New $1.4 billion NY Jets Stadium to be "Green"

This sounds like the ideal situation for Los Angeles to be in. We certainly have enough sunshine to generate solar power. Of course, we would have to get a football team first. Maybe someone can convince the Dodgers to go solar.

Jeff

 

awesome

 

great photo/image!

and i can't help but wonder what the effects of those fireworks will be on air quality in the neighborhood...

 

That is pretty cool!!!

 

All such projects are extrordinarily green...The massive transfer of green form the tax payer to the team owner. ukeright: :guns:

 

:lolup: As someone who lives in Seattle, and saw how the Seahawks Stadium was financed from public coffers... You got a point there.

 

In my humble opinion such projects should be voted on in the following way.

1) Polls are open as long as needed.

2) The voter can vote as many time as they wish.

3) The voter can only vote yes.

4) Each vote costs the voter $5.00.

When they have cost / $5.00 votes then they can start the project. If there is a cost overrun repeat steps 1-4.

 

it still amazes me that the level of resistance to wide spread implementation of wind power is still so strong. here is a perfect example of renewable energy that will help ease the strain on hydrocarbon fuel usage.

Electrical generation from wind turbines has improved several fold in just the past 10 years. it is now a very viable option for many many areas. Better fan technology has enabled us to get usable power from much lower wind speeds.

Many people complain that they are ugly. (guess these people would rather see a coal-fired plant turning the air black)

and loud. (not any more. as mentioned above, new fan designs get better torque from less wind therefore generating electricity without the need to spin at airplane take off speeds)

I have often wondered why there were not giant wind farms out in the unpopulated areas of the West. Places in the Dakotas, and Montana would be ideal. granted, any power source should be somewhat close to the people using the power, but we have the technology to get some power a very long way. And yes that involves a hugh loss of power when transporting it that far, but the power would be free after the cost of the wind turbines are recovered. If the government was serious about conservation and the economy then put thousands of people to work to build these things and subsidize it. The government already subsidizes many programs some of which give questionable benefit to the nation if any at all.

But lets face it, with multi-Billion dollar profit margins to protect, the Oil companies control this country and will continue to do so for many years to come.

 

I know that in the East Bay of the SF Bay area, between Oakland/Berkeley and Pleasanton, there's a windfarm. Strangely, they usually didn't seem to be going when I drove past.

The only problem I can think of with wind turbines is: how many people are needed to maintain it? As in, how many guys are needed to climb to the top of each one and oil the parts? And who will climb up and shut them down in the event of a major storm, where the wind speeds might destroy the generators?

Otherwise, this makes too much sense to NOT do. We just need a President who's not an oil man.

 

And a presidential candidate (Kerry) who will actually support the creation of a wind farm rather than "I'm not opposed" stance he's taking on the proposed Nantucket Sound farm.

 

i was reading about a wind farm that i thought was in your area that needed very little maintainence. these generators were controlled by computers and turned in response to wind direction for maximum output. Each windmill had its own IP address where it could report back to a central monitoring station that tracked output, wind speed, etc in an effort to detect mechanical problems in advance.

The windmill itself was made with sealed bearings that required maintainence on a 10 year interval and was designed to last about 150 years. They were designed to operate at speeds ranging from 11 knots up to 80 (i think, dont remember but it was a lot) knots.

 

Resistance to wind power here in North Dakota comes from the coal industry. Coal owns the transmission lines here, and will not allow wind power onto the lines. Coal also owns the state legislature, so is able to block any law that would force them to accept wind power.

However, there's BIG money to be made here for anyone with the capital to invest. A professor at UND has calculated that we have enough wind to support a dedicated transmission line all the way to Chicago, independent of the coal-owned lines. He's calculated that this is economically viable today, with today's technology. It's just a question of finding the capital.

As a postscript, electricity produced from coal is cheap only because Richard Nixon gave the coal industry permission to dump unlimited quantities of filth into the air we breathe for the life of the then-current generating plants. Those plants are now dying, but Bush is now giving the coal industry permission to re-build them and continue poisoning our air and water. If the coal industry was required to clean up its act, and pay its true cost of operation, renewables would be so competitive that economics alone would drive the switch from coal to wind and solar. Which is precisely why coal is fighting so hard and so dirty (pun intended!) to block wind power in North Dakota.