's trying to legislate into law an edeavor she claims to be possible, but in reality is an endeavor that is a physical impossibility in the time frame she has proposed and with the technology that is likely to be available well beyond the proposed timeframe.
American politics in 2019, my friend.
Free **** and unrealistic promises. Everything is either all-good or all-bad.
Hard policy choices with important trade-offs are so 1956.
Go live under one and tell us your experience.Haven't you heard the latest from our stable genius, it causes cancer.
My mom lives right in the middle of a large wind farm near the state line (being as everything along the state line from Highway 63 west is a wind farm) and I don't really notice it much there.
There are 3 on the farm my uncle lives on (same area) and it's the same thing. I think the nuisance aspect is incredibly overrated.
Which is why arguing about energy sources is so frustrating. All options have pros and cons. There is no silver bullet (although I believe with proper education and understanding of what risk actually is, there is a uranium one).
Must be area related. Know one town near the interstate that the turbine company bought TV boosters for the whole town due to the reception being distroyed. Another I drive through dumps my radio on AM and FM while in the middle of it for a couple miles.
I’m far enough away now that I only deal with them when I drive through.
Haven't you heard the latest from our stable genius, it causes cancer.
Please tell me this is the resurgence of the old "EM/non-ionizing radiation fields cause cancer" conspiracy theory.
Yeah, but not really. The energy has to be produced when needed unless you’re ok with blackouts so that doesn’t really happen. The real net gain is far lower as wind often produces when there is less demand. Traditional fossil fuel plants actually produce more pollution than if there was no wind trying to ramp up and cut back production to react. If there was a way to store large amounts of energy it would be different, but there isn’t.
I'm around them constantly and have zero issues with AM/FM or cell phone signals. A significant chunk of our farmland has turbines on it, and there's zero effect.
Last edited:
Under one? According to Twitter in Chief the noise from them causes cancer, so all you would have to do is be within audible distance of one of these things and you are getting cancer I guess.
I think you missed a word or two in your response. It kinda covers both sides. Not being douchey just think you mean no issues but you mention no signals in first sentence.
Oh trust me only reason that I knew that is from a twitter post a few weeks ago but they had no links. I'm in the same boat with any subsidized market and know plenty that lost their shorts buying into it.
