digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Wind Power Could Provide 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030

reuters.com — On May 12, the U.S. Energy Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, or 304 gigawatts, up from the current 16.8 gigawatts. Achieving that will require wind turbine installations rise to almost 7,000 a year by 2017, the department said. Last year, a record 3,100 turbines were installed across 34 U.S. states.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LewP, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3Dugg and submitted on today's DDD.
  • MakiMaki, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13Entire article on one page:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idU ...
  • RoroCo, on 05/19/2008, -6/+8What will provide the other 80 percent? By then our oil supply will be toast.
    • ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8Uh, how much oil are we using to supply electricity now? WAY less than the wind increase would make up for.

      Oil accounts for less than 7% of our electrical supply.

    • acrodev, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13Hamster wheels
      • Rodalli, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Seriously, those little guys are an untapped resource.
    • wezman2, on 05/19/2008, -1/+630% Nuclear
      30% Solar,
      15% Hydro
      5% Waves

      I'm making these numbers up, but i think its possible. The point is, our energy is never going to come from one single source.
    • YZBot, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11The vast majority of that 80% will be supplied by what we already use, Coal. The U.S. has a *****-ton of it. Realistically we should be pushing harder on the nuclear front to offset the use of coal as our baseload energy supply.
    • Dan11023, on 05/19/2008, -5/+6oil has nothing to do with electricity, but back to the oil thing for a second.... maybe our oil supply wont be toast, but you democrats stopped bush from drilling in Alaska (i can already hear shovels digging me down)
      • skiddles, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1If we could just get dems to say "Yes we can" to drilling in ANWR.
    • Spoomeister, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Sorry Roroco - I only dug up your comment so that people would see acrodev's comment. :)
    • NEUTRINO50, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Wind generated kW is still ***** more expensive than coal. But with government subsidies in few dozen billion a year - yea, sure, can do. Guess who'll be paying more taxes to generate those awesome subsidies?
    • asdf2000, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2with global warming, so will our bread
  • ricepicker4000, on 05/19/2008, -11/+30Nuclear is the only viable solution
    • Buu700, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10Precisely, but because of the fear of disasters such as Chernobyl, which was AFAICT a really ghetto nuclear power plant, as opposed to the ones in the U.S. that aren't allowed to run unless they meet quality standards, nuclear power is much more uncommon than it should be. If people didn't resist things like nuclear power, genetically modified food, and stem cell research, we could by now have had more resources and energy than the world would ever need, with cures for almost every medical problem we would ever encounter.
    • userperson, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Dugg up,
      only viable solution ... for now.

      That written, don't piss away taxpayer MAKING money something viable that isn't, it's a stupid waste,
      e.g. ethanol which is more expensive than gasoline, doesn't work as well, and creates food shortages in the 3rd world.
      Let a free market decide, lift subsidies and corporate welfare.
      • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Fact Check buddy: Ethanol is currently trading less than gasoline; at about $2.62 per gallon (Iowa). And yes, this is unsubsidized.
        http://www.ethanolmarket.com/fuelethanol.html
        • userperson, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1... and how far can a gallon of ethanol get you vs. gasoline?
          how much energy is consumed to make and deliver a gallon of ethanol?
          Sorry, I should've done more through research, before commenting on a prestigious site such as dig. Especially about some fact that doesn't really change the shape of things anyway.

          If/When ethanol actually IS cheaper and more efficient without hidden/forced costs, and doesn't cause more/greater problems, then I'll be all for it. Right now it seems to be just an excuse to push costs on everyone else, so a few people can make a buck ... 'um I mean "to save the environment".

          I'm not your buddy, and judging by your this reply I don't wanna be.
        • Buu700, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm not your buddy, friend!
    • caleb4mj, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4I also like oil and coal.
    • malex, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Nuclear is *A* viable option. However, our plutonium supply is finite, and the problems involving waste and security are far from trivial.

      Tidal and solar power are going to be major industries too, along with wind. And let's also consider how much of our energy can be replaced by simply not pissing it away with inefficient and poorly designed systems.
      • userperson, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Skeptoid
        http://is.gd/iMI
      • Charlotte_Web, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Actually, there's enough uranium around to last millions of years. Much of the earth has yet to be explored for uranium, and we can recycle much of what we are already using. Additionally, there is a tremendous amount in seawater, and we will eventually develop the technology to mine it from there.

        The biggest hurdle to nuclear power is political. The Russians are wanting us sell us their enriched uranium, but we have a law forbidding purchase of it (does that make any damned sense?). In fact, there are many trade barriers to purchasing uranium. A trade deal that we DO have with the Russians to purchase uranium from decommissioned weapons will expire in 2015, and will not be renewed, reducing supply even further.

        A lot of environmentalists are waking up to the fact that nuclear is one of the most green options out there, but they created such a hysteria over it that they've essentially locked us into the more pollutive coal power plants. So ironic...
        • dualboy24, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1There is not enough for millions of years. The IAEA figures that I remember were closer to a 200 year supply at our current rate of consumption. If we increase the consumption the supply will not last very long. But in the eventual end the human race will be forced to using renewable sources.

          Now admittedly I am not taking into account seawater which does contain the majority of the worlds uranium supply. But extracting it will be extremely difficult since its at a very very low level ppm. Its kind of saying there is a huge oil supply, but its on Mars.
        • userperson, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1@dualboy24
          Assuming that's true, our current rate of consumption would have to remain the same for 200 years.

          Newer reactors with increased efficiency will never be implemented?

          as well as it assumes that no one will do anything to avoid this a future 'energy crisis', in terms of usage, efficiency or developing, alternatives methods of energy production.
          Fusion?

          By such logic, we should never have started using the current fossil fuels because they're 'unsustainable', and started developing these alternatives in the late 19th century, instead of allowing people to choose the most viable one.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3No. It's a GOOD solution, yeah, but it's not the only one. Besides, it's better to couple it with other power sources anyway. The more diversified the power grid is, the less chance we'll be strongly affected by, say, a uranium shortage and the like.
    • alices, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Breeder reactors would be good. Minimal waste to deal with.
  • DreamVsPs2, on 05/19/2008, -6/+31Key word: COULD

    Knowing our politicians, this sadly won't happen. :(
    • h3smith, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8Because our government is the only organization in America capable of doing this.

      You are what is wrong with America, expecting the crooks in DC to fix all problems.
    • dusanmal, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Actually, DC crooks are the least problem.

      Real problem are "green" activist who don't want any new energy source. Here on Long Island where I live they fought tooth-and-nail against wind farm far off-shore with ideal wind conditions. Because it would spoil "natural beauty" (mind you, from shore these would appear as pinky fingernail seen arm length away.). Their litigation and resulting repeated more and more extensive "studies" finally took out any profitability from the project and investors quit.
      • aquireworth, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2How sad and lame! If we don't figure out alternative methods (such as wind power) than the green activist's won't have anything pretty to look at. Instead they'll be looking at one big world of waste.
      • datastorageguy, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Just like Ted Kennedy blocking wind farms near his compound on Cape Cod because it would ruin the scenery.
    • brad3378, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't be so sure.

      Jim Cramer (CNBC's Mad Money) has been pushing Wind Power as an investment very heavily lately.
    • datastorageguy, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Knowing the technology in it's present state and it's economic feasibility this won't happen.

      There, fixed that for you.
  • deevay, on 05/19/2008, -7/+5key word "could"
  • blarch, on 05/19/2008, -9/+4sure is a good day for recurring stories, i'm glad it's alternative energy tho
  • xtinamo, on 05/19/2008, -9/+5Then how come in Electrocity wind power sucks ass? I'll stick to building nuclear plants and planting forests to make it up to the environment.
    • Rodalli, on 05/19/2008, -5/+4That doesn't solve our looming problem with water-shortages, though. Nuclear power plants require lots of water to run, wind turbines require none.
      • bmcnally, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Is it possible to use salt water to cool a nuclear plant? Or to redesign it to use salt water? We don't exactly have a shortage of that.
        • Buu700, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Touché, I never thought of that before. That is a doubly genius idea, as we could harness the evaporated water as drinking water and sell the residue salt as sea salt.
        • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Salt water is pretty corrosive. Evaporating the water off for distillation would seem sensible but now you've got salt buildups on your cooling surfaces, reducing efficiencies.
      • xtinamo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4The game doesn't account for that factor as you are always provided a river with every map. I'm guessing you didn't pick up that I was referencing a computer game, but it's a lot of fun.
        http://www.electrocity.co.nz/

      • br0ck, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Actually, nuclear power plants 'use' almost no water. The plants return most of the cooling water directly back to the lake or river, and what isn't returned goes into the air as vapor which precipitates out very quickly. One plant in Phoenix actually uses treated sewage water.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1"Water shortage"? You're kidding, right? Do you know how nuclear power plants work?
    • Buu700, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Why bury him? Do you people have any idea how many windmills we'd have to cover the U.S. with in order to provide 20% of all our electricity, provided we don't just stop using electricity altogether? I certainly have no idea, but I have a feeling we'd need at least one per street. Frankly, that would be annoying, especially when you consider that every major storm would have the potential to take out SEVERAL of them and that the amount of electricity generated would be very unpredictable, likely resulting in increased costs to consumers in order to compensate for the possibility of less electricity being generated than expected, forcing plant owners to use more expensive backup means. Really, in the long term, nuclear is the most viable solution.
      • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Do you realize the vastness of the United States?

      • ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5You haven't been to Montana, have you? We have wind AND a ***** of open space. The state is selling power back to the grid already, and we have barely even scratched the surface.

        I am all for nuclear power though. I say do both. Why pick.

        Oh, and he was making a computer game joke...
  • badqat, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6Could isn't will...
  • ColorBlind, on 05/19/2008, -2/+17But by 2030 our energy consumption will have quadrupled...if we're still around.
    • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Where are we going to go? Please dont even say global warming... or do. I need a good laugh today.
      • Lewie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2He's probably thinking more along the lines of a world war/nuclear holocaust. Remember, it's America's duty to blow up every country that doesn't agree with us.
    • mdramige, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1When the U.S. Dollar collapses, it's really going to slow down the world economy for a few decades.
  • sesstreets, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3It should be 60, seriously... does wind ever actually stop blowing anywhere on this planet?
  • badcrumble, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9304 gigawatts? Great Scott!
  • Ascus, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Now we just have to worry about Global Air Stagnation (or GAS)
    • roamzero, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1That does make me wonder. Is wind power so abundant that no matter how many turbines we set it it wont make a dent in our weather patterns? Or is there some risk there?
    • skidooer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I've always wondered how many windmills it would take to reduce the energy enough to bring on significant changes in the climate. You can't just take the energy from the wind away and not expect some consequences.
      • halobender, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3A forest would produce as much drag /absorption of energy I think.
      • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The total insolation for the earth is about 250 Watts per square meter (including night). Multiply that by the total surface area of the earth and mankind's impact on the Earth looks insignificant. Any renewable energy source that derives its power from the sun (basically everything except for geothermal) most definitely can have an impact on the local climate, but on a global scale it will not.
  • nyadney, on 05/19/2008, -4/+14wouldnt it be better if renewables provided 90+% by 2020 or sooner?

    things like this annoy me. the US manufactures cars that get 35 mpg and then send them to europe, and then makes laws stating that cars have to be able to get 35mpg by 2015...like its some horrile hard thing to do.

    cars should get 45mpg by 2010 and even stricter after that.
    • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3So design one. If its so easy to do, then do it.
      • Disjunto, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1theres plenty of cars out there that happily do better than 35mpg, just few of them in US
  • Thuren, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3Interesting fact about wind power that few think about:
    For every watt of wind power, you need a watt of controllable, easilly changable energy (like hydro, gas turbines, unlike nuclear, oil, coal)
    Most countries can't balance the wind power with hydroenergy, so they use gas turbines instead => more co2 emissions even if the gas turbines are used less time than a coal reactor would, this is the case in germany.

    The same holds for solar power, wave power and all other forms of unreliable energy sources of course.
    • fancypantscz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3With such a large electric grid and the fact that wind farms are spread across the entire US it is nearly impossible that an overwhelming proportion of wind farms would suffer from stagnant air at the same time. In fact, the more farms the less the risk there is of a wind shortage. That being said we have to realize that over dependence on any single type of power source is always a bad thing. Diversity here is key.
    • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Not necessarily. You can also balance wind turbine A with that of wind turbine B situated somewhere else. The more turbine sites you have, the less the likelihood of needing other resources.

      Add to that your hydro, your thermal and solar. Mix in some nuclear and you've got a pretty good energy equation. Sprinkle on some innovative potential energy storage techniques for off-hours and Bobs your uncle.

      Then you use the coal/gas solutions for peak hour demand.
      • Nenb, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0True.

        When there is wind there is also waves = power from wind and waves
        When there is sun (which often correlates to less wind) = more power from solar
        Not as dependent on weather hydroelectric dams and tidal power
  • bmcnally, on 05/19/2008, -2/+44Here's a better idea: Bring back nuclear power.
    • Duositex, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10Clean. Quiet. Virtually limitless. Vast potential.
      All reasons why the government isn't interested.
      And before someone says, "What about all that terrible nuclear waste?!?" do your research on how much waste these plants actually produce and compare it to the environmental impact of the alternatives PER GIGAWATT.
      • MikeFallopian, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Not virtually limitless; not even close. But I agree, it's a very good interim solution until we can get fusion working or make a near-complete switch to renewables.
      • Spoomeister, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1And the waste and environmental impact of a wind farm is what, exactly?
        • Duositex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Acres of nearly unusable land/water, dead birds, and an impact on local climate as megajoules of wind energy are sapped from the atmosphere.
        • Spoomeister, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Most wind farms are proposed for land that is not being used for anything else. The dead bird problem would correct itself pretty quickly. Would love to see studies on the climate comment, as I've never heard of that being a concern before.
      • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I could not agree more! Harnessing the power of the atom may be mankind's greatest feat to date.
      • MiserJ, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Why don't we just shoot the waste into the sun? :) (as if that would be soooo easy)
    • cypriss9, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Nuclear would be great, except for that pesky side-effect of creating potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. Sure, the US may handle it responsibly enough, but do you trust 100's of nuclear plants across China, India, Iran, N. Korea, etc?

      Humans are too immature to handle nuclear.
      • rhino369, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Well China and India are building nuclear plants, and Iran and North Korea are allowed under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty .

        There are ways to assure nuclear plants don't lead to proliferation. Like have them be designed and built by US, French, Chinese, or Russian companies, and have the Russians provide the Uranium.
      • drmangrum, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Actually, most of the world is doing quite well with nuclear. In any event, what does US expansion of nuclear use have to do with China, Iran, and N. Korea? China already has nuclear power. Iran is in the process. North Korea has 4 incomplete reactors.
    • Spoomeister, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Only if they put the plant and/or the waste in YOUR backyard.
      • Lewie, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I'd rather have one of those than a coal plant. Take your pick.
      • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1I will happily let them store nuclear waste in my backyard! If they are willing to pay me fair rent I would not think twice.
    • davidg11, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Why all the stories on WIND power? I mean wind is great. But do you know what is better?

      OCEAN WAVE POWER

      Place buoys in the ocean that capture the mechanical energy of the waves and convert that into electrical energy and then cable it back to the grid. These buoys are small and placed only 2-4 miles from land. Out of view. Don't kill birds. Produce more energy (there are always waves, but not always wind or sun). Very small environmental footprint. Energy produced is close to the users of it (where are most major cities? On the coasts!)

      http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/

      Disclaimer, I own stock in this company. But there's a reason. It makes environmental sense! Symbol OPTT
    • maiku00, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Heres an even BETTER idea- bring back BOTH. They are not mutually exclusive.
  • jcweezy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+72030 leagues under the wind turbine.............what?
  • atb12688, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Sorry to burst your bubble, but wind power isn't ever going to account for a substantial portion of our energy. It's not meant to become our primary source of energy. It is meant to supplement our current clean (and dirty for that matter) energy. It's a cool idea and all, but nuclear, solar, geothermal are a lot more practical.
    • Lewie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2How is wind power not as practical? In some places the wind blows more often than the sun shines.
  • pardimate, on 05/19/2008, -4/+16And in Denmark 20% of their electricity already comes from wind power. The US is only 22 years off!
    • Duositex, on 05/19/2008, -7/+3Buried for European superiority complex. News flash: your farts stink too.
    • pardimate, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8I live in America *****. Simply pointing out that other industrialized nations have taken a far greater interest in cleaner alternatives is not what I would call a superiority complex.
    • Ryan2845, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1They also have less than 2% of the population of the US, so the number of turbines it would take is far less.
  • YZBot, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10Could there ever be a situation where there are so many wind turbines that it actually affects the weather patterns? I imagine the surface of the Earth would have to be saturated with turbines though.
    • CCB0x45, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Al Gore's son in 2050 will have to do:
      The inconvenient truth part 6: We are running out of wind.
      Support global windiness!
    • Thuren, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2No.
    • fancypantscz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Sure the Germans use their turbines in reveres to blow bad weather off to the Czech Republic all the time. There are many hidden benefits to wind power...
    • cypriss9, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I've been wondering about this myself. Clearly wind turbines remove energy from the air flow. On the other hand, how much different could wind turbines be from trees? No one's ever complained that forests adversely affect weather patterns.
      • YZBot, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I thought about that after I posted. I wonder the difference between a forest and an individual tree. I would imagine a lot of the air flow would stay on top of a forest of trees. Maybe the trees already do affect the weather, we just don't notice the difference because they've always been there.

        Taking hundreds of gigawatts out of the atmosphere must have some effect. Just look at what the tiny fraction of a percent of extra CO2 put into the atmosphere is claimed to effect.
        • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The problem with CO2 are the feedback loops, a small increase in CO2 leads to a slightly warmer environment which evaporates more water. Water vapor is a even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And of course the more water vapor is in the air the more the temperature rises, which evaporates even more water. The good news is that increased atmospheric water vapor *may* lead to more clouds which would reflect sunlight back to space and help keep the Earth cool.
        • YZBot, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I was mostly illustrating that such a small impact does make a difference.
      • Nenb, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Interesting. And as you say, they would probably act as a forest; forcing the wind to go above them therefore reducing their own effectiveness a bit. Smart engineers will easily prevent this, they do it today by making sure to find spots where there is extra much wind and if you look at the pattern of wind turbines from above it looks rather peculiar because they take this into account.
  • apio, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4for a second there i thought it said white power

    pfew
    • Buu700, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well, frankly, industrialization and domesticated electricity are primarily through white power.



      /just kidding, even if it is true in a weird way
  • Dan11023, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6so "could" solar power
    so "could" a lot of things
    • skidooer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Wind is solar power.
      • Dan11023, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2i'm talking about the SUN
        • skidooer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Where do you think wind comes from?
        • Nenb, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes. Coal and Oil is also Solar power, you don't have to go there.
  • kahakauai, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8Wish it would be more like 80%
  • madrigaelic, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2This news came out weeks ago. Covered just about everywhere.
  • kahakauai, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5Doc: "1.21 gigawatts!?!?!"

    Marty: "What the hell is a gigawatt!?"
  • NodOfficer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1920% isn't good enough...
  • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2I cant wait until all these turbines go up. Soon after we will start seeing on Digg how horrible wind power is to the bird population and we should rip all the wind turbines down to save the sparrow. It will happen without a doubt.
    • skidooer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Or how the shadows cast by the windmills reduce the yields of the crops planted near wind turbines causing increases in food prices.
    • MidnightRealism, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Since most birds are smart enough to fly around gigantic spinning but geographically stationary objects, no, it would never be an issue. Birds are capable of thinking on a very basic level before they do something that stupid. Which is more than I can say for you.
      • RobbleRobble, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Here's something interesting to read:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A399 ...
        I'm all for wind power but I'd like to make sure that the turbines are slightly more bat friendly. Even if you don't give a crap about bats you'll start to care about them when every square foot is occupied by 11 hungry mosquitoes.
      • Wonderama, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Do your research, especially before you throw an ad hominem attack. It makes you look the stupidest.

        Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths:
        http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14562

        If your reading comprehension were better, you'd understand his point was the unwarranted and irrational reaction that would surely come from this. There's always some enviro-idiot who never lets the facts get in the way of his opinion.
  • stix213, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3This is a public service announcement... Due to the fact that it is not windy today we have to shut down the Internet. Internet service will resume once winds pick back up.
  • stutimandal, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8Actually you can reduce the electricity consumption by 20% starting today (no need to wait till 2030). Pledge together to conserve.

    * A single grocery superstore uses ~1000 tubelights planted at the height of 50-70 feet. Ask them to have lights at lower ceiling height.
    * Boycott products which use electronic billboards.
    * Take metro/bus whenever viable.
    * Force your office designers to have multiple switches for lights in different office cubicles.
    * Eat less frozen and more fresh items.
    * Switch off the TV/Computer when not in use. At least use standby.
    * Reduce brightness of monitors and TVs.

    And so on.
    • MASTERPL, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3This is a joke right? I know you mean well, but take your hands off that tree your hugging and take a look at reality.
  • aimhelix, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Why not just build giant Nuclear plants deep underground? More power output, and less ugly. I'd rather that than having to see a windmill each direction I look for "20%" of our nation's power.
    • davidg11, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1I agree. People hate visual pollution and noise. What about far smaller buoys placed out several miles at sea?

      OCEAN WAVE POWER

      Place buoys in the ocean that capture the mechanical energy of the waves and convert that into electrical energy and then cable it back to the grid. These buoys are small and placed only 2-4 miles from land. Out of view. Don't kill birds. Produce more energy (there are always waves, but not always wind or sun). Very small environmental footprint. Energy produced is close to the users of it (where are most major cities? On the coasts!)

      http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/

      Disclaimer, I own stock in this company. But there's a reason. It makes environmental sense! Symbol OPTT
  • KomaSutra, on 05/19/2008, -5/+0Wind Power ROCKS. I lived on a sailboat for 9 years and relied on Wind Power to keep my batteries charged. Technology just isnt there for solar power yet, too expensive and takes up too much space for too little power but a good wind generator on the other hand cannot be beat!
    http://www.iurlz.com/datools
  • fangor, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2"Could" provide 20% of our electricity, eh? Is that 20% of 2030's electrical requirements or 20% of 2008's requirements?
  • tufftugg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1 Always crisis management.
  • markgl, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5blah. do we really need thousands of giant windmills taking over the land? Lets go nuclear!
  • nastronomical, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Ok can it ramp up to meet heavy demands? What about downtime and sustainability?
  • ducky3tjh, on 05/19/2008, -0/+322% entirely erases the USA's need for Natural Gas imports.

    http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx ...
  • wsuvtx, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3When it becomes economically viable we will get off fossil fuels. Whether we switch to Solar, Wind or whatever.
  • atmenterprises, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9And if we could get NIMBY guys like Ted Kennedy to stop banning wind farm projects off the coast of Nantucket, we'd be even closer today.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Why should we spoil the view? I'd rather have one nuclear reactor somewhere inland than 250 turbines that are 300 feet tall devastating an otherwise lovely coastal vista.
      • atmenterprises, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They were five miles out. Hardly an eyesore. But thanks for showing your NIMBY tendencies as well.
        • Barackalypse, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Perhaps you haven't actually seen a wind turbine in person, they're ugly. They loom on the horizon. Maybe your eyes are so poor you can't see a 300 foot tall object from 5 miles away, but I certainly can and it destroys the view. Why should we do that when there are cheaper ways of providing the power that are less visually intrusive? And you say NIMBY like its some big slam, the fact that I care about how the environment looks and wish to preserve the beauty in the world for future generations isn't wrong. The tyranny of your green vision will blight the sky for generations.
      • MiserJ, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1To us on Nantucket they would be just a speck on the horizon. I wonder though about Martha's Vineyard and the mainland as the map showed the site closer to those regions.
        And I'm for the wind farm.
  • MarkusX, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Finally somebody is thinking in the right direction.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Why is the "right" direction always towards power generating technologies where we have no control over how much power it is actually producing at any one time? What do you suggest we do on a hot, hazy summer day with 2 mph winds? The electric grid has almost no storage capacity.
      • darthvalium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0simple answer: a mix of photovoltaics, hydro power and other renewable energies.
        • Barackalypse, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0But solar power isn't renewable, because it is just an inefficient conversion of photons generated by a giant fusion reactor into electrons. By your definition of renewable I can call a nuclear fusion reactor renewable too, and in that case why not skip the middle man and just use fusion more efficiently in a nuclear reactor generating steam to power turbines whenever I need power, not whenever the sun is shining?
          Once again people have decided that "renewable" energy is the answer, despite all sorts of economic and base load supplying issues. No wonder there isn't any coherent energy policyin this country, the best solutions we have are being bypassed by people pursuing an agenda other than delivering clean, safe, and inexpensive energy.
  • Ryan2845, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2They also have less than 2% of the population of the US, so the number of turbines it would take is far less.
  • HubbertWins, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Yea, but Denmark only needs 12 volts a year.
  • Dan11023, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1i'm not a Meteorologist dude! ok, the wind comes from the sun... I did not know that, you learn something every day.
  • katorga, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1iirc, wind turbines decimate local bird populations.
    • nephilimx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4stats say they have killed 45,000 in the last 10-15years around the world, isnt that large. Cats proberly kill that ammount every hour.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Who cares about birds? Wind power kills PEOPLE. Look up the numbers on people killed per unit of energy produced.
  • katorga, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0Electric offers instant-on torque and are great for acceleration and 4x4 uses. The negative is low storage capacity and extreme weight of the batteries.
  • synthpop, on 05/19/2008, -3/+7if Americans can stop voting oil men into the Whitehouse maybe this can actually happen
    • JointVenture, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3You mean like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter?
    • MiserJ, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1The oil companies probably have their tentacles on everyone though :(
    • datastorageguy, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1We had 8 years of Bill Clinton. Surely 8 years is enough time for such a liberal and progressive friend of the environment to make some progress?
  • csrajuse, on 05/19/2008, -3/+0The real way to deal this problem is to make fast developing nations also adopt these technologies. There is not much awareness in countries like China, India and Russia. Governments need to step up. I do not think we will be making any positive contributions unless fast developing nations also adopt clean technologies as fast (I doubt is we "US" are as fast as Europe, educate me please) as we do.

    In US it self by 2030 we will be needing 45% more energy (I heard it in some ad.) One can only imagine how many times the energy needs of fast developing nations be!
  • davidg11, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3Why all the stories on WIND power? I mean wind is great. But do you know what is better? OCEAN WAVE POWER.
    Place buoys in the ocean that capture the mechanical energy of the waves and convert that into electrical energy and then cable it back to the grid. These buoys are small and placed only 2-4 miles from land. Out of view. Don't kill birds. Produce more energy (there are always waves, but not always wind or sun). Very small environmental footprint. Energy produced is close to the users of it (where are most major cities? On the coasts!)

    http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/

    Disclaimer, I own stock in this company. But there's a reason. It makes environmental sense! Symbol OPTT

    • csrajuse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1congratulations that you own that stock, went up 16%!
    • Nenb, on 05/19/2008, -0/+21. Wind Power does not kill many birds, an average 1 bird per turbine per year is killed. Compare to the millions of birds that are killed each year by cars alone.
      2. Wave Power is not as developed yet, it has a tendency to break during the immense forces of storms and hurricanes.
      3. Buoys are the least common wave power.
    • sk11, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2We heard you the first 10 times!!
  • letherial, on 05/19/2008, -2/+320% is 21 years!!!
    ughh...we can do better then that, by that time gas will be 20$ a gallon. WTF. we flew to the moon in 9.

    all our energy ambitions are 20 years away from being a reality, We cannot wait that long. We as a country can do what ever we want, we CHOOSE to allow such a stupid goal. we allow our goverment to pretend this is reasonable, but it is not. I am not even worried about the enviorment, its not about that, its about the price of fuel, our economy, and the stability for my son when he becomes 18.

    Hey country, shape up or be rulled by china, iran, or saudi. This is the choice we have, It cannot wait 20 years for 20% we need 100% in 10 years. wake the ***** up. Hell we need it NOW.
  • JointVenture, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Just wait until a flock of rare birds fly into one, then we will have to ban them too.

    If we started today we could build enough NUKE plants in 8 years.
    • davidg11, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I don't think people realize how small of a footprint is needed to create power from ocean waves.

      100 MW of energy = 300 acres

      300 MW = 1 square mile of ocean.

      And again, since most of the population lives on the coasts and not in North Dakota, the transmission costs are far reduced.

      A video about ocean wave power from the Discovery Channel
      http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20051114-buoy.as ...
      • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0And how would you suggest we deal with the problem of Kraken and other large sea monsters, which love to feed on the sweet sweet electricity you are producing? Nuclear power suffers no such disadvantages.
      • davidg11, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2The buoys are sited at ocean depths of 100-150 feet deep.

        If there are Kraken at that shallow depth, we have more than an energy problem!
    • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Exactly, why so much excitement for generating technology that isn't always generating when we can build something that is always running when we need it?
  • csrajuse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0What about geothermal power. I am sure there are lots of geothermal traps on pacific coast of US.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.