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?
Take the amounts of death caused by it, divide it by the amount of TWh it has produced, and there it is. Of course, if it's 1 death per TWh (totally random and a big exaggerated number) that doesn't mean one person will have to die every time a TWh is produced, it's just the deaths caused per TWh on average.
Sorry if you feel like I'm stating the obvious, but there's no reply to your statement that isn't obvious.
I don't think people care where their electricity is from, as long as they get what they need. And if they would care, it would probably be the less environment friendly methods they'd disapprove of.
Sorry if you feel like I'm stating the obvious, but there's no reply to your statement that isn't obvious.
There could have been the reply that showed you understood what I mean. Perhaps thats still obvious but better than stating a blank fact based on pure words.
Placing deaths next to an energy rate is crazy because there are so many other factors.
We have many many many ways to get energy and it should be free.
I dont think wind energy even comes close to being the best.
Why do we worry about how much expenditure we will have when we could have free energy? Because electricity companies wanna make money. Is this wrong? YES! And its obvious why.
I don't think people care where their electricity is from, as long as they get what they need. And if they would care, it would probably be the less environment friendly methods they'd disapprove of.
That's the point - such "alternative energy" methods, with the possible exception of Nuclear energy, which many people dislike with a passion, are very inefficient - this is why consumers don't want it. They'd be paying more for the same thing.
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.
I thought more time had passed.
Either way, what you said didn't matter was the wind power, not the nuclear power you complained about earlier.
Does this make sense?
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.
Isn't that the exact same thing as admitting I was wrong?
[quote]Either way, what you said didn't matter was the wind power, not the nuclear power you complained about earlier.
Does this make sense?[/quote]
Let me rephrase it then.
The nuclear power comment Hyper did was a reply to the sort of off-topic discussion you started around this post:
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.
What you said didn't matter was this:
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.
So you realized that what we've been saying about it not being effective was true, but Hyper still wanted to show you that nuclear power is not as dangerous as you claimed.
Do you understand now? I'll simplify further, just in case.
I think that iMogwai's point was that you were referring to wind power at the time, not to nuclear power or the discussion as a whole. Is that correct? And seriously, if you have given up on your idea, isn't this thread redundant now?
I think that iMogwai's point was that you were referring to wind power at the time, not to nuclear power or the discussion as a whole. Is that correct? And seriously, if you have given up on your idea, isn't this thread redundant now?
It is spam now since there really is nothing to debate.
It is spam now since there really is nothing to debate.
Well, I just noticed this thread, so here's all I have to say, sorry if it's been said already.
Yes, it is "easily" possible, meaning that we have the technology, we have the means to implement it, and it would work, however, it would be a total upheavel of all we currently have, thousands of companies would go out of business, it would take an absurd amount of money to refit everything, and time to install it all.
So, yes, we could, but apparently it's not deemed worth the price.
