Printer-friendly version
Author:
Blog About:
There is no cure for stupidity, how do these people manage to reach maturity?
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/us-town-rejects-solar-pa...
It reminds me of the woman who wrote to a paper complaining that switching to daylight saving was shortening her life or another who refused to wear her glasses in case it wore the lenses out.
Comments
A good laugh at their expense
Sometimes it is a care for stupidity.
And sometimes even it is not. I see plenty of people who are afraid of being rendered infertile by camtrails, getting cancer from the cellphone towers (but not from their own cellphones), arming themselves against an attack by predatory GMO plants, avoiding vaccines because these contain mercury, not breastfeeding their babies because mother's milk is not vegan, refusing to take antibiotics because they are "chemistry", avoiding gay and trans people because those might somehow infect them...
And those people insist on their rights to vote, to be responsive for themselves (and for their children!!!), to drive cars, to own weapons in some countries...! I consider myself a tolerant person, but tolerating one's attempts to kill or grievously harm oneself and other people is already irresponsible and inhumane!
(Speaking of the idea that gay and trans people could "infect" the "normal" ones: what about trying to pen down a funny satire on it? Two epidemics start at the same time, one caused by a virus that changes the sexual preferences, and the other by a virus that makes people trans, in various ways. Chaos ensues, viruses often overlap, infected people seek to infect others for various reasons, non-infected seek to be infected for various reasons, infected with one of the viruses seek to be infected with the other for various reasons... Could be a wonderful parody on some idiotic fears.)
Stupid
Yeah ....and daylight saving causes the curtains to fade too.
It seems these people have no common sense whatsoever.
Often it IS a common sense...
But overpowered by inability to explain ideas in a way that makes sense to others.
(daylight saving is discussed sinse it was first introduced and there are too many contradicting studies on its health effects)
solar
we call it NIMBY. not in my back yard. refers to stopping a development of something not wanted in an area, but its okay for it to go someplace else. happens all the time, just not quite as ignorant as those reasons. Now if it was a nuclear plant........
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima
...were caused buy such a long string of "coincidences", that they could only have been deliberate.
Chernobyl - they had to switch off all of the safety automatics and manually steer the reactor into dangerous operation mode. (out of 17 deaths 10 to 12 were caused by stupid panicked orders of big bosses trying to contain problem).
Fukushima... They had 3 days to restore power to the coolant pumps. Three days! 72 hours! Enough time to rent gensets in London and get them to the site by helicopters! Any Chinese genset manufacturers would have built a new ones and would have delivered them to Japan in 3 days with the right price.
Chernobyl was caused by
Chernobyl was caused by someone using a live power reactor for experiments, and not being educated enough to recognize the symptoms of a boiled dry system. Add water, and instant explosion.
Fukushima - a lot of it was caused by a fear of the reaction _of_ the constant nuclear protesters. So they delayed too long on some of the fixes. So you can blame the government as much as the reactor operators - for allowing those protesters the power they were granted.
Chernobyl land? Most of it's fine now. If they demolished the buildings, in another 10 years, you wouldn't notice much. The reason is pretty simple. The bulk of the radioactive material was as fine as dust. After a year or so, rains, plant growth and death, and winter snow/melt patterns sank the heavier material into the soil. It's been gradually working itself further and further down. Eventually, there'll be a layer of slightly more radioactive material than normal, and that's it. Perhaps not an area where you'd want to plow and grow crops, but certainly safe for camping, driving through, and so forth. The reason the buildings are hazardous is also straightforward - no wind and water action to drive the material into the soil.
Radioactivity does _not_ travel very far. Material such as tritium, used on night sights, is measured in terms of inches. So are a lot of the other long term isotopes. If they're in large quantities, they affect larger areas - but they aren't in large quantities. It wasn't in terms of tons of uranium or plutonium, pounds - spread over an enormous area. Very hazardous for the first few weeks after the explosion (at least until the first major rain storms), not so hazardous anymore. Unfortunately, again, because of the dust like particles, they ended up lodging in the lungs easily, where they could directly impact tissues.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
I'm left wondering
How many students in that town were able to get a high school diploma for the sciences
seriously that statement from a science teacher
I also wonder...
Why the reporter avoided quote of what the teacher said? Maybe because there was nothing stupid said?
And yes, phtovoltaic arrays are significantly affecting areas under the panels destroying habitats for huge number of plants under the panels, insects (including honey bees), small mammals and, as result, big mammals in the area.
And in other news
Shade loving plants find new niches underneath PV arrays.
The space under the PV Panels on my Roof were home to a pair of House Martins this year.
If the PC Panels are built close to the ground then I might agree that some change in the local ecology might take place. However I've seen arrays where the panels are 4-5ft from the ground and have sheep grazing underneath. The highter you go, the less there is a reduction in the amount of light reaching the floor.
Trade-offs... Trade-offs...
You can mount PV array high, but it will increase money and power invested side of ROI and EROEI equations. Also it will increase service and maintenance costs... Also shade loving plants have no idea about PV arrays. They still think that shade is provided by the big trees. And shade loving plants rely on nutrition not by photo synthesis, but by the decay of parts of big trees... So in couple of years shade loving plants will deplete soil under PV arrays and will die out... Or you will need to add fertilizers to your energy bill...
I don't know...
What that former science teacher received as payment from their local electric utility for bringing up the "browning" of vegetation and cancer scare, but if it was anything less than free electric power for the remainder of her life, she was underpaid.
~And so it goes...
In many cases "stupidity" is not in ideas.
For example, when you wear glasses they accumulate dust and in some areas said dust is highly abrasive so every cleaning damages lenses and with current price of new glasses far in excess of 100 pounds idea not to wear glasses to save lenses becomes quite practical.
Same with the switch to daylight saving time. There were studies showing that for some people it is a great stress to change normal waking time twice per year and can cause number of health issues, which ultimately lead to shortening of the life of people.
Too often problem and stupidity are in people's inability to explain themselves and translate ideas into words that make sense to others.
[rant mode on] As for solar power station in _North_ Carolina... Even in Mexico solar power is still not exactly viable idea. If you consider building work, maintenance, utilisation at the end of life (and most photovoltaic cells contain number of dangerous chemicals), significant changes to the power grid to accomodate unreliable source of power (solar and wind power generators are _load_ from the point of view of the power grid, you need additional "fast starting" power generators connected to the grid to cover for unexpected clouds), total EROEI of solar and wind power are still under 1. It is still just an expensive way to buy power in China.
Seen funny article on the site of one of the smaller wind turbine manufacturers about economics of building a "wind farm". It stated that project could be viable only in the areas where at the same time there are very high electrical prices and very high goverment subsidies. Without either return of investment is unlikely.
So the concerns of people in NC are somewhat valid and justified, but poorly explained and reported in a way to make any opposition to throwing taxpayers money "to the wind" sound stupid and dismissed without paying any attention. [rant mode off]
:-)
(Above was not intended to start flame war. I'm aware that a lot of people believe that wind and solar power are our future.)
From my experience
with PV Panels on my roof is that even in these northern climes (SW Of London) I get enough daylight in winter to charge the batteries of my Hybrid car. Sure it takes quite a bit longer than in summer but it works and save me petrol/gas when going on local trips. I also put Electricity back into the grid then I'm not using. My Electric bill is significantly lower these days.
The tech does work. The efficiency PV tech is being improved all the time and their cost is coming down all the time.
I've seen vast arrays of PV Panels in the Middle East. Not every country in the region is an oil/gas producer.
20+ years ago I saw lots of shack in Brazillian shanty towns with small PV Panels on their roofs. They were used to charge a 12v Battery that powered their only light and a TV in the evening.
I really can't see what is wrong with people accepting that this sort of tech has a place to play in power generation.
Had you billed yourself for installation?
Maintenance, cleanups?
Had you checked how much it will cost you to recycle those panels?
I'm not against PV per se. Technology is coming close to the state where PV can save money for individuals. On the other hand, you need batteries. It is Pb, acid, sulphur... Not the safest chemicals. And around of 1 to 3 years of lifetime in this mode of operation... Or NiMH which are also very pisonous (500 mAh cellphone battery is enough to poison thousands of cubic meters of the soil) and 1 to 2 years of lifetime... Or LiIon, but those are so expensive, it will be cheaper to buy power from the grid.
As for the "sell power to the grid" - it is good till there are few of you. In Germany, with their pride and joy in the form of huge solar and wind farms, there are periods every day when power cost in the grid is negative. You have to pay if you supply power to the grid!
(hybrids - is another bag of worms. You need them to be subsidized. In Russia without subsidies for buying hybrids, difference in price of hybrid and "ordinary" car of the same size and trim is enough to buy you 18 tonnes of premium. Which are enough to drive somwhere around 200000 miles... With European gas prices this price difference will be something like 100-120 thousands miles worth of fuel... 10 years...)
Saw this yesterday
This is not the first time this idea has surfaced. Says a lot for our education system over here.
Portia
Informational warfare...
Is very interesting thing.
One of the widely used methods when you have access to big media outlets is to make opposition look stupid to the degree when no one will listen to them even when they say 100% right scientifically proven things.
What happened to individuality
The problem with most of these energy ideas is "other people's money". I'm not going back to pull up the money drain train spent on solar, wind, grass to gas, projects subsidized without approval from taxpayers. The percentage of them who go belly up once other people's money stops flowing into them is pretty darn high. Seldom does anyone touting these projects mention the cost of the materials going into them, the cost of maintenance, or the lifetime of said project and then comes the cost of disposal. There is not a single one of these projects which is full time sustainable for energy output. It always needs a backup for hours or possibly days it is dead in the water.
There certainly is nothing wrong with non fossil fuel energy. The problem is being truthful about the costs, the ability to be there when needed. Personally for now it is a double tax. It costs the taxpayer to build it, maintain it and again to buy energy from something they are already paying for. That "inexpensive energy" isn't really cheaper when everything is plugged into the end supply.
I'm certainly for self sufficient energy, staying warm, cool, travel, whatever as long as I'm not paying for someone else. But that's the rub isn't it? A collective means everyone pays in supposedly for the good of all. Maybe everyone should be told about those in government going after the individuals who went off grid and people are now being fined or jailed for NOT plugging into the government power structure.
Don't believe it? Wrap your mind around the government going after parents who home school their children. If one wants "green energy" then go for it. One can certainly be self sufficient off the grid. Our forefathers did it for thousands of years. But even back then there was always someone demanding taxes for one reason or another. Try and keep an open mind when the other person isn't on board. America's greatest inventions, research, and accomplishments were when our government was still in infancy and not into everyone's business. The ark was built by amateurs the Titanic by professionals. Give people the room to be themselves and some of them will astound us with all manners of "impossibles" because they didn't know it couldn't be done.
We say it's impossible because we don't want to try and we don't want anyone else to make liars of us.
always,
Barb
Oklahoma born and raised cowgirl
The most efficient form of
The most efficient form of power generation with the least toxic byproducts is.... nuclear power. Even coal spews radioactive material into the air, and with a nuclear plant, the byproducts are only dangerous to those immediately around it, not by contaminating aquifers, etc. The problem is that people put so many roadblcoks in the way that it takes 15 years for the plant to be built, and another 15 to recoup costs. The South Texas Nuclear project has been going steady for decades with the only problem being that the power demands were so high that they ran all reactors at full capacity too long. They were shut down for maintenance for a while, then back online. No risks, it was a paper shutdown, not a problem shutdown. The haven't done that since.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Radioactive waste not toxic!
Well, I guess it doesn't poison you. It simply gives you cancer. With no effective way of getting rid of it, all we can do is to save it somewhere safe and hope that no terrorist group manages to steal it and spread it over the streets of New York.
That's a great way of making electricity. Not!
All of the radioctive waste from human history...
...could be safely stored on 1 square km of ground. Maybe 2 to be on the safe side... Just to compare, medium sized airport usually takes around 20 square km...
Also IMO, currently with nuclear power we are stocking good old steam power plant with gold bullion.
It is just crazy to boil water using such precious and quite limited resource. (there are some new developments in the area and hopefully soon situation will improve greatly)
As for cancer... Chernobyl explosion caused great... drum roll... DECREASE in thyroid cancer incidence in Europe...
Total actual number of deaths in nuclear incidents to date is under 30. Tirty. Three zero.
Number of casualties is Fukushima meltdown? Do you remember that number? Yes, it is 0. Zero. Nil. One (1) Fukushima emloyee was diagnosed with cancer after incident. But his cancer was too advanced to be caused by the exposure during meltdown...
So, so far lowest actual death toll per kwh of power is firmly held by nuclear power. And somwhere in the top three killers list are wind and solar (not counting people who broke their neck installing panels on their roof or wind turbine in their yard).
The only problem with storing
The only problem with storing radioactive isotopes is people arguing about it. if someone would just put their foot down, it's a easy fix. You go to an area that has little to no people or anything ELSE living in it, far above the water table. Drill shafts into the rock, trundle the stuff into it, seal the shafts with concrete.
There are lots of those kinds of areas in Utah, New Mexico, and Nevada, it's just a constant battle of NIMBY for even transportation.
As for spreading radioactive material - quit throwing away smoke detectors then.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
North Carolina
N.C. elected Jesse Helms to the Senate for thirty years. During his third six-year term (in 1985) he said, "I've been portrayed as a caveman by some. That's not true. I'm a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners or niggers."
Helms was a Republican. Just to display their disregard for party when picking fools, they also elected John Edwards.
On the other hand, who didn't find their Senator Sam Ervin refreshing during the Nixon fiasco?
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Just check your numbers...
And check what is actually going on around Chernobyl (which is still worst nuclear incident with highest death toll of 17, so it caused more than half deaths by nuclear plant in history).
Another thing is... If I had enough money, I would have spent it to buy "radioactive waste". Really. Too bad I'm too poor to afford square mile of tundra... It is best possible investment. Doubly so if alarmists prophessing "end of oil" are right :-)
A Can Of Worms
Well, Angharad, I think you've just demonstrated that BC is not a stupidity-free zone!
I almost hesitate to add my two cents-worth to the pot.
We actually have a place in Australia called Maralinga which is a defacto nuclear waste dump already because it's where Britain carried out a number of atomic weapons tests in the fifties. One enterprising gentleman runs day-trip tours of the place, so it's hard to give much credence to the widespread fear of atomic waste disposal. It's in the South Australian desert and a couple of hundred miles from any township. I couldn't see any downside to making it into a real waste dump and charging all and sundry for the privilege of using it.
Fears of terrorists aside,
Fears of terrorists aside, you wouldn't want it to be somewhere easily reachable by anyone that wanted to obtain material, or go play with it. In the desert is one place, but you'd want it to be in a butte, such as Ayers Rock. (no, not suggesting we bury the stuff there, just using it as an example of the right rock formation)
You want the material to be above any potential water table (not so much for leakage/contamination as for corrosion), and somewhere that's easy to block off access - such as a 100 foot concrete plug. IF they find a good use for it in 100 years, doable to open, but not without someone noticing.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.