Lets disect Oblahma speech, shall we!

[SMOKE 1,426]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

[HAL 9000 96]

I believe that the $2 trillion spent in Iraq would have been better spent on solar and wind projects, and on nuclear reactors.

You got to stop that, that sounds like good old common sense, and we Americans don't like that kinda of thing.

What about all the poor little land dwelling creatures who make their homes there? Let alone the possibilties of wiping out tumble weeds and other plant life. If you respect the land and caibou in Alaska you gotta respect it everywhere. A wind turbine farm would take up way more land than a couple oil rigs!

Well... you can build wind farms out at sea...

What if there is a malfuntion and the water shorts out the turbine and electricutes thousands of fish. Let alone all the por birds the blades will surely kill. The enviromental "DOG" Dont hunt my freind.

That's a big "what if".

More like a big "way out there."

[Mononoke28 135]

I just finished eating a turkey sandwich while I read part of Obama's speech, next thing I knew I was knocked out on top of my keyboard. Now it couldn't possibly be the sandwich since I was also knocked out last night while he read it on T.V.

The whole "heal the planet" thing is too Iron Man for my taste.

Diana

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

[ That's a big "what if".

"What if" then must be applied to both sides.

[HAL 9000 96]

As I have said before, People need to realize that the major weapon of the current Jihad is money,not money that they have earned, but for the most part money that comes from an accident of geology. OIL

The way to stop them from attacking is to take the money away, and lets be honest we are a big chunk of the money.

The money spent in Iraq might instead be spent on an energy program to deprive the Saudis and Ahmadinejad,and others of the wherewithal that is critical to the Jihad.I believe that the $2 trillion spent in Iraq would have been better spent on solar and wind projects, and on nuclear reactors. Oil is their most dangerous weapon, and our dependency is giving them assurance that their guns will always be loaded.

Jihad is worldwide not just in afgan. and iraq. This does not require "the troops boots on their ground" here and there and everywhere. Not at all. It requires diminishing their oil revenues.[/b]

I think that's contentious - because even if the US gets itself off foreign oil, its not like there won't be a market for it, given that Russia and China are pretty significant customers in their own right. The only difference surely is that we wouldn't be funding it directly. That might be the ethical thing to do - but those countries will still be immensely profitable.

What do you suggest? Honestly. I talked with a former co-worker's husband about this this past weekend. He's working in nuclear energy. actually, more specifically as an engineer in something called "power pulses." Something about using the mechanisms we used for nuclear energy but with different sources. Okay, I'm showing my lack of knowledge in the department. At this point, I'm open to information from all sides of the argument (arguments?). I just know that something needs to happen... only, what?

Please tell us more about those power pulses. That would be something new to me.

I think we'd need a nuclear physicist or a nuclear engineer to explain it well. I did take AP Physics in high school...

It really was a pretty interesting conversation. He proposed the use of multiple sources for energy but this was one way.

But I'll do some digging and get back to you on that one, Mavi. Since I'm "a Barack elitist" I happen to know a couple of nuclear physicists...

Shhhh! Do not talk about personal associations with nuclear people omg cause it will mean you're a terrorist sympathizer and anti-American.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

[HAL 9000 96]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

Not sure all that much but I think it has something to do with a greater transfer of torque power onto the collection system being limited to unidirectional electricity flow.

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

or something more practical like this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[ That's a big "what if".

"What if" then must be applied to both sides.

Only if the "what if" is actually feasible or likely.

I could say of nuclear power "what if Homer J Simpson falls asleep at the controls and lets the reactor go out of control". Its not exactly realistic.

[SMOKE 1,426]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

Not sure all that much but I think it has something to do with a greater transfer of torque power onto the collection system being limited to unidirectional electricity flow.

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

or something more practical like this.

well @&^%#$#! there goes my retirement plans.

[Mononoke28 135]

I'm sure Obama would know, since he's going to heal the planet and all. LOL (I can't believe my smileys don't work!!!!!)

Diana

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

Hell just think of all the power that could be generated from lets say a katrina.

[ That's a big "what if".

"What if" then must be applied to both sides.

Only if the "what if" is actually feasible or likely.

I could say of nuclear power "what if Homer J Simpson falls asleep at the controls and lets the reactor go out of control". Its not exactly realistic.

Lets just hope your not the one doing the hiring!

Edited June 4, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[HAL 9000 96]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

Not sure all that much but I think it has something to do with a greater transfer of torque power onto the collection system being limited to unidirectional electricity flow.

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

or something more practical like this.

well @&^%#$#! there goes my retirement plans.

You could use one of these in the meantime as a portable power source.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

[ That's a big "what if".

"What if" then must be applied to both sides.

Only if the "what if" is actually feasible or likely.

I could say of nuclear power "what if Homer J Simpson falls asleep at the controls and lets the reactor go out of control". Its not exactly realistic.

Lets just hope your not the one doing the hiring!

I wouldn't be. Different industry entirely.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

serious question about wind power fields.

why are they made like that (big fan blades) that have to be turned so the wind moves them. couldn't they be made of columns of round turbines (like the vents on top of your house) that spin no matter which way the wind blows?

the blades can be turned so they don't spin at all this way, which is done to prevent damage during a storm.

[ That's a big "what if".

"What if" then must be applied to both sides.

Only if the "what if" is actually feasible or likely.

I could say of nuclear power "what if Homer J Simpson falls asleep at the controls and lets the reactor go out of control". Its not exactly realistic.

Lets just hope your not the one doing the hiring!

I wouldn't be. Different industry entirely.

It was a joke Six! Seriously I was trying to illustrate how enviromentalists say its okay for one and not the other.

[shadtov 0]

As I have said before, People need to realize that the major weapon of the current Jihad is money,not money that they have earned, but for the most part money that comes from an accident of geology. OIL

The way to stop them from attacking is to take the money away, and lets be honest we are a big chunk of the money.

The money spent in Iraq might instead be spent on an energy program to deprive the Saudis and Ahmadinejad,and others of the wherewithal that is critical to the Jihad.I believe that the $2 trillion spent in Iraq would have been better spent on solar and wind projects, and on nuclear reactors. Oil is their most dangerous weapon, and our dependency is giving them assurance that their guns will always be loaded.

Jihad is worldwide not just in afgan. and iraq. This does not require "the troops boots on their ground" here and there and everywhere. Not at all. It requires diminishing their oil revenues.[/b]

I think that's contentious - because even if the US gets itself off foreign oil, its not like there won't be a market for it, given that Russia and China are pretty significant customers in their own right. The only difference surely is that we wouldn't be funding it directly. That might be the ethical thing to do - but those countries will still be immensely profitable.

What do you suggest? Honestly. I talked with a former co-worker's husband about this this past weekend. He's working in nuclear energy. actually, more specifically as an engineer in something called "power pulses." Something about using the mechanisms we used for nuclear energy but with different sources. Okay, I'm showing my lack of knowledge in the department. At this point, I'm open to information from all sides of the argument (arguments?). I just know that something needs to happen... only, what?

Please tell us more about those power pulses. That would be something new to me.

I think we'd need a nuclear physicist or a nuclear engineer to explain it well. I did take AP Physics in high school...

It really was a pretty interesting conversation. He proposed the use of multiple sources for energy but this was one way.

But I'll do some digging and get back to you on that one, Mavi. Since I'm "a Barack elitist" I happen to know a couple of nuclear physicists...

Shhhh! Do not talk about personal associations with nuclear people omg cause it will mean you're a terrorist sympathizer and anti-American.

OMG! I almost let out the secret that us Obamabots actually have varied points of view. I promise to be more careful next time. I wouldn't want that to get out.