YouTube just banned supremacist content, and thousands of channels are about to be removed

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
Pretty much an irrelevant strawman argument about how much space a wind farm take, because that space isn't mutually exclusive. You can do anything underneath and between the turbines and the actual space used is very little.
It isn't irrelevant.
What do think is easier to maintain?
A station that is has hundreds of different areas that are kilometers apart or a single station that is confined to 1 building.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,506
It isn't irrelevant.
What do think is easier to maintain?
A station that is has hundreds of different areas that are kilometers apart or a single station that is confined to 1 building.
Another point were you are wrong. A wind turbine is basically a electric motor on a stick. There's nothing much to maintain and it is quite easy. We have invented vehicles not so long ago that can travel kilometres with ease. You can't compare that to the maintenance of a nuclear power plant.

I'm all for nuclear, but you should really not be making this silly arguments.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
Another point were you are wrong. A wind turbine is basically a electric motor on a stick. There's nothing much to maintain and it is quite easy. We have invented vehicles not so long ago that can travel kilometres with ease. You can't compare that to the maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
Easy to maintain equipment at 80m high.

Nothing can go wrong you silly proles:


http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

Things start becoming relevant when you scale it for what you are getting from the lives of these people:
We in the United States actually care more about this kind of thing than most other countries, so our numbers are the lowest in the world. The global averages in energy-related deaths are significantly higher than in America, with coal at 100,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs (China is the worst), natural gas at 4,000 deaths, biomass at 24,000, solar at 440, and wind at 150. Using the worst-case scenarios from Chernobyl and Fukushima brings nuclear up to a whopping 90 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced, still the lowest of any energy source.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...eaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#7301c8f35467
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,506
Easy to maintain equipment at 80m high.

Nothing can go wrong you silly proles:


http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

Things start becoming relevant when you scale it for what you are getting from the lives of these people:
What does deaths have to do with the ease and cost to maintain. I'm not even sure you are being serious, because Superman is going to safe those guys on the burning wind turbine, they aren't going to die. So what's your point? More people die in car accidents, yet cars are practical, we still use them.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
3,566
Easy to maintain equipment at 80m high.

Nothing can go wrong you silly proles:


http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

Things start becoming relevant when you scale it for what you are getting from the lives of these people:
Wind energy kills a mere 100 people or so per trillion kWhrs, the majority from falls during maintenance activities
In all fairness, locally I'd rather have a dude not using safety gear taking himself out on a turbine, than have a dude doing stupid and causing a Chernobyl. Considering our stellar history of maintenance, this becomes a local reality very quickly.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
What does deaths have to do with the ease and cost to maintain.
:rolleyes:o_O
It is indicative of the danger, thus it affects both the ease (working on a machine 80m in the air isn't easy), and cost (insurance, payouts etc).

So what's your point? More people die in car accidents, yet cars are practical, we still use them.
So? When I can use my car to power the grid, you might have a point.

We are comparing clean energy generation technologies, I would hope that society would pick the one that costs the least and kills the least amount of people.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
In all fairness, locally I'd rather have a dude not using safety gear taking himself out on a turbine, than have a dude doing stupid and causing a Chernobyl. Considering our stellar history of maintenance, this becomes a local reality very quickly.
Nuclear power is actually pretty well managed in South Africa.

The funny part is that even when you take Chernobyl and Fukushima into account, Nuclear power is still safer.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,506
:rolleyes:o_O
It is indicative of the danger, thus it affects both the ease (working on a machine 80m in the air isn't easy), and cost (insurance, payouts etc).


So? When I can use my car to power the grid, you might have a point.

We are comparing clean energy generation technologies, I would hope that society would pick the one that costs the least and kills the least amount of people.
Ridiculous that you think we should pick one and you are pushing your favourite with these silly arguments.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
Ridiculous that you think we should pick one and you are pushing your favourite with these silly arguments.
Silly arguments based on cost, environmental land use, human fatalities, and that is not to mention the granddaddy of all the problems with renewables: utility frequency stability.

And when zealots pick the wrong one, (like Germany), it ends up doing more harm than good.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,490
Cars, aeroplanes, power station. Deaths doesn't correlate to cost or ease to opperate anything in any field anywhere.
People don't need complexity or something expensive in order to kill themselves accidentally or on purpose.
Wow. The safety and hazard of maintaining something is indeed an input cost. The more hazardous something is, the more training, insurance, processes, legal fees, etc add to the operating cost. There is also a concept of hazard pay.

There is nuance to it, but dismissing it outright completely is a mistake.
 
Top