Western Railroad Discussion > Wings and nacells

Photo 1. Southbound, Colorado Springs, CO.
Photo 2.  South of Mesa Rd.


Gus

---

---

More like Blades and Nacells. I was expecting some UP leaders.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

THey are still polluting our landscapes with these blasted things??    :(

Man, those things are LARGE when they are on the ground!!!

Frank30

P, what would you rather have, coal smoke and yellow sky? If so, head to China



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/15 12:39 by SP4360.

I'd rather have nuclear, any day.  Sooner or later you know it's coming.  Might make night photography easier after everything starts glowing.

Ed

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P, what would you rather have, coal smoke and
> yellow sky? If so, head to China

Try again ... there is no smoky yellow skies except in your imagination .... 

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P, what would you rather have, coal smoke and
> yellow sky? If so, head to China

Well we're importing their wind turbines...

Wind power is a complete joke. It is highly unreliable and tends to be unavailable (due to calm winds) when power is needed the most (very hot and very cold periods). 

But at least it makes a lot of money for the people who build them, thanks to our ever generous taxpayers.  Just think of what all that money could do for Amtrak...

kansas1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wind power is a complete joke. It is highly
> unreliable and tends to be unavailable (due to
> calm winds) when power is needed the most (very
> hot and very cold periods). 

We have a coal power plant near the Co/WY border that pollutes less than any natural gas powered power plant.

The answer is a balance of nuclear, natural gas and coal for base load generation with gas turbines, pumped storage and renewables for peaking power.  Whatever mix is the most economicaly viable WITHOUT taxpayer subsidies.

Old Bob out in Lost Wages 

Chuchubobnv:
Coal will help the railroads bottom line, but the CO2 & mercury from the stacks are a serious problem. And those gov't subsidies that you are gripping about are "incentives" to bring more manufactures (and Jobs) into the power generating market. I just finished watching a PBS series entitled "Uranium; tickling the Dragon", which in the last minutes mentioned a molten fluoride salt cooled reactor that would use up to 95% of the energy available in U 235 and produce much less nuclear waste. But it it 10 years out at best.

William Jeffers, P.E.
San Dimas, CA

Better start making candles and that peddle powered generator from coconut shells. Do you think the energy companiues are going to build, add and replace generating stations without subsides? Not going to happen. You will pay and pay dearly for the upgrades in the form of fees and taxes. 

chuchubobnv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The answer is a balance of nuclear, natural
> gas and coal for base load generation with gas
> turbines, pumped storage and renewables for
> peaking power.  Whatever mix is the most
> economicaly viable WITHOUT taxpayer subsidies.
>
> Old Bob out in Lost Wages