Windmill Destroyed By Wind
tags:
Stumble ThisI guess there is a limit to the wind these things can take.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
windmill,wind,destruction,tornado,fail Windmill Destroyed By Wind
Comments  playlists with this video "what's d problem?" To expect the awful by marinara
• Dreamtrip 2.0 by Eklek
• <1 min by daxgaz
who voted for this video 10239
- siftbot
x99 - EndAll
- gwiz665
who has this post bookmarked colt45
- ronin165
Windmill Destroyed By Wind Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Oh, and *actionpack!
Aarhus is actually the city im in RIGHT NOW, and Montana (or Arizona for that matter) is way off, as it is indeed in Denmark.
In reality the majority of Japan and Europe is powered through Nuclear power, safety standards and newer technology make a nuclear meltdown a near impossibility.
let's switch to wind and solar, as soon as possible, but instead of building new gas/coal/or biofuel plants/cars we could take advantage of RELATIVELY clean nuclear energy.
It makes perfect sense to tax all consumption of fossil fuels enough internalize the negative externalities of fossil fuel use. The regressivity of this tax could be nullified by a flat refund similar to this year's economic stimulus package.
The current taxes on oil etc in the USA are far too low.
In reality the majority of Japan and Europe is powered through Nuclear power, safety standards and newer technology make a nuclear meltdown a near impossibility.
This is just something on that subject that I came across recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
Note the pie charts along the right side. The US chart is from 2005, but I doubt much has changed. We get about 70% of our electricity through burning fossil fuels. Nuclear accounts for less than 20%.
Meanwhile, in France, which I suspect is typical of Europe, nearly 80% of their electricity was generated via nuclear plants in 2006. Fossil fuels account for less than 10%.
I've got no point to make here. I just think it's interesting how far apart we are on opposite sides of the pond.
The U.S. should just place a large tax on all fossil fuel consumption, effectively forcing the industry to switch to nuclear/wind/solar/hydro/tidal. A hydro plant with a large reservoir that can regulate its rate of water passage could load-balance with a solar/wind plant.
It makes perfect sense to tax all consumption of fossil fuels, to internalize the negative externalities of fossil fuel use. The regressivity of this tax could be nullified by a flat refund similar to this year's economic stimulus package.
You mean you don't think that we are already being taxed on it?
The comparison that must be made is between fossil fules (coal, oil) and Nuclear energy. The amount of nuclear waste is far less damaging than the damage from fossil pollution.
nuclear power safety is one thing, the meltdown is the worst case scenario-would YOU want yer dad working at a nuclear power plant for 40 years??? your wife???
What's good for a submarine, is not good for the planet-and thinking in a linear fashion concerning the experiential world, brain-decay.
this sift reminds me of a Michael Bay movie. *phake
(p.s. how much you wanna bet this becomes a conservative talking point; "those wind generators all the liberals want everywhere are actually massive, twirling bringers-of-death.")
Nuclear power can be readily tapped into over the power grids and is substantial enough to supply entire cities, this not true for the various techs like solar, wind and so on. More development is needed in those areas. As for nuclear waste, it is a problematic issue but the waste produced is less readily influential on the environment if stored and disposed off correctly. I have read papers on research to actually break down the waste into something else. Other then that I wouldn't mind sending off a rocket or two to burn up around the sun (just an idea).
But even then we are replacing one sort of pollution for another, instead of smoke stacks or nuclear waste we would have large wind generation farms, large tidal wave areas in the sea, or large fields of concentrated solar generators.
However all these technologies still rely on a fossil fuel process for components, so what we term clean technology isn't really because various components are derived from fossil fuels, if not for power in their manufacture then for the manufacture of various parts like plastics and so on.