innsertnamehere
Superstar
but is the Don Valley a windy place? likely not.
|
|
|
- Thread starter TOperson
- Start date
innsertnamehere
Superstar
That is because the program is receiving trickle funding from the EU and nobody else is spending a dime on it. if the US were to spend 1/1000th of it's military budget on it, we could have a commercial grade fusion reactor by 2020. At the rate things are currenty putting along, it will probably be closer to 2040 or 2050.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
innsertnamehere:
Not really - ITER is a 7 member (6 countries and EU) funded project at about what 16B+ Euro. Throwing large amounts of money might solve the technical problems faster - it wouldn't make building fusion reactors an easy and economically feasible solution (don't forget fusion reactors are by design far more complex than even nukes - we are talking about vacuum, cryogenic superconducting magnets and other exotic systems here). If you are going to mount crash programs like that, you might as well be massively expanding nuclear and renewables.
AoD
Not really - ITER is a 7 member (6 countries and EU) funded project at about what 16B+ Euro. Throwing large amounts of money might solve the technical problems faster - it wouldn't make building fusion reactors an easy and economically feasible solution (don't forget fusion reactors are by design far more complex than even nukes - we are talking about vacuum, cryogenic superconducting magnets and other exotic systems here). If you are going to mount crash programs like that, you might as well be massively expanding nuclear and renewables.
AoD
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
16 billion a year or 16 billion total fund? because if it is the latter it is trickle funding.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Total - but that's not the point - the point is that money isn't necessarily the solution to everything. Manhattan project made nuclear weapons (and by extension the application of nuclear power) possible by opening the door to a greater understanding of nuclear physics and engineering - it did not made nuclear power cheap. There are far less riskier paths to achieving sustainability than relying on uncertain magic bullets like fusion. Not to mention, the systems we are looking at uses D-T fusion, which is the lowest hanging fruit in terms of difficulty but raises a whole host of other issues (e.g. Tritium generation by neutron bombardment of lithium blanket/coolant, the latter is also a limited resource) which is also poorly researched. Other more promising avenues has issues of their own (e.g. Clean D-He3 fusion - He3 is extremely rare on earth - it requires extraterrestrial sources).
That's not to say I don't support spending on fusion research - I do - I just wouldn't rely on it as the solution for the next 50 years because it probably ain't it.
AoD
That's not to say I don't support spending on fusion research - I do - I just wouldn't rely on it as the solution for the next 50 years because it probably ain't it.
AoD
Last edited:
TFC
Active Member
Placing wind turbines along the DVP sounds familiar to an earlier proposal to line the 401 with turbines. What ever happened to that proposal...
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
There is a reason the turbines are placed in the areas like Leamington and Shelburne. They are windier! Toronto is actually one of the worst places in the province to put turbines according to the maps we have of wind power/resources (see the link below). Off-shore would be an option though.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Renewable/2ColumnSubPage/276957.html
Also, each new turbine is required to be set back 550 metres from houses (excluding participating households). It would be hard to find spots in the GTA with that kind of distance from housing, unless you maybe put them in business parks or off-shore.
Last edited:
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
That distance from housing is bull****. I know plenty of places where I'm sure the distance is shorter than that. Not that I think that's necessarily the end of the world, just that it doesn't seem to be strictly enforced.
My suggestion of the DVP was rather tongue-in-cheek. I anticipate it would be a cold day in hell before anything like that would even be proposed, too many voters nearby. The reaction of those living on either side would be a conniption.
My suggestion of the DVP was rather tongue-in-cheek. I anticipate it would be a cold day in hell before anything like that would even be proposed, too many voters nearby. The reaction of those living on either side would be a conniption.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
The MTO would have a fit if someone were to seriously bring this forward. "What if they were to spontaneously explode?"
In all seriousness, the best places for wind turbines in Ontario are on the shores of Lake Huron and Erie and in the Kingston/Belleville area.
In a complete deviation from the topic, my money is on Thorium to be up and running within 20 years provided the 4 year proof of concept test by Thor Energy in Norway (a nation incredibly reliant on fossil fuels for energy) is successful.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I think that video is not an example of a failure of the technology (wind turbine) but a failure in management of the environment. Wind turbines are very sensitive and there should not have been a tree that close to it. Granted there was a pretty strong wind blowing but the area around the turbine should have been clear.
TOperson
Active Member
Except that the people who live there don't want them.
I know I know - someone will scream "they're just NIMBYs!".
So when DO people get a say about what happens in their backyards?
Forgotten
Active Member
Fine. They can have gas plants and nuclear power plants instead.
TOperson
Active Member
False choice fallacy.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TO person:
Except that it isn't their backyard by a long shot. Just because someone owns property within visual distance of wind turbines don't make their complaints legitimate by default.
AoD
Except that it isn't their backyard by a long shot. Just because someone owns property within visual distance of wind turbines don't make their complaints legitimate by default.
AoD
TOperson
Active Member
Yikes. Really? You really made this comment?
Hardly any NIMBY issues involve anyone's actual backyards. The acronym/expression is never taken that literally. It's common knowledge that the "backyard" part in NIMBY refers generally to a person's neighbourhood/community/region. I'll bet it's even been used for national issues.
Why not? Plenty of Torontonians have plenty to say about how the city looks, its architecture, street furniture, parks, etc and their opinions are considered legitimate. No one ever says to them "it's not in your apartment, you only have to look at it, so shut up about it already". Why should it be any different for rural people?