While this story originates in Oregon — where windmills are popping up everywhere — perhaps we could bring the issue into our local debate over the turbines.
The lady in the story says that her research is showing that windmills are causing lots of problems for people, like headaches, equilibrium problems, sleep disorders, and even night terrors in children. I have a hard time believing that a spinning turbine, generating electricity, could lead to those sorts of problems, but who knows?
I’ve heard that folks who live near high-voltage lines more frequently suffer from certain disorders, so there might be something going on that we don’t understand.
Popularity: 18%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }
Great article OpenMind! The “inner ear equalibrium” issue makes sense to me, but as far as “night terrors” go, that seems a little far fetched. It’s ashame that these things are being built so close to peoples homes. They should really pay closer attention to the proximity of where they are putting these things up and take into consideration the surrounding homes.
I’ve heard of the numerous horror stories of cancer caused by the high voltage lines, so it only makes sense the spinning turbines would cause some major inner ear issues. While these things are supposedly “clean energy”, they sure are unsightly and I know I wouldn’t want to live near any of them. Just one more reason to promote more nuculear power plants. (but then again, you wouldn’t want to live anywhere close one of those either) Energy woes….whaddaya do?
Those turbines…so that’s why I woke up another year older this morning!
I don’t doubt that the effect Dr. Pierpont postulates is plausible, but I’d like to see a lot more actual research and data before sounding the alarm. So far, she seems to be limited to almost anectotal evidence.
Also, it would be nice to see a reference to a refereed journal paper rather than a press release for an upcoming book. I couldn’t find anything on a K-Selected Press, so I don’t know if it’s a vanity publisher, but it seems likely.
The worst thing that can happen is like the power line issue. Lots of people who live near turbines and who happen to come down with certain maladies will make the connection in their minds, and a few will devote their lives to trying to prove the causal link. And just like the powerline/cancer link, no actual evidence will ever be produced.
By the way, I think the turbines are beautiful. I went on a tour of the facility a couple of years ago, and it was fascinating. I don’t have enough property to put one up in my yard, but if a neighboring farmer put one up, I wouldn’t mind in the least.
You think the turbines are beautiful? Wow! That’s a new one. Than how about you living under one of them and you can tell us how they affect you hoagie? (You say you wouldn’t mind, but i honestly don’t see it happening.) Are you really this skeptical about everything in life? So many of your posts seem to suggest so. Either that you just like disagreeing with everyone for arguments sake. Believe it or not, there’s not a scientific report out on everything in life.
What I’d like to know is why isn’t Idaho using more Geo-Thermal power? We’re sitting on top of one of the largest volcanos in this country with an endless supply of untapped power. So why isn’t it being utilized instead of these unsightly turbines?
I believe it is being utilized, as a natural tourist trap.
HomeSlice – I believe that geothermal power is a little trickier than wind power. It’s harder to get to, and poses more environmental concerns. More research and development would be nice, but our current administration feels it’s more important to bolster oil companies’ bottom lines with tax cuts than to fund alternative energy research.
And happy birthday, Humor in Life! Thanks for living up to your handle, too.
This is an important topic. I hope that certain uncivil commenters don’t derail it.
I like the turbines. I think they look awesome. This is my personal opinion but I don’t believe they cause the problems in that report. I think that another author is just trying to sell their book. The woman quoted in the opening paragraph will probably psyche herself into having symptoms because she’s so sure it’s going to happen. I’m not afraid of wind turbines. In these times people with an agenda (like being opposed to windmills) often try to use fear to weaken their opponents. Seems like here’s something new to fear every day. I live very close to some electric transmission lines and a substation too. Doesn’t phase me a bit. A few weeks back I heard that cell phones cause brain cancer. I still use mine.
It’s not the regular transmission lines that cause a problem, it’s the high voltage ones that you can actually hear buzzing when you stand near them. I don’t know of any place in Idaho Falls that currently have these super high voltage power lines.
I think the turbines look cool too, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live next to them. It’s bad enough they ruin the beautiful mountain views that surround our city. But then again, people would complain if we had acres of solar panels too. The cell phone brain cancer issue has been around for years, from what I’ve read their actually doing a controlled study on this issue. We’ll have to keep Idahogie updated on that for his scientific portfolio.
I have to agree with the geo thermal issue as well. It’s not that difficult to get to, just a matter of drilling into the ground until we reach the molten lava pool. I agree with the hoagster and his oil company statement, but I do find it amusing that both political parties are touting their the ones who are all for alternative energy.
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with our current energy situation. We merely need to drill for our own oil and stop lining the pockets of the middle eastern homies.
Happy B-day humor! I understand you’re 28 today. Congrats!
After moving to this area I’ve always wondered about the geo thermal issue as well, but I don’t know enough about it to know if it’s cost effective or not. Seems good in theory though! Happy Birthday Good Humor girl! Eat a bite of cake for me! (only if it’s dark choc tho)
Another thing I’d like to know is why are solar panels still so expensive? This technology has been around for 20+ years, so why still the high expense? Are these panels that expensive to produce or are the few companies that make them just keeping the prices high because their greedy?
CR67 – I’m no expert on solar, but I think I remember that they contain some precious metals – the price might be highly dependent on the market price. They have also been increasing in efficiency – which means more technology and more R&D costs. Perhaps someone who knows something can comment.
I think the wind turbines are beautiful, myself. I like looking up at that ridge and seeing them. They’re austere and serene, to me.
I drive to Boise frequently and I see several sets of turbines on the way. They all are beautiful, with one exception. Those few turbines look a little antique or poorly made or something, and the blades are shorter (maybe that’s part of the issue) so they just look tacky.
Would I like to live near them? Probably not, I don’t think I’d like to live near ANY energy source, probably not even near a wide array of solar panels.
Do I think it’s possible they cause some maladies? Sure, anything’s possible. But I agree with Idahogie, who is a scientist (oops, sorry to ‘out’ you) and knows something about scientific process and the concept of studies and publishing, etc. It’s unproven at this point, and while we might want to be aware that the issue has been raised, it’s too early to say that the sky is falling.
Good post!
yea!!! we have a new “professor” in the house!
A pretty smart one to boot.
Re #9, aren’t we getting most of our oil from Canada?
As for geothermal, the area I lived in where geothermal was in use had an exceptionally high miscarriage rate which I recall being associated with the emissions from the geothermal plant.
I also enjoy the windmills east of Idaho Falls. They were built properly to integrate into the landscape better than any others I’ve seen. I think they actually enhance the scenery. It’s not an ugly mass of turbines packed tightly together like California has. They are also very quiet. You can’t even hear them over the wind unless you stand directly next to them.
As for the danger of living close to power lines, there is very little electromagnetic radiation reaching more than a few feet from the lines. Any place you would normally build a house would be safe since the emission of any kind of field falls off as the square of the distance. This means there is far more danger from your cell phone’s radiation right next to your head than from living close to a power plant.
Crystal – The geothermal plants may emit a small amount of CO2 along with the water vapor but this is very negligible compared to any fossil fuel plant. There should be no dangerous levels of anything to speak of. They are very clean plants, environmentally speaking.
See, the incidence of whatever ails us seems to be higher anecdotally in some hot button issue areas, but it’s hard to disprove the anecdotal information.
Doing studies usually involves controlled situations that don’t always mimic precisely the real life conditions, either. But taking statistics from one area vs the other usually shows us that SOMETHING is happening there, and we just guess at our favorite whipping boy being the culprit. Not scientific at all, yet it makes good tabloid sensation and passes swiftly from person to person as ‘knowledge’.
A higher incidence of miscarriages, or brain cancer, or equillibrium problems may be noted, but have a completely different etiology that no one is aware of…if you compare the statistics to another area of the country that doesn’t have your favorite bad boy (like a high voltage substation or a geothermic facility or a wind farm, etc) and find LESS incidence of that ailment, you might think you have established the cause of the ailment.
But that’a false assumption, because there will be many things left out of the equation. No one knows if there is something additional that was not considered, something else the first area had that the second did not (or vice versa), and IT could be what was causing the problem.
I remember reading in the 70s that aluminum was tied to Alzheimers. I immediately stopped wearing anti-perspirant and switched to deodorant (that didn’t last long) and threw away my aluminum cookware and bought stainless steel (that was expensive)…but what if I get it anyway? Was it because I used those things? Was it because I am genetically predisposed? Was it because of something different? No one really knows but everyone has a theory.
This is getting too long but you get my meaning. We all have our fears of something maybe creating a problem, and hopefully when we publicize those fears someone wants to study the situation, but there are so many variables that it will be many years, probably, before anyone can prove yay or nay.
Actually, the issue I am referring to is the emission of hydrogen sulfide, which is believed to cause health problems at low exposure as well as death at high exposure:
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering broadly regulating hydrogen sulfide, a common gas that smells like rotten eggs and has been increasingly linked to a variety of health problems for people living and working near petroleum, confined livestock, paper and landfill operations.
Hydrogen sulfide has long been known to be deadly in high concentrations. However, growing scientific evidence shows the gas may also have health effects at low levels.”
from : http://www.earthworksaction.org/HydrogenSulfide.cfm
Here is a good intro to geothermal from the area I referred to:
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2008/06/15/local/local01.txt
The geothermal plant in that area regularly emitted hydrogen sulfide detectable by residence – basically, persistent “rotten-egg” smells in the area.
I’m not trying to sound an alarm here, the EPA is already in the mix and clearly emissions will need to be more tightly regulated as this technology develops.
The statement that “The geothermal plants may emit a small amount of CO2 along with the water vapor but this is very negligible compared to any fossil fuel plant. There should be no dangerous levels of anything to speak of” is, however, incomplete and false.
I’ll leave you with one last account of the geothermal experience in Hawaii, for those who wish to educate themselves further so as to best understand the ups and downs of geothermal. The link below is an account of those who have lived with the hydrogen sulfide emissions, the scientists who have tried to help them, and the companies that profit:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/h2s/hawaii.html
“In a 1981 report, three scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California concluded that “atmospheric releases of hydrogen sulfide constitute the most significant public health issue of geothermal energy production,” and that carcinogenic and neurotoxic compounds such as benzene, arsenic, mercury and radon also could be released at levels of concern. “
Reading that article on the Hawaii plant, it appears they were just direct-venting high pressure volcanic steam. In that type of plant there would be a chance of contaminants like H2S. I didn’t realize they were using that type. It doesn’t seem like a good idea. The modern binary cycle plant works more like a nuclear reactor. It uses a closed secondary cycle to produce power so potential pollutants are never released. That’s the only type I’m familiar with. It appears there are actually three different types of power plants in use.
It usually turns out that way, that there is more to any story than we know. Therefore it’s hard to say with a complete degree of confidence that one particular thing is the sole cause of any particular ailment, or not the cause of the ailment.
It’s the modern world that we live in, where the dangers are abundant but so are the benefits. Harsh words when it’s you or yours who are in danger, but it’s part of the cycle of life on our planet, and it’s worked really well for millions of years.
Having analytical brains our species has a slight edge over others when it comes to identifying dangers, and working around them or ending them. (I’ve seen plenty of evidence that other species also learn these things and act, but I think we have a slight edge nonetheless).
Great info, great minds working together to enlighten each other. Thanks for the civil debate!
The windmills add an element of disjointed movement and abstract design to the familiar scenery, and that’s why I think some folks like ‘em and some don’t.
I doubt very seriously any one of us will ever have to consider living under one. The thought of building a home under huge rotating blades is pretty ridiculous. But I’m pretty sure there could come a time when we see them in smaller back yard versions, powering our houses, especially out in the country. There were lots and lots of windmills pumping water around here when I was a kid, and nobody gave them a second thought.
They’re so danged 21st Century. They kinda are like a bunch of graceful aliens that just set up camp on the ridges, working to their own mysterious purposes.
Personally, I don’t know what to think about them esthetically, other than they would make driving a tractor around those dry farms a little more visually interesting work. I wonder more about how the old-timers who have passed on would think about them… I knew some of those guys who once owned those fields. I guess some would like them esthetically, and some not, but all of them would like the money they bring in equally.
One nice thing about them is they can go about as easily as they came, and leave a cleaner situation behind than an abandonded brick and morter power plant. I’ve yet to see an abandonded industrial building that looked good, but they hang around forever as an eyesore.
We should immediately halt the building of windmills and channel all the money somewhere that it’s going to make a difference. We could put windmills every two hundred square feet from Idaho to Mexico and all across the United States and still not produce even a fraction of the amount of power we need… ridiculous… It sickens me to look at the eastern skyline of Idaho Falls and see wind turbines and then think that there are actually people out there that think they make a difference?
I used to hunt pheasants where EIRMC sits and I shot my first deer up around the Blackhawk Estates Subdivision. It truly amazes me at the amount of growth Idaho Falls has sustained over the years. I think we’ve only scratched the surface of our growth around here too…
Hi Paul…..thanks for that comment; I know nothing about windmills: how much power do they produce? To hear some praise of windmills, you would think they could reduce our oil dependency significantly. . . but that’s not true?
Let me know . . . thanks again.
From what I’ve read, the largest power producing windmills in the world only produce, at their best, 1/200th the power of a “standard” sized coal power plant. Now, look up on the hill east of Idaho Falls and look at the few windmills that are up there… Now just imagine what that hillside would look like if there were 200 of them. Next imagine how many sets of 200 it would take just to power say, the city of Salt Lake… ? Not pretty imagery… That’s just one downside… now think about becoming dependant on these things and then, one day, the wind just stops blowing? Now what? Oh, and they cause major power fluctuations from what I hear as well. If that’s the case, say goodbye to all your major, highly sensitive, computer electronics unless hundreds is spent on surge protectors.
I don’t know, just my opinion from all the research I’ve done on it. I personally think we need to go nuclear, it’s the only way at this point in my eyes. There are very safe ways to obtain nuclear power now… very safe.
Paul Harvey once said it best… I remember listening to him on the radio one day about 10 years ago in Lewiston Idaho. He stated that if Americans would have been introduced to electricity via the electric chair, we’d still be using candles. Because America was introduced to nuclear energy via the Atom Bomb we’re still using fossil fuels…
Wow, Paul, that’s a pretty good quote from Paul Harvey. I used to listen to him (or at least his dad) when I was a young conservative in the 70s.
I was also anti-nuke. I am really starting to be pro-nuke and wish we could get the lead out of our energy policy, which has remained stagnant even after all these years.
As far as the wind, I’m not sure it will stop blowing. I think the surges you mentioned are able to be adjusted for if we were going to use that as a direct source. However, I agree that it’s not the long term answer to depend upon them, because the output is not enough to justify a whole forest of them for a small town.
I’m just so anti-coal that I can’t go there, still. Maybe in another 30 years, try me?
You might be right in general, Paul. Wind should only ever be a part of the solution. And whatever renewable sources you go with, you need to have some kind of storage capacity to use when it’s calm, or cloudy, or low water, etc.
However, your calculations are way off. The area of the United States is 3539225 sq mi. If you convert to square feet (mulitply by 5280 squared) and divide by the area you allotted to each windmill (200 square feet), and then divide by 200 to get the equivalent number of full-sized power plants, you’d have 2.5 billion equivalent power plants. In other words, a windmill every 200 sq ft would be much much much more than adequate to provide enough power for the foreseeable future for the entire world, let alone the US.
Of course, that’s not a valid calculation anyway. Not very many places are suited for windmills in the first place. But your blanket assertion that windmills can never have very much of an impact is wrong – using your own example. More data are needed to reach your conclusion.
Hey Paul. Thanks for you insight and welcome to the IdahoFallsToday! As for Paul Harvey, I’ve been listening to both Sr & Jr for about 30 years. I still catch him at noon every day on AM590.
Keep those comments coming, we welcome ALL opinions and views here. And don’t mind Idahogie…he’s the resident “I’m right you’re wrong” scientist guy. He means no harm so don’t take it personally when he shoots down any opinion or view you may have that differs from his. (I think it’s an ocd thing.)
Welcome to the great debate site of Idaho Falls!
Take care
Dying Breed -
I told Paul that he might be right, but that his math didn’t work out. Do you actually have a problem with that? Can we assume that you are the type of person who prefers to swallow everything that people tell you as long as it reinforces your opinions? Or do you just enjoy insulting people?
What exactly was wrong with my comment?
I think some of the people can’t take Idahogie being right and pointing out that they are wrong. It’s okay guys/gals, we can be wrong at times. Being wrong is not the end of the world, I promise.
C’mon guys! Enough of the arguing already. Can we just drop the whole political / I’m right you’re wrong BS and get back to basics? There are already a number of topics that have been completely derailed due to all the arguing and I’d like to see them get back on track.
Nothing political in my latest, CR67. I made a substantive, on-topic comment on a fine post by Paul, and Dying Breed responded by throwing insults.
It would be nice if he explained why.
Idahogie & Everybody for that matter….
Thanks for the warm welcome to the forum!
I’m not disgruntled or upset at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Some people would like to see a windmill in every direction they look… I understand that. (And I’m not saying you do either.)
As for my “math,” I didn’t do any “math” in any of my postings. My statements came from stuff I’ve read in the past from my memory and from close friends that are very smart with this kind of thinking. I didn’t sit down and do a bunch of research before I posted here. I’ve listened to talks and heard several people, very smart people, comment on the use of windmills for power. I’m against it at this time, period…
Idahogie was simply stating something he/she knew and that’s fine. For or against, I don’t care… I’m against because of convincing arguments I’ve heard in the past. In other words, it was proven to me, now I’m against it. This is not to say that someone couldn’t sway my opinion at a later date, they could…
Idahogie, I’m of average intelligence and I’m certainly not a scientist. Thanks for your post and your clarifications as to the land mass of the United States. I’ll note that and continue to speak out against placing windmills on that open land until my very smart and close friends that know exactly what they’re talking about tell me different.
As for any wrong doings in this forum… it was me that changed the topic and I apologize. I really have no idea on the health effects of windmills on humans. I just seen more talk about these ridiculous windmills that are littering the horizon of my great city and had to say something about them. We’ve got an answer to our power production problem and it’s 50-60 miles west of Idaho Falls called the INL. (And I don’ t know the “exact” mileage idahogie, perhaps you could tell us?) Several people have spent their entire brilliant lives doing the research out there for the answer to our problem… we should reward them for their work and fix our energy problems now.
I’m with Paul.
There is a lot of misinformation going around the ‘tubes these days. It pays to be a wee bit skeptical.
It’s fine to have an opinion, but it should be well-informed. It seems there are people on this site who don’t appreciate a simple fact-check (that’s you, Dying Breed). They’d rather have their opinion and not be bothered with the facts.
I appreciate Paul’s posts here, and I also think that I responded kindly. Paul’s statement that a wind turbine every 200 sq ft wouldn’t be very significant struck me as incorrect, so I looked into it. If you’re not willing to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny, you should refrain from making statements of fact. Luckily, Paul is open to the facts.
That said, I mostly agree with Paul’s last post as well. Nuclear is the best option for the majority of our power. However, there is probably room for a variety of supplies, including renewables. We don’t want to replace an addiction to foreign oil with an addiction to foreign uranium, do we?
How much uranium do you think it would take to run a couple breeder reactors to power, say, the city of Salt Lake… for the next 100 years or so? And, where do you think the worlds largest reserves of uranium are?
Hint:
Using breeders we wouldn’t have to import uranium from other countries… ever. Well, at least not until the next asteroid hits earth.
Oh, and if anyone is worried about waste we can address that issue now too. Ever heard of the Pebble Bed Reactor (PBR)?
One last thought, one of the byproducts of all of these reactors (talked about above) is none other than clean, safe, pure unadulterated hydrogen. Ahh, think of the possibilities!
We import less than half our oil, too, Paul. Yet it’s still a problem. Uranium, like oil, would be subject to a world market.
We don’t build breeders because of the potential for proliferation, and the PBR is 15 years off, at least.
I was agreeing with you mostly. Just adding that we don’t want to put all our eggs in one basket, just as you advocated earlier.
Hi Paul,
Another great post, thanks!
I honestly don’t know what a PBR is (other than a Pabst Blue Ribbon) so can you explain it for me? I think you make great points and this serves to illustrate how misunderstood nuclear power truly is. . .
any info you have to share would be great…..
thanks again……
We use around 20 million bbl/day of oil in our country and we produce around 8 million bbl/day? How do you figure we import less than half our oil?
What would breeder reactors proliferate? Cheap affordable power for our citizens?
The PBR is not 15 years out… China has a working PBR as does South Africa producing power right now. The one in China is producing around 10 MW.
I don’t want to put all our “eggs” in one basket. We could build some PBR’s, some Breeders and stay with a few of our current standard liquid cooled models that have been around for a long time too.
If a few people still want to put windmills in their back yards I guess that would be ok too.
)
I know that Wikipedia is not always accurate, but it was an interesting read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Looks like the INL is researching the PBR (Pebble Bed Reactor) right now…and I’ll be researching the PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon) this upcoming weekend.
great info on the PBRs . . . . also sounds like a great investment opportunity???. . . .wonder what INEEL has in store for PBRs? The site was referenced in the wiki article. . . .
enjoy the PBR “research”, Marcus: you’ve earned it.
I’ll toast to that!
Paul -
With your numbers, I was off by somewhat over 10%. Not a bad guess, actually. I was probably misremembering something about imports from OPEC countries, or something. Thanks for the correction.
But it still doesn’t invalidate my point: “The country used 52 million pounds of uranium last year, 80 percent of which was imported.” We import a lot of uranium, and so switching to nuclear doesn’t free us from imports.
And breeder reactors produce a lot of highly radioactive waste. The US also discourages them because they can easily be used to produce weapons-grade material. That’s more of a technological issue – they’re not worried about US plants specifically – just the proliferation of breeder technology.
And PBRs are a long way off in the US. Fifteen years is an optimistic estimate.
You seem to be fairly aggressive with your answers. Which is weird, because I mostly agree with you, except that I think there is room and reason for renewables like wind turbines.
paul and marcus,
thank you both for the info and the updates…. the wiki article, with citations, clearly indicated that PBRs are operational already in several countries……..with the PBR technology currently available and, indeed, in use, does anyone know what the INEEL’s plans are?
“you seem to be fairly aggressive with your answers, which I find weird”
Does anybody else find this comment “weird” coming from this particular poster?
That comment had me ROFLOL.
The second part of that sentence was “because I mostly agree with you”.
To me that means: I’ll back your comments and opinions as long as you don’t respond to me in an “aggressive” fashion.
Interesting
Forgive me if I mis-understood that statement. I do not wish to “get into it” with this particular poster.
Couch Tomatoe -
I’ve been nothing but polite to Paul, which is how I treat everyone who is fair and decent – as most are on this site. But look at the first two paragraphs in comment #40. They seemed a tiny bit more harsh than they could have. Do you disagree?
In every case of “altercations” between me and others, I can show you where the other person started it. In other words, I only get aggressive when someone else does to me first – usually with a comment much like #4 above. Speaking of that, nobody has pointed that out as particularly nasty and unwarranted – I wonder why?
Go ahead and provide some proof of your comment, and I’ll prove my case to you.
Look at comment #29, for that matter. Dying Breed made a very rude and nasty comment about me – totally unwarranted again. Nobody calls him on it. My response, #30, was harsh, in the same fashion. I gave back what Dying Breed gave to me.
CR67 said “tone it down, boys.” My response to him is #33. Very reasonable and correct in its facts. Right now that comment is rated “-2″, and Dying Breed’s original insult is rated “0″. Why?
It seems there are quite a few people here who are ideologically motivated, and not afraid to use an aggressive approach.
Idahogie,
I’m not trying to be aggressive or rude in anyway. I’m just a little passionate about this topic. Hence the reason I posted here in the first place. I know you haven’t disagreed with me to much… and I’ve never felt threatened by you at all. In fact, I’ve enjoyed this discussion, it made me revisit some stuff I haven’t looked at in a while.
I just felt I needed to make some points on the topic of nuclear power.
I have taken this forum way off topic, however, and will stop talking about this.
As for the others that have asked questions about PBR’s and the INL. I’m working on answers but can’t say anything until I know more… (if I can even find out more?)
Thanks, Paul. No problem with passion at all. Sorry for my over-sensitivity in #44.
Go nuke!
I am working right now on a program at the INL – what they call the Next Generation Nuclear Power (NGNP) initiative, which is a broad coalition between industry, NRC, and DOE to develop and license the next nuclear power family of plants. They will be high-temperature gas reactors with lots of passive safety features. One of the competing technologies is the PBR. There are also two prismatic reactors proposed.
One thing said above that was a tiny bit off was that hydrogen would be a byproduct. That is almost true – the plants are being designed with one of the main specifications being that the plant has to produce secondary temperatures high enough to make a co-located hydrogen generation facility possible. In other words, hydrogen production is one of the main goals, but it’s not a really byproduct, which I think of as more of an unavoidable result of the process (as CO2 is for fossil plants, for example).
Idahogie,
I knew I liked you! Right on, I really look up to people like you that are working on that suff out there. It’s people like you working on stuff like that that will make it possible for my children to have a future.
Thank you!
I can’t find a link to it online yet. . . possibly tomorrow. . . but today’s papers contained an excellent editorial by George Will regarding Obama’s position on energy independence.
It is a must-read for anyone evaluating the candidates’ positions on this issue and ties in nicely with the discussion we have been having about renewable energy and the how nuclear energy fits in as such a “renewable” resource.
Interesting forum… I’d be interested to know where the United States is on the development of the NGNP?… That is a neat acronym Idahogie.
Secondly, in responce to easterner, I’d like to know what Obama actually supports in regards to energy? He has changed his position several times since the beginning of his campaign… If one were to believe everything they read in the paper, he supports all renewables, nuclear, coal and gas…. depending where he is speaking that day… That is just an observation, not an opinion, so please don’t take offense.
Thanks for the good read.
Previous post – I meant to post “response” – too late and too tired… my apologies.
Anonymous – I’m wondering why Obama can’t support all those options? The way you phrase it, it sounds like promoting renewables in California and promoting clean coal in Montana is somehow a flip-flop.
Obama has had only one change in his energy plan – he recently said that he’d be open to offshore drilling. He did that because the Republicans were basically backing themselves into a corner, saying that the only short-term solution was “drill now, drill here.” Now the GOP can’t support any energy plan unless it includes offshore drilling.
And Obama knows that the obstructionist GOP will filibuster any energy plan that doesn’t have offshore drilling in it. He’s a realist, and a politician who will compromise to get things done.
Obama’s energy plan is here, and it has all the details you are asking about.
Thanks for the link… This version actually mentioned nuclear again. I wonder what his next one will look like? That is my problem with Mr. Obama, his story changes from month to month, so you really don’t know what he stands for. Again – observation, not opinion.
The GHG problem is a global problem (which I noticed he acknowledged), but this issue must be addressed at a global level, with implementation of ANY reduction program being at the global level. If the United States were to lead by example, and reduce their CO2 footprint, the only thing that would accomplish is to kill our already weak economy. The U. S. could reduce its CO2 emissions by 80%, and it would have no impact on climate change – China and Brazil would pick up the slack and there would be no change realized in GHG emitted.
As far as promoting the use of all forms of energy – that is the only way to go. The oil companies are already injecting CO2 in the lower producing wells, and are having great success. Our neighbors to the East (Casper Wyoming) are living in a boom economy from this venture.
As far as the nuclear debate goes, the very loud minority rules. As you indicated in your earlier post, people need to research what is written and not just believe everything they read in the papers. If you really want to have a good laugh, read some of the CRAP these anti-nuke groups put out (notice I did not identify by name). The solution as I see it, the majority must be more vocal in their support of WHAT IS RIGHT… The aforementioned ANTI’s have no scientific data to support their position… They are nothing but fear mongers…
I’ve gone on too long. Sorry for the long post.
His energy plan has not changed, except for the addition of drilling. So your “observation” would seem to be based more on what certain groups what you to think, rather than on reality.
There are certain people who want you to believe that Obama is a flip-flopper. Just as there were in 2004 about Kerry. That doesn’t mean that there’s any basis in reality for that opinion.
Here is the column I referenced above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082202377.html
very thought-provoking. . . .
Thanks for the article easterner…
That is exactly what people need to be asking Mr. Obama…. How do you intend to pay for your promises?? A reasonable question…
I know idahogie tells us that Obama has not flip-flopped… Please… that is fine if you are a democrat, but according to your previous posts, you indicated you have to pay attention to the facts… well Mr. Obama has jumped 180 degrees from week to week…
I’m not a dem or republican (as Glenn Beck would say)… I’m a conservative american…
To get back to the subject of energy – this country has to embrace change (i.e. more nukes and renewables) or get use to the high energy prices… A sound energy policy is critical to this nation’s prosperity…
Thanks for the article…
Anonymous – please point out a single 180. Should be easy, given that you claim they happen weekly. In fact, I’ll make a gentleman’s wager with you. I’ll name two of McCain’s for every one that you can name for Obama.
Furthermore, as for paying for it – his economic plan is much more reasonable than McCain’s. McCain will continue exploding the deficit, just to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations.
Check out this graphic. Obama’s economics are much better, and last thing we need is more the McSame.
“McSame”,,,,LOL Da da da dat daaaaa…..I’m lovin’ it!
I hope everyone takes a look at Will’s column; he raises some good questions;
for example, exactly how will Obama “get” 1 million 150 m/p.g. cars on the road within 6 years, as he has promised? what type of plan does he have to make that happen? how will he “make” consumers buy these cars? as Will states, the answer will be “forthcoming” sometime after the election, apparently;
moreover, how will he “create” new sources of renewable energy, especially given his (previous) stated dislike of nuclear energy?
These promises all sound great on paper; but I have yet to see any facts or data indicating exactly how Obama plans to keep these election promises.
Easterner, #62…I realize that you have concerns about a politician’s campaign promises, and you’ve named Obama as the one who concerns you. But help me out with this please, because I truly see the same kinds of things being said (in different areas) by McCain. Could it be that both are just being politicians, and because you are not inclined to support Obama, you see his flaws more readily?
I don’t see McCain’s various campaign promises as being any differently grand in scope, or less difficult to bring about after the election.
I’m always puzzled when someone sees the flaws in the opposition party candidate but not in their own. I think truth be told, most politicians are folks you wouldn’t want to have as a friend (I can think of two locally that this description does NOT apply to…)
I’ve said it before, politicians are typically very similar in their campaigns. They tend to do and say very similar things.
We tend to like one or the other due to our political decision making process:
a. we vote straight ticket out of loyalty to our party
b. we listened and overall we liked one more than the other
c. our influential circle of friends and relatives told us who was worth voting for
d. we have a hot button issue and one of the candidates said the right things
The final deal to me in deciding who will get my vote, is, which person will do the least amount of damage, and maybe even do a greater amount of good, than the other person, based upon my priorities as a person?
But I believe fundamentally that most of them run very similar campaigns, it’s the accepted way of doing business.
Idahogie – 2 for every one… I don’t think so, but I will give you credit– McCain is ALMOST as bad, except his energy policy is at least a sound one.
As far as the economy goes – the two most significant issues facing this nation is the cost of energy and JOBS!
I want to preface my next comment with this – the government receives taxes from those people that are employed – who are they employed by – corporations… These taxes create a tax base, which the gov’t then uses for social programs etc.
Right now this nation has a significant unemployment rate – which equates to more people relying on social programs to get by – which I might add, the social programs are funded by the shrinking pool of money generated by those same taxes hard working Americans pay when they are WORKING FOR THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS… — Just a side note – there is a number of unemployed Americans that you can directly attribute to the 8 years of Willy Clintonomics (the one that didn’t inhale).
Now lets apply Obamanomics to our already weak economy – tax the already stressed corporations and take a little more from their shrinking margin (due to a shrinking GDP) and what are they going to have to do to survive? They will have to downsize – which equates to an increase in unemployment and yes you guessed it – more people using social systems, systems that have lost their tax base… I hope I haven’t offended anybody, but this is reality… Increasing the taxes on any class is not the answer – period.
Easterner – you are right with Obama’s position on nuclear –
I will close with this. Nuclear power is an absolute in this nations future, if we are to prosper… Secondly, the waste issue with nuclear power can be managed SAFELY… Close the fuel cycle, which will minimize volume, then manage the remainder in a safe manner (which I might add, the management of this waste equates to jobs for Americans).
So Idahogie, please enlighten me as to how raising taxes stimulates the economy… I might add, corporations don’t pay taxes – people do.
I see. You claim Obama is a huge flip-flopper. I suggest that I can name two McCain flip-flops for every one Obama. You revise your opinion to “they’re both bad, but McCain’s a little better.”
Wrong. McCain is an extraordinary flip-flopper. He’s the guy that the term should have been invented for. If you are afraid of engaging my challenge, just say so. But don’t pretend that you are anything but ideologically driven and unmotivated by facts.
I believe that somebody who says this is completely unreachable by logic. Seriously. Check out this cartoon and then tell me again how the GOP is good for the economy. McCain says that the economy under Bush has been fine. And actually, it has been for somebody with eight or ten houses, and who’s wife is worth $100million. I wouldn’t have made a big deal out of that if it weren’t for the fact that the McCain campaign has tried to paint Obama as elitist. McCain’s economic adviser says that we’re a nation of whiners and complainers. He’s the guy who created the Bush disaster in the first place.
Both McCain and Obama are currently promising more in spending than they can pay for. But McCain is much worse. This is the guy who said he would pay off the deficit using the “victory savings” from Iraq. In other words, if we stop spending money in Iraq, which is off-budget right now, we’ll be able to pay down the deficit. What? In reality, he will add significantly more to the deficit than Obama will, even if he doesn’t start more wars – which he does seem inclined to do. If you care about the economy, you should vote for Obama.
Hi Nemesis,
Thanks for the discussion!
First, let me make clear, McCain is not “my” candidate. . . once again, this election will come down, for me, again, to a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Second: you made the excellent point in a previous post that, guess what? Obama is, in fact, a politician. . . I guess that stuck with me, as I had originally thought Obama was going to emerge a bit above or outside the political nonsense. . . foolish of me, I know, but I truly thought he was an agent of change for politics in this country. . . then he markedly swayed to the wind of public opinion on several issues (yes, McCain did too… that’s not my point; my point is, I thought Obama was a different kind of leader). So I am disappointed in him.
The George Will column to me was noteworthy in the guise of this particular post because it clearly outlined some of the “promises” Obama is now making regarding energy. With energy becoming such an important issue in the election, I believe we all need to know where the candidates stand. I honestly do want to know how Obama plans to deliver on these pretty big promises. I also think it is noteworty coming on the heels of his non-answer on the uber-important abortion issue, especially considering his voting record on the “born alive” issue in Illinois and at the federal level. I know we disagree on this; I remain convinced that the President needs to have a position on this very important issue. If Obama is still putting feelers out, in August, to determine HOW he should feel about the abortion issue, based on polls, that tells me a lot about his convictions and how strongly -held they may or may not be.
Is he different than McCain or Biden or any other politician in making promises that he can’t possibly keep? I guess not.
But I hoped that he was.
Anonymous, BTW: great posts. . . great framing of the question: “How do you intend to pay for your promises?”
Here is what you wrote about me:
“But don’t pretend that you are anything but ideologically driven and unmotivated by facts.”
Maybe you ought to read what you just posted… “fact guy.” – you sound a little emotional…
I noticed you side-stepped my question about raising taxes to stimulate the economy…
Have a PBR and chill, this is the beauty of America… we are just chatting and sharing opinions… I guess as long as all opinions coincide with yours everything will be just fine. You can post whatever you want about me and my opinions, I’ll just consider the source and smile…
Thanks easterner – your posts have been good as well. I see we share a similar opinion on politics… I’m not a Obama or McCain person, so I guess come election day you just vote for the lesser of the two evils… On the philosophical side – isn’t it sad to have to vote against somebody instead of voting for somebody?
I’ll engage your’s, Anonymous, as soon as you engage mine, which came first.
You really shouldn’t accuse others of sidestepping when that is what you’re doing.
Wow, we’ve gotten a little off topic here but since there doesn’t appear to be anywhere else to talk about such topics and everyone seems to be enjoying the conversation I’d like to weigh in a little…
In Comment #53 by Anonymous they asked idahogie about the acronym NGNP. I remember you talking about this with me too Idahogie, could you, or anyone for that matter, please enlighten us a little more with regard to this Next Generation Nuclear Power Program? I remember you, Idahogie, telling me you worked with it and I’m not familiar with the program at all. I’m assuming it’s some kind of governmental program but is it just an American governmental based research program or is it globally involved? What has been researched? What has been decided with regard to next generation reactors in America and when can we expect production to start? We all know that there are at least 3-4 places around the world that have already “decided” on something and are moving forward with it. France, South Africa, China, etc… These places obviously know how to contain their emotional and liberalistic people (and media) and have ways of making them “shut-up” since they know they can’t EVER talk sense into them. I’m interested in seeing how we fair as a “super-power” with nothing in place to do the same here…??
As for the “other stuff,” I’m not interested in politics at all with regard to Obama, McCain or the presidential race in general… In my opinion the “tail is wagging the dog” and the popular democratic/liberal media is running the show. (See my comments above) HOPEFULLY the LOGICAL American people will wake up and see that one day. I’m sure they still outnumber the irrational squad for whom I still label the “R” word, that we can’t talk about here anymore, to my close friends and family. I’m more attracted to this type of news (the “real” kind of news in my own community…) as I believe it stands more of a chance of waking up the aforementioned LOGICAL people. As for the others, they probably won’t matter anymore once those “logical” people wake up…
Have a great day!
Back to the topic at hand. Heck yes they are dangerous to your health, especially if one of those big blades hits you. (That was an attempt at humor so don’t anyone take offense at it.)
Considering the other forms of energy that can be produced in this area, the wind turbine is probably the most eco friendly that there is. I know that it disrupts the view of the sky line, but in my eyes it is kind of an awesome site. The last time I checked, the current turbines and the ones that are projected in Wolverine Canyon are located in un-populated areas. Considering the emissions that they produce, the lack of impact on the environment, and the extremely low overhead that they require, in our windy part of the world they are the perfect source of renewable energy. Of course this is just my opionion, but I think it is a pretty good one.
By the way, to heck with the politicians, they are mostly talk anyway. When was the last time they really followed through with one of their campaigne promises? They only gravitate where the lobbyists take them. I do believe it is about the money with most of them, especially at the National level.
I work in Clean Energy Investing and GeoThermal is definitely a viable source of energy but it is a very difficult process. After drilling all over the dang state to find the best location, the cost would have outrun any forseeable profit for the next 20 years. I suggest looking at Geothermal if someone stumbles on a good location, otherwise, stick to the better know processes for creating energy.