What is Digg?119 Comments
- WordsnCollision, on 08/12/2008, -5/+45That 45% increase for 2008 is likely due to all the hot air being blown by the presidential candidates. Maybe a few windmills should be installed in DC?
- sustainablogger, on 08/11/2008, -1/+35The US has been called "the Saudi Arabia of wind" ... and we're not even close to developing the potential that exists. Lots of reasons for this: some NIMBYism, some misguided opposition, and, of course, a lack of a reliable, widely available storage mechanism for the energy harvested. There's so much promise here...
- Wargalas, on 08/12/2008, -2/+23If birds are too dumb to fly into them, then that's just Darwin at it's core. And, I'm sorry, I'd rather have dead birds then fund the Saudi's.
- FlaG8r, on 08/12/2008, -0/+19It's not an either/or prospect.
- TheMachine1, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14The sun drives the wind.
- brstilson, on 08/12/2008, -2/+15The NCPA is a conservative think-tank organization that denies global warming, opposes the Kyoto Protocol and has strong ties to ExxonMobil. To date, they have received almost half a million dollars in support from the world's largest oil corporation. So yeah, not really an unbiased source you got there.
- tbhurst, on 08/11/2008, -5/+18If AWEA claims that the US is the 'per capita' leader in wind energy generation I would have a problem. I think it's pretty common for wind to be measured in terms of total capacity. When/if the U.S. ever becomes the per capita leader in wind, I'm sure AWEA will tout that as well!
- Badandy127, on 08/12/2008, -2/+14Oh, I didn't know it was that simple. Thanks for letting me know.
- dezholling, on 08/12/2008, -0/+11Easy solution. Just enclose the wind turbines in a building, and TADA, no more bird deaths. Something doesn't feel right about this though...
- ryan83189, on 08/12/2008, -1/+12So who's keeping you here?
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 08/12/2008, -2/+13Imagine if the huge wind farm in cape cod wasn't being blocked by the local supposedly environmentalist political representation for the sake of yachting/wind surfing!
- ricksite, on 08/12/2008, -0/+10The land is still used for farming. A windmill doesn't take up a whole field.
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9No, it was a criticism of your armchair *****-slinging from some comfortable subarb in the USA. I love how more and more it seems that only people who feign a free-thinking mind believe they have an righteous entitlement to baseless accusation and fact-denial.
Ditch the groupthink, quit analyzing things with your huge OMG AMERICA IS SUCK passion complex, and think rationally.
Wake up, and think for yourself.
Excessive hate is no better than excessive love. - sustainablogger, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9wtf?
- Rikkochet, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9Sometimes a comment can just be insightful without making a judgment on something. In this case, he was commenting that wind power, for good or ill, is still slow to develop the in US due to factors he listed.
It wasn't an attack on the article or wind power, nor an attack like you. Unlike my comment, dickwad. - gameboyhippo, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Hundreds of Acres??? Hmmm... I'll have to get my eyes checked. Last time I looked out the window, the windmills powering my whole town does not take "hundreds of acres".
- badmagicnumber, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Wind power makes sense in a nation that has as much vacant land as the US.
Look at Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas... Flat, barren, empty and sunny - perfect location for large scale solar projects. - socialpyramid, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8we're getting there...
- LethalGeek, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6Visual pollution? Know what really sucks? Actual pollution.
- LonesomeFighter, on 08/12/2008, -1/+7Nuclear power would be far more effective to pursue, well I mean we already got it, but we should build more of it. Then put the waste in that mountain they working on digging out, and by the time it becomes full, so many years would have gone by and some newer better thing would have been invented. Everyone wins... except terrorists.
- frasermoo, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6second the wtf? wtf?
- The_Wallbanger, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6You're right. Wind is part of the answer. It has also been proven to be profitable. And allows land owners (i.e. farmers) to supplement their income outside of the growing season. And it's nonpolluting and renewable. And promises new, high-tech jobs for the central United States. Why are you so negative Andypop?
- doctechnical, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6The grid isn't always hungry.
- spaceshipsix, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6"misguided opposition." Who heard this story from several years ago.
Several MA political heads (John Kerry, Edward Kennedy) who own luxurious houses on the water refused to allow wind turbines offshore within view of their houses. Meanwhile they are proponents of wind power and acquire votes on this fact.
http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=727
I think a massive 5 megawatt wind turbine is an amazing sight. They look better than most structures built on land. - stormofswords, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7seconded.
- buba1243, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7The storage issue doesn't seem to be much of a problem if you think about it. Wind right now generates a small portion of the energy when it's creating energy just turn down the coal plant a bit when its not turn the coal back up. This could only run into a problem when the energy produced by wind can't easily be replaced.
- Benjaphil, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5I think there may be complications involving distribution. I know at least w/ solar energy, the switch over in terms of distribution/delivery is the most expensive part.
"feeding the grid" might not be so simple. - nick1971, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7You may not be on top of the world but you are at least trying to develop renewable forms of energy. I think most Europeans would be surprised about how far you have come.
Germany is a very different country to the US. We are used to tax schemes which redistribute money from 1 place to the other wether it be between east and west Germany, the rich to the poor or environmentally damaging energy sources to green ones.
The current effort here is based upon taxing all non green energy source and providing subsidies for environmentally friendly sources and energy saving technologies (buy a dishwasher with 20% energy reduction get a subsidy of x). Its is also possible to for the consumer to buy green electricity from your power provider at a premium and this money is also used to build additional generating capacity. The largest sponsor of research money is the government either with tax revenues or with tax breaks.
The US strength is its stressing of individual effort over government organized functions. Here we have an increased role for the government. I therefore think its easier for Germany to develop alternate energy resources not only for electricity but also other energy sources.
We are still nowhere near so good as we need to be.
In 2006 we only produced 12% of our electricity requirements from renewable sources.
Hopefully we can learn from each other how to increase the numbers in both our countries not just for energy based upon wind but also on other renewable resources.
Additional info
http://www.german-renewable-energy.com/Renewables/ ... - bcronos, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Can't steal the wind - Ted Kennedy needs it for his sailboat...
- ouzome, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7It is "practical" if the government subdizes the ***** out of it, which is what they're currently doing for wind, solar and ethanol. Oil, coal and natural gas are the only current sources of energy that are taxed becuase they are a lot more efficient and can make money without help from big brother.
- arjie, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Don't be ridiculous. You know what, this bothers me. While most Americans are normal people, there are these people who are just looking for a chance to think that people are bashing them. I can't believe it, you live in one of the richest countries in the world, one that's exported its style to nations across the globe, one which dominates this very site, and you have a persecution complex? How does that even happen?
Look at this comment thread for instance: http://digg.com/environment/Is_the_U_S_the_World_L ... Look at johnomaz.
Really, man, most people aren't anti-US. You'll see my comment history points to the fact that I am intensely anti-(US Foreign Policy) and I'm against the Iraq War and stuff like that. Yet I would not deny that the United States has been a bed of innovation over the last century (and still is), and I wouldn't deny that the universities there are some of the finest in the world. Nor would I deny that the land itself is beautiful and some national parks seem to be some of the most wonderful places in the world.
But that doesn't stop me from criticising Guantanamo Bay, or protectionist 5000% duties on certain oranges while claiming to be for free trade. It doesn't stop me from being full of contempt when you whine about gas prices lower than what half the world paid a year ago, and much lower than what anybody pays now.
Once upon a time, people could simply express their damn views. And then suddenly one day everyone turned childish. While previously someone could say, "Man, Bill Clinton sucks! He bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan!" and people would agree because a pharma factory is a pharma factory now there'd be people like you feeling all upset that their country was insulted or yelling that its anti-American, or something like that. Of course, equally bad are the people who'll criticise the US for no reason, but lately I've seen more defensiveness like the OP than any aggression against the US. What happened to you people? When did you all start identifying so strongly with your country that you're unable to sit back a little and see what people are saying?
Just so you know, I think it's pretty cool that the US gets so much power from wind, and I'll think it's pretty cool when they have the largest wind power capacity in the world. You know why? Because I stopped seeing every little thing as some sort of a competition years ago. It isn't you vs. the world, we're in this together.
I'm only 20, so when I give advice it's rarely regarded. However, learn to have an identity of your own, not something that's provided by nationality, or race or religion. Defend your nation on its own merits. And if you must pick up a weapon, defend your nation because you believe in the principles behind it. Only a pathetic human being fights for his country simply because he was born there (the land may be won, but the nation - which only exists in its principles - will be lost). - doctechnical, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Hydrogen isn't the easiest thing in the world to store - it really, really wants to get out of whatever container you put it in... and when it gets into the atmosphere it screws up the ozone layer (holy CFC deja-vu, Batman!)
If you're going to store it compressed then you're losing energy to the compressor.
I like the idea of using water reservoirs, but obviously that's not practical everywhere. People are all ready going to bitch about the land the turbines take up, add in a lake and they'll really go nuts. - WarBiscuit, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4That's nice and all, but what I'd like to know is our ranking per-capita,
not this shiny overall metric. Or our ranking measured as a percentage
of our total energy consumption. Any to indicate how close we are to
ridding ourselves of oil-addiction, compared to other nations.
Heck, not even compared to other nations. Doesn't matter where
we rank, as long as solar+wind+(nuclear, maybe) is closer to our total
energy needs. - derek20cali, on 08/12/2008, -7/+11A pro-America article on digg? Buried!
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Wind energy is PART of the answer - do you have any ideas.There seems to be a lot of criticism here on digg from people that have no viable alternatives. Of course wind energy is part of the solution and so is solar and bio fuels. But you will NEVER get rid of petrochemicals....they are essential for the foreseeable future. It takes tens of years to develop new jet aircraft engines for example because you are dealing with peoples lives. Look around you and see how many things are made from plastics...where is the alternative for plastics?
- skunalis, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4the same people that want supposed renewable energy can't deal with what that means. whatever happens, whether it's wind, solar collector tech, or whatever, people have to deal with the aesthetic "issues" if they are really committed. living in boston and listening to the ridiculous arguments against cape wind are absolutely infuriating. not in my backyard they say. get over it.
- digghasnoethics, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Are people reading the same article as me?
It clearly states the US has less capacity than Germany, and is using dodgy maths to try and inflate the figures (stronger winds...).
Anyway, a reasonable comparison is the US to Europe as a whole (taking into account sizes and populations). On that basis Europe is supposed to have about 50,000MW around now, 2.5 times that claimed for the US and over 60% of the world total. It also has targets of 150-300GW by 2020.
So the answer to the question posed in the title has to be, nope, not even close. - brdsofprey, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4I was just in Germany a few days ago. Drove between Frankfurt and Dortmund and saw more wind turbines in 4 days than I have seen in 20 years in the US. They seem to incorporate it very well around the farming land.
I was impressed. - kingfoot, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4the combination of solar panel tech and energy efficient devices will save the areas without wind, while the areas with high wind will use wind powered and water powered generators that all works together to make the entire US more more oil independent. instead of need the oil for ALL things, we'll need it just for our cars which will reduce cost but still be widely;y available.
its a good future. - jaxcs, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3What you say is true, if you only take into account revenue. But if you look at oil, coal and gas a little more deeply, they get massive subsidies. We lease land at low rates, we give them tax breaks, sometimes we help them build roads, we permit and live with and sometimes clean up environmental damage left behind, all as part of doing business.
I would like to see a full account of the aid given to each industry by kilowatt. If you know of one, send the link. - Rikkochet, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Throwing all your eggs in one basket is even less of an answer.
In windy climes, we should take advantage and build wind generation facilities.
In mountainous regions, we should be using hydroelectric.
In the plains and deserts, we should be using solar.
You don't build solar collectors in the cloudy Rockies, and you don't put a hydroelectric generator in Idaho. It's academic. But all of these "limp" technologies are powerful in the appropriate climate. There isn't a skeleton key solution just yet. - Rikkochet, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Your article didn't cite any sources about numbers - all the numbers were just unsubstantiated guesses.
If bird kills were really a major factor, a simple mesh cage around the blades would "protect" the birds and dampen the air flow only very slightly.
I wish I could recall the documentary I watched on Discovery last year where they said bird kills simply weren't occurring at the wind plant in California where they filmed it. - yojiffyskippy, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3You should move you and your family to a country that you CAN be proud of. I'm sure that you'll be much happier and much more productive wherever that is. And if the US changes and regains your admiration then you can move back. It's a win for everyone really.
- thcobbs, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4The best principle to apply in any distributed network... either Power or computing is this:
K.I.S.S. -- or in a more modern version: B.O.Y.F.R.(back off you ***** retard) - jebsilver, on 08/12/2008, -2/+5No need to store it. Just feed the grid.
- Badandy127, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Umm..yea, they most likely will...
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Your buying the propaganda.
Look at the picture accompanying this digg/article. The lone windmill standing majestically like a lighthouse. That's the PR BS. The reality is thousands and thousands of them crammed as close together as possible spread across huge amounts of land.
Remember the Public Television commercials showing majestic places across the U.S. saying "this is yours, and this is yours..."?
If the wind power lobby gets their way, we'll have wind farms in National Forests, National Parks, wildlife refuges, BLM land, coastal litorals, and likely State Forests and parks and a taxpayer subsidy to "help" the industry.
I don't want windmills on what's mine especially when nuclear power is absolutely the best way for the U.S. to meet its electrical power needs.
I'll let you do the math - look up the megawatt output of any existing nuclear power plant, look up the power output of the biggest windmill available - divide - and see how many windmills are needed to equal the power output of just one nuclear power plant. Remember too the wind doesn't blow all the time and even when it is blowing it often doesn't have high enough wind-speed to turn the windmill.
Nuclear power is the only option that makes sense. - badmagicnumber, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3True, but eventually a technology will be developed to deter the birds and prevent them from being killed as well as keeping the turbines from being damaged. Repetitive birds hits are just as bad for the turbine as the birds.
- bmalnad, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Domesticated cats kills many times more birds than wind turbines do. Perhaps we should ban cats as well.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is