Speaking of wind power..

[crockett]

Saw a commercial on TV a few mins ago for this site..  http://www.pickensplan.com/

I think this guy is pretty much spot on, and has a plan to produce 20% of our nations energy by wind power. Ironically enough he also thinks we should switch to natural gas for are vehicles which is what I said in another post. The only part of his plan I'm not thrilled about is using coal for 50% of the power and nuclear for only 20%. I'd rather see those two swapped and have nuclear as 50% and coal only 20%.

Not sure what the angle is with them, I'm sure it's likely sponsored by some big corporate group that has some sort of benefit for this, however over it does show we could get off oil if we really wanted to.

[Elfie]

According to the thread title I thought you were going to say you farted. 

 

Back on topic.....

however over it does show we could get off oil if we really wanted to.

We can't get off oil until we find replacements for oil based plastics, oil based lubricants, diesel, jet fuel and gasoline. Natural gas is just another fossil fuel that will put out greenhouse gas emissions.

[Angus]

Never realized that the USA imported that much, and most from mr. Chavez???
Looks like a nice plan (except the big rows of mills look ugly).
And then there is....saving energy, such as via recycle. Must be possible in a country where 4% of the population use 25% of the energy.....

[angelsandair]

Nuclear power will have to add more safety precautions. 3 Mile Island's destroyed reacto (which you're told is safe) is still dangerous to be around. When it was still going on, a man collected a water sample, it was glowing green, if he had been around it for 5-20 minutes, it would have killed him. That re-actor is still dangerous, until they can fix that up (tomb of concrete) and Chernobyl (which that and over 3000 villages wont be inhabitable for the next 100+ years) Until they can fix that, I'm cautious with nuclear power. I'm for it though, they just need to have more safety equipment until they almost have too much.

[Elfie]

Nuclear power will have to add more safety precautions. 3 Mile Island's destroyed reacto (which you're told is safe) is still dangerous to be around. When it was still going on, a man collected a water sample, it was glowing green, if he had been around it for 5-20 minutes, it would have killed him. That re-actor is still dangerous, until they can fix that up (tomb of concrete) and Chernobyl (which that and over 3000 villages wont be inhabitable for the next 100+ years) Until they can fix that, I'm cautious with nuclear power. I'm for it though, they just need to have more safety equipment until they almost have too much.

France gets something like 80% of their electricity from Nuclear power plants. It is quite safe if the correct procedures are followed.

I'd like to see some green glowing radioactive water......link please?   

[ridley1]

I'm just thinking....20% of electrical needs by windmills....

Thinking of the number needed......then again...the wind doesn't always blow....and then......
won't that vast number of windmills start to disrupt the regular airflow of the atmosphere?

mmmmmm.......

[bj229r]

Most windmills operate at less than 20% capacity, and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal....why NOT use coal? (Unless you're a hopeless environmentalist) If leftards like Pelosi fight coal plants, they damn sure won't allow nuke plants. (I wonder how many nuke plants we'd have now were it not for "The China Syndrome")

[Dichotomy]

<--- Design and sell light poles

I've had a LOT of people crawling out of the woodwork requesting pricing on 20, 30, 40, and 50 foot, poles to hold wind generators for personal use.  The specifications are a bit sketchy as to how much output you get at a certain mph average wind but the initial cost to install one is easily over 10k and I don't think it's enough to power the needs of a 1500 to 1700 sq ft home. 

[CAP1]

Nuclear power will have to add more safety precautions. 3 Mile Island's destroyed reacto (which you're told is safe) is still dangerous to be around. When it was still going on, a man collected a water sample, it was glowing green, if he had been around it for 5-20 minutes, it would have killed him. That re-actor is still dangerous, until they can fix that up (tomb of concrete) and Chernobyl (which that and over 3000 villages wont be inhabitable for the next 100+ years) Until they can fix that, I'm cautious with nuclear power. I'm for it though, they just need to have more safety equipment until they almost have too much.

2 instances out of how many reactors?

and how long ago?

improved technology.....

[crockett]

2 instances out of how many reactors?

and how long ago?

improved technology.....

Well granted it doesn't help the fact that a US sub was just in the news last week for leaking radioactive water and was also a minor leak in one of France's reactors.

Now personally I'd like to see more reactors here in the US, but anytime people start warming up to the idea stuff like this happens.

[Mickey1992]

Nuclear power will have to add more safety precautions. 3 Mile Island's destroyed reacto (which you're told is safe) is still dangerous to be around. When it was still going on, a man collected a water sample, it was glowing green, if he had been around it for 5-20 minutes, it would have killed him. That re-actor is still dangerous

Wow.  You really believe that?  I have been near the 3-mile island plant in the last 5 years and I can tell you that no one in that area feels that it is "dangerous to be around".

Number of worker deaths related to the US coal mining industry since 1990 - 722
Number of civilian or worker deaths related to the US nuclear industry EVER - 0

[bsdaddict]

I'm just thinking....20% of electrical needs by windmills....

Thinking of the number needed......then again...the wind doesn't always blow....and then......
won't that vast number of windmills start to disrupt the regular airflow of the atmosphere?

mmmmmm.......

regarding "the wind doesn't always blow...", that's why the goal is 20% and not 100%.  You have wind farms that SUPPLEMENT peak usage, not replace it.  And no, we're not going to disrupt the "airflow of the atmosphere"...  

[oboe]

Most windmills operate at less than 20% capacity, and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal....why NOT use coal? (Unless you're a hopeless environmentalist) If leftards like Pelosi fight coal plants, they damn sure won't allow nuke plants. (I wonder how many nuke plants we'd have now were it not for "The China Syndrome")

I'd like to see the link on the sub-20% capacity factor for most wind turbines.   There is a lot misinformation about wind energy out there.   Properly sited and sized, wind turbine capacity factors should average 30-40% annually.   And you can make money at that factor.   Pickens wouldn't be interested in it if you couldn't.

The wind may not blow constantly at your location, but rest assured, as long as the sun warms the Earth, wind will be blowing somewhere.    At many locations it is regular and predictable.

[Holden McGroin]

regarding "the wind doesn't always blow...", that's why the goal is 20% and not 100%.  You have wind farms that SUPPLEMENT peak usage, not replace it.  And no, we're not going to disrupt the "airflow of the atmosphere"...  

I work for Iberdrola.  We are, if not #1 now, vying for the world's #1 fleet of installed wind energy turbines.

Our US chief tells us that the US Great Plains have enough wind that if fully developed could power the US grid.

BUT pushing te energy to NY or LA from Iowa is damn near impossible.  The line losses would be too much is the lines existed.

The times when the wind blows do not coincide with the times of peak usage.  Thermal plants are required to keep the lights on and to make up the difference when thw demand exceeds supply of wind power.  Thermal plants cannot move up and down quickly enough to make up for sudden changes in wnid energy.  In the NW, Bonniville keeps the power curve steady by altering the flow of hydropower and the TVA can do that too, but all sectors do not have that resource.

Wind is not the total answer.  It is one part of a diverse future power portfolio.   

Chicago, Minniapolis, St Louis, Dallas, Memphis, etc could be substantially wind powered in the near future

[Wayout]

Most windmills operate at less than 20% capacity...

He also doesn't answer the question of how do we get the energy from the middle of the country to the east & west coasts.  The current electric grid will not handle it.  With the grid now in place between 60% and 80% of the power generated at the wind farms will be lost by time it arrives at it's destination.  Add this loss to the 20% capacity the windmills operate at and you're looking at electric bills about 8 times higher than they are now.  So the question is, why is 'ol T-Bone pushing this?  Just follow the money.  To rebuild the electric grid so the wind farms could supply electricty to the coasts would cost in excess of 2 trillion dollars and 'ol T-Bone wants to be a major player in the rebuilding process.  BTW- Who's going to put up the 2 trillion dollars?  You are by means up higher (much higher) electric bills and taxes.