Wind Power
 

ABC News Video:
http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/7891730/abc/20080520/av_abc_wnt/_goodmorningyahoo_abc080519_wn_wind_town

I saw a congress man from the mid-west on C-Span the other day talking about wind and solar power, the old dude was totally geeked about it. Explained that Germany and Spain don't have as much wind and sun as we do and that it's going to create a lot of jobs. Plus private land owners can get in on it and make money too.

That Gary Numan song "Wind Power" is in my head now.;)

We have to harness the energy of the tides. the moon wasn't put there just to land on it and make crappy MTV intros.

I agree 100%. Gravity, free endless, everywhere.

I pray daily to Our Lady of Perpetual Motion

One problem. If we start getting our energy from the moon, will it still have enough left to keep making cheese. I like cheese.

I hate it when that happens, but I agree with you. Tide power!

Spend some time in Germany if possible. Their useage of solar and wind power in the last 10 years is very good and one of the leaders in the world in this area.

Someday America will smarten up and learn to use this asset. Maybe when gas costs $6 a gallon like it does in Europe...

You mean by the end of this summer?

I agree -- I'm sick and tired of seeing environmentalist nutjobs shut down every attempt at alternative energy. These guys killing us from the global energy perspective. We're eventually going to have to realize that we have to build SOMETHING.

Dan

Just so long is it's not the Crimson Tide. Go Gators. http://triangle.gatorclub.com/images/jurasicalbert.gif

Completely agree. Course a big part of the problem is that these nuts want us to go back to the "horse and carriage" era and thats just not going to happen.

We need to embrace solar, wind and other options like tidal and nuke, as well as IMHO start drilling up in Alaska and open up some of the older wells that were capped as the oil inside was not worth the money to pump out when it was $50 a barrel.

Joe

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1211643857.jpg

As discussed in another thread, improving US passenger vehicle MPG by 20% would reduce US oil consumption by 2MM bbl/day.

That is more than all possible new oil fields in the US, combined, could produce if they all produce as much as the optimists hope and if they all hit peak production levels together, many years from now.

Why is it so nutty to think that reducing consumption is the best solution, followed by increasing use of non-oil energy like wind, solar, nuclear, tidal/geothermal?

What is nutty is to continue unabated dependence on oil. The US cannot, under any scenario, reduce our imported oil to less than appx 60% of consumption. And oil, whereever produced, will always be a globally traded commodity, with a volatile price determined by factors out of our control.

So continuing to emphasize oil as the solution, by hunting ever more feverishly for it in every last corner of the country, is like saying you want to dig your grave a few feet deeper. Better to start climbing out of the grave, so to speak.

The part that I think most Americans don't get is the "globally traded" part. It doesn't matter where the effing oil is produced - the price gets determined in China, Nigeria, Saudi, Russia, etc.

The short quote above should be the number basis, in a nutshell, of the current presidential campaign. Do this, and a whole Hell of a lot of other problems start to fall like dominoes.

A vehicle at 70mph gets about 2/3rds the mpg of the same vehicle at 55mph.

This poster has been....ummm...."misinterpreted" in the past, but sometimes the Truth is.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1211647488.jpg

Ration cards- We're at war during an energy crisis, remember?

I share a similar frustration. Nothing's perfect. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society that's willing to accept that, so little really changes. Nuclear's dangerous. Wind power kills migrating birds. Solar's too unreliable. Hydroelectric kills fish. Etc. Etc. There will always be a reason not to do something. But I never hear those environmental obstructionists ever volunteer some magic pill solution of their own (and agree upon it) to actually help us get over our dependence on oil (and coal). Maybe we should go with moderation--a balance of using a bit of each technology to minimize their individual downsides.

Noah,

Moderation? How about we use solar when the sun is shining, wind power when its windy and get going on nuke right now just because.

The time to start was 20-30 years ago and we listened to the tree huggers far too long and now are paying the price. Hope that the country uses this as a wakeup call and does not mess around too much longer in this area. We cannot afford to waste anymore time with energy.

Man, that must have been one hell of a fight...

Agree, Joe. But there are plenty of people who would rather mentally masturbate than actually get things done and be held accountable for said decisions. (And I'm not even talking about PPOT.)

For the most part, "tree huggers" have always backed solar and wind. Not nuclear, but that is slowly changing.

The forces that have slowed development of most alternative energy technologies, as well as discouraging conservation, are the oil, gas, and coal industries, and their allies like the US auto industry.

Check the federal budget - add up the incentives and subsidies for alternative energy, and compare to those for oil, gas, and coal. I did this for sammy in another thread - alternatives get a far smaller sum than the oil, gas, coal industries.

Look who has fought against higher MPG standards for the past 20 years. Not the environmental lobbies, but rather the auto companies who preferred selling high-profit, low-MPG trucks and SUVs.

Who lobbied for tax incentives to buy SUVs? Not the environmentalists.

To think that the environmental movement is responsible for the US' current dependence on oil (and gas and coal) reflects a disregard of reality. (Except, as I said, for the under-use of nuclear energy.)

Who here, besides me works in the Energy (Power Generation, Oil and Gas, etc) business? I've been reading up on Nuclear Power and writing papers on it since I was in High School. I studied Nuclear Engineering in College, but I ended up working in Conventional Fossil Power Generation since there was nothing new going on in Nuclear in the 1980's and 1990's.

Solar, Wind, Ethanol, etc, only work when there is a subsidy, or if there is no other power source available. For example, it's far cheaper to put in solar charged accent lighting around your house than to run the wiring. Solar heating of swimming pool works since the temp you are trying to acheive is quite low.

The biggest problem with a solar or wind farm is the area required, and the maintenance per MW produced. Someone has to clean solar collectors, or they become less effcient. Someone has to maintain the big wind farms.

Nuclear is the only "Alternative" energy source where it is well understood where the fuel is, how to make it happen economically, and that is reliable enough. We should have kept our nuclear programs going that were hitting the stride in the 1970's. Unfortunately, scary movies came out and people turned on Nuclear.

90+% of out electricity should be nuclear. And we should be converting our heating, cooking, etc, to electricity, to minimize use of fossil fuel. THEN, we should start working in earnest to make electric/stored power transportation.

As President, I will encourage the production of Nuclear Power.