If you build it at the edge, you have a gear -- the generator and the turbine are not sharing an axle. Gears are perfectly acceptable, they just have the drawbacks I mentioned.
Fixing democracy is different from making polluters pay for the damage they do. They are two separate causes. We should not delay one just because the other one is not done yet.
Vertical axis wind turbines are even slower turning than horizontal. They are also prone to breaking and not commercially viable.
But feel free to invest your money in them if you believe they are the future. Wind turbines are an extremely competitive industry where the free market seems to be working well (there are a few patent threats, but nothing really bad yet).
It is perfectly OK for society to decide what the compensation should be used for. If that turns out to be lower taxes, then that is fine too. The will of the people and all that.
If load following nuclear is such a success, why does every country around France get free power at night from them?
Even though you can do load following with nuclear, it is an entirely stupid thing to do, because nuclear fuel is approximately free once you have built the power plant. There is no reason to save it. By the same token wind and solar can do load following, because wind turbines have brakes and solar automatically stops outputting power if there is no load.
In some areas you can pretty much set your clock by the wind changing. Like at the north end at the Garda Lake in Italy.
I only checked the wind power section, but that one at least is getting a bit outdated. Denmark has increased the power generated by wind turbines by 2/3rds since 2006, yet the installed capacity only increased by 1/3rd. It is also wrong in the section about Denmark exporting wind power at a low price and then reimporting it at a higher cost when the wind is low. In fact Denmark gets paid a higher price for the exported wind power than it pays for the imported hydro power, because wind power is primarily produced in winter when energy demand is high in the Nordic countries and the hydro power stations are running low. Wind power has a stabilizing effect on the Nordic power system. Without it, Norway and Sweden would need to build power stations for the winter which would sit idle for most of the year.
The problem with induction generators is that they like quick rotations to get decent efficiency and power-to-weight ratio. Angular speed of wind turbines tend to decrease with size, and wind turbines are only getting larger. That means gears are necessary with induction generators, preferably nice, heavy, fragile multi-stage gearboxes.
In contrast, if you have high temperature steam available, you can spin a turbine at practically any speed you want. Thousands of RPM are not a problem.
The wind industry does have induction-based generators available, and it would not be the end of the industry if rare earths became unavailable. It would force quite a shift though, with companies heavily focused on gear technology gaining an advantage and other companies likely going bankrupt.
Why should the USPS be funded that way, and not the entire budget?
And how often do you hear of a power plant , regardless of its fuel , going completely unplanned offline?
It happens daily.
You can drive anything you want, as long as you compensate society for the harm it causes. Right now vehicles are not paying fairly for the damage they do, even in areas with more sensible taxes on fuel. I.e. right now I am paying for your choice of car, and that makes me unhappy.
As to Al Gore mentioned later, we live in a capitalistic society. That means that rich people get to do more damage to the environment and consume more resources. If you want to get away from capitalism, by all means fight for that, but fair resource allocation and mitigation of environmental damage are two distinct causes.
How many buildings did Gandhi blow up?
Not nearly as many as Reagan did.
Who's claiming Reagan is "this generation's Gandhi"?
Gandhi was known for his non-violence. Mandela was known for his violence, just like George Washington, Obama and Churchill. Now that violence may have been justified, but Mandella was far closer to those men than he was to Gandhi. Hell Gerry Adams is closer to a "this generation's Gandhi" than Mandela.
(P.S. for anyone currently under the age of 30 Communism and apartheid both fell before they were teenagers. "This generation" is an interesting word.)
You're making the assumption that violence from someone you agree with is good whereas violence from someone you disagree with is bad.
No, you're making the assumption that there's no difference between "good violence" and "no violence". I have no problem with Mandela's tactics, but he's no Gandhi.
What about all the founding fathers of the US who burned down a lot of buildings and tortured or killed a lot of British supporters? Ie "tar and feathering" which we are taught about in grade school was not just some mild public humiliation but a form of torture that could sometimes cause death. Were those people brave patriots fighting for freedom or terrorists using fear tactics?
Terrorists (as in they employed terrorist tactics to get their own way) that rose up in arms against their (ridiculous) government. For profit. I don't think anyone would say Washington was that generation's Gandhi, nor was George 3rd.
Happened over two billion years ago and we're just hearing about it now!? Typical.
Thank you, the post I was looking for
Because it's "stuff that matters."
95 year old man dies after long uneventful retirement