Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 91
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg_4_lifes View Post
    Lets camouflage them. I'm not an energy surgeon, but I really do not understand why we do not switch to nuclear. I mean if Homer can run the plant, then I am sure we can find a few ppl here to run it.

    re: nuclear, my sense of the drawbacks are 1) Cost/time to build a plant 2) Water requirements (up to 1 billion gallons per DAY) 3) what to do with the waste long-term 4) public opposition


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Carrollton
    Posts
    1,924
    Once someone figures out how to burn Pigweed in a big ass furnace and harness that energy, the south would be energy independent.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    https://mississippitoday.org/2021/02...ed-for-tunica/

    100 turbines spread over 13000 acres will power 7000 homes at max capacity.
    And apparently solar farms will soon hit God's country too.


    The wind farms near me are neat to see. Corn, level b gravel, and turbines for miles.
    Attachment 19582
    I'm very much a wind, solar, nuke energy advocate, but I'm surprised by this .

    At both 30m and 80m, the wind potential in the SE USA for onshore wind is poor.





    You need more than 4.0 m/s to get good reliable power.

    IMO, This is a waste of money.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Lets' build those suckers. Let's make sure we don't burn any fossil fuels during the construction. Then let's hope like hell the wind blows and it doesn't freeze. Oh, and that the birds can avoid them.
    This is a dumb ignorant argument.

    How much fossil fuel does it take to build a fossil fuel plant?


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    You know the answer. It's why you downvoted my comment about making sure not to burn any fossil fuels during construction of the turbines. Beyond that, I choose not to step into the "mstateglfr vortex of disingenuous questioning" at this time.
    Oh no no no. This entire post is shit because its based on your incorrect assumption. I didnt downvote your comment. To be clear, I also didnt upvote it.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot 2021-02-26 154711.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	104.2 KB 
ID:	19585


    2 out of 5 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by MStateU View Post
    Thanks for the reply. Maybe it can be duel purpose land use.

    As far a decommissioning, surely they require some sort of reclamation bond.
    The land that these will be on will be farmed too. For access, a sliver of gravel will go from side roads to the 50'x50' or so square that each turbine is on.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by dorndawg View Post
    Only a true buffoon would make up the argument that anyone is saying wind/solar/etc can be manufactured/installed/maintained completely without fossil fuels. It's not either/or.

    Agree with the poster above re:nuclear. It's the least bad option available today.

    I'd love to see more more (or honestly, any) emphasis on bio-fuels. They burn clean and are highly renewable.
    The issue with current biofuels is we have to eat too.

    Until we get commercial scale algae oil, we have Wind, Solar, Nuke, and fossils.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  8. #48
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,397
    Amen brother.








    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by DesotoCountyDawg View Post
    But in Iowa they dont use crop dusters as much as here. I have numerous friends in the Midwest with windmills and they 17ing hate them. Lots of dead birds and having to farm around them.
    Interesting. I continually see planes and helicopters during the growing months, but dont really have anything to compare it to in terms of overall use/frequency.


    1 out of 5 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  10. #50


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by SheltonChoked View Post
    The issue with current biofuels is we have to eat too.

    Until we get commercial scale algae oil, we have Wind, Solar, Nuke, and fossils.
    I meant pellets when I said biofuels, not rowcrop ones (although sure, let's research those too). I would have been more accurate to use "biomass".

    Several European energy companies are burning pellets, some along with fossil fuels. For instance, Drax has a plant in Gloster that makes them, after which they ship pellets to their electric plants in UK. https://www.draxbiomass.com/


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by dorndawg View Post
    re: nuclear, my sense of the drawbacks are 1) Cost/time to build a plant 2) Water requirements (up to 1 billion gallons per DAY) 3) what to do with the waste long-term 4) public opposition

    Cost/Time is due to the irrational Nuke fear ( live near a coal plant? you get way more radiation exposure than living by a nuke plant)

    Water requirements are there for any thermal plant.

    Waste is another dumb issue. If dumb public opposition were not in the way and irrational fear, Breeder reactors burn most of the "waste". you end up with a canister small enough to fit under your desk.
    And as research gets better, even that waste could be used in the future.

    The pubic is scared because they don't know about the worse poisons they live next to.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  13. #53
    mcdawg22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gulf Breeze, Fl
    Posts
    7,045
    Yeah Im thinking of those miserable August days in the delta when there isnt a breath of wind. Thats when energy will be peaking. Maybe the mosquitoes will produce enough wind to kill them?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  14. #54
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,397
    Trust me its more.








    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  15. #55
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by SheltonChoked View Post
    I'm very much a wind, solar, nuke energy advocate, but I'm surprised by this .

    At both 30m and 80m, the wind potential in the SE USA for onshore wind is poor.





    You need more than 4.0 m/s to get good reliable power.

    IMO, This is a waste of money.
    Agreed. Solar isn't particularly great in MS either, compared with other areas. If only there was a way to make money off humidity?


    3 out of 5 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by dorndawg View Post
    re: nuclear, my sense of the drawbacks are 1) Cost/time to build a plant 2) Water requirements (up to 1 billion gallons per DAY) 3) what to do with the waste long-term 4) public opposition
    Grand Gulf pulls about 18,000 gpm from the Mississippi.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  17. #57
    Yep, the pellet plants should be a big part of the future in MS. Especially considering that its unlikely any more pulp and paper mills will be built due to regulations and a declining need for paper.

    We have an over abundance of pulpwood in this state that desperately needs a market to offload it, and to help with pricing.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  18. #58
    The hell you say.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by IBleedMaroonDawg View Post
    It actually was asked in a documentary on the problems with going all Green Energy, by Micheal Moore no less. For some reason it wasn't distributed nor can you find it easy on streaming services. Not much media coverage either except to defend the green ideals.

    Pretty sure it was because Gore or any Dem environmentalist could make any money on a speaking circuit pumping it, not to mention the current Green plan.



    ETA found it,

    I have been trying to learn all I can about wind power. I don't want to just turn my nose up at it. This is some of the stuff I have read. The Science is solid but.

    1. There is a optimum speed needed the turbine has to turn. Too fast or too slow it does not produce enough energy.
    2. Cost 3 to 5 million to install one windmill. Depending on the size. You need 100's at one farm.
    3. It takes 10 years for one wind mill to pay for it self. One wind mill suppose to last 20 to 25 years however they only been lasting 10 years before needing replacing.
    4. Cost between 300k to 400k to remove them.
    5. Wind farmers make a lot of money off them. However it takes billions of goverment help for them to do so. The wind farms on thier own do not make money. They would lose money with out Federal Government.
    Last edited by GloryDawg; 02-26-2021 at 04:49 PM.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  20. #60
    mcdawg22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gulf Breeze, Fl
    Posts
    7,045
    Quote Originally Posted by SheltonChoked View Post
    Cost/Time is due to the irrational Nuke fear ( live near a coal plant? you get way more radiation exposure than living by a nuke plant)

    Water requirements are there for any thermal plant.

    Waste is another dumb issue. If dumb public opposition were not in the way and irrational fear, Breeder reactors burn most of the "waste". you end up with a canister small enough to fit under your desk.
    And as research gets better, even that waste could be used in the future.

    The pubic is scared because they don't know about the worse poisons they live next to.
    Not a flame. Honest question. Would you want one a mile from your house? I hear a lot of people say they want more nuclear and the fear is unfounded but they dont want to live near one.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdawg22 View Post
    Not a flame. Honest question. Would you want one a mile from your house? I hear a lot of people say they want more nuclear and the fear is unfounded but they dont want to live near one.
    I'll go one farther. I'd put a nuclear battery in my backyard if they'd sell me one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...h=6285ef70e9dd

    Sure. But sure. I'm safer living next to Grand Gulf than I am living or eating anything grown downwind of Choctaw county Power plant or next to a refinery.

    As for other risks, in my home town there was a small plant making power poles. The bottom of the Creosote tanks were not there. The creek beside those tanks runs BETWEEN the city water wells. They had to redesign the bridge due to age and found the creek was a superfund site. There are 1000's of examples like this That are far more deadly than living next to a nuke plant.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  22. #62
    Surely we have some ee's on here. Why has no one tried a large scale tesla coil like the one he envisioned? My grandfather was an ee (and a super brain) and twenty years ago he told me the future was in wireless electricity which would transmit through the atmosphere or earth or whatever and be captured by a box in your yard. Is anyone thinking like that these days?

    Are the energy lobbies so powerful that the thought of low to no cost electricity makes this type of venture impossible?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by msubrave View Post
    Grand Gulf pulls about 18,000 gpm from the Mississippi.
    A similar capacity CCGT plant would use more.

    Grand Gulf is 1401 MW. A similar sized CCGT using one through would use 560,000 GPM, and a Recirculating would use 21,000 GPM. Waste heat is waste heat. After you go through the steam turbine, you have to dump that heat. Doesn't matter what the source is (Nuke, coal, oil, or gas)

    Once-through cooling. In once-through cooling, water is withdrawn from a naturalwaterbody, passed through the tubes of a surface steam condenser and returned to thewaterbody at a higher temperature. This was formerly the common form of cooling atU.S. power plants and is currently in use at over 1200 seam-electric generating units.Withdrawal rates are usually 400 to 600 gallons per minute (gpm) per megawatt (MW)of steam-electric generating capacity, and the retuned water is typically 15F to 20F (8Cto 12C) warmer than the source water from which it was withdrawn. It is seldom, ifever, used for new power plants in the United States today.

    Recirculating wet cooling. Recirculating wet cooling is the most common choice ofcooling system for current plant construction in the United States. Recirculating wetcooling is similar to once-through cooling in that the steam is condensed in a watercooled, surface condenser; but different in that the heated cooling water is not returnedto the source waterbody. Instead it is pumped to a cooling component, typically amechanical draft cooling tower and then recirculated to the condenser. In the coolingtower a small faction (typically 1% to 2%) is evaporated in order to cool the remainder.Once the system is filled, the only water withdrawn from the environment is make-upwater sufficient to replace that lost to evaporation, blowdown, and drift. This amount istypically 10 to 15 gpm per MW of steam generating capacity


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Grove Sh*tter View Post
    Surely we have some ee's on here. Why has no one tried a large scale tesla coil like the one he envisioned? My grandfather was an ee (and a super brain) and twenty years ago he told me the future was in wireless electricity which would transmit through the atmosphere or earth or whatever and be captured by a box in your yard. Is anyone thinking like that these days?

    Are the energy lobbies so powerful that the thought of low to no cost electricity makes this type of venture impossible?
    Not an EE but I assume inverse square law kills you.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  25. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Grove Sh*tter View Post
    Surely we have some ee's on here. Why has no one tried a large scale tesla coil like the one he envisioned? My grandfather was an ee (and a super brain) and twenty years ago he told me the future was in wireless electricity which would transmit through the atmosphere or earth or whatever and be captured by a box in your yard. Is anyone thinking like that these days?

    Are the energy lobbies so powerful that the thought of low to no cost electricity makes this type of venture impossible?
    I read an article a while back about wireless electrical power research that was going on at MIT. It stated they have had some limited success.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    540
    Wind farms affect climate ... but not enough that youd notice.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  27. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by IBleedMaroonDawg View Post
    It actually was asked in a documentary on the problems with going all Green Energy, by Micheal Moore no less. For some reason it wasn't distributed nor can you find it easy on streaming services. Not much media coverage either except to defend the green ideals.

    Pretty sure it was because Gore or any Dem environmentalist could make any money on a speaking circuit pumping it, not to mention the current Green plan.



    ETA found it,

    Wait, did you actually watch that documentary? I hope you haven't because if you did and then just linked it as some sort of evidence/backing, you should be embarrassed.
    That was brutal.

    Footage from a mid90s music festival to show solar doesnt work? 17 that, its a quarter of a century ago. We hadnt even solved y2k when that footage was shot. Show current tech or make it obvious that quarter century old tech is being criticized.

    People speculating that the Vermont wind farm would be owned by a pipeline company? Well whats the actual facts here? The facts were known well before the movie was released.

    A Chevy Volt from over a decade ago? What is Michigan's power split right now? Maybe cite that instead of what it was over a decade ago.


    Etc etc etc. Ugh, that was truly terrible.
    And to be clear, that didn't answer my question.


    I dont understand the position some take where it seems like all energy must be 100% green or the tech is bad. Why cant it be OK for change to come incrementally?


    4 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  28. #68
    Bird killers and non- degradable waste they are. Blades when done get buried in landfills?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  29. #69
    As usual, the two sides are polarized. It's either green energy and eliminate all fossil fuels, or it's all fossil fuels and no green energy. The only sensible answer is to gradually transition from fossil fuels to green energy as we can truly develop the technology, realizing that we may never be able to completely eliminate fossil fuels. We also need to be investing in the new thorium nuclear reactors, which look very promising.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  30. #70
    Do you want a coal plant a mile from your house? I'd rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  31. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by T-TownDawgg View Post
    I wonder how much steel coking and diesel is used just to build, transport, and erect these things? Not to mention the 55 gal oil changes
    I've ridden under a lot of these things when I was out west. They leak fluid like an old engine from what I saw. Lots of dead birds. And to put some like those in the middle of the delta waterfowl flyway is dumb as anything I've heard as well. They only make energy when the conditions are conducive to do so. They kill a lot more than 3-9 birds per year a piece...and birds of prey are the most affected by them. Yeah let's slap those things up around one of the greatest comeback stories of the bald eagle, right here in the MS Delta.
    While we're at it, let's see if Biden has s willing to flush another $25-50Million into another "green" electric car company in Tunica County while he's at it. I LOVE driving by that eye sore on the way to Memphis.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  32. #72
    IBleedMaroonDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Leander, TX
    Posts
    12,775
    Twitter
    @stephenedavis
    I just put it up there for your viewing pleasure. I like wind and solar and plan on going solar this year.

    What I don't like is bankrupting our economy and making massive changes on a science that still needs work and development. I just don't believe we can ditch fossil fuels that quickly unless we can run on hydrogen or something cleaner on a large scale.

    Gimme an affordable electric car and I will buy it. I think my son in law's Tesla is great but I can't pay that for a car.

    Make solar affordable and easier to add it on a small scale when a home is built in areas that it would make sense.

    The thing is we should work green energy into our country gradually as the technology improves but it doesn't mean squat on the world scale if you don't get major carbon contributors to go along and I don't see China, India, or Russia running out to start a Green Deal Cold War with the US.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  33. #73
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,397
    This all day long. Green energy is the future and not the present. The present form is not efficient enough to replace completely for all our needs and should be used as a stepping stone and not the answer.








    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  34. #74
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,397
    Good ole GreenTech Automotive. Boy what a disaster that was.








    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  35. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    As usual, the two sides are polarized. It's either green energy and eliminate all fossil fuels, or it's all fossil fuels and no green energy. The only sensible answer is to gradually transition from fossil fuels to green energy as we can truly develop the technology, realizing that we may never be able to completely eliminate fossil fuels. We also need to be investing in the new thorium nuclear reactors, which look very promising.
    The truth is always in the middle, as you say. The transition is coming whether whether the uninformed like it or not.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  36. #76
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    As usual, the two sides are polarized. It's either green energy and eliminate all fossil fuels, or it's all fossil fuels and no green energy. The only sensible answer is to gradually transition from fossil fuels to green energy as we can truly develop the technology, realizing that we may never be able to completely eliminate fossil fuels. We also need to be investing in the new thorium nuclear reactors, which look very promising.
    This. Wed be fools to not be experimenting with all forms of energy available.


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  37. #77
    How much does the landowner get paid per unit ?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  38. #78
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,397
    Theyre getting paid more than what its worth as crop land.








    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  39. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    https://mississippitoday.org/2021/02...ed-for-tunica/

    100 turbines spread over 13000 acres will power 7000 homes at max capacity.
    And apparently solar farms will soon hit God's country too.


    The wind farms near me are neat to see. Corn, level b gravel, and turbines for miles.
    Attachment 19582
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...p-in-landfills


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  40. #80
    Finish building the border wall with the damn things.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SixPack Sponsors






Disclaimer: Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Mississippi State University or any other Mississippi State sports website. Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Scottish & Newcastle PLC d/b/a Bulldog Strong Ale. The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SixPackSpeak.com. The interactive nature of the SixPackSpeak.com Discussion Forums makes it impossible for SixPackSpeak.com to assume responsibility for any of the content, including photographs and/or images, posted by participants. The ideas, suggestions, thoughts, recommendations, opinions, comments, advice, and observations made by participants of the interactive Discussion Forums are not endorsed by SixPackSpeak.com.