Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
"One way to consider it is to look at the magnitudes of energy involved."

That's my point. When water wheels were being developed, I bet no one thought that they'd ever be able to put a hydro-electric dam (the ultimate water wheel) on the Colorado River due to the energy involved. While the technology with wind power is somewhat different, the attitude seems to be very much the same: it's free energy and there's lots of it. When an attitude like that predominates, progress is all important and impacts tend to be overlooked especially when they're new.

by Jace on Fri Jan 28th, 2011 at 09:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And like hydro, as we start to notice problems, we back off (chinese not withstanding).  That's true of every energy source we use.  I believe it is better to use one with no known side effects (wind, solar, to a lesser extent nuclear) than to continue using those with big problems (coal).

Your point is of course completely correct - we must monitor and research the costs.  But at this point I believe the balance as in favour of wind.

I feel comforted by the fact that strong powers are against wind and they haven't found any show stoppers yet.  You can be sure that the anti wind faction would jump at even the slightest evidence there was an issue.

by njh on Fri Jan 28th, 2011 at 09:24:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6

Occasional Series