Posted on 04/02/2009 11:50:21 PM PDT by Nachum
How did they go from “supply all our current energy needs” to “supply 20% of the coastal energy needs” in 2 paragraphs? Kind of a let-down.
My daughter asked why we didn’t just build a lot of nuclear reactors in the middle of nowhere, and I explained to her how transmission losses made that unfeasable.
She isn’t trained at all in electricity, but she understood.
Maybe someone should teach the Obama administration what a 15-year-old can understand.
If we put windmills off the coast in New England, we should put them closer to the Kennedy compound where there’s lot’s of hot air and wind.
We are close, but not quite, to where a house with a small cylinder-type wind turbine and solar collectors can, in many areas, be a zero-net energy consumer. For some that live away from major population centers, the additional cost can be worth it for the ability to be mostly self-sufficient.
Or when the winds not blowing. Or when it’s blowing TOO much.
And what about the poor little birdies that will get chopped. And how will the Kennedy’s and John Edwards deal with the view?
The headline says more than enough for all the US.
There is more than a slight difference between 20% of 'most' costal state energy needs, and all of US energy needs. Typical misleading journalists. Don't know squat.
Not a hurricane, but you get the idea...
I guess they've never encountered a steel mill or an aluminum smelter.
There would never again be a decent photograph of the shoreline, or anywhwere else they put those infernal machines. The places in Kalifornica where windmills are located used to be pleasant scenery. They are UGLY with those stupid things.
It would of course be much easier and better for the environment to build nuclear plants.
I just don’t want us to blindly throw out the baby with the bathwater. Solar and wind aren’t really good “solutions” to the national energy grid, but they are actually close to being a good solution for localized generation.
And there is no reason they won’t get cheaper, even while oil and natural gas prices will inevitably rise. We aren’t running out of silicon or of sheet metal and copper cable.
You can barely see those off-shore in California, although you can see them, if you squint your eyes... :-)
You said — “It would of course be much easier and better for the environment to build nuclear plants.”
—
Absolutely so, and I would also propose the “neighborhood nuke plants” too, which require no maintenance during their running period of time, before refilling is needed...
Here are the neighborhood nuke plants that I’m talking about, requiring no human maintenance during its term of operations...
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
These should be built all over the U.S. for easy and clean and relatively maintenance-free operations...
Great idea - never going to happen in the US. The Canadians and the Mexicans should be building nukes next to the border.The sell us power when we run out.
The production is the easy part. Did the geniuses factor in the TRANSPORT costs to get the power to actual customers?
Umm, sure. Right. The coastal states are going to allow windmills to interfere with the tourists’ view, and with navigation and with bird migrations (chopped birdies...).
Then, in the East, there’s bit about hurricanes, North Easters and such.
Yup. It will work great.
Just remember not to put any off Martha’s Vineyard where Teddie the Swimmer and his family might see them.
Photoshop, Texas
One more nitpick. A rather major nitpick, at that.
Every watt of wind generated power must be backed up by an equivalent watt of conventionally generated power. Otherwise, on those days when the wind stops blowing (or is blowing too hard), the coastal states would have no choice but to go dark.
The exact same is also true for solar generated power. No back-up, no "on" switch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.