Maybe the answer to some of our ecological problems…
Out of thin air: Successful wind confab in Houston points up Texas’ growing role in alternative energy development | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle
Although it tops the nation in the volume of man-made greenhouse gas emissions fueling global warming, Texas has taken the lead in developing an antidote. From nearly zero a decade ago, electricity generated by wind constitutes more than 60 percent of new energy capacity in the Lone Star State.With 5,300 megawatts of wind-generated electricity on line, Texas is ahead of the next biggest producing state, California, and is poised to supersede a number of nations in developing an energy source that is free of pollution and does not consume precious water, saving billions of gallons a year.
I recognize that in many parts of the country the large megawatt producing wind generators are not popular additions to the landscape. I guess my question is…Would you rather have a coal burning generation station? Maybe you would prefer a nuclear power plant? Me I’ll take a windmill.
Gary, I have been doing some research on energy needs because I don’t know much about it. But the EIA is stating that even with massive investment in alternative energy, it can only supply about 10% of our energy going forward. So when people ask whether we should have oil, coal, wind, water, nuclear, etc., the answer is Yes!
Jim, While I know we have no immediate alternatives, just saying yes is what we have done all along and we see where that’s gotten us.
Wind and water are pretty much no brainers. Other than the manufacturing costs the fuel is renewable for the most part (just dependent on the climate…can you say climate change).
Oil and coal being what they are, the only real problem is you (and I really mean all of us) are passing the real costs downstream for cleanup and remediation. In other words, the real costs are being passed on to our grandkids (should they live that long).
Nuclear’s problems are a bit different because we do not have a safe means of managing the waste. I personally live fairly close to the South Texas plant built by the local utilities back when they could get the costs covered by their monopolized users. I don’t feel particularly imperiled by that fact…But then I’ve lived within blast range of chemical refineries for most of my life, so I’m not that sane anyway.
But until we begin to really make the effort to change we won’t. Alternatives are the only hope at this point. Oil is finite, so is coal (even with mountaintop removal). I haven’t looked at the supplies of nuclear fuel lately but I seem to recall there was a supply problem even there a few years back. So until we make the effort it’s just status quo and the status quo keeps costing more and more…
I don’t think you understood what I was saying…There will NEVER be enough alternative sources to meet our energy demands. Look it up at EIA and step outside the unrealistic fog created by the left to hoodwink you. There simply aren’t enough sources outside of fossil/nuclear fuels to keep this country going. It’s scary I know but it’s true.
And as long as that is the attitude we attack the problem with we will never make the changes needed. If there will never be enough energy from sources other than fossil (or the little bit of nuclear) to keeps us going, what do you suggest we do about the fact that what we are using now is finite and in more demand around the world?
A question for you Jim, why is the President’s ranch in Crawford able to live off the grid and produce all the energy needed to sustain it? If an oilman feels the need to take his personal home off the grid don’t you think it’s good enough for the rest of us?
A quick review of the EIA data show that the only energy source who’s output is climbing faster than non-hydro renewables is coal. If you check out the chart on page 9 of the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 Report you will see that most energy source are mostly flat going forward with just coal and non-hydro renewables show the only real rises.
But the real most informative statement I saw in a quick review was this from the intro…
“As in previous editions of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), the reference case assumes that current policies affecting the energy sector remain unchanged throughout the projection period.”
So everything in the outlook is based upon the policies that got us here in the first place…So if we wish to change the outlook, change the policies…Pretty straight forward, isn’t it?