Comments
Technical-Role-4346 t1_j3r6cox wrote
Yeah reactors using 1960’s technology were very expensive and took a long time to build. Currently small modular reactors are being built in several countries. Many designs shut down automatically when cooling is lost. China and India are leading the way.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qqksz wrote
Incorrect. In 2021 they had a median build time of 88 months across the globe or just over 7 years. Japan built one in 39 months and Germany is currently looking to beat that record.
Temponautics t1_j3u2xgt wrote
What nuclear reactors is Germany building? I call BS.
drdanagram OP t1_j3rrhr7 wrote
We harness the environment at a VERY low cost with oil. The future needs a better answer than it's too expensive.
Anstigmat t1_j3rubjx wrote
Yep, wind and solar.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3tb5o5 wrote
Wind and solar generate a ton of unable waste product
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5egy wrote
Solar and wind waste can be recycled. U-isotopes have half lives exceeding the age of our planet.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3u631q wrote
Is that why we're burying all the solar and wind energy waste? To recycle it?
Nuclear fuel rods can be 96% recycled like they do in France
IamSauerKraut t1_j3ub339 wrote
>Is that why we're burying all the solar and wind energy waste?
gratuitous
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qdmlv wrote
2 plants with 2 reactors each can nearly power the entire state. A third plant with 2 reactors would provide plenty of extra power for the state to grow into. Would take up and destroy far less land than wind, solar and hydro. Generates the least amount of waste product and lasts so much longer than any other reasonable source.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qe25x wrote
Extra reactors could also be used to sell energy to NH and MA who push for the corridor.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5690 wrote
Maine didnt want a power line but you think it will go for nukes?
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3vqg5g wrote
There is a "catastrophic risk" potential if containment fails,[2] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment. The most long-lived radioactive wastes, including spent nuclear fuel, must be contained and isolated for a long period of time. However, spent nuclear fuel can sometimes be reused, reducing the amount of waste. Emission of radioactivity from a nuclear plant is controlled by regulations. Abnormal operation may result in release of radioactive material on scales ranging from minor to severe, although these scenarios are very rare.[3] In normal operation, nuclear power plants release less radioactive material than coal power plants whose fly ash contains significant amounts of thorium, uranium and their daughter nuclides.[4]
A large nuclear power plant may reject waste heat to a natural body of water; this can result in undesirable increase of the water temperature with adverse effect on aquatic life. Alternatives include cooling towers.[5] As most commercial nuclear power plants are incapable of online refueling and need periodic shutdowns to exchange spent fuel elements for fresh fuel, many operators schedule this unavoidable downtime for the peak of summer when rivers tend to run lower and the issue of waste heat potentially harming the fluvial environment is most acute.[6] This is especially pronounced in France, which produces some 70% of electricity with nuclear power plants and where electric home heating is widespread. However, in regions with high heating, ventilation, and air conditioning power use, the summer season, rather than imposing lower power demands, may be the peak season of electricity demand, complicating scheduled summer shutdowns
The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant – a plant that cools by direct use of ocean water, not requiring a cooling tower Mining of uranium ore can disrupt the environment around the mine. However with modern in-situ leaching technology this impact can be reduced compared to "classical" underground or open-pit mining. Disposal of spent nuclear fuel is controversial, with many proposed long-term storage schemes under intense review and criticism. Nuclear reprocessing and breeder reactors which can decrease the need for storage of spent fuel in a deep geological repository have faced economic and political hurdles but are in some use in Russia, India, China, Japan and France, which are among the countries with the highest nuclear energy production outside the United States. However, the U.S. has not undertaken significant efforts towards either reprocessing or breeder reactors since the 1970s instead relying on the once through fuel cycle. Diversion of fresh- or low-burnup spent fuel to weapons production presents a risk of nuclear proliferation, however all nuclear weapons states derived the material for their first nuclear weapon from (non-power) research reactors or dedicated "production reactors" and/or uranium enrichment. Finally, some parts the structure of the reactor itself becomes radioactive through neutron activation and will require decades of storage before it can be economically dismantled and in turn disposed of as waste. Measures like reducing the cobalt content in steel to decrease the amount of cobalt-60 produced by neutron capture can reduce the amount of radioactive material produced and the radiotoxicity that originates from this material.[7] However, part of the issue is not radiological but regulatory as most countries assume any given object that originates from the "hot" (radioactive) area of a nuclear power plant or a facility in the nuclear fuel cycle is ipso facto radioactive, even if no contamination or neutron irradiation induced radioactivity is detectable.
The spent nuclear fuel from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 nuclear fission contains a wide variety of carcinogenic radionuclide isotopes such as strontium-90, iodine-131, and caesium-137.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3qmi0a wrote
Go ahead and start up a plant man. We’re waiting!
Waste-Bobcat9849 t1_j3qzhzc wrote
How’s that Nuclear Waste Policy Act compliance coming along?
thedanman114 t1_j4gwryr wrote
Thorium reactors eat the waste AND re-enrich it as a byproduct. France has been doing it for years.
Waste-Bobcat9849 t1_j4hoca6 wrote
Name one commercial Thorium reactor.
mcot2222 t1_j3rflum wrote
We are so far behind on offshore wind it is pathetic. The potential in the gulf of Maine is insane. The latest turbines are put way offshore and would not be visible or interfere with fishing despite those claims. The latest GE turbines are 12 MW+ and can power around 15,000 households per year with a single turbine. You don’t need many of these to power our entire state or all of new england.
06_tundra_4x4 t1_j3u2tnh wrote
“I don’t like the facts”. “They make me angry”. Is what this individual meant to say.
PBJIsGood1 t1_j3ubz7b wrote
I thought I read somewhere that turbines off shore helps slow down wind gusts for the mainland. Which would help offset storm damage. Kind of a win win.
mcot2222 t1_j3wc75n wrote
Not really at the scale we are talking for Maine. The impact is negligible.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3q3fwb wrote
Too much misinformation out there about nuclear. People spread fear with the incidents done in the former Soviet Union and Japan. Don't care to actually educate themselves on how poorly handled and unrealistic those scenarios are for here in the US.
Warm_Aspect_4079 t1_j3q8ysu wrote
>how poorly handled and unrealistic those scenarios are for here in the US
3 Mile Island? Took 14 years to clean up at a cost of a billion dollars.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3q9faz wrote
A poorly designed plant with even more poorly trained staff over 40 years ago. Technology has vastly improved since the 70s and the plant continued to function after the incident and closed in 2019.
Many lessons have been learned and policy and regulations have very much involved to a point that another event like that is extremely improbable.
cepheus42 t1_j3qam8n wrote
> A poorly designed plant with even more poorly trained staff over 40 years ago.
Yet you said "it can't happen here." When we pointed out it DID happen here, you suddenly changed your tune and now want to say "well, it won't happen again."
Spoiler alert: it WILL happen again.
You see, the problem with nuclear is not "can we do it safely?" Because the answer to that is "sure." The problem needs to be framed as "WILL we do it safely?" And as long as America is bought and paid for by corporate interests, that answer will always be FUCK NO, because they will do everything they can to shave corners and cut costs, and safety is always one of the first things they renege on. Either we have to hold their feet to the fire to ensure they meet all safety requirements, in which case no corporation will ever bother to build another nuclear power plant in this nation because it won't be profitable enough, or we have to let them do it "their way," which will be a fucking shit show for communities where these things are built.
Nuclear came, and it went. Move on. You want all the "beauty" of nuclear with none of the drawbacks? Go geothermal. We have enough untapped geothermal energy to supply the entire world for centuries, and we're not investing in it at all.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qcbs5 wrote
It will not happen again and even that scenario was fairly minor all things considered. Expensive mistake but preventable and studies show it had very little effect on the people and land.
We have 54 plants, 92 reactors currently operating in the US that have proven their safety.
Geothermal is far too expensive and limited in use. Has to be placed in very specific locations and is only really feasible in the west.
Nuclear is extremely efficient especially calculating in waste material and the amount of space needed.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5trd wrote
>It will not happen again and even that scenario was fairly minor all things considered.
What a wet noodle of a response. Let's add a few more qualifiers to your statement and pretty soon nuclear waste will be safe to put into the cereal bowl.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3ur78r wrote
What makes you think that industry can be trusted to handle nuclear waste safely when it has demonstrated without fail that it will choose the cheapest option and hide the potential harm resulting from shortcuts and failures?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3urp3y wrote
It's not the fault of the industry but actually the politics around it. Most 1st world countries greatly utilize nuclear and recycle it into a secondary fuel.
Temponautics t1_j3u3sbo wrote
It's all a matter of probabilities. Even if there is only a 0.0001% chance for any nuclear waste facility to fail in a given month, ... we are talking about thousands of months of waste storage. There simply is no comparison between the threat of nuclear waste versus the environmental threat from a wind turbine or solar panel. This debate is done and dusted. Find a county where people vote in their majority for having a nuclear power plant built vs combined wind and solar. Good luck with that.
There is a reason nuclear energy fails in public polling time and again. It is not because people are uninformed. It is because people are not stupid enough to fall for this BS again.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5ofs wrote
>another event like that is extremely improbable.
Over-extended hyperbole not rooted in fact, just wishful thinking.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5ks1 wrote
TMI is not cleaned up. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j3ta26a wrote
Lol exhibit A of outdated knowledge.
eigenstien t1_j3t9l8k wrote
So, you think a government won’t cut corners? A business won’t cut corners? A major ecological event won’t happen? Go live in Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3tamnb wrote
You don't comprehend how these events happened. We have 93 reactors running in the US now that are doing just fine
eigenstien t1_j3tr6cg wrote
Nope. Not buyin it for one second.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3u1jev wrote
What?
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5xmu wrote
How many reactors shut down because things are/were not "running fine"?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3u6tga wrote
How many of the reactors shutting down were built in the 60s and 70s? Technology has advanced a little bit since then
IamSauerKraut t1_j3ubbz3 wrote
Did we not go thru all these questions on another thread just a few weeks ago? Why are you repeating the same bullshit here?
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5imf wrote
>People spread fear
With good cause.
thedanman114 t1_j4gwyu6 wrote
Ignorance?
IamSauerKraut t1_j4gylpn wrote
"Ignorance" is contrary to "good cause."
thedanman114 t1_j4h2d93 wrote
How so? Do you know the systemic differences between gen 3 American reactors and old Soviet reactor? Everything about the two is completely different.
Or the differences between gen 3 and gen 4/5 or thorium reactors?
If not, you're ignorant. Which is fine! But using that ignorance to spread fear is wrong.
IamSauerKraut t1_j4h6c25 wrote
Why do I need to know the difference between reactors? Do they produce a different type of waste? Are they any less subject to human error, subterfuge or indifference?
thedanman114 t1_j4h7e4d wrote
Actually, yes to all of those questions.
IamSauerKraut t1_j4hcln1 wrote
What different type of waste do the reactors produce? Anything with a half-life of less than 700,000 years?
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3uqu7i wrote
Seriously. That would be like a pandemic happening here, or an insurrection. That only happens in the third world.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3us376 wrote
Daft comparisons.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3vqqsb wrote
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3vrj4y wrote
Oh yes so many incidents that didn't cause a whole lot of damage.
How about those lithium and cobalt mines for solar panels? Discarded solar panels leeching toxins into the ground? The physical massive amount of space wind and solar waste takes up?
Nothing is perfect. Nuclear has less issues then the other options
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3ypwif wrote
I’m not surprised that evidence that refutes your claim(nuclear accidents couldn’t happen here) isn’t enough to convince you. You will just keep screaming into the void like a cultist.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3yuxg6 wrote
These are hardly nuclear accidents. Some of the examples are incidents that can happen anywhere else like the dropping of heavy equipment on someone is listed. Just happened to happen at a plant. I consider a "nuclear" accident to be radiation effecting people or wildlife from the plant
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j40zjh2 wrote
Right because if they were nuclear accidents, that would make you wrong. So forget the fact that they were nuclear accidents. Forget about three mile island. In the interest of you being correct, it’s clear that the facts don’t matter.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j430v0n wrote
There's already a long discussion on 3 mile.
To sum it up, 0 dead, no notable environmental effect.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j432vv2 wrote
So, supposing that’s true, do you believe that it’s outside the realm of possibility that such an event would cause substantial harm to the environment or people?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43auc1 wrote
A repeat incident is astronomically low. That plant was built over 50 years ago, technology has advanced
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43b4tj wrote
That doesn’t answer the question. Are you a statistician and nuclear physicist and engineer? How else could you be so sure about that?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43dzxg wrote
The hundreds of reactors being used around the world without issue. The rest of the world utilizes them quite a bit
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43hgoa wrote
I’m not sure why you would argue with people online when you have nothing to back up your claims.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43p67q wrote
Because you're an adult and I'm giving you the points you can look up if you choose.
France generates 70% of its electricity via nuclear. Nuclear provides 10% of the worlds power. Nuclear is reported the second largest source of low carbon power in the world. There are 440 active reactors in the world. China is pumping them out like crazy, currently have 5 in construction. In the US nuclear is generating almost 20% of our grid as is. Finland is 33% nuclear energy production. Sweden is 30%, people in the US like to compare to nordic countries often.
It's very safe. Very efficient. Very good for the environment
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4432ew wrote
You’re forgetting how incompetent and corrupt Americans are. You sound like Donald Trump promoting coal. It’s not safe, it requires extremely rare and dangerous materials to produce. If society collapses the plants become an immediate problem. It has been a problem in Ukraine for about a year now. Compare that to wind and solar arrays which pose no risk to humanity and the environment. Good thing you have absolutely no decision making power on this.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j44l32i wrote
Wind and solar have no risk??? Also made with toxic chemicals that leech into the environment. Killing far more wildlife than nuclear and taking up far more landfill space. Doubled demand on lithium alongside EV cars. Ever see what a lithium mine looks like? We're already looking at 720 tons of unrecyclable wind trash, the solar panel craze is looking double maybe even triple electronics trash. That stuff isn't environmentally friendly lol
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45um70 wrote
Find me one instance if people getting killed by a horrific wind and solar accident that made the surrounding area uninhabitable. Rhetorically, since you’re a fucking idiot and that doesn’t exist. Or maybe wind and solar bombs? No referring to comic books though.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xdld wrote
-
You're referring to events that will never happen in the US.
-
The point of solar and wind is to be good for the environment, which it isn't.
-
People die in the mines for the materials, wind turbines kill over 500k birds a year, destroys environment by finding space to discard the waste.
-
Grow up with the name calling kid. Nuclear is the safest energy source we have available
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xt0e wrote
You are so dense, there’s no point in engaging in civil debate.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xxji wrote
It is the other way around. You have zero comprehension on the benefits of nuclear above all other options. You'd rather fill landfills with more toxic trash
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45y1vc wrote
Try reading boy
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45y0c9 wrote
No u!
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45vzav wrote
A screening program a year later in 2012 found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands.[215] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole.
No problem there right? So what if kids get cancer! It’s totally safe! That could never happen here! Certainly not in a country where even the government tried to cover up the polluted water in Flint, Michigan.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45wt3w wrote
It's almost like Fukushima isn't relevant. How many 9.0 magnitude earthquakes followed by 40m tall waves happen in the US?
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xxwn wrote
Sure, let’s get a nuclear plant going in Florida. We never have weather events here. You are willfully ignoring so much evidence contrary to your views, it’s kind of sad.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45y3nm wrote
So we don't put one in southern Florida? It's not a difficult concept. There are plenty of places in the US that are risk free
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45ym3y wrote
“Risk free” Let’s be sure to consult Super-Lychee8852 on the risks to nuclear power generation here. This guys knows what’s up.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45ytgv wrote
Cope
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4600w1 wrote
The original argument here was that you try to justify your claim that nuclear generation is ideal by saying that nuclear accidents don’t happen. That’s false. You won’t convince anybody who doesn’t already share your view by making claims that can be so easily verified as false. Then when you’re presented with a fairly long and comprehensive list of accidents, you say they’re not accidents. Well, according to the scientific community they are accidents. I don’t think your determination carries more weight. In short, people don’t want nuclear power because of the risk, however remote the possibility of a serious accident might be. You won’t be convincing anybody otherwise.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4605tk wrote
Good day to you.
WalkerBRiley t1_j3rfwvv wrote
Making a subjective statement and pretending it's fact.
drdanagram OP t1_j3rmmjf wrote
Safe is objectively true. Ugly is subjective I suppose, but I used to look at green mountains, now I look at windmills.
Is that what you prefer personally?
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j3t9zj9 wrote
I don't find windmills all that bothersome.
I do agree nuclear is a good choice, though.
acister t1_j3q5siz wrote
Yes yes, it won't happen here. It's not like any other infrastructure is crumbling. That only happens in other countries. We don't have undrinkable water in cities, bridges collapsing, dams on their way out, questionable healthcare, an opioid epidemic, horrible public transportation that requires everyone to fucking drive, a housing crisis, but really bad stuff only happens in other places.. Right I can go on and on. Let's go backwards because it's beautiful and not ugly. I've read about the nuclear option by people touting as the right solution (and "green") but this is short sighted.
New_Sun6390 t1_j3qr8iy wrote
Nuclear is safe, except for that pesky problem of disposing of spent fuel rods with a half-life of 10,000 years. Maine had been there and done that. We JUST finished paying for Maine Yankee decommissioning.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qsxfk wrote
Modern plant designs have storage on site that can hold quite a bit and we're discovering methods of recycling the waste product. France for example is recycling 96% of their fuel rods into a slightly less efficient fuel to be used in smaller output plants.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u66p1 wrote
>we're discovering methods of recycling the waste product
Patently false.
JDretta t1_j3rvtw3 wrote
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “just finished paying for decommissioning”?
New_Sun6390 t1_j3tweqq wrote
Decommissioning was completed in 2005 but the costs were in utility rates years beyond that. They were deferred to limit sticker shock on customer electric bills.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u64vn wrote
>Nuclear is safe, except for that pesky problem of disposing of spent fuel rods with a half-life of 10,000 years.
Half lives of Uranium isotopes run into the 100's of 1000's of years. Most common used in nukes is 700,000 years. Next common is about 5 billion years.
jasonhitsthings t1_j3qzbfp wrote
Been there... Done that..
bleahdeebleah t1_j3sk4kd wrote
Nuclear, right now, is not cost competitive. If you want it to be so, work towards a carbon tax.
Edit: A short article
eigenstien t1_j3t97bk wrote
It’s NOT safe.
Dbgb4 t1_j3qgy6z wrote
Never, the NIMBY crowd would not allow. I agree with you on solar and wind, not attractive to my eyes.
[deleted] t1_j3qpd9d wrote
[deleted]
Smitch250 t1_j3u2woo wrote
It’ll never happen in my lifetime I can guarantee that
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u53gj wrote
Maine Yankee shut down because it was no longer safe to operate.
But we've already hashed and rehashed this issue.
metalandmeeples t1_j3y3sjl wrote
There are probably some unpopulated areas of Western Maine that would be ripe for a massive nuclear plant. They would be far enough removed from any population centers, unlike Maine Yankee, but the distribution will need to be figured out.
BellaPow t1_j3qpkww wrote
and who will be operating this disaster-in-waiting?
drdanagram OP t1_j3rsb15 wrote
Number of deaths in the USA in 70 years: 0
Number of deaths EVERY YEAR globally from oil: 3,000,000
You have to pick your disasters, right?
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u6cfn wrote
>Number of deaths in the USA in 70 years: 0
The sloppiness of this statement shows the sloppiness in the advocacy for nukes.
[deleted] t1_j3rus39 wrote
[deleted]
eigenstien t1_j3t9yiq wrote
Um, how convenient that you’re only counting the deaths in the US.
drdanagram OP t1_j3twsec wrote
Maine Yankee was built when it was legal to sell Ford Pintos from the factory, and still no losses.
They've made tremendous strides in security since then. I don't see the same threat you do.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u6h9f wrote
Well, it's nice that there is so little threat from where Maine Yankee used to be that all that land is now totally usable and open to the public.
oh.
eigenstien t1_j3ufa1s wrote
Try that in Chernobyl. For how many hundreds or thousands of years? How many Chernobyls can we afford, and all the lives lost?
IamSauerKraut t1_j3upl5j wrote
The sarcasm in my post should be very evident.
DrMcMeow t1_j3urzmu wrote
open to the public year round.
The Eaton Farm & The Back River Trail are adjacent to Chewonki Neck to the east. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company donated the 200-acre Eaton Farm to Chewonki in 2005 as part of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission settlement agreement. Chewonki agreed to create a nature preserve, maintain public access, foster stewardship of the estuarine environment, and provide a forum for dialogue on environmental policy issues. The Back River Trail at Eaton Farm got underway in 2005 – with 4.5 miles of trail opened to the public in 2006. This leg is the first in a long-range plan for a trail from Chewonki Neck to the Town of Wiscasset. When completed, the trail will comprise the longest coastal hiking trail outside of Acadia National Park. Day use only, no camping. Hunting is permitted.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3w59v6 wrote
Yah, well there ya have it.
An organization that has run a kids' camp for 100 years on an adjacent peninsula was given 200 acres of the 800 on which Maine Yankee operated. I remember the issue with the ospreys, too. And I remember the org shut public access, including to the mudflats, after a break-in at the school.
But that leaves 600 acres, on which is stored all that spent nuclear fuel.
But, as the Rutland newspaper pointed out years ago:
"New England is home to three decommissioned nuclear power plants. Each stores its nuclear waste on site, and, in Maine, the cost of that storage is continually passed on to ratepayers via their monthly electrical bills. Hudson, a graduate of the University of Vermont with a strong background in working with green groups, said his view on nuclear power has shifted a bit in recent years, noting that he now sees it as having some role in our energy future. But the lack of a solution for the highly radioactive waste gives him pause. His ideal neighbor is not a collection of radioactive canisters. Its foolish to believe that this is clean energy, he said. The outcome of nuclear power is waste that wont be safe for long after Im gone. There simply needs to be a national solution to the waste issue."
eigenstien t1_j3ufczd wrote
Whataboutism ain’t flying here.
Icarusfactor t1_j3uw1nm wrote
Who is sponsoring this clown?
Anstigmat t1_j3qnx04 wrote
K cool. They take decade(s) to build and cost excess of a billion dollars. Call me crazy but harnessing the environment at relatively low cost for electricity seems like a good idea even if it offends your fragile eyes.