I wish my alma mater was as progressive as Wash U. At least get rid of bottled water, for pete's sake.

I'm sorry, I think this is completely ridiculous. wind turbines on the tops of all buildings in the future? cities will be so attractive... why don't they put the tubines on top of Brookings Hall then? I'm sure they wouldn't do that though... total joke... how about more nuclear power?

JCity wrote:I'm sorry, I think this is completely ridiculous. wind turbines on the tops of all buildings in the future? cities will be so attractive... why don't they put the tubines on top of Brookings Hall then? I'm sure they wouldn't do that though... total joke... how about more nuclear power?

I also would prefer something different....solar panels would be cool, but I don't think this project is necessarily a bad thing. It could turn out to be a local landmark some time down the line.

I don't see anything wrong with the turbines. Have you even seen the renderings. They look fine.

I'm a bit skeptical about this too, but I haven't seen the renderings. I suppose if done well, they could be made to look cool (or at least unobtrusive).

Here you go, courtesy of vanishingstl. The purple is apparently from LED's like Big Brothers/ Big Sisters has done, not paint.

JCity wrote:I'm sorry, I think this is completely ridiculous. wind turbines on the tops of all buildings in the future? cities will be so attractive... why don't they put the tubines on top of Brookings Hall then? I'm sure they wouldn't do that though... total joke... how about more nuclear power?

Didn't you get your EC handbook? Only power from natural sources like the sun, wind, and water is good and right, not power from non-natural sources...you know, like, oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium, which is clearly bad, and wrong, and icky...

TheWayoftheArch wrote:While I'm sure Wash U considered building a nuclear reactor at the site, this method is probably better suited to the neighborhood.

Hey, University of Chicago had a reactor operating on campus for about 2 months. If it's good enough for U. of Chicago, its good enough for Washington U.



There'd be plenty of room for one of these on the roof.

What's with the fascination with nuclear power? Not just from a couple on these boards, but nationally. Why do the proponents of nuclear have such a problem with wind and solar energy? It makes no sense to me. What is wrong with clean energy? Why are so many people dragging their feet on the slow switch to renewables?



Sorry for all the questions, I'm just absolutely baffled by some people's train of thought.



In my opinion, the building looks great with those turbines on top. I hope it gets built. Solutions like this will be definitely be a significant part of solving our energy problems.

UrbanPioneer wrote:What's with the fascination with nuclear power? Not just from a couple on these boards, but nationally. Why do the proponents of nuclear have such a problem with wind and solar energy? It makes no sense to me. What is wrong with clean energy? Why are so many people dragging their feet on the slow switch to renewables?



Sorry for all the questions, I'm just absolutely baffled by some people's train of thought.

Because we are now on the third generation of nuclear power - well, the rest of the planet is anyway - and it is a proven, well-developed clean energy technology that can actually do what it's proponents say it can do, unlike wind, solar, tidal, etc. energy.



If not for profund ignorance of nuclear technology on the part of the average citizen and their representatives, we would have been largely "energy independent" (a stupid phrase that politicians like to throw around, yet can't define) a decade or more ago. Wind, solar, and tidal energy, and conservation, all have roles, but those are still decades away from being able to meet even a majority of the power demand on our electrical grid.



Why are some people so closed-minded and set in their ways? Why are so many people dragging their feet on the slow switch to nuclear power? I'm just absolutely baffled by some people's train of thought. It's about time someone starts thinking "progressive".

^It's certainly debatable whether nuclear is a clean energy source. Although it may not produce pollution at the source, there are numerous problems with the storage of waste, including the fuel rods from nuclear reactors. Do we just bury it all in Yucca Mountain (as we currently do) and therefore consolidate all the waste in one area? Or shouldn't we just try and not make the waste in the first place?



Furthermore, in our current struggle against terrorism, is it really wise to give targets with such dangerous ramifications as nuclear power plants pose? Doesn't seem like the best solution to me anyway. While small nuclear reactors are certainly different than large scale nuclear power plants, they still have plenty of downsides, primarily the storage of waste material. Just because we can build them doesn't mean we should. Nuclear power is not a progressive solution.



Decentralizing our power grids (with solar, wind, geothermal, tide, etc) is a much safer solution, is unarguably clean, and will (over time) certainly result in a significant reduction in fossil fuels.



I'm not sure why you think renewables can't "actually do" what their proponents say they can do. Their worth is proven (look at Brazil, Germany, Iceland etc). "Energy independence" (which by the way is easily defined by the inherent definition of the two words) will take decades no matter what solution, be it nuclear, renewables, or more drilling. Therefore, its unfair to criticize renewables for the time they will take to make a difference.

....



This building can act as an example to others in the region who want to be proactive in the quest for the easily defined concept of "energy independence". Its didactic quality should be commended as should Wash U's ambition.

UrbanPioneer wrote:^It's certainly debatable whether nuclear is a clean energy source. Although it may not produce pollution at the source, there are numerous problems with the storage of waste, including the fuel rods from nuclear reactors. Do we just bury it all in Yucca Mountain (as we currently do) and therefore consolidate all the waste in one area? Or shouldn't we just try and not make the waste in the first place?



Furthermore, in our current [ #-o ] struggle against terrorism, is it really wise to give targets with such dangerous ramifications as nuclear power plants pose? Doesn't seem like the best solution to me anyway. While small nuclear reactors are certainly different than large scale nuclear power plants, they still have plenty of downsides, primarily the storage of waste material. Just because we can build them doesn't mean we should. Nuclear power is not a progressive solution.

This is all myth. Your point about waste would have been relevant if we were discussing nuclear technology two decades ago, but we aren't. And the terrorism concerns are complete nonsense. So why do the self-designated "progressives" keep bringing these "problems" up? It's the equivalent of saying that solar energy won't work because the lights will go off every time it gets cloudy.

UrbanPioneer wrote:I'm not sure why you think renewables can't "actually do" what their proponents say they can do. Their worth is proven (look at Brazil, Germany, Iceland etc).

Because their proponents can't even agree on what "they can do". So, those countries are close to achieving this "energy independence", are they? Didn't think so. Even if they had, none of those countries' situations is applicable or relevant to the needs of the United States.

UrbanPioneer wrote:"Energy independence" (which by the way is easily defined by the inherent definition of the two words) will take decades no matter what solution, be it nuclear, renewables, or more drilling.

If "energy independence" is so easily defined, then by all means, take a shot, let's hear it...

UrbanPioneer wrote:Therefore, its unfair to criticize renewables for the time they will take to make a difference.

I did no such thing, and I certainly didn't mean to criticize "renewables".



I will, however, continue to criticize the misguided fools that believe that, if only we'd just invest more in solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal technology, these "progressive solutions" would allow us to achieve "energy independence" (hmm, there's that phrase again) and all of our problems would disappear. Just because something sounds good doesn't make it true. And shouldn't a "progressive solution" actually solve the problem??? Just sayin'. The real problem is that they, and their leaders, believe this lie so fervently that the investment comes at the expense of cheaper, quicker, more efficient, more practicable, short-term, but apparently, non-progressive, solutions.

It looks like this project is happening, and fast! With plans for a $3 million remodeling (including wind turbines) to be done in time for students in August.



Link to Business Journal article



It's a good sign that Wash. U. is letting up on the purse strings after declaring a moratorium on spending last winter. Hopefully the old Meineke property will get some attention next.

^ I was just by this the other day and saw quite a bit of work being done. I think it's going to be nice. The turbines are really going to be for looks only - not that that's a completely bad thing, but there's just not enough wind up there to generate real power. I'm guessing a bit, but I think any turbines will generate less than 10% of the building's power needs.



By the way - I don't remember WU declaring a moratorium on spending. I think the Meineke lot has been landscaped - looks nice for what it is, but hopefully a building will be coming soon.

I'm surprised this is going forward since WashU is still freaking out about money. They're OK for FY10 but still $25 to $30 mil short for FY11 last I heard. They said no new projects would be undertaken, and didn't mention this one as proceeding. Also there are very little if any salary increases for FY10 which starts July 1. I'm sure plenty of staff are annoyed to hear about this project happening while their pay stagnates.

^ as one of those staff I heartily disagree (however, you are right about the salary freezes). IMO - WU isn't freaking out about money and is in fact in a great position compared to other universities. We're still hiring when the right opportunity comes along (see recent hire of two political science professors from Harvard - which is in a much more difficult position than WU). Yes, the rehabbing of this building is happening now, but that's the end of the process. Once a building is acquire and tenants are moved out it's more expensive for WU to do nothing with the building than to finish the job and generate revenue.

I'm guessing a bit, but I think any turbines will generate less than 10% of the building's power needs.

When the addition of the turbines was approved (twice) by the Preservation Board, I think the architect told us that the turbines would generate enough electricity to light themselves.



I think Wash U considered the turbines symbolic. I know the PB considered them decorative.



Nice addition to the neighborhood.

I don't know why they wouldn't renovate the small 1-story commercial building to the north of their corner building as part of this project. I know they initially discussed tearing it down for what else? Parking. As far as I know, they took that proposal out of the plan...for now. If that building comes down for no reason, I will be much less excited about this project. I do not like the idea of making the Loop some kind of Disney-like movie set, with nothing but dead space surrounding the main street.

Paric installs wind turbines atop Wash. U. building



http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ly10.html#