Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Danish Goal: 50% of Electricity from Wind

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the american-goal:-100%-of-danish-electricity-from-oil dept.

Science 523

tres3 writes "The Danes have an ambitious plan of producing 50% of their national electrical needs from wind by 2030. The website has tutorials on everything related to wind energy you can imagine. The index gives you an idea of the detail of the site. It includes land and sea wind turbines as well as details about the machinery needed and where to locate it. There are over 100 pages so I didn't link to them all. [ed. note: thanks] A picture says it all."

cancel ×

523 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

such a bad idea... (2, Funny)

TWX_the_Linux_Zealot (227666) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218648)

this idea blows...

Re:such a bad idea... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218698)

Yet another reason why moderator access shold be restricted to those with a working command of English idioms, or those smart enough to know when there's a joke in play that they have not gotten.

That being said, it was a pretty lame joke, but not flamebait.

MOD PARENT UP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218752)

+1, Funny. (It's a pun.)

Total Annihilation?? (1)

OneNonly (55197) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218650)

The picture [windpower.org] looks like something out of Total Annihilation....

Someothing to power my K-Bot lab.. YAY!

Re:Total Annihilation?? (1, Funny)

Russ Steffen (263) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218683)

Just wait until they get the cloaked fusion reactors up, and the battery of Big Berthas running. Then it's time to duck and cover.

Re:Total Annihilation?? (0, Offtopic)

OneNonly (55197) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218724)

Yep! The US needs to hurry up and build their Anti-nuke shield quicker ;)

Only question is (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218651)

Will they be faggoty like Holland's windmills?

Wired covered this (-1, Troll)

CmdrTaco (editor) (564483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218653)

This was covered by Wired Magazine [wired.com] in May. Definitely an interesting read, though the print version also had some nice pictures.

w00t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218656)

Near the top of the post chain BIZATCH!!!

Fuck that 20 SECOND post time. It is THE GAY!

Eat Cunt (-1, Troll)

Eat Cunt (607153) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218703)

Don't smell it, just eat it!!!

Ireland (3, Informative)

asavage (548758) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218657)

Ireland also plans to get 10% of their power by wind. You can read a BBC article here [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Ireland (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218712)

Ireland also plans to get 10% of their power by wind.

Scottland tried it too, but when they got near windy spots to start construction, the wind kept lifting up their kilts Marlyn-Monroe-style.

Re:Ireland (2)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218851)

Scottland tried it too, but when they got near windy spots to start construction, the wind kept lifting up their kilts Marlyn-Monroe-style.

Not quite: Marilyn Monroe didn't wear traditional Scottish undergarments.

Server slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218659)

By harnessing the hot convection column above the webserver you should be able to extract a few megawatts.

Re:Server slashdotted... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218709)

By harnessing the hot convection column above the webserver you should be able to extract a few megawatts.
Funny you should mention that - your mom recently harnessed my hot convection column above the webserver.

Sorry about the drippings in the monitor - it was one of those class III power-fucks that guarantees goo strewn everywhere.

optimistic? (2)

brad3378 (155304) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218663)

The main problem with wind power is that it is mostly available during the spring and fall (during temperature changes).

Unfortunately, we need our electricity mostly during the summer and Winter months. Now if only we could cheaply store this energy in 3 month blocks.

Re:optimistic? (5, Interesting)

Soko (17987) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218707)

Actually, the interaction of the ocean and land generates wind quite frequently.

The land tends to be warmer than the ocean during the day, so an on-shore breeze is generated (air warmed by the land rises, air from the ocean rushes in to replace it). The opposite effect is seen when the land cools off in the evening - an off shore breeze is generated.

Since Denmark is surrounded by ocean on 3 sides, one could assume that they have an abundance of breeze to make this work. I wish them success.

Soko

Re:optimistic? (2)

kesuki (321456) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218761)

Wind is caused by a lot of factors, but mostly by sun. So generally the strongest winds occur at mid-day, which is generally the peak usage hours for electricity. Yes, there is a degree of unpredictability to wind power... however, wind does not every completely stop blowing, and when properly sited you can have a fairly consistant power supply.
The wind swept plains of North dakota alone could produce 45% of all the power of the US, and most of that power would be produced at mid-day. So yes, there is the wind power available to produce the electricity they want. the 50% figure may be a bit optimistic, but wind power can easilly scale to producing at least 1/3 of all power consumed. Also, keep in mind that idling a 'conventional' power plant costs signifigant power overhead. Since wind power naturally idles itself, a properly sited installation can greatly reduce the energy wasted by powering up conventional plants 'just for peak' operation.
BTW, part of the reason idling a conventional plant wastes so much energy is the time it takes to build up the heat enough to generate steam, and then the wasted energy as it cools back down again.

Power Plant "Idling" (2)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218813)

This seems off. Oil fired power plants don't take much time to get up to speed and on the grid... a few minutes is generally fine.

What I think you are talking about is called "spinning reserve," which is not idling; it is there to back up a plant that goes down, or a circuit tripping. Spinning reserve would be even more important (regionally) when dealing with wind power.

Just to nitpick, I have never lived somewhere where the wind picks up during the day. The peak windspeed is almost always early to late evening.

There is a lot of potential for wind power, especially when it is combined with other forms-- tidal power or solar come to mind.

we can (2)

g4dget (579145) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218807)

It's easy to store and transport energy cleanly on a large scale: using hydrogen. In fact, in addition to locally generated wind energy, solar energy generated in the Sahara and other deserts and shipped around the world as hydrogen could also contribute to a clean, renewable energy infrastructure.

(Besides, your premise is wrong: wind is not limited to spring and fall in many places.)

Noise (0, Troll)

malarkey (514857) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218835)

People living near the windmills have complained of the humming noise they produce. Drives them nuts.

No problem (1)

soloport (312487) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218665)

Shouldn't be a problem. If the rest are anything like my Danish-born brother-in-law. Never shuts up!

A novel goal. (1)

Professor Collins (604482) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218666)

And having a population of approximately 5.3 million persons, this goal should not be a difficult one to achieve in coming years. The energy demands of such a tiny nation are not large, aside from their few major learning institutions.

Re:A novel goal. (0, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218721)

5.3 million people? Surely that must be a misprint. There are entire cities bigger than that. This is not nearly as large an achievement as the slashdot front page makes it out to be. Is this the same nation that was a model protectorate? I get my tiny European eco-nations mixed up sometimes.

Re:A novel goal. (1)

Anonymous Shepard (595554) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218754)

You are obviously confused by something. I'm sure some Dane will be able to come up with better figures, but Copenhagen has maybe 2 million people. No other Danish city comes even close.

"Model protectorate"?

Re:A novel goal. (4, Funny)

dduck (10970) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218836)

The figure is correct. Denmark is a very small (and very densly populated) country, with just over 5 million inhabitants. And yes, there are certaintly cities larger than that.

There are also countries much smaller that Denmark. Luxemburg springs to mind...

Please don't feel bad about being confused about our small nations. We - inversely - tend to get confused about the myriad of world-dominating, corrupt and arrogant major nations, who are ruled by capitalist oligarchies, and show a (to us)... shall we say SLIGHTLY relaxed attitude towards getting small details (such as major national elections) right ;)

Re:A novel goal. (1)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218722)

think Nevada and their wind generators. So yeah, it's not a wild idea, and is totally inmplementable. And if they get any surplus energy, they could always turn around and sell it to their european neighbors.

I love almost everybody (-1)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218667)

You know, love is a happy time all throughout the universe. It's when the male part of the species goes to the female part of the species and says, "Hey, you want to go on a date?" And then she would say "Why, yes, I'd like to go on a date" if you're lucky. And then you go to a restaurant, and she gets something called a salad, and then he gets a big piece of beef, that he eats. And that to me, ladies and gentlemen, is love. Kinda makes you cry, doesn't it?

1: Prelude (-1)

Walmart Security (570281) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218668)

THE WOMAN IN THE RED CONVERTIBLE drove on an abandoned highway, one hand on the steering wheel and the other holding a lit cigarette. Orange and red clouds of morning littered the otherwise barren horizon. Her weary eyes focused on the infinite fields of grass and wheat waving restlessly in the morning breeze.

She reached hastily for the button to retract the top, the aforementioned breeze caressing her coarse brown hair. The radio played softly.

"Let's go down the waterfall," it sang tirelessly. "Have ourselves a good time." She flicked ashes from the cigarette.

"It's nothing at all; nothing at all, nothing at all."

She threw her burning cigarette onto the road, hoping secretly that the pavement would catch fire, and then once again reached for the button. The top shut with a satisfying click. Oblivious of her destination, she depressed the accelerator to the floor, her automatic revving in response. Faster and faster she carelessly drove until the car could accelerate no further.

A small bridge loomed ahead. Much like her life, the river beneath it was perpetually stagnant. As she neared it, epiphanies inundated her mind. Everything -- what she must do -- became clear. Without hesitation, she jerked the wheel to the right, smiling in her ignorance. To this woman, the future was of no relevance. For those seconds, ignorant or not, she was alive. Then, after her brief moment of solace had passed, all was eternally still.

Re:1: Prelude (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218814)

Nice, but tell us more about her nipples.

Rotational Pollution (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218678)

The rotational pollution caused by windmills is unacceptable! The rotational energy will throw the rotational axis of the Earth out of kilter, and penguins will be in Equidor within hundreds of years. Sure, Linux fans will love that, but I don't think Equidorians could harvest their frozen bananas that way.

Stop this nonsense, it is killing our planet's life! Save the poles!

Re:Rotational Pollution (2)

donutz (195717) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218688)

Ok, I think your warning is a little drastic, but seriously, what are the negative consequences of capturing the wind's energy? Where would that energy have gone had we not captured it and converted it to electricity? Are we going to alter micro-climates by doing this, or as you suggest, throw the whole earth off kilter?

Re:Rotational Pollution (3, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218699)

They're certainly going to pollute the visual enviroment, as well as shred birds and insects by the hundredweight.

Re:Rotational Pollution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218718)

They are also pretty loud as well. Wildlife also is pretty picky about living anywhere in the vacinity of items that produce noise.

Re:Rotational Pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218744)

Oh no, the poor insects, birds, and noise-hating critters.

I bet coal miners, nuclear plant workers, uranium miners, and everyone who works in the deathtrap power plants wouldn't mind sweeping up the bugs instead of fucking dying to provide you with electricity. Oh, but modern power generation is clean and safe? Please tell that to the Chinese.

Oh, and a little thing called Global Warming has just gotten started. Look into it before you start astroturfing on behalf of your cultural war machine.

Really? Show me the numbers. (5, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218759)

as well as shred birds and insects by the hundredweight.

Sure. Tell me more. You have some information or statistics that involve modern windmill technology?

You're familiar with modern wind technology, correct? Large blades, turning slowly. Certainly some birds might smack into them (the same way they do to buildings and cars), but we're not talking about the little, fast-moving windmills of the 1970s and 80s.

I'm tired of hearing this one trotted out every time somebody talks about wind. Show me the numbers, dammit!

They're certainly going to pollute the visual enviroment

Maybe we can disguise them as trees. Or put Budwiser advertising on them. Then they'll fit right in with the rest of the country :)

Re:Rotational Pollution (5, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218806)

They're certainly going to pollute the visual enviroment

I suppose you prefer the visual beauty of a strip mine?

Re:Rotational Pollution (2)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218785)

The wind is lcoally slowed down by about 2/3 for an efficient system. Absorption of the wind energy will likely slow the earth's rotation down on the order of a few seconds a decade.

You would change microclimates, but... I have no idea how you would calculate the real impact.

Typically, windmills are not supposed to affect birds, but there are some notable exceptions (especially at Altamont Pass).

What I fail to understand, though, is why there not much effort at slow-wind generation systems-- I know that the payback is harder to achieve, but why can't these things go on buildings?

Re:Rotational Pollution (2)

ink (4325) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218792)

Batteries.

Lots of them.

With lots of chemical pollution.

Unless they're planning on lots of dangerous fly-wheels (windmills feeding flywheels)... As the cliche goes, you never get something for nothing.

Oh, and there's the mechanical maintenance headaches of Lots Of Moving Parts.

Easy (2)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218846)

Give every nation a surface "resistance" allotment or budget. For every windmill you put up you can cut down several trees :)

Re:Rotational Pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218692)

The rotational energy will throw the rotational axis of the Earth out of kilter

Man, I think you are on to something. I went to flush my toilet this morning, and the water did not spin. That's right, it went strait in without a single twist nor vortex.

I suppose I *should* invest in that Jamaican ski resort that I keep getting spammed about. I thought it was just a scam, but my toilet is telling me something.

Have you ever tried to hold onto a bicycle with a wheel spinning fast? You can feel that the wheel is affecting the motion. The same thing can happen with a million wind mills also I suppose.

Re:Rotational Pollution (1)

dammy (131759) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218694)

I wonder what enviromental impact study they would have to perform in order to show minimal amount of sea fairing birds that would be killed as they fly too close to those windmills...

Dammy

Re:Rotational Pollution (1)

Majkow (604785) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218819)

On average the blades don't spin that fast so the birds wouldn't get "sucked" into the blades. and the blades have a diamater of about 44m (well the ones in NSW Australia do)

So the birds can fly above/ below

When it is blowing a gale how many birds do you see anyway? most of them are hiding out of the wind.

so the number of birds that die as a direct result of the windmills would be so small.

---

Re:Rotational Pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218719)

rotate parent up!

Re:Rotational Pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218742)

Just a quick lesson here:

Equidor does not exist. Ecuador however is a South American country. And assuming you meant Ecuador, pengiuns have been there for centuries in fact.

Note to moderators:

Why are you modding this up?

Re:Rotational Pollution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218743)

Actually, what you will see next is that a bunch of hippy fuckwads will start screaming "but the windmills are killing all the innocent birds!".

In Oregon, they tried to start erecting these but found a lot of birds were slamming into them and being chopped up and the whiney bleeding hearts started bawling over it.

It's never enough for those pussies. I guess they won't be happy until we revert to an ice age and all live in fucking caves.

AERO - Jean Micehl Jarre (3, Interesting)

mutende (13564) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218681)

The AERO [tv2.dk] concert with Jean Michel Jarre two days ago was staged in a windmill park in the north-western part of Denmark.

beans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218682)

better eat a lot of baked beans.

./ed already!?! (1)

jpsowin (325530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218686)

It isn't coming up in my part of town, anyway. That's right folks, why stop at America, let's take over the danish world!

Another link to the picture... (1)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218687)

the picture appears to be /.ed... here's the same picture elsewhere--> picture [vub.ac.be]

Re:Another link to the picture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218711)

The picture is not (yet) slashdotted, and its not the same picture either. The picture linked to in the article was at least 33.333333333% bigger

Re:Another link to the picture... (1)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218749)

the picture appears to be /.ed... here's the same picture elsewhere--> picture [vub.ac.be]

One has to wonder what would happen if the sea level rose couple of meters and obstructed the propeller rotation. I would suppose the team behind the idea would feel pretty dumb.

At least in Nevada it stands on a ground. I'm not sure what to make of this water mountings.

607K users nad no one choose Eat Cunt? (-1, Offtopic)

Eat Cunt (607153) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218693)

Fools! Bwahahahaha!!

The enviro's will find objections to this (0, Troll)

dugless (453465) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218695)

It's only a matter of time before wind power falls out of favor with environmentalists. Consider how many birds a large wind farm will cut down out of the sky, or the pollution generated by manufacturing and maintaining so many metal armatures and power distribution lines.

And then there's the issue of where the energy is actually coming from. Given the recent report that airplane contrails might have an effect on global temperature variations, how long will it be before someone speculates that slowing wind down contributes to global warming?

Re:The enviro's will find objections to this (1)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218753)

And then there's the issue of where the energy is actually coming from. Given the recent report that airplane contrails might have an effect on global temperature variations, how long will it be before someone speculates that slowing wind down contributes to global warming?

There are no conclusive findings if in fact wind energy exploitation leads to global warming. If there are, I would very much like to see it.

I do think it could have some effects on the ecosystem, but nothing significant.

not sure how great that is (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218697)

Sure, wind power is non-polluting from a chemical standpoint, but it certainly disrupts the environment significantly. Producing any decent amount of power takes a lot of windmills. California's been experimenting with it a bit, and if you drive along I-10 in the desert east of L.A., you'll see acres and acres covered with windmills every 10 feet or so. Certainly ugly, and probably has an impact on the native wildlife as well. Now multiply that by 100x or so to get enough windmills to actually power California, and you'll have most of the state covered in ugly white towers...

Beats Ugly Black Soot (3, Insightful)

Trillian_1138 (221423) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218765)

I think the subject says it all. While impacting native wildlife is a differnet issue, if it was simply staring at white towers vs. not being able to breathe, I know what *i'd* choose...

also been known to kill birds... (0, Troll)

fortinbras47 (457756) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218769)

Wind power generators have also been known to disrupt and kill birds. For example, in the early 1990s, a significant number of golden eagles were killed by turbines at California's Altamont pass.

Also, in line with Trepidity's comment, the main problem with wind power from what I've heard is that it just requires too many turbines to get the neccesary amount of power. You have to have truly giant wind farms to get a pitiful amount of power...

And who the hell wants to double their power bill anyway....? (see California for all the hell that breaks loose when power generation prices get real high.)

Re:also been known to kill birds... (2, Informative)

dachshund (300733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218825)

Wind power generators have also been known to disrupt and kill birds. For example, in the early 1990s, a significant number of golden eagles were killed by turbines at California's Altamont pass.

Modern windmills have a wingspan the size of a 747. They turn only a few times per minute. The windmills at Altamont pass are mostly older technology and spin much more rapidly. So far I haven't heard anyone claiming that the modern type of windmills are very bad in this way, though it's certainly possible for a bird to run into one.

Also, Altamont is a particularly sensitive area for a number of endangered species. Any stories you've heard out of there wouldn't necessarily apply to the rest of the country.

Also, in line with Trepidity's comment, the main problem with wind power from what I've heard is that it just requires too many turbines to get the neccesary amount of power. You have to have truly giant wind farms to get a pitiful amount of power...

Wind power is competitive with coal and (certainly) nuclear (nuclear is really expensive when you look at the per kw/h prices.) And the technology is improving rapidly. It's worth pointing out that many of the companies building wind farms in the US are doing it to make money-- if wind really doubled their costs, they'd hardly be doing that. Wind does get a very minor gov't subsidy, but no more than the other power industries.

too many turbines (2)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218841)

The quantity of turbines improves the efficiency of the system, and improves the ability to maintain power quality. I think the problem with what has been done today is that people are going too much for the HUGE turbines. A few dozen 10kw turbines on a building would make an impact. It wouldn't do everything, but it can run a chiller or UPS system and reduce the overall oil dependancy.

An interesting link on novel wind turbines is www.windside.com [windside.com] . They are vertical axis turbines, and therefore have much slower tip speeds (thus less impact on wildlife).

As far as costs go, the industry will require subsidies for a while, to develop the industry more. The same holds true for fuel cells. However, the cost per kw is competitive with everything but oil-fired plants. Looking at long-term financials, and ...uncertainty of imported oil, it's worth some subsidies now!

Re:also been known to kill birds... So do towers (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218862)

Current power lines do that too. Acid rain is a greater risk to habitat and migration routes, in my opinion. We could also stop building glass buildings for the birds to slam into, as well.
What we need to do is have more power generation "on-site". Then we don't need such high voltage, as less will be lost before it gets to the user.

Re:not sure how great that is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218843)

to answer your question, 45% of the power requirment of the US could be produced in north dakota, because of the class of winds available.
in a state like california, which tends to have very few suitable sites for wind power, you probably couldn't put up enough tower.
And you forget something mportant. Fish, birds, plants, and many more animals can all die from the pollution released by a coal power plant. what would you rather have? some very low probability incidental accidents? or whole tracts of land made toxic, rivers made into poison, and air so thick with pollution that you can barely breath, and doing so will take years off your life if done for a prolonged period.
I'm sorry, but even shipping that coal is going kill as many if not more critters than any windmill.

Wouldn't... (1)

asdfasdfasdfasdf (211581) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218705)

this picture [finelot.com] be more appropriate?

Bah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218706)

Bah... Don't believe that article. It's all wind in sails.

Trust the oldies. Don't bother with Sellafield (or-whatever-it-is-called-today), Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island; there weren't essentially any casualties anyhow.

Move on, there is nothing here to see.

It's all wind in sails, for the Danes.

Someone please share this with the Danes (0, Flamebait)

Kaz Riprock (590115) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218714)

I think that this link [farts.com] will be crucial to their energy plans in the future.

Well, one thing's for sure.. (2)

CBNobi (141146) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218717)

They need more power before they can survive a Slashdotting.

Danish goal? (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218726)

Cinnamon. With strong black coffee.

Environmentalists Against Wind Power...... (4, Interesting)

Brian_Ellenberger (308720) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218729)

Now if we can only convince Environmentalists that wind power is a good idea.



Think I'm smoking crack? Well check out this story from the NY Times about the enviro fight against windmills in Cherry Valley, NY:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/nyregion/28WIND. html?ex=1031568343&ei=1&en=0920b9cbdc48601 9 [nytimes.com]



And there is this story about enviros against wind power in Moosic Mountain Ridge, Philadelphia
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/3693755.htm [philly.com]



If you want a good site to view on how the Enviromentalists have shifted from Science to Socialistic Demigogery check out this site from GreenPeace co-founder Patrick Moore:
http://www.fcpp.org/publications/conversations/pat rickmoore.html [fcpp.org]



I love this quote from Dr. Moore:
"Many factors including a lack of science education, a need to perpetuate themselves and "means justifies the end" thinking. The worst aspect is what I describe as the environmental movement has been hijacked by political activists who are using green rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-corporatism and class warfare than with ecology or the environment."



Remember this is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Not exactly your average "evil right-wing" nutcase.



Brian Ellenberger

Re:Environmentalists Against Wind Power...... (2)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218830)

I'll skip the "painting with one brush" comment and jump straight to: If you are in favour of, on balance, reducing the human race's negative impact on the environment, what should you call yourself?

I would tend to still think that I'm an environmentalist, although my current hobbies and work requirements do have me disposing of a lot more plastic than I'd like.

Re:Environmentalists Against Wind Power...... (2)

SectoidRandom (87023) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218855)

I think it's a bit of a leap from: "residents against 400foot windmills in there backyard's" too: "left-wing dogooders out to hijack any green idea for their own commie agenda!"

These protests are occuring all over the world, the simple fact is a few dozen 400 foot windmills is no prettier than your run of the mill nuclear power plant. :) What makes it worse is effective 'wind farms' generally need the highest most visible and valuable property. :(

There are disadvantages to everything, wind power is no exception!

Has anyone thought to calculate... (2, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218735)

... the amount of energy required to manufacture and erect such an array of wind turbines?

With the turbines running at full-pelt, how long will it take them to break even?

We Americans have it all wrong... (1)

bobbabemagnet (247383) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218736)

We've put all our power in a winded man.

Obligatory anti-Michael comment (-1, Flamebait)

EchoMirage (29419) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218739)

[snip]
from the american-goal:-100%-of-danish-electricity-from-oil dept.

How about having one from the sick-of-michaels-libertarian-diatribes-on-the-fron t-page dept.?

This comment will get modded to hell, so I'll make it worth my while (and hey, I've got the karma, so plug your ears and go for it, faith Slashdot sheep).

Michael is a pollutant in the Slashdot community. In addition to his other crimes and personal problems [sethf.com] , Michael routinely mischaracterizes arguments [kuro5hin.org] , uses completely flawed logic [slashdot.org] , and routinely attacks and slanders those who disagree with him.

Michael posts both under his name [slashdot.org] and under the pseudonym of jellicle [slashdot.org] . His posts are easily identified by the thoughtless hysteria that denotes most fundamentalist propaganda and rhetoric.

I've made several calls for Andover/VA to fire Michael. A good appeal would be to Roblimo. But one thing is clear: Micahel Sims needs to go. This article's head is just another example of why.

Re:Obligatory anti-Michael comment (0, Troll)

FatRatBastard (7583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218772)

Why stop there? Why not just get a gun and shoot Michael? I mean, from your rant it sounds like no one who has a differing view from yourself should be run out of a job. If you don't like his posts here's a suggestion:

Don't fucking read slashdot.

Jesus christ on a crutch, since when did the Universe become your personal little fifedom?

Anyone know EchoMirage's mother's phone number? I want to make a couple of calls to see if I can get her to have a retroactive abortion.

Re:Obligatory anti-Michael comment (1)

Badanov (518690) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218802)

Many of this guy's view are repugnant to me, but certainly not warrenting this kind of attack

Polish Goal: To discover electricity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218745)

thank you, i'll be here all week.

Small country (2)

dachshund (300733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218747)

The only problem is: what if there's a storm (requiring that most windmill blades be secured), or a lull in the wind? Denmark's a small country, and therefore most sites are likely to be getting roughly the same weather.

Now, the US, with it's vast spaces and enormous power grids. That'd be a great place to use wind...

hot air (1)

the way, what're you (591901) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218748)

These windbags are just talking a bunch of hot air. Wait a minute, if they can harness the power of their hot air, then maybe it will work. But then it wouldn't be a bunch of hot air anymore. Ouch... brain hurting...

PHP 4.2.3 is out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218750)

Off Topic...but PHP 4.2.3 is out and I havent seen any thing about it on /. yet.

All they need is Jon Katz (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218756)

He provides all the wind they need in Denmark...

The U.S. has the best wind source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218760)

The amount of hot, empty air coming out of Washington DC these days could go a long way. . .

Implementation of know tech for benefit of all. (3, Insightful)

buswolley (591500) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218762)

This is nice. They are in fact implementing known technology for the benefit of all, AND DOING SO IN an aggressive visionary project. It is unfortunate that most of the industrialized world is not as nimble in implementing technology, when the benifits don't neccessarily fit neatly in an accountant's bookkeeping. We admire ourselves as humans with descriptions such as adaptive, modular etc. But our culture is not, when it comes in conflict with immediate rewards like profit. This Danish wind power project is an example of human culture rising to the challenge and becoming, indeed, an adaptive and modular culture. Now if we just had an aggressive program for developing cheap, clean and abundant energy.

The point for Denmark is to make money (5, Insightful)

joneshenry (9497) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218763)

From the Danish perspective I would think whether or not wind power's merits will cause an energy revolution are irrelevant. The important thing is that the Danes aren't just using wind power, they are manufacturing the turbines and selling the technology abroad. This brings in cold cash and gives the country a niche in the global economy. That is the point.

By having a focus, Danish industry can seek to acquire the IP such as patents to build up a top industry. As in other industries the idea is to go so far down the learning curve that it becomes more economical for other countries to buy the technology from you rather than develop it themselves.

That is why conservatives who bash alternative energy are stupid. Any reading of US history shows massive government involvement to nurture any industry whether through protective tariffs, cash for infrastructure, land grants, whatever. To make money you have to spend money. A so-called conservative who espouses capitalism should understand that.

Santa Clara, CA (5, Informative)

guttentag (313541) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218766)

Silicon Valley's city of Santa Clara [siliconvalleypower.com] is very environmentally conscious. There are "Tree City USA" signs up all over the place, and the city-owned utility proudly trumpets the breakdown of its energy sources:

It gets 43% of its electricity from hydroelectric dams, 22% from geothermal, and another 4% from other renewable sources.

The city really focuses on finding plausible, cost-effective power sources, but for some reason it doesn't get any of its power from the wind. Perhaps the Santa Clarans know something the Danish don't?

Re:Santa Clara, CA (1, Redundant)

Jester99 (23135) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218824)

Maybe it's just not too windy in Santa Clara.

Wind power good. "People's" brains are not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218778)

What is is about wind power, or the discussion of any environmentally friendly power source, turns jackasses' brains to mush. They start spewing words like 'cunt' and 'fuck', because they are too immature to notice that they are behaving like windbags.
I am glad that some countries are trying power sources other than nuclear and water, to meet their energy needs. Now only if we could convince the jackasses to support it. There are sure enough here to power a windmill with their hot air.

too bad USA will never adopt this (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218791)

The USA will never adopt wind power as long as it's run by a right wing oil tycoon. Bush has no respect for the environment at all, and americans continue to destroy the earth with their garbage.

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218795)

you're fat.

My goal: use 50% less electricity (5, Insightful)

sting3r (519844) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218796)

I went on a tour of my condo with my trusty Fluke ampmeter today, wondering why my power bills are so high and why my air conditioner runs constantly despite the fact that it's only set for 80 degrees. I was shocked and appalled at all of the energy that my electronic toys waste while they are in their idle states. Let's take a look at the numbers and see:
  • TV setup. My television, amplifier, and Tivo alone took up 1.6 Amps = 185 watts, while they were completely idle. The Tivo was not recording anything, and I verified that it was not doing anything by telnetting in and observing that the load average was 0.00. Does it really require 1.6 amps just to spin a hard drive and wait for a 10mW infrared signal??
  • Computer monitors. I run XFree86 4 in dual-head mode. My two monitors take up 2.6 Amps = 300 watts while they are on, and a whopping 70 watts when they are turned off at the switch. It's worth noting that they produce about a third of the light, and twice the heat, of two 150W light bulbs.
  • Computer hardware. The power strip supporting my 1.6Ghz Athlon and 1Ghz Duron draws a whopping 4.4 Amps, or 500 watts, while both systems sit at zero load! Apparently, AMD expended significantly more effort making sure their processors were well-equipped to start house fires when the heatsink falls off, rather than making those Linux kernel "CPU idle" calls actually do anything.
  • Uninterruptable power supplies. These were the sleeper hit of my power measurement experiment: with full batteries and no devices on the load side, my UPSes drew 50-80 watts of power each. I understand that filtering power comes at a cost, but these things really should be designed to be at least a little bit more efficient than the average space heater.
So, this brings me to my main point: why is it that my cell phone can run for two weeks without a recharge, my digital scale can run for 10 years (guaranteed) on a single battery, my thermostat, analog clocks, and smoke detectors can run for 2-3 years between battery changes, but my computers and consumer electronics have to suck up as much power as my toaster while they are completely idle?

As long as our toys are designed to waste as much energy as legally possible, even the most well-intentioned power conservation efforts are doomed to utter failure.

-sting3r

Re:My goal: use 50% less electricity (1)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218821)

Replace AMD chips with Pentium 4's.

There is your 50% right there.

Tivo (1)

dachshund (300733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218852)

The Tivo was not recording anything, and I verified that it was not doing anything by telnetting in and observing that the load average was 0.00. Does it really require 1.6 amps just to spin a hard drive and wait for a 10mW infrared signal??

When you say that the Tivo wasn't recording anything, do you mean you went in and shut down its normal operation?

Otherwise, the Tivo is always recording, whether you want it to or not. That's why you can rewind up to 30 minutes anytime you want. But considering you're familiar enough with your Tivo to telnet into it, you probably know that.

USE less energy goddammit (1, Flamebait)

God_Retired (44721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218798)

If anyone has ever looked into living off the grid, or trying to get most of their power from solar, wind, bicycle, whatever, you know that the key is to get appliances that use less energy. Not that hard, even given the current US President being in the pocket of the oil companies.

If I typed a word wrong or dropped some clause, I don't really need to hear about it. It doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you sound like an asshole.

The Year 2030 is in 28 years! (0, Flamebait)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218803)

That's right. Twenty Eight Years from now. Do they have only 2 people working on the project?

That's like whopping 3 decades. Almost a new generation. This is depressing, considering the technology was already in use since the 70's.

With the proper funds, a small gov't of 6million could easily deploy a countrywide energy clusters within 5 years. And Denmark is not really a 3rd world nation. They have the sweet cash to accomplish it in 1/3rd of the time.

US has same goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4218808)

However is involves installing small propeller on the back of bar stools in Mexican resturants.

Energy Independence (5, Insightful)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218827)

I applaud the Danes for their bold, foward thinking Energy 21 energy policy. Bush's policy on the other hand, involves meddling in the middle east or drilling in our national parks and preserves.

Being the man of vision that he is, Bush, should reconsider our depenence on oil from the middle east and its impact of our foriegn policy. Like a drug addicted individual the US governments choices sometimes are far from rational.

For example, we call the Saudi's "our fiends". Bullshit! They would slice our thoat in a heart beat if we were not their biggest customer. They are a twisted theocracy that rejects womens rights, democracy, personal liberty, religious freedom, etc. We have nothing in common.

If the man would come out with a Kennedy like vision and plan of developing renewable technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, wave, conservation, etc. and even clean and safe nuclear we would be much further down road to world stability, peace and prosperity. Instead he wants to start another war and one which has the potential of being a messy urban war where civilian casualities are unavoidable if you want to win.

They can make their goal way before 2030 (1)

Typingsux (65623) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218833)

Just make Al Sharpton a Danish citizen. That bag of wind should make up at least 10%.

This a great (1)

dracocat (554744) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218842)

I'm all for anything that gives me cleaner air to breath. Just NIMBY. Think what these things will do to property value on ocean front property.

Re:This a great (1)

adb (31105) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218854)

Raise it? I think they're pretty.

US Wind Power... (2, Informative)

gnuDaruma (599237) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218858)

In the United States, about 10 billion kiloWattHours are produced and distributed per year. That's about enough for 1 million standard US households.

The Danes plan to have 2.5 times this number of households provided for by 2030. I would imagine the US could match them in number of homes covered in the same time period. The fact that this represents 50% of their total needs is something very ambitious indeed!

In order for the US to match the Danish goal, approximately 250 billion kilowatt hours would have to be produced for half the 100 million (approximate) US homes occupied today.

-gnuDaruma

iowa's got it going for them (1)

jjshoe (410772) | more than 11 years ago | (#4218861)

while many just north of iowa in minnesota (myself) often discredit the iowegians for being stupid folk its amazing just how much they have going for them. i was awstruck when going to my girlfriends home town of sioux city and passing by the giant wind turbines. the size is just amazing... there are some health hazards. some were not spinning, some were missing a blade from lightning strikes...


Nowhere is the potential for renewable resources more visible than in wind energy. Iowa has the potential to produce 4.8 times its own annual electrical consumption through wind power. Because of decreasing capital costs, new technological advances and favorable legislation, wind power is Iowa's and the world's fastest growing renewable resource. [state.ia.us]

Iowa has more than 400 wind turbines with total nameplate capacity of 335 MW. This is enough power to generate electricity for more than 100,000 homes per year and avoid more than one million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>