[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by richnfamous

I can assure you that Denmark has almost no hydroelectric power at all. Sweden and Norway have plenty - on the other hand, neither Sweden nor Norway uses wind power much.

Essentially all Danish wind power is exported to Norway and Sweden. These countries dynamically balance the interconnected grid using their extensive hydroelectric generating capacity that can be adjusted rapidly to compensate for the highly variable input from Danish wind. The variance in the Danish wind supply is only a problem for Denmark because wind energy represents a significant proportion of the total grid supply—16%. Any country wanting to rival the Danish wind model will have to either develop a grid balancing system or develop energy sinks within the grid or both. http://www.thomastelford.com/journal...ance%20data%22

Originally Posted by richnfamous

I don't buy the nuclear argument. The embedded energy in a nuclear power plant is huge and there's still no solution to the waste problem - neither high-grade or low-grade. Like coal, just because a lot of the pollution is invisible, people can be misled into thinking it's clean, when it's not.

I am not sure what you mean by embedded energy and where the information is on how huge it is.(Link please?) There are long and short term storage facilities in the U.S. for storage of nuclear waste. In fact the U.S. imports waste from around the world for storage in our facilities. DOE Environmental Management (EM) Waste and Materials Disposition Information
As for the invisible pollution you speak of, the EPA says that the CO2 we exhale out of our lungs is pollution so you will have to be specific about your claim. Where is the data stating that the operation of these new reactors show emitted levels of radiation to the environment? Are these levels higher than what we already experience in our daily life?

Originally Posted by richnfamous

The long and the short of it is this: we're going to have to reduce our energy use across the board by a substantial amount - but don't worry, reducing your standard of living can actually improve your quality of life.

I would love to hear your theory about how the lack of Energy to cook food, heat our homes in winter and refrigerate food, will improve our quality of life.

Originally Posted by richnfamous

As for wind farms being bad for birds: seems to me to be just another 'nimby' argument, and the people who oppose renewable energy development will probably be the first to start shouting 'why didn't we do more, earlier' when energy supplies reach their, on current projections inevitable, tipping point. Birds aren't stupid. They'll learn to live with wind farms just as they've learned to live with shotguns. If in doubt, just watch a wood pigeon in an area where people shoot at them.

I agree about the birds and would like to see some actual data on what and how many birds are actually being killed by windmills. Too often we are quick to believe any assertion that spews out of someone’s pie-hole without some type of proof being provided. Geese migrate over my property every year and they never remember that I am there so they fall. I imagine if I was 100 meters tall with 3 really long arms rotating, they would turn away to miss me. Maybe some extremely unintelligent ones would bang into me, but they would also be likely to fly in front of a truck or into a shop window.
Where can I find the scientific report on the ‘Current projections on the inevitable energy tipping point’? I would be interested in quantifying that statement back to some real measurements.