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.

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.

James

Are the results from the feasibility tests out yet?

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.

Really? Where? Why wasn't it on TV?[/sarcasm]

Over the past several years, I have viewed the ever-increasing list of carcinogens with ever-increasing skepticism. It seems you can't go a month without another item being loudly hailed a a potential carcinogen. Then you do a little digging and discover that you would have to drink the equivalent of 4 cases of diet soda a day for 30 years to increase your chances of getting liver cancer by 1%. Or 5 full-strength (Starbucks?) pots of coffee a day for 40 years to increase your chances of getting pancreatic cancer by the same amount. Or similar extreme quantities for almost miniscule increases in risk.

Attention! [b]Everything[/b] is bad for you in excess, even oxygen! Moderation in everything and a healthy diet. Genetics no doubt has some effect, but if you keep yourself healthy to start, your chances of surviving anything are better.

Two observations:

1. The "bad for you" babies have cried so often about so many things that I don't even listen any more. I'm a big boy and accept the responsibility for my actions. I don't need a nanny any more.

2. The major cause of cancer in laboratory rats is laboratory scientists. 100% correlation! Look it up.

Now that I'm done, you should know that I also browse junkscience.com with a healthy skepticism. Extremism in any form is never pretty.

We have a responsibility for the legacy we leave future generations.

I read once that organic reserves on our planet will run out in 2026. I don't believe that - the date that is - but I do believe that they will be running out soon, maybe not in my lifetime, maybe not in my daughters, but certainly in her daughters lifetime.

It really puzzles me that so-called environment groups get up in arms against wind farms huh? What are they thinking of? We are raping our planet, something needs to be done NOW, not when it is necessary, as there is a lot of scientific and engineering research to be done first.

However, prior to that, there needs to be a change in the mindset of those who wield power. This is happening, I think, but will take a generation. Youth of today (and yesterday) are being influenced by "green" type education and entertainment (Captain Planet?) and one day they will be in positions of authority and power, able to make the vital decisions for all of us.

Isn't it up to us to get the whole thing started, so that they have some infrastructure to work with when they do?

Two generations down the line, they will look back at their grandsires and think....

"What poor, misguided, selfish fools"

Can we not do better than we are, to leave them a richer legacy?

EDIT: added code for emphasis and formatting

Solar power is not yet cost competative with nuclear power and may never be.

OK- I LIVE amongst tree huggers,(NW CAL)and Solar USED to be bulky & EXPENSIVE.. USED to be.. but I DO know that if ya look at Real Goods website, the prices on Solar & Wind (and OTHER Technologies of the sort) are looking pretty darned good now.. PLUS what a neato thing- to get a check FROM the local Power Co...
Think @ it..kenos

Everything can be done.....The technology is available to lessen our reliance on foreign OIL. Alternative power generation can be accomplished & is being used successfully now!

BUT - This will NEVER HAPPEN as the 7 Deadly Sins rule the money grubbing scumbags of humanity. When will there be SPECIAL INTREST for the people?

Only 2 things will change our views & save the planet for our children:

1. When we have no other means of generating Power for our country?

2. When we have Blackened our planet to the point of extinction?

We need a mix, but Solar on a commercial scale is cost prohibitive.

170 watts (62.8"X31.1" panel costing $880)

1 unit at Palo Verde 1243 mwe (megawatts electric)

To replace the power of 1 nuclear unit at Palo Verde with these Solar Cells would require 7,311,764 units = $6,434,352,320,
lets assume a 50% discount for a large purchase $3,217,176,160. This would require almost 760 acres of land just for the
solar collectors.

is dangerous also. Not only did we stop building in 1978, most types of upgrades been getting blocked as well. I live with in 10 miles of TMI (Three mile Island), and knowing that many of those upgrades that could have made the site safer and more efficient is disconcerting to say the least!

i too live in the phoenix area, though luckily not for too much longer. i have always wondered about the solar energy situation here. forget all the arguments about panels being expensive or regulation this and that. those are just excuses. when mankind wants to get something done, we do it. we didn't let millions of miles, millions of dollars, and a cold vacuum keep us from landing on the moon. when we really want something, obstacles will be damned. the phoenix area is one of the best places to cultivate solar energy, above all because the batteries used to store it will remain replenished much more so than say areas like san francisco, seattle, new york or london. these areas known for their fog, smog, clouds, would need more attention in energy storage. but phoenix? cmon it's like 100 degrees and i'm rejoicing about how cool it is outside. only 100 degrees? that's it? my entire house could be powered by the sun year round. and for $300 i can build a solar energy system that will power one of my bedrooms. people who say it is too expensive don't know what they're talking about. on top of that, between government grants toward converting to solar/renewable energy sources and the fact that panel prices will fall when more people start buying them, there really is no excuse. and that's all it is, excuses. i don't give a damn if the biggest excuse is the money. energy companies are not entitled to their profits. they have to earn them. an educated populace does not want fossil energy.
and why assume the consumer has to pay for their own panels? i see no reason why APS can't just put a ton of them together on an open plot of land in the nearby desert. oh that's right, profits (greed). pity they care more about making money now than making a better arizona tomorrow. the whole thing is retarded. no energy corporation is going to convert to clean natural energy sources until the fossil fuel and coal sources have all been thoroughly raped from the earth and the resulting pollution has begun to cramp our luxurious lifestyles.

I work for an electric utility - in fact, we have the largest-producing photovoltaic solar array in the states. When talking about solar power as a "magic cure" to our energy problems, I don't think you've looked at the entire picture. Keep in mind that the coating on the panels have to be replaced constantly, the (extremely expensive) panels themselves have a limited lifespane and have to be replaced regularly. The materials that the panels are made from are competing in the marketplace for other unrelated technologies, thus driving up the cost of the panels, too. On top of all that, the efficiency that a solar panel delivers is miniscule. In order to power the city of Phoenix, it would so much money just in the vast amount of real-estate to place that many panels, and in the panels themselves, and in the batteries (which also have a limited lifespan) to store that electricity for evening (and other times when the sun would not be available), the utility bills would be exponentially greater than what they are now.

Compare that with nuclear power... The power plant you're refering to (the "Palo Verde" Nuclear Generating Station - approximately 45 miles West of Phoenix), was designed decades ago.

I'm not prmoting nuclear power, as I feel there are some hurdles that still need to be resolved (long-term storage of waste is the biggest), but I'm informed enough to know that solar power is not currently the way to go to replace a power infrastructure just because there's a lot of sun. Wind turbines are a lot more efficient in windy areas than solar is in sunny areas.

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.

Bill