General discussion


You know . . .

By Number 6 ·
I'm one of those fool exiles which lives in the Phoenix metro area -- and we counter with one of the world's biggest (if not the biggest) NUCLEAR plants in OUR backyard.

Anyone who's just driven through this blasted desert wasteland knows there's a lot more opportunity for Ol' Sol to make juice here than just about anywhere else on Earth.

Yet, our local power authorities, in their infinite wisdom, have only put up a few odd "boutique" solar projects; interminably testing for "feasibility".

Does anybody out there see a problem with this?

It reminds one of the domestic industry which has grown up around "finding a cure" for cancer, whilst ignoring (and continually adding to) the flood of carcinogens which comprise "meat and drink" for us on a daily basis...

Food for thought --

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Solar power

by mjd420nova In reply to You know . . .

And wind power, take huge investments and are contantly battling with the groups who say we are destroying the environment. Opponents of wind power cite the number of birds who are killed by the rotating blades. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. After the three mile island event people were very much against nuclear power but it remains the most efficent and cleanest source of power available. But all most people see is a mushroom cloud. Advances in storage of waste has made this again quite feasable but they can't get past the vision of devastation. President Bush is beginning to push for more licensing of plants and hopefully this will turn the industry around. Presently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of the power worldwide. The largest user is Japan, and you'd think they would be the last to embrace nuclear power generation. We need to face the facts and turn ourselves towards new tecnology to solve our power needs, or face the fact one day it will all be gone, and the lights will go out for good.

Collapse -

New and Old

by DanLM In reply to Solar power

There are places for both. The original post is exactly right, it would have been a great place for solar power. Or wind farms.
And your right, I lived in places that wanted wind farms. Thankfully, the utilities won. But some of the arguments against it were. It destroys the view, why not put it on the other mountain.
That was such a load of crock I was spitting nails.
But like I said, never forget what worked in the past(wind farms) as you also develop new technology to solve your problems. New and Old


Collapse -

Alternate energy

by JamesRL In reply to You know . . .

I would certainly rather live beside a nuclear plant than a chemical plant.

As for solar, its just too expensive at this point. When the price of the panels comes down, more usage will happen

I have seen some big wind farms in Alberta but you can't just put them anywhere. You have to be high up and far away from trees.


Collapse -

disposing of waste

by jdclyde In reply to Alternate energy

aren't the solar pannels a hazard that needs to be properly disposed of after it is used up?

Chemical plants, I live within kill-off distance of one of the many Dow plants in the state. They don't make me as nervious as the trains that carry the chemicals TOO the plants.

Collapse -

Solar panels probably not a hazard

by JimTheEngineer In reply to disposing of waste

I don't think that old solar panels are a hazard. They're made of silicon, wiring (like copper), and the metal or plastic (or glass?) framework. I believe that they aren't "used up" but gradually (over decades) produce less and less power. (I would be delighted to take any used solar panels so I can reinstall them!)

Collapse -

Hazardous to make

by wdewey In reply to Solar panels probably not ...

Most semiconductors are made up of small amounts of toxic chemicals (arsenic, phosphene and many others) to a large amount of silicon. Solar panels have higer concentrations of the toxic chemicals then many standard semiconductors. They are hazardous, but the most hazardous thing about them is the process used to make them.


Collapse -


by onbliss In reply to You know . . .

Are the results from the feasibility tests out yet?

Collapse -

need to stop listening to the eco nuts (to a point)

by jdclyde In reply to You know . . .

When all they do is cry about can't do this because of XYZ and can't do that because of ZYX, and we can't keep going like we are because of ABC.

Offer a solution or get out of the way.

A few birds becoming coyote food or affecting "the view" are NOT acceptable EXCUSES to not take advantage of the cleanest power source available, wind.

HydroElectric, wind, nuke and solar should all be looked at to first phase our coal burning plants, and work our way on from that.

Collapse -

Needed to stop listening to eco-nuts in `78

by Too Old For IT In reply to need to stop listening to ...

We quit building nuclear plants in 1978. Sems like we were the only ones.

France, for pity's sake, gets some 74% of its power from nukes.

Iran, who I believe not for one nano-second, is sitting on a teapot dome of oil, and claims to want ALL of it's power to come from nukes.

We, the US are just idiots when it comes to energy policy, getting most of ours from people who hate us, our way of life ... just everything about us.

Collapse -

We hear the stupidity ring out

by jdclyde In reply to Needed to stop listening ...

when the eco nuts say we have to get off our forgein oil dependancey, yet they cry like they had just got slapped around on the playground when ever there is talk about using our own oil which would produce more wealth locally instead of sending it to terrorists (indirectly).

The "don't do ANYTHING" attitude is getting very old.

Related Discussions

Related Forums