It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid


www.reuters.com

Wind energy could generate 20 percent of the electricity needed by households and businesses in the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but it would require up to $90 billion in investment, according to a government report released on Wednesday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
20% is actually a huge goal, a huge project should TPTB decide to go in this direction.

There is already a large offshore wind project near Cape Cod firmly opposed by the locals. Windmills are considered unsightly by many people! Build a windmill and it becomes a permanent part of the landscape.

Not to mention expensive. Expensive to erect, connect and regulate. More expensive than coal power.

In Iowa the wind generators are offline much of the time even when the wind is blowing. Why? Because of government regulations that only allow the generators to kick in at times when peak power is needed. Sort of a sweet deal cooked up between Berkshire Hathaway and Obama. Don't you just love government! Hathaway operates the dirty coal powered power plants up and down the Missouri. Ever wonder why Buffet voted for hope and change?

The only way wind power makes sense is if you buy into the carbon credits/ global warming scheme. You save some coal when you generate with wind.

I used a wind generator in a hybrid system for 10 years (before it blew down, LOL) so I know first hand the disadvantages of the machines.




www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Six nuke plants could do the same or more at about the same cost.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Depends on the weather. For fans of wind power, this is very sobering: during the recent cold spell in Britain, when we were worried about our gas reserves .....


Source

The latest electricity generation data, released on Friday, showed that as the temperatures dropped, 45% of output was being produced from coal, 37% from gas, 15% from nuclear power — and just 0.2% from wind.


Electricty generation form wind was negligable and thus meant we needed more generation from conventional sources. Had we been more reliant on wind, we'd have been in an even more serious situation, possibly leading to power cuts if we couldn't find a means of making up for the lost production.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Essan]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Six nuke plants could do the same or more at about the same cost.


And what is it we do with the waste? Is that included in your accounting?
How about two nuclear plants and the rest wind? Add 20 percent more in solar.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Spain have had wind turbines for years and only now the USA decides to 'give it go' of course there has to be a profit in it or it simply won't work. Lets not forget also that the USA is one of the biggest worlds polluters so although its a step in the right direction, forgive me if I don't clap.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I looked at a map of New England in the past, I forget the exact distances but I think it was only a couple miles offshore that the wind blew quite steadily and strongly all along the East Coast. If we really planted wind farms in all those areas it would likely provide a lot more than just 20% of our electricity needs.

Furthermore these offshore turbines could also be set up to generate electricity from tidal power. The bases of the wind turbines could be tidal power generators giving us a 2 for 1.

Why we don't? The elite are heavily invested in current energy technologies like coil, oil, and natural gas. No one is putting up sufficient investment dollars. The elite know about free energy and will skip wind? There are plenty of possible reasons, most involving money I would imagine.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I am not saying that wind power is suitable for all countries but the USA certainly fits the bill.




On particular windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain, including nuclear.[5] On November 8th 2009 wind power production reached its all-time maximum of 11,564 MW; a few hours earlier it had reached the highest percentage of electricity production, with wind farms covering 53% of the total demand.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


I think they try to push the wind generation off shore so there is no way it can be cost effective.
Why not make the coal burners go off shore.
What?--- do folks think they look pretty? Nuke plants are not that attractive
either.
You can farm under turbines. You can have low cost housing.
Athletic fields. Can't do that with nuke or coal.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


And most likley not interfered with because of shut downs by government decree.
Good news.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Oh, but think of the poor uppity rich folk who would have their views tainted. Then there's the counties and states who have enacted the great scam of "view tax". If the uppity rich people lose their views the politicians would have to find some other tax scam to line their pockets.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Pff, why even bother? Green "alternative" power is always extremely expensive, inneffiecent and by its nature unreliable.

In contrast modern nuclear reactors are safe, the most effective way to produce power and one can even seriously reduce radioactive waste. Of course its still a stepping stone to even better power production, everybody knows that... In a 100 year I'm guessing we've gone quite far.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Its true Nuclear Reactors are a safer option but going on the belief that I have which is ,that we are the 'caretakes' of this planet and we must look for different alternatives that suit mother nature and ourselves.

Green energy is the way forward.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Six nuke plants could do the same or more at about the same cost.


And what is it we do with the waste? Is that included in your accounting?
How about two nuclear plants and the rest wind? Add 20 percent more in solar.


Check out using thorium instead of uranium to fuel the plants. Basically, would solve ALL the problems from nuclear power plants.

article/website



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
It wont matter much if a huge solar flare wipes out the power systems in the USA and other countries in 2012.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
And what is it we do with the waste? Is that included in your accounting?
How about two nuclear plants and the rest wind? Add 20 percent more in solar.


Sure. Use it to run a couple of breeder reactors and regenerate about 45% of your used fuel. The rest is low level isotopes that can be used for things like X-ray machines . You can cut the waste by over 85% The drawback is that the left over 15% is mostly Plutonium.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The drawback is that the left over 15% is mostly Plutonium.


Make it into really trashy jewelry and sell it to the hip-hop morons.

they can rap about plutonium gryllz until their jaw rots off.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Green Energy's dirty little secret:

Any fool can generate electricity. It can be done with a potato and some wire! That is not the problem. The problem is that the wind doesn't always blow. It is an inconstant source of power. But the demand for energy is constant.

To resolve this issue, a conventional source of power must be built the exactly matches the power expected to be generated by the wind. This conventional source of power (usually coal) must be maintained on standby to provide electricity at the instant that the wind stops blowing.

People supporting green power do not realize that keeping another more reliable source of power on standby also produces carbon and waste.

I predict that after people begin to realize that the cost of green energy is twice the cost of conventional energy and still produces just as much carbon and waste, we will have a landscape littered with useless wind turbines.

Put this idea on the back burner along with bio-fuels. Go nuclear in the first place. Stop letting green ideology drain the economy and destroy the environment!

No civilization can exist with a stable energy supply - green energy just isn't there yet!
Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


He said plutonium not platinum
the hip hop gangsters wouldn't go for it, they like their hair too much



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Hidden Costs of Wind Turbines

This is a good study from Ireland and a European prospective. It emphasizes environmental costs like peat bog and oceans impact. Or how about collision impact with planes boats, RVs, birds and mammals. Then there is the noise aspect, not a small thing as mine was very noisy on windy days!

I understand that they have gotten the costs down on the modern machines and wind can compete successfully with say coal. But that was after a government per kilowatt subsidy so that was definitely a hidden cost.

Personally, knowing people in the nuclear power industry, from what they say we are wasting a lot of money, fissile energy and time by not using Nuclear to the fullest extent. Any problems associated with nuclear can be overcome and it is otherwise by far and away the cleanest. I think the Greenies are being hypocritical in not accepting nuclear.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join