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.
May 19, 2008 View in Crawl 4
barackalypseMay 20, 2008
But 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.
Closed AccountMay 20, 2008
@dualboy24Assuming 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.
seobroMay 20, 2008
The answer my friends is blowing in the wind.
spoomeisterMay 20, 2008
Most 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.
bincoderMay 20, 2008
The problem with nukes are that the fuel will run out in decades then you have lots of dead reactors useless for anything but an indoor movie theater and gasoline still at a zillion dollars an ounce anyway. Wind, waves and solar will be going until the sun goes nova. I wouldn't complain if I got 20 percent of my power from the backyard. That is the same as 20% off my electric bill, not enough to buy a mansion with, but enough to cover all beer costs, a buck is a buck. The closest thing to a useful nuke is geothermal if you live in the right areas. The planet has lots and lots of 'fuel' down under and it isn't oil.
datastorageguyMay 23, 2008
Knowing the technology in it's present state and it's economic feasibility this won't happen.There, fixed that for you.
dawnmathewsMay 24, 2008
This is great! I saw some windmill farms in between Palm Springs and San Diego a couple of years ago, and they looked magnificent!