Couldn't you just put hundreds of thousands of windmills, mass produce millions of electric cars, and use the electricity generated from those windmills to power the cars, thus, making us completely independent off of oil for good?
Windmill â' Energy Energy â' Electricity Electricity â' Cars, Homes, etc. free of fossil fuels Cars, Homes, etc. free of fossil fuels = Happy Planet
Why do people complain that much about wind energy if it is so easy?
I never said "countries", I said "locations". The country might not be landlocked, but the town might not be on the coast, the state or province might not be coastal, etc. Just because the country as a whole is not landlocked does not mean that it is not a lot of commute to get it in to the landlocked locations within the country.
I am not denying there won't be dead birds, but would you rather want dead birds or dead ecosystems?
You have a point there, but we should research better ways to get energy instead of settling for the lesser of two evils.
While transporting electricity, a lot is wasted in the process. You can't put electricity in a barrel and ship it via boat, like you can with oil rigs. And people can live and work on oil rigs, I doubt anyone would like to live on a windmill.
Where are you getting this information from?
I never said "countries", I said "locations". The country might not be landlocked, but the town might not be on the coast, the state or province might not be coastal, etc. Just because the country as a whole is not landlocked does not mean that it is not a lot of commute to get it in to the landlocked locations within the country.
It doesn't need to be. Have you ever heard of storage? Once the energy is created, it can be stored.
You have a point there, but we should research better ways to get energy instead of settling for the lesser of two evils.
We should, but there aren't many alternatives. Geothermal energy is hard to get, hydroelectric energy isn't all over the world, solar energy produces very little. I mean, wind energy hits on all fronts.
We should, but there aren't many alternatives. Geothermal energy is hard to get, hydroelectric energy isn't all over the world, solar energy produces very little. I mean, wind energy hits on all fronts.
I read some physics and chemistry in high school, and resistance is one of the most basic things you learn there, and that's what I based my statement on.
If that and common sense isn't enough for you, here's a link
Nuclear spills can decimate an entire city state for centuries. Radiation will sty there for generations to come. Nobody has ever heard of wind spills.
If off shore wind farms lost so much energy then how come we use it so often?
Oh, I'm not saying they're not worth it. They are a good way to reduce the need for other sources of energy. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be possible to cover 100% of the world's power usage with only wind power.
I know you think you've come up with this great idea, but really, everyone knows about wind power, so it's not that people don't have faith in it. It's just that it's not realistic to believe we can completely remove the need for oil and nuclear power with the current wind power technology, especially if we're going to increase the energy output by mass producing electric cars.
As I said before, if it was as awesome as it sounds, it would've been done.
Oh, I'm not saying they're not worth it. They are a good way to reduce the need for other sources of energy. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be possible to cover 100% of the world's power usage with only wind power.
I know you think you've come up with this great idea, but really, everyone knows about wind power, so it's not that people don't have faith in it. It's just that it's not realistic to believe we can completely remove the need for oil and nuclear power with the current wind power technology, especially if we're going to increase the energy output by mass producing electric cars.
As I said before, if it was as awesome as it sounds, it would've been done.
Doesn't matter. We would need 80,000 windfarms to power all of the Eastern coast alone, and if each windfarm has 100 windmills, then we need about 8 million windmills just to power the East Cost.
Nuclear spills can decimate an entire city state for centuries. Radiation will sty there for generations to come. Nobody has ever heard of wind spills.
You say that, and it's true, but the nuclear power danger has been vastly exaggerated. Nuclear power has become much, much safer since some of the prior disasters(Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc.) and do you want to know what kind of energy has caused more deaths than nuclear power? Every other kind of energy. Oh, yes. No one died because of Three Mile Island. A LOT of corners were cut at Chernobyl, and it could easily have been prevented even with the means available then. There are about 29 deaths annually, caused by coal mining(and that's not counting long-term occupational hazards like black lung). Wind power causes more deaths per TWh than nuclear power does. So, nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's less dangerous than pretty much every other kind of energy.
What part of "forget everything I said" did you not understand?
What part of "forget everything I said" did you not understand?
I was ninja'd. It took me a while to find all those sources again, and you posted before my post was finished. I did not get a chance to refresh the page and therefore see your post.
What part of "forget everything I said" did you not understand?
Seeing as how that was posted three minutes after your message, and it looked like it took a long time to type, I'm guessing it was written before she read your message.
Either way, what you said didn't matter was the wind power, not the nuclear power you complained about earlier.
Oh, and going "Oh, never mind, I don't care" when you realize you've lost is just rude. At least admit you were wrong.
Nuclear spills can decimate an entire city state for centuries. Radiation will sty there for generations to come. Nobody has ever heard of wind spills.
nuclear energy is a lot safer now than it used to be... the only downside is the waste
You cant place deaths next to an energy rate... It doesnt work like this.
I know that that's not the standard way to measure it, but that's how it was stated in the document I provided so that's how I told you. In fact, if you would read the aforementioned document, you would find that its use of said measurement is actually explained therein.
